HELP - LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA ROCKET DOCKET MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT AND DISCOVERY VIOLATION QUESTIONS?

FYI: The Lis Pendens and complaint were filed in June of 2010.

THE FACTS ARE FOLLOWED BY THE QUESTIONS

FACT A: Suzanne Leary, a non-attorney employee of Marshall C. Watson, signed my Assignment of Mortgage. She signed as Assistant Secretary for MERS w/o a MERS STAMP/SEAL present.

          QUESTION 1: Is there a problematic legal implication created when an employee for the firm who suing, assign these mortgages?

          QUESTION 2: Furthermore, is not there a requirement to attach (to the Complaint) the document granting specific authority for her to sign on behalf of MERS?

FACT B: My Assignment of Mortgage was filed with the Lee County Clerk’s office 6 months after the document’s “claimed creation date” and 5 months after the Lis Pendens filing date.

          QUESTION 3: Under Florida law, does the Assignment have to be Filed and recorded in the Lee County Clerk’s office prior to the filing and recording of the Lis Pendens even though the assignment was attached to the complaint?

          QUESTION 4: If Plaintiff claims, the “Late Assignment” was because that the document would have been admissible regardless, because it was a business record, wouldn’t the focus then target the fact that Suzanne Leary has had no intimate, personal knowledge of the mortgage and note as required regarding the business records she effectively claims knowledge of in the assignment?

          QUESTION 5: Why are so many assignments filed after the Lis Pendens, especially when the assignments were physically attached to the Lis Pendens in the first place?

          QUESTION 6: Are there shady things going within this time window we should know about?

FACT C: The Lis Pendens and Complaint were filed, June of 2010. A copy of the Mortgage and Note were attached. The Note was endorsed to Countrywide Bank, NA. No other endorsement was present. The Plaintiff is now trying to submit a “New” version of the Note endorsement again showing Countrywide as receiver of the Note by asking for a leave to amend complaint. No dates or signatures are present on the “New” Note endorsement.

Note: Keep in mind BAC Home Loan Servicing LP is the Plaintiff.

          QUESTION 7: Isn’t the Plaintiff required to explain why the change in the Note endorsement occurred?

          QUESTION 8: If the New Note endorsement to Countrywide was made after the Lis Pendens was filed in June of 2010, doesn’t this mean that the Note was assigned to a company that no longer exists?

          QUESTION 9: Can I assign a mortgage to a non-existing company?

          QUESTION 10” Are there sanctions for the original filing of the incomplete Note regarding due diligence?

          QUESTION 10: Does that then open up the concept that the people verifying these Complaints and affidavits as requisite to Florida Law are not indeed verifying these documents?

DISCOVERY VIOLATION QUESTION

          Even in the face of outstanding Discovery as brought to the courts attention by Defendant, Judge James Thompson still, decided that he would order a trial date be set. Attorney, Carol Trefrey was present for Marshall C. Watson and BAC Home Loan Servicing (Without the requisite court order for substitution of counsel).The Defendant put the court on notice that it would be filing a Motion to Compel Discovery and setting it for a hearing. Two weeks later, the hearing for the Motion to Compel Discovery was heard and Judge James Thompson Ordered and signed the Motion giving the Plaintiff 30 days to produce or respond. 30 days passed without producing Discovery or a response. Defendant set another hearing to get the case dismissed for failure to produce, but even though 6 weeks had passed since he had signed his order the Judge refused to offer any sanctions or dismissal whatsoever. Understand that the original request for Discovery was months before I had to ask for the Motion to Compel. Defendant submitted another Motion to Dismiss the next day for Failure to Produce. I have not set it for hearing yet but it has now been nearly 6 months since Judge Thompson signed the original Order to Produce and Plaintiff has yet to respond.

          QUESTION 11: What legal authority does a Judge have in ignoring his own 30-day Order to Compel Discovery directed toward the Plaintiff?

          QUESTION 12: If Discovery rules have no sanction if violated, doesn’t this mean Discovery Rules have been effectively disabled within the 20^th Circuit Court here in Lee County?

          QUESTION 13: Doesn’t this say to Florida and the world that, since Lee County will not sanction those who violate Discovery Rules, those who violate the Discovery Rules in Lee County are free to continue to violate those rules?

If you do not want to conduct Discovery, you do not have to conduct Discovery. Surely, if the Defendant had violated such an order, he/she would be facing sanctions and maybe a final judgment ruling in the Plaintiffs favor.

          QUESTION 14: Is this not a problem for the Equal Protection under the Law if one can show that the application of the law is effectively different depending upon whether you are the Plaintiff or the Defendant?

Thanks for reading. Serious and informed replies will be greatly appreciated.