Happy Christmas, War is Over

Message from Yoko Ono Lennon,

Dear Friends,

The WAR IS OVER! campaign was once a tiny seed, which spread and covered the Earth.

John and I believed it helped many people to stop their wars. Since then, every WAR IS OVER! campaign has impacted the world as powerfully as the first one.

Start yours tomorrow, and you will see that it spreads and covers the world very fast and, meanwhile, makes you a Small Pebble Person.

Small Pebble People are people who know that small pebbles, when they’re dropped in the ocean, will immediately affect the ocean of the whole wide world.

Don’t throw a big stone. It scares people and creates repercussions.

Just drop a small pebble.
We’ll keep doing it. Together.

That’s how the world gets changed…by Small Pebble People.
We change, and the world changes.

Happy Holidays.

I love you!

Yoko Ono Lennon
11 November 2018


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/

ABA Legal Fact Check: Trump’s Fight with Congress Will Likely Test Separation of Powers

ABA Legal Fact Check: Trump’s Fight with Congress Will Likely Test Separation of Powers

Separation of Powers
American Bar Association
ABA Legal Fact Check
Posted 10/29/2019

In this era of divided government, opposing views originating from one branch of government and volleyed at another are often construed as threats to the separation of powers. The perceived threats cross party lines. President Barack Obama was heavily criticized for calling out the U.S. Supreme Court at his State of the Union address in 2010 for its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In late 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked President Donald Trump after the president referred to a judge who delivered an unfavorable ruling as an "Obama judge."

For most of this year, President Trump has resisted efforts by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to investigate his official conduct and business dealings, challenging the delicate balance that is the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. After a White House meeting on Oct. 16, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., reflected House leadership frustration, saying, "Never have I seen a president treat so disrespectfully a co-equal branch of the government of the United States."

While hyperbolic rhetoric and name-calling are seldom acceptable in a civil society and engender otherwise avoidable disrespect, the legal guideposts that sustain separation of powers are rooted in the U.S. Constitution and case law.

The American structure of government is not the global norm; 104 nations — a majority of democratic governments — have a parliamentary system where the legislative branch is paramount, and the executive has no independent constitutional base of authority. The U.S. Constitution’s first three articles created three co-equal branches of government: the legislative (Congress), executive (headed by the president) and judicial (Supreme Court and lower federal courts). All of the state constitutions similarly provide for these three branches in their state government, and 40 of them explicitly require a separation of powers.

The federal structure reflects the collective thinking of the Founding Fathers, who melded their political philosophy as colonial Americans with their experiences as English colonists. As James Madison wrote in 1788 in The Federalist Papers No. 47, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Through two centuries, this arrangement has produced its fair share of conflict, notes a 2016 Congressional Research Service report. While the Constitution created a separation of branches, it also provided for overlapping responsibilities, such as giving the president a veto over legislation and giving the Senate approval of executive and judicial nominations made by the president. "Most powers granted under the Constitution are not unilateral for any one branch; instead they overlap," the CRS report pointed out.

Over time, power has flowed increasingly to the executive branch, a fact many scholars and commentators attribute to strong presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt rather than to any constitutional provision, statute or court ruling. After 9/11, for example, President George W. Bush adopted particularly assertive ideas about his authority as chief executive. This led to warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens’ phone calls and emails, and Bush’s signing statement declaring his authority as commander in chief to override the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, with its absolute prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of prisoners.

When these types of practices are challenged, the courts referee. In the first three years of the Trump administration, for instance, federal judges have halted numerous proposed changes under immigration laws, prompting the White House to issue an Oct. 11 statement titled, "Activist Judicial Rulings Block the Administration From Enforcing Our Nation’s Immigration Laws." Many of these cases are on appeal.

The most enduring U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with the balance between executive and legislative authority came after President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 10340, which placed all U.S. steel mills under federal control during the Korean War. In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer  that Truman had overstepped his authority because he attempted to make law rather than clarify an existing piece of legislation.

Justice Robert Jackson, in a concurring opinion, put forth a three-part test that is still relied upon by courts today in navigating conflicts between executive and legislative authority. Jackson said the president’s powers were at their height when he had the direct or implied authorization from Congress to act; at their middle ground or "a zone of twilight," as he put it, when acting without either a congressional grant or denial of authority; and "at its lowest ebb" when a president acted against the expressed wishes of Congress.

Two decades later, President Richard Nixon attempted to block a special prosecutor’s attempt to secure presidential recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. His attorneys argued both separation of powers and confidentiality. But in U.S. v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that "neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

"Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide," the court ruled.

The extent of presidential power in foreign and military matters remains largely undefined. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry  in 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional mandate that allowed a person born in Jerusalem to record the place of birth on a U.S. passport as "Israel." The court said this section in a State Department authorization act constituted an infringement of the separation of powers, because the president’s power to recognize foreign sovereigns is exclusive and overrides Congress’s authority to regulate passports. The court also noted that in separation-of-powers cases it puts "significant weight upon historical practice."

The separation-of-powers argument is likely to move to the public forefront in the coming months as battles between the executive and legislative branches regarding oversight and impeachment play out in the courts. In these cases, judges would be expected to consider legal precedent and the continued viability of Justice Jackson’s enduring three-prong test. Read more

House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff 

House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers

USA TODAY
Christal Hayes and Bart Jansen
October 29, 2019

Left: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says President Donald Trump's administration is "building a powerful case" for impeachment as a former White House national security adviser defied a subpoena on Monday. (Oct. 28) AP, AP

WASHINGTON – Democrats leading the House of Representatives released an eight-page resolution Tuesday that outlines how the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump will operate, offering both sides of the aisle subpoena power as committees embark on public hearings.

