UPL Complaint Yolanda Martinez-File Closed

TheFloridaBar
TheGatewayCenter
1000Legion Place,Suite1625
JohnF. Harkness,Jr.
Orlando,Florida32801-1050
(407)425-0473
ExecutiveDirector www.FLORIDABAR.org
May22,2014
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: UnlicensedPracticeofLawInvestigationofYolandaI. Martinez
CaseNo. 20143031(9A)
DearMr. Gillespie:
InDecember,2013,youfiledanunlicensedpracticeoflawcomplaintagainstYolandaI.
Martinezbasedonallegationsthatsheengagedintheunlicensedpracticeoflawthroughaseries
ofe-mailcommunicationstoyou. TheCommitteeChairhasconcludedthatthee-mailsin
questionwereall sentatthedirectionofMs. Martinez'ssupervisingattorney,DanielleN.
Parsons. Thefile isclosed.
Sincerely,
GhuniseL. Coaxum
BranchUPLCounsel
UPLDepartment,Orlando
GLClct
n
arm" ... 5' S" ,'" , tl51 l' """2 "crr"" ' ,
( . r. 1 I 1__ cr' m'.'1'I' "'7TI rTP"rr"'"'tll'r' f"" r 'r.' 't t"

THE FLORIDABAR

5
1000LEGIONPLACE,SUITE 1625

- , --......
PITNEY BOWES

ORLANDO,FL 328011050
i '.;

