motion for sanctions pursuant to fla. stat. § …
TRANSCRIPT
Filing # 119254928 E-Filed 01/07/2021 04:31:59 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2015-CA-001454-H-W
US. BANK TRUST, N.A.
AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9
MASTER PARTICIPATION
TRUST,
Plaintiff.
Vv.
DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON, et al,
Defendant(s).
V.
DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON,
Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Vv.
US. BANK TRUST, N.A.
AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9
MASTER PARTICIPATION
TRUST,
Counterclaim Defendant.
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. § 57.105
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Derek Dickinson files this Motion For
Sanctions for knowingly making materially false statements in docket item 189,
MOTION TO DISMISS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
and throughout the entire court proceedings.
*#%* E-FILED: GRANT MALOY, CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT SEMINOLE COUNTY, FL 01/07/2021 04:31:59 PM.***#*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 0.0.0... cscsssccrcessccccssscccesssscccessscccessssceesssccsseescesee iii
TABLE OF EXHIBITS. ..............cccscsssssssssccsssscccssscsccsssscscssssccscesssccccessccscessssceeeeees iv
INTRODUCTION ...........cccccssccsssscsssesssscccssssscssssesssssssssssssssesscescsssssssscsessessssesesesees 1
EQUIVALENT FACTS... ees ccccccsccceccsscccccsscccccssscccsssccccesssccceeessssscsccccceeessssoees 4
SHORT-NAMEG............sssccsssssssscssscccssscccssssssssssessessssssscssssesssssessssssssessssssssssssseeess 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............ccccsscssssssscscccssssesssscccesssccssessssssssccccseeesssssssscoees 6
HOPING THE COURT ONLY READS HIS SIDE? 0.0... esscccseessnsrsessscccceeee 35
TABLE OF FRAUD NOTIFICATIONS. ................csscssssssscssscsceessssccnsssscesssccesoes 35
TABLE OF DENTAL FRAUDS. ...........ccscccsssessssccccsccsssscsscsesscosscesessssssssssscssesees 37
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT SS............cccsccssccscesecssccssssscccssssccessscsscceeeesssees 38
STANDARD OF REVIEW .........ccccsscssscccscccsscccsssssscccsessesscssssssessscssessccsssesssseeees 39
ARGUMENT G..........cccssccsssccssssccsssccssscccssscccsscccsssscssssescssescsssssssssescssscssssssssssesssseeees 41
ARGUMENT 1: NOTE FRAUD VIOLATES FLA. STAT. § 57.105... 41
ARGUMENT 2: SAMSING’S DENIAL FRAUD... eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeees 42
ARGUMENT 3: TEN YEARS TO ADDRESS THE FACTS... eee 43
CONCLUSION ...........ccccsscssssscssssccscscccsssscssssssssccsssssescsssscsessssssssssesesssssesssecsseseseeees 44
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. ............cccccssssssscsscssssscccssssscsssscscessssssccsssceeeessssees 44
APPENDIX: CITED CASES.............. cc csscsssscccssccecssccscesssscccesssscccessscccsssssseeessssees 45
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT... ee eee eenseeecenseeeesnseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeees 46
BARTRAM 2016.00.00... cece scssecesseesssescssessssseesssescsssesssssesseessessessoseseeseesaeas 46
MOAKLEY 2002.0... ee eetccesecesseevenseesssseessssesesesesssevessascssessessesseseeseesgeas 47
PITTMAN 1920... cee cestecsseessseecensesesssenssssesessesesssesesseseeseessssessossssesesesnseas 48
THE FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL... eee 49
ROBERTS 2018.00... eee cesccsseceeseesenseesssnenssseesessesesssevsssascsseesesseesesseseessgeas 49
FLOYD 2016.0... cece cetecceseeeeseesesseeesssessessesessssesssessessesesseneseesesseseesseees 49
WENWET SUN 2011. eee cstccessenessescsssessssessessensenssssesesseessseessesnens 50
COX 1998... eee cette ctsseceessesenseessssesessseseseesssssessssesessesssssesesseentasesssasenessees ol
OTHER FLORIDA DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL... eee ceeseeeeeeeee D2
GLARUM 2011. cess ccsescsseceessessssasssuanevensescsatessssesenssesssesssssessoesseees D2
HARVEY 2011 eee cestecesecessneesssscerssesssssessseersssseseeseessssessessssasessenens D3
MORGAN 2002... ee ceesescensecesssensseesessdeessscnsssssssseesssnsesseessessessenseseeseessaeas D3
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS... eee ceseeesreesessesesseesesssesseeseesseesesseesees D4
ALTIER 2013... ee ccttesessecsesseecseesssseesssnesessescsssssesssesessesssssesessessessaeesesseees 04
il
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Altier v. Fed. Nat’! Mortg. Ass’n , No. 1:13-cv-164-MW/GRJ, 2013 WL 6388521,
at *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2013)........ ccc ecceeesssseccecesessnseceeseesssnsssnsssseeesssesssssseeees 28,94
Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016)................... 40,44,46
Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).......... cc eeeeeeseeeeeees 39,51
Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A., 194 So. 3d 1071, 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). 40,49
Glarum v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 83 So.3d 780, 782-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
esesssceessseessseeessesensnsecesseesssseeseseesesssesnssesessecessseessseessseesssseesaseecsseeeesessseesbnsseesesesens 40,52
Harvey v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 69 So. 2D 300, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
sesoossovscevsscossevnaccensesnanssnsssoosssnssessssossesnaccssessnarssnsssosggenesesnsoonseonascisisesdvboreessonesevseners 28,53
Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 224 (Fla. 2002)..........ccsssccsssssseceessneees 42,47
Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)... eeeeeeee 41,53
Roberts v. PNC Bank, N.A., 263 So. 3d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)............. 41,49
United States Sav. Bank v. Pittman, 86 So. 567, 572 (Fla. 1920)..............6 42,47,48
Wenwei Sun v. Aviles, 53 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)........... 41,50
ii
STATUTES
Florida Statute 57.105... cesccssssescececcccecssscecccccessscsscecscessesnscssesssssesennens 1,38,41
Florida Statute 90.803..............ccccccccccssssssceccccccsescssccecccesessescscesssscssessssecesseseees 39,49,52
Florida Statute 702.015... ecesesescececcccecessscecccccsessesscesccessnsescssessssseseenens 3,31,40
Florida Statute 713.310... cccesccccsesescececccceesssscseccccsenssssscececesessuscscesesssessasenscss 18,22
Florida Statute 817.535... eeceesscesecsseseseeeeeeeeeeeesnees 1,2,3,5,18,22,23,28,29,34,37
Exhibit A......Fraudulent Note from foreclosure claim..................c6+. Cover + 6 pgs
Exhibit B....... Altered Mortgage (First Page) from foreclosure claim....Cover + 1 pg
Exhibit D1....Note copy from earlier counterclaim (Docket 151)....... Cover + 3 pgs
Exhibit D3....Email to Caliber revealing note fraud...................:c.0000 Cover + 2 pgs
Exhibit D6....First page of the original mortgage................::cccccesseseeeees Cover + 1 pg
Exhibit D7....Payment Letter to Borrower (closing document)............. Cover + 1 pg
Exhibit D8....Wilson Interrogatories................cccccccccessesseessesessssssssseneees Cover + 1 pg
Exhibit D10. .Non-specific Order for dismissal (Docket 150)............. Cover + 2 pgs
Exhibit D14. .Transcript from Hearing on January 23, 2020............. Cover + 19 pgs
lv
INTRODUCTION
Opposing counsel has repeatedly tried to deceive the court by
misrepresenting and/or ignoring the material facts of this case. These are clear
violations of Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1)(a) and Fla. Stat. § 817.535(2)(a). For this
reason, I am seeking that the Foreclosure Complaint is dismissed and that Attorney
fees in excess of $27,000 be awarded. This is also the subject of a forthcoming
complaint to the Florida Attorney General.
There is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that proves the maturity
date of the August 20, 2003 Note and Mortgage was September 1, 2033. This
material fact has been repeatedly misstated. Three independent sources prove this:
(a) Seminole County Record: The mortgage signed on August 20, 2003
(book 4996, page 1426) has terms ending on September 1, 2033
(Exhibit D6). This is in conflict with Exhibit A of the Instant
Foreclosure (Docket 2).
(b)Opposing Litigants Closing Documents: Opposing litigants
provided PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER (Exhibit D7) from
the August 20, 2003 closing with terms ending on September 1, 2033.
(c) My Records: The copy of the original note given to me at the August
20, 2003 closing (Exhibit D1) has terms ending on September 1, 2033.
These three independent sources clearly show that the terms of the original note
ended on September 1, 2033. Thus, Exhibit A is not the original note. Opposing
counsel has not disputed any of the evidence, but denied that the facts were
communicated. These facts were presented to opposing counsel at least 42 times in
AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM 817.535 ONLY (Docket 173) and over 280 times
to date as described in the remainder of this Motion for Sanctions. There are two
frauds upon the court by opposing litigants:
Note Fraud: Where opposing litigants present Exhibit A as. the original
promissory note.
Denial Fraud: Where opposing litigants deny that the oft-repeated facts have
been presented.
To be clear opposing counsel has neither mentioned or explained these material
facts:
1) The Original Mortgage recorded from August 20, 2003 has a maturity
date of September 1, 2033. They have mentioned that it was re-recorded, but have
not addressed why this was done (i.e. how the Altered Mortgage differs).
2) The PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER signed on August 20,
2003 evidenced a maturity date of September 1, 2033.
3) | The copy of the Promissory Note given to me on August 20, 2003
evidenced a maturity date of September 1, 2033.
These material facts irrefutably establish that there is no chance that Exhibit A is
the Original Promissory Note. These facts have been brought up hundreds of times
during the proceedings. Opposing counsel’s failure to address these facts is
grounds for sanctions. However, opposing counsel has taken it a step further and
made numerous statements in direct conflict with the facts of the case. This is a
felony violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.535(2)(a).
It should be noted that the Instant Foreclosure was initiated in violation of
Fla. Stat. § 702.015(4) which is also subject to sanctions. This fact may be
addressed in another motion.
EQUIVALENT FACTS
With regards to the upcoming discussion, there are several facts that are
functionally equivalent. These facts (a-e):
(a) The terms of the original promissory note ended in 2033, thus ...
(b) Exhibit A is fraudulent, thus ...
(c) Opposing litigants do not possess the original blank endorsed
promissory note, thus ...
(d) Opposing litigants do not possess the debt, thus ...
(e) Opposing litigants do not have standing.
Facts (a-e) are functionally equivalent.
SHORT-NAMES
# Long Name Short Name
1 |Motion for and Sanctions (this document) Motion for Sanctions
2 |Motion to Dismiss and Incorporated Memorandum of Law Motion to
(Docket 189) Dismiss
3 |}Amended Counterclaim 817.535 Only (Docket 173) Instant
Counterclaim
4 |Verified Complaint for Foreclosure of Mortgage (Docket 2) Instant Foreclosure
5 | Verified Counterclaim Complaint (Docket 141) Initial Counterclaim
6 |} Amended Counterclaim (Docket 151) Amended Counterclaim
7 |Bank of Blue Valley BBV
8 |Countrywide Document Custody Services, A Division of Countrywide
Treasury Bank, N.A. without recourse
9 |Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Trust-5
Society, FSB not in its individual capacity but as Trustee of
ARLP Trust 5
10};WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, T-2014 NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT AS TRUSTEE OF ARLP SECURITIZATION TRUST, SERIES 2014-1
11]Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Ocwen
12)Caliber Home Loans, Inc Caliber
13}U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST
14;BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. BOA
15} Assignment of Mortgage AOM
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The docket currently contains over 190 entries. Clarity requires that the facts
in this section are limited to ones pertinent to the present motion. To that effect, I
have limited the presented facts to those that are relevant to the Denial Fraud (since
the Instant Counterclaim details the Note Fraud). Additionally, this details that the
material facts have been clearly and repeatedly communicated to the opposing
litigants.
1) On June 16, 2015, the opposing litigants initiated the Instant
Foreclosure (Docket 2). A few points:
a) The alleged note that opposing counsel purported to be signed on
August 20, 2003 (Exhibit A) did not match the terms of the mortgage
signed on the same day (book 4995, page 1426). This should have
been addressed before filing this claim.
b) The Instant Foreclosure refers to the original mortgage (Book 4996,
Page 1426) yet includes the altered mortgage as Exhibit B (Book
5109, Page 1911) without mentioning the discrepancy.
I immediately recognized the modifications to the note (but was not fully aware of
the legal implications due to my ignorance of the law).
2) On October 12, 2015, opposing litigants filed a response (Docket 28)
to my former wife’s counsel’s (Gregory M. Wilson) request for production.
Included in this was the document PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER
(Exhibit D7). This includes the statement:
The monthly payments on the above referred to loan are to begin on
OCTOBER 1, 2003 and will continue monthly until SEPTEMBER 1,
2033.
Clearly, opposing counsel should have noticed that this was inconsistent with their
alleged promissory note (Exhibit A).
3) Gregory M. Wilson clearly recognized that Exhibit A was fraudulent
and filed the following on January 26, 2017:
a) Third Request to Produce (Docket 91): “...Please produce the
original Promissory Note and the original Mortgage ...
b) Notice of Service of Interrogatories (Docket 92): “Explain, in detail,
how the assignment of Defendants’ alleged Mortgage from Bank of
Blue Valley, dated September 16, 2003, assigns the Mortgage with
recording information that postdated the execution fate of said
assignment. This assignment document dated September 16, 2003,
was provided to us in an initial records request from the Cheri D.
Dickinson. A copy of said assignment is attached hereto and Marked
Exhibit “A”. The recording date of the Mortgage being assigned is
November 24, 2003. The execution date of the assignment is
September 16, 2003.” The docket does not include the interrogatories
only the Notice of Service. The interrogatories are attached as Exhibit
D8.
c) Motion to Amend Pleadings (Docket 93): “At the time of answering
the original complaint, the Defendant did not have all of the
information on the alleged Promissory Note and Mortgage attached to
the complaint. Subsequent to filing her answer she received discovery
production and information that requires modifications to her original
Answer to the complaint, including Affirmative Defenses and the
filing of Counter Claims for Fraud and Florida Unfair And
Deceptive Trade Practice Act”
Clearly, Gregory M. Wilson noticed that the Instant Foreclosure’s Exhibit A was
not the original Promissory Note!
4) On January 30, 2017, Gregory M. Wilson filed Cheri Dickinson Pre-
Trial Statement (Docket 96). He preceded the terms Promissory Note and
Mortgage with “alleged” in his description and he included the PAYMENT
LETTER TO BORROWER that echoes the 30 year term.