The resolution from Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., could be voted on as early as Thursday. It makes clear that information gathered by the six committees that have been conducting oversight into Trump would funnel to the House Judiciary Committee – the panel that has traditionally been charged with impeachment.

"None of us came to Congress to impeach a president – but each of us took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution," McGovern said. "While the president and his allies try to obstruct our investigation and cover up his wrongdoing, the House will continue to do its job and uncover the truth for the American people."

The Thursday vote on the resolution will mark the first time House members will be forced to vote on the inquiry after weeks of intense criticism by the GOP and put several moderate Democrats and Republicans under close scrutiny as the 2020 election approaches.

The rules appear tailored to meet complaints that Republicans have made for weeks about closed-door depositions that three key committees – Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform – have been holding with witnesses from the State Department and national security offices. Republicans argued that Democrats were holding secret impeachment hearings in the basement of the Capitol.

But it wasn't enough to appease concerns and Republicans in leadership urged their colleagues to vote against the measure. GOP lawmakers argued the resolution did not include additional resources for conservative lawmakers leading the committees where impeachment would take place and failed to detail whether the president and his attorneys could be present for the hearings, offer evidence or cross-examine witnesses.

The White House denounced the measure in a statement by Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, saying the resolution continues the impeachment "scam" without allowing "any due process for the President."

"The White House is barred from participating at all, until after Chairman Schiff conducts two rounds of one-sided hearings to generate a biased report for the Judiciary Committee," she said. "Even then, the White House's rights remain undefined, unclear, and uncertain – because those rules still haven’t been written."

Later on Tuesday, Democrats released a three-page summary that outlined the role of the president and his counsel once impeachment moves to the Judiciary Committee. It includes that both the president and his counsel may cross-examine witnesses, offer evidence and craft a closing presentation.

But it all comes with a caveat — all requests would have to be approved by Democrats and would be rejected should the administration block witnesses or documents from being made available.

The resolution broadly outlines the plan for public hearings to take place in the House Intelligence Committee, which has led the investigation into Trump asking Ukraine to investigate political rivals – the central focus of the impeachment investigation.

Both Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. and Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, would have subpoena power and be given up to 90 minutes together to question witnesses during public hearings – or have staffers ask questions.

But subpoenas from Nunes, R-Calif., would first have to be approved by Schiff, who can reject such requests. Any rejection could be brought to the full committee for a vote, the resolution notes.

The measure also directs the Intelligence Committee to craft a report on its findings and offer it to the House Judiciary Committee, which under the resolution would also offer subpoena power to both parties on the panel – Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican.

The resolution says the inquiry would continue under six committees: Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, all of which have been investigating the president.

Three committees – Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform – have been holding closed-door depositions with State Department and national security officials to learn more about Trump’s demand for Ukrainian investigations while he withheld nearly $400 million in military aid for the country.

But other committees have continued work on other aspects of the investigation, which the resolution says would also be funneled to the Judiciary Committee.

The chairmen of the four most active panels – Schiff; Nadler; Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., at Oversight; and Rep. Eliot Engle, D-N.Y., at Foreign Affairs – issued a joint statement saying that the inquiry "has collected extensive evidence and testimony, and soon the American people will hear from witnesses in an open setting."

"The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a President who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election," the chairmen said. "Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the President’s misconduct."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declared a formal impeachment inquiry Sept. 24 amid reports that Trump urged Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while withholding military aid. White House counsel Pat Cipollone notified Pelosi Oct. 8 that the administration wouldn’t cooperate for lack of a full House vote. Read more

Read the resolution:

Legal Experts Dumbfounded by Kevin McCarthy’s Impeachment Defense: ‘Like Legal Doctrine Mad Libs’

Kevin McCarthy

Legal Experts Dumbfounded by Kevin McCarthy’s Impeachment Defense: ‘Like Legal Doctrine Mad Libs’

Law & Crime
by Jerry Lambe
October 29th, 2019

Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday attacked Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, calling it  "an entire sham." Unfortunately, in his diatribe against the investigation into Trump’s alleged abuse of power, McCarthy used several legal terms that he clearly did not understand — or, at the very least, failed to correctly employ. Legal experts were quick to respond.

McCarthy, who has Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration degrees but no legal training, got off to a rocky start when he misused the term "due process," which, in short, refers to the fundamental principle of fairness in legal proceedings. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

"You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. A due process starts at the beginning. It doesn’t affirm a miss, sham investigation all the way through," McCarthy said, before broaching an even more abstruse legal doctrine known as "fruit of the poisonous tree."

The term, first coined in 1939, is a legal metaphor used to describe illegally obtained evidence that must be excluded at trial.

"If you were in the legal term, it’d be the fruit from the poisonous tree; it’d be a mistrial. None of this information would go forward," McCarthy said.

Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law was quick to point out McCarthy’s errors, writing, "I could ask my first-year law students to identify everything that’s incorrect or misleading in [McCarthy’s] statement here, but it would be too easy," he wrote before providing a multi-faceted explainer.

Vladeck began by clarifying why the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in not applicable to the current proceedings.

"Fruit of the poisonous tree is about evidence obtained unlawfully being inadmissible—and (a) only results in suppression of evidence; and (b) has lots of exceptions," Vladeck explained. "No one is arguing the House has violated [President Trump’s] Fourth Amendment rights," he wrote, before delving into McCarthy’s "mistrial" comment.

"A mistrial is what happens when, in the middle of a trial, some uncorrectable error has occurred. There’s nothing remotely resembling a trial here—and there won’t be until and unless this goes to the Senate," he wrote. "Even then, most mistrials don’t actually invalidate the entire proceeding; they just require the case to start over. So even [McCarthy’s] preposterous analogy doesn’t actually lead him to where he wants to go," Vladeck said, concluding that McCarthy’s argument was part of a larger attempt to distract from the substantive issues surrounding impeachment.

Several other legal experts were equally amused by McCarthy’s bumbling press conference and failed attempts to employ legal doctrines.

