Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Virginia Silva-Navarro, Petitioner v. Roosevelt REO PR Corporation

NO. 22-_____

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

VIRGINIA SILVA-NAVARRO,

Petitioner,

–v–

ROOSEVELT REO PR CORPORATION ET AL.,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MAXIMILIANO TRUJILLO-G ONZALEZ

U.S.S.C. BAR N UMBER 152074

A TTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

PMB 429

100 GRAND PASEOS BLVD. SUITE 112

SAN JUAN, P UERTO RICO 00926

(787) 438-8802

MAXTRUJ@GMAIL.COM

DECEMBER 1, 2022

SUPREME COURT PRESS

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

♦

(888) 958-5705

♦

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Are lower courts in the federal system to follow

the case law of this Honorable Court? Or, the case law

of this Honorable Court is merely persuasive, and not

binding on the lower courts?

2. Can the U.S. District Court for the District of

Puerto Rico deprive the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

of the collection of taxes?

3. Can a company from a foreign nation appear

as plaintiff in a diversity jurisdiction case without

complying with the requirements established by the

applicable case law of this Honorable Court?

4. Can a U.S.District Court impair the powers of

the President as head of the Executive Branch, by not

requiring the verification of foreign officers’ signatures

from embassy or consular officers of the United States?

5. Can a U.S. District Court deprive The United

States of America of a legitimate tax lien on a real

estate property, based on an illegal foreclosure action

based on an alleged senior lien held by a foreign entity

not a juridical person?

ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner and Defendant-Appellant below

●

Virginia Silva-Navarro

Respondents and Plaintiffs-Appellee below

●

Roosevelt REO PR Corp.

Respondent and Plaintiff below

●

Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company

Respondent and Defendants below

●

United States of America

●

Milton Silva-Navarro

●

Isabel Lugo-Velez

iii

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

No. 20-1442

Roosevelt REO PR Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company, Plaintiff, v.

Virginia Silva-Navarro, Defendant-Appellant, Milton

Silva-Navarro; Isabel Lugo-Velez; Conjugal

Partnership Silva-Lugo; United States, Defendants.

Date of Final Judgment: May 6, 2022

Date of Rehearing Denial: September 2, 2022

_________________

United States District Court for the District of

Puerto Rico

Civil No. 16-1036 (ADC)

Roosevelt REO PR, Corp., Plaintiff, v. Virginia SilvaNavarro, Milton Silva-Navarro, and the Conjugal

Partnership Between Them, United States of

America, Defendants.

Date of Final Opinion and Order: March 25, 2020

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ......................... ii

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS ......................................... iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... viii

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............. 1

OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................... 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................. 2

A. Constitutional Provisions ................................ 2

B. Statutory Provisions ........................................ 3

C. Other Background Provisions.......................... 5

INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................. 10

A. The United States District Court for the

District of Puerto Rico, failed to apply state

law in a diversity jurisdiction case. ............... 10

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 13

I.

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, FAILED TO

APPLY STATE LAW IN THE CASE A QUO, IN

CONTRADICTION WITH EIRE V. TOMPKINS,

SUPRA .............................................................. 13

II. THE ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION ............. 16

III. THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW ........ 20

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

A. Notice of Motion Submitting Evidence of

Compliance Docket No. 60........................ 24

CONCLUSION.......................................................... 26

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Judgment of the United States Court of

Appeals for the First Circuit (May 6, 2022) ...... 1a

Opinion and Order of the United States District

Court for the District of Puerto Rico

(Signed March 24, 2020; Filed March 25,

2020).................................................................... 3a

Order of the United States District Court for the

District of Puerto Rico (Signed December 13,

2019; Filed December 17, 2019) ....................... 19a

Default Judgment of the United States District

Court for the District of Puerto Rico

(May 31, 2017) .................................................. 22a

REHEARING ORDER

Order of the United States Court of Appeals

for the First Circuit Denying Petition

for Rehearing En Banc (September 2, 2022) ... 28a

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Certificate of Good Standing

(July 11, 2017) .................................................. 30a

Certificate of Incorporation

(July 10, 2014) .................................................. 32a

Deed of Mortgage No. Three Hundred Eighty

Five (September 30, 2003) ............................... 34a

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Deed of Conveyance No. One Hundred Thirty

Eight (138) (March 15, 2022) ........................... 55a

Purchase and Sale No. Thirty (30)

