Foreclosure Defense Florida

Florida and White Collar Lawlessness- the OUTRAGEOUSNESS of a legal system that insulates gross wrongdoing…

People are under the naive misconception that our courts will punish wrongdoing. In fact, the 1% can get away with gross and systemic wrongdoing on a regular basis because the 1% has consistently chipped away at laws that should hold them accountable.

And Florida courts have consistently allowed more OUTRAGEOUS! than more civilized states.   So if you look around you and you feel like you’re living in a state of abject and overt White Collar Criminal Lawlessness and you feel like things are worse here than in other, more civilized states, you’re not losing your mind and you’re not being overly sensitive.   The fact is you’re absolutely spot on.

The 1% that own and control our government have created a system that expressly permits their

Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, “Outrageous!”  

(pretty wide latitude here for the 1% to get real medieval and bad on the serfs, right?)

Metropolitian Life

But wait, it get’s much, much worse. Here’s where Florida slinks to the bottom of the cesspool when it comes to outrageousness and lawlessness

Although there is no definitive example of what constitutes “outrageous conduct” for the purposes of maintaining a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Florida case law on the subject has evinced a comparatively high standard. As noted by Defendants in their memorandum, Florida courts have consistently rejected claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress relating to sexual harassment, intentional age discrimination and verbal abuse in the employment context.

It is evident from the Florida case law on this subject that conduct must be exceeding outrageous and reprehensible in order to form the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff has failed to cite any Florida case which demonstrates conduct sufficiently “outrageous” to satisfy the requirements under McCarson. Although Plaintiff attempts, in his answer, to distinguish the Florida cases discussed above on the grounds that the present case involves factually different conduct, this Court does not find Plaintiff’s argument persuasive.

Under Florida law, whether a person’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous and intolerable as to form the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a matter of law for the court, not a question of fact. Baker v. Florida National Bank, 559 So.2d 284, 287 (Fla. 4th DCA1990), rev. denied, 570 So.2d. 1303 (Fla.1990). In both the Lay and Scheller cases the reprehensible conduct of the defendant was determined, as a matter of law, not to be sufficiently outrageous to allow recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Although Plaintiff would have this Court look to the law in other jurisdictions in determining whether the Plaintiff has stated a sufficient basis for an “outrageous conduct” claim, the law in Florida is both clear and persuasive on the subject. It is this Court’s considered opinion that the alleged conduct does not rise to level of outrageousness as required by McCarson. The allegations are, therefore, an insufficient predicate to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or “outrageous conduct.”

Golden V. Complete

But wait, it gets even better in Florida (Better in the sense that Florida is apparently an utter wasteland devoid of any real requirement that the serf class be treated with any shred of humanity or decency), but just read what happened to a man stricken with cancer, his back broken by some cruel and barbaric attempt at medical treatment by prison guards….the dying man’s family lied to while he is apparently shipped around the country….in quite humane conditions, I’m sure….

Due to the family’s concerns regarding Mr. Ruiz’s health, Mr. Ruiz’ son, Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez (“Luis”), traveled to Coleman FCI to visit his father. Upon arriving at Coleman FCI, however, prison officials refused to permit Luis to visit Mr. Ruiz, Prison officials claimed that Mr. Ruiz did not wish to see Luis, but assured Luis that Mr. Ruiz’s health was “fine.” Despite the refusal of prison officials to permit Luis to see Mr. Ruiz, Luis remained in Florida in the hopes that he would eventually be granted permission to visit his father. While in Florida, Luis was advised, by a non-prison official, that Mr. Ruiz was at the Leesburg Hospital in Lake County, Florida, receiving treatment for cancer.

On June 4, 1997, Luis visited Mr. Ruiz at the Leesburg Hospital, where Luis was informed that Mr. Ruiz had terminal cancer. Moreover, hospital officials informed Luis that Mr. Ruiz’s spine and neck bones were “broken…because [prison] personnel had crudely attempted to manipulate [Mr. Ruiz’s] spine because they mistakenly believed he was suffering from a condition of `pinched nerves.'”

From April 1997 through June 4, 1997, Mr. Ruiz’s family made several attempts to contact Coleman FCI officials, seeking information regarding Mr. Ruiz’s medical condition and treatment thereof. According to Plaintiffs, these attempts were fruitless.

