PBC Rocket Docket 101 – Judges Against the Backlog Unite (Transcript)

Comment from a reader of this site…

Lori Bangor says:

“On 8/30, I had a Summary Judgment Foreclosure hearing on Palm Beach County’s “Rocket Docket”. The judge spoke for 14 minutes to the crowd, of mostly pro se defendants, about how they should just agree to the summary judgment and the plaintiffs, (whose attorneys (Shapiro & Fishman had a dedicated courtroom and to whom he referred to as “my attorneys”) would be gracious (Ha!) enough to allow them to stay in their homes for 120 days if needed (even though the statute says he only has to give them 30). When it came to hearing arguments which were fully briefed and provided to the court (pursuant to the instructions of the Divisions head judge) he only allowed 30-60 seconds for argument, failed to read any of the papers, failed to review the plaintiff’s foreclosure package,flatly ignored the Affidavit filed in Opposition, ignored my plea for a trial, signed the judgment and dismissed me. I never was permitted to even read the proposed judgment or to examine the “newly discovered” allonge which Shapiro’s counsel said I had no right to see. Thank God I had a court reporter!”

Well it just happens to be that Lori is an Attorney and got a transcript of  what went down…

This is what happens everyday…

I have seen it first hand…

Horrifying…

Full transcript below…

~

4closureFraud.org

PBC Rocket Docket 101 – Judges Against the Backlog Unite (Transcript)

Comments
19 Responses to “PBC Rocket Docket 101 – Judges Against the Backlog Unite (Transcript)”
  1. Gustavo Cuenca says:

    The foreclosure fraud is a SNOW BALL that comIng down and will be the ONLY thing that erase eveything that was done wrong,given a new fresh start to AMERICAN ECONOMY.

  2. indio007 says:

    I don’t think people are realizing that it’s the judge’s themselves that need to be attacked.

    If there is no subject matter jurisdiction, there is no judicial immunity!!!!

    The judge is acting as a mere trespasser and is liable seven ways to Sunday.

    If the judge fails to execute a ministerial duty there is no judicial immunity for that failure. Immunity is only for judicial acts not ministerial ones.

    It seems the complaint was wholly defective to the point where the clerk shouldn’t even have accepted it much less the judge.

    • neidermeyer says:

      You are absolutely right , this has got to be stopped and the way to do this is to put the fear of God in the judges. They alone run their courtrooms and control the decisionmaking process, that they can pull some stunt like this and it is just business as usual would have me as a defendant looking for ways to get his pension yanked. If they want to clear the backlog the way to do it is to demand compliance with FS1.110(b) and the rules of evidence. This ass-clown is only interested in collecting his $300 which conveniently is what it costs him to pay for his foursome at $75 a head. The last time I was in court the traffic cop (I’ll be charitable) “confused” me with another stop ,, he testilyed to something so foreign to what actually happened that I was left speechless… I can only imagine how the plaintiff in this case must feel.

  3. David Acosta says:

    When something like this shocks the conscience of good people, the smart thing to do in finding the truth is to follow the money.

    Wake up people.

    This is beyond what the naked eye can see. Follow the money.

  4. These are not “elected” officials… who voted them in, and more importantly, if they aren’t doing such a good job – HOW DO WE GET THEM OUT??

  5. Debbie says:

    Lori,

    At least this judge described the proceedings. On April 29, 2010, I appeared at a hearing in which the judge states “I’m going to give the Plaintiff’s attorneys a chance to speak with each defendant here today” – time allotted 30 minutes (approximately 75 to 100?) people that day; most were unrepresented, including me. The judge states that the Plaintiff’s attorneys will offer a Concliation Conference or Short Sale. No mention is given to Mediation as an option – at least none that I heard. Once the 30 minutes was up, the judge comes back into the courtroom, and we begin – those that were represented went first – then came the slaughter. I’m pretty sure the defendants that were unrepresented had no idea that by taking either Conciliation or Short Sale that they were, in essence, allowing the Summary Judgement to go through.

    • James M says:

      You said, “I’m pretty sure the defendants that were unrepresented had no idea that by taking either Conciliation or Short Sale that they were, in essence, allowing the Summary Judgment to go through.”

      Yes that is a scam. Fight and I will sell your house in 30 says or take the SJ and I will order them to talk to you for the next couple of months….. When they have no real incentive to negotiate in good faith becuase they already have a SJ.

      Moreover the same conversation could happen even if you fight, and even if you fight, go to trial and lose. You always have a right to come to some solution with the other party.

      Both attorneys and judges have an obligation under the rules of professional conduct NOT to miss represent.

  6. Alina says:

    Unbelievable!!!!!

    I don’t know what part of the judge’s comments irk me the most. It was obvious that he had “heard everything” and therefore, he pre-judged each of the cases before him.

    Someone needs to give this judge a copy of the Judicial Code of Conduct – http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/ethics/index.shtml

    Additionally, Lori, I hope you have sent a copy of the transcript to the Florida Supreme Court as well as filed a complaint with the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

    This is so outrageous I don’t have the words to express my anger. As someone who has been in the legal field for 20 years, I am ashamed at the conduct of this so-called “jurist.”

  7. Judges Against the Backlog Unite! The Prequel http://ning.it/abqA9K and now (see above transcript)

  8. James M says:

    LESSONS LEARNED:

    1) This is absolutly why you MUST have a court reporter present. NO EXCUSES This case is ripe for appeal and will probably have the SJ overturned on appeal only becuase there is a transcript.

    2) This is why you MUST have a proper Answer and AFFIRMATAVE DEFENSES plead. If your answer or defenses are insufficient file new ones attached to a motion for leave to amended your answer. Judge will take one look at your Answer and AD’s, and if not properly plead and formatted will roll right on by.