..,' 02 1P $000.480
Ita 0003119581 MAY 23 2014
MAILEDFROMZIP CODE 32801
Visitourwebsite:www.FLORIDABAR.org
Mr.NeilJ. Gillespie
8092 SW 115thLoop
Ocala,FL34481
3448i IIU' h,,'j1IhIhj.i f ," II I11thI1'111,I" JlJlItI'JI,IjlJJJJjlh
. ; J 1, ; ,.00
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP290579719 February 24, 2014
Email: Ghunise L Coaxum, gcoaxum@flabar.org
Email: J ohn F. Harkness, jharkness@flabar.org
Ghunise L Coaxum
UPL Bar Counsel/Prosecutor
The Florida Bar
Unlicensed Practice of Law Department
The Gateway Center
1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Orlando, Florida 32801-5200
RE: Rebuttal to response of Mr. Davidson for Ms. Martinez in UPL case no. 20143031(9A).
Dear Ms. Coaxum:
This is my rebuttal to the response from Mr. Davidson on behalf of Ms. Martinez in the above.
Ms. Martinez is employed by McCalla Raymer LLC as a nonlawyer paralegal to Danielle Nicole
Parsons FL Bar ID: 29364. McCalla Raymer LLC is not a Florida law firm. The Florida
Department of State, Division of Corporations shows McCalla Raymer LLC is,
Foreign Limited Liability Company MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC
Document Number M11000002235
FEI/EIN Number 582145201
Date Filed 05/04/2011
State GA
Status ACTIVE
Last Event REINSTATEMENT
Event Date Filed12/18/2013
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
6 CONCOURSE PARKWAY, SUITE 3200
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Mailing Address
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Changed: 12/18/2013
There is more information about McCalla Raymer LLC, see enclosed,
February 24, 2014, a printout today of the Sunbiz inquiry page for McCalla Raymer LLC
J anuary 24, 2012, Annual Report for a Limited Liability Company for 2012
May 4, 2011, Application by a Foreign Limited Liability Company McCalla Raymer LLC
Ghunise L Coaxum February 24, 2014
UPL Bar Counsel/Prosecutor Page - 2
Ms. Parsons submitted December 9, 2013 a waiver to file a response in Petition No. 13-7280 for
writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, even though at that time McCalla Raymer LLC was
inactive for administrative dissolution for failure to file an annual report, since September 27,
2013. Petition No. 13-7280 is related to this matter and other matters. The petition was denied
J anuary 23, 2014. A petition for rehearing was filed February 7, 2014; and distributed for the
Conference of March 7, 2014.
Enclosed is Ms. Parsons signed waiver form as received by email and US postal mail. Also
enclosed is a printout of the Sunbiz inquiry page for McCalla Raymer LLC showing inactive for
administrative dissolution for failure to file an annual report, since September 27, 2013 which
notice I provided to Mr. Littlewood by email December 19, 2013, see enclosed.
Somehow McCalla Raymer got reinstated, and got the reinstatement backdated to December 18,
2013, but the missing Annual Report has not been filed as of today, and the reinstatement
effective date shows none. So this reinstatement may not be legitimate.
Ms. Parsons may have violated F.S. 817.155 by filing a waiver December 9, 2013 in the US
Supreme Court when in fact McCalla Raymer was inactive for administrative dissolution for
failure to file an annual report, since September 27, 2013. This fraud on the US Supreme Court
may have violated F.S. 817.155,
817.155 Matters within jurisdiction of Department of State; false, fictitious, or fraudulent
acts, statements, and representations prohibited; penalty; statute of limitations.A
person may not, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of State,
knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal a material fact, make any false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or representation, or make or use any false document, knowing the
same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. A person who
violates this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The statute of limitations for prosecution of an act
committed in violation of this section is 5 years from the date the act was committed.
I will be updating this information with Mr. Littlewood today.
Rebuttal to Mr. Davidsons response.
In his response at paragraph 3, Mr. Davidson claims,
A paralegal is authorized to perform specifically delegated substantive legal work
provided he or she works under the direct supervision of a member of the Florida Bar. R.
Regulating Fla. Bar 10-2.1(b); see also Official Comment, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.5
("Subdivision (b) does not prohibit a lawyer from employing the services of
paraprofessionals and delegating functions to them, so long as the lawyer supervises the
delegated work and retains responsibility for their work."). A lawyer may employ a
paralegal to do any task except those that require the independent judgment and
participation of a lawyer. Official Comment, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5 .3 (emphasis
added).
This response is in conflict with The Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 70-62,
Lay personnel may be used in a law office only to the extent that they are
delegated mechanical, clerical or administrative duties. The attorney may not
ethically delegate to a lay employee any activity which requires the attorney's
personal judgment and participation.
Mr. Davidsons response is also in conflict with your Florida Bar News story that cites to The
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 70-62.
Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update)
Florida Bar News - February 15, 2004, by Ghunise Coaxum.
Attorneys rely on paralegals and other nonlawyer office staff to perform various
activities. Generally, the activity may constitute the unlicensed practice of law if
it is something that requires the attorney's independent judgment and
participation, and it is performed by the paralegal. See, The Florida Bar Ethics
Opinion, 70-62.
I purchased the Florida Bar News article online from Amazon.com for $5.95 on J une 3, 2013,
purchase receipt enclosed, and relied upon the article as accurate. If this legal information is no
longer correct, it should be removed from sale to the public.
Mr. Davidson further responded,
Paralegals are regularly tasked with communicating with law offices, courthouse
personnel, witnesses, and unrepresented individuals regarding a particular case. See, e.g.,
FLA. BAR, Florida Ethics Guide for Paralegals And Attorneys Who Utilize Paralegals,
2006, available at FLETH FL-CLE 12 (Westlaw). Unless the paralegal is otherwise
violating the unauthorized practice of law rules, sending correspondence on the
supervising attorney's behalf does not constitute the unlicensed practice of law. The
Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So. 2d 559,560-61 (Fla. 1978) (holding that communicating
with clients and others at the direction of a member of The Florida Bar does not
constitute the unauthorized practice of law provided the communication discloses that the
person communicating is not a member of The Florida Bar, and the supervising attorney
assumes professional responsibility for the communication).
In rebuttal, the above citation does not permit a paralegal to engage in fraud, or to facilitate fraud
on me, and ultimately fraud on the court. Mr. Davidson responded,
Ms. Martinez sent the emails in question under the direction and supervision of Ms.
Parsons. As requested by Ms. Parsons, Ms. Martinez emailed Mr. Gillespie on February
21, 2013 to inform him that a response to a pleading was due and that counsel intended to
request an extension of time to file a reply.
Actually Ms. Martinez conducted a conference pursuant to Middle District Local Rule 3.01(g).
Ms. Martinez engaged in UPL because a Rule 3.01(g) conference is activity which requires the
attorney's personal judgment and participation. Furthermore, Rule 3.01(g) does not provide for
a conference with an unrepresented nonlawyer party. I am not a lawyer, and am not subject to the
plain language of the local rule, which specifies opposing counsel or counsel.
Mr. Gillespie:
Please allow this correspondence to serve as our attempt to confer with you prior to filing
any Federal Court Motions pursuant to Middle District Local Rule 3.01(g).
Our response to your Motion to Dismiss is due today per the Federal Court Rules and at
this time we are requesting an extension of time to file a reply to the Motion to Dismiss
of 20 days or on or before March 13, 2013. Please advise if you will agree to this
extension of time so that we can file our Motion with the Court.
Thank you in advance for your courtesies in this regard.
Yolanda I. Martinez,
Paralegal to: Danielle N. Parsons
Ms. Parsons did not respond to any of my Rule 3.01(g) attempts to confer, and I noted her failure
in three pleadings, Rule 11 sanction motion, Rule 55 default motion, Objections to
Ms. Martinez further engaged in UPL by purporting to determine a legal deadline to respond to
my motion to dismiss under Federal Court Rules; Ms. Martinez knew the information she
provided was wrong, and provided with a corrupt purpose. Notwithstanding the knowing
falsehood with malice aforethought about the deadline, she waited until 1 hour and 8 minutes
before the Court closed at 4:00 PM. This is not a good faith effort under Rule 301(g).
Once I received the Agreed Motion For Extension of Time (Doc. 11) and saw the obvious
fraud by Ms. Parsons, I took timely remedial action and filed the following,
Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions Against Danielle N. Parsons And McCalla Raymer,
LLC (Doc. 15), filed February 26, 2013
Rule 55 Motion For Default J udgment (Doc. 16), filed February 26, 2013
Objections (Doc. 17, March 5, 2013) To Magistrate J udge Philip R. Lammens
Report and Recommendation, filed March 4, 2013. Order Doc. 12.
In my Objections To Magistrate J udge Philip R. Lammens Report and Recommendation, filed
March 4, 2013 Order Doc. 12, I made a verified objection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 to the
Magistrate J udges Order (Doc. 12) entered February 22, 2013. In addition to and in the
alternative to the relief sought above, Gillespie moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) for relief
from the Magistrate J udges Order (Doc. 12) entered February 22, 2013, and stated:
1. Magistrate J udge Philip R. Lammens entered an Order (Doc. 12) February 22, 2013
granting the Plaintiff relief based on Ms. Parsons Agreed Motion For Extension of