5) On April 10, 2017, opposing litigants filed Plaintiff’s Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant Cheri D. Dickinson (Docket
102). It is clear that opposing litigants didn’t want to deal with Gregory M.
Wilson’s issues concerning the alleged Promissory Note (Exhibit A).
6) On April 20, 2017, Richard A. Kalinoski Jr. (my new counsel) filed
another set of Admissions and Interrogatories (Docket 105). This included
(admission 11):
Admit that the August 20, 2003, promissory note executed by
Defendants contained a Section (3)(a) “Payments”, which included
payment terms requiring the Defendants to begin making monthly
payments on the subject loan on the first day of each month starting
on October 1, 2003, and if on September 1, 2033 should any
remaining amounts be due under the subject note, the Defendants
would pay the amounts in full on said date, called the “Maturity
Date”.
This clearly states the contents of the original note (in contrast to fraudulent
Exhibit A). Opposing counsel did not answer this admission claiming that they had
answered all of them that they are required to.
7) On June 21, 2017, my counsel filed my response to admissions
(Docket 120). This repeatedly contained responses of the following form:
The [mortgage and] promissory note attached to the complaint
contains alterations, which are significantly different than the
mortgage and promissory note presented at closing.
Variations of this sentence were included in the responses to admissions 14 times
(responses to admissions 1, 2, 4-12, 17, 23, and 24).
8) On May 11, 2018, my counsel filed DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S MAY 31, 2017 INTERROGATORIES
(Docket 133). This included the following:
a) In response to interrogatory 5:
Plaintiff has related information in its possession regarding its
actions in materially changing the terms of the note/mortgage, and
rejecting Defendants’ payments
b) In response to question 14:
Furthermore, the terms of the subject note attached to Plaintiff's
Complaint are fatally flawed, false, and altered by a 3rd party post
closing. The actual promissory note executed by Defendant on August
20, 2003, was initialed on every page therein, and was for a thirty-
10
year term. Additionally, the mortgage executed by the Defendant,
which is filed in the public records of Seminole County, Florida,
evidences a thirty-year term.
9) On June 1, 2018, I (Derek Dickinson) sent an email (Exhibit D3) to
opposing counsel (Brian Rosaler <[email protected]>) to be 100%
certain that they were aware that their promissory note (Exhibit A) was fraudulent.
It made no sense for them to continue the foreclosure action under the
circumstances. This was an attempt to begin settlement negotiations in earnest. At
this point opposing counsel had to be aware that Exhibit A was fraudulent.
10) On July 5, 2018, the same email with additional comments was
forwarded to opposing counsel once again (this time, Joseph Paxton
<[email protected]>). Also in Exhibit D3.
11) On August 30, 2018, my counsel at the time (Kalinoski) filed the
Verified Counterclaim Complaint (“Initial Counterclaim”, Docket 141). This was
due to the continued refusal of opposing counsel to address the facts of the case.
a) Paragraph 56 of the Initial Counterclaim included the statement:
such actions were in contravention to the actual evidence which
clearly reflected that the mortgage and 2003 note executed by
Defendant on August 20, 2003 included terms for a thirty (30) year
11
mortgage, and not a seven (7) year term as alleged by Plaintiff and its
agents.
b) Paragraph 57 of the Initial Counterclaim included the statement:
the Plaintiff acting through its agents/deceptively forged, and/or
altered the August 2003 note deceptively to support the litigation . . .
claiming that Defendants note had reached the contractual “Date of
Maturity”, and that the subject mortgage contained a seven (7) year
term as opposed to a thirty (30) year term
12) On September 10, 2018, opposing counsel filed Motion to Dismiss
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Docket 142). This document ignored the
fraudulence of Exhibit A despite the fact that this was described in the Initial
Counterclaim (and multiple times prior). This was the beginning of “Denial Fraud”
on the part of the opposing litigants:
a) Denial Fraud, INTRODUCTION (Page 2): “Borrower’s claims and
accusations are all predicated on factually unsubstantiated and legally
misguided theories that U.S. Bank lacks standing to foreclose.”
b) Denial Fraud, CONCLUSION (Page 15): “As such, dismissal with
prejudice is particularly appropriate in this case as there is absolutely
12
no set of facts that would entitle Borrower to the relief he seeks
against U.S. Bank.”
To be clear, opposing litigants repeatedly claim that no facts have been pleaded
despite the fact that the Initial Counterclaim had clearly stated that the terms of the
original promissory note did not match the one submitted to the court.
13) On February 11, 2019, I filed a Supplement to my counsel’s response
(Docket 149). This included a paragraph (LAY PERSON OBVIOUS) detailing
why it was obvious that Exhibit A was fraudulent (i.e. did not match Seminole
County records, no initials). This includes the statement:
... therefore the first two pages of “Exhibit A” are obvious frauds
14) On February 12, 2019 at the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. I
stated that the promissory note was fraudulent. The Court did not get the
Supplement (Docket 149) since I had just filed it. At this point the Court graciously
informed me that I needed to submit material at least a week before a hearing.
15). On March 12, 2019, the Court signed an Order created by opposing
counsel granting the dismissal of the Initial Counterclaim. The order included the
Statement “including the response and supplemental response” assuring that
opposing counsel had reviewed the supplemental response. No specific deficiency
was mentioned in the Order for dismissal (Exhibit D10).
13
16) On March 13, 2019 I filed my first try at a counterclaim titled
“Amended Counterclaim” (Docket 151). This was inartful. I lacked the most basic
knowledge of how the law works. However, I clearly expressed the fact that
Exhibit A is fraudulent. The first count was titled FRAUDULENT PROMISSORY
NOTE. The paragraphs related to the count repeat the unassailable details that
establish the fraudulence of the note. In addition, I added Exhibit D1 which is the
copy of the note provided at closing. This also included Exhibit D4 that was a
computer screen grab of the Seminole County record showing that my note
matched the terms of the mortgage signed on August 20, 2003. Note: At this point
I was hoping to get (contingency) counsel. My efforts were necessarily split
between finding counsel and improving my legal skills. Excerpts:
a) From section 11 of UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOR: “It was made
clear to opposing counsel that their note is fraudulent several years
ago. I even took the extraordinary measure of emailing opposing.
counsel against my own lawyer’s advice to make it 100% clear to
them the situation. This email is Exhibit D3.”
b) From section 15 of LAY-PERSON OBVIOUS: “In addition, the terms
of the note presented do not match the terms of the mortgage that was
filed with Seminole County. Therefore, the first two pages of Exhibit
A of this suit are obvious frauds.”
14
C)
d)
f)
8)
From section 18 of WHY CALIBER IS THE WORST OFFENDER:
“By the time Caliber picked up this loan, it was obvious that the
lawsuit was based off a fraudulent note . . . Any lawyer that
understands the fraud in the note and continues to pursue the case is
committing a crime.”
From section 19 of FRAUDULENT PROMISSORY NOTE: “Caliber
has repeatedly ignored the fact that the promissory note is an obvious
fraud.”
From section 20 of FRAUDULENT PROMISSORY NOTE : “The
terms of the August 20, 2003 note (as shown in Exhibit D1) end on
September 1st, 2033 ... The plaintiff's Exhibit A is fraudulent.”
From section 21. of FRAUDULENT PROMISSORY NOTE: “Every
page at the August 20th, 2003 closing was initialed (including every
page of the 30 year amortization). The first two pages of fraudulent
Exhibit A are not.”
From section 23 of FRAUDULENT PROMISSORY NOTE: “but the
fraudulent note was likely signed over to Countrywide years later at a
time when Countrywide no longer existed.”
15
h) From section 23 of ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE COURT:
“paragraph 2 is an attempt to deceive the court. The impression is that
the mortgage recorded on September 5, 2003 is consistent with the
fraudulent note.”
i) This counterclaim also includes Exhibit D1 which is a correct copy of
the original note and Exhibit D4 which is a copy of the email detailing
the fraudulent note to opposing counsel.
In all, the fraudulence of Exhibit A was stated at least 10 times in the Amended
Counterclaim. The document was inartful, but the facts supporting the fraud were
clearly and repeatedly stated.
17) In response to my Amended Counterclaim, opposing counsel filed a
motion for extension of time (Docket 152) on March 14, 2019. This includes
paragraph 3 which states: “U.S Bank and the undersigned are investigating the
allegations” (emphasis added). Despite this statement, they completely ignored the
allegations.
18) On April 11, 2019, opposing counsel filed a new Motion to Dismiss
(Docket 153). This document contained both Note Fraud and Denial Fraud.
Specifically:
16
a) Note Fraud, FACTUAL BACKGROUND (paragraph 1, page 2): “The
maturity date set forth on the fact of the Note was September 1,
2010.”
b) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “Not only does Borrower’s
Amended Counterclaim fail to meet ordinary pleading requirements, it
does not come close to pleading sufficient ultimate facts,”
c) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “As such, where, like here, a
complaint merely states legal conclusions unsupported by ultimate
facts, dismissal of the action is proper.”
d) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “Here, Borrower’s Amended
Counterclaim is nonsensical and without comprehensive factual
allegations to support the alleged causes of action.”
e) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT E (page 11): “U.S. Bank is unable to
determine what factual and legal allegations are being made against it.
Borrower’s Amended Counterclaim is so vague and ambiguous that it
fails to assert sufficient ultimate facts necessary for U.S. Bank to
adequately respond.”
Opposing counsel’s repeated allegation that the “facts” were insufficient was a
fraud on the court (Denial Fraud).
17
19) On June 25, 2019, I filed my Response to Motion to Dismiss (Docket
155), this was an attempt to address everything in opposing counsel’s Motion to
Dismiss. Opposing counsel considers this an amendment. I do not, it included
proposed amended counts and fixes, but was not an amended counterclaim. At this
point, I was still hoping to get (contingency) counsel to bring the counterclaim up
to legal standards. However, I didn’t want this to take long. I proposed a count for
Violation of Florida Statute 713.31 in the belief that you must show an interest in
the debt to file an AOM (for the last two AOMs). I also proposed a count for
Violation of Florida Statute 817.535 (for numerous materially false statements). At
this point, I did not understand that these should be split into multiple counts.
However, I did diligently enumerate the details of each offense in a table. This
document repeatedly states that Exhibit A is fraudulent and that opposing counsel
is not in possession of the note. Examples:
a) Paragraph 28: “At some point the fraudulent note (Exhibit A) was
created”.
b) Paragraph 30: “Caliber presumably was acting based off the
fraudulent note presented in Exhibit A”
c) Paragraph 32: “To be 100% clear. The actual promissory note for the
mortgage has not been presented. Only a fraudulent one (Exhibit A).
Therefore no entity in the alleged chain of title can be shown to have
18
d)
f)
8)
h)
j)
k)
possession of the note. No transaction that relied on having the
promissory note can be verified from the evidence.”
Paragraph 33: “The opposing party does not have a note (i.e. the
debt).”
Paragraph 39: “Clearly, any statement that depends on having a
promissory note is materially false” plus a table titled “What is
materially false” that contains various statements expressing the note
as fraudulent and that the opposing litigants do not possess the note (a
total of 21 times).
Paragraph 42: “Most violations in the Docket make the materially
false claim that the plaintiff is the holder of the note.”
Paragraph 47: “Exhibit A is an obvious fraud”
Paragraph 49: “My claim is based off the fraudulent promissory note”
Paragraph 70: “The maturity date of the note signed on August 20,
2003 was September 1, 2033.”
Paragraph 72: “Cannot be validated since we don’t have a note.”
Paragraph 73: “Cannot be validated since we don’t have a note”
19
1) Paragraph 74: “presumably used the fraudulent note so this is
materially false.”
m) Paragraph 75: “The Lis Pendens was filed with no mortgage and a
fraudulent note.”
n) Paragraph 76: “Exhibit A is not the note. It is an obvious fraud.”
0) Paragraph 77: “Exhibit A is not the note. It is an obvious fraud.”
p) Paragraph 78: “T-2014 did not possess the note”
q) Paragraph 89: “was aware of the fraudulent promissory note”
The fact that Exhibit A was fraudulent or that the opposing litigants were not in
possession of the note was mentioned 38 times in this document.
20) On July 10, 2017, opposing counsel filed another Motion to Dismiss
(Docket 158) in response to my Response (Docket 155). Once again, opposing
counsel ignored the numerous statements of the fact Exhibit A is fraudulent and
thus they lacked standing (as stated 38 times in my response). The Motion to
Dismiss included four more instances of Denial Fraud:
a) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “Not only does Borrower’s
Second Amended Counterclaim fail to meet ordinary pleading
requirements, it does not come close to pleading sufficient ultimate
facts”
20
b) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “As such, where, like here, a
complaint merely states legal conclusions unsupported by ultimate
facts, dismissal of the action is proper.”
c) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “Here, Borrower’s Second
Amended Counterclaim is without comprehensive factual allegations
to support the alleged causes of action.”
d) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “Borrower merely includes a
table in Count II referencing various documents and why they are
“materially false” but fails to provide any facts in support.”
21) On October 16, 2019, a hearing was held on prior pleadings (Ex Parte
notes are Docket 160). I was unaware of the procedure for making sure that a
hearing was transcribed. I called the courthouse and was informed that I could
bring a recording device (I was allowed to record the hearing). I stated at least five
times in this hearing that the promissory note was fraudulent (or that opposing
litigants were not in possession of the note). The Court granted the motion to
dismiss and granted 20 days to amend. This was the guaranteed result since the
document being ruled upon was written as a response to a motion to dismiss rather
than an amendment.
21
22) On October 27, 2019, the order from the October 16 hearing came
through (Docket 162). The reason given is “failure to state a cause of action with
the requisite specificity.” The Court had implied that the Fla. Stat. § 713.31 cause
of action was not correct, but that was not reflected in this order.
23) On November 5, 2018, I filed COUNTERCLAIM 817.535 ONLY
(Docket 163). It contained the following statements:
a) Paragraph 26: “At some point the fraudulent note (Exhibit A) was
created.”
b) Paragraph 27: “The original promissory note is required for a valid
AOM. Since the whereabouts of the original promissory note can not
be ascertained, none of the AOMs can be verified”
c) Paragraph 28: “Trust-5 presumably was acting based off the
fraudulent note Ocwen presented in Exhibit A.”
d) Paragraph 29: “T-2014 presumably was acting based off the
fraudulent note presented in Exhibit A.”
e) Paragraph 31: “To be 100% clear, The actual promissory note for the
mortgage has not been presented. Only a fraudulent one (Exhibit A).”
f) Paragraph 32: “The opposing party does not have a note (i.e. the
debt). A mortgage is only useful to enforce a debt.”
