On July 12, 2010, I’m going to trial against an entity that lacks the authority to be in court, Indymac Bank. I’ve been arguing for more than a year that Indymac doesn’t have the legal authority to throw my 84 year old woman out of her home because their assets were sold and only the new entity could pursue those assets. As recently as June 10, 2010, attorneys for “Indymac” were still moving for summary judgment. On June 18, 2010 apparently recognizing that the fraud of their improper pursuit was now exposed to the court, attorneys have now filed a “Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff“.
(“Yes your honor we admit that Indymac lacks the legal authority to throw this woman out of her home…our mistake, sorry, please give that right on the eve of trial and only after we’ve been caught to the only party who had that right, Duetsche Bank who should have been the party since 2006″)
There is a very real pattern of facts and positions changing right before the court’s eyes to suit newly developed contrary facts or to respond to defenses presented by those harmed by the improper facts. Attached here are two documents which serve to dramatically illustrate these problems. The first is an appeal pending in the Fourth District Court of Appeals which clearly details changing facts in a foreclosure case, going so far as to suggest that forgery or material alterations occurred in that case. This appeal offers an excellent road map to investigate other examples of fraud or material misrepresentation on the court. Please take the time to read it and understand all the issues in the cases cited.
This appeal is particularly relevant given the recent reversal of the Riggs v. Aurora case, which was also heard in the Fourth District. The rehearing brief is attached below and offers the important details about this very confusing situation.
These cases all remind us of the absolute necessity to have court reporters in all hearings, and to properly document all legally operative facts. As issues surrounding negotiable instruments become increasingly important, it is critical that attorneys obtain a certified copy of the original note when it is filed.
The cases also show the chaos that is occurring when plaintiffs are permitted to engage in totally improper practice of dropping these promissory notes into files without amending the complaints to make these documents part of the record….this procedure must be insisted upon because it’s the only way the legitimacy of these documents can be challenged…see also Florida Statutes, 673.3081.
