SCOTUS denies cert in case on pro se treatment filed by David Boies and Richard Posner

SCOTUS denies cert in case on pro se treatment filed by David Boies and Richard Posner

American Bar Association
By Debra Cassens Weiss
April 30, 2019

A former pro se litigant had some high-powered help when he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider what kind of explanation courts must provide to unrepresented people.

Among those representing litigant William Bond were former Circuit Judge Richard Posner and Boies Schiller Flexner chair David Boies. The U.S. Supreme Court nonetheless denied cert Monday.

Bond had accused three federal judges of conspiring to throw a case. A federal judge had tossed Bond’s lawsuit and denied two motions seeking to amend it. After Posner took up the case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the federal court did not abuse its discretion by denying the second motion.

The cert petition identifies the issue as whether a district court must provide a reason when denying a pro se litigant leave to amend a complaint when the reason can be gleaned from the litigation record. The district court order denying Bond’s second motion to amend had said it was based on reasons stated in an initial dismissal of the suit.

The cert petition had argued that the order didn’t provide an adequate explanation. "Absent notice of their pleading deficiencies," the cert petition said, "very few pro se litigants can parse the record and identify how to successfully amend their complaints."

Posner had abruptly retired from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago in 2017, citing boredom with judging and rebuffed efforts to aid pro se litigants. He went on to form a nationwide pro bono group to help pro se litigants. Read more

US Supreme Court petitions, reverse mortgage foreclosure

UPDATED APRIL 16, 2018

• USSC Petition No. 17 7053 for Rehearing Denied April 16, 2018
• USSC Petition No. 17 7054 for Rehearing Denied April 16, 2018 

UPDATED APRIL 12, 2018

• USSC Application No. 17A878 GRANTED by Justice Thomas

FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric W. Sporre Request Criminal Prosecution Foreclosure FRAUD

_______________________________________________

• USSC Petition No. 17-7053 for writ of certiorari Denied February 20, 2018 
• Petition for Rehearing Order Denying USSC Petition No. 17-7053 for Certiorari
• USSC Petition No. 17-7053 Docket, Distributed for Conference of 04-13-2018

_______________________________________________

•  USSC Petition No. 17-7054 for writ of certiorari Denied February 20, 2018 
• Petition for Rehearing Order Denying USSC Petition No. 17-7054 for Certiorari
• USSC Petition No. 17-7054 Docket, Distributed for Conference of 04-13-2018

________________________________________________

December 30, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court has docketed my two petitions for writ of certiorari in the wrongful foreclosure of my home on a reverse mortgage.

Docket for 17-7053 (Supreme Court of Florida Case #SC17-1570)
Title: Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions
Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 10, 2018) Party name: Neil Gillespie

Docket for 17-7054 (Supreme Court of Florida Case #SC17-1572)
Title: Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions
Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 10, 2018) Party name: Neil Gillespie

                                        QUESTIONS PRESENTED
                               (same questions presented for each petition)

1.    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?

2.    Does a disabled homeowner age 61 have a right to assistance of counsel under the federal Older Americans Act, 42 U.S. Code Chapter 35 - PROGRAMS FOR OLDER AMERICANS, for old age, and disability including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)?

3.    Can the Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice ignore the enclosed Voting Section complaint against Florida’s rigged judicial elections?

4.     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?

5.    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?

6.    Do time limits on civil litigation have any meaning? 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)

______________________________________________________

SCOTUS Petition No 17-7053 (petition only) Complete petition file

• EMERGENCY PETITION TO CANCEL NON-JURY TRIAL 10.00 AM TODAY

• APPENDIX A DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING JULY 18, 2017

• APPENDIX B DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION AND RESPONSE

• APPENDIX 1 Order Dismissal Mar-31-2017, Notice Appeal Mar-27-2017

• APPENDIX 2 NOTICE OF FILING FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

• APPENDIX 3 US Supreme Court Clerk's Reply Letter Mr Higgins Oct-19-2016

• APPENDIX 4 Affidavit of Neil Gillespie Re Dr. Kassels Jun-12-2017

• APPENDIX 5 AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J GILLESPIE Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

• APPENDIX 6 Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie HECM Age Limits

• APPENDIX 7 Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie - Defenses and Claims in Recoupment

• APPENDIX 8 Petitioners Motion to Correct Fraud Upon the Court

• APPENDIX 9 AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL GILLESPIE, Non-Jury Trial July 18, 2017

_______________________________________________________

SCOTUS Petition No. 17-7054 (petition only) Complete petition file

• 5thDCA Petition for Writ of Prohibition

• APPENDIX A Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Ann Melinda Craggs

• APPENDIX B Second Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Ann Melinda Craggs

• APPENDIX C Defendants Motion to Cancel Hearing Set For November 28, 2016 

• APPENDIX D Defendants Second Motion to Cancel Hearing Set For November 28, 2016

• APPENDIX E Judicial Disqualification - Memorandum of Law 

• APPENDIX F Notice of Refiling Federal Civil Rights Complaint Due to Official Misconduct By David R. Ellspermann

• APPENDIX G Instruction To The Clerk Administrative Order A-2013-56 Foreclosure Case Status Reporting

_________________________________________

E-filing system at Supreme Court will make new filings accessible for free

E-filing system at Supreme Court will make new filings accessible for free

ABA Journal
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Posted August 3, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it is adopting an electronic filing system beginning Nov. 13.

