Attorney Tom Cox reports on the Maine Supreme Court’s ruling in the case that unveiled “robo-signing”. The upshot, sadly, is that the Court spends a bit of time talking about the egregious nature of GMAC’s behavior and the fact that this wasn’t the first time the issue had been raised and so it was pretty unlikely that the powers-that-were at GMAC didn’t know about it…and then did absolutely nothing about it.
In summary, Cox says:
This case was a perfect opportunity to have the Maine justice system speak out loudly and clearly in favor of the rule of law, to demonstrate its willingness and ability to protect the little guy against corporate bullies, and to take decisive action to protect the integrity of our judicial system. Such a decision could have been a beacon of justice to homeowners everywhere and a precedent to be relied upon by courts all over the country in sanctioning the similar conduct that has been perpetrated in their courts. Yet our effort to achieve this has failed and my devotion to exposing this injustice has for the most part been for naught.
Cox’s disillusionment with the system is clear and well-founded, but we remain determined that his last line here won’t be true. Although the Maine Supreme Court took the easy way out on this issue (and isn’t the first court to do so), the exposure of robo-signing has put tools in the hands of dedicated consumer protection lawyers across the country, including Max’s Boot Campers.
While we are fewer and farther between than we should be, there are attorneys, judges and public officials who still believe in the rule of law, who believe that the American system of justice depends on following established processes, submitting legitimate evidence and validating it, and old-fashioned notions like candor to the tribunal and even fair play.
The war wages on.