Well that's exactly it. It is claimed on several sites but is it true?
My impression is that most judges are preconditioned to rule against defendants who claim fraud, or standing, or quiet title, or motions to dismiss. They think these are just delaying tactics used by scumbags who want a free house. So they are willing to look the other way and bend the rules for the benefit of expediency.
That has been the case for a number of years in many jurisdictions. It has been widely exposed and there are a growing number of law firms who have been able to effectively thwart those kinds of events.
So if the strategy becomes NOT to try to convince the judge in one fell swoop with multiple accusations, but just to create enough doubt to force discovery. I think most reasonable judges might go for that.
You should study more about the discovery process, particularly the rules in the court you're considering. One thing I can say (and this isn't legal advice), judges don't like surprises and they don't like objections that they have to rule on that might be grounds for a later appeal. For that reason, the rules usually include details on how the discovery process proceeds. They want to see three types of evidence - the Plaintiff's version, the Defendant's version AND what is known as stipulated evidence - where both sides stipulate to the validity/efficacy/truth of that evidence.
Then if the plaintiff bank finds out that you are going to expose robo signing and fraud committed by their attorneys, and discover evidence that their document custodians are incompetent or that the other people in the chain of title might be identified, and in Florida that the persons who verified the information might be sued and reprimanded by the bar,they will be much more willing to settle on your terms.
Maybe. They may not be willing to settle if they know you can't afford to keep paying your attorney.
You do not have to openly show these to the judge, the opposing counsel will see what you are about to expose.
Again, this is not legal advice, but there can be a problem introducing "evidence" that you haven't raised in your claims or counter-claims. To get some evidence admitted you may have to ask the court for leave to file an amended complaint or counterclaim. You cannot guarantee that the Judge won't be asked to conduct a hearing to rule on the relevance or admissability.
Or is this just theoretical talk that doesn't work in real life?
It is purely theoretical unless and until the specific matters are run through the legal process. There are pitfalls in assuming a strategy will or won't work.