Pino v. Bank of New York- “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,”

Ah Pino. Pino v. Bank of New York. Remember that line from Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals…

“many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,”

We all know this remains true, even today but everyone, including judges and appellate courts and the legislature and attorneys general from all across the country want us all just to forget that statement. Ignore it all they say, it doesn’t matter.   Get back to work people and stop with all your complaining.   But really folks, think about the commentary on our judicial system, on our government on a theory of governance when this situation is allowed to persist.   The banks of course are quite content to demand we all just forget about all this.   They tell me in court, “even if you could prove fraud, it doesn’t matter”.

That folks is what your nation has become. The bank asks the Florida Supreme Court to ignore fraud:

A trial court does not have jurisdiction and authority under Rule 1.540(b) or under its inherent authority to grant relief from a voluntary dismissal where the motion alleges fraud on the court in the proceedings but no affirmative relief on behalf of the plaintiff has been obtained from the court.

I find the following statement most laughable, if indeed things were not so serious, but it’s laughable because the rule they cite has first been routinely ignored by the banks and then never enforced...

As to mortgage foreclosures, if there have been in the past “many, many” foreclosures “tainted with suspect documents” (Appendix A at 5), opening the door to relitigating voluntary dismissals which may have occurred in those cases (assuming that there have been both numerous “suspect documents” and voluntary dismissals) would cause more harm than benefit to the efficient operation of the courts. The Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) to require verification of “ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate,” and the Court provided “greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.”

and this:

The Rule Amendments were more than aspirational, they bolstered the standard for responsible lawyering in future foreclosures. If there were problems with cases filed and voluntarily dismissed before the rule amendment, reopening those cases would not serve the interests of a judicial system that has sought to manage foreclosure litigation efficiently and effectively. Creating a new wave of review of previously dismissed mortgage voluntary dismissal cases would promote unnecessary unsettled expectations and be counterproductive for litigants and trial courts.

The whole thing is a disgrace. The “thing” being our justice system as recreated by the banks. The banks have made a mockery of a judicial system that lasted for several hundred years.   Can this system last any longer when The People rightly dispute its legitimacy?   And can you really argue with any person who asserts they no longer respect the authority of any branch of the United States Government, state or federal given what we all see happening all around us every single day?   Is this country, as recreated by the banks, any better than the most corrupt governments our world has ever known?

Part of the answer to those questions will be answered when the Florida Supreme Court hears then decides the Pino case…..

pinobony