    3) This is why you need to have a written REPLY to the motion for summary judgment on file the right number of days BEFORE the hearing. The reply MUST address the deficiency in the motion and the record to show significant materiel facts in despite.

    4) This is why you must know the rule, and be able to quote it on your feet, about the documents and affidavits must be on file before the SJ hearing and must be attached to the affidavits in support.

    5) You must be able to quote the rule and case law regarding a SJ cannot be granted if there are material facts in despite and the moving party (Plaintiff) has the gratest burden while non moving party (Defendants) responce must be regarded with the most favrable view to defendant.
    (And you must have printouts of the case law relied on in your hand)
    It is difficult to argue case law in only 5 minutes, even for a pro-attorney as seen in the transcript, so this should be pre-argued in your RESPONSE to the motion for summary judgment with an appropriate memorandum of law attached.

    6) While the attorney did complain about being presented with the new copy of the note at the hearing, I think the attorney FAILED to OBJECT correctly. Failing to clearly and specifically object to the introduction of the evidence, and the grounds for the objection, – BEFORE arguing about what was in, or the validity of the document. To preserve the matter for appeal there must be an OBJECTION and the legal grounds for the objection stated on the record. (Why you need a record – court reporter)

    It is unclear from the transcript if the attorneys for Plaintiffs ever entered the orignal note or a copy of it into evidence, or if the court (judge) examined it at all. The basic objection is sound, the document is not in the record prior to the hearing, but the attorny should have made a very distinct OBJECTION to it’s introduction as evidence since a SJ hearing is not strictly an evidentiary hearing.

    All affidavits and documents in support or against a SJ motion, by rule, MUST be served at least 7 days in advance by mail, or physical delivery on opposing party before 5PM two business days in advance of the hearing. (Always have proof of delivery with you when you go to court and spare copies for opposing party and judge since their clerks may not have processed them yet).

    Notes, since they are almost never recorded, and not certified copies of documents from the public record, are not one of the documents with exception to the hearsay rules. They cannot be introduced without foundation and some witness testifying as to there validity,

    Unless a true copy of the note was attached to the pleadings, AND defendant admitted same in their answer, suddenly producing a new or diffrent one at the SJ hearing is inexcusable. A new level of scam and crime “surprise by note”.

    • I thought FL rule civ pro 1.510(c) and the 1st DCA Verizzo case required the moving party to file supportive “evidence” 20 days prior to a SJ hearing?

      • James M says:

        I think you are right about time for the moving party – my comments about getting documents filed at least 7 days prior to hearing or in person on moving party before 5pm on two business days prior to the hearing is relevant to the responses and any supporting affidavits or documents, filed by the non-moving party (the Defendant).

        Neither party can appear at the SJ hearing and introduce any new documents or evidence that is not already in the record.

        The court often allows a party to show an orignal of the document of which only a copy was previously in the record, and I am not even sure that is kosha. i.e. Plaintiff often brings the orignal note having previously filed a copy in the record.
        I believe the correct method of substituting the real note for the copy is a motion to substitute, but not sure court can even consider that if it is not filed in good time prior to hearing.

    • Lori Bangor says:

      Thank’s for your advice. In this case, I was retained a week before the hearing (not an excuse). I filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the SJ and provided it to the court 5 days prior to the hearing. I had case law for the Court, but that was the last thing he was interested in reading. He never even saw the file or reviewed ANYTHING. As you saw in the transcript, the whole hearing took under a minute and that was one of the long ones. The best part is that Shapiro’s attorney blamed my coming into the case late for why I was seeing the magic allonge for the first time. None of the Original documents were filed with the court and were presented to the Judge, not me, at the hearing. I had to ask to see the judgment package and was given about 3 seconds to look at it. Then she had the nerve to tell me I was not entitled to see the very document that allegedly entitled them to their judgment. None of the documentation was verified at the pleading stage or in the affidavit in support, but they were admitted anyway.

      • James M says:

        Objection to the admission of documents at the hearing, that were not served at the appropriate time before hand is inportant.
        Maybe, in the same way they arrived with documents in hand, you need arrived with pre-drafted written motions to strike or in the alternative exclude all new documents presented at the hearing. A pre-drafted motion with supporting memorandum of case law, ready to go. While you don’t know what they will try to introduce at the motion hearing, you could have a generic version, objecting to any and all new documents.

        File the motion in court, which gets your objections on the record, and the court is basically forced to address the motion to strike before it can grant the SJ. (There is case law on that)

        You know they are going to play slime ball, you have to object, and state the legal reason why, otherwise you wave the objection.

        Maybe, as a group, we need to make a defending foreclosure SJ handbook with defenses to the slime ball court tactics worked out in advance.

  9. This is per usual, day in and day out. Two thousand summary judgments in the 15th Judicial Circuit every single week.

    Lisa
    ForeclosureHamlet.org

  10. Mourn America.

    Due process is dead.

  11. As a member of the legal profession, your story fills me with shame and horror. What you describe is unvarnished lawlessness. The judge here presides not as a jurist adjudicating questions of law and fact but as executioner. Such a judge can be replaced by a baboon with a signature stamp. Obviously, no member of the local Bar has had the courage to appeal such behavior and seek injunctive relief first on a state appellate level and then in Federal Court. When judges no longer provide justice, the security and liberty of every citizen is imperiled.

    • I have heard the defendant’s attorney has full intentions of appealing this decision and is doing so on a pro bono basis.

      I personally know of many attorneys bringing cases up on appeal after similar trial court SJ hearing experiences.

      Lisa
      ForeclosureHamlet.org

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...


Leave a Reply