Stop Deutsche Bank foreclosure fraud

Deutsche Bank is engaging in foreclosure fraud in the United States

Tag: Florida

Federal lawsuit alleges British citizens are being victimized by Florida foreclosure fraud

A lawsuit filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia documents how citizens of the United Kingdom are being victimized by corrupt Florida courts,  judges and local law firms. Plaintiff Lindsay Jenkins asks the U. S. Government to intervene and prevent ongoing foreclosure fraud by United States law firms and courts.



Docket Number: 1:12-cv-00896


300 Burns Street

Forest Hills, NY 11375,






Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,

U. S. Department of State,

Washington, DC 20522,


Hon. Eric Holder,

U. S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20530-0001,


Lucy Chernow Brown,

205 N. Dixie Highway,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Glenn Kelley,

205 N. Dixie Highway,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Melanie G. May,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Martha C. Warner,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Mark E. Polen,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


W. Matthew Stevenson,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Robert M. Gross,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Carole Y. Taylor,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Fred A. Hazouri,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Dorian K. Damoorgian,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Cory J. Ciklin,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Jonathan D. Gerber,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Spencer D. Levine,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,


Burton C. Conner,

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

W. Palm Beach, FL 33401,





Preliminary Statement

Five years ago Plaintiff was sued by a German bank. The German bank stated under oath that it had “ownership and possession” of financial instruments which Plaintiff had executed. In almost five (5) years of litigation the German bank has never produced any evidence to confirm its ownership and possession of the financial instruments. Instead the German bank and its agents and employees have conducted a terror campaign against Plaintiff, including home invasion, burglary and theft. All of these unlawful actions were intended and designed to terrorize Plaintiff into surrendering her home to the German bank without due process of law.

TheFloridadefendants named in this lawsuit have all directly and indirectly aided and abetted the German bank in conducting its fraudulent and perjurious litigation. The time has come to hold theFloridadefendants responsible for their criminal behavior, and to ensure that all of the defendants are required to protect Plaintiff’s right to due process of law under bothUnited Statesand international law.



1. Jurisdiction, venue and jury demand

a. This court has jurisdiction of the claims presented pursuant to 18 U. S. Code sec. 1964 and 28U. S.Code Section 1331.

b. Venue is proper in this district.

c. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

2. Factual allegations

a. Plaintiff

A. Plaintiff has a lifetime of professional

accomplishments. She began her career as a senior civil servant in the UK Ministry of Defense, later went to work in the City ofLondon(“the  City”) as an internationally respected pharmaceutical analyst, and specialist in mergers and acquisitions. She has also authored three highly respected books on the European Union.

B.  Plaintiff purchased property in Palm Beach County, Florida in 1996 and has continuously occupied the premises as a second home until she was the victim of a home invasion, burglary and theft by Deutsche Bank and its agents and employees, acting under the implicit authorization of the Florida defendants in this lawsuit and others acting in concert and conspiracy with the named defendants. As a result of her ownership of property inPalm Beach County,Floridaand her status as aUKcitizen, she has been relentlessly harassed and extorted by Deutsche Bank ofFrankfurt,Germanyand its agents and employees through a five-year pattern of racketeering activity as more fully described below.

b. Defendants

A. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Secretary of State of theUnited Statesand responsible for the foreign relations of theUnited States. TheUnited Kingdom, of which Plaintiff is a citizen, is an old and valued ally of theUnited States. Plaintiff alleges thatClintonhas common law duties to ensure thatUKcitizens are not victimized by local instrumentalities of theUnited States. Plaintiff believes that thousands ofUKcitizens have been victimized by scenarios similar to the one described in this lawsuit.

B. Defendant Eric Holder is the Attorney General of theUnited States. While Holder’s common law interest in protecting foreign citizens withinUnited Statesis not as clearly defined asClinton’s, Holder has a responsibility for the overall safety of all non-US citizens present in theUnited States.

C. The “DCA group”

Melanie G. May, Martha C. Warner, Mark E. Polen, W. Matthew Stevenson, Robert M. Gross, Carole Y. Taylor, Fred A. Hazouri, Dorian K. Damoorgian, Cory J. Ciklin, Jonathan D. Gerber, Spencer D. Levine and Burton C. Conner are Florida public officials who have been using the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) as part of the combined DCA /circuit court racketeering enterprise to permit Deutsche Bank and its agents and employees to maintain a continuing pattern of criminal activity and fraudulent litigation against Plaintiff and her home.

D. The “circuit court group:

Lucy Chernow Brown and Glenn Kelley are two individuals in a larger group of Florida public officials who have been using the Palm Beach County judicial system as part of the combined DCA /circuit court racketeering enterprise to permit Deutsche Bank and its agents and employees to maintain a continuing pattern of criminal activity and fraudulent litigation against the Plaintiff and her home.

E. All of the defendants are sued in their official capacities for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

c. The fraudulent activity of the defendants

A. In 2007 Deutsche Bank sued Plaintiff. The bank’s attorneys stated under oath that Deutsche Bank had “ownership and possession” of financial instruments executed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff had never had any dealing with Deutsche Bank nor had she ever been notified of any link to Deutsche Bank under the provisions of RESPA.

