Tag Archives: Dolphin Developments

More on Systematic Abuses of Fundamental Due Process in Florida Foreclosure Courts

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO: 08-CA-050359              (Malcolm Doney CATALPA VACATE SJ)

Judge: Rosman Jay, B.

Century Bank FSB

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE M. DONEY

VALERIE J. DONEY, et al,

Defendants.

_______________________/

DEFENDANT GEORGE M. DONEY’S VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND TO CANCEL SALE OF THE PROPERTY ON JANUARY 7, 2010.

Comes now George Malcolm Doney (GMD) who having been sworn, deposes and says:-

All statements contained in this Affidavit are from my personal knowledge and are true and I make these statements under penalty of perjury.

Defendant, GEORGE M. DONEY, (GMD) pro se hereby files this verified motion to vacate foreclosure judgment and to cancel the sale of the property scheduled for January 7, 2010 pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) Fla. R. Civ. P., states:

  1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) provides in pertinent part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:… (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.

  1. Judge Thompson Ordered a Final Judgment Of Mortgage Foreclosure in the Rocket Docket Court on December 4, 2009.   This Judgment is in violation of both Fla.R.Civ.P 1.540 (b)(3) fraud and (4) the judgment is void.
  2. No Default Judgment has been issued by the Clerk, or the Court in pursuance of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500 (a) and following the closing down of Century Bank by the Office of Thrift Supervision on November 13, 2009 for, inter alia, abuses of the Federal Truth in Lending Acts and dangerous banking practices, after an unsuccessful attempt by Defendant George M. Doney to persuade Attorney McKay to cancel the Hearing for Summary Judgment scheduled for December 4, 2009 on the grounds that he could no longer represent the former Century Bank as though it were the Plaintiff in this Action, Defendants filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in the Court on November 17, 2009 as permitted by Fla.R.Civ.P 1.500(c). Defendants aver that this action immediately established that this was a contested case and was not appropriate for consideration by a Rocket Docket Court.
  3. Attorney McKay’s response was to file two further documents in the Court, a Notice of Re-Hearing [specifically requested to be in Courtroom 5H, known to him as the Rocket Docket Courtroom] in which he represented himself as Attorney for Plaintiff (the then non existent Century Bank) and a Motion to Substitute Plaintiff in which he represented himself as “counsel for non-party IberiaBank.”
  4. Attorney McKay also informed the Court that he would not personally be present at the Hearing but would be represented by local Attorney Goetz.
  5. Defendant George M. Doney (GMD) made two further attempts by email to persuade Attorney McKay to cancel the ex-parte arrangement he had made for this Hearing and specifically pointed out to him all the relevant facts as to why this Hearing should not proceed, including the inappropriateness of a Hearing in the Rocket Docket Court, previously described by Judge Thompson and recorded by Fort Myers Court Reporting on August 28, 2009, as “not a thinking Docket” [Exhibit A].
  6. Florida Statue 90.108 (2) states, “The report of a court reporter, when certified to by the court reporter as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima face a correct statement of such testimony and proceedings.  Defendants therefore aver that this is a correct statement and an admission by Judge Thompson that when he presides at Rocket Docket Hearings that he “is not required to think” and when read with his further statement, “I would simply continue the matter and let you all reset it before the assigned judge” and with his introductory statements made at the commencement of each such Court session to the effect that the assembled Defendants “do not have any legal defenses” is prima face evidence that a heavily contested case, in which no Default Judgment has been issued [Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500] supported by evidence in the form of “Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”  Fla. Sta. 90.202 (12) of the Evidence Code.”
  7. Attorney McKay ignored Defendant’s Answer, but filed a frivolous Avoidances To Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses on December 2, 2009 as counsel for what he knew at that time was no longer able to represent itself as a Plaintiff following its shuttering by its regulator, The Office of Thrift Supervision on November 13, 2009.   Also on December 2, 2009, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike [the non existent Plaintiff’s] Motion to Substitute non-party IberiaBank and sought Summary Judgment in their favor and Sanctions.
  8. Upon receipt, examination and comprehension of a copy of Plaintiff’s Avoidances to their Affirmative Defenses, [delivered by US Mail on the afternoon of December 2, 2009 and postmarked ‘Fort Myers’ where Attorney James Goetz has his business address, but bearing the purported signature of Attorney Mckay, whose business address is in Sarasota] Defendants discovered further evidence and commenced preparation of a further Motion to Strike those frivolous Pleadings also, but was unable to finish that document until the morning of December 4, 2009, the day of the Hearing.