The system will make "virtually all new filings" available to the public at no cost, the Supreme Court said in its announcement. The National Law Journal (sub. req.) has a story.

Initially, official filing of documents will continue to be on paper, but parties represented by lawyers will also have to submit electronic versions. Those without lawyers will have their documents scanned by court personnel and made available to the public.

The announcement follows the rollout of the Supreme Court’s redesigned website on July 28. Helpful changes include information about cases being argued on particular days and etiquette information for court visitors, according to a previous National Law Journal story (sub. req.).

Fix The Court, a Supreme Court transparency advocate, reacted to the electronic filing announcement in a statement: "Most federal appeals courts have required electronic filing for years, so I’m pleased the Supreme Court has finally joined its institutional counterparts by implementing this policy," executive director Gabe Roth said.

Roth also said he hopes the change will lead to other improvements, such as live audio for oral arguments and a software-based conflict check system. Read online

Most often, the US Supreme Court grants or denies petitions to hear a case after reviewing a written request called a "petition for writ of certiorari". Also called "the writ of cert", it is reviewed by the Justices and granting the petition depends on whether or not it passes "the rule of four". If it does, the case is probably one of three types: a case of national importance, a case in which a lower court decision has invalidated federal law, or a case involving a split decision in lower courts. Famously, Bush v. Gore was an example of national importance, Gonzales v. Raich was a case in which a lower court invalidated federal law, and Obergefell v. Hodges was selected by the Court in order to resolve a circuit split decision. By following this protocol of case selection, the Court has been designed to be reactive to legislative decisions made in other branches of government, as opposed to an active legislative body that seeks to create and institute new laws. Overall, the result of this design is a Court that prioritizes case selections that will enable them to enforce the uniformity of federal law throughout the country.

Posner backs 19-member Supreme Court, comments on 'pompous lawyers'

Judge Richard Posner

Posner says 'highly politicized' Supreme Court should grow to 19 justices
Chicago Tribune
By Kim Janssen
July 31, 2017

Posner backs 19-member Supreme Court, comments on 'pompous lawyers'
ABA Journal Online
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Posted August 1, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court may be too small, according to Judge Richard Posner.

A 19-member court would increase diversity and might have more quality justices, Posner said at a recent talk at the University of Chicago. The Chicago Tribune summarized Posner’s comments.

Posner, a federal judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is the city’s "favorite smarty pants judge," according to the Tribune.

Posner said the high court is "mediocre and highly politicized," echoing past comments that the Supreme Court is "awful" and "a quasi-political body."

Justices and other federal judges are appointed by politicians, with Senate confirmation, Posner pointed out. "Those politicians don’t care about quality beyond a minimum, a very low minimum," he said.

Posner said politicians are more concerned with political leanings of potential judges, as well as the need to appoint "tokens," such as women or Hispanics. "So you end up with mediocre courts that are highly politicized," Posner said (at around 25 minutes, 30 seconds into this video, noted by How Appealing). "In the Supreme Court, we have extremely reactionary Supreme Court justices, appointed by Bush mainly."

Posner didn’t specify George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush. George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, while George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Anthony Alito Jr.

One idea, voiced by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, is a 19-member Supreme Court. Posner likes the idea.

"If the Supreme Court was much larger, they might say, ‘Well, OK, we have 19 justices, 12 of them are highly politicized, but we have these extra seven seats, so we’ll appoint some of the people just on basic quality,’ and that would make a big difference," Posner said. In addition, a 19-member court "would inevitably have more diversity," Posner said.

Posner had another suggestion for the judiciary in a recent piece for Slate. He said "there should be mandatory retirement for all judges at a fixed age, probably 80" and there is "no need for octogenarians" on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a new Slate piece, Posner said he believes the quality of lawyers can be very important in a jury’s verdict.

"Very often the lawyers are totally mismatched in quality—by quality, I mean ability to sway a jury," he wrote. "The quality difference need not be intellectual; often it is personality. Some lawyers are simply very good at coming across to a jury as nice—wouldn’t lie, wouldn’t exaggerate—and when such an attorney is up against a mean or pompous lawyer, the nice guy has a big advantage." Read online