B. In almost five years of litigation Deutsche

Bank has never produced any evidence of ownership and possession of the financial instruments which were the basis of its alleged (and perjurious) pleadings. Deutsche Bank’s sworn allegations were thus a nullity and fraud on the local Floridacourts and void ab initio.

C. In August, 2009 the DCA defendants ruled that they lacked jurisdiction to protect Plaintiff’s property  because there was not yet a final judgment in the dispute. Deutsche Bank either openly or clandestinely took the defendants’ claim as an excuse to commit a home invasion, burglary and theft of Plaintiff’s home in September, 2009.

D. Under Florida law only a local sheriff may evict a resident from an occupied residence; self-help eviction is prohibited by law. Instead of using the sheriff–and while purposely avoiding the sheriff who would have refused to engage in a home invasion based on the lack of a final judgment– Deutsche Bank’s attorneys simply hired local criminals who broke into Plaintiff’s home, stole the contents and also stole two motor vehicles, one of which they then titled in a Deutsche Bank employee/agent’s name and one of which they abandoned in Broward County, Florida. Deutsche Bank has never returned any of the stolen property.

E. In 2010 Plaintiff returned to the DCA defendants. If there was no final judgment, as they had stated, then Plaintiff was obviously entitled to possession of her home. In a contrapuntal ruling the defendants said even though there was no final judgment Deutsche Bank could ignoreFloridaeviction law (requiring a sheriff’s presence) and engage in self-help burglary and theft. There was no relief for Plaintiff from an execrable criminal act by a major international bank.

F. For over three (3) years Plaintiff has been trying to obtain a hearing in the circuit court on her timely-filed and still-pending post-judgment motions which confirm the judgment is bogus and fraudulent because there is not now and there never was any factual basis or evidentiary basis for Deutsche Bank to sue Plaintiff. Instead of directing a ruling by the circuit court defendants, the DCA defendants have recently asked Plaintiff to speculate on litigation having no connection or relationship to plaintiff and no possible relevance to her rights as a property owner and defendant in court to defend herself against perjurious pleadings. The DCA defendants have created an endless game, or sport, of harassing Plaintiff with rulings which are inconsistent (e.g. no “final judgment” vs. a home invasion based on a non-existent “final judgment”). The actions of theFloridadefendants reflect extreme sexual harassment and abuse. In five years of litigation Plaintiff is the only defendant who has been sued and she alone executed the financial instruments and she alone is liable for defending her rights.

F. Plaintiff has been represented by Edward S. Kanbar, a nationally recognized civil RICO expert and later, after attorney Kanbar’s illness, by attorney Bruce Richardson, a highly competentNew Yorkattorney. Plaintiff also hired aFloridaattorney who turned out to be professionally incompetent and was apparently compromised by Deutsche Bank. Plaintiff has appeared by herself in court by telephone on several occasions.

G. There is no way even corrupt attorneys could maintain fraudulent and perjurious pattern of litigation for almost five years without the complicity and tacit acceptance and protection of the defendant state judicial officers.

H. The original law firm which filed the lawsuit

against her, David J. Stern, collapsed as a massive fraud, leaving behind approximately 100,000 spurious lawsuits inFloridaalone. Stern has been supplanted by two subsequent law firms which continue to harass and extort her.

I. One of the tactics the defendants used to conduct their fraudulent proceedings is to hold them in secret. As recently as May 24, 2012 defendant Lucy Chernow Brown virtually locked the door to the courthouse and refused to allow Plaintiff to participate in a hearing by telephone. There have been numerous secret proceedings in which “senior judges” such as Edward Garrison, who conducts a private legal business on the side, while simultaneously adjudicating claims in court, acted in secret with various opposing law firms.

J. Although the Internet is not a uniformly

accurate source of information, Plaintiff has found abundant scorn for the ethical standards ofPalm BeachCountyjudicial officers on the Internet; that evidence will be produced as this lawsuit proceeds to support Plaintiff’s allegations of an ongoing and expansive organized fraud program in the DCA and circuit court.

K. The DCA has refused to rule on Plaintiff’s claims on a timely basis, and has allowed the home invasion, burglary, theft of personal property and car theft to pend for almost three years without any reaction or resolution. Plaintiff is still being denied her right to an appeal because there is still no final judgment. Enough is enough.

L. Plaintiff has communicated with public officials, including defendants Clinton and Holder, to alert them to this lawsuit. Those contacts are attached to this Complaint as Group Exhibit A.

3. Civil RICO claims

a. The RICO enterprise

A. The RICO enterprise in this action is a RICO enterprise of the Fourth DCA and Palm BeachCountycircuit court. Since U. S. v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1981) it has been clear that a court may constitute a RICO enterprise or be associated in fact with RICO violators.

B. The Florida defendants in this action committed and are continuing to commit their RICO activity through an association in fact and pattern of racketeering activity.

b. The pattern of RICO activity

A. Plaintiff has been subjected to relentless fraud, abuse, harassment and criminal conduct by Deutsche Bank and its attorneys as hereinabove specified.

B. Plaintiff’s experiences are obviously

“individual” to her. But RICO requires more than a “one off” injury or victim. Deutsche Bank and its law firm David J. Stern, as well as other law firms, have filed tens of thousands of fraudulent and extortionate lawsuits across the United States. Deutsche Bank’s activity became so disruptive to the Northern District of Ohio that federal court entered a local rule prohibiting Deutsche Bank from filing spurious and perjurious foreclosure lawsuits. Thus while any individual may be a victim, and Plaintiff is an obvious victim, Plaintiff is also one victim in a sea of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent lawsuits initiated by Deutsche Bank, David J. Stern and others who are regularly appearing before the defendants (and other fora) and using their courts to commit fraud and extortion based on perjurious allegations.

C. In Plaintiff’s case the length of

time(almost five years) she has been a victim of RICO activity also establishes her status as an appropriate victim. All of the fraudulent lawsuits have been allowed to continue by the defendants as well as other local courts without the imposition of any serious sanctions to prevent or undo perjured pleadings. The pattern of litigation fraud against Plaintiff (and thousands of similarly situatedUKcitizens and American citizens) is continuing.

D. The pattern of RICO activity by Deutsche Bank against Plaintiff is not limited to a single fraudulent and perjurious lawsuit. Deutsche Bank has also sued Plaintiff inNew YorkState, with a legal claim that is a virtual carbon copy of the fraudulent and perjured allegations originally proffered inFlorida. Deutsche Bank thus has both a nationwide pattern of fraudulent civil RICO activity and an individual pattern of asserting such bogus legal arguments against plaintiff on an interstate basis in more than one state. In New York Plaintiff is represented by the very competent Bruce Richardson, Esq. (Plaintiff has been unable, to date, to retain competentFloridacounsel.)

c. The predicate criminal acts-Mail fraud

A. Well knowing their conduct constituted a

scheme and or artifice in violation of Title 18 U. S. Code Section 1341 to defraud plaintiff and others, the Florida defendants have repeatedly and continuously placed or caused to be placed documents in the U. S. Mail (Postal service) to Plaintiff which are intended for executing the scheme to assist Deutsche Bank attorneys in conducting their criminal (e.g. home invasion) activity and fraudulent behavior (litigation fraud in court).

B. Said fraudulent mailings have been taking

place since 2008 and are still continuing. Additional mailings  will be documented that were and are part of the ongoing RICO activity of the defendants.

C. The defendants have also allowed Deutsche Bank and its agents and employees to commit burglary and theft against Plaintiff’s home, as part of a reign of judicial terror. Despite being repeatedly advised of the criminal acts being directed at her by Florida law firms acting on behalf of Deutsche Bank defendants have done nothing to stop the attacks or to restore Plaintiff’s to possession of her home.

D. The actions of the defendants in aiding

and abetting in burglary and theft against Plaintiff and her home is a classic example of state-orchestrated extortion in violation of Title 19 U. S. Code Section 1951. If, as the Fourth DCA stated in August, 2009, there was not yet a final judgment, how could the court allow Deutsche Bank agents and employees to violateFloridastate law, which mandates that any entry into a home be under the control of a local sheriff, and allow the home invasion, burglary and theft of Plaintiff’s home?

d. Interstate commerce

The actions of the defendants impact interstate commerce. Plaintiff has been forced to hire lawyers in bothFloridaandNew York. While the impact of the foreclosure fraud crisis has been nationwide, each individual defendant is exposed to the ferocity of fraudulent and perjured pleadings orchestrated by Deutsche Bank’s law firms.

4. Legal claim

a. This is a civil RICO claim/count.

b. There is no way that corrupt lawyers could maintain lawsuits based on perjury and fraud for five (5) years without the complicity of state judicial officers who aid and abet and turn a blind eye to perjury and fraud and manipulate state law and the state judicial process to protect corrupt lawyers and law firms.

c. The Florida defendants, both DCA and circuit court, have repeatedly and continuously turned a blind eye to perjured legal claims by Deutsche Bank, fraudulent filings by DB’s attorneys and a continuing series of secret hearings from which Plaintiff was excluded in the circuit court, most recently by defendant Lucy Chernow Brown on May 24, 2012.

d. No person can be expected to endlessly and repeatedly submit a serious legal and commercial dispute to a group of public officials who have been corrupted and compromised by their links to powerful law firms and legal interests, and that ignore that proceedings before them are devoid of any factual basis to sustain an initial complaint against the Plaintiff.

e. The essence of mail fraud is seeking to defraud a Party, or “lulling” a party into believing justice is being done, when, secretly, behind the curtains, constant scheming is going on which seeks to protect corrupt members of the Florida Bar from being held to account for using the courts as a racketeering enterprise to file perjurious and fraudulent legal claims.

f. While the defendants may not be personally committing the burglaries and thefts that are at the core of this lawsuit, by allowing attorneys to engage in burglary and theft with their tacit acceptance and silence the defendants are fully liable for the criminal acts of the attorneys; the defendants are engaged in aiding and abetting a continuing course of criminal conduct against the Plaintiff, all in violation of Title 18 U. S. Code Sections 1341 and 1951.

5. Demand for judgment

a. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief declaring that the DCA and circuit court have been and are being operated as racketeering enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity directed at plaintiff and tens of thousands of other innocent victims.

b.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under international law requiring defendants Clinton and Holder to take affirmative steps to protect Plaintiff’s rights under international law to be free of criminal activity directed at her by local public officials in theUnited States.

c. Plaintiff seeks such other relief as may be necessary and proper to do complete justice to Plaintiff’s common law and constitutional rights.



