When I was a kid growing up in the Bronx the U.S. Supreme Court always seemed to be above reproach.

Maybe my friends and I were naive, but I think maybe times have really changed. The Supreme Court, once a glaring symbol of constitutional democracy, has now been pulled into the day to day mudslinging of the political process.

To me, as a lawyer that is a true shame. The aura of neutrality around the Supreme Court has evaporated, and now the American public views it through the same partisan-colored glasses as it does the other two branches of government.

A new survey out this month shows the Supreme Court ‘s approval rating at a 25-year-low. The Pew Center for the People and The Press surveyed over 3,000 Americans, and just over half of them (52%) gave the Court a favorable rating. That is down from 58 percent just two years ago, and down from a high of 80% in 1994.

Why? Because the rule of law is no longer the only thing that matters inside the courtroom.

For me it starts with the Court’s ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC. A flurry of Super-PACs and their so-called ‘secret money’ now dominate the national political landscape, because of the 2010 decision that now ratifies their existence and equates corporations with people. If elections are taking an even more negative tone than usual, the court must accept some level of blame.

Some of the language from the recent hearing on health care seemed more appropriate at a Tea Party rally than at our nation’s highest court. Another survey by Bloomberg shows 80 percent of Americans believe that politics, and not the cases’ legal merits, will decide the outcome of Obama’s healthcare legislation.

The court seems more willing than ever to step into the political arena, and the justices ideologies, which should be well-guarded secrets, are on permanent display. Adding insult to injury is their own reckless conduct by attending unseeming junkets connected to conservative and liberal interest groups that at a minimum that create the perception of impropriety.

As my good friend and fellow attorney Allen Kluger said, “I have never seen the Supreme Court as political as it is now.”

Politicians on both sides have accused the justices of political activism. The perception is there that money, politics, and influence, three things that have no place in the Supreme Court, are now allowed at the table.

Right or wrong, our government has done little to dispel that notion, and it has stuck.

These criticisms do not only apply to the US Supreme Court but to the state supreme courts as well.

Here in Florida special interest groups are targeting our justices the same way they do political candidates, simply because their rulings don’t fall into line with their own political ideologies.

And certainly the Florida justices don’t do themselves many favors, as the controversial Roman Pino case certainly carried the whiff of partisanship.

Courtrooms are becoming more polarized than I ever remember, and time and again it appears that power, influence and connections are more important to some than the rule of law.

From The Trenches,

Roy Oppenheim

I’m not a reader of tea leaves, so I am not about to guess how the Florida Supreme Court will ultimately rule on Roman Pino vs. The Bank of New York.

But listening to the justices attack Amanda Lundergan, Roman Pino’s attorney, while seemingly going much easier on Bruce Rogow, the bank’s very well-respected lawyer, was at best, discouraging.

It’s common for the justices to try to poke holes in an attorney’s case, and it does not always mean that you can predict what their decision will be.

But with the thousands surely watching Thursday’s hearing, I was hoping the Court would have been a little more sensitive to the perception that they were most certainly creating, that the banks already have this one in the bag.

As a whole I found the Supreme Court judges flippant to the obvious fraud that Bank of New York has brought before the court in this case.

And for the Court to downplay the importance of that fraud, and what it means to the integrity of the judicial system, was offensive.

If you were an average homeowner watching yesterday’s hearing, I am pretty sure you came away with a feeling that the playing field is not level, and there are two different sets of rules for the banks and for the rest of us.

That is truly unfortunate.

The Supreme Court has to be above the fray, and they must not abdicate their responsibility to police their own system.

Which is exactly what would happen if the Court allows the phony documents, the fraudulent backdating, the bogus notes and assignments to be brought before them without penalty.

They would be inviting any plaintiff to bring whatever kind of garbage into the courthouse they choose, because if they get caught, all they have to do is withdraw!

The right to withdraw a case should not be used as a shield to protect yourself when you engage in illegal conduct. It’s the Court’s duty to sanction that conduct and hold the parties accountable, whether it be the banks, the attorneys, even another judge.

And that’s what Roman Pino vs Bank of New York is really about. It’s not about the harm done to Mr. Pino, or whether or not he’s ‘getting a free house’.

It is not OK to just hit the reset button whenever it suits the banks to do so.

The banks are terrified they might actually be held accountable for their actions!

If you haven’t already heard, there is a monumental case that was heard Thursday morning in the Florida Supreme Court, and every single homeowner should be paying close attention to this case.

To watch a replay of the oral arguments, please click here.

The case is Roman Pino vs. Bank of New York. It involves all the customary fraud I have seen in countless cases.

Missing documents, fraudulent assignments, fraudulents notaries, and forged documents, and a bank once again trying to shuffle it’s dirty deeds under the rug like loose dirt.

When Bank of New York first tried to foreclose on Pino, a regular working guy from Greenacres who fell behind on his mortgage when his business dried up, there was no assignment of mortgage.

So Bank Of New York’s lawyers tried to re-file with a new assignment, one which was fraudulently backdated (AKA robosigned).

The bank’s original lawyers, by the way, were from David J. Stern’s office. You know their story.

When our good friend and colleague Tom Ice, Pino’s lawyer, challenged the documents, Bank of New York suddenly decided they didn’t want to foreclosure anymore, dropped their lawsuit and scurried back into their hole.

End of the story??

Not even close. Ice continued to dog Bank of New York like a pitbull, because he, believe it or not, also thinks the banks need to actually be held accountable! (Remarkable I know.)

He tried to have the voluntary dismissal overturned, so that Bank of New York could face sanctions for the forged documents they tried to use to swindle Roman Pino and the court.

Like countless others banks, Bank of New York got their hand caught in the cookie jar. But now they are trying to remove their hand before it slams on them.

While the lower courts have sided with the bank and refused to overturn the dismissal, the 4th District Court of Appeal has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on a question of “great legal importance, which in their own words, “has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis”, since “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.”

The question is whether banks can avoid punishment simply by dropping a foreclosure lawsuit.

So now you know why this case, and the legal implications it carries, has the entire banking industry shaking in their ratskin boots.

Even though Pino has already settled with Bank of New York, and ‘remarkably’ got to keep his home, the effect this decision will have will go far beyond Roman Pino.

It could finally mean justice for homeowners throughout the state of Florida.

The Mortgage Bankers Association and the Florida Bankers Association have filed a brief with the court, as have the American Land Title Association and the Florida Land Title Association.

Guess who they are backing?

All of these organizations are asking the Court to rule in Bank of New York’s favor, so they can continue the status quo.

The banks are playing a shell game, trying to get the Court to overlook the obvious frauds committed by Bank of New York, all in the name of a “potentially devastating” economic effect a judgement against Bank of New York might have.

In their brief the Bankers Associations claim that banks will write less home loans if they can’t dismiss and then re-file a foreclosure.

Is that a threat?

What they are really saying is ‘Just let us keep doing what we’ve been doing, and let’s forget all about the rules of law.”

The housing market will be just fine. This is a scare tactic on the part of the banks, so please don’t be fooled. They are just worried their con-game will come to an end.

What the Pino case is really about is the court protecting the integrity of the judicial system and protecting the constitution. It is imperative for court to rule against Bank of New York to keep its own integrity above repute.

It’s unfathomable that a bank could simply avoid punishment for a crime that would land you or me in jail just because they decided to drop their lawsuit.

Bank of New York is arguing the case should be left alone, because engaging in fraud is not reason enough to overturn the dismissal.

If the justices dismiss this case, banks will be able to walk away from their transgressions whenever they choose. It’s not only inappropriate, but outrageous.

Roman Pino vs Bank of New York goes to the heart of protecting our constitutional democracy, and it’s critical that the Florida Supreme Court reign in the illegal conduct and behavior of the banks, because as Ice wrote in his brief, the court should not “draw a line that protects wrongdoers and blesses fraud upon the court.”

If the justices side with the banks they will be encouraging continued falsehoods, their impartiality will be implicated, and a form a anarchy that will ultimately lead to total disrespect for our constitutional principles will be unleashed.

From The Trenches,

Roy Oppenheim

The Oppenheim Law editorial team found this ironic: A drug dealer has more constitutional rights to protection from the government in his home than your average homeowner in foreclosure.