(January 25, 2022)............................................ 66a

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Carden v. Arkoma Assocs.,

494 U.S. 185 (1990) ..................................... 16, 24

Chapman v. Barney,

129 U.S. 677 (1889) ........................................... 16

Eire Railroad Company v. Tompkins,

304 U.S. 64 (1938) ................................. 10, 13, 20

Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones,

177 U.S. 449 (1900) ........................................... 16

Imperator Realty Co. v. Tull,

127 N.E. 263 (NY 1920) .............................. 12, 22

Pennoyer v. Neff,

95 U.S. 714 (1878) ............................................. 25

People v. Rivera Zayas,

29 P. R. 423 (1921) .............................................. 23

Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co.,

228 U.S. 476 (1933) ............................... 16, 17, 23

R. H. Stearns Co. v. United States,

291 U.S. 54 (1934) ....................................... 12, 21

Scott v. McNeal,

154 U.S. 34 (1894) ............................................. 25

Swain v. Seamens,

9 Wall. 254, 76 U.S. 274 (1869)................... 12, 22

Thomson v. Poor,

147 N.Y. 402, 42 N.E. 13 (1895).................. 13, 22

United States v. Peck,

102 U.S. 64 (1880) ....................................... 12, 22

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued

Page

United Steelworkers of America v. R. H.

Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145 (1965) .................. 16

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const. amend. V................................................ 20

U.S. Const. Article III ................................................. 2

U.S. Const. Art IV., § 3, cl. 2 ...................................... 3

U.S. Const. Art VI, cl. 2 .......................................... 2, 3

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1254 .......................................................... 2

28 U.S.C. § 2002 ........................................................ 24

48 U.S.C. § 872 .......................................... 4, 10, 15, 20

P.R. Laws tit. 4, § 2021 (4 LPRA 2021)................ 4, 12

P.R. Laws tit. 7, § 1366g(3)

(7 LPRA 1366g(3)) ................................... 4, 15, 20

P.R. Laws tit. 31, § 4 (4 LPRA 31) ............................. 3

P.R. Laws tit. 31, § 5 (5 LPRA 31) ............................. 3

P.R. Laws. Tit. 32 § 1481 (32 LPRA § 1481) ............ 14

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Williston,

CONTRACTS, VOL. 2 (1932) ............................ 13, 22

1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Con los pobres de la tierra

Quiero yo mi suerte echar

El arroyo de la sierra

Me complace más que el mar

(With the poor of the Earth

I want to cast my lot

The stream of the sierra

Pleases me more than the sea)

– José Martí, New York City 1887

Ms. Virginia Silva-Navarro respectfully petitions

for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the

United States District Court for the District of Puerto

Rico, confirmed by the United States Court of Appeals

for the First Circuit without a hearing and without an

Opinion.

OPINIONS BELOW

The United States Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit entered its judgment on May 6, 2022, and is

included at App.1a. The Opinion and Order of the

United States District Court for the District of Puerto

Rico, filed March 25, 2020, denying motions to set

aside judgment, is included at App.3a. The district court

Order denying a motion to stay eviction, filed December

17, 2019, is included at App.19a. These opinions and

orders were not designated for publication.

2

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The court of appeals denied the rehearing en

bank of the order denying the appeal on September 2,

2022. (App.28a). This Court has jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1254.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

A. Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const. Art II, cl. 2

He shall from time to time give to the Congress

Information of the State of the Union, and

recommend to their Consideration such Measures

as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may,

on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses,

or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement

between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he

shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors

and other public Ministers; he shall take Care

that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall

Commission all the Officers of the United States.

U.S. Const. Article III:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law

and Equity . . . between Citizens of different

States . . .

3

U.S. Const. Art IV., Sec. 3, cl. 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and

make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to

the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any

Claims of the United States, or of any particular

State.

U.S. Const. Art VI, cl. 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United

States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,

under the Authority of the United States, shall be

the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in

every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in

the Constitution or Laws of any State to the

Contrary notwithstanding.

B.

Statutory Provisions

P.R. Laws tit. 31, § 4 (4 LPRA 31)

Acts executed contrary to the provisions of law

are void except when the law preserves their

validity.

P.R. Laws tit. 31, § 5 (5 LPRA 31)

Laws shall only be repealed by means of subsequent laws; and disuse, custom or practice to the

contrary shall not impede their enforcement.

Laws may be repealed either entirely or in part

by other laws.

4

P.R. Laws tit. 4, § 2021 (4 LPRA 2021)

Barring the exceptions established by law, . . . The

deed or certified copies of it shall be voidable or

ineffective if the corresponding stamps are not

attached to it or if any method established by the

Secretary of the Treasury in substitution of the

affixing of the seals required by law is not

observed.

