Monthly Archives: January 2009

On Robert Burns’ 250th Birthday, January 25, 1759-2009: “Of Mice and Men”

TO A MOUSE ON TURNING HER UP IN HER NEST WITH THE PLOUGH, NOVEMBER, 1785 by: Robert Burns (1759-1796)

I

EE, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie, Oh, what a panic’s in thy breastie! Thou need na start awa sae hasty, Wi’ bickering brattle! I was be laith to rin an’ chase thee, Wi’ murd’ring pattle!

II

I’m truly sorry man’s dominion Has broken Nature’s social union, An’ justifies that ill opinion Which makes thee startle At me, thy poor, earth-born companion An’ fellow-mortal!

III

I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve; What then? poor beastie, thou maun live! A daimen-icker in a thrave ‘S a sma’ request; I’ll get a blessin wi’ the lave, And never miss’t!

IV

Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin! Its silly wa’s the win’s are strewin! An’ naething, now, to big a new ane, O’ foggage green! An’ bleak December’s winds ensuin, Baith snell an’ keen!

V

Thou saw the fields laid bare an’ waste, An’ weary winter comin fast, An’ cozie here, beneath the blast, Thou thought to dwell, Till crash! the cruel coulter past Out thro’ thy cell.

VI

That wee bit heap o’ leaves an stibble, Has cost thee mony a weary nibble! Now thou’s turn’d out, for a’ thy trouble, But house or hald, To thole the winter’s sleety dribble, An’ cranreuch cauld!

VII

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane, In proving foresight may be vain: The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men Gang aft a-gley, An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promis’d joy!

VIII

Still thou art blest, compared wi’ me! The present only toucheth thee: But och! I backward cast my e’e, On prospects drear! An’ forward, tho’ I cannot see, I guess an’ fear!

“To a Mouse” is reprinted from English Poems. Ed. Edward Chauncey Baldwin & Harry G. Paul. New York: American Book Company, 1908.

DEO VINDICE—AS OF JANUARY 19, 2009, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL REQUIRE ALL INSTITUTIONAL PLAINTIFFS IN FORECLOSURES TO FILE THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE WITH THE COURT!

 

 

THE MOTTO OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA WAS “DEO VINDICE”
=BY GOD VINDICATED—THE “VINDICATIO” WAS A ROMAN LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION JUSTIFYING OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, also known as “RES MANCIPI”—I now feel somewhat PERSONALLY VINDICATED, given as I have been one of the few people in the Country who realised that
as of August 18, 2005, Pinellas County was GROUND ZERO for the “ORIGINAL NOTE”(holder-in-due course, privity of contract) theory of MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES, by this ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN PINELLAS COUNTY—ALL NEW FORECLOSURE SUITS IN JUDGE WALT LOGAN’S OLD DISTRICT
MUST NOW INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE!  THIS IS A VICTORY FOR THE COMMON LAW OVER PROFITABLE CORPORATE COMMERCIAL PRACTICE—THIS IS A VICTORY OF JUSTICE AND COMMON SENSE OVER DECEIPT—THIS IS A MAJOR
VICTORY WHICH SHOULD BE COPIED ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES AND I AM PROUD TO HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE ADVOCATES OF THIS POSITION FOR MANY YEARS “

DEO VINDICE”


http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/

AOSAndRules/aos/aos2008/2008-081.htm


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PASCO AND PINELLAS COUNTIES, FLORIDA

 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2008-081 PA/PI-CIR

printer- friendly version

 

RE:     MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS BY INSTITUTIONAL LENDERS

           

            Mortgage foreclosure cases have increased at an unprecedented rate in the Sixth Judicial Circuit.  In the Sixth Judicial Circuit in the last year alone, mortgage foreclosure case filings increased approximately 118%.  Frequently, attorneys who handle a large volume of mortgage foreclosure cases do not have their pleadings in order or fail to appear at scheduled hearings, causing the court to reschedule or delay hearings in mortgage foreclosure cases.  The volume of the cases and the resetting of these hearings results in difficulties scheduling these summary proceedings.  In light of the court’s finite resources, it is necessary to establish procedures for more efficient handling of mortgage foreclosure cases. 

