Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1Z64589FNW91507926
A ruling in Santos rejected definition of borrower as only natural persons acting individually.
Isabel Santos, individually & trustee, et al. v RMS, 12-3296-SC, USDC, ND Cal.
The district courts Order Remanding Case (Doc. 19) holds on page 4, footnote 1,
This Order should not be interpreted as a ruling concerning whether, or to what extent, Mr.
Gillespie can sue HUD in a separate action. Rather, this Order is limited to whether the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the specific action that has been removed to this Court.
13-7280
The US Supreme Court denied review Petition No. 13-7290. Denial is not a judgment on the merits.
In CFPB Case No. 120914-000082, Bank of America Customer Advocate Christopher Pickle
perpetrated a fraud on the CFPB with this false information: Laws that govern customer privacy
prevent us from providing you with details about any relationship we may have with any
customer without first obtaining the written consent of such customer. This falsehood was then
wrongly incorporated into the CFPB closeout letter, copy enclosed.
Apparently the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does not know that 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).
Apparently U.S. Senator Marco Rubio does not know that privacy laws do not protect the
privacy of dead people either. Enclosed letters from Bank of Americas Anthony Boney dated
March 12, 2014 and March 19, 2014 to Sen. Rubio also wrongly invoke privacy for the dead.
[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. PosnerGerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953, 955 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003); Scott v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 1300, 1301
(Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Quoted by the Court in Tardif, Trustee (Jason Yerk) v. PETA, USDC, SD
Fla. Fort Myers Div. Case No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC
HUD has not adequately responded to FOIA Request 14-FI-RO6-01365, see enclosed my letter
to Bill Tolbert/FOIA Liaison. Felicia Jones is n/a. When can I expect to receive all the records?
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures
https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?Requester=&tracknum=1Z64589FNW91507926&refNumbers=&loc=en_US
Proof of Delivery
Close Window
Dear Customer,
This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.
Tracking Number:
Service:
Weight:
Shipped/Billed On:
Delivered On:
Delivered To:
Signed By:
1Z64589FNW91507926
UPS Next Day Air Saver
1.20 lbs
05/28/2014
05/29/2014 9:59 A.M.
451 7TH ST SW
DONOVAN
WASHINGTON, DC, US 20410
WITHERSPOON
Left At:
Office
Close Window
https://www.ups.com/uis/create?ActionOriginPair=default___PrintWindowPage&key=labelWindow&type=html&loc=en_US&instr=A&doc=shipment...
FOLD HERE
On June 3, 2008 - two days before the loan closed - Liberty Reverse Mortgage somehow sold a
nonexistent HECM Note and HECM Mortgage to Bank of America. Libertys Jessica Yee also
made a Direct Endorsement Allonge - without recourse - May 29, 2008 that predates execution
of the Note by a week. The Direct Endorsement Allonge was made Pay To The Order Of: Bank
of America, N.A., a National Banking Association. The Allonge became a permanent part of
said Note on May 29, 2008:
For purposes of further endorsement of the following described Note, this Allonge is
affixed and becomes a permanent part of said Note on May 29, 2008.
On May 29, 2008 a Note did not exist. The Allonge has a fatal defect that vitiates the Note,
making it unenforceable. The Allonge was made Without Recourse to Bank of America, N.A.,
and thus without recourse against the property. This defective chain of custody is fatal and
vitiates the Assignment of Mortgage executed by BofA to the Plaintiff March 27, 2012.
4.
Other documents missing. The [first] Home Equity Conversion Mortgage is missing. The
[first] Adjustable Rate Note (Home Equity Conversion) is missing. This is a list of the Home
Equity Conversion Mortgage documents that I signed June 5, 2008. All are missing except the
second mortgage and second note that you provided.
a. Home Equity Conversion Mortgage
b. Home Equity Conversion Second Mortgage [provided]
c. Adjustable Rate Note (Home Equity Conversion)
d. Adjustable Rate Second Note (Home Equity Conversion) [provided]
e. Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Federal Loan Closing Truth-In-Lending
Disclosure Statement
f. Florida Department of Revenue Return for Transfers of Interest in Real Property
g. Trustees Affidavit - Refinance Transaction
h. Acceptance of Office by Co-Trustees
5.
During the course of litigation, I provided documents to HUDs counsel in the US
Attorneys Office in Tampa. None of those documents were provided. Initially an incorrect
referral to HUD Miami got some of the documents, but that was remedied.
When can I expect a full response to my FOIA? Thank you in advanced for a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
enclosures
APPENDIX I
Gillespie Complaint to HUD, August 9, 2012
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
RE: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, acct./loan no. 68011002615899
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Residential Loan Application for HECM Reverse Mortgage, April 25, 2008
Exhibit 8
Park Ave. Bank, Liz Baize letter with documents to Neil Gillespie
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
HUD Buyers-Borrowers Closing Statement, Faxed, Fatima Pacheco, May 28, 2008
Exhibit 21
APPENDIX II
Gillespie Complaint to HUD, August 9, 2012
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
RE: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, acct./loan no. 68011002615899
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Email from Liz Baize, Park Ave Bank, problem with documents, June 10, 2008
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Fax to RMS, dispute the delinquency and foreclosure, June 19, 2012
Exhibit 26
Bank Failure, Geoorgia Dept. Banking closed Park Ave. Bank, April 29, 2011
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
San Jose Business Journal, Financial Title Shuts Down, July 30, 2008
Exhibit 30
Genworth lures Liberty Reverse Mortgage with $50 million, July 29, 2007
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Letter, Karen Yantis, BofA, RE: Negative Growth, January 14, 2009
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 39
Liberty Reverse Mortgage, Fla. Div. Corp., 2008 name change to Genworth
Exhibit 40
Exhibit 41
Exhibit 42
MARCO RUBIO
COMMITTEES:
FLORIDA
tinitm ~tQtrs
~rnatf
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SELECT COMMITIEE ON INTELLIGENCE
SMALL BUSINESS AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Gillespie~
Ivlarco Rubio
United States Senator
MR/ga
WF #1647638
~~
Preaident
Enterpri.. ('''ustomer RPlations
Contact Us:
, .336.333.7329
Service Request Number:
, -48760622'
Privacy is important to us
Our customers' privacy is a top priority. Due to customer privacy laws and our own strict privacy
policy, we can provide customer account information only to our customers and third parties
that our customers have authorized to receive information. Since we do not have such written
authorization from our customer for you, we are unable to provide you with any information, at
this time.
Anthony Boney
Customer Advocate
Office of the CEO and President
cc: Ms. Gina Alonso, the Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
Bank of America, N.A. is required by law to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector.
If you are currently in a bankruptcy proceeding, or have previously obtained a discharge of this debt under
applicable bankruptcy law, this notice is for information only and is not an attempt to collect the debt, a
demand for payment, or an attempt to impose personal liability for that debt. You are not obligated to
discuss your home loan with us or enter into a loan modification or other loan-assistance program. You
should consult with your bankruptcy attorney or other advisor about your legal rights and options.
Mortgages funded and administered by an tit Equal Housing Lender.
OProtect your personal information before recycling this document.
Contact Us:
1.336.333.7329
Service Request Number:
1-487606221
Page 2 of 2
. . . . . 111
1_111
"'%111.'.
1111.1
1.
iiI"..
IT.'
.'TI.
Bankof America ~
0(1)
rr:~
....~. . . . r
btl
:::~
LU(/)
J-<t
~d
(,?J
lin
U,J(/)
c...ii:
~fS;::'OSi'
~
9~..
:;it.:
~~
......... ,.:i,;:~~
f
,~)"~' ~ ([I~.
t1i ca:.
~ \'tt':f-.~~..
" ...::-,,:i
.;~; . ~ ~
~ ~
:W::.
-1~
~
__
:
,~:if;)~..
.
f.....
j. _.
II
'-i
'
-;"7
"-,",0_
:.
-:
, _
_.
O(Cl\(A.)
AA{t~PAB
3448i
JI~"'}.U
..t;~:L.: r.......