  9. That Motion contained a material Exhibit of 125 pages, being a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) document which was filed in the Court at 12.50 on December 4, 2009, just before the Hearing, with the intention of handing it up to the Judge at the commencement of the Hearing.   Judge Thompson’s actions prevented this evidence together with all the previous Motions, Affidavits and Exhibits filed in his Court ever being considered by him.
  10. Attorney McKay has violated the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, quoted irrelevant case law, made what he knew, or should have known were false statements in writing contained in papers he has filed in this and other actions in this Court, changed his story after seeing Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, but continued to leave his original deceptive submissions to this Court un-amended in other cases where the Defendants had not challenged those submissions, he has also violated the Florida Bar Conduct Rules, has acted in a manner towards Defendant GMD, both before and after the ‘Hearing’ on December 4, 2009 for which he has previously been sanctioned by the Florida Bar, [who were particularly concerned that he showed no remorse and continued to represent that he had not behaved improperly despite a unanimous decision by the Bar Exhibit B].
  11. Judge Thompson has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida, in the instant case [and GMD has witnessed at first hand angry and biased behavior by this same Judge on previous occasions, some of which are on the record in official Court Reports].  This Judge regularly violates Cannon 3A, B (4), (5), (7), (8), D (2) and E 1(a), full details of which are contained in the Affidavit of George Malcolm Doney which will be filed as Exhibit C, either at the time of filing this Motion, or as shortly thereafter as his limited time as a pro se litigant can be allocated for its final preparation.
  12. The Rocket Docket Court is where Judge Thompson regularly sits, churning through anything from 200 to 300 cases in each half-day session of his Court.
  13. Defendant GMD has regularly attended the Rocket Docket Court when he has prepared witness affidavits in support of defendants in foreclosure suits, and thus has personal knowledge of the modus operandi of the Rocket Docket Court that follows broadly the same procedure whether or not Judge Thompson is presiding.
  14. Immediately after Judge Thompson takes his seat on the bench he introduces the assembled defendants at their Summary Judgment Hearings to the reasons for the existence of the Court [being the need to cope with the huge volumes of foreclosures, without any explanation as to the legality or otherwise of such a Court] and to the procedures that they can expect when their case number is called.
  15. He gave that same introductory talk on the afternoon of December 4, 2009.  He attempted to prepare everyone who was appearing on that afternoon to accept that they do not have any legal defense by saying [as he did on this occasion] “only cases where Defendants have no legal defense are scheduled for Hearing in this Court after careful and detailed consideration.”  No explanation is given as to which person, group of persons, or entity engaged in “careful and detailed consideration” or made the decision that the particular defendants had “no legal defense” and could be identified as being responsible for placing their case into a Rocket Docket Court procedure, or what led such person or persons unknown, to conclude that “no legal defense” existed.
  16. Judge Thompson concluded this portion of his introduction as he always does in such sessions by stating “If anyone believes that they do have a legal defense they need to speak up.  His actions in the instant case and on other occasions referred to in Exhibit C belied those words.
  17. Defendants (GMD) and his wife Valerie J. Doney, (VJD) acting pro se, attended the Hearing and as detailed herein, had previously filed extensive pleadings in this case, most of which had been filed in good time to be available to Judge Thompson on the electronic record available to him at the Hearing and the date and time stamped copy of additional and pertinent evidence filed in the Court  just before the Hearing commenced which was brought by Defendants to the Court, that given the opportunity Defendants would have handed up to the Judge on the bench.
  18. What Judge Thompson’s Order improperly refers to as a Hearing lasted no more than two minutes, did not follow the format described in that document which was signed by Judge Thompson and was conducted in the presence of a Court Reporter, being Jackie Burrell, one of the owners of Von Ahn Associates Inc., provided by the Defendants at their expense.  A copy of the Court Report is at Exhibit D.
  19. Defendants regret to bring to the Court’s attention that despite the provisions of Florida Staute 90.108(2) this Court Report is inaccurate and aver that it is manifestly obvious to any reader of that report, even if the reader had not been present at the Hearing to draw that inescapable conclusion.