P.R. Laws tit. 7, § 1366g(3) (7 LPRA 1366g(3))

Cooperatives and their subsidiaries or affiliates

shall be exempted from the payment of state or

municipal fees, duties or tariffs, including the

payment of fees for licenses, patents, permits and

registrations; the payment of charges, fees,

internal revenue stamps

48 U.S.C. § 872

The supreme and district courts of Puerto Rico

and the respective judges thereof may grant writs

of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same

are grantable by the judges of the district courts

of the United States, and the district courts may

grant writs of mandamus in all proper cases.

No suit for the purpose of restraining the

assessment or collection of any tax imposed by

the laws of Puerto Rico shall be maintained in the

United States District Court for the District of

Puerto Rico.

P.R. Laws tit. 32, § 1481 (32 LPRA 1481)P.R.

Each and every document or petition which

requires the payment of a court filing fee shall be

null and void, and shall not be admitted as

5

evidence in trial unless such payment is duly

evidenced, pursuant to the rules established by

the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the

person onto whom he/she so delegates.1

C. Other Background Provisions

Puerto Rico Code of Commerce

P.R. Laws tit. 10, § 1347:

As a general rule, partnerships and civil corporations shall be established under any of the

following forms:

(1) As a general [partnership, not in the

original] (English correct translation: regular

collective) in which all the partners collectively,

1 Todos y cada uno de los documentos o escritos que requieran el

pago de derechos para su presentación ante el tribunal serán

nulos y sin valor y no se admitirán como prueba en juicio a menos

que dicho pago esté debidamente evidenciado, conforme a las

normas que a tales fines establezca el(la) Juez(a) Presidente(a)

del Tribunal Supremo o la persona en quien éste(a) delegue.

The official translation does not convey the meaning of the

original in Spanish, the underlined text should be translated as

follows:

“Each and everyone of the documents or writings that

require the payment of fees (not “court filing fee”) for

its presentment to the court shall be null and without

value and shall not be admitted as proof at trial…”

A public deed is a “document” that requires the payment of fees

in the form of Internal Revenue Stamps.

Undersigned is a Notary Public, and such, can make translations

pursuant to P.R. Laws tit. 4, 2091: Testimony or statement of

authenticity is the document through which a notary, at the request

of an interested party, may notarize a non-original document, in

addition to the date of the testimony:

6

and under a firm name, bind themselves to share

the same rights and obligations in the proportion

they may establish.

(2) As special [partnership, not in the original] (English correct translation: commenda) in which one or several persons contribute a

specific amount of capital to the common fund, to

share in the results of the firm’s transactions

carried out exclusively by others under a collective

name.

(3) As a limited partnership [partnership, not

in the original] (English correct translation:

limited) regulated by a special law, in which the

partners shall be liable for corporate liabilities

with their payment or in which they shall be

bound to contribute to the company or partnership.

In the case of professional partnerships, the limited

liability of each partner, shall not be extended to

the obligations arising from the exercise of the

profession.

Partnerships may also be established in corporate

form in accordance with the special law expressly

authorizing it.

7

P.R. Laws tit. 10, § 1341 (Code of Commerce article

95):

Articles of association by which two or more

persons obligate themselves to place in a common

fund any property, industry, or any of these

things, in order to obtain profit, shall be

commercial, no matter what its class may be,

provided it has been established in accordance

with the provisions of this Code.

After a commercial association has been established, it shall have legal representation (correct

translation: juridical personality) in all its acts

and contracts.

P.R. Laws tit. 10, § 1344, Code of Commerce

article 98):

Every commercial association before beginning

business shall be obliged to record its establishment, agreements, and conditions in a public

instrument, which shall be presented for record

in the mercantile registry, in accordance with the

provisions of § 1032 of this title.

Additional instruments which modify or alter in

any manner whatsoever the original contracts of

the association are subject to the same formalities, in accordance with the provisions of § 1039

of this title.

Partners cannot make private agreements, but

all must appear in the articles of copartnership.

8

INTRODUCTION

The case at bar is a foreclosure proceeding where

Petitioner is trying to keep a roof over her head. Her

home, an apartment, was foreclosed by a foreign

entity: Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company that did not

qualify to file a diversity jurisdiction case because it is

not a person. Why is a run of the mill foreclosure case

worth looking at by this Honorable Court? Because an

undetermined number or persons in Puerto Rico (and in

the rest of the United States for that matter), are losing

their homes even though the alleged creditor (and a

foreign one) does not comply with the laws that would

make them a person, and if you are not a person (physical

or juridical) you cannot come to federal court to claim

diversity jurisdiction.