22
g) Paragraph 33: “The terms of the note and mortgage include a maturity
date of September 1, 2033.”
h) Section titled “FRAUDULENT PROMISSORY NOTE”.
i) Paragraph 37: “Opposing counsel has repeatedly ignored the fact that
the promissory note is an obvious fraud.”
j) For each count, the third paragraph quotes the materially false
statement that opposing litigants have included in their instruments.
These are paragraphs 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 101, 105,
109, 113, 117, 121, 125, and 129.
This counterclaim stated the fundamental fact supporting the counterclaim at least
27 times.
24) On November 12, 2019, opposing counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss
(Docket 164). This motion ignored the facts that were stated 27 times in
COUNTERCLAIM 817.535 ONLY and repeatedly made materially false
statements.
a) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “Not only does Borrower’s
Third Amended Counterclaim fail to meet ordinary pleading
requirements, it does not come close to pleading sufficient ultimate
facts”
23
b) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 7): “As such, where, like here, a
complaint merely states legal conclusions unsupported by ultimate
facts, dismissal of the action is proper.”
c) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 8): “Here, Borrower’s Third
Amended Counterclaim once more is nonsensical and without
comprehensive factual allegations to support the alleged cause of
action”
25) On January 14, 2020, I filed Motion For Evidentiary Hearing on
Exhibit A (Docket 166). Since opposing litigants refused to acknowledge what had
been clearly and repeatedly stated, the thought was that they couldn’t ignore a
document that dealt exclusively with that issue. I included an affidavit in this
document stating “The terms of the note ended on September 1, 2033” and
presented evidence of Exhibit A’s fraudulence. Opposing counsel did not respond
to this motion. Additionally, the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE, Exhibit D1 (copy of
the original promissory note), and PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER were
included as exhibits in this pleading (adding three more times that opposing
counsel was made aware that Exhibit A is fraudulent).
26) On January 15, 2020, I filed my Response to Docket Item 164 Motion
to Dismiss (Docket 167). Quoting from this document:
24
a) Paragraph 3: “Exhibit A is not the original promissory note.”
b) Paragraph 7 (a): “Exhibit A is fraudulent.”
c) Paragraph 11: “Exhibit A is fraudulent”
d) Paragraph 16: “Exhibit A did not exist on August 20, 2003. It was
created at some time afterwards.”
e) Paragraph 18: “There is no evidence that the original promissory note
was endorsed.”
f) Paragraph 19: “A valid promissory note has not been presented”
g) Paragraph 22: “Neither Trust-5 of T-2014 have ever been in
possession of the original note (four corners of the case)”
h) Paragraph 23: “Neither Trust-5 of T-2014 have ever been in
possession of the original note”
i) Paragraph 26: “Continuing this case despite overwhelming evidence
that they do not possess the note is why there is a counterclaim.”
j) Paragraph 53: “nothing in the case law supports assignment of
mortgage without being in possession of the debt (which has occurred
repeatedly in this case).”
25
k) Paragraph 54: “ARGUMENTS C emphasizes the importance of the
note (which they do not possess)”
1) Paragraph 62: “there is no precedent supporting an assignment of
mortgage to an entity that does not possess the debt (which has
occurred at least twice in this case).”
m) Paragraph 173: “this supports dismissal on the grounds
original promissory note is not in evidence.”
n) Paragraph 182: “T-2014 did not have
initiated.”
0) Paragraph 191: “T-2014 did not have
initiated.”
p) Paragraph 263: “T-2014 did not have
initiated.”
q) Paragraph 272: “T-2014 did not have
initiated.”
r) Paragraph 290: “T-2014 did not have
initiated.”
s) Paragraph 309: “T-2014 did not have
initiated.”
26
standing when
standing when
standing when
standing when
standing when
standing when
the
the
the
the
the
the
that the
suit was
suit was
suit was
suit was
suit was
suit was
t) Paragraph 337: “T-2014 did not have standing when the suit was
initiated.”
u) Paragraph 346: “Opposing counsel clearly does not have a note.”
v) Paragraph 364: “The instant counterclaim clearly states that Exhibit A
is fraudulent”
w) Paragraph 383: “opposing litigants do not possess a note.”
x) Paragraph 474: “The facts relating to the fraudulence of Exhibit A are
clearly laid out in the instant counterclaim.”
y) Paragraph 541: “Without the original promissory note, the foreclosure
is going nowhere.”
This response added another 25 times to statements of Exhibit A’s fraudulence (or
equivalent fact).
27) On January 23, 2020, a hearing on opposing counsel’s Motion to
Dismiss was held. I have a copy of the transcript of this hearing in my possession.
From the hearing transcript (Exhibit D14):
a) Denial Fraud (Opposing counsel speaking), Page 4, lines 22-24:
“Here, his third-amended counterclaim doesn't provide any facts in
support”
27
b)
d)
f)
Fraud Notification (I am speaking), Page 9, Lines 18-20: “Opposing
counsel is ignoring the obvious. Exhibit A is not the promissory note.”
Fraud Notification (I am speaking), Page 10, lines 18-23: “The whole
point is the county record disagrees with their note, so their note’s
bad. And so without a note, their whole argument falls apart. And the
reason for all the counts is that every time they say they have the note,
that’s materially false.”
Fraud Notification (I am speaking), Page 12, lines 3-7: “the fact is that
the note is — Exhibit A is not the promissory note. It’s not the original
note. It’s fraudulent and the fact is repeated over, and over, and over
again throughout this entire court case. They’ve been aware of this for
the longest time; yet, they still refuse to acknowledge it.”
Fraud Notification (I am speaking), Page 14, lines 12-14: “their whole
case is based off pretending that they have a note”
Other (the Court is speaking), Page 15, lines 2-9: “the Court finds that
there is prevailing case law in Harvey versus Deutsche Bank, 69
So.3d 300, as well as Altierre versus Federal National Mortgage
Association. Here we have a Westlaw cite, I think, 2013 Westlaw
6388521, Florida Statutes 817.535.” It appears that opposing counsel
28
has confused the court into believing that one of these cases is related
to Florida Statute 817.535 when neither case addresses this cause of
action (this is addressed in detail in the STANDARD OF REVIEW
section of Docket item 184).
g) Fraud Notification (I am speaking), Page 16, lines 16-18: “the note
does not agree with the county record.”
This is an additional five times at the hearing that opposing counsel has been
informed of the fraudulent note and an additional time that they denied that the
facts were presented to them. It is also clear, that the Court has been deceived into
thinking that unrelated cases are relevant here.
28) On February 16, 2020, I filed the subject Motion for Leave to Amend
and proffered AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM 817.535 ONLY (“Instant
Counterclaim”) (Docket 173). Relevant statements:
a) Table of Contents: “ARGUMENT 1: TWO FRAUDULENT PAGES”
b) Table of Contents: “ARGUMENT 3: NOTE POSSESSION IS
MATERIALLY FALSE”
c) Table of Contents: “NO OWNERSHIP OF DEBT”
d) EXHIBITS: “Exhibit A — Fraudulent Note from foreclosure claim”
e) EXHIBITS: “Exhibit D3 — Email to Caliber revealing note fraud”
29
f)
8)
h)
j)
k)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 1: “The
terms of the note and mortgage include a maturity date of September
1, 2033”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 2:
“Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Payments
and to pay the debt in full not later than SEPTEMBER 1, 2033”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 3: “The
monthly payments on the above referred to loan are to begin on
OCTOBER 1, 2003 and will continue monthly until SEPTEMBER 1,
2033”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 21 a):
“Exhibit A (attached) in which the first two pages (at a minimum) are
not from the original note.”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 21 c): “It is
unknown if Ruthann Sharpe endorsed the original note and the pages
were swapped later or whether she endorsed a fraudulent note.”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 21 g): “The
claim includes a CERTIFICATION OF POSSESSION PURSUANT
30
TO FLA. STAT. 702.015(4) which is false. This is a violation of Fla.
Stat. § 702.015(4) (perjury)”
1) STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 22: “T-2014
has never been in possession of the original promissory note”
m) STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 24: “Neither
LSF9 or T-2014 has ever been in possession of the original
promissory note”
n) STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, paragraph 25: “to make
100% certain that they were aware that their promissory note was
fraudulent”
0) SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS, Argument 1, Two Fraudulent
Pages: “someone illegally created Exhibit A. At a minimum, the first
two pages of Exhibit A were swapped out from the original note.”
p) SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS, Argument 3, Possession of the
Note is Materially False: “Since Exhibit A is clearly not the original
promissory note”
q) ARGUMENT 1: TWO FRAUDULENT PAGES, paragraph 1: “The
terms of the August 20, 2003 note end on September 1st, 2033.”
31
r) ARGUMENT 1: TWO FRAUDULENT PAGES, later in paragraph 1:
“The plaintiff’?s Exhibit A is fraudulent.”
s) ARGUMENT 1: TWO FRAUDULENT PAGES, last paragraph: “Tf it
can be readily observed from the Seminole County record that the
promissory note is fraudulent, you haven’t done any verification.”
t) ARGUMENT 3: NOTE POSSESSION IS MATERIALLY FALSE,
paragraph 1: “Exhibit A is clearly not the original promissory note”
u) ARGUMENT 4: NO OWNERSHIP OF DEBT, paragraph 1: “Thus,
without a note, they have not shown an interest in the debt.”
v) ARGUMENT 5: LITIGANTS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, paragraph
4: “The fraudulent note in Exhibit A”
w) ARGUMENT 5: LITIGANTS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, second to
last paragraph: “You can’t unsee the obvious fraud in Exhibit A”
x) The “Element 3” paragraphs of each of the nineteen (19) counts state
an incidence of EQUIVALENT FACT that supports this
counterclaim.
Thus the Instant Counterclaim states facts supporting the claim at least (42) times.
29) On April 29, 2020, I filed Motion to Set Aside, Reply and Response
(Docket 184). This includes the TABLE OF FRAUD NOTIFICATIONS
32
compilation and a detailed description of the prior fraud notifications. Suffice to
say that there are over 100 additional fraud notifications. There is no way to “miss”
the material facts at issue after reading Docket item 184.
30) On September 29, 2020, opposing counsel filed their latest Motion to
Dismiss (Docket 189). This is another display of fraudulence against the court.
This motion ignored the facts that were stated over 280 times prior and repeatedly
made materially false statements.
a)
b)
d)
Note Fraud, FACTUAL BACKGROUND (paragraph 1, page 2): “The
maturity date set forth on the fact of the Note was September I, 2010.”
Note Fraud, FACTUAL BACKGROUND (paragraph 3, page 2): “The
Note was endorsed in blank. Ex. A at pp. 3-4.” Exhibit A is not the
Note so endorsements are not relevant.
Note Fraud, FACTUAL BACKGROUND (paragraph 7, page 4):
“Wilmington Savings was the owner and had physical possession of
the original Note before the Complaint was filed” Exhibit A is not the
Note so neither Trust-5 or T-2014 have ever been in possession of the
original promissory Note (just the fraudulent Exhibit A).
Note Fraud, FACTUAL BACKGROUND (paragraph 8, page 4):
“Wilmington Savings annexed true and correct copies of the blank-
33
endorsed Note and the Mortgage to the Complaint. See Foreclosure
Compl., Exs. A & B.”
e) Note Fraud, FACTUAL BACKGROUND (paragraph 9, page 4):
“Subsequently, the Note and Mortgage were transferred and assigned
to U.S. Bank”
f) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 8): “Borrower indisputably fails
to state a cause of action under Florida’s fact-pleading standards.”
Opposing counsel ignores the clearly stated fact that Exhibit A is
fraudulent.
g) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 8): “it does not come close to
pleading sufficient ultimate facts”
h) Denial Fraud, ARGUMENT A (page 9): “Counterclaim is without
comprehensive factual allegations”
The FACTUAL BACKGROUND section repeatedly makes the materially false
statement that their client has possession of the original promissory note (Note
Fraud). Then they ignore the clearly and repeatedly stated facts of the case and
claim that no facts have been stated. This is another clear violation of Fla. Stat. §
817.535(2)(a) and should result in another count in the Instant Counterclaim.
34
HOPING THE COURT ONLY READS HIS SIDE?
Samsing’s “Denial Fraud” approach is confusing. How could he expect to
get away with this? My guess is that he’s hoping that the Court will only read his
side. I’m sure reading sloppy pro se court documents can be painful. If the Court
reads only his side, they will be unaware of the irrefutable facts showing the
fraudulence of Exhibit A. This is why Samsing doesn’t mention that these facts
exist. Attorney Samsing’s approach has the potential to bring embarrassment to an
inattentive Court.
TABLE OF FRAUD NOTIFICATIONS
The following table enumerates notifications with regards to Exhibit A’s
fraudulence (or equivalent). These are the columns in the table:
Docket — The docket number.
Description — A description of the document (& originator).
# in Doc — The number of notifications in the document.
Total — Total number of notifications.
35
Docket Description Docs | # in Doc | Total
93 |Motion to Amend (Wilson) 1 1 1
105 |Admission number 11 (Kalinoski) 2 1 2
120 |Response to Admissions (Kalinoski) 3 14 16
133. |Response to Interrogatories (Kalinoski) 4 2 18
- First email (Dickinson) 5 1 19
- Second email (Dickinson) 6 1 20
141 ~=‘|Initial Counterclaim (Kalinoski) 7 2 22
149 |Supplement (Dickinson) 8 1 23
- Hearing on February 12, 2019, I stated that 8 1 24
Exhibit A was fraudulent.
151 |Amended Counterclaim (Dickinson) 9 10 34
155 _|Response to Motion to dismiss (Dickinson) 10 38 72
- October 16, 2019 Hearing (Dickinson) 10 5 77
163 |Counterclaim 817.535 Only (Dickinson) 11 27 104
166 |Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Dickinson) 12 4 108
167 |Response in Opposition (Dickinson) 13 25 133
- Hearing Transcript (Dickinson) 14 5 138
173 | Instant Counterclaim (Dickinson) 15 42 180
184 |Motion to Set Aside (Dickinson) 16 100+ | 280+
36
TABLE OF DENIAL FRAUDS
The following table enumerates the number of times opposing counsel
committed Denial Fraud on the court by claiming that no facts were claimed in the
counterclaim. These are the columns:
Docket — The docket number.
Description — A description of the document.
# in Doc — The number of denials in the document.
Total — Total number of denials.
817.535 Only
Docket Description Docs | #in Doc] Total
142 |Motion to Dismiss initial counterclaim 1 2
153 |Motion to Dismiss my first counterclaim 2 6
158 |Motion to Dismiss my Response 3 10
(counterclaim?)