  20. This Court Report cannot be a true record of what transgressed at this Hearing as it opens with the words spoken by Judge Thompson addressed to GMD, “Did you just listen to what I said?”  Clearly there must have been something Defendant GMD said to have provoked such a response and the fact is that in front of a Courtroom full of witnesses GMD had read the opening words that he had previously drafted from a sheet of paper he was holding in his hand.(Exhibit E).
  21. Some of those words appear on the Court Report slotted in an obviously incorrect place right at the end of this non-Hearing, just prior to the aggravated battery by an armed Bailiff on Defendant GMD’s person, referred to hereinafter, and clearly did not reflect what actually transpired during the Hearing.  Only when an electronic copy of this document has lines 9 through 17 on page four of the transcript cut and pasted in front of line 1 on page three, does it make any sense as a cohesive transcript and also accurately reflect the sense of what was actually said and the order in which it was said by the three parties whose voices it purports to have recorded.
  22. In addition to the sworn testimony of Defendant GMD an Affidavit is also filed by Christian Meister, EXHIBIT F, and further Affidavits may be subsequently filed by another person or persons, who were in the Court and witnessed the events described in this Motion.
  23. However, in the event that the Court strictly upholds the provisions of Fla. Sta. 90.108 (2) despite the evidence now submitted, there is more than sufficient content in that Court Report to establish that the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure, signed by Judge Thompson is not an accurate and fair record of what actually transpired and to establish that the alleged violations contained hereinabove and in GMD’s Affidavit to be filed in the Court are accurate with regard to breaches by Judge Thompson, Attorneys Scott McKay and James Goetz of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida and/or of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Florida Bar, by both Judge and Attorneys in this case.
  24. In the case of Attorneys McKay and Goetz and especially in the case of McKay this conduct was not confined to the Courtroom as detailed in evidence filed in the Court and continued after the Hearing in inappropriate e-mails sent to Defendant GMD. [EXHIBIT G].
  25. Full details of what transpired subsequent to GMD receiving the transcript from Von Ahn between GMD and Jackie Burrell, who states that she is a part owner of Von Ahn are contained in the Affidavit at Exhibit C.
  26. The Court should also be aware that at the conclusion of Judge Thompson’s treatment of GMD and concurrent with the laying of an armed Bailiff’s hands upon GMD’s arm, a person known to me, Christian Meister, who was one of a large number of witnesses to these events [and who has now filed an Affidavit in this case] while sitting in the Courtroom, sprang to his feet and was shouting at Judge Thompson that as a Sheriff’s candidate he wanted him to know that he had never before witnessed such a miscarriage of justice and that he intended to make certain that the people of Lee County would learn of the corruption that was taking place in this Court.  Defendants played no part in what Christian Meister said that day, it had not been pre-planned and Defendants can only assume it to have occurred as a result of his genuine disgust at what he witnessed in Judge Thompson’s Rocket Docket Court.
  27. A sworn statement in support of this Motion from Defendant GMD is in course of preparation and will be submitted to this Court within the next week.    This statement, together with the Court Reporter’s  inaccurate transcript of what little proceedings took place evidence, inter alia, fraud upon the Court, lack of standing to continue this lawsuit, no subject matter jurisdiction, no Plaintiff, misrepresentations and changes of story by Attorneys McKay and Goetz, violations of law, violation of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(c), breaches of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including denial of equal access rights by Judge Thompson [in his capacity as a Rocket Docket Judge to an educated, law abiding, elderly, hearing impaired American pro se litigant], Ordering Summary Judgment, [not after a careful Judicial weighing of all the overwhelming evidence, as is stated in the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure] which bears a Clerk of the Court date stamp indicating that it was filed in the Court on the day of the ‘Hearing’ (a Friday) [despite the conflicting statement that it was recorded on 12/08/2009 at 8.34am the following Monday].
  28. Even the inaccurate Court Report demonstrates that all the evidence contained in Defendant’s Pleadings against frivolous pleadings from a non-existent Plaintiff in order to establish matters of law, fact, and/or equity, had been ignored and Judge Thompson elected instead to inflict upon both Defendants an unprovoked angry punishment [when the Court Proceedings evidence that VJD had not said a word during this ‘Hearing’ and that VJD is the spouse who invested substantial equity derived from her retirement funds into this property that was over appraised by the former Century Bank].