In a case being appealed to the United States Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court recently held that because the “home” has a long standing history of receiving additional constitutional protect

Interestingly enough, the U.S. government, through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, is the single largest investor of residential mortgages. So what this really means is that the government can steal your house through bad loan paperwork and fraudulent foreclosure practices, but the local drug dealer is safe from a sniff by Franky the Drug Sniffing Dog.ions, using a drug sniffing dog outside the front door of a drug dealer’s house constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Yet this same court has allowed banks and investors to use the lower courts in Florida as their own private collection agency.

This is yet one more example of the absurd turn that this country has taken during the real estate crash and subsequent foreclosure crisis, putting the government into the position of protecting the sanctity of a home owned by a drug dealer violating criminal laws, while stripping the same protections from one who is just down on his financial luck, in part due to the banks themselves.

The English belief that “every man’s house is his castle” formed the basis of the Fourth Amendment, and yet now has been convoluted to only protect criminals from prosecution, while leaving homeowners in foreclosure high and dry against a system that steamrolls their constitutional rights in the interest of protecting big banks, Wall Street, and now Uncle Sam.

The Florida Supreme Court stated in its holding that a “dog sniff” was “a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home and constitutes a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”

Notably, numerous bank executives have been quoted as saying egregiously negative things about homeowners who admittedly cannot afford their payments, but who have legitimate defenses against banks who have attempted to ignore constitutional and statutory rights as homeowners.

Essentially, these lenders and their leaders who are paid tens of millions of dollars a year have taken the position that “these homeowners haven’t paid, so who cares about their rights and any defenses they may have.” Yet, for a drug dealing homeowner whose house is full of drugs, the fact that his house may have been subject to unlawful search and seizure is not only highly relevant, but in fact could prevent any prosecution of him, even though he clearly is guilty.

The question raised by this case is: how can the Constitution protect drug dealers from “Franky the Drug Sniffing Dog,” while leaving thousands of homeowners homeless at the hands of illegals seizures by “Freddie and Fannie – the government investors?”

The Constitution was not intended to protect only part of the population. The Court should interpret the Constitution evenly, and should not work to protect criminals over the average American taxpayer suffering at the hands of a broken economy.

If you are in or near foreclosure and need help keeping your home, please contact the team at Oppenheim Law.

Foreclosure defense attorney and legal blogger Roy Oppenheim shared his thoughts on the Florida Supreme Court’s mandated mediation process with Miami Herald writer Harris Meyer in an article published on Sunday about Florida foreclosures.

“I enjoy mediations and find them very effective,” Oppenheim said. “But I won’t mediate unless the bank has done its homework.”

Oppenheim went on to explain mediation can be successful for homeowners and the banks only if the mediator is skilled, the lender has read the documentation and also knows the value of the property and the holding costs.

Oppenheim’s comments follow the news that foreclosure filings in Broward have fallen from 51,670 in 2009 to 17,565 in the first five months of 2010. However, as Oppenheim Law explained on the South Florida Law Blog in May, this decrease in Florida foreclosure filings can probably be attributed to the new rules promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court requiring every residential mortgage foreclosure complaint must be verified and prove that the plaintiff is the actual owner and holder of the promissory note.

Oppenheim Law wrote, “Until now, banks have been abusing a Florida statute allowing them to file a foreclosure based on a “lost note.” The problem: the notes aren’t lost; the banks are just too lazy to look for them. This new rule is halting foreclosure filings in their tracks, as banks scramble to find the notes so they can foreclose.”

Also less encouraging is the fact that commercial foreclosures are increasing, and concerns of increased residential foreclosures due to the re-setting of rates under adjustable-rate mortgages may accelerate, according to the Herald.

Want to learn more about mediation and foreclosure? Join Oppenheim Law for our free monthly foreclosure defense workshop next Wednesday, July 7 @ 6 pm and check out the entire Miami Herald foreclosure story in the Oppenheim Law Newsroom.