Sasha Samberg-Champion, a former senior appellate attorney for the Department of Justice, said McCarthy’s press conference was nonsensical in a throw it at the wall and see if it sticks kind of way.

"This is like legal doctrine mad libs. Plug in some random legal term and pretend it applies," he tweeted. Read more

Bernie Sanders Donors Lose Case Alleging DNC ‘Improperly Tipped the Scales’ in Favor of Hillary Clinton

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (center)

Bernie Sanders Donors Lose Case Alleging DNC ‘Improperly Tipped the Scales’ in Favor of Hillary Clinton

LAW & CRIME
by Elura Nanos
October 29th, 2019

Bernie-backing plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were just shut down by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the only remaining avenue for direct recourse is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit filed in South Florida followed the 2016 election and alleged that the DNC’s favoritism of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders amounted to fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.  The allegations – and the defenses – raised questions that went to the heart of American politics, and the relationship between voters and the political parties they support.

The DNC argued the only-in-politics defense that the Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased toward Clinton, and therefore, it was under no legal obligation to be neutral or fair to all candidates. Now, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz are enjoying the a win, courtesy of the Eleventh Circuit.

The court, though, appeared almost to lament its own decision – or at least the context in which it was issued. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan (a Bill Clinton nominee to the Eleventh Circuit) began his decision with a kind of judicial SMH:

In his classic treatise on the United States and its political system, Alexis de Tocqueville famously remarked that "[t]here is almost no political question in the United States that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I, at 257 (U. Chicago Press 2000) [1835]. This case, which pits a political party against some of its supporters, confirms de Tocqueville’s reputation as an astute observer of American life.

American life, indeed.

The court’s ruling, affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, did little to reflect or instill confidence in the American electoral system. The ruling went in favor of the defendants not because of an absence of wrongdoing, but rather because it seemed impossible to fit their conduct into an appropriate legal context.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs did suffer an injury by forking over their donations to an institution that wasn’t as neutral as advertised, but also said the lawsuit was deficient on a number of important grounds. Plaintiffs had failed to specify how, exactly, they had relied on the DNC’s promises. Furthermore, the DNC isn’t in the business of selling goods or services, so the statutes relied upon by the plaintiffs don’t apply. And finally, contract law principles just don’t fit the facts. Those facts may look bad for Wasserman Schultz and the DNC – but the shape of any wrongdoing is a square peg to the round hole of existing law.

The court wasn’t blind to the frustration that must have been caused by its inability to compensate the aggrieved plaintiffs. But courts aren’t empowered to breathe life into lawsuits that fail to conform to the law. Writing for a three-judge panel of the court, Judge Jordan wrote as follows:

We are mindful that there are deep disagreements within (and outside) the Democratic Party about the DNC’s alleged conduct during the 2016 primaries.

But federal courts can only adjudicate cognizable claims, and the complaint here fails on a number of jurisdictional and substantive grounds.

Whether the Sanders donors will appeal the dismissal, refile as permitted, or simply wait for new allegations to accrue from the 2020 election remains to be seen. Until we do, it might be a good idea to brush up on some de Tocqueville.

[image via Joe Raedle/Getty Images]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Columbus Day

Christopher Columbus 

Christopher Columbus
Wikipedia

Christopher Columbus (31 October 1451 – 20 May 1506) was an Italian navigator and colonist who completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean under the auspices of the Catholic Monarchs of Castile and Aragon. While pursuing a route to the Far East, he discovered a viable sailing route to the Americas, then unknown to the Old World. He led the first European expeditions to the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, initiating the opening of the New World for conquest and settlement by Europeans and the permanent European colonization of the Americas. Read more

In Defense of Columbus: An Exaggerated Evil

Inside America's For-Profit Bail System

The Mueller Report - A PBS NewsHour/FRONTLINE Special

The nearly two-year investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has concluded, with Mueller's final report delivered to Attorney General William Barr for review. Now, a groundbreaking collaboration between PBS NewsHour and FRONTLINE illuminates the complex details behind the Mueller investigation and analyzes what's yet to come. Read more

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE
Robert S. Mueller III, Special Counsel                           Mueller Report, Wikipedia        

                                                                                     Robert Mueller, Wikipedia

Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)
Wikipedia

THE UNTOLD STORY OF ROBERT MUELLER'S TIME IN COMBAT
Wired Magazine 

ONE DAY IN the summer of 1969, a young Marine lieutenant named Bob Mueller arrived in Hawaii for a rendezvous with his wife, Ann. She was flying in from the East Coast with the couple’s infant daughter, Cynthia, a child Mueller had never met. Mueller had taken a plane from Vietnam.

AFTER NINE MONTHS at war, he was finally due for a few short days of R&R outside the battle zone. Mueller had seen intense combat since he last said goodbye to his wife. He’d received the Bronze Star with a distinction for valor for his actions in one battle, and he’d been airlifted out of the jungle during another firefight after being shot in the thigh. He and Ann had spoken only twice since he’d left for South Vietnam.

Despite all that, Mueller confessed to her in Hawaii that he was thinking of extending his deployment for another six months, and maybe even making a career in the Marines. Read more

Panels Focus on Merit in Selection of Magistrate Judges

Panels Focus on Merit in Selection of Magistrate Judges
U.S. COURTS
Published July 18, 2019

Magistrate judges play a critical role in the federal Judiciary, fulfilling a broad range of responsibilities and easing heavy caseloads in district courts. A new video by the U.S. courts explains the merit selection process for these judges.

When there is an opening for a magistrate judgeship, a merit selection panel is formed. This panel consists of five practicing lawyers and two non-lawyer community leaders. The panel’s job is to narrow the applications—typically 60 to 100—down to five candidates, who are then recommended to the district judges.