On June 5, 1997, Mr. Ruiz was transferred “” without notification to his family “” to the federal BOP medical facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that, while in custody at the Fort Worth, Texas facility, Mr. Ruiz received substandard medical treatment. Mr. Ruiz died nine days after his transfer from the Leesburg hospital to the Fort Worth, Texas facility. Plaintiffs contend that, during the nine days prior to Mr. Ruiz’s death, officials from the BOP refused to permit Mr. Ruiz’s children to visit their father. Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that BOP officials neglected to inform Mr. Ruiz’s family of Mr. Ruiz’s death.

Mere deception, while unfortunate, does not amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Even if BOP officials lied to Plaintiffs about Mr. Ruiz’s whereabouts and medical condition, such conduct does not rise to the level of being extreme or outrageous in nature.

GONZALEZ JIMENZ

Now reading this, I wonder.   How much worse could the treatments given by this world’s most notorious and evil dictators be?   Reading this are you still clinging to any notions of those delusions about the American experience?

These are just some of the cases and principles cited by institutions to justify their OUTRAGEOUS! conduct.

Do you not understand why there is an OCCUPY movement?

 

One Comment

  • brian davies says:

    It sounds as though Florida is so bad. It is all relative.
    During the time period of the last 2 years California has had many more cases blown out of court and few cases have made it to the appeal level. Most work has been done by Pro Se’s as it is too costly to pay to win. The amount of work is massive. Yes we have non judicial, but to have that and Judges who want to clear their schedules makes it impossible here.
    Here is my case with links to the excerpts of records, supoena results, transcripts, appellant brief and reply brief as well as the Appellee Brief from Deutsche Bank.

    Hi all,
    My fight is at the 9th Circuit of Appeals BAP. Here is the access to the complete record on appeal and my thanks to SCRIBD for allowing others to access it.
    I have spent countless hours sharing and understanding the complexities of the Monster MERS and the bank’s self serving shortcuts to profits. Here is my entire file on appeal. It includes filings for abandonment in chapter 7, adversary, subpoenas for mers with the mers audit trail, and arguments of UCC 1, 3, 9 and California Title laws. This should be helpful for those interested in the current cases and arguments.
    Appendix volumes 1 and 2 are the records on appeal and are referenced as ER, excerpts of records, Ex.,Exhibit and then the page number as it goes in order 0001 to 1001. It is easy to follow.

    The best is to read the case is [Appendix Volume 1 and Volume 2] it is the entire record, including subpoenas from MERS and Deustche Bank with endorsements.

    The Appellant Opening Brief is detailed. It is not perfect, but it is the paper needed if the case would require a next step.

    Then the Appellee Opening Brief and my response to it Appellant’s Reply Brief. There is an issue of Onewest and Deutsche Bank’s relationships.

    Appellant’s RJN #1 and Appellant’s RJN #2 deals with Deustche Bank and Onewest in other 9th circuit cases include In re Carter a S.D. Cal.2011 case. The cases demonstrate the agency relationship.

    There is also the Transcript of the Hearing, which demonstrates the biases of the Judge. I won 2 motions for relief under Judge Donovan and then was assigned a new judge Scott Clarkson and I was his first case. He went from Attorney to Judge during my case. I am not sure why, but it was done.

    Best
    Brian Davies
    760-898-8516
    760-904-4928
    Excerpts of Records
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/58704429/Davies-v-Deutsche-Bank-Appellate
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/58704660/Davies-v-Deutsche-Bank-Appellate

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/58702207/Davies-v-Deutsche-Bank-Opening-B

    Appellee’s Opening Brief
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/60892271/Deutsche-Bank-Appelle-Opening-Br

    Appellant’s Reply Brief
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/61235368/Davies-v-Deutsche-Bank-Appelant-

    Transcript of Hearing
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/59161560/Davies-Transcript-of-May-3-2011-

    Appellant’s Requests for Judicial Notice #1 and RJN #2
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/58704165/Davies-V-Deutsche-Bank-Appellate
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/60593521/Davies-V-Deutsche-Bank-Appellate

Leave a Reply