Videos

A Loud And Whipping Foreclosure Appellate Argument….Appellate Court Demanding That Plaintiffs Pursue Foreclosure Cases! (Ignore the National Mortgage Settlement)

Just listen to how this appellate court just rips apart a foreclosure plaintiff.

And make no mistake, I take no pleasure in watching this.

I do not revel in watching what is a real browbeating that this foreclosure mill lawyer is taking.

Quite frankly this lawyer is 100% correct in his argument and position on the law.

The problem is, his position conflicts with a very dangerous, over arching position that our entire court system has taken….

CLEAR THIS FORECLOSURE BACKLOG!

I quite frankly wish that lawyers from both sides of the church would join together in support of the larger interest we serve….The interests of justice.

 

6 Comments

  • DolleyMadison says:

    I Love this so much I am putting it on my Ipod…could listen to this douche get his ass handed to him all day long…THANKS FOR POSTING!

    • ryan says:

      Mr. Gache is actually right. I agree it’s funny to watch the beat down but did the judges even read Chemrock? It says exactly what he says it says. You can file the menu and that’s enough.

  • Jon K says:

    I disagree he’s a “douche.” And I don’t think he got his “ass handed to him” either.

    He makes good legal arguments the the FL Supreme Court ruled very vaguely on this issue as to what constitutes activity. And I think the 3rd DCA went too far stepping on the FL S.Ct.’s toes affirming the dismissals in the lower court.

    Like the argument or not, the FL S.Ct. case says what it says. None of the lawyers or judges in this case had any part in that decision, so its not their fault. Likely none of the current foreclosure Plaintiff lawyers had a part in it. It is merely the law lawyers and judges are bound by now.

    I have always thought that these “Notice of Intent to Prosecute” are bogus filings, but according to the FL S.Ct’s language, these are record activity; as the clerk cannot look at the substance of the document, but only that there was SOMETHING filed by Plaintiff.

    The law needs to change but this has been a clever tactic thought up by Plaintiff lawyers.

  • This in my mind is vexatious litigation.

    This video reminded me of an attorney for plaintiff bank in Austin, TX who, in re 2 yr limitation period pursuant to Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code Sec. 16.003(a) claimed that the cause re-accrued every month that a homeowner refused to vacate the property.

    If he was right then the premise would vitiate the statute.

    He was not right.

  • advocate says:

    Jurisprudential scholars will shudder at this exchange……

  • Jennifer says:

    The funny thing is everyone agrees that they are unclear of what “activity” means as written by the Supreme Court ruling.
    If the panel is spending this much time trying to figure it out too, then they need to ask the Supreme Court for clarification on what “activity” means.
    She then is asking him a procedural question….love it…and then looking from him to come up with a solution….I expected so much more from them, but then again, it doesn’t surprise me. Good for him for standing his ground like that…not many people would have the guts to do that…he could always take it higher…I would…:)…what does he have to lose? He already has them thinking about it….go for it…

Leave a Reply