1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-3 of Count One, and further pleads:

4. Legal claim

a. TheFloridastate courts have a long history of gender bias and sexual harassment against women. The Florida Supreme Court has admitted as much.

b. Despite the fact that Plaintiff is the only defendant in a foreclosure lawsuit, and no other interested parties have been identified in nearly five (5) years of litigation, the latest action by the DCA defendants suggests that Plaintiff’s status as a litigant and property owner must somehow be subordinated to persons having no interest in either the real estate or litigation.

c. The behavior of the DCA defendants is a classic example of sexual harassment and discrimination.

d. The suggestion that Plaintiff could borrow a quarter of a million dollars, and then be harassed and abused by the Florida defendants when she seeks to defend a perjurious and fraudulent lawsuit filed against her arising out of the loan transaction, is so bizarre as to be weird.

e. The surreptitious action of the DCA defendants in seeking to insert extraneous and irrelevant issues in a foreclosure loan dispute destroys any appearance that Plaintiff-as a woman—can receive fair and impartial justice from any of theFloridadefendants.

f. When coupled with Plaintiff’s status as aUKcitizen, the action of theFloridadefendants deprives Plaintiff of any due process as a woman and defendant in a civil lawsuit, all in violation of the United States Constitution (common law) and international law.

5. Demand for judgment

a. Plaintiff seeks the same relief as in Count One.

b. Plaintiff seeks such other relief as may be necessary and proper to do complete justice to Plaintiff’s common law and constitutional rights.

DATED:30 May, 2012

Respectfully submitted,


300 Burns Street

Forest Hills,NY11375-6133

Tel. (888) 552-2194

Fax  (888) 696-3799 (not to exceed 10 pp.)


Deutsche Bank attorneys are accused of criminal acts in a Florida Supreme Court petition

Lindsay Jenkins has filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court documenting perjury and burglary by attorneys for Deutsche Bank. Ms. Jenkins was the first person to document in a federal court the extensive foreclosure fraud of Deutsche Bank when she filed her first federal court lawsuit in January, 2008. Since then,Floridajudges have tried to protect local attorneys who are engaging in criminal activity on behalf of theFrankfurt, Germany bank. The law firms of David J. Stern, Akerman Senterfitt and Shutts & Bowen were or are engaged in the fraudulent activity Jenkins has now documented in a petition submitted to the Florida Supreme Court.




FSC CASE NO. ___________















Respectfully submitted,


300 Burns Street

Forest Hills,NY11375

Tel. (888) 552-2194

Fax  (888) 696-3799

(not to exceed 10 pp. fax)


DATED:July 6, 2012



Preliminary Statement

This petition raises a serious and straightforward issue: can lawyers attest under oath to nonexistent “facts,” which they then use to obtain a fraudulent judgment; and then impeach their own sworn facts, and receive immunity from sympathetic and sycophantic judges who are protecting the perjury and fraud by members of the Florida Bar?

Judges are supposed to apply neutral principles of law to undisputed facts. The identity of the parties should be irrelevant to the merits of a lawsuit.

Unlike a “he said, she said” dispute, what makes this Petition a compelling narrative is that in this case all of Petitioner’s claims of criminal conduct and fraud are documented from the respondents’ own paper trail.

In this Petition all of the “facts” appear in the record. There is a fully-documented record of perjury, fraud, burglary and other criminal activity by members of the Florida Bar. But, curiously, rather than pursue the perpetrators of this perjury, fraud and burglary, the respondent judges of the Fourth DCA have chosen to attack the victim of respondents’ criminal activity.

Given the increasingly seamless connection between the DCA and the principal private actors who have committed and are continuing to commit criminal acts against the Petitioner, the DCA judges may have already passed the threshold where they are criminally liable for their misconduct for aiding and abetting the private attorneys and law firms.

It is time for this Court to protect theFloridacourts as an institution, and to come down hard on both the respondents and the judges who have and are containing to cover-up criminal activity by politically-connected lawyers.

Unfortunately, the corruption may even reach into this Court, as the circumstantial evidence increasingly points to a Pariente-Hazouri axis of agitation for the harassment and abuse of Petitioner.



This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.030 (a) (3).



1. Petitioning Parties

Petitioner Lindsay Jenkins is the only petitioning party. It should be underscored that she is the only party that has ever been identified in all of the federal and state litigation involving her home. It is Jenkins’ status as a femme sole that triggers her claims of sexual harassment and discrimination below.

2. Respondent Parties

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, (emphasis added) is the Respondent and plaintiff in the circuit and district courts.

3. Judicial parties

There are three sets of judicial parties to this Petition:

A. The judges of the Fourth District Court who are named as defendants in the pending federal civil rights lawsuit (Appendix pp. 34-60).

B. Justice Barbara Pariente who is allied with her husband Judge Fred Hazouri in coordinating use of the Fourth DCA as a “wolf pack” to harass petitioner. Justice Pariente will in due course be added as a named defendant in the federal civil rights action in theDistrict of Columbia.

C. Circuit court judges named in the federal court action, as well as additional circuit court judges that may be named.

D. All of the judges are being represented by the Florida Attorney General who has appeared on their behalf.



1. OnAugust 14, 2007the now-defunct law firm of David J. Stern sued Petitioner for foreclosure. Stern’s complaint alleged (Appendix pp. 1-2):

(4) Said mortgage was subsequently assigned to DEUTSCHE BANK…by virtue of an assignment to be recorded.

