You are on page 1of 35

Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Scott S. Harris
Clerk of the Court
(202) 479-3011
January 3,2019

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie


8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481

Re: Neil Gillespie


v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.

No. 18-7225

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on
December 10,2018 and placed on the docket January 3,2019 as No. 18-7225.

A form is enclosed for notifying opposing counsel that the case was docketed.

Sincerely,

Enclosures
Supreme Court of the United States

Neil Gillespie
(Petitioner)

v. No. 18-7225

Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.


(Respondent)

To Counsel for Respondent:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Rule 12.3 that a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the above-entitled case was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States
on December 10, 2018, and placed on the docket January 3, 2019. Pursuant to Rule 15.3,
the due date for a brief in opposition is Monday, February 4, 2019. If the due date is a
Saturday, Sunday, or federal legal holiday, the brief is due on the next day that is not a
Saturday, Sunday or federal legal holiday.

Beginning November 13,2017, parties represented by counsel must submit filings


through the Supreme Court's electronic filing system. Paper remains the official form of
filing, and electronic filing is in addition to the existing paper submission requirement.
Attorneys must register for the system in advance, and the registration process may take
several days. Fllrther information about the system can be found at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx.

Unless the Solicitor General of the United States represents the respondent, a
waiver form is enclosed and should be sent to the Clerk only in the event you do not
intend to file a response to the petition.

Only counsel of record will receive notification of the Court's action in this case.
Counsel of record must be a member of the Bar of this Court.

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie


8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
(352) 854-7807

NOTE: This notice is for notification purposes only, and neither the original nor a copy should be filed in the
Supreme Court.
WAIVER

Supreme Court of the United States

No. 18-7225

Neil Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.


(Petitioner) (Respondent)

I DO NOT INTEND TO FILE A RESPONSE to the petition for a writ of certiorari unless
one is requested by the Court.

Please check the appropriate boxes:

o Please enter my appearance as Counsel of Record for all respondents.

o There are multiple respondents, and I do not represent all respondents. Please enter my
appearance as Counsel of Record for the following respondent(s):

o I am a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States.

o I am not presently a member of the Bar of this Court. Should a response be requested,
the response will be filed by a Bar member.

Signature _

Date: _

(Type or print) Name _


o Mr. OMs. o Mrs. o Miss
Firm _

Address _

City & State Zip _

Phone _

SEND A COpy OF THIS FORM TO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL OR TO PETITIONER IF


PRO SEe PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THE NAME(S) OF THE RECIPIENT(S) OF A COpy
OF THIS FORM. NO ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED.

Cc:

Obtain status of case on the docket. By phone at 202-479-3034 or via the internet at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov. Have the Supreme Court docket number available.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-7225.html

Search documents in this case: Search

No. 18-7225

Title: Neil Gillespie, Petitioner


v.
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.

Docketed: January 3, 2019

Linked with 18A352

Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Florida

Case Numbers: (SC18-343)

Decision Date: July 13, 2018

DATE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS

Oct 01 2018 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.

Main Document Lower Court Orders/Opinions Proof of


Service

Oct 05 2018 Application (18A352) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file
until December 10, 2018.

Dec 10 2018 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis filed. (Response due February 4, 2019)

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma


Pauperis Petition Appendix Proof of Service

NAME ADDRESS PHONE

Attorneys for Petitioner

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807


Ocala, FL 34481

Party name: Neil Gillespie


5
72 2
No._______
AL
IN THE FILED
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DEC 10 2018
OFFOE OF THE CI REK

.( -PETITIONER
(Your Name)

VS.

:Pv b11011S I_ RESPONDENT(S)


PTut"t-~~ N0"j1Yqe1cC

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The petitioner asks leave to file the attached petition for a writ of certiorari
without prepayment of costs and to proceed in . forma pauperis.

Please check the appropriate boxes:

titioner has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in


the following court(s):

El Petitioner has not previously been granted leave to proceed in ,frma


pauperis in any other court.

titioner's affidavit or declaration in support of this motion is attached hereto.

El Petitioner's affidavit or declaration is not attached because the court below


appointed counsel in the current proceeding, and:

El The appointment was made under the following provision of law:


or

a copy of the order of appointment is appended. -\

(' 7" (Signa6re)


I,-

AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
1, PC i am the petitioner in the above-entitled case. In support of
,

my motion to proceed in forma pauperis, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay
the costs of this case or to give security therefor; and I believe I am entitled to redress.

1. For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each of
the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received
weekly; biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use gross
amounts, that is, amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise.

Income source Average monthly amount during Amount expected


the past 12 months next month

You Spouse You Spouse

Employment $_________ $_ N/A $

Self-employment $_________ $ AIJ4 $_ $AJ/4

Income from real property $_________ $_________ $__________

(such as rental income)

Interest and dividends $__________ $__________ $__________ sN/#1


Gifts $.. . . . $ $.. . . . ~Sk ....................... $.... 4
Alimony $_________ $__________ $_________

Child Support $_3sz $_________ $_________

NAN
$.. . . . $.... $ . . . . . . . ¶.?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $.... r,,..,,,,,../'9
. I4
Retirement (such as social ............................

security, pensions,
annuities, insurance)

Disability (such as social $,O9So $_A'J4 $


security, insurance payments)

Unemployment payments $________ $________ $________ $________

Public-assistance $.. . . . $.... /..../4................ $ $.... L....../ 4......


(such as welfare)

Other (specify): $ . $ N/IT $_______ $_______

Total monthly income: $ ......... $....L.. ........ s.. /........ I..4.... $....
2. List your employment history for the past two years, most recent first. (Gross monthly pay
is before taxes or other deductions.)

Employer Address Dates of Gross monthly pay


Employment
.. ....
A ....I........ $............
$
/,,,,.i

,4..j
-. ....
..../4........ -t ./............................ $

3. List your spouse's employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first.
(Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)

Address Dates of Gross monthly pay


Employment
,Jo A)/4 $
$ N/il
$/t//A

4. How much cash do have? S 00


Below, state any money you have in bank accounts or in any other financial
institution.

Type of account (e.g., checking or savings) Amount you have Amou7tJourspouse has
4rJ?,cd )L)$f $_7. $_,,
$_/f6 $
t Le& j ti4-'t 6a I- ?ca s — ic $

5. List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing
and ordinary household furnishings.

4Iorne El Other real estate


Value Value___________

4otor Vehicle #1 Motor Vehicle #2


Year, make & modeliPbdr 6 AAj tti14 Year, make & model

Value 1 i Value _____________

El Other assets
Description
Value .A../4
State every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the
amount owed.
Person owing you or Amount owed to you Amount owed to your spouse
your spouse money
14J $................................ I,,..!

&) o,Je.- $ (V/,4


C'9iIC $

State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support. For minor children, list initials
instead of names (e.g. 'U.S." instead of "John Smith").
Name Relationsh i p
1'M
,tJo,t1e. .....................
--

8. Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your family. Show separately the amounts
paid by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, quarterly, or
annually to show the monthly rate.

You Your spouse

Rent or home-mortgage payment


(include lot rented for mobile home) $iVO1f71 $_
u/Al
Are real estate taxes included? El Yes Pa7 MC
Is property insurance included? .Yes LiJ'o e 1-f
ui e

Utilities (electricity, heating fuel,


water, sewer, and telephone) $ A~1114
Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep)

Food $..

Clothing s37

Laundry and dry-cleaning

Medical and dental expenses $____________ $___________


You Your spouse

Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments) s_i .9Q

Recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc. $

Insurance (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments)

Homeowner's or renter's $........ $........L...../........................

Life s &
Health $/23LC
Motor Vehicle ....... ....................

Other: s&
Taxes (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments)

(specify): R/s 14 le, /i - zt, 7 $_________


6
1 $

Installment payments

Motor Vehicle $ $................ i..../i...

Credit card(s) 01

Department store(s)

Other: ..... ..... $........ ............. ....................

Alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others s


Regular expenses for operation of business, profession,
or farm (attach detailed statement) s $

Other (specify): L -/

Total monthly expenses: / $....


Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or
liabilities during the next 12 months?

es Li No If yes, describe on an attached sheet.

Sc #4 44A C, tLecl cLee7T ,)?ed lv


-

HOPL e 6;-) .46I1


Have you paid or will you be paying an attorney any money for se ices in connection
- -

with this case, including the completion of this form? F' Yes P.
o

If yes, how much? _______________________

If yes, state the attorney's name, address, and telephone number:

Have you paid—or will you he paying—anyone other than an attorney (such as a pralegal or
a typist) any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this
form?

Li Yes P No
If yes, how much? i....
....../

If yes, state the person's name, address, and telephone number:

Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the costs of this case.

t2Jç 4 ,6 , fr
i .-

"I ' p1Cc,1 Re se 14 0Jf4; /4 Pwi-*f )./C lQ € mf frA).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: 0 =OA 111 20L

/ (SignaTtV
25 NAL
Ni

FILED
_•
DEC 10 208
IN THE
ERK
SUP EN
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, PETITIONER

vs.

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., RESPONDENT

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

The Supreme Court of Florida, Case No.: SC 18-343

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

December 10, 2018

7
61
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Tel: 352-854-7807
Email: nei1giHespiemfi.net
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

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. VI,
Sec. 1. Regulation of elections. "All elections by the people shall be by direct and secret vote".

Ballotpedia reported "Unopposed races and the practice of post-dating judicial resignations to
block elections highlighted questions about the role of democracy in Florida's circuit and county
judicial seats in the 2016 election cycle. Only the 60 opposed seats out of the total 252 seats up
for election on these courts saw a vote on August 30, 2016. All unopposed candidates were
automatically elected without ever appearing on a ballot or facing a public vote."
https://ballotpedia.org/Floridalocal_trial_courtjudicial_elections._20 16

Can the U.S. Department of Justice deny on May 18, 2017 my FOIA into the mental
health screening imposed by the Florida Supreme Court on bar applicants, because the records
you have requested pertain to an ongoing law enforcement proceeding?

Are privacy policies of banks and institutions unconstitutional when asserted to protect
the privacy of dead people, and deny the rights of the living? Privacy laws do not protect the
privacy of dead people. Dead people do not have privacy rights. Privacy rights are personal and
die with the individual. Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber, 857 So.2d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d
Dist. 2003), review denied, 869 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004). [E]even where a private confidentiality
agreement is otherwise proper, it will not be enforced where its effect becomes obstructive of the
rights of non-parties. See, e.g., Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953, 955 (Fla. 3rd
DCA 2003); Scott v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA1997). Quoted by U.S. Judge
John E. Steele in Tardif, Trustee (Jason Yerk) v. PETA, USDC, SDFla. Fort Myers Div. Case
No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, at the Pacer link, Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179
Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 31 PagelD 6050

Can the U.S. Supreme Court ignore wrongdoing in Petition 12-7747 for a writ of
certiorari as stated in the enclosed letter of Mr. Clayton Higgins on October 19, 2016?

Do time limits on civil litigation have any meaning for pro se litigants? Pursuant to Fla.
R. Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(1)(B), the time standard for a civil trial case is 18 months from filing to
final disposition. Non-jury cases - 12 months (filing to final disposition). Or are courts free to
justify the end that includes harming (as in this case) and/or subjecting pro se litigants to
homicide (as in the case of nonlawyer Frank Collelo, age 68, US Bank Trust et al v. Frank J.
Collelo et al. Hillsborough Co. foreclosure Case No. 14-CA-002711, McCalla Raymer Leibert
Pierce, LLC representing the foreclosing Plaintiff.

Is the Department of Justice free to ignore my Criminal Complaint To FBI Special Agent
In Charge Eric W. Spoore February 12, 2018 alleging violation of Title 18 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.), including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of a
legitimate government activity, the FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE, in my residential
federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage.?
LIST OF PARTIES

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, PETITIONER


A disabled non-lawyer appearing pro se
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Tel: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgi1lespiemfi.net

vs.