The panel considers many factors, such as the candidate’s standing with the bar of the highest court of a state, commonwealth or territory; and the candidate’s moral character, and emotional and physical health.

"Intelligence, hard work, honesty…those are probably the biggest qualities that I would look for in a magistrate judge," says Magistrate Judge Gordon Gallagher, of the District of Colorado.

The balance of lawyers and non-lawyers in the panel ensures that candidates will be well-rounded. While lawyers focus on the legal aspects of the candidates’ qualifications, lay members evaluate the candidate based on the community’s interests.

"Our communities are diverse…and when the court reflects that, the community has confidence that the court is a sound court," says Magistrate Judge Ramon Reyes, Jr., of the Eastern District of New York.

Learn more about magistrate judges and other types of federal judges.

United States magistrate judge, Wikipedia
28 U.S. Code Chapter 43 - UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES
A Guide To The Federal Magistrate Judges System
Top 10 Things You Probably Never Knew About Magistrate Judges
Mistitling of the United States Magistrate Judge

Reply to Scott McInerney, Director Executive Investigations, FDLE Jun-28-2019

Scott McInerney, Director        
Executive Investigations
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
2331 Phillips Road                                                           ScottMcinerney@fdle.state.fl.us
FDLE File EI-73-8657/628

Reply to Scott McInerney, Director Executive Investigations, FDLE Jun-28-2019

Mr. McInerney:

This is in reply to your letter June 19, 2019, copy enclosed. You wrote in part,

"Your recent correspondence to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) was forwarded to the Office of Executive Investigations (OEI) for review. In your correspondence, you alleged misconduct against several court appointed officials and you expressed concerns regarding a foreclosed home. Upon review, it was determined that your complaint does not warrant an investigation by FDLE."

You also erroneously referred "misconduct" by Judge Ann Melinda Craggs to the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC); and you erroneously referred misconduct by attorney Curtis Wilson to The Florida Bar. Mr. Mcinerney, please disabuse yourself that I complained about judicial and/or attorney "misconduct". I complained about crimes, not professional misconduct.

On June 13, 2019 I made, inter alia, a referral to the FDLE for formal criminal charges against Judge Ann Melenda Craggs for violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a) Criminal use of personal identification information; and related crimes together with Curtis Wilson, Esq., in the wrongful foreclosure of my Fla. residential homestead. (Copy enclosed)

On June 20, 2019 I made, inter alia, a referral to the FDLE for formal criminal charges against Judge Ann Melenda Craggs for violation of Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1) and § 812.014 (2)(a)1 Grand Theft; and related crimes together with Curtis Wilson, Esq., in the wrongful foreclosure of my Fla. residential homestead. (Copy enclosed)

I am certain you know and understand the difference between crimes such as 817.568(8)(a), 812.014(1), and 812.014 (2)(a)1, and misconduct by judges and lawyers. The FDLE can prosecute those crimes, while the JQC and The Florida Bar cannot prosecute crimes.

The Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) referred me to the FDLE and the FBI for the crimes of 817.568(8)(a), 812.014(1), and 812.014 (2)(a)1 as attached. Timothy T. McCourt, general counsel for the MCSO, also advised me to contact the FDLE and FBI. Furthermore, your referral to private counsel is misplaced. Mr. McCourt is a lawyer and member of The Florida Bar, and he advised me to contact the FDLE and FBI.

I reiterate my request to the FDLE to prosecute 817.568(8)(a), 812.014(1), and 812.014 (2)(a)1 as set forth in the attached/enclosed complaints. Thank you.

Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
352-854-7807
neilgillespie@mfi.net
Attachments/Enclosures

Reply to Scott McInerney, Director Executive Investigations, FDLE Jun-28-2019

REQUEST for PROSECUTON Judge Ann Melinda Craggs and Mr. Wilson Violated Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a)

Eric W. Sporre
Special Agent in Charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
5525 West Gray Street
Tampa, FL 33609

Rick Swearingen, Commissioner
Florida Department of Law Enforcement FDLE
2331 Phillips Road
Tallahassee, FL

RE: REQUEST for PROSECUTION Judge Ann Melinda Craggs and Mr. Wilson Violated Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a)

Gentlemen:

This is a referral for formal criminal charges against Judge Ann Melenda Craggs for violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a) Criminal use of personal identification information; and related crimes together with Curtis Wilson, Esq., in the wrongful foreclosure of my Fla. residential homestead.

Judge Ann Melenda Craggs ("Judge Craggs") has presided over the foreclosure of my home in Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie, et al., Case No.: 2013-CA-00115, Marion County Circuit Court, Florida Fifth Judicial District, since August 18, 2016, after the recusal, sua sponte, of Judge Steven G. Rogers, see Doc-354 Order of Recusal, entered on August 17, 2016. The case commenced on January 9, 2013 in Marion County.

Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. ("RMS") is represented by Curtis Alan Wilson (Bar ID 77669) of McCalla, Raymer, Leibert, Pierce, LLC, 225 E. Robinson St. Suite 115, Orlando, FL 32801.

RMS is an active (as of today) Foreign Profit Corporation registered with the Florida Division of Corporations. The 2019 Foreign Profit Corporation Annual Report for RMS appears online, and shows the address for RMS: 14405 Walters Road, Suite 200, Houston, TX 77014.

RMS and its parent company Ditech Holding Corporation are in chapter 11 bankruptcy, consolidated case number 1:19-bk-10412 in the New York Southern Bankruptcy Court.

This referral is to both the MCSO and the OPD since either agency may have jurisdiction, as I understand, over crimes occurring July 18, 2017, in the Marion County Judicial Center, 110 NW 1st Ave., Ocala, FL 34475 during a non-jury trial where Judge Craggs entered a Final Judgment of Foreclosure that does not mention the arguments I made before becoming sick, or mention the fact that I was transported to the hospital before the trial ended, and left without anyone to represent me. Judge Craggs did not include any of my documents into evidence.

