Indigents facing foreclosure in Sarasota Bradenton had a fierce warrior on their side….until just a few days ago when a new corporate install came in and fired her.
The defense of her firing is no defense at all….more proof of a Kafka-esque corporatism that has invaded all areas of refuge for the least among us. But don’t just listen to me, listen to what the most respected lawyer and judge in the community has to say.
“She is a passionate advocate for her clients, and achieved some impressive results for them,” Circuit Court Judge Lee Haworth
and
“She is regarded as a competent and respected attorney. I hope she continues to represent people who cannot afford to hire lawyers in some capacity.”
Judges become very concerned, Haworth said, when they see one side come into a difficult case without an attorney.
“Anytime you lose a resource that helps the indigent it is not a happy process for civil justice,” he said.
This Chief Judge is a drill sergeant, bull dog of a man….a legal giant respected not just in this community, but across the state. When he speaks, his voice is the amplified voice of he legal community. And indeed, the real tragedy is that members of the community will not get access to legal services.
It’s an OUTRAGE…..another OUTRAGE…the world spinning out of control.
Thanks for turning attention to this awesome women’s life work. It is a noble cause to help those who can not afford the services of a talented attorney. I hope those who fired her realize this colossal mistake—-soon! I concur—-“It’s an OUTRAGE”¦..another OUTRAGE”¦the world spinning out of control.”
Matt,
This is off-topic, but here goes, regarding HB 87 now sitting on Gov Scott’s desk:
I thought of another consequence of HB 87 that also probably helps to render it unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that HB 87 represents a significant government impairment of contracts (mortgages and notes).
If the foreclosure action were to be subject to the five year statute of limitations (Florida common law), then requiring a defendant to make any payment to “plaintiff” might reset (or at least toll) the limitations period per F.S. 95.051 (1) “The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 is tolled by:” … “(f) The payment of any part of the principal or interest of any obligation or liability founded on a written instrument.” This might actually be a hidden purpose behind the bill (law).
Also, as you have pointed out, the bill (law) makes no provision for recovery of such payments to “plaintiff” if the defendant prevails in the forclosure action. It seems to me that most of HB 87’s provisions – including the “payment” provision – are substantive alterations of defendants’ existing rights (impairing, destroying them), and thus defeat the legislature’s contention that the bill (law) was “remedial” and therefore implying (but not clearly expressing its intent) that the new statutes deserved “restrospective” application. At very least, with all these substantive changes, HB 87’s application should be prospective ONLY.