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., RESPONDENT


Represented by: Curtis Alan Wilson, Esq., Florida Bar No. 77669
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
225 E. Robinson St. Suite 115
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-674-1850; Fax: 321-248-0420
Email: MRServicemrpllc.com
Email: MRService@mccalla.com

Parties Not Sued

PENELOPE M. GILLESPIE, BORROWER, DIED SEPTEMBER 16, 2009


ESTATE OF PENELOPE M. GILLESPIE, CLOSED WITH NOTICE OF TRUST JUNE 24, 2014

Other Parties

13CA000115AX DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF AMERICA


13CA000115AX ELIZABETH BAUERLE*
13CA000115AX JOETTA GILLESPIE*
13CA000115AX MARK GILLESPIE*
13CA000115AX OAK RUN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
13CA000115AX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*Justin R. Infurna, Esq., LL.M, The Infurna Law Firm, P.A.


Attorney for Defendants Mark Gillespie, Joetta Gillespie, Elizabeth Bauerle, Scott Bidgood.
121 South Orange Ave., Ste. 1500, Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (800)-774-1560; Fax: (407)386-3419
Primary Email: justin@infurnalaw.com; Secondary Email: justininfurnagmail.com

Fake Parties
Unknown parties
Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustees of the Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement dated February 10, 1997 (the Trust terminated on February 2, 2015)
Unknown Settlors/Beneficiaries of The Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement dated
February 10, 1997 (NONE)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW . 1

JURISDICTION. .............................................................................................................. 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........................

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........................................................................................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........................................................................

CnI'JCT .j isini.J

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A Petitioner's Amended Motion For Reinstatement in Florida Supreme Court


Case No. SC 18-343, Filing #74489871 E-Filed 07/05/2018 10:13:00 AM

Appendix B Separate Appendix, Occupancy Permitted For Petitioner's Home.


Case No. SC 18-343, Filing #74489871 E-Filed 07/05/2018 10:13:00 AM

Appendix C AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Non-Jury Trial July 18, 2017.

Appendix D AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Medical Expenses Non-Jury Trial


July 18, 2017

Appendix E Letter to HCA Healthcare, Inc. Re Ocala Regional Medical Center ER -

visit July 18, 2017

Appendix F Gillespie letter to Keerrtini Kumar, MD

Appendix G TEVA CARES APPROVAL LETTER

Exhibit 1 FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE S

Exhibit 2 Attorney solicitation by Boyette, Cummins & Nailos, PLLC and email 2013-2018

Exhibit 3 Third Verified Motion to Disqualify Circuit Judge Ann Melida Craggs

Exhibit 4 Notice of Criminal Complaint to FBI Special Agent In Charge Sporre

Exhibit 5 Denial of Adult Protective Services for Neil J. Gillespie, vulnerable adult,
age 61, and a person with disabilities, by Robert Anderson, State Director,
Adult Protective Services;
415.1034 Mandatory reporting death of Frank Collelo
Exhibit 6 U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-11595-13, Composite
District Court Docket No: 5:1 3-cv-0005 8-WTH-PRL
• Gillespie letter to Hon. Ed Carnes, Chief Judge 11th COA; Response
• ORDER July 25, 2013, in relevant part, "Should Gillespie wish to
petition for mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition for writ of
mandamus or prohibition with this Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 1651;
Fed.R.App.P.21" Before: HULL, WILSON and JORDAN
• MOTION TO RECONSIDER, VACATE OR MODIFY ORDER

Exhibit 7 NOTICE OF FILING FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT


• U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section

Exhibit 8 Florida Bar complaint Danielle Nicole Parsons, The Florida Bar File No.
2014-30,525 (9A).
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

The Florida Bar Integration 1949 Petn to Integrate the Bar of Fla.
-

Petition of Fla State Bar Assn 40 So2d 902 Fla 1949 (Southern Reporter)
-

Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 US 1 (1990)


https:Hsupremejustia.com/cases/federal/us/496/l/

Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961)


https:Hcaselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/820.html

ABA McKay Report (1992) Lawyer Regulation for A New Century: Report of the Commission
on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement

Two years prior to the issuance of the ABA McKay Report, the United States Supreme Court
unanimously held in Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 US 1 (1990), adopting in effect the
prescient minority Justices dissents in Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961), that integrated
state bars must not venture into political and ideological waters but stick with the narrow,
legitimate functions of integrated state bars. To do otherwise these bars would become, as Justice
Douglas pointed out in Lathrop, "goose-stepping brigades" that serve neither the public nor the
profession.

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfarb_v.—Virginia—State—Bar
U.S. Supreme Court held that lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal
profession's exemption from antitrust laws.