I am age 63. I am disabled with type 2 diabetes since 2006. Social Security determined I was totally disabled since 1992 following a traumatic brain injury as a survivor of a street robbery.

Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson continue to rely upon the fruits of their crime in the wrongful foreclosure of my Florida residential homestead property located at 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida, 34481, Marion County.

The Plaintiff’s (RMS) 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 in a 55+ community called Oak Run. The property’s market value is $80,565 according to the MCPA (2018). I am one of three (3) borrowers, with my mother Penelope Gillespie, and brother Mark Gillespie.

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

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).

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".

Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson violated Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a)

Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson violated Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a) Criminal use of personal identification information, used as trial evidence in the foreclosure.

Section 817.568(8)(a) states:

(8)(a) Any person who willfully and fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning a deceased individual or dissolved business entity commits the offense of fraudulent use or possession with intent to use personal identification information of a deceased individual or dissolved business entity, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

My mother, Penelope Gillespie, died on September 16, 2009. RMS alleged so in paragraph 5 of its Verified Complaint To Foreclose Home Equity Conversion Mortgage.

Penelope Gillespie was dead on July 18, 2017 when Mr. Wilson submitted trial evidence in violation of § 817.568(8)(a),

Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose
Date Admitted As Evidence: 07/18/2017
Evidence ID: PL-4

because the Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose is dated June 8, 2012 to "Penelope Gillespie" and "Dear Penelope Gillespie". The Evidence List appears at Exhibit 1. The Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose appears at Exhibit 2 and is signed by Judge Craggs.

The Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose does not inform "Penelope Gillespie" because she died on September 16, 2009. A deceased person cannot own property, or respond to this notice. This notice is defective.

A HECM foreclosure must commence within 6 months. 24 C.F.R. § 206.125(d)(1). Borrower Penelope Gillespie died September 16, 2009. The Plaintiff did not commence this foreclosure until January 9, 2013.

Because the Plaintiff missed the time to bring a foreclosure, it has relied on false documents showing Penelope Gillespie is still alive, including its notice of foreclosure, and routine correspondence addressed to "Penelope Gillespie".

The Plaintiff’s (RMS) envelope to the NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND INTENT TO
FORECLOSE (Exhibit 2) shows different names for U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail,
and is therefore fraudulent, because the Notice begins, "Dear Penelope Gillespie:" and not,

"Dear Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustees of the Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement dated February 10, 1997"

In fact the trust is not mentioned at all. Mark Gillespie was not provided a Notice of Default at his home in Fort Worth, Texas.

Therefore service on Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie, is fatally flawed. The Trust was not sued. Penelope Gillespie was not sued. The Estate of Penelope Gillespie was not sued.

On information and belief, the Plaintiff sued the wrong party in suing "Neil J.
Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustee of the Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement Dated February 10, 1997", see the Foreclosure Benchbook 2013 "Parties
to the Foreclosure Action", "Necessary and Proper Defendants" on page 16:

1. The owner of the fee simple title - only indispensable party defendant to
a foreclosure action. English v. Bankers Trust Co. of Calif., N.A., 895 So.
2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Foreclosure is void if titleholder
omitted...

The titleholder on January 9, 2013 when the case was filed was the "Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10, 1997". The Plaintiff failed to sue the only indispensable party. Therefore, the foreclosure is void. See Filing # 83954243 E-Filed 01/27/2019 11:53:01 PM

DEFENDANT NEIL J. GILLESPIE’S AMENDED VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND CANCEL MARCH 11, 2019 FORECLOSURE SALE

I demand Judge Craggs, and Mr. Wilson, be prosecuted for violation of § 817.568(8)(a), a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson also violated related laws, such as,

F.S. § 837.06 False official statements .—Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 

Mr. Wilson and Judge Craggs made false statements in writing to mislead the Marion County Clerk in the performance of his duties. Regarding Judge Craggs,

F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct.—
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant or public contractor, to knowingly and intentionally obtain a benefit for any person or to cause unlawful harm to another, by:
(a) Falsifying, or causing another person to falsify, any official record or official document;

Judge Craggs knowingly and intentionally obtained a benefit (foreclosure) for any person (Mr. Wilson) or to cause unlawful harm to another (Neil J. Gillespie) by falsifying, or causing another person to falsify, any official record or official document;

F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off, discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Chapter 825, Abuse, Neglect, And Exploitation Of Elderly Persons and Disabled Adults

I am an elderly person [825.101(4)] and a disabled adult as defined by Chapter 825.

Judge Craggs is a public officer who corruptly used her official position as judge to secure a special benefit (corrupt foreclosure) for Mr. Wilson.

F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position,
(6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.—No public officer, employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31. 

Judge Craggs is a public servant as provided by the Fla. Const., Art. V, who violated her Oath of Office, see Art. II, sec 5(b).

(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of   (title of office)   on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.",

and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.

Judge Craggs has committed other crimes in this foreclosure. I may submit those separately. But I may not, if the enclosed evidence and accusations are sufficient to arrest and convict Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson. The Bar and the Bench have worked since 2013 to confuse just about every issue in this case. I do not want to confuse this case further and thereby undermine any prosecutable crime(s) against Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson. Thank you.

Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
neilgillespie@mfi.net
352-854-7807

Enclosures

RE: REQUEST for PROSECUTION Judge Ann Melinda Craggs and Mr. Wilson Violated Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a)

Grand Theft Re Judge Ann Melinda Craggs and Mr. Wilson MCSO Ocala PD

Lt. Charles Welch

Sheriff Billy Woods                              Chief Greg Graham
Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Ocala Police Department
wwoods@marionso.com                       ggraham@ocalapd.org
692 NW 30th Ave.                              402 S. Pine Ave.
Ocala, FL 34475                                 Ocala, FL 34471
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP294204688
Cc.: Timothy T. McCourt
Tmccourt@marionso.com




Lt. Charles Welch
South-Marion District Commander
cwelch@marionso.com
Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO)
Southwest District
9048 SW State Rd. 200
Ocala, FL 34481
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP294292708

RE: Grand Theft Re Judge Ann Melinda Craggs and Mr. Wilson

This is a referral for formal criminal charges against Judge Ann Melenda Craggs for violation of Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1) and § 812.014 (2)(a)1 Grand Theft; and related crimes together with Curtis Wilson, Esq., in the wrongful foreclosure of my Fla. residential homestead.

COUNT I
GRAND THEFT - THE PROPERTY STOLEN IS VALUED AT $100,000 OR MORE
812.014(1) and § 812.014 (2)(a)1

The Grand Theft amounts to $105,401.75 through a fraudulent deficiency judgment.

Proof of Claim filed by Attorney Fisher, MRLP: $185,966.75 (see below)
Value of the property asserted by Attorney Noel, MRLP: $80,565 (see below)
Current projected deficiency judgment: $105,401.75 (see below)

Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson warrant prosecution for violation of Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1) and § 812.014 (2)(a)1 grand theft in the first degree, punishable as a felony of the first degree, as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The Office of David R. Ellspermann Marion County Clerk’s Office prepared an Evidence List for a non-jury trial July 18, 2017 that appears at Exhibit 1, in Case Number 13-CA-115, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. vs. Neil J. Gillespie et al.

Evidence ID # PL-1 is Original Adjustable Rate Note (Home Equity Conversion). (Exhibit 2)

Original Adjustable Rate Note (Home Equity Conversion)
        13-CA-115-S
        Admitted Into Evidence As:
        Petitioner’s Exhibit 1
        Judge Ann Melinda Craggs
        Signed and dated 7/18/17 by Judge Craggs

Paragraph 10 of the Note states: (Exhibit 2)

10. OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE
If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. Lender may enforce its rights under this Note only through sale of the Property. (underline added) 

Evidence ID # PL-2 is an Adjustable Rate Home Equity Conversion Mortgage admitted as evidence on July 18, 2017. (Exhibit 3).

Adjustable Rate Home Equity Conversion Mortgage
13-CA-115-S
Admitted Into Evidence As:
Petitioner’s Exhibit 2
Judge Ann Melinda Craggs
Signed and dated 7/18/17 by Judge Craggs

Paragraph 10. No Deficiency Judgments, appears on page 4, and states:

10. No Deficiency Judgments. Borrower shall have no personal liability for payment of the debt secured by this Security Instrument. Lender may enforce the debt only through sale of the Property. Lender shall not be permitted to obtain a deficiency judgment against Borrower if the Security Instrument is foreclosed. If this Security Instrument is assigned to the Secretary upon demand by the Secretary, Borrower shall not be liable for any difference between the mortgage insurance benefits paid to Lender and the outstanding indebtedness, including accrued interest, owed by Borrower at the time of the assignment.

Foreclosure Prevention Options

A four (4) page document by Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., titled "INFORMATION CONCERNING OPTIONS AVAILABLE ON YOUR FEDERALLY INSURED HOME EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGE appears at Exhibit 4, and online at this URL
https://myrmloan.com/Documents/ForeclosurePreventionOptions.pdf

Page 1 states, last paragraph:
Am I personally liable for amounts owed on the HECM?

HECM’s are non-recourse loans and you, and your heirs, will not be personally liable for the amounts owed. You and your heirs will not be pursued for any deficiency after foreclosure or after any short sale or 95% payoff that is completed in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").

Page 2 is titled,
What Options Are Available When the HECM loan becomes due and payable?

Page 3 states at paragraph (7):
(7) Walk Away. There is always the option of walking away and permitting the lender to foreclose. This is a non-recourse reverse mortgage loan and the borrower, the borrower’s estate and borrower’s heirs will not be pursued for a deficiency judgment after a foreclosure.

The Plaintiff’s VERIFIED COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE HOME EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGE, 40 pages filed January 9, 2013, is available online, see the Marion County Clerk’s website at https://www.marioncountyclerk.org/

The "WHEREFORE" part of the verified complaint alleges at paragraph g, "WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor as follows: (pp 4-5)

g. Retain jurisdiction of this cause and the parties hereto to determine Plaintiffs entitlement to a deficiency judgment and the amount thereof; unless any Defendant personally liable shall have been discharged from liability under the subject Note pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code 11. U.S.C. § 101, et. seq,.; and

I believe the "WHEREFORE" part of this verified complaint is meaningless because the Plaintiff failed to plead grounds or entitlement for a deficiency judgment.

Nonetheless, Judge Craggs found RMS entitled to a deficiency judgment as follows:

The Final Judgment of Foreclosure (Exhibit 5) states at paragraph 10,

10. The Court retains jurisdiction of this action to enter further Orders that are proper including, without limitation, writs of possession, deficiency judgments and re-foreclosure of omitted parties and to determine the amount of assessments due pursuant to Florida Statutes 718.116 or 720.3085, if applicable.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy of Neil J. Gillespie Case No 3:19-bk-00808-JAF

Currently I am in Chapter 13 bankruptcy as a direct result of this reverse mortgage, Case No. 3:19-bk-00808-JAF, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

Attorney Austin M Noel, Florida Bar No. 106539, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, represents creditor Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., and filed two motions for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stays, one for me as Debtor (Doc 45) and one for Mark Gillespie (Doc 46).

