Foreclosure Defense Florida

My Appeal To The Second District Court of Appeals…Why Can’t The Banks Just Verify Their Complaints?

Rather than me just going on and on with outrage, just read the briefs….the real outrage is outlined in the pleadings…..

Waiting for the Second District Court of Appeals to Answer…..

WritofCertiorari

ReplyBrief

Response Brief

 

 

10 Comments

  • nydeemarie says:
    March 7, 2012 at 9:26 am

    “”the Court of Appeals held that governmental units such as the New York City Civil Court may be “enterprises” within the meaning of RICO.

    United States v. Angelilli, 660 F. 2d 23 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1981

    Reply
  • Jeff Thomas says:
    March 7, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Matt??? In reading the ‘Petitioner’s Replay To Respndents’ Response To Petition For Writ of Certiorari’ on p 6 FN1 “As of May 26, 2010, Petitioner had filed the original note with the court and withdrew the count to re-establish a lost instrument.” ?WTF? especialy enlight of their statement on pg 3 “…within the Statement of the Case and Facts section, Respondents assert that the alleged NOTE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE COPY ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT DID NOT CONTAIN AN ENDORSEMENT.”

    OUTRAGED … IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH OF A WORD! GEEEEZZZZZ

    Reply
  • triumphant says:
    March 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Matt, you and Mark Stopa appear to disagree with regards to the Supreme Court’s verification rule. You state that the verification of the complaint doesn’t have to be upon “personal knowledge,” but Mark, as I recall, says it does. Mark parses the words and says that “documents” are treated differently under the new rule than “complaints.” I tend to agree with Mark on the issue.

    Reply
    • Wally Cook says:
      March 8, 2012 at 10:49 am

      I agree with triumphant and so do the Brevard county Judges. Sentence one deals with complaints and sentence 2 deals with documents.

      Reply
  • J.R. Homeowner says:
    March 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Interesting reading.
    My conclusion is that the petitioner CANNOT have the named plaintiff verify the complaint because counsel for the petitioner DOESN’T REPRESENT THE NAMED PLAINTIFF, but instead actually represents the *SERVICER* (who, as you noted, has gone unnamed and well below the radar).
    Both you and Mr. Stopa have blogged about this “shell game” before.
    Perhaps it would be appropriate for the appellate court to determine just exactly WHO counsel for the petitioner represents before that court is similarly *bamboozled* by somone who is retained by THE SERVICER and NOT the named plaintiff???

    Reply
    • Graciela says:
      March 9, 2012 at 9:25 am

      You are so RIGHT!! Counsel represent the servicer – Select Portfolio, not US National Bank, who may not even know about this case, or does not even own the loan…. ROBOSIGNING, lol. All foreclosure cases owned by Select Portfolio are US National Bank cases. Who is the master mind behind them? Who does the counsel represents?

      Reply
  • Ryan says:
    March 7, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Don’t forget the #1 Rule: They’re the banks, and we’re not.

    Reply
  • neidermeyer says:
    March 7, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Unbelievable (or it should be…) all that to avoid complying with a rule.

    Reply
  • Gustavo Cuenca says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:15 am

    w3 all waiting to see that answer !!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply