This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Foreclosure Fraud For Dummies | How To Get a FL Chief Judge to Work for You (Banks)
Proper service is a basic foundation to a lawsuit.
I could not pass up covering this in more depth because of its egregious nature...
Earlier, I posted Lee
County Court Service Issues | Let’s “Give the Plaintiffs/Provest a Very
Strong Argument Should Someone Challenge Service of Process” that
linked over to Matt Weidner's site regarding an email exchange that
discussed insufficient service of process which resulted in a letter
from chief judge G. Keith Cary.
I felt the need to cover this deeper after reading the emails and letter again.
From the email exchange...
Be sure to read it in its entirety...
From: Ederr, Suzanne
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:19 PM
To: Cary, G. Keith
Cc: Kellum, Susan G
Subject: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo
« File: LetterGKC - Cavallol.docx »
Judge Cary:
Here's
an update on the Certified Process Server issue. I spoke to Ms. Cavallo
and asked her to sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that she
hasn't been serving since her card expired on Dec. 31 ... she paused,
then said she couldn't because she has been serving. It gets worse ... I
spoke to the contracts manager for Provest, Melody Bulso, and she
reports that Ms. Cavallo has served at least 300 summonses for them
during the 1st 3 weeks of January. The only reason that Ms. Cavallo
began inquiring as to her new card on Jan. 21st was because on Jan.
20th, Ms. Bulso told her they wanted to see her "license." Provest does
ask all their servers for copies of their updated cards and, when they
did so this year, Ms. Cavallo was the only one unable to produce a 2010
card. Provest is now in a bit of a tailspin because they now
have to re-serve those 300 summonses ... they have requested some sort
of accommodation such as perhaps extending Ms. Cavallo's prior license
only through Jan. 21st so as to cure all of those services, but I don't think you have the authority to do so. I don't see how we can, in good faith, "extend" her prior license unless we could somehow backdate a new oath,
which I don't think would be appropriate. Ms. Bulso is now having
problems in getting Ms. Cavallo to contact them (Ms. Cavallo will not
return Ms. Bulso's calls), and Provest will no longer use her,
regardless of whether she gets her certification back. Ms. Bulso also
confirmed that even though she didn't personally have any negative
experiences with Ms. Cavallo, she has heard through the grapevine that
she is trouble.
As Matt stated in his post on the subject;
Now I just wonder, particularly in light of all the allegations contained in the ACLU Lawsuit, (which everyone must read) how often the court down there is asking itself:
“How do you think we can help out those
poor defendants today? We many not be able to cure their legal issues,
but we’d sure like to help give them some strong legal arguments in
their case!”
Yea, not gonna happen...
Then there was some follow up...
From: Ederr, Suzanne
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:20 PM
To: Cary, G. Keith
Cc: Kellum, Susan G; Bauer, Terri
Subject: RE: Certified Process Server Issue – Camille Cavallo
« File: LetterGKC – Cavallo1.docx» « File: Cavallo-Camille.doc »
Judge:
One more minor twist .. .. Corporate Counsel for ProVest sent a 6 page letter seeking guidance as to how they can save their 300 plus served summonses.
One thing that they do point out is that the list posted on our website
did include Ms. Cavallo which means that she was technically on the
Chief Judge’s list as of Jan. 22nd• I have since had the list pulled off
of the website and we will post the new one for 2010 next week. In
looking at the old list that was posted, I note that it does NOT
indicate 2009 in the title, and so I guess ProVest sort of has a point
in that she was still on the list as of Jan. 22nd• That doesn’t cure the fact the Ms. Cavallo didn’t sign a new oath and served process using her expired card, with total disregard, and does not change my recommendation. But, it does give me an idea as to how we may be able to help out ProVest.
I’m
thinking that in addition to not including Ms. Cavallo on the 2010
list, we can also use language that REVOKES her appointment effective
January 22, 2010, 11:59 p.m. We do need to do a revocation order anyway
and we can just specify the effective date in the order of Jan. 22rd
rather than Jan. 1st. I do not know for sure if this will cure the legal issue of whether service was defective, but it will most certainly give the Plaintiffs/ProVest a very strong argument should someone challenge service of process . .. Ms. Cavallo was appointed to the Chief Judge’s list of certified process servers and that appointment wasn’t revoked until Jan. 22rd• We
don’t have to ((extend” her 2009 appointment or somehow deal with the
issue of having her sign and backdate an oath to cover Jan. 1 thru Jan.
22.
Susie was able to pull the letter that you signed on
Thursday before it was sent out, and I amended the letter just slightly
to add in
I am denying your request to be added to the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit's List of Certified Process Servers for 2010,
and I am revoking your appointment effective January 22. 2010. 11:59
p.m.
I've also prepared an order revoking her appointment effective Jan. 22, 11:59 p.m.
Please let me know if these meet with your approval. Also, when we post
the new list next week, you can be sure that it will include language
to clarify that it is the list for 2010 and that it is valid through
Dec. 31, 2010 only.
You see what she is suggesting right?
Basically,
we will make it look like her appointment was revoked on Jan 22nd but
it really was expired since Dec 31st but will will try and trick everyone and give the
banks "a very strong argument should someone challenge service of process" to allow the banksters to steal the homes faster so we can clear our docket.
Did the judge buy into it?
Yep, he did...
From: Cary, G. Keith
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Ederr, Suzanne
Cc: Kellum, Susan G; Bauer, TerriSubject: RE: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo
I like this new work out, I am in agreement.
G. Keith Cary
239-533-9140
And this letter followed...
February 1, 2010
Re: Chief Judge's List of Certified Process Servers
Dear Ms. Cavallo:
I
am in receipt of your letter dated January 22, 2010. It is my
understanding that your certification expired on December 31, 2009. Even
though you did initiate the renewal of your certification, you did not
sign a new oath and did not pick up your card prior to expiration of
your 2009 certification. lt appears that your first proactive attempt to
pick up your card and sign your oath was either on Thursday, January
21, 2010 or Friday, January 22,2010, by which time your file and
application had already been returned to my office by the Chair of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Certified Process Server Review Board to be
treated as an abandoned application. If you had not been actively
serving process subsequent to December 31, 2009, I would not have any
objection to reinstating your renewal application and adding you to my
list of Certified Process Servers for 2010. However, you have admitted
that you continued to serve process subsequent to December 31, 2009,
using your expired card, and it is my understanding that you have, in
fact, served process on as many as 300 occasions using your expired card
and having not signed your new oath.
Even though you state in
your letter that you were "unaware that I was to pick up my Process
Server Identification Card and what location before the end of the
year," I find this statement to be disingenuous. You were contacted by
the Chair of the Board via telephone on December 12, 2009, and you were
advised that your card was ready to be picked up and given the address
to where you should go to pick up your card and sign your oath. I cannot
fathom the nature of any "conflict in schedule" between December It'
and January 21" that would have prevented you from exercising all due
diligence necessary so as to ensure that you had signed your oath and
picked up your new card prior to serving process beyond December 31 ".
Based
on your letter, I do not know whether you appreciate the full impact of
your neglect or how you have compromised each case in which you served
process after December 31". Ultimately, it is your clients who will
suffer any repercussions of your faulty service, both from a financial
and legal standpoint. Needless to say, I demand that all Certified
Process Servers included on my list demonstrate an ability to act
professionally and responsibly in the perfonnance of their duties. You
have been on the list of Certi fied Process Servers in previous years
and you are familiar with the procedures of obtaining a new card and
signing a new oath each year. By not picking up your new card and
signing your new oath prior to the expiration of your old card and oath,
coupled with the fact that you continued to serve process utilizing
your expired card for three weeks into the new year, you have
demonstrated to me a lack of both professionalism and responsibility.
Accordingly, at this time, I am denying your request to be added to the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit's List of Certified Process Servers for 2010,
and I am revoking your appointment effective January 22, 2010, 11 :59 p.m.
This denial and revocation is without prejudice for you to raise this
matter before the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Civil Process Server Review
Board and to seek a recommendation from the Board in your favor.
Please
note that being excluded from the list of Certified Process Servers
does not prohibit a person from being appointed by individual motion and
order to serve process in any civil action in accordance with Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.070(b).Respectfully,
G. Keith Cary
Chief Judge
Let's see if they still have "a very strong argument should someone challenge service of process" now that this is out in the open...
Full email exchange and letter below...
www.4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
Rick Scott is Florida's Guv. Remember: He is the one who did not commit Medicare fraud. His company did it. And paid a $1 billion fine for same. Florida is lawless. Always has been always will be. Except for Scott Rothstein (just because he ran out of money).
is there a legal system currently functioning in Florida or not? If not "does this support prices or cause another collapse." And "will they ignore elections (as in just having them now) in Florida?" "Forever"? I think Robert Schiller said it best this PM--"these are basically politcal things." And indeed "dem house things are." but why? what's wrong with a free house? seems better than the altenative of "bankrupting the nation." why not have both? oh look, a Jolly Rancher! Mmmmm.
This was over a year ago, wouldn't most of these cases be finished?
They're capable of being reanimated if service was an issue and a default judgment was obtained against the debtor... and, more accurately, the debtor getting to hold up the entire process at a whim and, in all likelihood, without possibility of defense by the foreclosing party... I smell a settlement...
It might be worth considering (the reanimation) if there was evidence that this court system had any inclination to justice. It exists to serve a different master.
doesn't matter... questions of law will hit the appellate court de novo... and there is more than a little law on the subject in about every jurisdiction...
Wow. First, any good attorney knows the way to a Judge's heart is through his assistant/secretary... obviously some have more sway than others...
Second, I cannot fathom this passes muster with the judicial oversight committee... how this can possibly not be mutually exclusive with the requirement to remain and appear objective is beyond me... slam dunk as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure it will result in a slap on the wrist, but still... jeez.
Third, sounds like someone needs to do some nonsuits... dismiss the things without prejudice and refile... and get service this time around...
Fourth, improper service does the same thing to foreclosure decrees that fraud upon the court does.... i.e. no meritorious defense is required when service is improper... and the decree can be set aside as a matter of law. If this is a more widespread issue, then it may have pretty big implications...
agree, we just had a judge sanctioned in washington state for doing much less. This one is disgusting and should result in removal.
why have laws and rules and deadlines , when u can just change them at will
...unless we could somehow backdate a new oath...
Sorry, only backdated Mortgage Assignments allowed.
...has heard through the grapevine that she is trouble...
That sort of evidence qualifies as Exhibit "A" in Florida.
Handcuffs?
OMFG - that is so... blatant.