Attorney Noel contends in each pleading:

          Paragraph 3, in part: "On July 18, 2017, a Final Judgment of Foreclosure was entered in the amount of $148,363.32." (Doc 45 and Doc 46)

Paragraph 5, in part: "The Debtor has no equity in the Property, as evidenced by the Marion County Property Appraiser’s value, which lists the value of the Property at $80,565.00," (Doc 45 and Doc 46)

Attorney Melbalynn Fisher of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC filed a Proof of Claim for creditor Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $185,966.75. (Exhibit 6).

Therefore, using the amounts provided by Attorney Noel and Attorney Fisher, the amount of a deficiency judgment exceeds $100.000, calculated as follows:

Proof of Claim filed by Attorney Fisher, MRLP: $185,966.75
Value of the property asserted by Attorney Noel, MRLP: $80,565
Current projected deficiency judgment: $105,401.75

Background

Judge Ann Melenda Craggs ("Judge Craggs") has presided over the foreclosure of my home in Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie, et al., Case No.: 2013-CA-00115, Marion County Circuit Court, Florida Fifth Judicial District, since August 18, 2016, after the recusal, sua sponte, of Judge Steven G. Rogers, see Doc-354 Order of Recusal, entered on August 17, 2016. The case commenced on January 9, 2013 in Marion County.

Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. ("RMS") is represented by Curtis Alan Wilson (Bar ID 77669) of McCalla, Raymer, Leibert, Pierce, LLC, 225 E. Robinson St. Suite 115, Orlando, FL 32801.

RMS is an active (as of today) Foreign Profit Corporation registered with the Florida Division of Corporations. The 2019 Foreign Profit Corporation Annual Report for RMS appears online, and shows the address for RMS: 14405 Walters Road, Suite 200, Houston, TX 77014.

RMS and its parent company Ditech Holding Corporation are in chapter 11 bankruptcy, consolidated case number 1:19-bk-10412 in the New York Southern Bankruptcy Court.

I am age 63. I am disabled as determined by Social Security. Judge Craggs presided over a non-jury trial July 18, 2017 in the Marion County Judicial Center, 110 NW 1st Ave., Ocala, FL 34475. Judge Craggs entered a Final Judgment of Foreclosure that does not mention the arguments I made before becoming sick, or mention the fact that I was transported to the hospital before the trial ended, and left without anyone to represent me. Judge Craggs did not include any of my documents into evidence.

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).

Count II - F.S. § 837.06 False official statements

Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson also violated related laws, such as,

F.S. § 837.06 False official statements .—Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Mr. Wilson and Judge Craggs made false statements in writing to mislead the Marion County Clerk in the performance of his duties. Regarding Judge Craggs,

Count III - F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct

F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct.—
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant or public contractor, to knowingly and intentionally obtain a benefit for any person or to cause unlawful harm to another, by:
(a) Falsifying, or causing another person to falsify, any official record or official document;

Judge Craggs knowingly and intentionally obtained a benefit (deficiency judgment) for any person (Mr. Wilson) or to cause unlawful harm to another (Neil J. Gillespie) by falsifying, or causing another person to falsify, any official record or official document;

Count IV - F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records

F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off, discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Count V - Chapter 825, Abuse, Neglect, And Exploitation
Of Elderly Persons and Disabled Adults 

I am an elderly person [825.101(4)] and a disabled adult as defined by Chapter 825.

Count VI - F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position

Judge Craggs is a public officer who corruptly used her official position as judge to secure a special benefit (corrupt foreclosure) for Mr. Wilson.

F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position,
(6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.—No public officer, employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31. 

Count VII - violated Oath of Office, Art. II, sec 5(b)

Judge Craggs is a public servant as provided by the Fla. Const., Art. V, who violated her Oath of Office, see Art. II, sec 5(b).

(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of   (title of office)   on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.",

and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.

Count VIII - Art. II, Sec 8. Ethics in government.—A public office is a public trust.
The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse.

Note: The Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) has reviewed my complaints against Judge Craggs (Docket No. 16-561; Docket No. 19-032) and reached the same conclusion:

The Investigative Panel of the Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above matter and has determined, at its most recent meeting, that the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are matters for review through the normal court process. 

The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. If such misconduct or disability is found, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action to the Florida Supreme Court. The Commission has found no basis for further action on your complaint that therefore has been dismissed.

Therefore, jurisdiction shifts to law enforcement for "review [trial] through the normal court process" as stated in the attached JQC close-out letters for Judge Craggs, because,

A public office is a public trust. The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse. - Art. II, Sec 8. Ethics in government.

Judge Craggs has committed other crimes in this foreclosure. I may submit those separately. But I may not, if the enclosed evidence and accusations are sufficient to arrest and convict Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson. The Bar and the Bench have worked since 2013 to confuse just about every issue in this case. I do not want to confuse this case further and thereby undermine any prosecutable crime(s) against Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
neilgillespie@mfi.net
352-854-7807

RE: Grand Theft Re Judge Ann Melinda Craggs and Mr. Wilson

Few people seek legal solutions to their justice problems, worldwide survey finds

Few people seek legal solutions to their justice problems, worldwide survey finds

ABA Journal Online
By Debra Cassens Weiss
June 27, 2019

About half of people surveyed from around the world said they experienced a recent civil legal problem, but most did not turn to lawyers and courts.

The study by the World Justice Project found that 49% of people experienced at least one legal problem in the past two years. Among the surveyed group, 29% sought any form of advice, and those who did preferred to turn to family or friends. Only 17% took their problem to an authority or third party to mediate or adjudicate their problem.

Only 29% of those with legal problems recognized that their issue was legal in nature.

Yet the legal problems had a big impact. Twenty-nine percent said they experienced physical or stress-related ill health as a result of the legal problem, while 23% said they lost their job or had to relocate.

The survey, available here, draws on data from a general population poll of more than 100,000 people in 101 countries, including the United States, in 2017 and 2018.