Time filed the previous day February 21, 2013 (Doc. 11). Unfortunately Ms. Parsons
motion was a fraud on the Court wherein she made false statements and material
misrepresentations, and engaged in misconduct, set forth in Gillespies Rule 11 Motion
For Sanctions Against Danielle N. Parsons and McCalla Raymer, LLC (Doc. 15).
Gillespies Rule 11 motion shows Ms. Parsons missed a deadline to file a response to
Gillespies Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5), and engaged in fraud, misrepresentation and
misconduct to secure an extension to file a response, when in fact the Plaintiff defaulted
and Gillespie was entitled to a Default J udgment. (Doc. 16). Gillespie moved for Default
J udgment February 26, 2013. (Doc. 16).
2. Ms. Parsons made a number of false statements and material misrepresentations to the
Court in her motion (Doc. 11) intended to mislead the Court and federal judge(s) for the
purpose of advantage to: A. Cover-up Counsels incompetence and lack of diligence for
not timely filing a response to the motion to dismiss, a response due February 19, 2013.
(Rule 12(a)(4)); and B. Trick Gillespie into believing Plaintiffs response was due
J anuary 21, 2013, when otherwise he could move for Default J udgment. (Rule 55). (Doc.
15, 8).
3. Gillespie respectfully incorporates into this pleading the following related pleadings he
previously submitted to the Court, including:
Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions Against Danielle N. Parsons And McCalla
Raymer, LLC (Doc. 15), filed February 26, 2013
Objections To Magistrate J udge Philip R. Lammens Report and
Recommendation, filed March 4, 2013. Order Doc. 12.
4. Ms. Parsons made several material representations to the Court in her Certification
Pursuant To Middle District Local Rule 3.01(g) (Doc. 11) that stated:
Counsel for Plaintiff hereby advises this Honorable Court that it has attempted in
good faith to confer with pro se Defendant, Neil Gillespie via electronic mail as
this is the only form of communication we have. Counsel sent an email to Mr.
Gillespie advising him that we were in need of an extension. Defendant, Neil
Gillespie, has agreed to the within request for an extension of time.
First, Counsel did not contact Gillespie at any time to confer in good faith as required
by Local Rule 3.01(g). Ms. Parsons misled the Court when she wrote electronic mail is
the only form of communication we have. Gillespies home telephone number is
provided on all his pleadings, on his Florida Rule 2.516 notice in state court, and is listed
on the Courts civil docket along with his home address. Ms. Parsons further lied to the
Court when she wrote Counsel sent an email to Mr. Gillespie advising him that we were
in need of an extension. Ms. Parsons did not send Gillespie an email advising that she
was in need of an extension. Instead, Yolanda I. Martinez, paralegal to Ms. Parsons,
contacted Gillespie by email February 21, 2013 at 2.52 PM for the purpose of misleading
Gillespie about the extension: (Doc. 15., 9). (Exhibit A).
Unfortunately Ms. Martinez misrepresented to Gillespie in her email that Our
response to your Motion to Dismiss is due today per the Federal Court Rules...
The statement of Ms. Martinez is false. The Plaintiffs response was due two days
earlier, February 19, 2013. The false statement made in connection with the Local
Rule 3.01(g) was not made in good faith as required, and denied Gillespie
informed consent in which to respond.
5. Ms. Parsons misrepresented to the Court February 21, 2013 in her Agreed Motion For
Extension of Time (Doc. 11) as follows:
In paragraph 1: On or about February 6, 2013, Defendant, Neil Gillespie, filed
its Motion to Dismiss with the Court.
Ms. Parsons statement is false. Ms. Parsons knows that Gillespie filed his Motion to
Dismiss with the Court (Doc. 5) on February 4, 2013, a date certain, and no other date.
Gillespies Motion to Dismiss shows when it was filed on the docket, and on the top of
the document: Case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Document 5 Filed 02/04/13 Page 1
of 47 PageID 86
In paragraph 2: Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a response is
due to the Motion to Dismiss on or about February 21, 2013.
Ms. Parsons statement is false. In fact, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
a response was due to the Motion to Dismiss on J anuary 19, 2013[fn5], a date certain and
no other date. Accordingly the Plaintiff is in default and Gillespie is entitled to a Default
J udgment. [fn5: The Court was closed Monday February 18, 2013 for Presidents Day,
the actual due date.]
7. Gillespie agreed to extend the time for Ms. Parsons to file a response, but that was
based on a false statement by Plaintiffs Counsel [through paralegal Ms. Martinez].
Gillespie did not agree to Counsel making false statements or representations during the
good-faith conference required by Local Rule 3.01(g), and/or filing a false record of
events with the Court, which appears calculated to:
A. Cover-up Counsels incompetence and lack of diligence for not timely filing a
response to the motion to dismiss, a response due February 19, 2013. (Rule
12(a)(4))
B. Trick Gillespie into believing Plaintiffs response was due J anuary 21, 2013,
when otherwise he could move for Default J udgment. (Rule 55).
8. Ms. Parsons further misrepresented to the Court in paragraph 5, No parties will be
prejudiced by the granting of this extension of time. (Doc. 11, 5). Ms. Parsons
statement is false. Gillespie is prejudiced because he is entitled to a Default J udgment.
Gillespie moved for Default J udgment February 26, 2013. (Doc. 16).
14. Gillespie requested in his Notice of Removal (Doc. 1, p 4, 16) that any rulings made
by a U.S. Magistrate J udge be in conformity with the Report and Recommendation
format. The subject Order (Doc. 12) was not made in a Report and Recommendation
format.
Mr. Davidson responded,
Again at the request of Ms. Parsons, Ms. Martinez emailed Mr. Gillespie on August 7,
2013 to inform him that his Motion for Reconsideration was denied and to request his
availability for a hearing. The information provided by Ms. Martinez in these emails
"was no greater than that which anyone could glean" from reading the relevant Rules of
Civil Procedure and court orders. See The Florida Bar v. Florida Servo Bureau, Inc., 581
So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 1991). Providing this type of information to Mr. Gillespie is not the
unlicensed practice of law. See id.
However the emails tell a different story,
Ms. Martinez responded to me by email August 07, 2013 4:18 PM. (Exhibit 9, Complaint).
Mr. Gillespie:
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rendered its decision and has denied your Motion
for Reconsideration as you can see from the attached Order. In that regard, kindly advise
as to your availability for a hearing in the Circuit court.
Thank you.
The legal interpretation of the Order Ms. Martinez provided me by email was UPL because she
engaged in activity which requires the attorney's personal judgment and participation. [Ethics
Opinion 70-62]. In addition Ms. Martinez provided false and misleading information about the
Order entered J uly 25, 2013 by the U.S. Eleventh Circuit in Appeal Number: 13-11585-B.
I responded to Ms. Martinez by email August 07, 2013 4:50 PM: (Exhibit 10, Complaint).
Dear Ms. Martinez:
Good afternoon. I object to any hearings in state court until the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals rules on my petition for mandamus relief.
Unfortunately you are not reading the order properly. Kindly consult with an attorney at
your firm. The decision entered allows a separate petition for mandamus relief. The U.S.
Eleventh Circuit entered a favorable Order J uly 25, 2013 that states in relevant part:
"Should Gillespie wish to petition for mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition for
a writ of mandamus or prohibition with this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1651;
Fed.R.App.P.21"....
I did not hear back from Ms. Martinez. Apparently no attorney at McCalla Raymer would
support her false and misleading email that was the unlicensed practice of law.
Conclusion
Ms. Martinez engaged in UPL as shown in my complaint. Tellingly Ms. Coaxum only required a
response from Ms. Martinez on two narrow questions about two emails. This is in contrast the
open-ended UPL letter Ms. Coaxum provided me in Mr. Rodems vexatious complaint. In my
view this shows different treatment of Respondents by Ms. Coaxum, and thus a bias. This
response was delayed as I prepared and submitted a response to Rodems UPL complaint.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Barry R. Davidson
Hunton & Williams LLP
Barclays Financial Center
1111 Brickell Ave. Fl 25
Miami, Florida 33131-3101
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP291603725
And by email: Mr. Barry R. Davidson, counsel for Ms. Martinez, @ bdavidson@hunton.com
Document Number
FEI/EIN Number
Date Fi l ed
State
Status
Last Event
Event Date Fi l ed
Event Effecti ve Date
Forei gn Li mi ted Li abi l i ty Company
MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC
Fi l i ng Informati on
M11000002235
582145201
05/04/2011
GA
ACTIVE
REINSTATEMENT
12/18/2013
NONE
Pri nci pal Address
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Mai l i ng Address
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Changed: 12/18/2013
Regi stered Agent Name & Address
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD
PLANTATION, FL 33324
Authori zed Person(s) Detai l
Name & Address
Title MGR
STONE, MARTY
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Title MGR
Copyright and Privacy Policies
State of Florida, Department of State
Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Document Searches Forms Help
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail/EntityName/forl-m11000002235-5db53846-7a33-40b4-911b-ccf54c883a96/M...
2/24/2014 11:53 AM
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Title MGR
MCGEHEE, CARL
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Title MGR
REISS, WENDY R
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Title MGR
ALTOM, KENT
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Title MGR
BOND, J ANE
1544 OLD ALABAMA RD
ROSWELL, GA 30076
Annual Reports
Report Year Fi l ed Date
2012 01/24/2012
Document Images
01/24/2012 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format
05/04/2011 -- Foreign Limited View image in PDF format
2/24/2014 11:53 AM