164 |Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim 817.535 4 3 13
Only
- Hearing 14
189 |Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaim 5 3 17
37
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
Argument 1: Note Fraud violates Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1)(a): The material
facts clearly show that the Opposing Litigants have never had standing. As
described in the EQUIVALENT FACTS section, the fraudulent maturity date in
Exhibit A proves the lack of standing. Without standing, the Instant Foreclosure is
frivolous.
Argument 2: Denial Fraud is an Attempt to Deceive the Court: Attorney
Samsing’s repeated misstatement of material facts is another fraud on the court.
His malfeasance has resulted in substantial delays and put the court at risk for
embarrassment. There is reason to believe that these actions are contrary to the
interests of his client.
Argument 3: Ten years to address the facts: The factual evidence of the
Original and Altered Mortgage has been in the Seminole County Record since
2003. Opposing litigants should have addressed the inconsistencies in their
paperwork before filing the Instant Foreclosure. This very issue has been brought
up hundreds of times prior. The repeated failure to address these facts is a tacit
admission that they cannot contrive an explanation that would show standing.
38
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The evidence that opposing litigants have knowingly pursued fraud on the
court is overwhelming. Case law shows that this is grounds for sanctions that
include dismissal:
The requisite fraud on the court occurs where "it can be demonstrated,
clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion
some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial
system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly
influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of
the opposing party's claim or defense." Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43,
46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
As clearly spelled out in the STATEMENT OF FACTS and summarized in the
TABLE OF FRAUD NOTIFICATIONS and TABLE OF FRAUD DENIALS, the
opposing litigants are aware of the fraudulence of Exhibit A. Furthermore, the fact
that the “otherwise identical” second page of Exhibit A lacks initials, proves that
an. intent to deceive began very early in the process.
It should be noted that Exhibit A of the initial complaint is inadmissible
hearsay since there is a notable exception to the business records exception Fla.
Stat § 90.803(6)(a): “unless the sources of information or other circumstances
39
show lack of trustworthiness”. Clearly, the fact that the terms of Exhibit A do not
match the terms of the other closing documents evidences a “lack of
trustworthiness”.
The CERTIFICATE OF POSSESSION TO FLA. STAT. 702.015(4) (signed
by Donealia Wilson) merely references the location of Exhibit A but fails to
address the details of how it came to exist. The original Note would have to
traverse a path from Closing to BBV to Countrywide to BOA to Ocwen/Trust-5 to
Ocwen/T-2014. This situation is similar to Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A., 194 So. 3d
1071, 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) Glarum v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 83
So.3d 780, 782-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (finding that an affidavit of a loan
servicing specialist was inadmissible hearsay because the specialist did not know
who entered the data that he relied on, whether the computer entries were accurate
when made, or how incorporated data from the prior loan servicer was derived).
No evidence was presented that Donealia Wilson has any knowledge of any
company other than Ocwen. Opposing litigants do not possess an admissible
promissory note and they are fully aware of this fact.
If opposing counsel were competent, they would abandon this frivolous suit
and put together a suit based off Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 211 So. 3d
1009 (Fla. 2016) or, better yet, negotiate a settlement in good faith.
40
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT 1: NOTE FRAUD VIOLATES FLA. STAT. § 57.105
Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1) clearly states that “the court shall award a reasonable
attorney’s fee” if a claim “Was not supported by the material facts necessary to
establish the claim” (Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1)(a)). The material facts clearly show that
the Opposing Litigants have never had standing. The fraudulent maturity date in
Exhibit A makes this conclusion inescapable. The Instant Foreclosure is frivolous
without standing.
More significantly, this is grounds for dismissal of the Instant foreclosure:
“Trial courts have the inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction when it
learns that a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.” Wenwei Sun v. Aviles,
53 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Morgan v. Campbell, 816
So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
And more recently: “The trial court awarded the sanctions because
Appellants and their counsel persisted in asserting a defense that they knew or
should have known was not supported by facts or law.” Roberts v. PNC Bank,
N.A., 263 So. 3d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018).
There is no doubt that this unconscionable scheme by the opposing litigants
is sentiently designed to deceive the Court.
41
ARGUMENT 2: SAMSING’S DENIAL FRAUD
Technically, Note Fraud and Denial Fraud are both frauds on the Court.
However, they may differ with regards to intent. Since the relationship between
counsel and client is opaque, Samsing’s client may not be aware of the fraudulence
of Exhibit A. However, it is guaranteed that Samsing knows that his actions are
both illegal and could result in embarrassment to his client and the Court. Despite
over 280 clear notifications as outlined in the TABLE OF FRAUD
NOTIFICATIONS, Samsing persists in his attempts at deceit.
Citing Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 224 (Fla. 2002) “In Pittman,
this Court approved an award of fees against an attorney, where the trial court
found that the attorney had unnecessarily conducted foreclosure proceedings on a
mortgage for the sole purpose of increasing his fee and that the attorney was
acting in his own self-interest”. Opposing counsel “wins” (i.e. they can bill more
hours) the longer that litigation continues even though it is clear that their client
will lose. If opposing counsel is not accurately describing the facts of this case to
their client, they are responsible for the delays and costs to everyone else involved
(me, the client, and the Court).
To be clear, it is certain that Samsing is trying to deceive the Court. If this
deceit extends to his client, the sole responsibility for the recent delays are due to
the malfeasance of Samsing.
42
ARGUMENT 3: TEN YEARS TO ADDRESS THE FACTS
It is a fact that the Original Mortgage I signed on August 20, 2003 has a
maturity date of September 1, 2033. This was in the Seminole County Record
years before the Instant Foreclosure was initiated. Yet, this fact has not been
explained, addressed, or acknowledged in almost five years of preparing their
Instant Foreclosure and over five years of subsequent litigation.
It is a fact that the PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER evidences a
maturity date of September 1, 2033. Opposing counsel provided this in
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION (Docket 28) on October 12, 2015, This was over five years ago.
Yet, opposing counsel has still not addressed, explained, or even acknowledged
this fact.
It is a fact that the copy of the Original Note given to me at closing
evidences a maturity date of September 1, 2033 (Exhibit D1). I made each of my
counsels’ aware of my copy of the note before hiring them, but I’m uncertain at
what point they made opposing counsel aware. However, I included Exhibit D1 in
my first attempt at a counterclaim (Docket 151) on March 13, 2019. Exhibit D1
proves unequivocally that Exhibit A is not the original promissory note. Opposing
counsel knows that their case is frivolous and illegal yet have persisted for years at
a significant cost for everyone involved (me, their client, and the taxpayers).
43
CONCLUSION
There should be consequences to litigants intentionally and repeatedly lying
to the Court. The opposing litigants have known that they are trying to pass
fraudulent documents off for a long time. A reasonable person would have
voluntarily dismissed this suit long ago. Continuing the suit is damaging to me
personally, damaging to the Court, and a felony violation of the law. If opposing
counsel were competent, they would have withdrawn the suit and begun
negotiations based off the threat of a suit based off Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l
Ass'n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016).
/s/ Derek Douglas Dickinson Derek Douglas Dickinson
Email: (derek @dickinsonfl.com) 6697 Sylvan Woods Drive, Sanford,
FL 32771
Telephone: 407-417-2308
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7" day of January 2021, a true and
correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed and served via the FL Courts
eFiling Portal. Furthermore, a copy was served upon the following email address:
/s/ Derek Douglas Dickinson Derek Douglas Dickinson
44
APPENDIX: CITED CASES
This appendix is not required reading. It is provided as a quick reference
regarding how the cited cases ruled. There is a danger that a statement taken out of context from an opinion is in contrast to the practice of law, thus looking at the
entire thrust of a ruling is a good practice. This section addresses each cited case in
order of the importance of the court and reverse chronology (thus, more important opinions should appear earlier). The courts are ordered:
(a) The Florida Supreme Court: The highest authority in Florida.
Clearly, these rulings are binding to the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit
(i.e. this case).
(b)The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal: These rulings are binding to this case.
(c)The Other Florida District Courts of Appeal: These rulings are non-binding, but these courts specialize in Florida law and are usually
relevant.
(d) Federal District Courts in Florida: These rulings are non-binding
on State Court and these courts only deal with Florida law when
jurisdiction requires. Additionally, these rulings do not generally define federal law.
45
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
BARTRAM 2016
Full Case Name: Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016)
Mentioned in STANDARD OF REVIEW and CONCLUSION: This case
shows the way that opposing counsel should be pursuing this case (as opposed
to the deceitful approach they have chosen).
Bottom Line: If a legitimate lender pursues an erroneous foreclosure, they can
clean up their paperwork and try again. That is what the opposing litigants
should be doing.
Ruling Concerns: The statute of limitations and the right to reinstate a mortgage.
More generally, does the right to reinstate language allow for a new default to
be declared if a prior acceleration/foreclosure attempt had failed.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Supreme Court: Ruled that the right to reinstate allows
for new defaults to be declared as long as they occur within five years
of the new foreclosure action.
(b) The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal: Reversed trial court allowing a new default/foreclosure action to proceed.
(c) Trial Court: Note and Mortgage canceled due to prior failed foreclosure attempt (in a Quiet Title Action by borrower).
The Big Picture: The Bank failed in their prior foreclosure due to procedural
errors (failed to appear). As is usually the case, the Court is loathe to allow
procedural issues to override justice. The ruling is somewhat of a compromise.
It bars collection of payment outside the five year window, but allows collection
of subsequent payments.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This case is not directly relevant to the Motion
for Sanctions. It is mentioned to point out that opposing litigants had legal
means to proceed if they legitimately possess the debt (which has not been
shown).
46
MOAKLEY 2002
Full Case Name: Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 224 (Fla. 2002)
Cited in ARGUMENTS 2: “In Pittman, this Court approved an award of fees
against an attorney, where the trial court found that the attorney had
unnecessarily conducted foreclosure proceedings on a mortgage for the sole
purpose of increasing his fee and that the attorney was acting in his own self-
interest”
Bottom Line: The court punishes counsel that intentionally makes life difficult for
opposing litigants.
Ruling Concerns: The authority of a trial court to assess attorneys’ fees as a
sanction against an attorney for bad faith conduct. The peculiar thing about the
case was that the bad faith conduct did not neatly fit into an existing statute, rule, or contract. Sanctions were issued for an unnecessary subpoena with
unreasonable timing.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Supreme Court: Affirmed
(b) The Florida Third District Court of Appeal: Affirmed
(c) Trial Court: Awarded attorneys’ fees.
The Big Picture: This case is one of numerous examples of cases where bad faith behavior can be sanctioned. It’s interesting in that they are also affirming that
the court can award sanctions even if the bad faith behaviors are not expressly provided for by statute, rule, or contract.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This case clearly supports sanctions against
opposing counsel.
47
PITTMAN 1920
Full Case Name: United States Sav. Bank v. Pittman, 86 So. 567, 572 (Fla. 1920)
Cited in ARGUMENTS 2: “In Pittman, this Court approved an award of fees
against an attorney, where the trial court found that the attorney had
unnecessarily conducted foreclosure proceedings on a mortgage for the sole
purpose of increasing his fee and that the attorney was acting in his own self-
interest”
Bottom Line: The court punishes counsel that intentionally delays proceedings to
the detriment of the Court, opposing litigants, and oftentimes their client. This
citation made me realize that the Banks are not necessarily supporting the actions of their counsel.
Ruling Concerns: The authority of a trial court to assess attorneys’ fees as a
sanction against an attorney for bad faith conduct that does not fit into a specific Statute, rule, or contract.
The Big Picture: Unfortunately, I was unable to find this case text (searched on
multiple platforms). However, this case is frequently cited and clearly established law that is in use today. It is clear from the citation that any bad
faith conduct is subject to sanctions.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This case clearly supports sanctions against
opposing counsel.
48
THE FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
ROBERTS 2018
Full Case Name: Roberts v. PNC Bank, N.A., 263 So. 3d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2018)
Cited in ARGUMENT 1: “The trial court awarded the sanctions because
Appellants and their counsel persisted in asserting a defense that they knew or
should have known was not supported by facts or law.”
Bottom Line: Fabricating evidence that conflicts with the material facts of the case and refusing to remove it will eventually result in sanctions.
Ruling Concerns: A foreclosure suit where the defendant claimed that the debt
had already been paid with fabricated evidence.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal: Affirmed the sanctions.
(b) Trial Court: Sanctioned for claiming that debt had been paid without
any supporting evidence.
The Big Picture: Similar to the Instant Foreclosure, the sanctioned litigants presented fabricated evidence that was directly in conflict with the material
facts of the case. Also similar to the Instant Foreclosure, opposing litigants have
had ample opportunity to correct their errors.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This case clearly shows that the opposing litigants should be sanctioned for fraud on the Court.
FLOYD 2016
Full Case Name: Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A., 194 So. 3d 1071, 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2016)
Cited in STANDARD OF REVIEW: “finding that an affidavit of a loan
servicing specialist was inadmissible hearsay because the specialist did not
know who entered the data that he relied on, whether the computer entries were
accurate when made, or how incorporated data from the prior loan servicer was
derived”
Bottom Line: Getting someone without specific knowledge of the processing of a business record to sign an affidavit is insufficient with regards to the business records exception to hearsay (Rule 90.803(6)(a)).
49
Ruling Concerns: A foreclosure suit with indorsement issues on the promissory
note.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal: Remand for further proceedings.
(b) Trial Court: Summary judgment of foreclosure.
The Big Picture: BOA filed a foreclosure with a copy of the original promissory note that lacked an indorsement. Later, they filed another copy of the original
promissory note (now endorsed in blank) with an affidavit of validity. Clearly, the indorsement occurred after the suit was initiated so the evidence does not show standing when the suit was initiated.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This case clearly shows that an affidavit does not
necessarily make a promissory note admissible. It is not directly concerned with the fraud on the Court or associated sanctions, but makes it clear that the
material facts at issue in the counterclaim are legitimate. This clearly
demonstrates why opposing litigants are trying to hide the facts.
WENWEI SUN 2011
Full Case Name: Wenwei Sun v. Aviles, 53 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2011)
Cited in ARGUMENT 1: “Trial courts have the inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction when it learns that a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.”
Bottom Line: The court has the authority to dismiss a case as a sanction if fraud
has been perpetrated.
Ruling Concerns: Personal injury action.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal: Affirmed.
(b) The Trial Court: Dismissed case as a sanction.
The Big Picture: Plaintiff’s repeatedly lied over a span of six years with regards to
the significance of an injury. The case was dismissed as a sanction. This differs somewhat from the Instant Foreclosure in that the contention is that the Plaintiff’s counsel was unaware of the deceit (i.e. the deceit was solely on the part of the client).