  29. The clearly intended harsh discipline and humiliation Judge Thompson inflicted upon both Defendants for the ‘crime’ committed by GMD for daring to ask permission as a Hearing Impaired Senior Citizen, in compliance with his basic Constitutional and legal rights to be allowed equal access as was and is always afforded to the non-Plaintiff’s counsel and finally causing two police officers of the three armed bailiffs in his Court to move towards Defendants with one of them coming through the swing door in the Court barrier and by laying hands on Defendant George M. Doney while shouting at him “The Judge has ruled”  causing an unnecessary aggravated battery of his elderly person, causing him to feel very unwell from the shock of such unprovoked treatment.
  30. Defendant, GMD also informs the Court that on knowledge and belief, Judge Thompson displayed a personal bias against him which should have brought about his Recusal based upon GMD’s prior appearances in his Court as a witness, when with the Judge’s permission he had explained in detail the extent of the void and fraudulent judgments that emanated from the Rocket Docket Court backed up by exhibits of multiple fraudulent documents filed in the Court by purported counsels to Plaintiffs.
  31. GMD is a regular observer of Judge Thompson, from his attendances at the Rocket Docket Court, sometimes as an observer, or when he has filed Witness Affidavits in that Court.  Due to the volume of cases processed there every day he has observed such outbursts of bias on many occasions, often showing his intolerance and anger against Defendants when they raise questions and objections. Some of those have been cases where GMD has personal knowledge of the facts of the case as a result of his investigations, compilation of evidence and preparation of Affidavits, which on one such occasion, just like the instant case, Judge Thompson refused to read.   Details are contained in GMD’s Affidavit to be filed in the Court when it is completed and which include GMD’s two presentations that Judge Thompson permitted him to make on the afternoon of April 24, 2009 during the consideration of a case in which he had filed an evidence Affidavit and numerous EXHIBITS which proved extensive fraud in that case and many others that demonstrated that this filing of fraudulent documents followed a pattern.
  32. Subsequently, despite an Order being issued for the case to be referred to the Assigned Judge it was not recorded in the Court Docket and the Plaintiff once again brought the case before Judge Thompson on July 14, 2009 when Judge Thompson permitted GMD to speak as a witness and displayed bias against a pro se litigant, this time in front of a Court Reporter.  Details will be provided in the forthcoming GMD Affidavit.
  33. GMD believes that pattern and others within his personal knowledge are sufficient to demonstrate Racketeering and the active involvement of foreclosure Mill Attorneys and others.
  34. In the instant case no Default had been entered in the Court, a procedurally correct Answer and Affirmative Defenses had been filed by Defendants as had Motions to Strike and for Summary Judgment to be entered in Defendants’ favor, Attorneys McKay and Goetz represented to the Court that the so-called Plaintiff, the former Century Bank was a bona fide Plaintiff despite having previously been shut down by its regulator, ‘The Office of Thrift Supervision,’ for inter alia, dangerous banking practices and Federal Truth in Lending Act violations, the original Complaint was defective, counsel had misrepresented the facts and claimed to still be representing their now defunct entity, while simultaneously claiming to represent non-party IberiaBank, making false, vague and hearsay statements in their Pleadings (in their capacities as counsels) about an alleged, but unsubstantiated arrangement they claimed the ‘Plaintiff’ had with the FDIC in order to falsely show Standing for that bank in this matter and which argument was wholly unsustainable by the facts displayed in the FDIC’s Purchase and Assumption Agreement with that bank, dated November 13, 2009.
  35. Commencing on November 16, 2009, GMD made one telephone call and sent three e-mails to Attorney McKay which were filed in the Court.  Details of this unsatisfactory telephone call and subsequent e-mails are contained in GMD’s Affidavit of Support to this Motion, but Defendants wish to draw the Court’s particular attention to the fact that Attorney McKay specifically asked for the Hearing [in his Re-Notice of Hearing to be held on December 4, 2009] to be held in Courtroom 5H, the Court most frequently used for the Rocket Docket Court and where Judge Thompson was presiding and not Judge Rosman who is the assigned Judge on this case.
  36. Defendants also state that Attorney McKay was repeatedly told that the Rocket Docket Court was not appropriate as this was a contested case and no Default had been issued, making Summary Judgment inappropriate.  Case Law will be supplied in the forthcoming GMD Affidavit to be filed in the Court.