~-1AllEDFRr,M
.~.~
,_ "7/pr'I'--iDE
"''''_
_."':")c::.(;
__ ~_.
00 40 6
.,..
llop
\=L 334)5'
,"III fill J, I, '1,'1
b...........
~~
BankofAmerica . .
Off'1OO of the (~I) and President
Contact Us:
1.336.333.7329
Privacy is important to us
Our customers' privacy is a top priority. Due to customer privacy laws and our own strict privacy
policy, we can provide customer account information only to our customers and third parties
that our customers have authorized to receive information. Since we do not have such written
authorization from our customer for you, we are unable to provide you with any information at
this time.
Our third party authorization requirements have been updated and can no longer accept a
durable power of attorney as authorization. Once we receive a letter of testimony or documents
from court showing that you are executor of the Estate or appointed through probate court we
will be able to discuss account details with you.
~~~
Anthony Boney
Customer Advocate
Office of the CEO and President
cc: Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
Contact Us:
1.336.333.7329
Page 2 of 2
.WII"
_'..
.~
i.
'.
'!!:" . . . . . .- - _ . _............
-.IUJ.-........
P' ......-IllI..n
~t--~~~
BankofAmerica.
..-: .-::.._...0:.
0(1)
w(,J')..
~ o'+-~::-i-
w:Q
fu::
~~
~~
"HAW ,~
Z
A . .t~~~
::>
~~ PITNI'l BOWl S
~~
"
$ 00 40
rR
6
0002008092
MAR 20 2014
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 28269
~bq2..
OCoJ~
AA{t~PAB
~L. 3LfLf ~ ,
34481
" JI J'
l'L
the written consent of such customer. Since our records indicate that no written
authorization has been received to date from the person on whose behalf you
are inquiring, we are unable to discuss any information with you at this time.
Please provide a copy of the will naming the third party as the executor or the
letters of testamentary naming you as the authorized representative. We will
respond to the concerns raised in your correspondence once the
aforementioned documents are provided.
If you wish to submit the will or the letters of testamentary, you can fax them
directly to me at 1.877.373.7139. Please feel free to contact me directly at
1.972.526.3604. I am available Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Central.
The Consumer Response Team requested additional information from Bank of America,
including a response to documents you submitted, concerning this matter. Bank of
America responded by providing a letter addressed to you and dated February 1, 2012.
The letter stated, in part:
Our records indicate that we do not have proper authorization to disclose any
information to you regarding Ms. Penelope M. Gillespies account. Bank of
America values and guards our customers privacy and financial information
and, therefore, does not provide customer-specific information to unauthorized
third parties.
Further, laws that govern customer privacy prevent us from providing you with
details about any relationship we may have with any customer without first
obtaining the written consent of such customer. Our records confirm that we
have not received any written authorization from Ms. Gillespie, therefore, we
are unable to discuss any information about her account with you. In order to
obtain a response to the concerns raised in your correspondence, please provide
us with a copy of a proper third party authorization form naming you as Ms.
Gillespies authorized representative. You may contact Bank of Americas
Reverse Mortgage Department at 1.866.863.5224 for instructions on how to
submit these necessary documents.
Although the CFPB allows for the filing of complaints on behalf of others, Bank of
America has indicated that it is unable to further process the complaint without
authorization from the consumer requesting the resolution above. Unfortunately, no
further action will be taken on your complaint at this time. Our review was limited to
federal consumer financial protection laws within the CFPBs authority. Our disposition
should not be considered to be a determination with respect to the validity of your
complaint. We hope you understand that the CFPB does not represent individuals in
legal matters. If you believe this does not resolve your complaint, you are of course free
to contact a private attorney about this matter or file your own case in court.
For more information on mortgages, or any other consumer financial product or service,
visit Ask CFPB at www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/.
Specifically, please see the following entries from Ask CFPB:
Housing counselors are permitted to charge for reverse mortgage counseling, but the
agency must tell you about the fee before charging it, and the fee has to be reasonable.
Fees are typically about $125. Counseling agencies are also required to waive the
counseling fee if your income is less than twice the poverty level.