(19) The Plaintiff (a) was in possession of the Note and Mortgage…

2. On or aboutSeptember 17, 2008the law firm of Akerman Senterfitt filed a “Verified Amended Complaint” in the same action. Attorney George Andrews (who continues to represent Deutsche Bank despite changing law firms) stated in his “Verification” (Appendix p. 8) that “the facts set forth in the foregoing complaint are true and correct…”

3. Akerman Senterfitt’s Amended Complaint stated (Appendix pp. 4-8:

(5) The mortgage was subsequently assigned to DEUTSCHE BANK by virtue of an assignment to be recorded.

(6) DEUTSCH BANK owns and holds the Note and Mortgage and is duly authorized…

(20) DEUTSCHE BANK…was in possession of the Note and Mortgage…when the loss of possession occurred (emphasis added).

4. OnApril 18, 2009Petitioner received a cover letter and proposed judgment order; she wrote to the Hon. John L. Phillips (Appendix pp. 9-11) (Judge Phillips was the victim, not perpetrator, of a fraud on the court).

5. Although Petitioner did not know that Judge Phillips had already signed the proposed judgment ex parte onApril 16, 2009 she filed a “Provisional Response…and Motion to Dismiss Void Lawsuit” (Appendix pp. 12-15). The “Provisional Response..and Motion” was filed within ten (10) days of the April 16th judgment. The Fourth DCA agreed that either the April 20th motion or April 27th motion (below) was a timely Rule 1.530 motion and stayed the finality of the judgment (Appendix p. 26).

6. The proposed judgment which Attorney Andrews drafted and (Appendix p. 11) submitted to Judge Phillips recited (Appendix pp. 16-21):

(D) Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note and Mortgage…

7. OnApril 27, 2009Petitioner filed a formal “Motion Pursuant to 1.530 to vacate void judgment” (Appendix pp. 22-25).

8. Over three years later, the circuit court has refused to rule on either Petitioner’sApril 20, 2009orApril 27, 2009motions and they remain pending and unadjudicated.

9. Deutsche Bank purported to serve a notice of “eviction” on Petitioner although she was away from her home for the summer. Deutsche Bank engaged in self-help service and did not serve any notice through the Palm Beach County Sheriff. Petitioner asked the Fourth District court to invalidate the “notice” based on the lack of a final judgment. The district court agreed with Petitioner that the record reflected the lack of a final judgment and explicitly cited a case involving a wrongful execution based on a non-final judgment, Wollman v. Levy, 489 So.2d 1239 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1986)(Appendix p. 26).

10. On or about March 1, 2012 petitioner filed with the Fourth District a “petition for writ of common law mandamus” asking the district court to force the circuit court to rule on the still-pending 1.530 motions (Appendix. pp. 27-32).

11. In response, the district court demanded that Petitioner discuss a federal court matter and a twenty-year old ruling of the district court that had been invalided by a writ of mandamus from this Court (Appendix p. 33)[see Powell v. Civil Service, 154 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla.App.  1 Dist. 1963)(“…constitute a lawful basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus designed to nullify the order in question.”)]

12. Because Petitioner was not a party to any litigation in this Court she consulted herNew Yorkattorney and attempted to obtain information from this Court (Appendix pp. 62-67). She has not yet received a response to her letter (Appendix pp. 66-67).

13. Recognizing, finally, that the district court was not playing straight with her, Petitioner filed a civil rights and constitutional challenge to the judges of the district court in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia, as well as submitting complaints to the FBI and other law enforcement authority (Appendix pp. 34-60).

14. On June 11, 2012, after being served with the federal court lawsuit, the district court retaliated by stating that it was “ordered that this court takes judicial notice of its files and records in case numbers…,” thus triggering this Petition (Appendix p. 61).

15. Based on the undisputed and fully-documented record that officers of the court were engaging in perjury, fraud and criminal conduct Petitioner moved to disqualify Deutsche Bank’s counsel from any further participation (Appendix pp. 68-70). The Fourth District has ignored the motion to disqualify. TheJune 11, 2012order of the district court also appears to have been in retaliation for the motion to disqualify.


Nature of Relief Sought

Petitioner asks this Court to take two forms of action:

1. To remove all of the Fourth DCA judges from any connection with her litigation, based on their documented activity in seeking to aid and abet criminal action and fraudulent litigation against Petitioner in their court. The misconduct of the district court as a whole is so extensive and so pervasive that the judges collectively have effectively poisoned the well in so far as any further role for that court is concerned.

2. To directly invalidate a fraudulent judgment which is pending in the Fourth DCA and which the DCA judges have effectively brought before this Court through their unrestrained invocation of “judicial notice,” thus bringing the entire controversy before this tribunal.



1. This Court should summarily invalidate the perjurious/fraudulent “judgment” of Deutsche Bank and its law firms; the perjury/fraud appear of record because DB has impeached its own sworn pleadings and the DCA has opened the door to this Court’s direct action by taking “judicial notice” of Deutsche Bank’s impeachment, bringing the issue up for review by this Court


How long is theFloridajudicial system going to reward perjury and fraud and tolerate perjury? How long can honest judges tolerate colleagues who endorse and affirm fraud and a criminal home invasion ordered by members of the Florida Bar?