 

            Pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.215, the Chief Judge has the authority to adopt administrative orders necessary to administer the court’s affairs.  Therefore, it is

 

ORDERED:

 

            1.   Filing of Initial Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint:  An institutional mortgagee lender that after January 19, 2009, files a complaint to foreclose a mortgage on homestead property must provide the following to the Clerk of Circuit Court with the initial filing:

 

            a.    A Notice to Homeowner, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment A.

            b.   A Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment B.

 

Homestead property is property designated as “homestead” by the property appraiser’s office on the date of filing the complaint.  The plaintiff must include the Notice to Homeowner and Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet with each summons serving a complaint on the owner of residential homestead property.

 

            2.   Certificate Filed Prior to Requesting Summary Judgment Hearing Dates:  Prior to requesting a mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearing date from the court, the attorney of record for the plaintiff must file a uniform certificate titled “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk.  The uniform certificate is 
Attachment C to this Administrative Order.  The uniform certificate provides the attorney’s certification of the completion of requisite actions and the dates on which they were completed.

 

            3.   Foreclosure Judgment Packet Prior to Hearing:  Unless the presiding judge provides otherwise, the plaintiff’s attorney must deliver a foreclosure judgment packet to the presiding judge’s office at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date for a motion for summary judgment.  The foreclosure judgment packet consists of the following documents:

a.    Proposed Uniform Final Judgment.  Include sufficient copies for conforming and stamped, addressed envelopes for all parties;

b.   Original Promissory Note (unless previously filed);

c.    Notice of Sale;

d.   A copy of the Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures; and

e.    A copy of the Notice of Hearing.

 

            4.    Uniform Final Judgment:  All proposed final judgments of foreclosure shall be in the format of the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit as provided in Attachment D unless otherwise specifically approved by the judge entering the final judgment.  Any changes to the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure from that prescribed in Attachment D shall be brought to the attention of the presiding judge at the final judgment hearing.

 

            5.    Cancellation of Foreclosure Sale by Clerk upon Suggestion of Bankruptcy:  If the Clerk of Circuit Court receives, prior to the commencement of a foreclosure sale, a mailed or faxed suggestion of bankruptcy on behalf of a named defendant in a pending foreclosure action, the Clerk is directed to cancel the foreclosure sale.  The Clerk shall not cancel the sale if subsequently directed otherwise by the presiding judge or a United States Bankruptcy Judge.  The plaintiff is responsible to separately file with the Clerk any order from a United States Bankruptcy Judge that would preclude the Clerk from canceling a foreclosure sale; such filing must not be an attachment or exhibit.

 

            6.    Additional Procedures:  The judicial practice preferences of each judge, which may contain a judge’s individualized procedures for mortgage foreclosure cases, may be found on the Circuit’s Internet site at http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/PracticeRequirementsofJudges.html.  The Chief Judge may update or make other amendments to the attachments of this Administrative Order without further amendment to this Administrative Order.

 

            7.    Application:  This Administrative Order applies to all mortgage foreclosure actions by institutional lenders except that paragraph one only applies to homestead property.

 

            8.    Effective Dates:  All mortgage foreclosure complaints filed after January 19, 2009, and all mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearings scheduled to occur after January 19, 2009, must comply with this Administrative Order.    

 

            A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and already has a foreclosure summary judgment hearing scheduled to occur after January 19, 2009, may keep the scheduled date and time.  However, the plaintiff’s attorney must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, including the “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk of Circuit Court at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date.  The presiding judge may cancel a schedule hearing that does not have the Foreclosure Judgment Package filed by that day. 

 

            A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and has yet to schedule a foreclosure summary judgment hearing, must comply with paragraph 2 of this Administrative Order and file a “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” prior to requesting a hearing date.  Additionally, the plaintiff must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, with the Clerk of Circuit Court at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

 

            A plaintiff who files a mortgage foreclosure complaint after January 19, 2009, must comply with all requirements of this Administrative Order.

                         

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of December 2008.