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This supports dismissing the Instant Foreclosure
as a Sanction for the fraud perpetrated upon the Court.
50
COX 1998
Full Case Name: Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Cited in STANDARD OF REVIEW: The full paragraph citation clearly
describes the conditions that define a fraud upon the court.
Bottom Line: Repeatedly lying to the Court and/or hiding evidence will eventually
result in dismissal.
Ruling Concerns: A medical malpractice claim resulting from a slip and fall.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal: Affirmed.
(b) Trial Court: Dismissed with prejudice.
The Big Picture: Edna Cox apparently was injured in the slip and fall, but she
repeatedly lied about so many things that it wasn’t possible to assess the level of
damage. Obviously, repeatedly lying to the Court can result in dismissal even if
it’s possible that the underlying conditions have merit.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: The behavior of the Opposing Litigants is arguably far worse than that of Edna Cox. Edna does not have a law degree and years of expertise. Opposing litigants are much more liable for their actions. This ruling clearly supports dismissing the Instant Foreclosure as a sanction.
ol
OTHER FLORIDA DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
The remaining cases are not binding on this court. Of course, all the Florida
DCAs are experts in Florida state law and all the statutes addressed in this case are at the state level. These rulings should be consistent with the result in most
circumstances.
GLARUM 2011
Full Case Name: Glarum v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 83 So.3d 780, 782-83 (Fla.
4th DCA 2011)
Cited in STANDARD OF REVIEW: “finding that an affidavit of a loan
servicing specialist was inadmissible hearsay because the specialist did not
know who entered the data that he relied on, whether the computer entries were
accurate when made, or how incorporated data from the prior loan servicer was
derived”
Bottom Line: Someone without specific knowledge of the business records involved does not necessarily qualify under 90.803(6)(a).
Ruling Concerns: A foreclosure suit with issues regarding amount owed.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal: Reversed and remand
for further proceedings on both the summary judgment and sanctions.
(b) Trial Court: Summary judgment of foreclosure and sanctions against defendants’ counsel.
The Big Picture: LaSalle filed a foreclosure and presented evidence concerning
the amount owed without real knowledge of how the business records were
maintained.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This case clearly shows that a business record does not necessarily make evidence admissible. It is not directly concerned with
the fraud. on the Court or associated sanctions, but makes it clear that the
material facts at issue in the counterclaim are legitimate. Thus, this clearly
demonstrates why opposing litigants are trying to hide the facts.
32
HARVEY 2011
Full Case Name: Harvey v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 69 So. 2D 300, 304
(Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
Mentioned in STATEMENT OF FACTS: This case is referenced as a basis for a
prior counterclaim dismissal. This is evidence that opposing litigants’ deception
of the Court has been somewhat successful.
Bottom Line: This ruling shows that (unlike the note) the mortgage could be
assigned after the foreclosure is initiated (in areas that the Florida Fourth
District Court of Appeal is binding). Extending this ruling to state that mortgage
assignments cannot be challenged on any basis is questionable. It has no
relevance to a case where the promissory note was materially modified.
Ruling Concerns: Foreclosure. Lost Note.
Ruling :
(a) The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal: Affirmed.
(b) The Trial Court: Judgment of foreclosure.
The Big Picture: A vague suspicion about signatures can be stated almost
anywhere. It is rightly disparaged. However, assigning a mortgage when neither
entity is in possession of the debt is a different matter.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: Mentioning this irrelevant case is evidence that
opposing litigants fraudulent behavior has been somewhat successful. For reasons discussed in STANDARD OF REVIEW of docket item 184 (MOTION
TO SET ASIDE) this case is not relevant to the Instant Counterclaim.
MORGAN 2002
Full Case Name: Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
Cited in ARGUMENT 1: “Trial courts have the inherent authority to dismiss an
action as a sanction when it learns that a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.”
Bottom Line: The court has the authority to dismiss a case as a sanction if fraud has been perpetrated.
Ruling Concerns: Personal injury action.
Ruling:
(a) The Florida Second District Court of Appeal: Affirmed.
(b) The Trial Court: Final judgment in favor of defendants as a sanction.
D3
The Big Picture: Plaintiff covered up some of her prior injuries in a personal
injury suit (described as half-truths). The false testimony resulted in dismissal as a result of sanctions. In the Instant Foreclosure, opposing litigants are
covering up the material facts that unequivocally show that Exhibit A is not the
original promissory note. Some of their statements are outright lies (i.e. the
maturity date of the original note).
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: This supports dismissing the Instant Foreclosure
as a Sanction for the fraud perpetrated upon the Court.
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
These courts rule on Florida law due to jurisdictional issues, but are not
binding to the instant cases. Federal District Courts don’t generally publish cases.
These decisions have the least weight of any of the cited courts in this case.
ALTIER 2013
Full Case Name: Altier v. Fed. Nat’! Mortg. Ass’n , No. 1:13-cv-164-MW/GRJ,
2013 WL 6388521, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2013)
Mentioned in STATEMENT OF FACTS: This case name is incorrectly spelled
in the transcript, but it is referenced as a basis for a prior counterclaim
dismissal. This is evidence that opposing litigants’ deception of the Court has been somewhat successful.
Bottom Line: The citation from a non-binding court does not establish any
procedures of law. Additionally, this case is not relevant to the Instant
Counterclaim.
Ruling Concerns: Quiet Title to strip a mortgage.
Ruling:
(a) The Federal Northern District Florida: Motion to dismiss granted.
(b) Trial Court: Dismissed.
The Big Picture: This is a fishing expedition by a borrower trying to find defects in their mortgage. The statement that no facts are plead is accurate for this case.
Effect on Motion for Sanctions: The case itself is not relevant to the Motion for
Sanctions, however, the fact and way that the case was referenced in the subject
hearing of Exhibit D14 shows that opposing counsel is having success with
their attempts at deceit. The irrelevance of this case to the Instant Counterclaim
is described at length in the STANDARD OF REVIEW section of Docket Item
184 (MOTION TO SET ASIDE).
D4
Exhibit A
The following six pages are a copy of Exhibit A.
These were extracted from pages 6-11 of the original complaint.
Docket item 2, filed on June 17, 2015.
Se CINE MOORE RARE eae creae Res AR fame MER cea Aeneid page aka meg ages
BALLOON NOTE (FIXED RATED Loan Number 01-28651
THIS LOAN IS PAYABLE IN FULL AT MATURITY. YOU MUST REPAY THE ENTIRE PRINCIPAL BALANCE OF THE LOAN AND UNPAID INTEREST THEN DUE. THE LENDER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO REFINANCE THE LOAN AT THAT TIME. YOU WILL, THEREFORE, BE REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OUT OF OTHER ASSETS THAT YOU MAY OWN, OR YOU WILL HAVE TO FIND A LENDER, WHICH MAY BE THE LENDER YOU HAVE THIS LOAN WITH, WILLING TO LEND YOU THE MONEY. IF YOU REFINANCE THIS LOAN AT MATURITY, ¥OU MAY HAVE TO PAY SOME OR ALL OF THE CLOSING COSTS NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW LOAN EVEN IF YOU OBTAIN REFINANCING FROM THE SAME LENDER.
AUGUST 20, 2003 OVERLAND PARK . KANSAS [Date] [chy [State]
6687 SYLVAN WOODS DR, SANFORD, FLORIDA Sa77i1 [Property Address]
1, BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY In return for a loan that I have received, | protitise to pay U.S.$ 322,000-00 this amount
is called "Principal", plus interest, to the order of the Lender. The Lender i ANK OF BLUE VALLBY twill make all payriertts under this Note in the form of cash, check or money order.
T understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is.entitled to receive payments under this. Note. is called the “Note: Holder-" ©. -
Interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of Principal has. been paid. Iwill pay interest at a yearly tate of 4.750%.
‘The tnterest. rate required by Section 2 is the rate I will pay both before and after any defantt described in Section 6(B) of dis Mote.
3. PAYMENTS (A) Titee and Place of Payments I will pay principal and interest. by making a payment every month. I will make my imouthly payments on the atday of each month beginning on OCTOBER: 1 :
2003 . Iwill make these payments every month until | have paid all of the principal and interest and any other charges described below that [may owe under this Note, Hach monthly payment will be applied as of its scheduled due date and will be applied. to interest. before Principal. U,on SEPTEMBER 1 ‘ 20109 ,T still owe amounts under ihls Note, 1 will pay those amounts in full on that date, whieh is called the "Maturity Date.”
I will make my monthly payments at 7900 COLLEGE BOULEVARD, OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 662.10
(B) Aniount of Monthly Payments My monthly payments will be ia the amount of U.S. 81,679.70
or at a different place if required by the Note Holder.
4. BORROWER'S RIGHT TO PREPAY [have the right to make payments of Principal at any time before they are due. A payment of Priucipal only
is mown as a “Prepayment.” When ] make a Prepayment, 1 will tell the Note Holder in writing that | am doing so. I may not designate a payment as a Prepayment if] have not made all the monthly payments due under the Note,
Imay make a full Prepayment or partial Prepayments without paying any Prepayment charge. The Note Holder will use my Prepayments to reduce the amount of Principal that I owe under this Note, However, the Note Holder may apply ow Prenavment to ihe accrued and wupaid interest on the Prepayment amount before applying ‘my
IDIFIED INSTRUMENT ll Form 3290 1/01 —> ACE
B10 82062648R N eat ant
_EXAIBIT TA’ Z|
UTE ED UOCEE EOD UE TENDED AP Pe manana Ae ante BRN SP RON AE Rae adore te
0532002130
3 i :
Propayment to réducé the Principal amount of the Note. If I make a partial Prepayment, there will be no changes in the due date dr in the amount of my monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those chatipes.
3. LOAN CHARGES Ifa law, which applica to this loan and which sets maximum toan charges, is finally interpreted so that the interest or other lean charges collected of to be culleered in connection with this Ioan exceed the permitted limits, then: (a) any such loan charge: shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge
to the permitted limit; and (b) any sum already collected from me which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to me. The Note Holder may choose to aiake this refund by reducing the Pringipal I owe under this Note or by making a direct payment to me. Ifa refimd reduces Principal, the xeduction will be treated as a pattial Prepayrient,
6. BORROWER’S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED (A) Late Charges for Overduc Payments Ii the Nofe Holder has not received the fill amount of ay monthly payment by the end of 15
calendar days after the date it is due, 1 will pry a late charge to. the Note Halder. The amount of the charge will be 6.000 % of my overdue payment of principal and interest, I will pay this late charge promptly but only once on éach late payment, (8) Defanit If 1 do not pay the fill amount of each monthly payment. on the date it is due, J will be in default. (C) Notice of Default If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if Pde. not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may require me to pay intmediately the full amount of Principal which has not been paid and all the interest that T owe on that amount. That date tmust be at least 30 days after the date on which the notice js mailed to toe or delivered by other means. (D) No Waiver By Noie Holder
- Even if, at a time when: | am in default, the Note Halder’ does riot require me to pay immediately in full as destribed above, the Note Holder will still have the right to do so if 1 am in default at a later time. (E) Payment: of Note Holder’s Costs and Expenses Ifthe Note Holder has rermired me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will have the right to be paid back by me for all of its eosts and expenses in enforcing this Note to the extent not prohibited by applicable law. Those expenses include, for example, reasonable attorneys’ feos,
7. GIVING OF NOTICES Unless applicable law requires a different method, any notice that must be given to me unter this Note will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first Glass mail 10 me at the Property Addzess above or at a different address if I give the Note Uolder a notice of roy different address. Any notice thet must be given to the Note Holder under this Note will be given by delivering itor by
mailing it by first class mail.to.the Note Holder at the address Stated in Section 3(A) above or at a different address if] am given a notice of that different address,
8 OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER ‘THIS NoTE If more than one person signs this Note, each person is filly and personally obligated to keep all of thie promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any person who is 4 guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these ihings. Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety of endorser of the Note, is also oblizated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of ug together. This means that anyone of us may be required to pay all of the amounis owed under this Note, ,
9. WAIVERS Cand any other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of Presentinent and Notive
of Dishonor. "Presentuent" means the rights to require the Note Holder to demand payment of amounts due. “Notice of Dishonor" means the right to requite the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts due have not been paid.
MULTISTATE BALLOON NOTE (Fixed Raie)-Slugle Famlly-Preadie Mas MODIEIED INSTRUMENT” Dacumont Systems, Ine, (800) 349-1362 Page 2 of 3 Form 3290 1/01
To Time nga mrima mera remind FRE AM SR RARE a SESE Sette ve ae ay
BURT CG DREAD TY ADOC WAM LE TA TR SAO EMOTE EL ROOE EOE SE te te eA ot
10. UNIFORM SECURED NOTE This Note is a uniform instrament with limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addition to the
protections given to the Note Holder undér this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the "Seourity Instrument"), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses. which might result if Ido not keep the promises whtich I make in dts Note, That Security Instrument descrites how and under what conditions ] may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amount I owe under the Note. Some of thosé conditlons are described as follows:
‘Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower, If all or any part of the Property or any Interest in the Property is sold or transferred (or if Borrower is not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred) whthow Lender's prior written consent, Lender may require ittunediate payment in fell of ail sums secured by this Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is prohibited by Applicable Law,
If Lender exercises this option, Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The notice shall provide a period of not less than 30. days from the date the notice is given in accordance with Section 15 within which Borrower nmst pay all sums secured by this Security Instrument. [f Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period, Lender may invoke any remedies permitted by this Security instrament without further notice or demand on Borrower,
WITNESS THE HAND(S) AND SEAL() OF THE UNDERSIGNED,
7 ere
hLs | Lbol A : (Seal) Cu; ‘aD tok (Seal) DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON -Rorrower CHERI D. DICKINSON //” -Botrower
(Seal) . a + (Seal) ~Borrower ..° *Borrower
(Sexi) . , ~~ (Seal) -Bortower _.. “Botrower
Ast TO THE ORDER OF: "_ [Sign Original Only} A. WITHOUT RECOUREH
JE VAbhitiieKANGAS BANKING CORPORATION BY: OT Veter alammstininf ing
xs RKTT ERE ROT ANN’ SHARPE
TTS: TAICH PRESIDENT.