The United States of America has in a number of

cases, a junior lien, below in rank to the first mortgage,

but if the foreclosure of the first mortgage is illegal, why

does the United State lose its lien?

The original plaintiff, supra, after it obtained

judgment, it assigned it to Roosevelt REO PR, Corp.

(hereinafter REO), then it sold the property to Forteza

Equity Partners I, LLC, and it, in turn sold it to

Forteza Equity Partners Reo I, LLC, nevertheless the

two limited liability companies are not third parties to

the controversies, because in the deeds of sale by

which Petitioner’s apartment was sold and resold, the

personal representative of both limited liability companies is co-counsel for respondents Cayman, and REO:

Mr. Reggie Díaz Hernández. (Deed 38 of Notary Yolanda

Idali Martínez-Delgado of March 15, 2022).

9

The judgment was entered without jurisdiction,

against a specific decision of this Honorable Court which

the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico did not follow,

and against the Territorial Clause of the United

States Constitution for not complying with the Puerto

Rico Federal Relations Act which states that it cannot

deprive Puerto Rico from collecting and assessing

taxes. A sovereign decision by the Congress of the

United States of America to restrain the Judicial

Branch from interfering with the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico from collecting taxes (any), is a clear

violation of the separation of powers. As it is with the

situation in which documents from a foreign country

are admitted in evidence without being certified by a

U.S. embassy or consular officer. It is for the President

to determine how to conduct foreign policy. Can a U.S.

District Court admit into evidence a document issued

by a territorial division of a foreign nation not

recognized by the United States, like, for example,

documents issued by state offices of Russian occupied

Ukraine?

10

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A.

The United States District Court for the

District of Puerto Rico, failed to apply state

law in a diversity jurisdiction case.

The United States District Court for the District

of Puerto Rico, acknowledged the violation of state law

in the case at bar, which is a diversity jurisdiction

case, by stating:

Silva-Navarro’s arguments for relief of

judgment due to ‘nullity of the Mortgage

Deed are thus unavailing. However, SilvaNavarro is not without recourse. She has

adequate venues available under state law to

challenge any purported notarial wrongdoing. (App.16a-17a).

Beg to differ: this Honorable Court has decided that,

in a diversity jurisdiction case, the United States

courts have to apply the applicable state law, Eire

Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938),

at pages 78-79:

[3]Third. Except [****27] in matters governed

by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of

Congress, the law to be applied in any case is

the law of the State.

Federal law intertwined issue with Puerto Rico law,

the U.S. District Court failed to apply the Federal

Relations Act, 48 U.S.C. § 872 which bars said court

to entertain a case to deprive the People of Puerto Rico

of collection of taxes, in the present case, the

11

document tax of the Internal Revenue, Legal Aid, and

Notarial stamps.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto

Rico, recognized as valid a purported “custom” or

“practice” in Puerto Rico that a certified copy is not

required to pay document tax, so decided, quoting the

plaintiff:

common practice in the industry [dictates]

that right after the execution of a mortgage,

the notary gives to each party a simple copy

of the instrument. Typically, the notary only

prepares a certified copy of an instrument,

such as the foreclosed mortgage, for submissions in the Property Registry. This is so,

because each certified copy cancels stamps,

which increases the costs of doing business.

ECF No. 83 at 5. (App.14a)

But the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, article 4, 31 LPRA.

42 provides otherwise:

Acts executed contrary to the provisions of

law are void except when the law preserves

their validity.

And Article 5, 31 LPRA 5, provides as follows:

Laws shall only be repealed by means of

subsequent laws; and disuse, custom or

practice to the contrary shall not impede

their enforcement.

2 References in this Brief to the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, are to

the 1930 Edition.

12

Laws may be repealed either entirely or in

part by other laws. (Emphasis added)

The law that regulates notarial practice as to the

cancellation of Internal Revenue, Legal Aid, and

Notarial Stamps is: 4 LPRA 2021:

§ 2021. Duties of the notary-Stamps; exemptions.

Barring the exceptions established by law,

. . . The deed or certified copies of it shall be

voidable or ineffective if the corresponding

stamps are not attached to it or if any

method established by the Secretary of the

Treasury in substitution of the affixing of the

seals required by law is not observed.

(Emphasis added)

The United States District failed to follow the case law

of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case

at bar, specifically the case of R. H. Stearns Co. v.

