Also, judges cannot just decide to set a case for trial. Judges do not have such power until a party files a notice for trial, and once such a notice is filed, the case may be set for trial if it is at issue. See General Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bolivar, 460 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

A little cash buys a lot of “justice” everywhere, not just in that Lee County backwater.

Of course, you have to love how stupid these bankster minion judges are and how they show it by saying dumbass things like Rule 1.440 does not apply in Lee County.

Equally ignorant and transparently criminal is ruling on the motion to dismiss without it being heard and without it being set for a hearing and refusing to comply with 1.420(e) which requires dismissal for the bankster’s attorney’s failure to prosecute for over 10 months.

Since no one seems to know nothing, I’ll do some free schooling especially since no one else who is supposed to enforce the law is willing to forgo the cash paid to them not to do so (if the prosecutors were NOT taking BRIBES, the banksters would not have gone on a widespread crime spree), since so many judges are also on the banksters’ payroll, and since even the foreclosure defense attorneys don’t seem to be that sharp (if they were, they would be kicking a lot more banksters’ asses and wiping out most mortgages).

Motions to dismiss cannot be denied without a hearing in Florida unless you ignore the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure which specify which motions may be considered ex parte. See e.g., Hilton v. Florio, 317 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). By the way, only motions for a temporary injunction are allowed to be considered ex parte and even then, only under very limited circumstances. See Rule 1.610.

Motions to dismiss also cannot be denied sua sponte at a hearing if the motion to dismiss was not noticed for hearing at that hearing. See e.g., Joanides v. Jubis, 886 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Finally, if there has been no record activity by the plaintiff for 12 months, then according to Rule 1.420(e), the court shall dismiss the action. See, Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2005).

Entering an order denying a motion to dismiss without a hearing or at a hearing without a notice specifying that the motion to dismiss will be heard violates that right to notice and opportunity to be heard which is part of that quaint old right to due process. Oh, by the way, violation of a rule or controlling precedent is a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, something which crooked judges have been prosecuted for before on occasions in which someone knew how to put the prosecutor on the spot.

It is too bad that none of the foreclosure defense attorneys know how to push for prosecution and removal of the crooked bankster owned judges. Perhaps they should consider consulting with someone about this.

Our country is in serious trouble, and it is going to take a great force to turn us around in the right direction. We are quickly becoming a third world country, in my opinion, consisting of the rich and the poor.

We have all been quite for the most part, as we gather our evidence of fraud, thinking that once we gather this evidence, surely something would be done. Yes, there has been some acknowledgement that this evidence we have gathered has indeed occurred, but where is the outrage? Where is the… we are not going to let this kind of behavior continue? As we all marvel and think to ourselves had it been us, we would be in jail by now.

Today, as I was reading through the daily posts on the foreclosure front, I saw some really disturbing articles; articles about people so desperate to keep their home that they would rather die in a ball of fire, than be put out onto the streets. I read articles about Judges who declared that their courts are above the law, but when word got out, they quickly retracted their words. Would they have done this had they not been caught? Is this something that is a rare occurrence in our court rooms? I think not…

Will everyone remain calm as we discover all our disclosures have produced is a slap on the wrist? A fine and sturdy warning to be more careful next time they decide to draw up their fraudulent documents? I find it disturbing that there is a “Hope for Haiti” yet there is no “Hope for America.”