Neil Gillespie
From: <noreply@mccallaraymer.com>
To: <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:20 PM
Attach: 12-02121 Waiver.pdf
Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT, No.: 13-7280
Page 1of 1
12/11/2013
Attached is the WAIVER that our firm has filed in NEIL J . GILLESPIE (Petitioner) V. REVERSE
MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC. (Respondents), Supreme Court of the United States; No. 13-7280.
You can reach attorney Danielle N. Parsons, Esq. at (407)674-1850 or dnp@mccallaraymer.com. Please
note our service by email address is MRService@mccallaraymer.com

THIS LAW FIRM MAY BE DEEMED A "DEBT COLLECTOR" UNDER THE FAIR DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT. ANY AND ALL INFORMATION OBTAINED MAY BE USED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING A DEBT. This message has been sent from a law firm and
may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please
advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without
retaining a copy. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
prohibited. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Thank you.
WAIVER
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
No. 13-7280
NeilJ.Gillespie v. ReverseMortgageSolutions, Inc., etal.
(Petitioner)
(Respondents)
IDONOTINTENDTOFILEA RESPONSEtothepetitionfora writofcertiorariunless
oneisrequestedbytheCourt.
Pleasechecktheappropriateboxes:
o PleaseentermyappearanceasCounselofRecordfor allrespondents.
o Therearemultiplerespondents,andIdo notrepresentallrespondents.Pleaseentermy
appearanceasCounselofRecordfor thefollowing respondent(s):
onsewil be bya Bar emb r.
e
o Iama memberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.
, I amno rese tlya memberoftheBarofthisCourt.Shouldaresponsebe requested,
there
Signat _