United States, 291 U.S. 54 (1934), Justice Benjamín

Cardoso stated the following, page 61-62:

Sometimes the resulting disability has been

characterized as an estoppel, sometimes as a

waiver. The label counts for little. Enough

for present purposes that the disability has

its roots in a principle more nearly ultimate

than either waiver or estoppel-the principle

that no one shall be permitted to found any

claim upon his own inequity or take advantage of his own wrong. Imperator Realty Co.

v. Tull, supra. A suit may not be built on an

omission induced by him who sues. Swain v.

Seamens, 9 Wall. 254, 76 U.S. 274; United

States v. Peck, 102 U.S. 64; Thomson v. Poor,

13

147 N.Y. 402, 42 N.E. 13; New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Societé des Ateliers, [1919] A.C. 1,

6; Williston, CONTRACTS, vol. 2, §§ 689, 692.

291 U.S. 54 (1932), pages 61-62. (Emphasis

added)

Petitioner established, by plaintiff’s own documents,

that the Deed of Mortgage in this case was not initially

signed by the creditor, as required by law, and

requested that the U.S. District Court declared null or

ineffective the Deed, and the copies filed, for that

reason and for not cancelling the required document

stamps. Plaintiff could not base its cause of action in

its own inequity, wrong, or violation of statutory law.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I.

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, FAILED TO APPLY

STATE LAW IN THE CASE A QUO, IN CONTRADICTION WITH EIRE V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA.

The present case is a foreclosure proceeding filed

by a non-entity as far as the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico and the United States of America is concerned:

Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company, an “exempted

company” allegedly created under the legal provisions

of the Cayman Islands, This document was not issued

a certification by a consular authority of the United

States of America, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 902 (3): “A document that purports to be signed

or attested by a person who is authorized by a foreign

country’s law to do so. The document must be accompanied by a final certification . . . made by a secretary

14

of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul . . . ”

(Emphasis added).

Plaintiff Cayman claimed: “Jurisdiction of this

Court lies in diversity citizenship”. But in order to

claim diversity citizenship the entity must exist as a

juridical person, which is not the case in the case at

bar.

Cayman and its substitute party REO filed 3

documents purporting to be the Deed of Mortgage

upon which they state their claim: Deed No. 385 of

September 30, 2003 before Notary Public Pablo F.

Jiménez-Meléndez. None paid the document taxes:

Internal Revenue, Legal Aid, and Notarial stamps,

therefore with no legal value, 32 LPRA § 1481, supra.

The plaintiffs excuse, as stated in the Opinion and

Order of the U.S. District Court at App.14a:

common practice in the industry [dictates]

that right after the execution of a mortgage,

the notary gives to each party a simple copy

of the instrument. Typically, the notary only

prepares a certified copy of an instrument,

such as the foreclosed mortgage, for submissions in the Property Registry. This is so,

because each certified copy cancels stamps,

which increases the costs of doing business.

ECF No. 83 at 5.

None of the copies of Deed 385 paid the document

taxes. The difference is the AMOUNT of the taxes:

$58.00 for Internal Revenue stamps, $7.50 for the

Legal Aid stamps, and $1.00 for the Notarial stamp.

So the lender decides when to pay, and when to

exempt itself from the payment of document taxes.

But the law in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is

15

that only the Cooperatives, among the various private

financial institutions, is exempt from document taxes,

7 LPRA 1366g(3), infra.

Together with the preceding issue is whether the

U.S. District Court is authorized to allow a litigation

to proceed when it restrains the assessment or

collection of the tax within the meaning of the Butler

Act (codified in the Federal Relations Act), 48 U.S.C.

§ 872.

There are no facts on the record of this case as to

the amounts of money the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, the People of Puerto Rico, is losing from the selfdeclared exemption of document taxes not paid by

private lenders. The Cooperatives have a specific

exemption enacted by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, supra.

Plaintiffs have to comply with the Notarial Law,

such as that the name of the signatories is not attested

to by the Notary Public, nor the personal circumstances

of the signatories, nor whether or not the Notary Public

knows the appearing parties or how he otherwise has

identified them (those facts are referred to the deed of

mortgage which number was left blank in the Spanish

text of the note).

Finally there is the issue of the cancellation of the

junior liens in favor of the United States of America.

If the mortgage note is null and void, and the copies of

the mortgage deed are invalid, if there was lack of

jurisdiction as to diversity jurisdiction, then the United

States of America has been wronged by the cancellation

of the liens in its favor since the foreclosure of the first

mortgage is null and void.