TIP: Make sure your reverse mortgage counselor is approved by the U.S. Department
of Urban Development (HUD). You can find HUD-approved housing counselor by
visiting HUD's counselor search page or calling HUDs housing counselor referral line
(1-800-569-4287).
TIP: If you are behind on your taxes and insurance and you are facing foreclosure, you
can receive free reverse mortgage foreclosure prevention counseling. To find a specialist
counselor, call one of the five national counseling agencies and ask for HECM
foreclosure prevention counseling:
CredAbility: 1-888-395-2664
Money Management International: 1-866-765-3328
National Council on the Aging: 1-800-510-0301
National Foundation for Credit Counseling: 1-866-363-2227
NeighborWorks America: 1-888-990-4326
If you paid someone up-front for counseling and they never provided counseling to you,
or if someone is offering you counseling only if you purchase an insurance or financial
product along with your reverse mortgage, report the agency and counselor by filing a
complaint with the CFPB, or calling 1-855-411-CFPB (2372).
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/232/what-will-reverse-mortgage-housingcounseling-cost.html
We take consumer complaints very seriously and are grateful for the information you
have provided throughout this process. Consumer complaints inform us about business
practices that may pose risk to consumers and assist the CFPBs supervisory,
enforcement, and rulemaking responsibilities. Hearing from engaged and proactive
consumers like you is critical to our mission. With this correspondence, we are closing
your file on this matter within Consumer Response. Please feel free to contact the CFPB
should you need help with another consumer finance matter in the future.
Thank you,
Consumer Response Team
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
consumerfinance.gov
(855) 411-CFPB (2372)
Case: 13-11585
Date Filed:
(1 of 2)
07/25/2013
Page: 1 of 1
Case: 13-11585
Date Filed:
(2 of 2)
07/25/2013
Page: 1 of 1
se, filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), 28 U.S.C. 1331, and
5 U.S.C. 702 (Doc. 1). The Notice of Removal states that Mr. Gillespie intends to
raise various counterclaims and affirmative defenses under the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 701, et seq., and intends to file cross-claims against
Defendant United States of America, Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) (Id., pp. 2-3). Mr. Gillespie has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 6).
On February 13, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 10), which recommended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2),
that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and this case be remanded to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge held that remand is proper both because this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule, see Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987), and because there
is a procedural defect in the notice of removal.
Mr. Gillespie has filed 58 pages of objections and exhibits challenging the
Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation, as well as seeking recusal of both
the undersigned and the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18). Although typically the Court
would afford the Plaintiff leave to respond to the Objections, the law and the facts of
this case conclusively establish that this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction,
such that it would be a waste of attorney and judicial resources to wait for a response.
-2-
The Magistrate Judge noted that the decision whether a claim arises under
federal law for purposes of 1331 is generally determined by the well-pleaded
complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. Smith
v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at
392). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, merely having a federal defense to a
state law claim is insufficient to support removal. Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 439
(4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that a counterclaim cannot
serve as the basis for arising under federal question jurisdiction. Holmes Group, Inc.
v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 832, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 1894 (2002).
See also Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Malugen, No. 6:11-cv-2033Orl-22, 2012 WL 1382265 at * 8 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2012) (Thus, the law is well settled
that federal claims raised in a counterclaim may not serve as a basis for removal
jurisdiction.).
The Magistrate Judge found that the only issues of federal law in this case were
raised in Mr. Gillespies anticipated defenses or other such claim, and thus, under the
well-pleaded complaint rule, this Court was without subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 10,
p. 5). Mr. Gillespies primary objections focus on the fact that he intends to raise
questions of federal law not only in his counterclaims and defenses, but also in crossclaims he intends to assert against HUD. This is a distinction without a difference.