I A
(Typeorprint)Name :[))J'\\ t-\ \Q.... rJ.
oMr. 0 Ms. KMrs. 0 Miss
Firm C:v\ LLC
Address k___..
City&State OWtJOO Y"CoLM
Phone LJ 01- LoJ L-j -- I
SENDACOpyOFTHISFORMTO PETITIONER'SCOUNSELORTOPETITIONERIF
PRO SEe PLEASEINDICATEBELOWTHENAME(S) OFTHERECIPIENT(S) OFACOpy
OFTHISFORM. NOADDITIONALCERTIFICATEOFSERVICEISREQUIRED.
Cc: IJL\ \ -\. G', ) SL
Obtainstatusofcaseonthedocket. Byphoneat202-479-3034orviatheinternetat
http://www.supremecourtus.gov.HavetheSupremeCourtdocketnumberavailable.
"'.1 I III 'r I.r ... .lrln. r .11 t.... , ll_.. 1q,.... ............ ....
DanielleN. Parsons,Esq.
U.S. POSTAGE PITNEY BOWES
McCallaRaymer,LLC
225E. RobinsonStreet
;:Z:;

Suite660
ZIP 32801 $ 000 46
Orlando,FL 32801
02 1VV
0001364007DEC 09 2013
Neil Gillespie
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala, Florida34481
3448i f. '" 1" I, IIJ',' p,.".1,1"'1,"'",,1,),II ",1",11,' ,JI,'II,'I
L. 'v-"""" M .Mel Ld,iS."'.
Document Number
FEI/EIN Number
Date Fi l ed
State
Status
Last Event
Event Date Fi l ed
MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC
M11000002235
582145201
05/04/2011
GA
INACTIVE
ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
09/27/2013
NONE
Pri nci pal Address
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Mai l i ng Address
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Manager/Member Detai l
Name & Address
Title MGR
STONE, MARTY
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Title MGR
SILVER, ADAM
Title MGR
MCGHEE, CARL
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Title MGR
REISS, WENDY R
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Title MGR
ALTOM, KENT
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Title MGR
BOND, J ANE
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Annual Reports
Report Year Fi l ed Date
2012 01/24/2012
Document Images
01/24/2012 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format
05/04/2011 -- Foreign Limited View image in PDF format

Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
To: "Theodore P Littlewood" <tlittlew@flabar.org>; "Bridget Kellogg Smitha" <smithab@gtlaw.com>;
"pam.bondi@myfloridaleg" <pam.bondi@myfloridalegal.com>; "Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil"
<hstancil@circuit5.org>; "J ohn F Harkness" <jharkness@flabar.org>; "McCalla Raymer E-service"
<MRService@mccallaraymer.com>; "Shuaib Chalklen Special Rapporteur Disability"
<enable@un.org>; "Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul" <SRindependenceJ L@ohchr.org>; "Tiffany
Caparas1" <TCaparas@kelattorneys.com>; "Tiffany Caparas2" <KELinbox@kelattorneys.com>;
<USAFLM.State.Foreclosures@usdoj.gov>; "William Abbuehl" <billa@clsmf.org>; "Neil Gillespie"
<neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:13 AM
Attach: McCallaRaymerLLC-inactive.pdf
Subject: McCalla Raymer LLC inactive for administrative dissolution
Page 1of 1
1/28/2014
Theodore P. Littlewood J r., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
RE: The Florida Bar File No. 2014-30,525 (9A)
Dear Mr. Littlewood,
Good morning. Thank you for your letter of December 6, 2013 in this matter.
The Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, shows McCalla Raymer LLC is inactive for
administrative dissolution for Annual Report on September 27, 2013. Attached is a PDF of the Division
of Corporation web page showing administrative dissolution.
I am providing this information to those on the Petition No. 13-7280 email list, which includes Ms.
Parsons/McCalla Raymer, and thought you may need this too.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Document Number
FEI/EIN Number
Date Fi l ed
State
Status
Last Event
Event Date Fi l ed
MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC
M11000002235
582145201
05/04/2011
GA
INACTIVE
ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
09/27/2013
NONE
Pri nci pal Address
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Mai l i ng Address
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Manager/Member Detai l
Name & Address
Title MGR
STONE, MARTY
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Title MGR
SILVER, ADAM
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail/EntityName/forl-m11000002235-5db53846-7a33-40b4-911b-ccf54c883a96/mc...
Details for Order # D01-4381574-8524851
Print this page for your records.
Amazon.com order number: D01-4381574-8524851
Order Total: $5.95
Digital Order: June 3, 2013
Items Ordered Price
Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update):
An article from: Florida Bar News [eDoc/Amazon Short]
By: Ghunise Coaxum
Sold By: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
$5.95
Item(s) Subtotal: $5.95
----
Total Before Tax: $5.95
Tax Collected: $0.00
----
Total for this Order: $5.95
Payment Information
Payment Method
VISA | Last 4 digits: 6739
Billing Address
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
United States
----
----
Grand Total: $5.95
Return to the Order Summary.
Please note: This is not a VAT invoice.
Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice 1996-2013, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates
Amazon.com: Digital Order Summary https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/your-account/order-summary.html?i...
1 of 1 6/12/2013 11:12 PM
TheFloridaBar
TheGatewayCenter
JohnF.Harkness,Jr.
(407)425-0473
January21,2014
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala,FL34481
CaseNo. 20143031(9A)
DearMr. Gillespie:
Pursuanttoyourrequest,enclosedisacopyofYolandaI. Martinez'sresponsetoyourcomplaint
intheabove-referencedmatter. Youmayprovideareplyifyouwish,althoughitisnotrequired.
Ifyouwishtoreply,pleasesendyourwrittenrebuttalto menolaterthanFebruary3,2014.
Responsesshouldnotexceedtwenty-five(25)pagesandmayreferto anyadditionaldocuments
orexhibitsthatareavailableonrequest. Anyresponsebyyouwillbecomeapartof theUPL
recordinthismatterandbecomeaccessibletothepublicuponclosureof thecase.
Thankyoufor yourcooperation.
Sincerely,
GhuniseL. Coaxum
BranchUPLCounsel
GLC/ct
Enclosure
HUNTON&WILLIAMS LLP
1111 BRICKELLAVENUE
SUITE2500
MIAMI, FLORIDA33131
HuNToN&!
WIlliAMS
TEL 3058102500
FAX 3058102460
BARRYR. DAVIDSON
DIRECTDIAL: 3058102539
EMAIL: BDAVIDSON@HUNTON.COM
January 10,2014 FILENO:
THE FLORIDA BAR
UPL DEPARTMENT
ViaFederalExpress
t ,.
:\J 1 GhuniseL. Coaxum
... d J , ...J I.e S w
TheFloridaBar
BranchUPLCounsel
THE GAlEWA'lCENTER
1000 LEGION PLACE, STE. 1625
ORLANDO, FL 32801
1000LegionPlace,Suite 1625
Re: UnlicensedPracticeofLawInvestigationofYolandaI. Martinez,CaseNo.
20143031(9A)
DearMs. Coaxum:
AsyouknowfromnlY letterofJanuary2,2014,IrepresentMcCallaRaymerLLC
paralegalYolandaI. MartinezinregardtotheabovereferencedUPLinvestigation. This
letterrespondsto yourspecificinquiriesinyourletterofDecember24,2013.
InthemortgageforeclosureagainstcomplainantMr. G-illespieandothers,Ms.
MartinezwasworkingasaParalegalunderthedirectionandsupervisionofDanielleN.
Parsons,Esquire,alicensedFloridaattorney. Ms. ParsonsdelegatedcertaintaskstoMs.
Martinez,includingcommunicatingwithclientsandothersonherbehalf. Ms. Martinez's
communicationsonbehalfof Ms. Parsons,includingherFebruary21 andAugust7, 2013
emailstoMr. Gillespie,donotconstitutethepracticeoflawasdefinedbyFloridastatute,
courtruleorcaselaw.
Aparalegalisauthorizedtoperformspecificallydelegatedsubstantivelegalwork
provided'heorsheworksunderthedirectsupervisionofamemberof theFloridaBar. R.
RegulatingFla. Bar10-2.1(b);see also OfficialComment,R. RegulatingFla.Bar4-5.5
("Subdivision(b)doesnotprohibitalawyerfromemployingtheservicesofparaprofessionals
anddelegatingfunctionstothem,so longasthelawyersupervisesthedelegatedworkand
fortheirwork."). A lawyermayemployaparalegaltodoany task
,J;r
ATLANTA AUSTIN BANGKOK BEIJING BRUSSELS CHARLOTTE DALLAS HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES
McLEAN MIAMI NEW YORK NORFOLK RALEIGH RICHMOND SAN FRANCISCO TOKYO WASHINGTON
www.hunton.com
HuNToN&!
WILLIAMS
January 10, 2014
Page 2
except those that require the independent judgment and participation of a lawyer. Official
Comment, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.3 (emphasis added).
Paralegals are regularly tasked with communicating with law offices, courthouse
personnel, witnesses, and unrepresented individuals regarding a particular case. See, e.g.,
FLA. BAR, Florida Ethics Guide for Paralegals And Attorneys Who Utilize Paralegals, 2006,
available at FLETH FL-CLE 12 (Westlaw). Unless the paralegal is otherwise violating the
unauthorized practice of law rules, sending correspondence on the supervising attorney's
behalf does not constitute the unlicensed practice of law. The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.
2d 559,560-61 (Fla. 1978) (holding that communicating with clients and others at the
direction of a member of The Florida Bar does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law
provided the communication discloses that the person communicating is not a member of The
Florida Bar, and the supervising attorney assumes professional responsibility for the
communication).
Ms. Martinez sent the emails in question under the direction and supervision of Ms.
Parsons. As requested by Ms. Parsons, Ms. Martinez emailed Mr. Gillespie on February 21,
2013 to inform him that a response to a pleading was due and that counsel intended to request
an extension of time to file a reply. Again at the request of Ms. Parsons, Ms. Martinez
emailed Mr. Gillespie on August 7, 2013 to inform him that his Motion for Reconsideration
was denied and to request his availability for a hearing. The information provided by Ms.
Martinez in these emails "was no greater than that which anyone could glean" from reading
the relevant Rules of Civil Procedure and court orders. See The Florida Bar v. Florida Servo
Bureau, Inc., 581 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 1991). Providing this type of information to Mr.
Gillespie is not the unlicensed practice of law. See id.
Further, Ms. Martinez did not hold herself out as an attorney. Ms. Martinez's email
signature clearly and unambiguously disclosed to Mr. Gillespie that Ms. Martinez is a
Paralegal and not a licensed attorney.} The Professional Ethics Committee has stated that
indicating in correspondence that one is a "Paralegal" avoids creating the impression that the
person nan1ed is instead a lawyer. See, e.g., Fla. Ethics Ope 86-4.
For the foregoing reasons, we are confident that Ms. Martinez's accused actions are
safely \,dthin the ambit of appropriate paralegal tasks and do not in any way constitute the
1Ms. Martinez's email signature reads:
Yolanda I. Martinez
HuNroN&
WILUAMS
January 10, 2014
Page 3
unauthorized practice of law. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Cordially yours,