  37. Judge Thompson signed the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure on December 4, 2009 and it was filed in the Court that same Friday afternoon, although it was not electronically recorded until the following Monday morning, December 8, 2009 at 8.34 AM.  It is obvious that with at least 200 cases to process that afternoon coupled with the fact that the instant case was the first he ‘heard’ that Judge Thompson simply placed his signature on a document prepared by Attorney McKay and/or Attorney Goetz and did not read the content of that document, [which seems to be verified in the Court report on line 19 of page 3 by the words addressed to Attorney Goetz, “Give me a Summary Judgment”], or alternatively, he was fully aware of its content and was prepared to knowingly place his signature on a document that by his own recorded admissions in the Court Report he knew to be a series of false statements.
  38. Had Judge Thompson actually read the document that he signed he would have known that his statement, “After…………… reviewing the pleadings and affidavits filed herein, and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court orders and finds as follows:” to be completely false, as by Judge Thompson’s own admission and recorded statement on lines 6 to 9 on page 3 of the Court Report he knew nothing about the case when GMD was seeking to approach the bench and prior to saying to Attorney Goetz, “Give me a Summary Judgment” did not review any of the Defendant’s pleadings and affidavits filed and did not conduct a hearing on the matter.
  39. It is therefore indisputable that at no time did Judge Thompson review anything prior to signing the Final Judgment in Foreclosure and by those admissions he has either deliberately, or negligently signed that Order in contravention of Canon 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct.
  40. In paragraph 1 he states “This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this action.”  The Judge knows that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist when the Plaintiff does not have a cause of action, or where the Plaintiff was an entity that has been forced to close its business for inter alia dangerous banking practices and violations of the Truth in Lending Act, or where intrinsic frauds or extrinsic frauds have been committed to mislead the Court into showing a Cause of Action where none exists.
  41. Paragraph 2 of this Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure signed by Judge Thompson, states “The allegations contained in the complaint have been proved by substantial and competent evidence.”  It further states that, “The equities of this action are with the plaintiff, and plaintiff is entitled to foreclose the mortgage on the real property at issue in this foreclosure bearing the following legal description…………………”
  42. Defendants aver that all three of these statements conflict with The Code of Judicial conduct for the State of Florida Canon 3A and B as detailed in Exhibit B.
  43. As repeatedly stated in this Motion, in previous Motions submitted to the Court and as stated  by Defendant GMD to Judge Thompson when he stated “the Plaintiff gets to speak first” there was no legitimate Plaintiff able to continue this action and the absent counsel Attorney McKay and the local counsel Goetz were both aware of that fact before they submitted their fraudulent documents to the Court and Goetz was testifying at the ‘Hearing’ and Attorney McKay had been repeatedly reminded of that same fact by GMD, once on the telephone and three times in e-mails commencing on November 16, 2009 immediately after he became aware that this entity no longer existed.
  44. GMD avers that not one shred of evidence that complies with the Florida Evidentiary Code Statute was submitted by Attorneys McKay and/or Goetz either before the ‘Hearing’ or during that ‘Hearing.’  Defendants however, do recognize that hearsay and deliberately inaccurate statements that purport to portray facts to the Court were contained in their written pleadings and in an Affidavit by a now former employee of Century Bank that was challenged as inadmissible hearsay in Defendant’s pleadings.
  45. In contrast, Defendants had submitted very substantial evidence that was in conformity with Fla. Stats. 90.202 (12) and (13), and as admitted by Judge Thompson were not even looked at and he could not therefore claim that the allegations of this ‘dead pretend plaintiff’ “had been proved by substantial and competent evidence.”  In fact evidence that was in compliance with the Evidentiary Code Statute and filed in the Court by the Defendants proved conclusively the opposite of what Judge Thompson’s Summary Judgment has claimed.
  46. As there was no plaintiff, the equities could not have been with it and it was not entitled to foreclose or to do anything in this Court.  It is also a fact that the only evidence submitted to the Court and the only Affidavits submitted to the Court emanated from the Defendants.  Therefore Judge Thompson’s statement that “The allegations contained in the complaint have been proved by substantial and competent evidence must be false on two counts.  First there was no evidence submitted by the pretend Plaintiff [other than inadmissible and/or hearsay statements contained in pleadings].
  47. Second, the only evidence that was filed in this action had been filed in the Court by the Defendants prior to the ‘Hearing’, including the full text of the Purchase and Assignment Agreement entered into with IberiaBank by the FDIC and which provides proof positive of the misleading and fraudulent pleadings put into Court by counsel for the pretend plaintiff, the former Century Bank.