 

 

 

_____________________________

Robert J. Morris, Jr., Chief Judge

 

Attachment:   

(A) Notice to Homeowner (html)
(A) Notice to Homeowner (word version)
(B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (html)
(B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (word version)
(C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (html)
(C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (word version)
(D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (html)
(D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (word version)

 

                    

                    

                      

 

 

cc:        All Judges

            The Honorable Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pinellas County

            The Honorable Jed Pittman, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pasco County

            Paula O’Neil, Chief Deputy, Pasco County Clerk’s Office

            Debbie Gay, Assistant Court Services Director, Pasco County Clerk’s Office

            Carol Heath, Executive Director, Pinellas County Clerk’s Office

            Gay L. Inskeep, Trial Courts Administrator

            Bar Associations, Pasco and Pinellas County

            Law Libraries, Pasco and Pinellas County

   

Nancy Grant’s Crusade for Speedy Trials—the issue FINALLY reaches the Supreme Court, but without Nancy…

Must we wait like JOB for Justice?  The men with the machine guns and the electronic keys to the iron sliding doors will kill us if we do not.  And we will be called “terrorists” if we try to remove those men.  Must all those who languish in prison for no good reason be resigned that the injustices they have suffered will not be righted in their lifetimes, that their lives must be ruined to satisfy the American Public’s sadistic lust for blood and punishment?  It is good to see that a Vermont case has finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the whole Speedy Trial issue.  The case made it there through the usual channels, but Nancy Grant is still on probation (after a five month revocation last year) for having attempted to assist Florida prisoners who have suffered much worse than the Vermont inmates—the stories of Nancy’s “beneficiaries” (the people she tried to help) were on the whole much worse than what happened in Vermont.  How Long, Lord?  How Long?

Speedy trial issue lands before US Supreme Court

Jan 11th, 2009 | BENNINGTON, Vt. — After he was charged with hitting his girlfriend in the face, career criminal Michael Brillon sat in jail without bail for nearly three years, going through six public defenders before being tried for assault.

The delays paid off — for Brillon: A Vermont court threw out his conviction and freed him from prison last spring, saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case this week, trying to decide if delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal defendant of that right. In particular: Whether governments can be blamed for such delays since they’re the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.

Forty states and 15 organizations — state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim’s rights’ group — are backing the Vermont prosecutor’s appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did.

“You’re greasing that slippery slope,” said David Parkhurst, an attorney with the National Governors Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the prosecutor’s appeal. “That’s the big concern here.”

Brillon, a 46-year-old construction worker whose criminal past includes convictions for sexual assault on a minor, felony obstruction of justice and cocaine possession, was charged with aggravated domestic assault over the 2001 incident with his girlfriend, who was the mother of his child.

Held without bail, his case inched along as lawyer after lawyer asked for postponements and eventually withdrew or was replaced at Brillon’s request.

The first got an evidentiary hearing postponed because he was moving his law practice. He was fired by Brillon, who claimed the lawyer had failed to communicate with him.

The second reported a conflict of interest that prevented him from continuing — a day after he’d been appointed.

The third quit after telling a judge Brillon threatened his life during a break in a hearing.

Brillon fired the fourth, and the fifth quit, citing changes to his contract with the state public defender’s office.

The sixth took the case to trial in 2004, when Brillon was convicted and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison because he was a habitual offender with three prior felony convictions.

However, Brillon appealed on the speedy trial claim, and the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in his favor, saying the delays were the fault of the state. The ruling outraged victim’s rights’ advocates and others, both because Brillon was freed and for fear that other suspects would take his cue, hoping for a similar outcome.

“The motivation would certainly be there,” said Erica Marthage, one of the Vermont prosecutors who will appear at Tuesday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Washington.

Brillon’s current lawyer, whose position has been buttressed by friend-of-the-court briefs by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union, acknowledges that Brillon had a role in some of the delays.

Still, says attorney William Nelson, the criminal justice system is primarily responsible.

Brillon was without any appointed counsel at all for six months and was held without bail for nearly three years, despite telling judges he wanted to go to trial, Nelson said.

The U.S. Solicitor General, representing the federal government, has filed a brief denouncing the Vermont ruling and is seeking permission to use 10 minutes of prosecutor Christina Rainville’s allotted 30-minute oral argument to make the case for striking down the Brillon ruling.

Maureen Dimino, indigent defense counsel for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said cases like Brillon’s will become more common as cash-strapped states cut funding for public defender services, burdening those lawyers with so many cases that they seek more delays to prepare.

“This is going to become a bigger and bigger issue due to the economic crunch. The states are failing to fund these systems, causing these undue delays,” she said.

 

Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.