Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

If They Get Away With This, The Amerikan Legal System is Doomed

florida-foreclosure-courts-ACLUThe following are a collection of quotes from the court’s response to the ACLU lawsuit.   I want laypersons to compare this wet blanket and non-responsive response with the legal scholarship that is reflected in the ACLU petition.   The ACLU lawsuit is real, it is detailed, it is specific.   It states facts and it makes real and well-founded arguments.   The response fails to respond to any of the substantive issues raised and merely asks the appellate court to look the other way while legal carnage continues.   Compare the ACLU Petition Here with the response which is quoted below….Did they really put these responses in writing?

WHEN WILL AMERICA WAKE UP?   WILL AMERICANS WAKE UP?

IS IS ALREADY TOO LATE?

The foreclosing banks are often represented by out-of-town law firms with large case
loads and a correspondingly diminished attention to individual cases. The unexpected
volume and unanticipated permutations of the foreclosure crisis have caught the
banks unaware, often resulting in litigation paralysis. Case management is a means
of bringing some order to this chaotic scenario.

So the great majority of mortgage foreclosure cases will be resolved on preliminary

motions without the necessity of a full trial on the merits.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the form Order uses the term ” docket sounding,”
since the term has little legal meaning. The term is not used anywhere in the Rules
of Civil Procedure, so there is no definition of it.

The salutary effect of using the term is that it does have some alarm value,
thereby impressing upon the parties and their counsel the importance of the scheduled
hearing and moving the case forward. Recall that the form Order issues only if the
foreclosure case has been languishing without any activity for at least months.

At around this point in the Merrigans’ foreclosure action the Bank of New
York lost the representation of its counsel. The Bank had been represented by the
David Stern law firm. Mr. Stern is under investigation by the Florida Bar, and he has
ceased representing mortgagees in the Twentieth Circuit. In many cases his firm has
formally withdrawn. In other cases, such as the instant one, his firm has simply
ceased representing its client.

The foreclosure action has now been pending for
over two years, and during this period the Merrigans have retained possession of the
mortgaged premises, presumably without payment on the mortgage.

It appears that this Response will be the only response the Court will receive
in this matter. The Bank of New York has counsel of record, but that counsel has
apparently made the unilateral decision to effect a de facto withdrawal. The contact
person for the Bank of New York is unknown.
Much of the Petition is aimed at the
Twentieth Circuit anyway, so it is appropriate that the Circuit briefly discuss the
limits of prohibition relief.