IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BANKUNITED, as [purported]successor in interestto [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB., purportedplaintiff(s), vs. DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT , et al., purported defendants. ___________________________________________________________________/ NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION NOTIFICATION OF COURT & CLERK OF FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURT, AND SHAM “motion for summary judgment” WITHOUT authority IN DISPOSED CASE RECORD 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION 1. The facially frivolous and previously contested action had been disposed on 08/12/2010. Here, the record disposition proved the prima facie substantial controversy. LEGAL SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB 2. Bankrupt BankUnited, FS B, was legally seized (FDIC). See Warrant on file. PRIMA FACIE VIOLATIONS OF F.R.C.P. 1.510 3. In this disposed case, the electronic docket showed an unauthorized “ motion for summary judgment” on 01/22/2011: However, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 expressly prohibits said sham “ motion”. Here, the disposed action could not have possibly “ commenced”. See also Rule 1.150, SHAM PLEADINGS . PROOF OF SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, FRAUD, & FRAUD ON COURT 4. Because the record evidenced substantial controversies and fraud, and because the purported “plaintiff” was not entitled to sue, the non-meritorious action had been disposed. See Final
30
Embed
Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND
UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION
NOTIFICATION OF COURT & CLERK OF FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURT, AND
SHAM “motion for summary judgment ” WITHOUT authority IN DISPOSED CASE
RECORD 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION
1. The facially frivolous and previously contested action had been disposed on 08/12/2010.
Here, the record disposition proved the prima facie substantial controversy.
LEGAL SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB
2. Bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, was legally seized (FDIC). See Warrant on file.
PRIMA FACIE VIOLATIONS OF F.R.C.P. 1.510
3. In this disposed case, the electronic docket showed an unauthorized “motion for summary
judgment ” on 01/22/2011:
However, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 expressly prohibits said sham “motion”. Here, the disposedaction could not have possibly “commenced ”. See also Rule 1.150, SHAM PLEADINGS.
PROOF OF SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, FRAUD, & FRAUD ON COURT
4. Because the record evidenced substantial controversies and fraud, and because the purported
“plaintiff” was not entitled to sue, the non-meritorious action had been disposed. See Final
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
RE: DISPOSED CASE # 0906016CA; NOTICE OF FRAUD EVIDENCE …
Hon. Clerk Brock:
1. Attached is another copy of the “NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION
EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE…” submitted on Jan. 21, 2011, 16:20:16, together with
a copy of the Docket (01/31/11). See attachments. The undersigned has been in the Pacific.
2. Here, the above fraudulent Case was disposed on 08/12/2010, because the purported“ plaintiff ” was not in possession of any genuine original note, could not reestablish the
destroyed and/or lost note, and could not possibly foreclose on the purported note andmortgage. See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); Dasma Invest., LLC v. Realty Associates
Fund III, L.P., 459 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
3. Furthermore, BankUnited is not any “ successor in interest ” to lawfully seized and bankruptBankUnited, FSB. See Uniform Commercial Code. Here, no authentic note was executed ,
delivered , and/or assigned to the alleged “ plaintiff ”. See also Collier County Public Records.
4. The style of the prima facie insufficient and frivolous complaint, “ BankUnited, FSB v.
JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.”, did not even indicate BankUnited as a plaintiff .
See, e.g., attached page 3 of 8. Here, bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, founder Alfred Camner,
Esq., and Camner Lipsitz, PA, were fired and are not any “counsel ”. See attached p. 4 of 8.5. Here admittedly without any “actual review of the file” and disposed Case, foreclosure mill
Albertelli Law has been attempting to extort money and/or property, and Franklin-Prescott is
again giving Notice of said Fraud and Fraud on the Court.6. Here, the purported “ plaintiff ” in said disposed Case is not entitled to any hearing , money,
fees, judgment , and legal action against Franklin-Prescott.
Respectfully,
/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, fraud victim
CC: Hon. Hugh D. Hayes (Disposition Judge),Albertelli LawOther
2. Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of “ plaintiff ” bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, no assignment
was contained in any document and recorded according to law. See Collier Clerk of Court’s
public records. See Ch. 701, Fla. Stat.; § 701.02 et al. Here, there was no “assignment chain”.
THIS COURT MAY NOT enter judgment in favor OF SEIZED BANKUNITED
3. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code:
“(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove
the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument . If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement
had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the
person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay theinstrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim
by another person to enforce the instrument …”
Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not protected against further fraudulent “claims” after
said lawful seizure and alleged unknown “loss and/or destruction” of the purported
note/instrument . See U.C.C., § 3-309:
CONTROVERTED authenticity of “ seized ” bank’s claims AND note ON THE RECORD
4. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “ plaintiffs’ ” fraudulent claims of any
“ payment obligation” and negotiable instrument and/or note.