18 U.S.0 § 1961-68 RICO, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations


18 USC 1346 (fraud and honest services)
18 USC 1951 (interference with commerce)
Title 15 of the United States Code pertaining to restraint of trade and monopolies (anti-trust law)

The Commerce Clause -Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7; Section 1: Every contract, combination in the form of
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or
with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.....

Clayton Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. § 12-27. The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, codified at 15
U.S.C. 12-27, outlaws the following conduct: price discrimination; conditioning sales on
exclusive dealing; mergers and acquisitions when they may substantially reduce competition;
serving on the board of directors for two competing companies.
4

Section 5, FTC Act 15 U.S.0 § 45 Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by


Commission; (a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability
to foreign trade (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

The Hobbs Act, 18 USC § 1951 Interference with commerce by threats or violence
-

ABA Model Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer


pendence_of_a_Iawycr/
A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that:
A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the
partnership consist of the practice of law.
(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or
association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:
(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar
responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation ; or

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, for "due process in the constitutional sense"

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court ...... If in any case, civil
or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel,
employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal
would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional
sense..."

"...The right [p69] to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not
comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman
has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is
incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad.
He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be
put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or
evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and
knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He
requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.
Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not
know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much
more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case,
civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by
counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such
a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the
constitutional sense..."

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 Argued: October 10, 1932


Decided: November 7, 1932 224 Ala. 524, 531, 540, reversed.
The Supreme Court of Florida has a duty and the authority to administratively provide

civil legal counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for Due Process:

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....
. Wex Due Process Article by Richard Strauss, Legal Information Institute Cornell
Law, https://www.law.comell.edu/wex/due_process

Constitutional requirement for due process under Florida law:

Article 1, section 9, Florida Constitution.


SECTION 9. Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be
compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

Case law for due process under Florida Law:

10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law § 480 (2007)


The guaranty of due process of law extends to every type of legal proceeding.Pelle v.
Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1974); Tomayko v. Thomas,
143 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1962). Whenever life, liberty, or property
rights are involved in any official action, the organic requirements of due process of law
must be afforded, whether such action is the exercise of the powers of government by
governmental departments, State ex rel. Barancik v. Gates, 134 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1961);
Williams v. Kelly, 133 Fla. 244, 182 So. 881 (1938) or a duly authorized administrative
or ministerial function or duty. State ex rel. Barancik v. Gates. The constitutional
guaranty of due process of law applies not only to court and administrative procedures,
but also to legislative acts. Williams v. U.S., 179 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1950), cert. granted,
340 U.S. 849, 71 S. Ct. 77, 95 L. Ed. 622 (1950) and judgment affd, 341 U.S. 70, 71 S.
Ct. 581, 95 L. Ed. 758 (1951) (implied overruling on other grounds recognized by, U.S.
v. McDermott, 918 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1990)) and (overruling on other grounds recognized
by, Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 169 F.3d 820, 136
Ed. Law Rep. 15 (4th Cir. 1999)).

10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law § 483 (2007)


Due process encompasses both substantive and procedural due process.McKinney v.
Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994); M.W. v. Davis, 756 So. 2d 90, 25 Fla. L. Weekly
S334 (Fla. 2000); State v. O.C., 748 So. 2d 945, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S425 (Fla. 1999).

A litigant has a right to conflict-free counsel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righttocounsel


Whether counsel is retained or appointed, the defendant has a right to counsel without a conflict
of interest If an actual conflict of interest is present, and that conflict results in any adverse

effect on the representation, the result is automatic reversal.[17] The general rule is that conflicts
can be knowingly and intelligently waived,[18] but some conflicts are unwaivable. [19] *Wheat
v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), conflicts of interest
Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980);
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978).
See United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir. 1982).
See, e.g., United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v.
Fulton, 5 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 1993).