16

II. THE ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.

Petitioner presented to the U.S. District Court,

the argument of lack of diversity jurisdiction because

the Plaintiff Cayman Asset Company, is not a corporation, does not have juridical personality, nor existence.

In order to support its position that Roosevelt

Cayman Asset Company is in existence, is a corporation, the U.S. District Court presents case law of the

Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

(Page 8 of the Opinion and Order, docket no. 94), but

failed to apply the case law of the Supreme Court of

the United States, which controls in the matters related

to diversity jurisdiction or lack thereof. The applicable

cases are United Steelworkers of America v. R. H.

Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145 (1965); Puerto Rico v.

Russell & Co., 228 U.S. 476; Carden v. Arkoma Assocs.,

494 U.S. 185 (1990-Scalia), which states:

Similarly, [****9] in Great Southern Fire

Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449 (1900),

we held that a “limited partnership association”—although possessing “some of the

characteristics of a corporation” and deemed

a “citizen” by the law creating it—may not be

deemed a “citizen” under the jurisdictional

rule established for corporations. Id., at 456.

“That rule must not be extended.” Id., at 457.

As recently as 1965, our unanimous opinion

in Steelworkers v. R.H. Bouligny, Inc., 382

U.S., 145, reiterated that “the doctrinal wall

of Chapman v. Barney,” id., at 151, would not

be breached.

The one exception to the admirable consistency of our jurisprudence on this matter is

17

Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co., 288 U.S. 476

(1933), which held that the entity known as

a sociedad en comandita, created under the

civil law of Puerto [*190] Rico, could be

treated as a citizen of Puerto Rico for purposes of determining federal-court jurisdiction.

The sociedad’s juridical personality, we said,

“is so complete in contemplation of the law of

Puerto Rico that we see [****10] no adequate

reason for holding that the sociedad has a

different status for purposes of federal

jurisdiction than a corporation organized

under that law.” Id., at 482.

But the “limited liability company” is NOT a

corporation but a “company”, and it is specifically

included in article 101 of the Code of Commerce

of Puerto Rico, 10 LPRA 1347, so articles 95 and

98 of said Code, 10 LPRA 1344, applies to it.

Article 95, 10 LPRA 1341 provides as follows:

Articles of association by which two or more

persons obligate themselves to place in a common

fund any property, industry, or any of these things,

in order to obtain profit, shall be commercial, no

matter what its class may be, provided it has been

established in accordance with the provisions of

this Code.

After a commercial association has been established, it shall have legal representation in all its

acts and contracts.

Article 98, 10 LPRA 1344, provides as follows:

18

Every commercial association before beginning

business shall be obliged to record its

establishment, agreements, and conditions in a

public instrument, which shall be presented for

record in the mercantile registry, in accordance

with the provisions of § 1032 of this title.

Additional instruments which modify or alter in

any manner whatsoever the original contracts of

the association are subject to the same

formalities, in accordance with the provisions of §

1039 of this title. Partners cannot make private

agreements, but all must appear in the articles of

copartnership.

Article 101, 10 LPRA 1347 provides as follows:3

3 Again, the English translation is not correct because the

Spanish text states 10 LPRA 1347:

Por regla general, las compañías mercantiles (English translation: mercantile companies) y las sociedades civiles

(civil partnerships) se constituirán adoptando alguna de

las siguientes formas:

(1) La regular colectiva (English translation: regular

collective), en que todos los socios, en nombre colectivo y

bajo una razón social, se comprometen a participar, en la

proporción que establezcan, de los mismos derechos y

obligaciones.

(2) La comanditaria (commenda), en que uno o varios sujetos

aportan capital determinado al fondo común, para estar a

las resultas de las operaciones sociales dirigidas exclusivamente por otros con nombre colectivo.

(3) La limitada (limited) que se regula por ley especial, en

la cual los socios responderán de las obligaciones sociales

con lo aportado o se hubieren obligado a aportar a la compañía

o sociedad. En el caso de las sociedades profesionales, la

19

As a general rule, partnerships and civil corporations shall be established under any of the following

forms:

(1) As a general [partnership, not in the

original] (English correct translation: regular

collective) in which all the partners collectively, and

under a firm name, bind themselves to share the same

rights and obligations in the proportion they may

establish.

(2) As special [partnership, not in the original]

(English correct translation: commenda) in which

one or several persons contribute a specific amount of

capital to the common fund, to share in the results of

the firm’s transactions carried out exclusively by

others under a collective name.