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
A version of this article appeared in print on January 11, 2011, on page
A1 of the New York edition.
Anne Reynolds Copps, the chairwoman of the real property law section of the New York
State bar, said, “We had a lot of concerns, because it seemed to paint attorneys as being
the problem.” Lawyers feared they would be responsible for a bank’s mistakes. “They are
relying on a client, or the client’s employees, to provide the information on which they are
basing the documents,” she said.
The role of lawyers is under scrutiny in the 23 states where foreclosures must be reviewed
by a court. The situation has become especially heated for high-volume firms whose
practices mirror the so-called robo-signing of some financial institutions; in these cases,
documents were signed without sufficient examination or proper notarization.
In the most publicized example, David J. Stern, a lawyer whose Florida firm has been part
of an estimated 20 percent of the foreclosure actions in the state, has been accused of filing
sloppy and even fraudulent mortgage paperwork. Major institutions have dropped the
firm, which has been the subject of several lawsuits, and 1,200 of the 1,400 people once at
the firm are out of work.
The Florida attorney general’s office is conducting a civil investigation of Mr. Stern’s firm
and two others.
“There’s been no determination” in a court that Mr. Stern or his employees “did wrong
things, said Jeffrey Tew, Mr. Stern’s lawyer, adding that the impact was nevertheless
devastating.
“There are groups in society that everybody likes to hate,” Mr. Tew added. “Now
foreclosure lawyers are on the list.”
Such concerns have, in recent months, brought a sharp focus on activities in New York
State, and in particular on the practice of Mr. Baum, a lawyer in Amherst, outside Buffalo.
Judges have cited his firm for what they call slipshod work that, in some cases, was
followed by the dismissal of foreclosure actions.
One case involved Sunny D. Eng, a former manager of computer systems on Wall Street.
He and his wife, who has cancer, stopped paying the mortgage on their Holtsville, N.Y.,
home after Mr. Eng’s I nternet services business foundered. The mortgage w as originally
held by the HTFC Corporation, but the foreclosure notice came from Wells Fargo, a bank that the Engs had no relationship with. They hired an experienced foreclosure defense
lawyer on Long Island, Craig Robins. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Eng.
NEXT PAGE »
Get the full newspaper experience, and more, delivered to your Mac or PC. Times
Reader 2.0: Try it FREE for 2 full weeks.
Ads by Google what's this?
Home Foreclosures in USABuy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
CashflowGold.com
Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics
Foreclosures
Legal Profession
Find your dream home with
The New York Times Real Estate
Fan The New Y ork Tim es on
Facebook
The new issue of T is h ere
See the news in the makin g. Watch
TimesCast, a dai ly news video.
Advertise on NYTi mes.com
The New Yorker confidentialALSO IN OPINION »
Goldman's mutual friend
Does one word change 'Huckleberry Finn'?
ADVERTISEMENTS
Ads by Google what's this?
Home Foreclosures in USABuy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
CashflowGold.com
1 2
SIGN IN TO E-
MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht… 2
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
09/14/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 COPY CORRESPONDENCE TO 2ND DCA W/ATTACHMENTS
09/15/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 COP Y AMENDED NOTIC E OF APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DCA
09/15/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL2D10-4158
09/16/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF 2ND AMENDEDNOTICE OF APPEAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FOR FINAL ORDER
10/04/2010 ORDER BY DCATHIS APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THISCOUR TS ORDER OF 8/31/10 R EQUIR ING A COPY OF ORDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 ORDER BY DCA THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING
11/12/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL NOTE & ORIGINAL MORTGAGE
12/03/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION MOTION FORJUDICIAL NOTICE / BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCO
12/06/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK
12/06/2010 MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING
12/06/2010 OBJECTION TO& MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOT
12/06/2010 NO APPEARANCE BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEARING SEE SCHEDULE MINUTES FOR DETAILS
12/07/2010 NOTIC E OF CANCELLATION 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TO HEARING BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TOSTATUS OF DISPOSITION JUDGE & RECUSAL MOTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLINPRESCOTT
12/17/2010 NOTIC E OF FRAUD & LOSS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
12/17/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN
PRESCO
12/20/2010 OBJECTION TO(EMERGENCY) TO PURPORTED NOTE IN DISPOSED ACTION & UNNOTICED & UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN FRAUD ON COUR T C ASE BASED ON DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
01/04/2011 OBJECTION TO FRAUD ON THE COURT BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
01/12/2011 NOTIC E OF DROPP ING PARTY JOHN DOE/JANE DOE
01/12/2011 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMOUNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.
