I hope I did it right.

Lit Gant

Here’s some verbiage suggesting what the great Justices through history, and the framers of the Constitution, would think about Florida’s brilliant rocket-docket system:

“On account of the Lilburn Trial, Parliament abolished the inquisitorial Court of Star Chamber and went further in giving him generous reparation. The lofty principles to which Lilburn had appealed during his trial gained popular acceptance in England.[28] These sentiments worked their way over to the Colonies and were implanted after great struggle into the Bill of Rights. Those who framed our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ever aware of subtle encroachments on individual liberty. They knew that “illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 635 (1886).” Miranda v. U.S., 384 US 436 (1966), majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Warren, emphasis added.

True!

Silly me! Our country’s constitution now 233 years old, was drafted in many ways in opposition to these same rules.

Why recreate the wheel? Plagiarize the Star Chamber rules and rename ’em Fla.R.RocDoc.Pro

Lisa
ForeclosureHamlet.org

Excellent stuff Michael.

Origin
– The King was annoyed by the independent judiciary so retained some functions, which eventually evolved to all functions, and appointed them in a King’s Council, which eventually formed the Star Chamber.
– The purpose of the Star Chamber was to make money: “… amassing treasure in the king’s coffers by every means that could be devised; and almost every alternation of the laws, however saluatory or otherwise in their future consequences, had this and only this or their great and immediate object. To this end, the court of starchamber was new-modeled and armed with powers the most dangers and unconstitutional over persons and properties…” Blackstone.

Judges
– Judges will be appointed from the landed gentry and, in the name of equity, protect the interests of those who appointed them.
– The Crown has authority to intervene in the extremely unlikely event a judge makes a mistake and issues a ruling the Crown disagrees with: this does not happen twice.
– Judges were to be treated with respect no matter how disgraceful their conduct as illustrated by this Star Chamber rule: “Let all men take heed how they complain in words against any magistrate or they are gods,” Les Reports des Cases. This made Star Chamber proceedings, when open, appear oddly normal.

Juries
– There is no right to jury trial, in the name of fairness.

Civil Procedure
– Hearings will be closed unless the court, at its sole discretion, deems otherwise.
– Record-keeping is voluntary and up to the sole discretion of the judges.
– Pretrial litigation consists of whatever the plaintiff should want.
– There exists a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff; the presumption is theoretically rebuttable but the standard is so high it is virtually impossible to overcome.
– There need be no supporting law whatsoever and, in the name of fairness, a Star Chamber judge may disregard any existing law. “… the court considered that it was free to disregard not only the ordinary rules of procedure but also the rules of law.” Holdsworth.
– Witnesses in support of the defendanse, when allowed to testify, were routinely attacked.
– Witnesses in support for the plaintiff need not appear in person; their testimony was read into the record and cross-examination not allowed.

Attorneys
– Those who do not retain counsel automatically lose.
– Attorneys who actively defend their clients shall be ostracized and tortured.
– Attorneys who take an unpopular client shall be punished by hostility against future clients.

Of course, the strangest correlation is the origin. Many say it is unknown or the Court had stars on the roof. A more likely explanation is from Blackstone, who noted the Star Chamber had no stars and it’s origin is more likely from the Hebrew word shetar turned to starr and to record contracts. The Star Chamber was a literal place where important records, usually property records and wills, were kept.

Lord Clarendon warns about the gradual increase in Star Chamber authority; jurisdiction was eventually extended “to the asserting o all proclamations and orders o state; to the vindicating of illegal commissions, and grants of monopolies; holding for honourable that which pleased, and for just that which profited; and becoming both a court of law to determine civil rights, and a court of revenue to enrich the treasury; the council table by proclamations enjoining to the people that which was not enjoined by laws, and prohibiting that which was not prohibited; and the Star-Chamber, which consisted of the same persons in different rooms, censuring the breach and disobedience to those proclamations by very great fines, imprisonments, and corporal severities; so that any disrespect to any acts o state, or to the persons o statesmen, was in no time more penal, and the foundations of right never more in danger to be destroyed.”

The founders of the US weren’t big fans of the Star Chamber; many of our most basic Constitutional and legal protections are a direct result from abuses suffered there, which is how their families ended up … here.

TO Lit Grant,

Please register at ForeclosureHamlet.org and post this to the link there also. Thank you for writing these in a way I could not.

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/breaking-news-your-input?xg_source=activity

Lisa
ForeclosureHamlet.org

Henceforth, all requests for discovery and or interrogatories from any Defendant will be ignored as irrelevant and not worthy of response, however, if a Plaintiff should have a mental lapse and forget they are under no burden to respond, a response using “legalese” deeming the Defendants request as “irrelevant”and/or a “breach of confidentiality” will carry the weight of law and immediately quash and strike such nonsensical requests from a Defendant.

Henceforth, a Plaintiff that fails to refute any and all affirmative defenses in a Defendant’s answer, is absolved of any legal burden by their not doing so. All affirmative defenses put forth by a Defendant are just meaningless words anyway, and will not be allowed to stop or delay the rush to summary judgment. In any case, a simple statement by a Plaintiff that all affirmative defenses are invalid will carry the weigh of law and/or a Court order.

Henceforth all request for admissions can be ignored by the Plaintiff and any failure to respond will place no legal burden on the Plaintiff.

And finally, Officers of the Court, though their statements, unverified claims, and “created documents” will carry the weight of law and/or a Judge’s ruling on all matters they choose to “rule upon”, are discouraged and barred from appearing in open Court in their “black Judges’ robes”. This ruling does not apply to “star chamber” hearing where the Defendant is barred from appearing and on junkets provided for the Judges in appreciation of their assistance in the rush to summary judgment. Officers of the Court are free to wear their robes while attending those events.