The basic principle is that defendants may remove only on the basis of claims brought
-3-
against them and not on the basis of counterclaims, cross-claims, or defenses asserted
by them. Image 1 Studios, LLC v. Youngblood, No. 6:12-cv-1570-Orl-22DAB, 2012
WL 5415629 at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2012) (quoting 14C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur
R. Miller Edward H. Cooper & Joan E. Steinman, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
3730 (4th ed. 2009)). See also Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Carrington, No. 6:09cv-2132-Orl-31GJK, 2010 WL 1854123 at * 3 (M.D. Fla. May 10, 2010) (remanding
case to state court where the only claims that arose under federal law were contained
in the defendants cross-claims). Thus, whether Mr. Gillespie asserts a federal cause
of action in his counterclaim, affirmative defense, or cross-claim, is irrelevant for
purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction. The Court is limited solely to a
review of the Plaintiffs Complaint, which in this case clearly and explicitly only raises
issues of state foreclosure law.1 Mr. Gillespies objection on this point shall be
Overruled.
Mr. Gillespie also objects to the Magistrate Judges finding that the notice of
removal was procedurally defective because it does not contain the consent and/or
joinder of all other Defendants in the removal. Specifically, Mr. Gillespie contends that
he is the only defendant with a real interest in this case, and that the other defendants
were neither properly joined or served. This objection is based on both hearsay and
This Order should not be interpreted as a ruling concerning whether, or to what extent, Mr.
Gillespie can sue HUD in a separate action. Rather, this Order is limited to whether the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the specific action that has been removed to this Court.
-4-
supposition on the part of Mr. Gillespie the fact remains that several other defendants
have been served and have not consented or joined in the notice of removal. This is
sufficient to warrant remand. Moreover, this objection does not change the fact that
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand regardless of the validity
of the procedures used for removal. This objection shall be Overruled.
Mr. Gillespie next objects to the Magistrate Judges report and recommendation,
on the ground that the mere inclusion of the United States as a defendant automatically
gives this Court subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case. Mr. Gillespie is
mistaken. Simply listing the United States as a defendant does not automatically clothe
this Court with jurisdiction rather it gives the United States the right to seek removal
of the case to federal court. Unless and until the United States seeks removal, this
Court is without jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court has reviewed the very narrow
circumstances when it would have jurisdiction over cases where the United States is
listed as a defendant, and this case does not fall within any of those circumstances.
See 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2409, 2409a. This objection will also be Overruled.
Mr. Gillespies other objections are either irrelevant (objection to the date the
Plaintiffs actually filed their complaint in state court), or redundant (arguing that his
anticipated federal cross-claims against HUD establish jurisdiction). They warrant no
further discussion, and will be Overruled. Mr. Gillespies request to amend his Notice
of Removal will also be Denied as futile because there is no set of facts or legal claims
that can be raised which would give the Court jurisdiction over this case.
-5-
Lastly, Mr. Gillespie seeks to recuse the undersigned and the Magistrate Judge.
Because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it would appear that this
request is now moot. In any event, the Court finds that the request is also without legal
merit. Mr. Gillespie seeks the undersigneds recusal on the basis that I have a financial
interest in Bank of America, which Mr. Gillespie contends is the real party in interest in
this case. However, Bank of America is not listed as a party, and the evidence
submitted by Mr. Gillespie, which consists of correspondence between Mr. Gillespie
and Bank of America in which Mr. Gillespie is requesting information about various
accounts, does not appear to have anything to do with this case.
Mr. Gillespie seeks recusal of the Magistrate Judge on the grounds that the
Magistrate Judges report and recommendation contains misstatements of law and fact,
and therefore calls into question the Magistrate Judges fairness and impartiality. The
Magistrate Judge has not misstated any law or facts, rather he has correctly
determined that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Besides, any such claim would
relate to judicial acts rather than extra-judicial bias, and it is insufficient to work a
disqualification as a matter of law. And the fact that Mr. Gillespie does not agree with
the Magistrate Judges well-founded report and recommendation does not establish
any legally cognizable bias either. See 28 U.S.C. 144, 455(a), and 455(b)(1).
Accordingly, upon due consideration it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1)
(2)
his requests for leave to amend his Notice of Removal and for recusal of the
undersigned and the Magistrate Judge are all DENIED;
(3)
The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of the Fifth
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Hon. Philip R. Lammens
Maurya McSheehy
-7-