Deutsche Bank attorneys swore under oath that DB owned two financial instruments involving Petitioner (Appendix p. 8). Counsel attested to “actual possession” under oath. Those claims were perjurious. They submitted their false claims to the circuit judge (Appendix p. 11) and induced the circuit judge to ex parte sign a “judgment” that was based on perjury and fraud by officers of the court. After five years of smash-mouth litigation on both sides there is absolutely no evidence in the record of any “ownership or possession” by Deutsche Bank of any financial instruments involving Petitioner. Deutsche Bank obtained a “judgment” based on perjury and fraud and timely motions attacking the judgment remain pending as the Fourth District recognized on August 24, 2009 (Appendix p. 26).

No evidence of any ownership and possession by Deutsche Bank has ever surfaced after five years of litigation. When confronted with the bank’s perjury in the DCA, in 4D10-209, Deutsche Bank attorneys simply repudiated their own sworn claims and retroactively changed the basis of their lawsuit to an “agency” relationship and not an ownership one. Deutsche Bank now denies its sworn pleadings that it was an “owner” in “possession.”

It is axiomatic that a litigant cannot plead under oath, obtain a judgment based on those sworn pleadings, and then when the judgment is challenged claim that the sworn claims were totally false. Deutsche Bank is making a mockery of the law and seeking to profit from perjury; at the expense of the integrity of theFloridastate court judicial system.

By tolerating and encouraging Deutsche Bank’s fraudulent litigation the DCA judges are embarrassing the entireFloridajudicial system, not just their own court. The DCA judges’ ill-advised attempt to take “judicial notice” of their own court files has boomeranged on them; this Court can now review the entire record of corruption and fraud in the district court and remove those judges from any further role involving Petitioner’s home.

A. The DCA is hoist by its own petard in catapulting this case to the Florida Supreme Court through the DCA’S unlimited and unprincipled invocation of “judicial notice”


When the Fourth DCA judges announced on June 11, 2012 (Appendix p. 61) that they were taking judicial notice of all of their prior proceedings, all of which document Petitioner’s claims in excruciating detail, the judges never appreciated they were triggering a Petition to this Court to remove them and to undo a perjurious judgment that DCA judges have been insulating from judicial review since 2009.

There is no question the DCA judges’ wholesale “judicial notice” violated this Court’s view of judicial notice. In Dufour v. State, 69 So.3rd 235, 253-254 (Fla. 2011) this Court precluded lower courts from seeking to take wholesale “judicial notice” of allegations merely because they are contained in prior court rulings or files:

 However, we note two things. First, the postconviction court afforded judicial notice to the 2002 postconviction proceeding and certain letters within the court file. In Florida, a court may take judicial notice of various matters including ” [r]ecords of any court of this state or of any court of record of the United Statesor of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.” § 90.202(6), Fla.Stat. (2007). However, the fact that a record may be judicially noticed does not render all that is in the record admissible. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc., 586 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). For instance, the court’s authority to take judicial notice of records cannot be used to justify the wholesale admission of hearsay statements within those court files, such as through police reports or letters. See Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 876 (Fla.2000) (” We have never held that such otherwise inadmissible documents are automatically admissible just because they were included in a judicially noticed court file.” ). In Stoll, we held that ” documents contained in a court file, even if that entire court file is judicially noticed, are still subject to the same rules of evidence to which all evidence must adhere.” Id. at 877. In so holding, we noted the observations of another appellate court that there has been a seemingly widespread but mistaken notion that an item is judicially noticeable merely because it is part of the ” court file.” Court files are often replete with letters, affidavits, legal briefs, privileged or confidential data, in camera materials, fingerprint records, probation reports, as well as depositions that may contain unredacted gossip and all manner of hearsay and opinion.

Ptasznik v. Schultz, 247 A.D.2d 197, 679 N.Y.S.2d 665, 666-67 (1998) (citations omitted). ” [N]one of these [items] are rendered admissible merely because they are part of the court file.” Stoll, 762 So.2d at 877 (citing Ptasznik, 679 N.Y.S.2d at 667). Thus, while the court may take judicial notice of documents in a court file that were properly placed there, this notice would not make the contents of the documents admissible if they were subject to challenge, such as when a document is protected by privilege or constituted hearsay. In addition, taking judicial notice of an entire prior proceeding may be expeditious for the current proceedings, but it does not allow the substance of the underlying materials to be entered into evidence without compliance with the rules of evidence.

See also BDO Seidman v. Banco Espirito, 38 So.3rd 874, 880 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2919).

Unlike the DCA judges, who were abusing their sua sponte judicial notice, all of the claims which Petitioner now presents to this Court are documented out of the mouth of Deutsche Bank’s own attorneys. There is thus no question as to the “authenticity” of the source of the evidence on which Petitioner relies in asking this Court to afford her extraordinary relief: all of her evidence originates with Deutsche Bank.

B. Because Deutsche Bank has impeached its own sworn pleadings, and those recantations are already in the DCA “record” of which the Fourth DCA has taken judicial notice, the undisputed recantation comes up to this Court for summary reversal


Normally this Court could not or would not directly vacate or void a circuit court judgment, perhaps even a void or fraudulent one. But this case has now reached the Florida Supreme Court in a peculiar posture.