MULTISTATE BALLOON NOTE (lied Rat)-Single Pamily-Ereddle Mac MODIMIED INSTRUMENT Gocument Systini, Inc, (00) 619.1362 , Page 3 of 3 Form 3290 1/01
SOR REN DE COCUMENT CUSTODY SERVICES, A DIVISION OF TREASURY f
JVMTL PU SRY MYT PELE LE RAV ADA UTE Ut) MTU AME a8 Rather entre th ROA I TITHE A Meee a eA RG re SO RR A a RT RI MORE AER Ms MRT feet te reread
TPN tne tebe rE REN AT ANAT BANE Tene he md
Pay to the Order of Lo % Counttewiie Mame Lacae Ine,
7 or v
Without roceurke
Countrywide Document Custody Seryiews, A. Avision af ‘Treasury Bune, Nucs Lo
. i anal 4 N :
Callatern! Processing Officer Countrywide Docunent Custody Speviees, A Division of Treesury Bonk, A,
PAY TO THE ORDER OF ZO
WITHOUT RECOURSE COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, ING.
on yl Joi AgsigTANT SECRETARY
Us3202 fers
Tre ne EE a a ne mca ag ans eye eee LE Met Oe SHEA oe ecere re nner met ene - “4 whet ede cam arte ae a
Loan Number 01-28651
’ BALLOON NOTE ADDENDUM (CONDITIONAL RIGHT TO REFINANCE)
WIS BALLGON NOTE ADDENDUM Is made this 20th day of AUGUST, 2002 : ond is Incorpotmed into and ala} be deemed to amend anc supplenient the Balloon Note made
by the undesigned (the*Gartower™) in fiver of BANK OF BLUE VALLEY, A KANSAS BANKING CORPORATION fie “lerder’) ul dated the sarie date as this Addendant (the "New"), The interest Rate stated on she Note is enlled ihe *Nore Rate.” Thy data of che Note js called the. "Note ute."
I (the Borrower) understand fhe Lenler may transfer the Note, the related Mortgage, Weed of Trust,
oy Deed to Secure Dobt (the ‘Sucurity Instrument") and this Addendum. The Lender or anyone whip takes the Nofe, Ssenrity Insinurient and this Addendum by wansfir and whe is eniiled to teceive payments under the Mote laccallsd-the “Noto Holder,”
ADDITIONAL COVENANTS. In addition to the cavenanis and, agreements In the Security Instrament, Borrower and Lender, Turther covennet and apree as Tollews (despiie anything to the contrary cemutned in the Seeurify listrampnt or the Note):
I. CONPITIONAL RIGHT TO REFINANCE
At tie. maturliy dete of the Note and Security Inslrument (ihe "Note Maturiiy Bate*), I will be able to ebiains & new Jonni (“Now Loan") with a new Maturity Date of SEPTEMBER 1 2033 , tthe "New Momuriey Date’) and with ap iiterest rate ecual to die “Nisy Loan Rate? determined In accordance wilh Sestion 3 below if all the conditiona erevided ta Soedens 2 and 5 below are met dhe "Casdional Refinance Option") MW thtise estulions dre not mel, | undersiand that the Netw Holder is under no obligation W-refinance the Note, ar ta maillfy ihe Note, reset the Norte Bale, or extend inc Note Maturlly Date, and thar I wil] have to cepay oho Note ftom my owalsesciurdées oF Find a katder willing ia lend me the money fo. repay the Note.
2. CONDITIONS TO. OPTION APT wanl to exercise the Candidonst Retinanes Opting, certain conditions must be met af. of the Nove
Mituriy Daw. These cdniitions are: i) 1 must sell be dhe owner and occupant of the property subject to . the Sscuriry instrument (the “Property”); (by Loiust. be cureent. in my monthiy_payments and euwsinct have Deed iy pe yi more than 30 days Isto on ony of the 12 selodsied monly payment immediaely receding the Note Maturity Dale; (e} there aré no liens, defects, ar ancumbrances against the Property: oruther adverse matters affacting fille io ihe Properiy (except for-toses and spectil assessmenty not yet dite and payable} arising after whe, Semurty inscrunien, was recorded: (d) the New Loan Bing cannok be more than 3 percentage points above die Note Rate; avd (e} L dvuet mole 2 written toquest 19 the Ntite Bolder as provided_in Seeilon $ below,
3% CALCULATING THE LOAN NOTE RATE
The New Lonn Rue will be a fixed! mpe cot Unterestoaqual ci: the Federal Home Loum Mortgage Corporuion's required net yiel{ for 30-year fined male mortgages subject io n 60-day mandatory delivery Soruetitment, plus otl-half of due percent (0.3%), rounded Jo the nearest one-vighth of one percon] 0.125%} (the "New Loan Rare"). ‘The secjuled fer viold shall bo the applicable net yield In effect on the due und dime. of day ist the Now Halder receives norles of ioyelecilon to exercise the Condidonal Refieatee Oden, if
this required net yleld is shot available, the Mowe Bolder will determing the Nes Lean Rate by axing. comparable “info nputlort,
* TALCULATING THR NEW PAYMENT AMOUNT
Provided the New Loan Reale as geleulated in Section 3 above is nat greater than 5 percemagm: points
sbove the Kite Rete wel all ather conditiens cequied In Section 2 above ure sarisfied, the Moi Holder wilt Heormine whe amiun ofthe monilily payricst tsa sylll be sufficient ao repay in full (a) de unpaid principal,
MULTISTATE BALLOON. NOTE ADDENDUM (eGuinsep-Single Panily-Proldio Mav UNIFORM INSTRUMEN? Hemet Symes; Woe GU) H602382 Page bof 2 Pom 3392 141
anim iyeieine TE Sasancanimiem se 8 oo mine a natalie ee ete ment ont nmenttapanene |
“plas (b) aecrsed but unphid inveredt, plus (ey all ofher Samy Iwill owe Under the Note ane Seeurity Insirement on tie Nore Maturicy Date (assiuhing mycnoittly paymoita den are current, ag required whclér Section 2 above), over the term of the New Logn m the Now'Lonn Rate inegual monthly poymens, The rgadt of this caleulation will be the amount of My new prinigal and interest. payment every month. voiil the New Loan is filly paid,
3, JSOERCISING. THE CONDITIONAL RBRINANCE OPTION The Nolte Holder will notliy me at leagt 40 valendar days in udvanee of the Note Maturily Date aad advise me ofthe principal, accrued bot unpaid Jaterest, atd all otier dures Tan expected to owe on the Note Maturity Date. The Nore Holder alse will advise me shui L may exercise the Conditfond Refinance Option. ifthe conditions fu Seetion 2 above are met, The Note Holder will provide my payment record tnfonmatlon, together with the name, Atle and address of the person representing the: Note Holdur that Tamnst podity ja. order 40 exercisa the Condittonal Refinanes Opin: Ul Trmeet the conditfons af Seétion 2 above, t may: exercise the Conilitional Refinance Dptldn ‘by nwdifving the Note Holder no caslter then 60 calendar days aid no later thas 43 calendar days ptior le the Note Maturity Dat. ‘The Nor Holder willsuteulata the feed Rew Lon Rate based upon the Rederal Homi Lou. Morignge Corporntien's applicable published tequired net Weld in offeer gn the date and tims, of day notification ‘ia received Dy the Now Holder and as olbdlaied in Section 3 above, JF will then have 30 cditddar days i provide the Note Holder with acsepuible proof of my required ownerbip, ovoupsney and propeny lies statue. Bofare die Note Maunicy Date ihe Neie Holder witt allvise we of the new interest rere (he New Loan Rate}. new monthly peyatent amount and a dete, Heme aad place et witich 1 met apipeni to sign any documaniy fequired to comple the required refinancing. [ understand. the Note Holder will charge me a S780 protossing feo and the cosis assockited with the: exergige ‘of the Conditional Refinatiee Option, tieluding out sot Siniked to the cost of updating the ide tnsurance “poliny.
BY SIGNING BELOW, Borrower accapt) and agites lo the terms and covenants continued by this Balloon Hote Addendum,
DEREK DOUGLAS PICKINSON -Borawar CHERT Dy DICKINGON Borrower
“ {Seal} : {Seal) ~Borrawer ~Boriwer
_~ (Seat) . (Sexly ~Borrawar: “Borrower
[Sign Original Gniy}
. MUCHSTATIC BALIOOT NOTE ADDRNDTN Pehnausaplnels EumiiyPeddie Mac URINDRM BETRUMENE Goeusiged Spain foe. (A A GR Faye 2.09 Puleen 3202 [706
Exhibit B
Altered Mortgage
The following is page 12 from the initial foreclosure complaint (Docket 2).
The foreclosure complaint incorrectly identifies this as Book 4995, Page
1426 from Seminole County Records.
It is actually Book 5109, Page 1911.
It is file number 2003209539, filed on November 24, 2003.
The execution date of the original note and mortgage had passed.
so ESCM RA fT! pea Ponte nmi wre gym to tee wel
BK OF PG i426 pe ; 1S 8 Odd 1 Tos This Ircarument Prepared By: Catgets Chee _aces OMAURIOD fOuacae AA Rack WT RO Tae 1, 1
DATE TAK G4. 00
ei tk
WROVAHNE NRTGE, CLERK OF CIRCUIT COUT SeHOLE GOUT Y BK O0109 PES LSi1+1929 CLERM'S # AiOseOs3ag PREC Mpeea teazrelt mm
Atha Fa RG YE Ora a
ee ats tar ane oe - Hipaes Aleyyn Thik Lieu Fer Aneordata Batak
MORTGAGE
DERANITHONS
Preqdg wed Gn nealtliple aecidons of thik doce ane defined bebew and oftor monde one defloed in Seertome 3, 10. 13, BB, dfkond 2, tlecon robes peng Ae ke OE wert ed i hd ment ane alae pee kied Io Secrdoe 14.
ta) “Secrky estrone! peat hie 1, which ba Llidked AUGUST 20, 2093 beget
widths al] lider 1 Ubdie deepen, 7 {h) “Bomower" is DRRER DOL DICE THEOs AND CHEAT Oo, DICKINSON,
- - HUSBAND. ABD WiFE - .
Baler Uy tien cropped weacer Ubls Getcdority Preertice?
) "keakeis BANK OF BLUE VALLEY
Lents EANSAS DANKING CORPORATION ovpainatE wid Hing uber he lee ot RASS : Leode's tetis 2500 COLLEGE BOULEVARE,. OVERLAST? PARK, RARGAS 66210
Denier 3 ee Mops: Weer tei Sevaar ity POulronotis, 00) “Arpte" runins Che preomsory mote aligned by Goritewer muda AUGUST 20° 2003
The Wott $a hid Borie ov Linker THREE HONORED TWENTY-THO THOTISAND AND oo/atd Dolls (15.5322, 000.00 } phe dene. Borrower Bes premised eo pewy feed deb id tees Paddle Peymeces to a0 pany abe bene ine fa, roe UE jem SEPTEMBER 2, Ja0baE 2018 nD. CDE CED ogee’ meee line prereset thay de ‘Selaw angler ihe begin “Cruehes of Blnghte tn che Jager ~ CF) "Lea" incanc ihe debd evidenced hy the Agnes, plas ier, kay [Eye Cheangts Bod ian Churges due unedor Ie Wits. and afl eoetu act under ible Setierley Leskritosent, phat descoti,
THES TS BRIM TE-RECOEDED TO CORRECT THE MATURTIY DATE RHICE SHLD
HEAD AY SEPTEMBER 3, 2010;
torte tess: LAL?
FLORib a Shay ti jEcie elfen Key nar 18.1 UMN Booties tl wane serait rie ad id wren, pierce pric doar
ack ary
EXHIBIT "B” re
Aaek Si AaPanedo1? CPA
Beseription: Seminoles, Fb Bocumest - Sook,Page Si09.1911 Page: 1 of 13
drder, DYFL402-FL-1504314 Comaeot:
Exhibit D1
The following three pages is a copy of the original note.
This was given to me on August 20th, 2003 and has been in my possession
ever since.
Us32901. not
BALLOON NOTE (FIXED RATE) Loan Number 01-28651
THIS LOAN IS PAYABLE IN FULL AT MATURITY. YOU MUST REPAY THE ENTIRE PRINCIPAL BALANCE OF THE LOAN AND UNPAID INTEREST THEN DUE. THE LENDER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO REFINANCE THE LOAN AT THAT TIME. YOU WILL, THEREFORE, BE REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OUT OF OTHER ASSETS THAT YOU MAY OWN, OR YOU WILL HAVE TO FIND A LENDER, WHICH MAY BE THE LENDER YOU HAVE THIS LOAN WITH, WILLING TO LEND YOU THE MONEY. IF YOU REFINANCE THIS LOAN AT MATURITY, YGU MAY HAVE TO PAY SOME OR ALL OF THE CLOSING COSTS NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW LOAN EVEN IF YOU OBTAIN REFINANCING FROM THE SAME LENDER.
AUGUST 20, 2003 OVERLAND PARK . KANSAS [Date] [City] [State]
6687 SYLVAN WOODS DR, SANFORD, FLORIDA 32771 [Property Address]
1. BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S.$ 322,000.00 (this amount
is called "Principal"), plus interest, to the order of the Lender. The Lender is BANK OF - BLUE
VALLEY T will make all payments under this Note in the form of cash, check or money order.
I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by
transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the “Note Holder."
2. INTEREST Interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of Principal has been paid. 1 will pay
interest at a yearly rate of 4.750%.
The interest rate required by Section 2 is the rate I will pay both before and after any default described
in Section 6(B) of this Note.
3. PAYMENTS
{A} Time and Place of Payments
I will pay principal and interest by making a payment every month.
I will make my monthly payments on the 1stiay of each month beginning on OCTOBER 1 :
2003 . J will make these payments every month until I have paid all of the principal and interest and any other charges described below that | may owe under this Note. Each monthly payment will be applied as of
its scheduled due date and will be applied to interest before Principal. If,on SEPTEMBER 1 2033 ,I still owe.amounts under this Note, I will pay those amounts in full on that date, which is called
the “Maturity Date.”
L.will make my.monthly payments at 7900 COLLEGE BOULEVARD, OVERLAND PARK,
KANSAS 66210 or at a different place if required by the Note Holder.
(B) Amount. of Monthly Payments My monthly payments will be in the amount of U.S.$1,679.70
4. BORROWER’S RIGHT TO PREPAY ] have the right to make payments of Principal at any time before they are due. A payment of Principal only
is known as a “Prepayment.” When I make a Prepayment, I will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so.
I may not designate a payment as a Prepayment if I have not made all the monthly payments due under the Noite.
I may make a full Prepayment or partial Prepayments without paying any Prepayment charge. The Note Holder
will use my Prepayments to reduce the amount of Principal that 1 owe under this Note. However, the Note Holder may apply my Prepayment to the accrued and unpaid interest on the Prepayment amount before applying my
MULTISTATE BALLOON NOTE (Fixed Rate)--Single Family--Freddie Mac MODIFIED INSTRUMENT
Document Sysiema, Ine, (B00) 6441362 Page | of 3 Form 3290 (A!