  48. Further evidence was submitted to the Court that Defendant VJD had invested personal retirement funds in this property of close to $200,000.  Clearly the equities cannot be with the ‘dead bank’ and even if IberiaBank could have been legitimately substituted, which it could not as shown in the evidence for reasons of failure to comply with Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.260(c) and failure to fall within the provisions of the inappropriate case law submitted by counsel for the ‘plaintiff,’ Defendant’s evidence in the form of the FDIC’s published Purchase and Assumption Agreement with IberiaBank, that entity invested zero Dollars in any loan that was shown in their records as ‘in default’ and was previously owned or serviced by Century Bank.
  49. Further as previously submitted in evidence to the Court, the actual list of loans transferred has been redacted by the FDIC, and no proof that this loan was ever transferred to that Bank is currently available and therefore there is no evidence to support any of the misleading and broad statements made by Attorney McKay.
  50. Paragraph 3 of the Order signed by Judge Thompson states, “Plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage in this matter. Plaintiff’s mortgage is a valid lien on the property, and the mortgage is in default as alleged in this action.”  This is a further inaccurate statement which conflicts with paragraph 2 of the Complaint which states, “Plaintiff or it’s assigns [emphasis added] currently owns and holds the promissory note and mortgage being foreclosed, which clearly establishes that even when Century Bank was an existing entity it was unable to categorically make the statement that Judge Thompson now makes for it in its capacity as a ‘dead entity.’
  51. Defendants aver that the Equities are clearly and unarguably with Defendant VJD and that it appears that the sole objective of these fraudulent submissions is for IberiaBank for an investment of zero Dollars, underwritten by the FDIC against any loss, to get a free windfall to which it has absolutely no entitlement.  Judge Thompson, by multiple violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct and his allowing one of the Court Bailiffs to engage in aggravated battery of a Florida Senior Citizen has used the color of law for fraudulent purposes.
  52. Paragraph 4 of Judge Thompson’s Order states a total amount owing, including Attorney’s fees of $377,312.64.   This is a further unsubstantiated statement, whereas Defendants state that the ‘plaintiff’ does not exist, that on the date of the ‘Hearing’ it could not have verified what it claims was owing to it by virtue of the fact that it ceased to exist on November 13, 2010 and despite the frequent claims of Attorney McKay that he is in contact with their staff and employees since that date.
  53. Paragraph 5 of the Summary Judgment and Order states that the Attorney fee is reasonable.  This is a further violation of the Judicial Code.  If the submissions of the Attorneys were false and deliberately misleading [as clearly proven by Defendant’s evidence filed in the Court] no amount of fees can be construed as reasonable for presenting false evidence to secure a Judgment.
  54. Paragraph 6 of the Order states that the Plaintiff has a lien to secure the payment of the aforesaid sums against the property.  Defendants, again aver that ‘no existing entity’ translates into ‘no existing Plaintiff’, which in turn translates into no lien.
  55. The rest of this void Judgment is concerned with the improper sale of this property set for January 7, 2010.  Defendants state, “This proposed sale of Real Property based upon a void Judgment, fraudulent pleadings and other documents submitted by Attorney McKay and Goetz on behalf of a non-existent Plaintiff, is an extension of the fraud contained in the Judgment and as such, places a cloud on the title of this property which means that the Court should not allow it to proceed and should immediately order a Stay of the Sale pending the resolution of this Motion.
  56. Defendants wish to draw to the attention of this Court that all the separate matters contained in this Verified Motion are of a very serious nature and that every statement contained therein is either backed by the Fla.R.Civ.P., by relevant case law, the Evidentiary Code Statutes, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and/or The Codes of Conduct governing Judges and Attorneys in the State of Florida.  Many of the specific issues contained in this Motion, in previous Motions or Pleadings that have been ignored by the Court, if proven have severe criminal implications in addition to the Civil Matters to which this Motion is addressed.
  57. The Court should also be aware that in all other cases that GMD has researched of a similar nature, both in Lee County and in other Florida Counties where Century Bank, IberiaBank and Attorney McKay and/or Attorney Goetz have been involved that the same fraudulent submissions have been made, evidencing that these misrepresentations are not just confined to the 20th Circuit.
  58. For the Court’s further information a copy of a letter sent by email to Attorney McKay today is at EXHIBIT H.

