Filing # 74478080 E-Filed 07/04/2018 12:06:58 AM RECEIVED, 07/04
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Filing # 74478080 E-Filed 07/04/2018 12:06:58 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ETC., Petitioner(s), CASE NO. SC18-343 Lower Tribunal No(s).: v. 5D17-2665; 42-2013-CA-000115-CAAXXX REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., Respondent(s). ________________________/ PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT Petitioner Neil J. Gillespie, individually, and as former Trustee (F.S. Ch. 736 Part III) of the terminated Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10, 1997 (“Terminated Trust”), an indigent non-lawyer, unable to obtain adequate counsel, a consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce, a consumer of personal, family and household goods and services, consumer transactions in interstate commerce, a person with disabilities, and a vulnerable adult, age 62 and suffering the infirmaries of aging, henceforth in the first person, reluctantly appears pro se, and files PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECEIVED, 07/04/201812:08:28 AM,Clerk,Supreme Court REINSTATEMENT, and states: 1. On June 18, 2018, this Court entered the Order appearing at Exhibit 1 that states in relevant part: The petition for review is hereby dismissed on the Court's own motion based on petitioner's failure to timely file the jurisdictional brief in accordance with this Court's orders dated March 19, 2018, and May 15, 2018. Any and all pending motions are hereby denied as moot. If petitioner wishes to seek reinstatement, the motion for reinstatement must be filed within fifteen days from the date of this order. 2. Overview and Background (Who Is Jennifer Banister? Judge Craggs?) Florida courts lack jurisdiction over a contested foreclosure of a federal HECM reverse mortgage. (FL AG). Trial court Docs #301 and #302 show I was not lawfully served in this foreclosure. A certified copy of the Plaintiff’s verified complaint shows it does not have a case number, and is not legally identifiable with either the foreclosure or the lis pendens. I legally transferred the property to my name on January 14, 2015. The 5DCA CaseMail system is unconstitutional. A Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM, is a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) non-recourse “reverse” mortgage program administered by the Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary or HUD) to enable home owners over 62 years old access the subject home's equity. 12 U.S.C. § 1715z20 et seq. and 24 C.F.R. Part 206. The U.S. 11th Circuit in No. 13-11595-B invited a petition under 18 U.S.C. § 1651. (all writs act) HUD has had jurisdiction at all times pertinent, from August 9, 2012 with my HUD complaint under 7610.01, Section 4-19, through today and CFPB Complaint 140304-000750, initiated by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio. 2 3. Table of Contents Page 3 Orders in this case, No. SC18-343. Page 3 Decisions in U.S. Supreme Court Nos. 17-8682 and 17-8686. Page 4 Florida lacks jurisdiction over a HECM - AG Bondi, FlaJur2d Page x Florida is a judicial foreclosure state, but no reverse mortgage statute Page x Email to Clerk, Docs #301 and #302 show I was not lawfully served Page x No Case Number Verified Complaint to Foreclose HECM Page x HUD Complaint, Reverse Mortgage Handbook 7610.01, Section 4-19 Page x CFPB Complaint No. 120914-000082, Closed status Page x CFPB Complaint No. 140304-000750, Open status Page x U.S. 11th Circuit No. 13-11595-B invited petition 18 U.S.C. § 1651 Page x Who Is Jennifer Banister? Judge Craggs? Page x To be filed separately: 5DCA CaseMail system is unconstitutional • Recent orders in this case, No. SC18-343. 4. In compliance with the Court’s order appearing at Exhibit 1, fifteen days from June 18, 2018 is July 3, 2018, and this is my motion for reinstatement. 5. The Court’s order of June 18, 2018 requested a motion for reinstatement, but not a jurisdictional brief under Rule 9.120(d), so none is submitted. 6. This Court’s order of April 13, 2018 granted my motion for extension of time to comply with this Court’s order dated March 19, 2018 based on, inter alia, pending matters in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Exhibit 2) 7. This Court’s order of May 15, 2018 granted my second motion for extension of time based on, inter alia, pending matters in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Exhibit 3) 8. On June 18, 2018 this Court denied my third motion for extension of time based on, inter alia, pending matters in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Exhibit 4). 3 • Decisions in U.S. Supreme Court Nos. 17-8682 and 17-8686 9. On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in No. 17-8682, denied my motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed my petition for writ of certiorari, citing Rule 39.8. 10. On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in No. 17-8689, denied my motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed my petition for writ of certiorari, citing Rule 39.8. 11. Jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is discretionary. Less than 100 of the 10,000 or so petitions for writ of certiorari filed each term are granted. See the American Bar Association Journal, story by Debra Cassens Weiss Nov-11-2013 on U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner (Ret.) (Exhibit 5) titled, Posner has 'absolutely no desire' to join SCOTUS, which 'isn’t a real court' http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/posner_has_absolutely_no_desire_to_join_scotus_which_isnt_a_real_court “Well, I don’t like the Supreme Court,” Posner says. “I don’t think it’s a real court. I think of it as basically … it’s like a House of Lords. It’s a quasi- political body. President, Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court. It’s very political. And they decide which cases to hear, which doesn’t strike me as something judges should do. You should take what comes. When you decide which case to hear it means you’ve decided the cases ahead of time. 12. Under Rule 44 of the U.S. Supreme Court, I have twenty-five days to file petitions for rehearing to and including July 20, 2018 in 17-8682 and 17-8689. • Florida lacks jurisdiction over a HECM - AG Bondi, FlaJur2d 4 13. On January 21, 2016, I made a public records request to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi that appears at Exhibit 6 and states: Attorney General Pam Bondi Office of Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Public Records Request. F.S. § 119.07(1)(c) All public records requests shall be acknowledged promptly and in good faith. Access to public records and meetings, Art. I, Sec. 24, Fla. Const. Dear Attorney General Bondi: As the statewide elected official directed by the Florida Constitution to serve as the chief legal officer for the State of Florida (Exhibit 1): 1. Provide records showing jurisdiction of Florida courts over a disputed foreclosure of a federal reverse mortgage, called a HECM, or Home Equity Conversion Mortgage: A Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM, is a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) “reverse” mortgage program administered by the Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary or HUD) to enable home owners over 62 years old access the subject home's equity. 12 U.S.C. § 1715z20 et seq. and 24 C.F.R. Part 206. A HECM does not require a homeowner to make mortgage payments as a conventional mortgage does. Instead, a HECM does not become due and payable until the last surviving homeowner dies or no longer lives in the home. 12 U.S.C. § 1715-z20(j) Safeguard to prevent displacement of homeowner. The HECM becomes due and payable in full “if a mortgagor dies and the property is not the principal residence of at least one surviving mortgagor....and no other mortgagor retains title to the property.” 24 C.F.R. § 206.27(c). 5 2. On information and belief, when a substantial disputed issue of federal HECM law is a necessary element of the foreclosing Plaintiff’s state law claim that a HECM is due and payable, the U.S. district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2 for “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. (Cornell Law LII) http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process A property right can be created only by state law. Once a property right is established, the determination of what process is due before that right can be deprived is a question answered by the federal Constitution. Kingsford v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist., 247 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2001). U.S. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. in Thompson-El v. Bank of America, 1:12-CV-840- TWT, District Court, N.D. GA held in an Order entered December 12, 2012: Federal question cases are those “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.