Us32902 nat
Prepayment to reduce the Principal amount of the Note. If] make a partial Prepayment, there will be no changes in the due date or in the amount of my monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those changes.
5. LOAN CHARGES If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is finally interpreted so that
the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this loan exceed the
permitted limits, then: (a) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge
te the permitted limit; and (b) any sum already collected from me which exceeded permitted limits will be
refunded to me. The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by reducing the Principai 1 owe under this
Note or by making a direct payment to me. Ifa refund reduces Principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial Prepayment.
6. BORROWER’S FAILURE FO PAY AS REQUIRED (A) Late Charges for Overdue Payments
If the Note Holder has not received the full amount of any monthly payment by the end of 15
calendar days after the date it is due, I will pay a late charge to the Note Holder. The amount of the charge
will be 6.000 % of my overdue payment of principal and interest. I wil] pay this late charge promptly but only once on each late payment.
(B) Default If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the date it is due, I will be in default. {C) Notice of Default
If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of
Principal which has not been paid and ail the interest that I owe on that amount. That date must be at-ieast 30 days after the date on which the notice is mailed to me or delivered by other means.
{(D) No Waiver By Note Holder
Even if, at a time when I am in default, the Note Holder does not require me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will stijl have the right to do so if 1 am in default at a later time.
(E) Payment of Note Holder’s Costs and Expenses
If the Note Holder has required me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will
have the right to be paid back by me for all of its costs and expenses in enforcing this Note to the extent not prohibited by applicable law. Those expenses include, for example, reasonable attorneys’ fees.
7. GYVING OF NOTICES Unless applicable law requires a different method, any notice that must be given to me under this Note
will be given by delivering it or by-mailing it by first class mail to me at the Property Address above or at a
different address if] give the Note Holder a notice of my different address. Any notice that must be given to the Note Holder under this Note will be given by delivering it or by
mailing it by first class mail to the Note Holder at the address stated in Section 3(A) above or at a different address if] am given a notice of that different address.
8. OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the
promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed, Any person who is a
guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over
these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of the Note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against
each person individually or against all of us together. This means that anyone of us may be required to pay all 6f.the amounts owed under this Note.
9. WAIVERS land any other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of Presentment and Notice
of Dishonor. “Presentment” means the rights to require the Note Holder to demand payment of amounts due.
"Notice of Dishonor” means the right to require the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts due have not been paid.
MULTISTATE BALLOON NOTE (Fixed Rate}--Single Family--Freddie Mac MODIFIED INSTRUMENT
Document Systems, lnc. (800) 649-1362 Page 2 of 3 Form 3290 1/01
Us32903 a0
10. UNIFORM SECURED NOTE
This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the “Security Instrument"), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which
might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe under
the Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows:
Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower. If all or any part of the Property or any Interest in the Property is sold or transferred (or if Borrower is not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred) without Lender’s prior written consent, Lender
may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. However,
this option shal] not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is prohibited by Applicable Law. If Lender exercises this option, Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The notice
shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given in accordance with
Section 15 within which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security Instrument. If
Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period, Lender may invoke any
remedies permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on Borrower.
WITNESS THE HAND(S) AND SEAL(S) OF THE UNDERSIGNED,
(Seal) (Seal)
DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON . -Borrower CHERI D. DICKINSON -Borrower
(Seal) (Seal) -Borrower -Borrower
Seal} (Seal)
-Borrower -Borrower
PAY TO THE ORDER OF: {Sign Original Only]
COUNTRYWIDE DOCUMENT CUSTODY SERVICES, A DIVISION OF TREASURY BANK, N.A. WITHOUT RECOURSE
BANK OF BLUE VALLEY, A KANSAS BANKING CORPORATION
BY: GINNY SNOUPFRE
ITS: VICE PRESIDENT
MULTISTATE BALLOON NOTE (Fixed Rate}--Single Family--Freddie Mac MODIFIED INSTRUMENT
Document Systems, Inc, (800) 649-1362 Page 3 of 3 Form 3290 1/0)
Exhibit D3
The following two pages are a printout of two emails sent to counsel for
Caliber on June 1, 2018 and July 5, 2019.
This was printed directly from my gmail account.
2/10/2019 Gmail - A change of strategy is in order on Seminole County Case 2015-CA-001454
mM Gmail Derek Dickinson <[email protected]>
A change of strategy is in order on Seminole County Case 2015-CA-001454 2 messages
Derek Dickinson <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:59 AM To: Brian Rosaler <[email protected]>
Gc: RAKATLAW <[email protected]> Bcc:
Hello Brian,
This is Derek Dickinson. The defendant in Seminole County Case 2015-CA-001454. This email is despite
the objection of my counsel. My counsel is CC'd. You can respond with “Reply All” if you’d like. No reply is
required.
You handle a large caseload. It is easy to overlook things. Most foreclosure cases follow a standard
template. My case is the worst case you have ever had. A different strategy is needed.
My counterciaim is worth more than the Saccameno case. That one cost the Bank $3.5 million.
In Saccameno, there was a good note. Ocwen’s note is a fraud.
US Bank can’t win:
- Every page at closing was initialized. The note in Exhibit A was not.
* | presented a copy of the unaltered note as evidence. It has the correct terms; unlike the note in
Exhibit A.
» The mortgage recorded on August 20th, 2003 is in the county record. The terms match my note; not
the fraudulent note.
* | was present at closing and will testify that the Ocwen note does not match the note | signed.
Every page is initialed in a closing. The flaw in “Exhibit A” is gross negligence at a minimum.
imagine explaining fo the jury that the most important pages in the entire closing were the only ones that were not initialed: embarrassing.
Your client lost the Saccameno case with a good note.
The Bank Caused the Hardship
In the Saccameno case, the bank did not cause the initial financial distress. The bank handled
Saccameno’s distress poorly and it cost them. In my case, the bank breached the contract and forced me inte default. The bank caused my distress; much worse.
Pretending doesn’t give you Standing
Possession of a fraudulent note does not imply standing. Furthermore, the term “standard business practices” does not apply to my mortgage. Even by Countrywide’s standards, my loan was handled strangely. You have to prove that the initial investor did not write off my laan. No one seems to know who the initial investor was.
Fortunately for you, you have another option
https://mail.google.com/miail/u/0?ik=8e2cc8d794&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ammiai-r34890090586799160786:si... 1/2
2/10/2019 Gmail - A change of strategy is in order on Seminole County Case 2015-CA-001454
US Bank was defrauded by Ocwen. Your best strategy is to get Ocwen to pay. Imagine the fraudulent note working for you rather than against you.
At present, you can claim that you were busy and did not notice these problems. However, the window of plausible deniability is limited.
Best Regards,
Derek
P.S. Rich Kalinoski noticed the missing initials within a few minutes of reviewing the case. Two other lawyers independently said “that’s crazy” and “that’s fraud” when this was pointed out.
View nny profile on
Linked {3
My Site On Github
Derek Dickinson <[email protected]> Thu, Ju! 5, 2018 at 3:48 PM Te: [email protected] Ce: RAKATLAW <[email protected]> Bcc:
Hello Joseph,
Below is a forward of my email to your partner Brian. | think itis self-explanatory.
With regards to the TPP document that was sent to me, it doesn't make sense:
1. Send the bank money. 2. They will send me a mysterious contract that | must sign.
Even if the suit did not include a fraudulent note, It would be crazy to send U.S. Bank money just to see the contract. You should mention to U.S. Bank that sending that TPP leaves yOu open to being embarrassed in court. Attempting to trick the victim (er. defendant) is clearly a sign of bad faith.
Of caurse, i'm happy to discuss terms of a settlement. However, you are going to have to pay. The fraud is obvious. You don't need to be a lawyer see it.
Regards,
Derek
View my nttile on | Linked Yl
My Site On Github
[Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google .com/mail/u/0?ik=8e2cc8d 794 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ammiai-r34890090586799160786si... 2/2
Exhibit D6
Original Mortgage
The following page is a certified copy of the first page of the mortgage.
I got a copy from Seminole County Records.
This is Book 4995, Page 1426.
It is file number 2003156455, filed on September 5, 2003.
Vee tO: pea niig. NC. o> WEST LAKE MARY BLVD.4£.
HARYANNE MORSE, CLEAK OF CIRCUIT COURT 008 WES UARY. FLS2746
BENINOLE COUNTY eu .
BK 064995 eG 1426 fe . . CLERK'S # 2002 This instrument Prepared Brsearpets Cheer RECORDED 09/05/2003 101088 an eR aX, tf Prue Val ey MTB DOC TAX 1, 127.00 iaas er
pol 64.00 RECORDING FEES 47.00 DEL ana KS. UUs RECORDED BY J Eckenreth pes Rent Oe 703- QO9s,
TALLEY ULEVARD KANSAS 66210
01-28651
VESGELUE amie
a
p Above This Line For Racording Daral
MORTGAGE
DEFINITIONS
Words used in multiple sections of this document are defined below and other words are defined in Sections 3,11, 13, 18, 20 and 21. Certain rules regarding the usage of words used in this document are alsa provided in Section 16,
(A) "Security Instrument" means this document, which is dated AUGUST 20, 2003 , logether with all Riders to this document. (B) "Borrower" is DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON AND CHERT D. DICKINSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE
Borrower is the mortgagor under this Security Instrument. (C) “Lender"is BANK OF BLUE VALLEY
Lender isa KANSAS BANKING CORPORATION organized and existing under the laws af KANSAS . Lender's address is 7900 COLLEGE BOULEVARD, OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66210 Lender is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument. (DB) "Note" means the promissory note signed by Borrower and dated. AUGUST 20 » 2003 The Note states that Borrower owes Lender THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND AND o0/100 Dollars (U5. $322,009.00 ) plus interest, Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Payments and to pay the debt in full not iater than SEPTEMBER 1, 2033 . (E) "Property" means the property that is described below under the heading “Transfer of Rights in the Property." {F) "Loan" means the det evidenced by the Note, plus interesi, any prepayment charges and late charges duc under the Note, and alE sums due under this Security Instrument, plus interest.
Borrower Initiats: DY Y _CDe
FLORIDA--Single Family--Fannia Mae/Fraddia Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT DocMagic Guin soos 1362 Form 3010:.1/01 Page 1 of 14 Www. o@ crtregie. cont
A
Exhibit D7
PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER The following page is extracted from Cheri Dickinson’s Pre-Trial Statement
(docket item 96, page 45).
This was supplied by opposing counsel to Cheri Dickinson’s counsel in discovery.
This page was part of the original closing documents signed on August 20th, 2003 by both me and Cheri Dickinson.
Henne ee ee ae
eo @ :
PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER
FROM: BANK OF BLUE VALLEY -7900 COLLEGE BOULEVARD ‘OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS, 66210 (877) 338-2001
RE: Loan No: 01-28651 Property Addreas: 6687 SYLVAN WOODS DR, SANFORD, FLORIDA 322771
TO: ‘DBREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON, CHERIT D. DICKINSON ‘6687 SYLVAN WOODS DR , ‘SANFORD, FLORIDA 32771
Dear Borrower:
The monthly payments on the above referred to loan are to begin on OCTOBER 3, 2003 , and will concnue
monthiy until SEPTEMBER 1, 2033
Your monthly payment will consist of the following:
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST $_ 1,679, 70. MMI/PMI INSURANCE —_—_______. RESERVE FOR TAXES —_— RESERVE FOR INSURANCE RESERVE FOR FLOOD INSURANCE
TOTAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS $1,872.70
You are to make your payments to:
OF BLUE VALLEY a 30 g 8 Lane Ee BOULEVARD
PARK, KANSAS 66210 CEeay S38 - TOOL
Any correspondence, or calls, in reference to your loan, please refer 10 the above loan nuraber,
Copy received and acknowledged,
2-20-03 Jb Lat tbe DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON
CLD 2 CHERI D. DICKINSON
Date:
PAYMENT LETTER TO BORROWER DocMagic CFOS 800.643-1362 www, docmagic.com
PaymentJsr
Exhibit D8
Wilson Interrogatories
The following page is extracted from Cheri Dickinson’s “Notice of Service of
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff’ (Docket item 92, page 3).
The counsel for my former wife realized that the altered mortgage wasn’t
created until after the execution date of the original note and mortgage.
“EXHIBIT A”
Explain, in detail, how the assignment of Defendants’ alleged Mortgage from Bank of
Blue Valley, dated September 16, 2003, assigns the Mortgage with recording information
that postdated the execution fate of said assignment. This assignment document dated
September 16, 2003, was provided to us in an initial records request from the Cheri D.
Dickinson. A copy of said assignment is attached hereto and Marked Exhibit “A”. The
recording date of the Mortgage being assigned is November 24, 2003. The execution date
of the assignment is September 16, 2003.
Page 3 of 5
Exhibit D10
The following two pages are the March 12, 2019 order dismissing the
original counterclaim from my former counsel (Docket 141). Opposing
litigants incorrectly claim that this order identifies the reason for the
dismissal (‘failed to plead with requisite specificity’’).
The order fails to identify the specific deficiency in the counterclaim.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. Case No. 2015-CA-001454-H-W AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
DEREK DOUGLAS DICKENSON, et al.
Defendants.
DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON,
Counterclaim Plaintiff
Vv.
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST,
Counterclaim Defendant.
THIS CAUSE came be re the Court on the 12" day of February 2019 on the Motion to
orpe ‘ated Memorandum of Law (the “Motion to Dismiss”) filed on behalf of
ter-Defendant, U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER
ARTIC >ATION TRUST (“U.S. Bank”), including the response and supplemental response
thereto of Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff, DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON (“Defendant”), and
the Court, having heard argument from the parties, reviewed the Motion to Dismiss, and being
otherwise fully advised in the premises,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1. U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss is granted; bo Defendant’s Counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice; and
3. Defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing, i.¢., until
March 14, 2019, in which to amend if he so desires.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Sanford, Seminole County, Florida on this
AL aay of March 2019.