Until now, banks have been abusing a Florida statute allowing them to file a foreclosure based on a “lost note.” The problem: the notes aren’t lost; the banks are just too lazy to look for them. This new rule is halting foreclosure filings in their tracks, as banks scramble to find the notes so they can foreclose.

Before, foreclosure mills were simply filing a complaint and claiming a ‘”lost note,” without actually ever looking for it. Now, the courts are requiring attorneys to prove the banks have at least attempted to find the note. Prior to this rule, banks would file the complaint, and the note would always mysteriously appear four months later IN ALMOST EVERY CASE.

An article published today in The Sun-Sentinel found foreclosure filings have dropped 36% since last month in South Florida. Local attorneys and judges are attributing this to the colossal mess at the banks, as they scramble to find the notes.

Before, they had plenty of time to look for it. Now, they can’t do anything without it. While this might seem like good news for the overwhelmed court system, in reality it is simply delaying the inevitable. Like the receding waters before a tsunami, we can expect a substantial increase in filings once the banks begin finding these “lost notes,” and then the entire system could drown.

Anthony DiMarco of the Florida Bankers Association sees it a bit differently, claiming the decrease in filings is due to the banks’ increased number of loan modifications, and an increased willingness to approve short sales.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Based on raw numbers, DiMarco is dead wrong! Although Obama’s Making Home Affordable plan had promised over 3 million loan modifications by now, in reality the banks have accepted only 300,000. Furthermore, of these 300,000, only 13,059 were in South Florida. Thus, it is ridiculous to say the banks are being more cooperative.

Maybe DiMarco has never tried to call a bank to discuss a short sale or loan modification. If he had, he would likely find that being on hold for hours at a time, having the bank tell you they have lost your sensitive financial documents, and being constantly hung up upon, is not exactly “cooperation.” If DiMarco actually believes what he is saying, he should stand by the receding waters until he is swept out to sea by the forthcoming foreclosure tsunami.

From the Trenches,

Roy Oppenheim

Oppenheim Law, along with a team of lawyers, recently brought a series of class action suits against various banks alleging the banks charged improper fees at closing. Specifically, these banks have been accused of the unlicensed practice of law for charging documentary preparation fees in connection with their mortgages.

Interestingly, the Florida Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning this practice and we invite you to watch fellow counsel argue this case.

Ultimately because the state and federal government have woefully failed to regulate banking institutions, in part because of their cozy relationship between the banks, lobbyists, regulators and politicians, these class actions will send a strong message to the banks that their morally bankrupt conduct needs to change.

As Oppenheim Law continues to defend Florida foreclosures, we will invite you to participate in various class actions where together we identify systemic, unfair and deceptive trade practices by the banks.

If you believe you have a set of facts that arises to the potential of a class action, we invite you to contact us by email.

The Court acknowledged the system is not working. Foreclosure filings are expected to reach 456,000 cases in Florida by the end of 2010, a 50% increase from those in 2009. Thus, the Court felt compelled to do something.

My free foreclosure and real estate workshop on Thursday, January 7, at 6 p.m. is designed to review the “Year That Was” and preview the “Year That Will Be” based on the New Rules for 2010.

These new rules mean banks will be taken to task by the legal system. If conducted properly, a homeowner can demand proof of the Note and ownership of the loan prior to mediation. If the bank does not show up at the mediation or does not have a person with “true” authority to settle the case, the Court can issues sanctions against the bank and even hit the bank with attorney’s fees in some instances.

Until now approximately 75% of cases in mediation settled. That number should now shrink since the system will soon be overloaded with mediations. The real question is how to take control of this new strategic tool. Of course, one has to be mindful of the old saying, “Be careful what you ask for.” That will certainly be the situation here.

You need to know your objective and have a plan or strategy. Is your desire to walk away without the bank coming after you, or is it to stay and renegotiate the loan to its new underwater value? Or is it to rent the house and just be able to stay?

Lots of creative options will arise that are good for the homeowner and even the bank. The key is knowing what is best for you and using this new opportunity as a way to fashion your own bailout.

I hope to see you all Thursday night, January 7th, at our free Florida foreclosure defense and real estate workshop as Oppenheim Law helps you achieve a New Bailout in the New Year. Again, I wish you all the best in 2010!