WHEREAS, Defendants George M. Doney and Valerie J. Doney move this Court to set a Hearing to vacate this void and fraudulent Judgment, immediately Order that this case be Dismissed with Prejudice and if legal fees are subsequently incurred the payment by the Attorney’s misrepresenting themselves as counsel for what they both knew to be a non existent entity, and sanctions against those Attorneys, Disciplinary action against Judge Thompson and an undertaking that he will never again be permitted to preside over any case in which either of the Defendants are parties, or any case where GMD has submitted witness statements in order to avoid any further bias or prejudice of the kind that Defendants have clearly evidenced that they have been subjected to in this case.

Defendants request a Hearing Date to vacate this void and fraudulent Judgment at the earliest possible convenient date for the parties and the Court and in view of the substantial evidence that is before this Court, but has been completely ignored, with the result that this Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure is both fraudulent and void within the meaning of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 (b) 3 and 4. In all the circumstances Judge Rosman as the Assigned Judge in this case is hereby requested to issue an emergency Order to Stay the Sale of the subject property, pending the Hearing to Vacate the Fraudulent and Void Judgment.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THE UNDERMENTIONED HEREBY CERTIFIES that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded, via e-mail on January 6, 2010 and by US Mail, to Scott D. McKay, Esq., McKay Law Firm P. A. , counsel for Plaintiff, 2055 Wood Street, Suite 120, Sarasota, Florida 34237 on this 5th day of January, 2010.

George M. Doney                     Valerie J. Doney

16211 Shenandoah Circle,

Fort Myers, Florida 33908

Phone 239 466 3627

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF LEE

PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority in and for the aforesaid County and State, on this the 6th day of January, 2010 within my jurisdiction, the within named GEORGE  M. DONEY, who acknowledged to me that he is the Affiant signing this document, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purpose and consideration therein expressed as his act and deed and in the capacity therein stated.  He is personally known to me and did take the oath.

WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid the _____day of _____________, _____.