(3) As a limited partnership [partnership, not in

the original] (English correct translation: limited)

regulated by a special law, in which the partners shall

be liable for corporate liabilities with their payment

or in which they shall be bound to contribute to the

company or partnership. In the case of professional

partnerships, the limited liability of each partner,

shall not be extended to the obligations arising from

the exercise of the profession.

Partnerships may also be established in corporate

form in accordance with the special law expressly

authorizing it.

limitación de responsabilidad de cada socio no se extenderá

a las obligaciones que emanen del ejercicio de la profesión.

También podrán constituirse adoptando la forma corporativa,

con arreglo a la ley especial que expresamente lo autorice.

20

III. THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.

Due to the various violations of law, Petitioner

has claimed those violations deprived appellant of her

due process of the law under the 5th Amendment.

The U.S. District Court, for the District of Puerto

Rico failed to apply state law in the case a quo, in clear

contradiction with the decision in Eire v. Tompkins,

supra.

Under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress provided for the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico to have revenue through the collection of

taxes, so the Congress provided that the United States

District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has NO

authority to authorize a Claim based on a document

that has not paid the document taxes depriving the

People of Puerto Rico of internal revenue, which are

collected with the purchase of Internal Revenue

Stamps. The Federal Relations Act, 48.

48 U.S.C. § 872 provides:

§ 872. Habeas corpus; mandamus; suit to restrain

assessment or collection of taxes

[...]

No suit for the purpose of restraining the

assessment or collection of any tax imposed by

the laws of Puerto Rico shall be maintained in the

United States District Court for the District of

Puerto Rico. (Emphasis added)

The private sector lenders are Not Exempted From

Document Taxes, Except The Cooperatives: 7 LPRA

1366g(3):

21

(3) Cooperatives and their subsidiaries or affiliates

shall be exempted from the payment of state or

municipal fees, duties or tariffs, including the payment of fees for licenses, patents, permits and

registrations; the payment of charges, fees, internal

revenue stamps or vouchers related to the granting

of all types of public and private documents, the

payment of charges, fees, or internal revenue

stamps or vouchers with regard to the registration

thereof in the Property Registry or any other

public registry or government office, and the

payment of charges, fees internal revenue stamps

or vouchers regarding the issue of certificates by

said registries or any other government office.

(Emphasis added)

The United States District Court failed to follow the

case law of the Supreme Court of the United States,

in the case at bar, which recognizes an estoppel for the

type of cases as the one at bar, for violations of positive

law, specifically the case of R. H. Stearns Co. v. United

States, 291 U.S. 54 (1934), Justice Benjamín Cardoso

stated the following, page 61-624:

Sometimes the resulting disability has been

characterized as an estoppel, sometimes as a

waiver. The label counts for little. Enough

for present purposes that the disability has

its roots in a principle more nearly ultimate

4 See also, for the same doctrine the cases of: Holman v. Johnson

(Roman Law principle “ex dolo malo non oritur action”), 2 Cowp

341, 98 ENGLISH REPORTS, Full Reprints, 1120, (1775), Opinion

by Lord Mansfield; and from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico:

Rubio Sacarello v. Roig, 84 DPR 344 (1961), y Serra v. Salesian

Society, 84 DPR 322 (1961) (the Roman Law principle, similar to

the preceding, “nemo auditor suam turpitudinem allegans”).

22

than either waiver or estoppel-the principle

that no one shall be permitted to found any

claim upon his own inequity or take advantage of his own wrong. Imperator Realty Co.

v. Tull, supra. A suit may not be built on an

omission induced by him who sues. Swain v.

Seamens, 9 Wall. 254, 76 U.S. 274; United

States v. Peck, 102 U.S. 64; Thomson v. Poor,

147 N.Y. 402, 42 N.E. 13; New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Societé des Ateliers, [1919] A.C. 1,

6; Williston, Contracts, vol. 2, §§ 689, 692.

291 U.S. 54 (1932), pages 61-62. (Emphasis

added)

Defendant respondent established, by plaintiff’s

own documents, that the Deed of Mortgage in this

case was not initially signed by the creditor, nor by the

Notary Public (at the time he issued the first certified

copy, App.32a) as required by law at the time of the

execution of the Deed by Petitioner (and her brother

and sister in law)5.

5 When did the representative of the lender signed and initialed

the deed of mortgage is a fact not in the record. The Notary Public

signs the deeds after all appearing parties have signed. The

signatures (and the procedures before the signatures, have to be

executed within the same day, 4 LPRA sec. 2046:

“Those persons who sign a public instrument on any

account, shall do so by signing at the end and affixing

the initials of their name and surname or surnames

in the margin of all folios, in the manner they usually

do and the notary shall do so after them, flourishing,

signing and sealing it.”