Barry R. Davidson
.,
., 'I .11 " billdll....._1I1u. r ............ _" __'''' 'fl I'.;."

THE FLORIDA BAR c}
t-f'"
1000 LEGION PLACE, SUITE 1625
o '.-.--.
- --..
PITNEY BOWES

c;
Z' ORLANDO, FL 328011050

..,;/
02 1 P $000.460
t>Ji.
'to 0 0 0 31 1 9 581 JAN 22 2014
MAILED FROMZIP CODE 32801
Visit our website: www.FLORIDABAR.org
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
3448135Ez792 I' JJ" ,I, ",1",J1"1'" f IJI" 'II J, JI, JJ' II,""1,11JI'" 1
11
11,,1
HUNTON&WILLIAMSLLP
HuNToN&
111]BRICKELLAVENUE
SUrrB2500
MIAMI,FLORIDA33131
WILUAMS
TEL 3058102500
FAX 305810'2460
BARRYR.DAVIDSON
DIRECTDIAL:305 810'2539
EMAIL:BDAVIDSON@HUNTON.COM
January2,2014
FII.,pNO: 99913.000033
ViaFederalExpress
TheFloridaBar
GhuniseL.Coaxum
BranchUPLCounsel
UPLDepartment,Orlando.
1000LegionPlace,Suite1625
Orlando,Florida32801-1050 .
Re: UnlicensedPracticeof LawInvestigationof YolandaI.Martinez
CaseNo.20143031(9A)
DearMs.. Coaxum:
ThislawfmnandIrepresenttheMcCallaRaymerlawf1I111 andinthatregardIhaveacopy
of yourDecember24,2013lettertoMcCallaRaymerparalegalYolandaI.Martinez. Iwillbe
representingMs.. Martinezin regardtothereferencedU.P.L, investigation. Iappreciateyour
targetedrequestforaresponseandanticipatebeingabletoprovidethatresponseearlynext
week.
Shouldyouhaveanyquestionspleasedon'thesitatetocontactme.
Cordiallyyours,
c ~ ~
BarryR. Davidson
ATLANTA AUSTIN BANGKOK BEUING BRUSSELS CHARLOTTE DALLAS HOUSTON LONDON LOSANGELES
McLEAN MIAMI NEWYORK NORFOLK RALEIOH RICHMOND SANFRANCISCO TOKYO WASHINGTON
www.hunton.eom
. .
'" f.f __ f' '" f. _ : : _+. f" : 0 0_. '....0.: ... :.
........... "to II : ~ - :p f : ,,': , ~ : .o _ .o
TheFlorida Bar
TheGatewayCenter
John F. Harkness,Jr.
Orlando,FlorJda32801-1050
(407) 425-0473
December24,2013
Ms. YolandaI. Martinez
225E. RobinsonStreet
Suite660
Orlando,FL32801
Re: Unlicensed Practiceof Law Investigationof Yolanda I. Martinez
CaseNo. 20143031(9A)
DearMs.Martinez:
IamBarCOWlsel ~ t h the Unlicensed Practice of LawDepartment of TheFloridaBar in
Ottlando. NeilJ. Gillespiehasallegedthatyouengagedintheunlicensedpracticeoflawontwo
(2)occasionswhenyoucommtmicatedwith himbye-mail. Ihaveenclosedacopyofthe
complaintfor your reference;however, thespecificactsareonpages7and 15.
CanyoupleaseprovideawrittenresponsetoMr. Gillespie'sallegationsthatyouengagedin the
unlicensedpracticeoflawwhenyousenthimthefollowinge-mails:
OnFebruary21,2013: OurresponsetoyourMotiontoDismissisduetodayper
theFederalCourtRulesandatthistimewearerequestinganextensionoftimetofuea
replytotheMotiontoDismissof20daysoronorbeforeMarch13,2013.
On August 7, 2013: The 11
th
Circuit Court of Appeals 1188 rendered its decision and has
deniedyourMotionforReconsiderationasyoucanseefromtheattachedOrder. Inthat
regard,kindlyadviseastoyouravailabilityforahearingintheCircuitCourt.
Thankyou.
YolandaI.Martinez
Paralegalto: DanielleN.Parsons
- .' - ,:'.- _.,', I ~ , : _: ',- -., .':. :. P : P." ,': ' .... ;., J : ~ - - . , ". .. ....
.. . . ,..
. ...
. ~ . .,
Ms. Yolanda I. Martinez
Page 2
December 24, 2013
A response from you will assist me in determining how to handle this matter.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Ghunise L. Coaxum
Branch UPL Counsel
UPL Department, Orlando
OLe/ct
Enclosure
TheFloridaBar
TheGatewayCenter
JohnF. Harkness,Jr.
(407)425-0473
December5, 2013
225 E. RobinsonStreet
Orlando,FL32801
CaseNo. 20143031(9A)
DearMs. Martinez:
IamBarCounselwiththeUnlicensedPracticeofLawDepartmentof TheFloridaBarin
Orlando. NeilJ. Gillespiehasallegedthatyouengagedintheunlicensedpracticeoflawontwo
(2)occasionswhenyoucommunicatedwithhimbye-mail. Ihaveenclosedacopyof the
complaintfor yourreference;however,thespecificactsareonpages7and 15.
CanyoupleaseprovideawrittenresponsetoMr. Gillespie'sallegationsthatyouengagedinthe
unlicensedpracticeoflawwhenyousenthimthefollowinge-mails:
OnFebruary21,2013: OurresponsetoyourMotiontoDismissisduetodayper
theFederalCourtRulesandatthistimewearerequestinganextensionof timetofile a
replytotheMotiontoDismissof20daysoronorbeforeMarch13,2013.
OnAugust7, 2013: The 11th CircuitCourtofAppealshasrendereditsdecisionandhas
deniedyourMotionforReconsiderationasyoucanseefromtheattachedOrder. Inthat
regard,kindlyadviseastoyouravailabilityforahearingintheCircuitCourt.
Thankyou.
YolandaI. Martinez
Paralegalto: DanielleN. Parsons
Page2
December5, 2013
Aresponsefrom youwillassistmeindetermininghowtohandlethismatter.
Thankyouforyourcooperation.
Sincerely,
GhuniseL. Coaxum
BarCounsel
GLC/ct
Enclosure
cc: NeilJ. Gillespie
Enclosure
'. .

THE FLORIDA BAR
QC:)

ee:.
5
1000 LEGION PLACE, SUITE 1625
- I --.....

.
. ORLANDO, FL 328011050
1 p ,1
..-

0003119581 DEC 05 2013
""':::"":'::::Ir.2II.Io:III..-::E MAILED FROMZIP CODE 32801
Visit our website: www.FLORIDABAR.org
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
::i448i355792
IJill j IJJIif J' f j"J iI JJ', JIJfJJJ,JI,',JjII JJ"1,1 JJ' Ij JjJJJIi JI jJ
'1 ............... it _--_........: :::.. : __._.. __..__............._.... IS"
TheFloridaBar
TheGatewayCenter
JohnF. Harkness,Jr.
(407)425-0473
December5,2013
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala,FL34481
CaseNo. 20143031(9A)
DearMr. Gillespie:
Thankyouforyourcomplaintregardingtheactivitiesof theabove-referencedindividual.
Wearereviewingtheactivitiesandif theyappeartoconstitutetheunlicensedpracticeoflaw,we
willreferthismattertotheappropriatecommitteeforinvestigation.
Thankyouagainforbringingthismattertotheattentionof TheFloridaBar.
Sincerely,
GhuniseL. Coaxum
BarCounsel
GLC/ct

-

-:
r ..... .... I'll .1 en r 7 r T '.'.'1 ' .... ., I l. III'';rl'111111Inn m '1 ,". ,..rrflr"tlT" II r r I '!fIdi..J' .. ?tn. T

