RED PILL/BLUE PILL SCENE (Play this first)

~

The Pino Appeal And The Title Industry – Will The Supreme Court Take The Red Pill or The Blue Pill?

Author:

As I read through the brief submitted by the title industry in the Pino appeal, now pending before the Florida Supreme Court, I was reminded of the scene in The Matrix, and I realized that this state and this nation are indeed at a great crossroads. Which direction will our court choose? Will it make the difficult but correct choice and establish a bright line that demands our courts be respected and treated with the dignity our nation’s justice system deserves or will we continue to head down the dark and disastrous path that the banks have taken us down?

The brief filed by the land title association is about as bizarre as the pleading filed by the banks in the Glarum rehearing. In both cases, the bankster fraud apologists point to blogs to suggest our courts should intercede on their behalf and excuse away all their crimes. Glarum here I thought the Glarum rehearing brief was indeed out of bounds for citing press clippings as a basis to change an appellate court holding, but now this Pino brief comes in and just blows it out of the water.

The brief suggests that the Florida Supreme Court should issue an opinion that would essentially ratify all manner of fraud and error committed by the banksters in their reckless and even criminal acts. That’s really what we’re talking about here. We all know now that the banks engaged in conduct that ranged from reckless and sloppy to criminal. Yes, fraud and violation of notary laws are crimes. Unfortunately, that has to be repeated again because some folks, even some attorneys general and even courts are a bit fuzzy on the concept. Fraud and violation of notary laws are crimes.

And while all that is bad, bad stuff, I find it truly bizarre that a brief filed in the Florida Supreme Court quotes at length a rather obscure, but respected website. But the damndest thing about it is if you actually read the full blog post it rather argues against providing the relief sought in the brief. The blog post makes it clear that in Florida law overturning final foreclosure judgments is extremely rare and very difficult…..as it should be. But the blog post does not suggest, as the brief does, that title insurors should be able to rest free and clear when it’s proven that their minions have engaged in gross fraud or other abuse.

That’s really what we’re talking about here folks, this is the pill our nation has to choose. Are we all going to sit aside and let the bankers and their minions walk free from their crime scenes or will our nation’s courts step up, stand tall and chose the path of truth, of justice and the Rule of Law?

As I read this I realized the same two pills have been presented to the Florida Legislature in the two versions of foreclosure “reform” that are now pending….what path will they choose? Will they accept the Finality of Judgment provision in Richter’s version, or will the legislature stand fast with the least horrific of a bad, bad piece of legislation?

And now, read the land title pleadings:

The residential mortgage foreclosure crisis has caused a host of problems for homeowners, lenders, and Florida’s court system. The Court addressed many of these problems by forming the Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosures in 2009 and by adopting its recommended amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010. (Mostly ignored by the banks and largely irrelevant to the cases currently clogging our courts and judgments that have been entered. This is what we call a red herring.)

However, unlike some other states, the Court has not adequately addressed the protection of third party interests when otherwise final court proceedings are collaterally attacked, especially the interest of those who have purchased foreclosed real estate. (No, actually it’s pretty clear. A final judgment is only subject to attack for gross fraud.)

Respectfully, if the Court is to give guidance to trial courts and litigants regarding collateral attacks against foreclosure actions (whether relief is sought under rule 1.540(b) or the use of inherent judicial powers) beyond the narrow facts of this case, it should give guidance on protecting the interests of third parties that purchase, finance and insure title to foreclosed properties. Recognition and protection of these neglected interests is vital to the integrity of our judicial system and to the ultimate resolution of the mortgage foreclosure crisis. (Here’s the real deal. The title insurance companies are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in claims based on the crimes and the fraud of their dogs. But that’s the business they are in. They underwrote the risk and now they want to skate away from it…When you lie down with dogs, you should expect fleas.)

This Court addressed the ownership concern in early 2010 by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) to require that mortgage foreclosure complaints be verified and by giving trial courts greater authority “to sanction [mortgagees] who make false allegations.” (I challenge anyone in this world, find me one case. A single case, anything, where any Plaintiff has suffered any sanction for violating this rule. Such a case does not exist, the banks first ignored the rule with impunity then cite other provisions of law to support their position that they are above the law….remember, the law they argue is, “A Thief Can Take A Home In Florida”)

Respectfully, if the Court is to give guidance to trial courts and litigants regarding collateral attacks in foreclosure actions (whether relief is sought under rule 1.540(b) or the use of inherent judicial powers) beyond the narrow facts of this case, it should make it clear that the interests of third parties who have purchased, financed, and insured title to foreclosed properties in reliance on the finality of a court action must be considered and properly protected. Recognition and protection of these neglected interests is vital to the integrity of our judicial system and to the ultimate resolution of the mortgage foreclosure crisis. (This really gets to the heart of the matter. The title insurance industry had a responsibility to reign in the gross abuses and blatantly criminal practices of their agents, but they chose not to do so. They made a business decision that they should look the other way and ignore the exposure they were opening themselves up to, but they choose to let the crime spree continue. Now they seek absolution from our state’s highest court.)

I find it all very infuriating and insulting. The world knows now what was done and who did it all. Well, actually the truth is we don’t know all of it because no one in any position of power or leadership has had the courage or the sense enough to dig into all this and ferret out exactly how bad things really are. Attorneys that do try to seek out the truth and fight the banks are attacked, persecuted and punished. All the while, the architects and operators of the biggest crime spree ever committed on a people walk free……

pinoalta here…

Next up, a takedown of the garbage submitted by the banksters themselves. I had to take a few deep breaths before I begin to sink into the filth that this piece is….but you go ahead, get started with it. A few of my favorite quotes to get us all started:

The Amici do not condone, in any way, intentional misconduct in the foreclosure process or the initiation of judicial proceedings without proper documentation. (Good ladies and gentlemen, good.)

Here, upon becoming aware of the allegations that the assignment was fraudulent, BNY Mellon decided to exercise its absolute right to terminate the litigation voluntarily without prejudice, in order to correct a potential flaw in the case. The right thing was done, albeit under uncomfortable circumstances. (Potential flaw, uncomfortable circumstances)

Sometimes, a litigant learns that its pre-suit perception of the facts is incorrect. (And in foreclosure we just fabricate documents to make our post suit facts comport with our pre suit perceptions.)

He merely argued that a phony assignment, discovered in a separate, unrelated case of Stern’s, indicated that the assignment of Pino’s mortgage was suspicious. After declaring that “all those at Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm who participated in the execution, witnessing and the notarization of the assignment of mortgage in an unrelated case did so with the intent of committing a fraud on this court,” without citation or explanation, Pino leapt to the bold conclusion that the deficient assignment in the unrelated case constituted “sufficient grounds for believing the mortgage assignment in the instant case was similarly backdated.” (I had to delete the comment I first wrote about this paragraph….)

pinobankers here…

All Pino Briefs and Motions here…

~

4closureFraud.org