This is deeply insulting to anyone who wants due process and values an independent judiciary.

In a clear attempt to influence the 4th DCA to change their opinion in the Glarum case, Big Law is at it again. Remember the pressure the 4th’s judges caved to when they changed the Riggs case. In that case, the decision was flipped 180 degrees. http://ning.it/900gb1

Believe me. These attorneys would be screaming bloody murder if the 4th was willing to loosen up the hearsay rules in regards to the types of cases they heavily depend upon the compliance with those same rules. It’s only when the banks do not want to follow the hearsay rules that we see this type of outright pressure applied to the appellate judges.

Apparently, any Florida appellate decision that requires banks to follow long established court rules or evidence are fair game to be overturned with a little push from the industry and their powerful attorneys.

Remember, rules of evidence exist for a reason. As result of the dishonest affidavits, assignments, allonges, & summary judgement affidavits filed by banks, LPS, and their foreclosure mills, Florida judges have been deceived into entering thousands of foreclosure judgements based on unsworn affidavits & other hearsay evidence containing no admissible evidence and signed by a witness not competent to testify to the facts presented.

From the Greenberg Traurig team: The Changing Landscape of the Business Records Exception under Florida Law and its Impact on Florida Foreclosures – Greenberg Traurig LLP: http://bit.ly/od8apg via

Given the current scrutiny applied by Florida trial courts construing motions for summary judgment in foreclosure cases, we believe that Glarum may be used by borrower’s counsel to delay or prolong the matter. It is likely that borrower’s counsel will use Glarum to take depositions of plaintiffs’ corporate representatives in foreclosure matters as to their record keeping procedures and, depending on the facts of the case, will argue that the affidavits of indebtedness are inadmissible hearsay.

Here’s how Abigail Field refutes the “Armageddon Panic” propaganda:

When foreclosing, the court said, a bank has to use evidence, not hearsay.

That’s what the computer data said, it must be true–why does it matter who did the data entry or if some of the data were from a previous servicer? Surely this court is putting form over substance, letting homeowners off on a technicality.

Unfortunately for the banks, that bias doesn’t hold up under scrutiny: lots of evidence exists that bank databases aren’t accurate. For example, sworn testimony in another case says that employees of Lender Processing Services, who work for many big banks and mortgage servicers, possibly including the ones in this case, regularly mess up the banks’ databases. But don’t just take his word for it; consider that banks have foreclosed on homes bought with cash; sold homes they don’t own; tried to foreclose on people who always made their payments on time, in full… absolutely no one should assume that because a number appears on a bank’s computer screen that it’s true. And that’s without addressing the possibility that the numbers have been inflated by illegal fees. (The issue of lousy bank databases goes way beyond mortgage records, incidentally, consider what Linda Almonte said about Chase’s credit card records.)

http://abigailcfield.com/?p=297

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Glarum v Lasalle Bank National Association