THE FLORIDABAR

o

1000LEGIONPLACE, SUITE 1625
- , -e-.....-.r..-r

ORLANDO, FL 32801-1050
PITNEY BOWES
i
.. 02 1 P $000.46

G :: 0003119581 DEC 05 2013
MAILED FROMZIP CODE 32801
Visitourwebsite:www.FLORIDABAR.org
8092 SW115thLoop
Ocala,FL34481
34481356792 ",,"",11
'1
I"'" 'II ," I, 111""11'h,I", II' J," "til" I""If
,_ ., .Mik ...._",, " . "-_.. .__ , ..1..;
TheFloridaBar
UnlicensedPracticeofLaw
ComplaintForm
Pleasecarefullyreviewthiscomplaintformonceyou haveincludedallinformation. Notethatthereisa
requirementforyou toexecutetheoathattheend ofthisform. Falsestatementsmadein badfaithor
with malicemaysubjectyou tocivil or criminal liability. Acopy ofyour complaint maybe senttothe
nonlawyerduringthecourse ofthe investigation. Additionally, ifthe nonlawyeraskswho complained,
your namewill be provided. Further information may be found in the pamphlet "Filingan Unlicensed
PracticeofLawComplaint."
YourName:NeilJ. Gillespie Nonlawyer'sName:Yolanda I. Martinez
Address: 8092SW115thLoop Address: 225E. RobinsonSt., Suite660
City: Ocala State:Florida City: Orlando State:Florida
ZipCode:_-;::34=4=8=1===:::::;-____
Telephone:(j352-854-78071
ZipCode:
Telephone:(
32801
>1407-674-1660 C
DESCRIBEYOUR COMPLAINT, PROVIDEDATESANDFACTS OFALLEGED MISCONDUCTANDATTACH ACOPYOF
RELEVANTDOCUMENTS. YOUR COMPLAINTANDDOCUMENTSWILLBESCANNED. PLEASE LIMITCOMPLAINT
ANDATTACHMENTSTO 25PAGES. (UseaseparatesheetIfnecessary. Donotwriteonthebackofthisforml)
Pleaseseetheaccompanyingseparate23pagecomplaint, and 1page Indextoexhibits, 25pagestotalwiththisform.
ThisUPLcomplaintexhaustedTheFlorida Bar's25pagelimit.Thus, the52 pagesofExhibitsshownonthe Index
areavailableon request, oronlineasshown on thecomplaint.
Underpenaltyofperjury,IdeclarethatIhaveread ntandthattothebestofmyknowledge
andbeliefthefactsstatedin itaretrue.
RETURN TO THE FLORIDABAR
UPLDepartment
TheFlorida Bar
Suite2580
4200GeorgeJ. Bean Pkwy.
Tampa,FL 33607-1496
UPLDepartment
The Florida Bar
TheGatewayCenter
Suite1625
1000Legion Place
Orlando,FL32801-1050
UPLDepartment
TheFlorida Bar
LakeShorePlazaII
Suite130
1300ConcordTerrace
Sunrise,FL 33323
UPLDepartment
TheFlorida Bar
RivergatePlaza
SuiteM-100
444BrickellAvenue
Miami,FL 33131
UPLDepartment
TheFlorida Bar
651E. JeffersonSt.
Tallahassee,FL 32399-2300
J ohn F. Harkness, Executive Director Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar Florida Bar Orlando Branch Office
651 East J efferson Street 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 Orlando, Florida 32801-1050
Email: jharkness@flabar.org Email: N/A
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589F0392969709 VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP293587311
Lori Holcomb, UPL Counsel, Unlicensed Patricia M. Moring, Chair
Practice Of Law Standing Committee Fifth Circuit UPL Committee
The Florida Bar, 651 East J efferson Street Moring & Moring, P.A.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 7655 W. Gulf To Lake Hwy. Suite 12
Email: lholcomb@flabar.org Crystal River, Florida 34429-7910
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294475323 Email: pmoring@moringlaw.com
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291806499
December 1, 2013
UPL complaint against Yolanda I. Martinez, a non-lawyer paralegal employed by
McCalla Raymer, LLC, 225 E. Robinson St., Suite 660, Orlando, FL 32801.
Ms. Martinez is a paralegal to attorney Danielle Nicole Parsons, FL Bar ID 29364.
Note: The Florida Bar is investigating me for UPL for representing my interests in his
matter, the wrongful foreclosure of my homestead on a HECM reverse mortgage.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of The Florida Bar:
Enclosed please find my signed UPL complaint and form for Yolanda I. Martinez, a non-lawyer
paralegal employed by McCalla Raymer LLC, for the Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL).
Wet-ink signed documents were provided to Mr. Harkness. Copies were provided otherwise.
[Rule 2.515(c), Fla.R.J ud.Admin.].
Table of Contents
Section I. P. 2 Cases involved, foreclosure of a HECM reverse mortgage; SCOTUS
Section II. P. 3 Legal authority; UPL by a paralegal, federal offenses, judicial misconduct
Section III. P. 5 Professional paralegal background of Yolanda I. Martinez
Section IV. P. 6 Supervision of paralegal Martinez by attorney Danielle Nicole Parsons
Section V. P. 7 UPL of paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez in federal court
Section VI. P. 12 Fraud or impairment by Ms. Martinez/Ms. Parsons of federal case
Section VII. P. 13 Ex parte communication Ms. Martinez/Ms. Parsons, federal judicial officers
Section VIII. P. 14 UPL of paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez in state court
Section IX. P. 17 UPL investigation of Neil Gillespie for defending foreclosure of his home
Section X. P. 18 Mr. Rodems legal advice to Gillespie on foreclosure of reverse mortgage
Section XI. P. 20 Political persecution of Neil Gillespie by The Florida Bar et al.
Section XII. P. 21 U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings letter to FHFA, McCalla Raymer
Section XIII. P. 22 McCalla Raymer LLC, criminal enterprise for Atty. Gen. investigation
Section XIV. P. 22 Disability of Neil J . Gillespie, exploitation by McCalla Raymer/RMS
UPL complaint against paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez December 1, 2013
McCalla Raymer LLC, Orlando Florida Page - 2
Overview
Ms. Martinez is a paralegal to attorney Danielle Nicole Parsons, FL Bar ID 29364 who is also
employed by McCalla Raymer LLC. UPL of Ms. Martinez occurred while representing client
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. in cases involving the disputed foreclosure of my homestead
on a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage
1
or HECM, a FHA
2
reverse mortgage program
administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (HUD).
My name is Neil J . Gillespie, a law-abiding, indigent, 57 year-old disabled single man, a
surviving reverse mortgage borrower and homeowner reluctantly appearing pro se to save my
home in a 55+community in Ocala Florida from wrongful foreclosure.
Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel, opened a vexatious UPL investigation of me for defending
my interest in this foreclosure, on the complaint of attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, a partner
in the firm Barker, Rodems & Cook who formerly represented me. The UPL investigation of me
by The Florida Bar is political persecution that also includes U.S. J udge William Terrell Hodges,
and Florida attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo, in retaliation for my Petition No. 12-7747 to the
U.S. Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, better regulation of the legal profession.
U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings complained to the FHFA, the Federal Housing Finance
Administration, about fraud and misconduct by foreclosure mills, most of whom are Florida law
firms. McCalla Raymer LLC is named in the Congressmans letter to the FHFA. Unfortunately
the Florida Attorney General is not protecting Floridians from lawyers operating as criminals.
Section I. Cases involved, foreclosure of a HECM reverse mortgage; SCOTUS
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J . Gillespie, et al., Marion County Florida, Fifth
J udicial Circuit, No. 42-2013CA-000115-AXXX-XX, a.k.a. case no. 2013-CA-000115.
Presiding. Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil, Florida Circuit Court J udge, trial judge Marion Co.
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J . Gillespie, et al., removed February 4, 2013 to U.S.
District Court, Ocala Division, Middle District Florida, No. 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
Presiding. U.S. J udge William Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, trial judge Ocala Division
Presiding U.S. Magistrate J udge Philip R. Lammens, magistrate judge Ocala Division
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J . Gillespie, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, No. 13-11585-B.
This matter, inter alia, is before the Supreme Court of the United States, Petition No. 13-7280,
Neil J . Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. et al. The Florida Bar is a cross-party for