The survey found that the prevalence and severity of problems varies by country, but the most common problems relate to consumer issues, housing, and money and debt. Problems included disputes with landlords, neighbors, utilities, insurers and people providing professional services. Other problems included extortion from a gang or criminal organization, becoming homeless, and difficulty collecting money owed.

In the United States, 66% of those surveyed had experienced a legal problem in the past two years. The most commonly reported legal problems concerned consumer issues (reported by 30%), housing (31%), and money and debt (36%).

Thirty-three percent of those reporting legal problems in the United States were able to access help. Forty-nine percent sought advice from friends and family; 38% turned to a lawyer or professional advice service; and 15% got help from a court, government body or police.

Sixty-eight percent said they felt the process followed to resolve the problem was fair.

The World Justice Project describes itself as, an independent, multidisciplinary organization working to advance the rule of law worldwide. Elizabeth Andersen, WJP executive director, said in a press release that the findings are "a wake-up call to the legal profession and justice sector in rich and poor countries worldwide: Access to justice is a fundamental quality of life issue and our justice systems are failing people with often dire consequences." Read more

$400K Is Now The Official Market Rate For Supreme Court Clerk Bonuses

$400K Is Now The Official Market Rate For Supreme Court Clerk Bonuses
Above The Law
By Staci Zaretsky
November 15, 2018

But not everyone is thrilled that the number has climbed so high.

Just how high will signing bonuses for Supreme Court clerks go? It was just last summer that the going the market rate rose to a new peak — $350,000 — but it’s now been confirmed that $400,000 is now the prevailing rate. Yes, you’re reading that correctly. Biglaw firms and prestigious boutiques are now willing to pay former Supreme Court clerks almost half a million dollars in bonus money just for signing on the dotted line, on top of their base salaries and regular bonuses. Former SCOTUS clerks are making almost double their Supreme bosses’ salaries. This is crazy.

We first hinted at this trend back in August, when my colleague David Lat mentioned that at least six firms — Jones Day, Kirkland & Ellis, Orrick, Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Susman Godfrey — were offering $400,000 bonuses to their SCOTUS clerk recruits. Michael Scanlon, hiring partner at Gibson Dunn, now confirms that "the market appears to have settled" at $400K.

Court-watchers are having trouble believing Biglaw firms are willing to pay this much money just for a new associate’s résumé line, and some have even suggested that ethics rules be consulted. Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal has the details:

"It’s become absurd," said Todd Peppers, who has written books about Supreme Court clerks. "These firms can no longer credibly argue that they are compensating these former clerks for the additional education and training obtained during their Supreme Court clerkships. Yes, these former clerks are very smart. That being said, this is about access and insight into the individual chambers."

U.C. Hastings College of the Law professor Rory Little, himself a former clerk, said, "If I were a clerk today and knew that I could get an extra almost half-million dollars, I would feel very careful about the firms’ Supreme Court cases while clerking. Seriously, an ethics expert needs to look at this carefully, under the current ethics rules and concerns we adopt for lawyers and judges in other situations. All 37 clerks or more feel that same ‘tug,’ even if it is implicit or unconscious."

More clerks at one firm than at any other may be feeling that "tug" right now, and that’s because Jones Day just emerged victoriously from this year’s wooing of the SCOTUS clerks, having cornered the market after hiring 11 of them. That’s a $4.4 million investment in signing bonuses alone for a group of new hires who may wind up taking the money and running after just a few years at the firm.

As noted by Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus, "Jones Day is paying a lot of money for a photograph." Oof, Jones Day needs to open up a personal injury practice group for that sick burn. Luckily for the firm, there’s a pretty big chance it’ll be staffed by some highly intelligent Supreme Court clerks. Read more

How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful: Noam Chomsky & Glenn Greenwald

The basis for power elite membership is institutional power, namely an influential position within a prominent private or public organization. Read more

Law firm is dropped from app's antitrust suit; Florida Bar fights request for hotline records

Law firm is dropped from app's antitrust suit; Florida Bar fights request for hotline records

ABA Journal Online
By Debra Cassens Weiss 
October 1, 2018

A ticket-fighting company that matches drivers with lawyers has dropped a law firm known as the Ticket Clinic from its antitrust lawsuit.

The plaintiff, TIKD, had targeted the Ticket Clinic for allegedly filing ethics complaints against lawyers who worked with TIKD. The Ticket Clinic defendants and TIKD sought dismissal in a joint stipulation filed last Thursday, and U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke of Miami ordered dismissal the next day.

Lawyers for TIKD and the Ticket Clinic did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s questions about whether the suit has been settled, and whether the terms could be revealed.

TIKD has an app in which drivers who receive tickets upload them, pay TIKD a fixed price, receive information through the app about a lawyer to defend the tickets, and get a guarantee from TIKD that the tickets will cost no more money.

Another defendant, the Florida Bar, is accused in the suit of violating antitrust laws by investigating TIKD for the unlicensed practice of law. The suit also claimed the bar had given the false impression that working with TIKD would violate ethics rules.

The bar filed a Sept. 10 memorandum of law fighting a request to produce internal records regarding calls to its ethics hotline by Florida lawyers seeking guidance about working with TIKD. TIKD responded on Sept. 18 that the bar is equating its own confidentiality rules with an evidentiary privilege.

The bar had argued in a December motion to dismiss that it is immune from the antitrust complaint under the state action doctrine because it is an arm of the Florida Supreme Court and an agency of the state, Reuters previously reported. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case in March that said the bar does not have absolute immunity because of the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission. (Wikipedia)

The high court decision in the case held that a dental board made up primarily of practicing dentists lacked immunity when it sent cease-and-desist letters to nondentists who performed teeth-whitening services.

The Justice Department’s statement of interest said the Florida Bar can’t claim immunity unless it shows its conduct was in accord with "clearly articulated" state policy and the bar is "actively supervised" by the state, Bloomberg BNA reported in March. Read more