The DCA announced onJune 11, 2012it was taking “judicial notice” of all of the prior litigation in the district court. In other words, the entire record of all of the prior proceedings is now before this Court. Because the record is entirely a paper record (no testimony was ever taken), and the claims which Petitioner proffers in this Petition are documented in the entirety of what the DCA has taken judicial notice, this Court is empowered to cut to the quick and review the records to confirm Petitioner’s claims and then void the fraudulent judgment which has been insulated from appellate scrutiny by the respondent judges of the Fourth DCA.

[Note: The “Records” of which the DCA has taken “judicial notice” are voluminous. Petitioner could not include all of them in the Appendix to this Petition which appendix is already 70 pages. But the DCA’s records are the DCA’s records; those records are now before this Court based on the DCA’s own admission it has taken judicial notice of the whole stack of paperwork.]

2. This Court should open an investigation into the sexual harassment and persecution of petitioner


Petitioner is a single woman. She purchased a home. She financed a home. She signed the loan documents herself. She is the only party defendant in the litigation. Then why is Deutsche Bank trying to justify the bank’s perjury fraud and criminal conduct by its attorneys and employees by seeking to attack the petitioner personally? There is simply no basis for such a legal tactic. Petitioner is being sexually harassed and abused by biasedFloridajudges who apparently tolerate sexual abuse in their courts.

This Court should order an investigation into the sexual harassment and abuse of the Petitioner by the respondents. Lofty pronouncements by this Court condemning sexual harassment and sexual discrimination mean nothing if lower courts are free to disregard the pronouncements of this institution and judges and lawyers have a license to abuse-and-harass as they see fit with de facto impunity and immunity from this Court.

3. This Court should direct an independent investigation into criminal conduct—burglary, theft, forgery—by members of the Florida Bar who are practising before the Fourth DCA and this Court


The Petitioner filed a motion seeking to disqualify opposing counsel because of their involvement and control over criminal conduct (Appendix pp. 68-70). The Fourth DCA judges responded by launching new attacks on Petitioner (Appendix p. 61).

In 2009 the Fourth DCA ruled that there was no final judgment in this litigation. After receiving the district court’s ruling in August, 2009, Deutsche Bank’s attorneys orchestrated a home invasion and burglary of Petitioner’s home. The bank stole the contents of the home and forged transfer documents to steal her new motor vehicle (a second vehicle was stolen and then abandoned on a highway inBrowardCounty).

Here is an example of the arguments and evidence from Petitioner’s reply brief in 4D10-209 that the district court stated onJune 11, 2012it was taking “judicial notice” of:


DB appears to have committed criminal acts against Appellant. That is why the bank is so anxious to hurl personal attacks at Appellant and why the bank is now impeaching its own verified pleadings in the circuit court. After this Court ruled in August, 2010 [sic] that a “Wollman v. Levy,” 489 So.2d 1239 (Fla. App. 3rd Dist. 1986) situation existed, DB broke into Appellant’s home and stole two cars, one a new minivan, as well as the contents of her home. Amazingly, DB had no legal authority to do so.

            Adding a layer of potential criminality to this conflict, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.580 provides “The Clerk shall issue the writ forthwith and deliver it to the sheriff for execution.” The Palm Beach County Sheriff denies ever serving a writ of possession on Appellant or evicting her from her home. In response to a Public Records Act request the sheriff’s office replied: “We show no record on file for you.” (SA p. 85) Thus, there is the unrebutted inference that DB broke into Appellant’s home in violation of Rule 1.580, stole two motor vehicles, including a virtually new van with less than 500 miles, and stole hundreds of thousands of dollars of contents, all without complying withFlorida law and obeying Rule 1.580.


In other words, the undisputed record reflects that after being told by the DCA they had no final judgment, Deutsche Bank attorneys somehow felt empowered to unleash corporate criminals who burglarized Petitioner’s home, stole the contents and forged a transfer of title to her new minivan, all in flagrant violation of Florida criminal law which bars any such self-help action based on a non-final judgment or indeed any judgment whatsoever.

And when confronted with this evidence of criminality, the Fourth DCA judges did nothing. See 4D10-209 concerning which the DCA took “judicial notice” onJune 11, 2012.

Instead of taking action against Deutsche Bank and the

bank’s attorneys, the judges of the Fourth DCA have now chosen to launch new attacks on the Petitioner herein as part of their continuing cover-up of criminality originating within thePalm BeachCountybench and bar.

UnderFloridalaw, only a sheriff may evict someone from possession of their home. The undisputed record reflects Deutsche Bank attorneys supervised a criminal home invasion and theft of Petitioner’s home in flagrant violation ofFloridacriminal laws. It is no surprise the Fourth DCA was so anxious to protect local attorneys and law firms by creating a smokescreen and attacking Petitioner with a series of bogus demands.

Something very wrong took place inPalm BeachCounty, and the evidence of that corruption and criminality has now reached this Court.

How will this Court review the documented record of bias and corruption? The undisputed facts as presented by the Fourth DCA through its wholesale use of judicial notice present a harrowing picture of judicial abuse? Will this Court ignore the criminality? Or will the Court take immediate action to see that justice is done? This Court cannot ignore either the facts or the record; the DCA has rather boldly, but probably self-defeatingly, taken “judicial notice” of massive criminality which the Fourth DCA’s Hazouri-Pariente team is trying to sweep under the carpet.