Privacy laws do not protect the privacy of dead people. Dead people do not have privacy rights.
Privacy rights are personal and die with the individual. Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber, 857
So.2d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003), review denied, 869 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004).
[E]even where a private confidentiality agreement is otherwise proper, it will not be enforced
where its effect becomes obstructive of the rights of non-parties. See, e.g., Nestor v. Posner-
Gerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953, 955 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003); Scott v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 1300, 1301
(Fla. 1st DCA1997). Quoted by U.S. Judge John E. Steele in Tardif, Trustee (Jason Yerk) v.
PETA, USDC, SDFla. Fort Myers Div. Case No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, at the Pacer link,
Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179 Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 31 PagelD 6050

STATUTES AND RULES

Only a Florida licensed attorney in good standing is competent (Rule 4-1.1) or diligent (Rule 4-
1.3) to provide me legal advice and/or legal representation.

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.1 Competence.


A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation
requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary
for the representation.

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence.


A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

Fla. Stat. § 29.007 Court-appointed counsel "This section applies in any situation in which the
court appoints counsel to protect a litigant's due process rights."

Chapter 27 Florida Statutes, Part III, Other Court-Appointed Counsel. Civil Regional Counsel
where mandated constitutionally or by general law in civil cases.

Pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(1)(B), the time standard for a civil trial case is 18
months from filing to final disposition. Non-jury cases - 12 months (filing to final disposition)
My foreclosure case commenced January 9, 2013. Today is Dec-10-2018. The duration is over 5
years. This case has taken almost 6 times as long as provided by the rules for a non-jury trial;
Exceeding time limits by many years has major negative health consequences. The same tactic
was used by the court in the Hillsborough case, which began in 2005. That's 13 years total.
IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINIONS BELOW

. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, Case No: SC1 8-343

Oct 01 2018 Application (1 8A352) 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.

Oct 05 2018 Application (18A352) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2018.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Rule 13.5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Preamble to the Constitution of the United States Re: "establish Justice"


-

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amend. I, U.S. Const., "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the


free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.

Amend. IV, U.S. Const., right of the people to be secure in their homes, and their property
against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amend. V, U.S. Const.; Amend. XIV, U.S. Const.


DUE PROCESS, Legal Information Institute
WEX article Author: Peter Strauss

"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."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Amend. V, U.S. Const., due process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amend. VII, U.S. Const, trial by jury

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the
right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-
examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common
law.

Amend. XIV, sec 1, U.S. Const., due process

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.

Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [12 USC § 1715z-20; 24 CFR Part 206] also called a
HECM reverse mortgage

Older Americans Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 35 PROGRAMS FOR OLDER AMERICANS.


-

• The Older Americans Act (OAA) 42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., as amended, provides for legal
services under Title III B Services or Activities for persons age 60 and over.
• In Florida, the OAA is administered under Chapter 430, Florida Statutes, by the Department
of Elder Affairs, section 430.101, Administration of federal aging programs.
• The Department of Elder Affairs was established by Section 20.41, Florida Statutes.

Fla. Const., Art. V, Sec. lO(b)(1) "The election of circuit judges shall be preserved"; Art. VI,
Sec. 1. Regulation of elections. "All elections by the people shall be by direct and secret vote"

Fla. Const., Art. I, Sec. 2, Basic Rights All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal
-

before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life
and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect
property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or
physical disability.

Fla. Const., Art. I, Sec. 9. Due process. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
-

without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in
any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

Fla. Const., Art. I, Sec. 21. Access to courts. The courts shall be open to every person for
-

redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Fla. Const., Art. I, 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.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal of a FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE (Exhibit 1) on my

Florida residential homestead property, on a federal HECM reverse mortgage.

My name is Neil J. Gillespie, an indigent nonlawyer, 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, a vulnerable adult age 62 suffering the infirmaries of aging, henceforth

in the first person, reluctantly appearing pro se to save my home from wrongful foreclosure.

I was denied the counsel of my choice, Boyette, Cummins & Nailos, PLLC, at the outset

of this case in January 2013. Information in September 2018 shows likely involvement by The

Florida Bar and/or others acting on its behalf. The attorney solicitation by Boyette, Cummins &

Nailos, PLLC dated January 11, 2013 and mailed to me, and my acceptance by email two

separate times, appears at Exhibit 2

Email, Monday, January 14, 2013 6:53 PM


Email: Friday, January 18, 2013 11:43 PM

and when considered with the email in 2018, and lack of response by any party, shows I was denied the

counsel of my choice, with likely involvement by The Florida Bar and/or others acting on its behalf.