“If there are no attesting witnesses, it shall not be

necessary for those appearing to sign the document

together in the presence of the notary, but he/she may

personally receive their signatures at any time within

23

For the above described reasons, plaintiff Cayman,

and successor REO could not base its cause of action

in its own inequity, wrong, or violation of statutory

law.

It is very important to bring to the attention of

this Honorable Court the case of Puerto Rico v. Russell

& Co., 228 U.S. 476, which is a case pertaining the

laws of Puerto Rico.

In the Russell case, supra, it is held that Russell

WAS a Juridical Person In Puerto Rico, different from

a common law partnership, due to the fact that it

complied with the provisions of the Code of Commerce,

and the Civil Code, and It Filed tor Recordation. (The

“en comandita” company, as all other companies, is

created by filing the deed of creation for recordation.

Therefore to call the sociedad en [*481] [**449]

comandita a limited partnership in the common law sense, as the respondents and others

have done, is to invoke a false analogy. In the

law of its creation the sociedad is consistently

regarded as a juridical [****8] person. It may

contract, own property and transact business,

sue and be sued in its own name and right.

[***908] Civil Code (1930), §§ 27 to 30; Code

of Commerce (1930), §§ 95, 97, 123, 124. Its

members are not thought to have a sufficient

personal interest in a suit brought against

the entity to entitle them to intervene as

parties defendant. See People v. Rivera Zayas,

29 P. R. 423, 430. It is created by articles of

the same calendar day of the execution, pursuant to

the provisions of § 2042 of this title.”

24

association filed as public records. Code of

Commerce, §§ 95, 98; (Emphasis added)

The pertinent provisions of the Code of Commerce,

article 95, 10 LPRA 1341, supra, reads as follows:

After a commercial association has been established, it shall have legal representation6 in

all its acts and contracts.

How does a company becomes a juridical person?

Article 98 of the Code of Commerce, 10 LPRA 1344:

Every commercial association before beginning business shall be obliged to record its

establishment, agreements, and conditions in

a public instrument, which shall be presented

for record in the mercantile registry, in

accordance with the provisions of § 1032 of

this title. (Emphasis added)

See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., supra.

A. Notice of Motion Submitting Evidence of

Compliance Docket No. 60

The Motion Submitting Evidence of Compliance

with 28 U.S.C. § 2002, was returned to sender, Appendix page 61-66, as to appearing co-defendant Virginia

Silva Navarro. The Motion In Compliance as to 72

Order7 on Motion for Eviction states that compliance

6 That sentence is a por translation of the original Spanish text

which states: “Una vez constituída la compañía mercantil, tendrá

personalidad jurídica en todos sus actos y contratos”. The key

words are: “tendrá personalidad jurídica” = “shall have juridical

personality”.

7 Said Order required plaintiff to provide evidence of notice of

eviction to co-defendants.

25

with said Order is shown in Exhibit 1. But No Exhibit

1 Was Attached to Said Motion.

Due Process of the law, at a minimum, is what the

law says it is due. Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 46 (1894)

the Supreme Court of the United States, stated:

[*46] No judgment of a court is due process

of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the

court, or without notice to the party.

The words “due process of law,” when applied

to judicial proceedings, as was said by Mr.

Justice Field, speaking for this court, “mean

a course of legal proceedings according to

those rules and principles which have been

established in our systems of jurisprudence

for the protection and enforcement of private

rights. To give such proceedings any validity,

there must be a tribunal competent by its

constitution-that is, by the law of its creationto pass upon the subject-matter of the suit;

and, if that involves merely a determination

of the personal liability of the defendant,

[***23] he must be brought within its

jurisdiction by service of process within the

State, or his voluntary appearance.” Pennoyer

v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733. (Emphasis added)

26

CONCLUSION

It Is Therefore Respectfully Requested That This

Honorable Court Grant the Petition for Certiorari

and, in Due Course, Reverse the Judgment of the U.S.

District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, and

Further Grant Relief from the Judgment and Dismiss

the Complaint in This Case, and Further reinstate the

lien in favor of the United States of America, if the tax

debt which it guarantees has not been paid.

Respectfully submitted,

MAXIMILIANO TRUJILLO-GONZALEZ

U.S.S.C. BAR NUMBER 152074

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

PMB 429

100 GRAND PASEOS BLVD. SUITE 112

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00926

(787) 438-8802

MAXTRUJ@GMAIL.COM

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

DECEMBER 1, 2022