SWE vi
JUDGE SUSAN STACY
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies to:
E. Tyler Samsing ([email protected])
Derek Dickinson (derek3277 gmail.com)
2
4819-0503-8472. 1
Exhibit D14
The following pages are the transcript from the January 23, 2020 hearing.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SEMINOLE. COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NUMBER: 59-2015-CA-1454-H-W
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION
TRUST,
,*
Us Plaintiff/ Ze Counterclaim Defendant, my v. ws ud DEREK DOUGLAS DICKINSON, et al.
gi: & Defendants / W O# Counterclaim Plaintiff.
be Q) 3 Sanford, Florida
U January 23, 2020
1:34 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT FROM PROCEEDINGS
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Avenue/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES:
E. TYLER SAMSING, ESQUIRE
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 100 North Tampa Street Suite 2200 Tampa, Florida 33602
Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant.
MR. DEREK DICKINSON
Appearing Pro Se.
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
19
10
11
42
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TRANSCRIPT FROM PROCEEDINGS held
before the Honorable Susan Stacy on
Thursday, January 23, 2020, beginning
at 1:34 p.m., at the Seminole County
Courthouse, 301 North Park Avenue,
Courtroom "H", Sanford, Florida, and
reported by Vicky L. Barwick, Court
Reporter and Notary Public, State of
Florida at Large.
MR. SAMSING: Good afternoon, your Honor.
Tyler Samsing on behalf of U.S. Bank.
MR. DICKINSON: Derek Dickinson, pro se.
THE COURT: We are here on Case Number 2015-
CA-1454. This is Wilmington Trust National
Association versus Derek Douglas Dickinson.
If I could have your appearances, please?
MR. SAMSING: Tyler Samsing on behalf of the
Plaintiff.
MR. DICKINSON: Derek Dickinson on behalf of
myself.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. We're
here on the motion to dismiss. The Court did
review the materials that were provided and the
court file, so you may proceed.
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SAMSING: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: This is 15 minutes, so it's 7.5
minutes each. And I'm sorry to have to keep you
to that, but we do have other hearings today.
MR. SAMSING: I will do my best.
So, Judge, this initial counterclaim was
filed in August of 2018. The Defendant first
amended that counterclaim in March. We moved to
dismiss. And the Court dismissed it and gave him
leave to amend, after which time, he again filed
his second amended counterclaim in June of last
year.
Again, we moved to dismiss. The Court gave
him leave to amend, determined that he hadn't pled
sufficiently yet again.
And here we area now on his third-amended
counterclaim that was filed in November of last
year. And, again, we're moving to dismiss. This
is now the fourth attempt of Mr. Dickinson to
state a cause of action.
And, unfortunately, it's still legally
insufficient and he has failed to do so. Here,
his third-amended counterclaim doesn't provide any
facts in support and contains a rambling preamble
unrelated to any other causes of action. Due to
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the vague nature, we're just unsure how to even
address the allegations and respond to the
complaint.
In the packet that I provided the Court and,
likewise to Mr. Dickinson, I provided a case,
Dragash vs. Fannie Mae, which was an 1ith Circuit
case from 2017. That's Tab 4 in the binder, which
is a case very similar to what we have here.
There, the borrower filed claims which
included a cause of action for purported violation
of Florida Statute 817.535, which is really all
Mr. Dickinson is suing for here. He has, I think,
close. to 20 counts for that same exact violation,
alleged violation, of that Florida statute.
In Dragash, the borrower was once again
proceeding pro se and it sued Fannie Mae and JP
Morgan Chase for amongst other cases of action,
the violation of 817.535.
After granting the borrower two prior
opportunities to amend, the District Court
dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a cause of action because he
didn't plea with the requisite specificity.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed,
finding that the magistrate properly concluded
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc, 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
that it's conclusory allegations failed to state a
claim under 817.535. This is precisely what we
have here. Now, on the fourth attempt to state a
cause of action, now under a different theory --
well, I believe he had pled this in his second-
amended complaint as well, but there's nothing but
conclusory allegations.
And just like in Dragash, the Eleventh
Circuit case, he fails to state a cause of action.
And his complaint, especially now given this is
his third opportunity -- I'm sorry, fourth
opportunity in which to try to amend, we're asking
that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice.
I've raised the other arguments before and
they've been kind of set forth in the motion. And
his ability to challenge and try to take issue
with the validity of the assignments, I think it's
entirely clear and I've cited case law in support
of that proposition, that he has no standing in
which to do so.
I cite the U.S. Bank versus Glicken case and
the Harvey versus Deutsche Bank case as Tab 5 and
Tab 6 in the binder, that's also cited in the
motion, that he has no standing to do so. And
moreover, it doesn't really affect, even if there
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were a defect in the assignment, the ability in
which to transfer the note and mortgage.
Likewise, he lacks standing to challenge any
of the endorsements. And the Harvey versus
Deutsche Bank case also speaks to that issue. In
fact, as does the Altierre versus Fannie Mae case,
which is Tab 7 in the binder, where the Court in
that case dismissed the suit with prejudice
holding a borrower is not entitled to arque
invalidity of an assignment because they are not a
party to that assignment; which is, again, what he
has been trying to do here for some time.
Any defects relating to the mortgage, or the
assignment of the mortgage rather, has to be
raised by the assignee and it's predecessors. A
borrower may not rely on any defects to an
assignment.
The third point that I'd like to make is
specifically relating to the counts for a
purported violation of Florida Statutes 817.535.
First and foremost, a cause of action is only
created if a person is adversely affected by an
instrument filed in the official record which
contains a false, factitious or fraudulent
statement of representation.
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
14
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm citing subsection 8 -- I'm sorry,
Paragraph 8, Subsection (a).
Here, in Counts I, II, IV, VI through VIII
and XI through XIX, Mr. Dickinson, like he has in
his prior complaint, merely refers to filings in
this foreclosure proceeding and I've cited all of
those in the actual motion itself. By way of
example, that includes the verified complaint for
foreclosure, Plaintiff's response to his motion to
dismiss, notice of responses to interrogatories,
the Plaintiff's pre-trial statement.
Again, these are all spelled out. specifically
in our motion to dismiss. But there's 15
different -- at least 15 different foreclosure
pleadings or filings that he makes reference to
that form the basis for all of these counts.
In fact, he did the same thing in Count II of
his second-Amended counterclaim listing
essentially the same findings -- filings, rather.
Court filings do not fall within the scope of the
statute, do not constitute an instrument. Even if
they were to constitute an instrument, which they
are not, they were clearly not filed in the
official record as required by the statute.
To file means to present an official record
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
14
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for recording in the official records, which has
not been done here. These are simply court
filings.
Third, and not withstanding the foregoing,
any of these documents and these court filings,
the litigation privilege provides a complete
immunity for any action during the course of
judicial proceedings, which would encompass and
include all of these filings he's seeking to try
to state a cause of action for.
So the bottom line is, this is now Mr.
Dickinson's fourth attempt at trying to state a
cause of action and he still fails to do so. We
feel that the time has come now for the Court to
dismiss this action and dismiss it with prejudice.
THE COURT::..Thank you.
Mr. Dickinson?
MR. DICKINSON: Yes. Opposing counsel is
ignoring the obvious. Exhibit A is not the
promissory note. I filed a motion for an
evidentiary hearing on Exhibit A. If it's legally
possible for you to order that, that would maybe
clear things up. Because the nature of both the
counterclaim and the --
MR. SAMSING: Your Honor, if I might just
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
real quick?
MR. DICKINSON: He's going to object to that.
MR. SAMSING: He provided this motion --
THE COURT: So you're objecting? Your basis?
MR. SAMSING: Yes. I am. Because he fileda
motion that's not set to be --
THE COURT: What's your basis, sir?
MR. SAMSING: It's not set to be heard today
and that's what he's referring to --
THE COURT: Okay. No notice.
MR. DICKINSON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Sustained. All right. You may
proceed.
MR. DICKINSON: Yeah. But, yeah. That's
presumably what's going to have to be done to
clear this up. .So I will schedule that and you
can order it, if you'd like.
But, yes. The whole point is the county
record disagrees with their note, so their note's
bad. And so without a note, their whole argument
falls apart. And the reason for all the counts is
that every time they say they have the note,
that's materially false.
And so now that I've done my research and I
realize what the Florida Supreme Court elements
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
11
are for the 817.535, I go through each count in
detail, naming what document it is, what the
statement is that they make that's materially
false and who made it, who filed it. There isn't
really any ambiguity there. This lack of
specificity argument doesn't make any sense any
more.
Now, as far as his other arguments being
false, you've read my response and you read the --
so each counterclaim specifically says what the
county filing number is, what the date was, who
filed it and what the statement was that was
materially false.
So there's not really anything -- any
ambiguity there. He refers to Dragash, the
Dragash case. He didn't -- there was no
foreclosure; so there wasn't any -- there was
nothing. He didn't suffer any loss, so that's why
it was dismissed.
And Dragash was actually accused of going on
a fishing expedition. He was just trying to see
if he could find something wrong with the
mortgage. And he had a gazillion different counts
that were -- that he was posting, so none of them
were significant.
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
14
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
As far as these other arguments go, obviously
the pleading standard requires that you plead
facts. Well, the fact is that the note is
-- Exhibit A is not the promissory note. It's not
the original note. It's fraudulent and that fact
is repeated over, and over, and over again
throughout their entire court case. They've been
aware of this for the longest time; yet, they
still refuse to acknowledge it and that's the big
problem with this case.
The next -- their Argument B is. the
particularity requirements. Obviously, I list --
I went through the Supreme Court Jury Instructions
and I went through every single count and listed
exactly the circumstances and the statement. I
don't know if you can get any more specific than
that.
If opposing counsel can come up with
something else that they need in detail, I'd be
happy to amend it for that regard. But the
Florida Supreme Court instructions were pretty
clear about that. And everything is well, very
well, defined. So the validity of the assignment
is immaterial, honestly. That isn't pertinent to
the counterclaim anyhow.
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
j2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
The whole point is that they filed -- that
they made materially false statements in the
official record. Clearly the assignments are part
of the foreclosure action since these notes
occurred after the initiation of the court -- of
the foreclosure. So that's -- Argument D was
garbage anyhow. They didn't even have a single
binding court case to recite on.
Argument E, claiming that the promissory note
is not a legal instrument, that was pretty
creative. Obviously, that's not an intent of the
Florida Legislature. Florida Legislature made
this law to combat exactly this type of behavior.
They define instrument.
Instrument is never used as a limiting term
in any court document I could ever find. Official
record, well, the. only place you ever file a
promissory note is in the court record, so how
could the court record not be an official record?
That's absurd.
And, of course, litigation privilege, if you
apply litigation privilege to legislation, that
it's designed to limit litigation, it doesn't make
sense. It's like saying, okay, we're going to,
you know, not allow the legislature to do their
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
14
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
job.
And if you look at the most significant case
law on that, it basically said with Florida
Supreme Court says malicious prosecution, it did
not apply. For that exact reason, it just doesn't
make sense.
I mean, you could rewrite all of the possible
things a lawyer could do badly into the Florida
Statutes and do sanctions on them, but that's a
lot of work that's unnecessary and that's what the
Supreme Court has concluded.
And so basically, my bottom line is, their
whole case is based off pretending that they have
a note, pretending that this isn't against the
law.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. The Court is
closing argument. The Court appreciates the work
that everyone's done on this case.
However, the Court requires -- the Fifth
District Court of Appeals court requires that I
hold a pro se litigant to the same standards as I
would an attorney.
MR. DICKINSON: I --
THE COURT: Sir, I'm ruling. So when I'm
finished, we can do some explanations or something
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 899 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
at
22
23
24
25
15
like that.
So at this time, the Court is granting the
motion to dismiss. I am relying on several
issues. First, the Court finds that there is
prevailing case law in Harvey versus Deutsche
Bank, 69 So.3d 300, as well as Altierre versus
Federal National Mortgage Association. Here we
have a Westlaw cite, I think, 2013 Westlaw
6388521, Florida Statutes 817.535.
When looking at a complaint, the Court looks
at the complaint in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Even in doing so, the Court
finds that the allegations are generally
repetitions of the elements of causes of actions
referred to county filings and to jury
instructions. The allegations are not cognizable.
We're not able to be able to determine how
the Plaintiff is -- the person petitioning is
attempting to apply the law to the facts. There
aren't the facts to support within the pleading
itself, so the Court is granting the motion.
The Court recognizes that this has been
several go-arounds. I think this would be at
least the third attempt, if not the fourth attempt
to put forth an appropriate pleading. And so the
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
court is granting the motion with prejudice.
Do you have a proposed order, sir?
MR. SAMSING: No. If I may submit one, your
Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
Sir, you had some questions or --
MR. DICKINSON: Well, for one thing, yes, I
show that a binding court -- you know, Fifth DCA
reviewed my response, did say specifically that
pro se's were not to be treated like attorneys.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DICKINSON: And, of course, obviously,
this all -- if you don't believe the note's
fraudulent, that's really the issue here. If we
have an evidentiary hearing on that, then
everything makes sense. But you have to realize
that the note does not agree with the county
record,
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DICKINSON: So it's not even -- it
shouldn't even be in dispute.
THE COURT: I don't know if you're a sports
fan, sir. But if you would use it as an analogy,
when you go into a basketball game, you go into a
baseball game, you go into a football game,
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
there's some rules; right?
And if you don't have the helmet on or you
don't have the pads on or certain things, then you
don't even get to the game, you're not even
allowed to play in the game.
That's where we are right now, is with regard
to procedure. The procedure has to be correct
before I can even get to the substance. We're --
MR. DICKINSON: What --
THE COURT: There's rules that I know that
are not intuitive, but there are rules. The Cotirt
cannot waive those rules. So my only presentation
to you --
MR. DICKINSON: .. Okay.
THE COURT: And if you don't mind me saying
so, sir, is that you might want to consult an
attorney and I'm sure I've told you that before.
MR. DICKINSON: Yeah.
THE COURT: So at this time, that is the
ruling of the Court.
MR. DICKINSON: So now, I've got how many
days to appeal?
THE COURT: You'll have 30 from the day I
sign it.
MR. DICKINSON: Okay.
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SAMSING: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
[Whereupon, the foregoing proceedings were
concluded at 1:50 p.m.]
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611
18
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA:
COUNTY OF SEMINOLE:
I, Vicky L. Barwick, Court Reporter and
Notary Public, State of Florida at Large, do hereby
certify that I was authorized to and did report the
above and foregoing proceedings at the time and place
aforesaid, and that the pages numbered 3 through 17,
inclusive, constitute a true, complete and accurate
excerpt transcript to the best of my skill and ability.
I further certify that I am not. of counsel
for, nor related to any party herein or attorney
involved herein, nor am I financially interested in the
outcome of this action.
WITNESS MY HAND this 20th day of February
2020.
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. Court Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Commission Number FF 979351 Expiration April 6, 2020
Marge Raeder Court Reporter, Inc. 999 Douglas Ave/Suite 3307 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
407/774-6611