No. 18-7225

Neil Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2019-01-03
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 7th-amendment administrative-procedure buyer-incompetence civil-rights constitutional-challenge disciplinary-functions due-process federal-regulation foia foreclosure home-equity-conversion-mortgage hud-jurisdiction lawyers-guild mortgage-law nonlawyer-ownership older-americans-act privacy-rights pro-se-litigation securities-exchange-act securities-exchange-act-of-1934 standing the-florida-bar trial-by-jury unlicensed-practice-of-medicine void-for-vagueness voting-rights
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Antitrust DueProcess Securities Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-04-26 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

Is the federal HECM reverse mortgage program unconstitutional? This petition challenges the constitutionality of the federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program [12 USC § 1715z-20; 24 CFR Part 2061 called a HECM reverse mortgage, for lack of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, void for vagueness, void under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and buyer incompetence.

Is The Florida Bar, as an "arm" of the Supreme Court of Florida, unconstitutional? This petition challenges the constitutionality of The Florida Bar, a private unincorporated association, created by Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n, 40 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1949), a lawyers guild, to act as an integrated or unified bar, and the so-called disciplinary arm of the Florida Supreme Court, to serve "as an advocate and intermediary for attorneys, the court, and the public", without a separation or wall between lawyer guild functions, disciplinary functions, and the public.

Does HUD have jurisdiction to decide a contested residential home foreclosure of a federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [12 USC § 1715z-20; 24 CFR Part 206] also called a HECM reverse mortgage? Do the courts have jurisdiction, and if so, the federal or state courts?

Is nonlawyer ownership of a law firm constitution? Is the law firm McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, lawfully operating in Florida when none of its named partners are members of The Florida Bar, and its only manager shown on its 2018 Foreign Limited Liability Company Annual Report, is not a member of The Florida Bar?

Does the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to a trial by jury in a state court residential home foreclosure of a federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [12 USC § 1715z-20; 24 CFR Part 206] also called a HECM reverse mortgage?

Are statues or rules that nullify the "inviolate" right to trial by jury in Florida unconstitutional? Fla. Const., Art. 1, sec. 22 "Trial by jury. - The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law."

Does an indigent and disabled homeowner age 61+ have a right to assistance of counsel in home foreclosure on a federal HECM reverse mortgage under the federal Older Americans Act, 42 U.S.C. Ch. 35 - Programs For Older Americans, for old age, and disability, including type 2 diabetes, post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and a speech disorder?

Did Judge Craggs' medical exam of me November 28, 2016 in open court, and misdiagnosis, amount to the unlicensed practice of medicine? Judge Craggs denied me counsel under all available options for the non-jury trial July 18, 2017 resulting in serious illness to me during the trial requiring ambulance transport the Ocala Regional Medical Center.

Can the Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice ignore the enclosed Voting Section complaint against Florida's rigged judicial elections? Fla. Const., Art. V, Sec. 10(b)(1) "The election of circuit judges shall be preserved"; Art.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the federal HECM reverse mortgage program unconstitutional?

Docket Entries

2019-04-29
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2019-04-10
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-03-29
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2019-03-04
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2019-02-26
Second supplemental brief of petitioner Neil Gillespie filed. (Distributed)
2019-02-25
Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil Gillespie filed. (Distributed)
2019-02-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.
2019-01-30
Waiver of right of respondent Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. to respond filed.
2018-12-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 4, 2019)
2018-10-05
Application (18A352) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 10, 2018.
2018-10-01
Application (18A352) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 11, 2018 to December 10, 2018, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Neil Gillespie
Neil J. Gillespie — Petitioner
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.
Curtis A. WilsonMcCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, Respondent