4. The Fourth DCA has no role in delving into prior federal court proceedings which have no bearing on the defense of a fraudulent foreclosure lawsuit in the state courts


If “idle hands are the devil’s workshop,” this Petition may document the opposite: a case where the DCA judges’ unclean hands have been busy fabricating excuses to harass Petitioner despite clearFloridacase law discouraging such behavior.

In their order of April 26, 2012 the DCA judges purported to demand that Petitioner comment on prior claims in the federal courts which have no bearing on her defense of the fraudulent foreclosure litigation pending in the state courts (Appendix p. 33). Prior federal proceedings have no bearing on Petitioner’s defense of fraudulent legal claims inPalm BeachCounty. Federal judges unequivocally remanded the state court foreclosure litigation back to the state courts years ago.

The DCA judges announced onJune 11, 2012(Appendix p. 61) they were taking wholesale “judicial notice” of prior proceedings in their court. The Fourth DCA judges ignored a recent decision from the Third DCA:

BDO argues that the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of a bankruptcy court order, and allowing that order to be shown to the jury. [12] The trial court took the view that the facts determined by the bankruptcy court were properly admissible in this case. BDO’s objection should have been sustained.

 ” Inadmissible evidence does not become admissible because it is included in a judicially noticed court file.” The Florida Bar, Evidence in Florida § 2.12, at 2-7 (7th ed.2008). ” Although a trial court may take judicial notice of court records, it does not follow that this provision permits the wholesale admission of all hearsay statements contained within those court records.” Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 876 (Fla.2000) (citation omitted). ” [T]here has been a ‘ seemingly widespread but mistaken notion that an item is judicially noticeable merely because it is part of the ” court file.” ’ ” Id. at 877 (citation omitted).

 ” A court judgment is hearsay ‘ to the extent that it is offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the judgment.’ ” United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 (9th Cir.2007) (citation omitted). As to those matters, there must be an applicable hearsay exception. Stoll, 762 So.2d at 876; § 90.805 (2009); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Ehrhardt’s Florida Evidence § 204.2, at 85 & n. 5 (2009).

 Under the Evidence Code, a request for judicial notice is also subject to analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. See § 90.204, Fla. Stat. ” [J]udicial findings of fact ‘ present a rare case where, by virtue of their having been made by a judge, they would likely be given undue weight by the jury, thus creating a serious danger of unfair prejudice.’ ” Nipper v. Snipes, 7 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir.1993); see also Secada v. Weinstein, 563 So.2d 172, 173-74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). For these reasons, the subject bankruptcy order was not a proper subject of judicial notice, nor properly admissible in evidence.

 Another bankruptcy order was also introduced into evidence (rather than being judicially noticed).[13] For the reasons explained above, BDO’s objection to its introduction also should have been sustained.

BDO Seidman v. Banco Espirito, 38 So.3rd 874, 880 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2010:

Thus, under Seidman, it is clear that the Fourth DCA judges had no basis to attack Petitioner by ordering her to comment on irrelevant matters either as a direct order (Appendix p. 33) or as part of a spurious process of “judicial notice” (Appendix p. 61).

5. The DCA judges and circuit judges manifest contempt for federal civil rights claims


Even after being served with Petitioner’s federal civil rights claims (Appendix pp. 34-60) the circuit judges and DCA judges continue to issue orders and to act as though they are immune from any scrutiny for their corrupt conduct. These judges are oblivious to their obligation as public officials to do justice and to follow both the undisputed legal principles and undisputed factual record which mandate the result in this litigation.

6. The DCA judges are refusing to rule, period

Petitioner has one fully-briefed appeal which the district court refuses to address (4D10-3217). A second brief has now been filed (4D12-243). The straightforward mandamus petition (4D12-733) was filed in March. The DCA judges are desperately grasping at straws to avoid being compelled to issue a ruling or rulings in Petitioner’s favor.

7. Given the totality of the misconduct and meretricious behavior by virtually all the judges of the Fourth DCA, and the poisoning of the court as an impartial judicial tribunal, the entire court must be removed from any further role with Petitioner’s home


This petition does not arise from one order, or one aspect of one order. By inviting this court to review the “judicial notice” of years of documents and evidence in the district court’s files, the district judges were documenting their own abuses, corruption and favoritism for powerful, politically-connected laws firms that were engaged in the wholesale theft of homes through the use of perjured allegations and fraudulent litigation tactics.

The entire Fourth DCA must be removed from any role with Petitioner’s home.


Petitioner has no intention of allowing Deutsche Bank, its law firms, or corruptFloridajudges to steal her home, motor vehicles and personal property. The time has long since passed when this Court could and should put an end to the travesty of justice in the district and circuit courts.

This Court has condemned and tried to stamp out foreclosure fraud. For this Court to allow the foreclosure fraud, outright perjury and criminality which is documented in the record of the current lawsuit would make a mockery of this Court’s prior pronouncements: that the Court is committed to honest and honorable litigation practices in theFloridastate courts. If juridical integrity means anything then integrity should mean something in this Petition.


Respectfully submitted,


300 Burns Street

Forest Hills,NY11375

Tel. (888) 552-2194

Fax  (888) 696-3799

(not to exceed 10 pp. fax)


DATED:July 6, 2012