Another day, another sickening example of court process just thrown in the garbage and “evidence” used to support foreclosure that isn’t evidence at all. Attached here is yet another example of a deposition taken from the Foreclosure Defense Superstars at Ice Legal in West Palm Beach. I want every practitioner and consumer in the state to read this deposition and see what we mean when defense attorneys (and increasingly judges) recognize that foreclosures are granted every single day across this state with not one piece of admissible evidence.
Add this deposition to all the other extraordinary examples of awesome legal work provided to the community by Ice Legal. If there is any law firm in the state that has taken any other depositions or provided anything close to the exceptional work of Ice Legal, please stand up….otherwise, Ice Legal gets my vote as
BEST FORECLOSURE DEFENSE FIRM IN THE STATE
But enough about them, let’s get to the real star of this show, Ms. Beth Cottrell. If you’ve seen any foreclosures in this state, chances are you’ve seen her name. You see, Ms. Cottrell is one of the most prolific robo signers in the country and certainly in this state. Her department, by her own testimony, is responsible for signing upwards of 18,000 documents a month.
That’s 18,000 documents that form the sole basis upon which a neighbor’s home is taken away from them and by which judges transfer millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to entities based on Ms. Cottrell’s signature….now that’s a pretty powerful pen huh? Problem is, as you will read in the affidavits, Ms. Cottrell has no basis to provide such testimony.
So for all the judges out there that continue to sign summary judgments based on such flawed affidavits…how can you do so in good conscience?
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and The Florida Bar…what are the ethical consequences for false or misleading evidence?
The Florida Bar…what are the ethical consequences for institutionalized presentation of false and misleading evidence?
The depos are here:
Some lowlights from the deposition:
Q. And I’ll ask you about the first page of the affidavit. It states that upon oath you depose on personal knowledge. Did you have personal knowledge of everything that you testified to in this affidavit?
A. My personal knowledge is based on what they have put in here, what the staff put in here.
Q. Well, just I’ll ask you in regards to the entire affidavit. This was an introductory paragraph I believe referring to the entire affidavit. It stated you deposed on personal knowledge. As to everything in the affidavit, did you have personal knowledge?
Q . And did you do anything to verify that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case?
A. No.
Q. Did you look at anything to enable you to say that there was no issue as to material fact?
A. I’m sorry. I don’t understand the question.
Q. Sure. Outside of this affidavit, did you look at anything to enable you to say that there is no genuine issues of material fact?
A. No.
Q. Also in paragraph 1 you stated “That plaintiff is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.” Again, did you have personal knowledge of that?
A. No knowledge.
Q. Did you do anything to verify that statement?
A. No.
