As I write that headline, I realize it’s a truly terrifying question. THIS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE A QUESTION…THE ANSWER SHOULD BE THAT IN THIS COUNTRY, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SAFE AND SECURE IN OUR HOMES. WE SHOULD NOT LIVE IN FEAR THAT THE BANKS WILL BE SENDING IN THUGS TO BREAK DOWN DOORS!
But this is Amerika, where the banks run amok, with no restrain on their actions. THEY FEAR NO LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND AS CLEARLY ARTICULATED BY BANK’S AGENTS, SUPPORTED BY GANGS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED LAWYERS READY TO POUNCE ON ANYONE WHO DARES TO STAND UP TO THEM…
WE’RE NOT EVEN PHASED BY LAWSUITS ANYMORE!
This is truly a terrifying period we have entered into in this country. Someday I will put all these transcripts up, because all of Amerika needs to know the dangerous tyranny we are all fighting…..for now, listen to just a little bit of it….
MR. WEIDNER: Please the Court, Your
2 Honor, I would. Matthew Weidner on behalf of
3 the plaintiff. You Honor is
4 aware of the facts in this case. We assert
5 that the individuals that are represented by
6 the fine attorneys on the other side engaged in
7 a conspiracy to commit several illegal,
8 improper acts, violations of the law and torts.
9 And it’s significant to keep in mind that
10 when we first filed this complaint we didn’t
11 know who all the parties were. We are
12 continuing to develop new parties. The
13 complaint had to be amended because we were not
14 aware that there was an another company that was going
15 to be coming to this lawsuit.
16 The complaint had to be amended again when
17 we discovered that there was another party,
18 who is now part of
19 this lawsuit that came to the table. The
20 complaint had to be amended when we took a
21 deposition which is continued by the way
22 because the deponent did not answer all the
23 questions that they were required to.
24 So dismissing anything at this stage of
25 the game would be technically improper because
1 we are still trying to gather the facts which
2 would allow us to provide even more facts
3 before the court. So to limit inquiry right
4 now by dismissing any counts would be improper
5 I believe.
6 Turning specifically to the conspiracy in
7 count two, we have been as clear as we can at
8 this stage of the game about precisely what the
9 facts are and precisely what the conspiracy
10 that the defendants engaged in. Let us be
11 clear about what the facts here are.
12 As the police report which is attached to
13 the complaint makes clear, it is the practice
14 of the defendants to regularly break into homes
15 in this county, in fact across the state, using
16 a screwdriver or whatever means, climbing in
17 through windows. We assert quite clearly that
18 this is a violation of basic law.
19 You just can’t burglarize a home. You
20 can’t break into a home. As the police report
21 further indicates, the Sheriff’s Office took
22 fingerprints and they found that there were
23 fingerprints on a cold beer that was on the
24 counter. The Sheriff’s Office took
25 fingerprints. There were fingerprints all over
1 the drawers.2 They asked the defendants why are there
3 fingerprints all over and they had no
4 explanation for that. Clearly the explanation
5 is they were rummaging through drawers.
8 So as to count two, the civil conspiracy,
9 as good counsel over there just indicated he
10 sort of ran through the basic outlines of
11 what’s happening here. He said loosely
12 defined, and I quote, loosely defined as a
13 lender, hired the other part of the team over
14 there to break into the house.
15 Well, this is precisely the point. Even
16 since this lawsuit has been filed there’s been
17 some changes and some shifting of who the
18 plaintiff is that might have hired the rest of
19 the actors over there. And that is evolving
20 even through the course of this litigation. So
21 again to dismiss anything at this stage of the
22 process would be improper because we are still
23 gathering facts to support the claims.
24 The count two is as clear as we can make
25 it at this point in time as to what happened
1 without getting into more discovery as to the
2 precise circumstances. I cited some cases in
3 my opposition to this particular motion.
4 Charles v. Florida Foreclosure Placement which
5 asserts the requisite elements for conspiracy.
6 Civil conspiracy requires an agreement
7 between two or more parties — that’s those
8 folks over on that side of the room — b) to do
9 an unlawful act — that is to break into a
10 house without proper legal authority — and c)
11 the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the
12 conspiracy — as my good colleague just
13 indicated, that’s what they did, they broke
14 inside, and d) damage to the plaintiff as a
15 result done of the conspiracy.
16 I allege specifically property damage and
17 loss of this contractual relationship and other
18 things. So under that standard of Charles v.
19 Florida Placement we have met the requirements
20 for civil conspiracy so I would respectfully
21 request that that stands on its own.