I was denied counsel under the Older Americans Act, 42 U.S.C. ch. 35. My affidavit of

July 28, 2017 shows: (Appendix C)

"On July 18, 2017 I was taken by ambulance to the hospital after becoming sick during a
non-jury trial on the foreclosure of my home. I was alone and without counsel to
represent me. Presiding Judge Ann Melinda Craggs continued the trial without me and
ruled for the bank."

Judge Cragg' s three Orders of May 5, 2017 prohibit local counsel from representing me

at the trial-only without a notice of appearance as co-counsel for the entire case. Also see,

2
Appendix D Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Medical Expenses Non-Jury Trial July 18, 2017

Appendix E Letter to HCA Healthcare, Inc. Re Ocala Regional Medical Center ER


visit July 18, 2017

The FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE does not mention the arguments I made

at the non-jury trial before becoming sick on July 18, 2017, which are found in FSC17-1321.

Judge Craggs did not include any of my documents into evidence, see FSC17-1321. This has

been a sham proceeding going into its sixth year. In fact, it appears Judge Craggs did not prepare

the order. That was done, apparently, by McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, see Exhibit 3,

Third Verified Motion to Disqualify Circuit Judge Ann Melida Craggs.

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 homes equity. 12 U.S.C. § 1715z20 et seq. and 24 C.F.R. Part 206. The record

shows substantial violations of the HECM rules by the HUD-approved lender and lender parties.

This appeal is to save my home from foreclosure. I am one of three (3) borrowers, with

my mother Penelope Gillespie, and brother Mark Gillespie. Plaintiff's state court in rem action

alleges the 2009 death of Penelope Gillespie is grounds to foreclose a Home Equity Conversion

Mortgage on my homestead residence, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Marion County, Florida

(the property) in a 55+ community called Oak Run, built by the Development and Construction

Corporation of America (DECCA), and managed by DECCA's successor, Oak Run Associates

LTD (ORAL). The property's market value is $87,985 according to the MCPA (2017).

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-z206) 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).

I am one of two surviving HECM mortgagors, and the only surviving homeowner living

in the home, alone, in substantial compliance with the HECM Note, making this foreclosure of a

HECM premature. My bother Mark Gillespie of Fort Worth Texas is also a surviving borrower,

but he does not live in the home. 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). Mortgagor Ms. Gillespie

died in 2009. But I am a surviving borrower or mortgagor living in the home as my principal

residence, and retain title to the property. Therefore I dispute the Plaintiff's allegations in its

"Verified Complaint to Foreclose Home Equity Conversion Mortgage".

The Florida Bar

The Florida Bar failed to competently complete its inquiry in Danielle Nicole Parsons,

The Florida Bar File No. 2014-30,525 (9A).

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.

ru
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC

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?

ABA Model Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer


pendence_of_a_lawyer/
A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that:
A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the
partnership consist of the practice of law.
(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or
association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar
responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation ; or
Disability of Neil J. Gillespie

eflOn

M1 tM

C &
--

.-

,
-.-

___

I have type 2 adult onset diabetes. Walmart's ReliOn Novolin Insulin N is my lifeblood.

Currently I use eight (8) vials of Novolin insulin per month, and one (1) vial of the R type fast

acting, nine (9) total vials of insulin a month at $24.88 = $233.92, plus $12 for syringes, and $2

for prep pads. Fortunately I can purchase Walmart's ReliOn Insulin over the counter without a

prescription. I wear light weight mechanics gloves to function with diabetic neuropathy.

I am also disabled with, inter alia, traumatic brain injury, and have relied upon the drug

Nuvigil to focus my attention since 2013, obtained through Teva Cares Patient Assistance. While

Nuvigil is a controlled substance, it is not a pain medication, it is a wakefulness drug. I spent the

month of August 2018 trying to get a prescription for Nuvigil, but was only able to get 60

tablets, which I cut in half to stretch the medication, and for which I paid $180 for the generic

Armodafinil 150mg table. My regular dose of Nuvigil 150mg is one tablet a day. I was
effectively on a half dose, or 75mg of Nuvigil a day, using generic Armodafinil. This lack of

vital medication has slowed my ability to work.

