PS: I hope it comes in a HARD cover edition and is really, really heavy.

they probably threw this together over a yr ago when it first hit the fan that there was fraud involved in stealing our homes.

The rule is clear that it applies to non-moving EVIDENCE not ARGUMENT. Argument can be made at any time prior to the hearing, at the hearing, and even after the hearing in the form of a motion for reconsideration.

Also the mention of non-moving party needing to file a notice of opposition is, I believe, incorrect. Burden of proof is on moving party, there is no requirement for non-moving party to affirmatively argue, notice or disprove motion.

That said, it is a very good idea to have a REPLY to the summary judgement motion served and in the record prior to the hearing. You have more room, time, thought and ability to make good argument and point to the evidence in support of the reasons the SJ should not be granted. Even lawers should file a will thought out REPLY to the SJ motion to make sure they don’t forget what could be a winning argument.

That judges regularly tell pro-se defendants that they should have had their REPLY argument in the record before the hearing. This appears to be wrong. Rule 1.510(c) requires the issues of law to be argued at the hearing must be specified in the motion for SJ, along with identifying with specificity the evidence in the record on which it relies. BUT there is no section of the rule stating that the non-moving party must do the same with their argument, points of law or case law. The deadline for the non-moving party is just for their evidence.

This document is good. It helps, but it seems to have been written from a pro-plaintiff point of view. For example it fails to go into the issue that the court may not weight the merits of the evidence, that is for trial. The court may only look to see if there are material facts in despite, not who’s facts are more likely or more credible.

The document does mention that the moving party has to address the non-moving parties Affirmative Defenses, but gives short shift to the legal problem that the court must have disposed of the Affirmative Defenses before a SJ can be granted. This means the moving party must have previously moved to have them struck, or must somehow prove in the SJ motion they are not valid, while not raising any dispute as to any materiel fact: Not an easy trick.

Well plead Affirmative Defenses are a bar to the summary judgement that is given short shift in this document.
It is a good start but it needs more work, especially from the point of view of the court needing to make sure the defendants get their rights too, and for the court to red flag items suggesting fraud on the court.

Service is well explored, but other issues like alleged out of state successor trustees for a trust with no direct tie to the note or mortgage, Affidavits not made on personal knowlage, fake custodian of the records affidavits, attorney fee affidavits without fixed amount, statements of intrest owed without any indication on how that was calculated, affidavits that are acknowledged and not sworn, non-certified documents attached to affidavits or used as evidence. There should be checklists of things to check on affidavits other than the total alleged to be owed.

There was nothing said about how to identify if the note is actually negotiable or not…existing contingencies; reason to accelerate/foreclose due to non payment…not all foreclosures/ accelerations are a result of non payment….
defense attorneys need to cite those cases that contradict the mers examples…there are several….and defense attorneys really need to draw on their understanding of the law and do some more research also….

What about fraudulent documents that were recorded such as the mortgage to begin with …and the fraud upon the courts regarding the affidavits? The defense attorney should continue to do this…
and dos anyone know what April Charney’s opinion of this is?
Never give up. Keep the faith. We will overcome and we will defeat these people who keep trying to remove the landmarks of our homes….

God is faithful…and He will continue to expose more fraud and uproot these banks and judges and everyone else that are trying to stop us. Agree with me….

Recorded assignments of note…enforceable, providing they were not fraudulently prepared with on of Jeffrey Stephan signature!????????? Your thoughts…..

Well, I think that is our whole battle, judges who say black is white when it’s not.

Of course, it should be noted here that Matt wrote when he posted this that it is a bench “book” not the bench bible. Still, lazy judges will eat it up–making our fight take a few steps backwards with such judges. Just when we had momentum going to force them to look at the LAW about this, we are confronted with this book for judges that encourages them not to rethink the old rubber-stamp-it mentality. It’s a lot of mental work for them to come out of that ditch.

I was impressed when Iowa threw out all their judges in the election. Whether one agrees with their reason or not, it’s good for judges not to feel secure in their positions. This is a nation built on rule of law, and should remain that way without question. One would think judges shouldn’t have to be reminded.