UnBEElivable – You are simply wrong. Pino’s lawyer demonstrated, in textbook fashion, how NOT to present an oral argument. She did not answer questions directly. She interrupted and talked over the justices. And she didn’t have a good argument. She gave the justices nothing to support her request.

You are wrapped up in what the bank did wrong. I’m with you. I fight the banks every day. But what the banks did was NOT the issue in this case. The issue in the case is whether a court can take away a party’s absolute, long-recognized right to dismiss a lawsuit. There is no authority for the court to do so under Florida law. Pino was asking the Court to create such a rule out of thin air, to supplant the role of the legislature in writing law.

Think about it this way. You assert that the Florida Supreme Court is in the pocket of the banks and other Wall Street interests. Let’s think about what the rule Pino is advancing would do for Wall Street in the future. I think Wall Street would love the type of rule Pino is advancing. That way, when a lawyer brings a case against a large corporate defendant and then voluntarily dismisses it, the corporation can keep the case open and try to put the lawyer or his client in the poor house. Instant tort reform.

The Court was plenty troubled by the bank’s conduct in the case. In fact, the bank’s lawyer made it a point to say what happened was very wrong. But as I said, that was not the issue in this case. This is a case about civil procedure. And Pino will lose. That said, I think the Court will address one issue that will give homeowners some ammunition.

It’s apparent that the Justices did not want to let Ms. Lundegan’s speak to much because the public would realize how much shit the banksters have gotten away with in our judicial system; hence the constant interruptions, sarcastic comments i.e. gotcha moment” etc.

They had the audacity to say that homeowners have other options as far sanctions against the bank like filing a compliant to the Fl Bar…Yeah right! David Stern still has his license to practice in Florida! Give me a break!!!!

Do NOT expect anything to come out of this, that will aide the homeowner in fighting fraud.

The whole system is corrupt. I saw the vid on live feed and was jumping in my chair as she kept interrupting the attorney for Ice Legal. The other justices got a few wacks in also. I only felt a bit better when I saw one justice slamming the Banksters attorney too, but I lost hope when I saw all the justices stay quite as if they already made up their minds. Let’s hope it was just a fake out, and the banks are sitting warm and happy thinking they won, and Bang! But that’s just wishful thinking.

I’m not licensed in Florida, but it sounds like Florida’s procedural rules are very similar to Ohio’s. If so, the law is stacked against Pino. In order for Pino to win, the Court will have to create an exception to the long-established rule about the right to voluntarily dismiss a case. Court’s tend to dislike making such rules on the fly. And what few seem to understand is that if the Court permits this type of post-dismissal evaluation of a plaintiff’s case, all plaintiff’s will be subject to the new rule. This includes all personal injury, medical malpractice, and consumer claims. Such a rule could really have a chilling effect on the willingness of attorneys to bring such claims in the future.

If the Court rules against Pino, it would be a huge mistake to say that the Court is covering up fraud or siding with the banks. It was clear from the argument today that the justices were concerned about the integrity of the judicial system and were offended by the alleged conduct by Stern’s office. But the rule proposed by Pino is not the way to address it. This is why so much time was spent on other means of raising the issue of fraud in a dismissed case. I anticipate that the Court will rule against Pino, but in doing so provide a road map to courts and counsel as to how such issues can be addressed in the future.