I responded to a mail solicitation from Keertini Kumar, MD for a primary care doctor,

but she refused to see me as a patient, apparently, because Nuvgil was on my list of medications,

as shown in my letter October 22, 2018. (Appendix F). I was finally able to find a primary care

doctor who took me as a patient, and prescribed Nuvigil. My application was approved

December 2. 2018, and I received the medication on December 5, 2018. Not enough time to

make much of a difference with this petition. (Appendix G).


REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

For a man's house is his castle . . .

—Sir Edward Coke


Third Institute (1644)

The maxim that a "man's house is his castle" is one of the oldest and most deeply rooted

principles in Anglo-American jurisprudence. It reflects an egalitarian spirit that embraces all

levels of society down to the "poorest man" living "in his cottage." The maxim also forms part of

the fabric of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects people, their homes, and

their property against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

*Citation: Sir Edward Coke, Third Institute of the Laws of England 162 (1644). The
complete quotation is: "For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique lutissimum
refugium." The Latin means: "and his home his safest refuge." See Semayne's Case
(1603) 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B.) ("[T]he house of every one is to him as his castle and
fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose."), quoted in
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609-10 (1999); Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383,
390 (1914) ("[E]very man's house is his castle." (quoting Judge Thomas McIntyre
Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest upon the Legislative
Power of the States of the American Union 299 (1868))); William Blackstone, 3
Commentaries 288 (1768) ("[E]very man's house is looked upon by the law to be his
castle..."); William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries 223 (1765-1769) ("[T]he law of
England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it
stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with impunity..."); Miller v.
United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307 (1958) (quoting William Pitt's 1763 speech in
Parliament: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid de"ance to all the forces of the
crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may
enter; the rain may enter; but the king of England may not enter—all his force dares not
cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!").
CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

i1 J. Gillespie, a nonlaw'er, pro se


Date: December 10, 2018
Filing #73684294 E-Filed 06/18/2018 10:45:06 AM

*upremeCourt of Itortba
MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2018

CASE NO.: SC18-343


Lower Tribunal No(s).:
5D17-2665;
422013 CA000 11 5CAAXXX

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ETC. VS. REVERSE MORTGAGE


SOLUTIONS, INC.

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

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.

A True Copy
Test:

John A. Tomasino
Clerk, Supreme Couit

db
Served:

CURTIS ALAN WILSON


NEIL J. GILLESPIE
HON. DAVID R. ELLSPERMANN, CLERK
HON. ANN MELiNDA CRAGGS, JUDGE
JUSTIN INFURNA
HON. JOANNE P. SIMMONS, CLERK
rEXHIBIT:
Filing # 74882403 E-Filed 07/13!O18 09:21:54 AM

6upreme Court of Itoriba


FRIDAY, JULY 13, 2018

CASE NO.: 5C18-343


Lower Tribunal No(s).:
SD 17-2665;
422013CA000115CAAXXX

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ETC. vs. REVERSE MORTGAGE


SOLUTIONS, INC.

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

Petitioner's Amended Motion for Reinstatement is hereby denied.

A True Copy
Test:

Jo1nA. Tomasino ;

Clerk, Sup re-in e Court "

db
Served:

CURTIS ALAN WILSON


NEIL J. GILLESPIE
HON. DAVID R. ELLSPERMANN, CLERK
HON. ANN MELINDA CRAGGS, JUDGE
JUSTIN INFURNA
HON. JOANNE P. SIMMONS, CLERK

rEXHiBIT
Addddititionalaterial
A
from this f iling is
a vai Iablein the
Clerk,'s Off ice.
-
IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, PETITIONER

vs.

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., RESPONDENTS

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Neil J. Gillespie, do swear or declare that on this date, December 10. 2018, as required
by Supreme Court Rule 291 have served the enclosed MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PA UPERIS and PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the
above proceeding or that party's counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by
depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly
addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party
commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days, and by E-service.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, RESPONDENT


Represented by: Curtis Alan Wilson, Esq., Florida Bar No. 77669
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
225 E. Robinson St. Suite 115
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-674-1850
Fax: 321-248-0420
Email: MRServicemrpllc.com
Email: MRService@mccalla.com

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on December 10, 2018.

f gnature(