We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New Search Return to Case List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
Uniform Case Number: 112009CA0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MORTGAGE FOR ECLOSURES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPOSED Reopened:Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 01/12/2011 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
Name Type DOB City, State, Zip
BANKUNITED PLAINTIFF
BANKUNITED FSB PLAINTIFF
PASKEWICZ, SERENA KAY ESQ PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY MIAMI, FL 33134
ROSE, ERIN M ESQ PLAINTIFF'S CO-COUNSEL TAMPA, FL 33623
FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER DEFENDANT
PRESCOTT, WALTER DEFENDANT
DOE, JOHN DEFENDANT
DOE, MARY DEFENDANT
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
Find it here... Site Search
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
Subject: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:[email protected]
The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you.Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.
Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007
Diagnostic information for administrators:Generating server: albertellilaw.local
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##Original message headers:
Received: from p02c11m065.mxlogic.net (208.65.144.245) byTPA2.albertellilaw.local (192.168.6.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:21:07 -0500Received: from unknown [205.188.105.144] (EHLO imr-da02.mx.aol.com) by
p02c11m065.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.8.0-0) with ESMTP idfb8f93d4.0.790820.00-2183.1054031.p02c11m065.mxlogic.net (envelope-from
<[email protected]>); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:21:04 -0700 (MST)Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by
imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p0LLKUS0022628; Fri, 21 Jan
2011 16:20:30 -0500Received: from [email protected] by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) idw.f31.1346af7 (56029); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.97])by cia-md08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD083-d3ce4d39f8902cd;Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:20 -0500
Received: from web-mmc-d08 (web-mmc-d08.sim.aol.com [205.188.103.98]) bysmtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP idMAILSMTPRLYMC018-d3ce4d39f8902cd; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500X-AOL-IP: 222.152.130.175X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##
Original message headers:
Received: from p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (208.65.144.245) byTPA2.albertellilaw.local (192.168.6.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:28:35 -0500Received: from unknown [205.188.91.97] (EHLO imr-db03.mx.aol.com) by
p02c11m114.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.8.0-0) with ESMTP idfc639fc4.0.788619.00-2144.985007.p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (envelope-from
<[email protected]>); Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:28:31 -0700 (MST)Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) byimr-db03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oB3IRokw004781; Fri, 3 Dec2010 13:27:50 -0500
Received: from [email protected] by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) idw.f67.b3d5975 (43913); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com[205.188.249.170]) by cia-dc08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP idMAILCIADC082-b2504cf936a0164; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:45 -0500
Received: from webmail-d052 (webmail-d052.sim.aol.com [205.188.168.25]) bysmtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id
09/14/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 COPY CORRESPONDENCE TO 2ND DCA W/ATTACHMENTS
09/15/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 COP Y AMENDED NOTIC E OF APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DCA
09/15/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL2D10-4158
09/16/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF 2ND AMENDEDNOTICE OF APPEAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FOR FINAL ORDER
10/04/2010 ORDER BY DCATHIS APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THISCOUR TS ORDER OF 8/31/10 R EQUIR ING A COPY OF ORDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 ORDER BY DCA THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING
11/12/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL NOTE & ORIGINAL MORTGAGE
12/03/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION MOTION FORJUDICIAL NOTICE / BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCO
12/06/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK
12/06/2010 MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING
12/06/2010 OBJECTION TO& MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOT
12/06/2010 NO APPEARANCE BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEARING SEE SCHEDULE MINUTES FOR DETAILS
12/07/2010 NOTIC E OF CANCELLATION 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TO HEARING BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TOSTATUS OF DISPOSITION JUDGE & RECUSAL MOTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLINPRESCOTT
12/17/2010 NOTIC E OF FRAUD & LOSS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
12/17/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN
PRESCO
12/20/2010 OBJECTION TO(EMERGENCY) TO PURPORTED NOTE IN DISPOSED ACTION & UNNOTICED & UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN FRAUD ON COUR T C ASE BASED ON DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
01/04/2011 OBJECTION TO FRAUD ON THE COURT BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
01/12/2011 NOTIC E OF DROPP ING PARTY JOHN DOE/JANE DOE
01/12/2011 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMOUNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
02/01/2011 COPY(FAX) NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE/FRAUD EVIDENCE & UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION/NOTIFICATION OF COURT & CLERK ET AL
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.