1
12 U.S.C. 1715z20 - Insurance of home equity conversion mortgages for elderly
homeowners, and 24 C.F.R. Part 206, Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance.
2
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is a United States government agency.
political persecution of me in retaliation for me seeking a First Amendment redress of grievances
in Petition No. 12-7747, and the case with Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. and Neil J . Gillespie
v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida et al, 5:11-cv-539-WTH-TBS in U.S. District Court, Ocala.
Petition No. 13-7280 alleges UPL by Ms. Martinez in the Table of Contents, and on page 34:
UPL by paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez, McCalla Raymer, Rule 10-2.1(a), Ethics Opinion
70-62, activity which requires the attorney's personal judgment and participation;
Florida Court, see emails Aug-07-2013 Gillespie-Martinez (Sep. Vol. App No. 2);
District Court, see Rule 11 sanction motion (Doc. 15); Rule 55 motion for default
judgment, (Doc. 16); Rule 72/Rule 60(b)(3) Verified Objection to Magistrate Order (Doc.
17); Affidavit 28 U.S.C. 144 (Doc. 22)
Section II. Legal authority; UPL by a paralegal, federal offenses, judicial misconduct
UPL by a nonlawyer paralegal is regulated by The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar,
Rules Governing Unlicensed Practice, and Ethics Opinion 70-62. (Exhibit 1)
Reference to Ethics Opinion 70-62 in a Florida Bar News article by Ghunise Coaxum,
Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update), February 15, 2004.
(Exhibit 2). I purchased the Florida Bar News article online from Amazon.com for $5.95.
(Exhibit 3). It is unclear whether this creates a conflict of interest for Mr. Coaxum and me.
Rule 102.1(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar defines a paralegal as a person who
works under the supervision of a member of The Florida Bar and who performs specifically
delegated substantive legal work for which a member of The Florida Bar is responsible. Only
persons who meet the definition may call themselves paralegals.
Professional Ethics of The Florida Bar
Ethics Opinion 70-62, February 12, 1971
Lay personnel may be used in a law office only to the extent that they are
delegated mechanical, clerical or administrative duties. The attorney may not
ethically delegate to a lay employee any activity which requires the attorney's
personal judgment and participation.
Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update)
Florida Bar News - February 15, 2004, by Ghunise Coaxum
Attorneys rely on paralegals and other nonlawyer office staff to perform various
activities. Generally, the activity may constitute the unlicensed practice of law if
it is something that requires the attorney's independent judgment and
participation, and it is performed by the paralegal. See, The Florida Bar Ethics
Opinion, 70-62.
Fraud or Impairment of a legitimate government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371
DOJ Criminal Resource Manual 923, paragraph 1
18 U.S.C. 371Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more
persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the
United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added).
See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137,
379-406 (1995)(generally discussing 371).
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm
925 Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Government Activity
1739 Offenses Related to Obstruction of J ustice Offenses
Deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242
DOJ Summary. Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color
of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php
Conspiracy against rights, 18 U.S.C. 241.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in
any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with
intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so
secured
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if
death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
Letter May 28, 2013 from U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and six pages of information on
making a complaint under the J udicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 351-
364 ("Act"). (Exhibit 10). From page 13 of Petition No. 13-7280:
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson provided in his letter to me May 28, 2013 information on how
to make a complaint of judicial misconduct
3
. I believe the success rate is about zero for a
pro se litigant who makes a complaint of judicial misconduct, regardless of the
complaints merits.
Also, I am not familiar enough with the federal complaint process to make a judicial complaint. I
do not have time to stop and learn the process now. I am trying to save my home from wrongful
foreclosure. J udicial complaints, like Bar complaints, do not provide the complainant with any
useful relief. If time allows later, I may make a complaint then, if needed.
Section III. Professional paralegal background of Yolanda I. Martinez
It does not appear that Ms. Martinez is a Florida Registered Paralegal, Rule 20-2.1(b), and I
cannot locate a Florida Bar directory page for her.
Linked-In shows a listing for Yolanda Martinez of McCalla Raymer Orlando Florida. A print-out
of the Linked-In webpage appears at Exhibit 4. This is a brief summation of the information.
Yolanda Martinezs Overview
Current: Paralegal at McCalla Raymer
Past: Litigation Paralegal at Katzman Garfinkel & Berger
Paralegal at South, Millhausen
Legal Assistant at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Education: J uly 2009: Kaplan University
Kaplan University
Yolanda Martinezs Summary
Experienced Litigation Paralegal - with vast knowledge of civil litigation, trial preparation;
experience in Media Law, Federal Laws, Contract, Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, ability
to draft pleadings; perform legal research; communicate well with clients; perform investigation
and ability to read, speak and write in Spanish

3
Filing a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Judicial Disability Against A Federal Judge. The
process is governed by the J udicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 351-364
(Act), and Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, 248 F.R.D. 674
(2008)
The signature block on email of Yolanda I. Martinez shows:
Paralegal to: Danielle N. Parsons |
MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC
225 E. Robinson St., Ste 660
Orlando, FL 32801
Direct Dial: (407) 674-1660
Danielle Parsons Direct Dial (407) 674-1657
Fax: (321) 248-0420
Email: yolanda.martinez@mccallaraymer.com
Designated Primary Email For Service
Pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin 2.516
mrservice@mccallaraymer.com
Section IV Supervision of paralegal Martinez by attorney Danielle Nicole Parsons
A member of The Florida Bar is responsible for the work of a paralegal. This complaint of UPL
against Ms. Martinez shows misconduct for the responsible attorney, Danielle Nicole Parsons.
Rules Governing Unlicensed Practice, 10-2 Definitions
Rule 10-2.1. Generally
(b) Paralegal or Legal Assistant. A paralegal or legal assistant is a person qualified by
education, training, or work experience, who works under the supervision of a member of
The Florida Bar and who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for
which a member of The Florida Bar is responsible. A nonlawyer or a group of
nonlawyers may not offer legal services directly to the public by employing a lawyer to
provide the lawyer supervision required under this rule. It shall constitute the unlicensed
practice of law for a person who does not meet the definition of paralegal or legal
assistant to use the title paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term in offering to
provide or in providing services directly to the public.
Therefore I take that to mean a separate Bar complaint is required for Ms. Parsons. Florida Bar
directory listing information for Ms. Parsons.
Danielle Nicole Parsons, ID Number: 29364
225 E Robinson St. Ste 660
Orlando, Florida 32801-4321
Phone: 407.674.1850
Fax: 321.248.0420
E-Mail: mrservice@mccallaraymer.com
Section V UPL of paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez in federal court
Pleadings showing UPL, or related to Unlicensed Practice of Law, by Ms. Martinez:
Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions Danielle N. Parsons McCalla Raymer, LLC
Document 15, filed February 26, 2013
Rule 55 Motion For Default J udgment, Document 16, filed February 26, 2013
Rule 72/Rule 60 Verified Objection, Motion For Relief, Magistrate J udges Order (Doc.
12) Document 17, filed March 5, 2013
Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, 28 U.S.C. 144, Document 22, filed April 8, 2013.
My Rule 11 Motion shows Ms. Martinez engaged in UPL by email Thursday, February 21,
2013 2:52 PM as held in Ethics Opinion 70-62 when she engaged in activity which requires
the attorney's personal judgment and participation. [Ethics Opinion 70-62]
Specially, Ms. Martinez:
1. Conducted with me by email a conference pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), M.D. FL
2. During the Rule 3.01(g) conference, Ms. Martinez knowingly misrepresented to me by
email the legal date Plaintiffs response to my Motion to Dismiss was due:
Our response to your Motion to Dismiss is due today per the Federal Court Rules
and at this time we are requesting an extension of time to file a reply to the
Motion to Dismiss of 20 days or on or before March 13, 2013.
The email of Ms. Martinez appears at Exhibit A to my Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions.
(Doc. 15). The email of Ms. Martinez accompanies this UPL complaint as Exhibit 5.
Local Rule 3.01(g):
(g) Before filing any motion in a civil case, except a motion for injunctive relief, for
judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or to permit maintenance
of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
or to involuntarily dismiss an action, the moving party shall confer with counsel for the
opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion, and shall
file with the motion a statement (1) certifying that the moving counsel has conferred with
opposing counsel and (2) stating whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion.
A certification to the effect that opposing counsel was unavailable for a conference
before filing a motion is insufficient to satisfy the parties obligation to confer. The
moving party retains the duty to contact opposing counsel expeditiously after filing and
to supplement the motion promptly with a statement certifying whether or to what extent
the parties have resolved the issue(s) presented in the motion. If the interested parties
agree to all or part of the relief sought in any motion, the caption of the motion shall
include the word unopposed, agreed, or stipulated or otherwise succinctly inform
the reader that, as to all or part of the requested relief, no opposition exists.
Ms. Martinez engaged in UPL because a Rule 3.01(g) conference is activity which requires the
attorney's personal judgment and participation. Furthermore, Rule 3.01(g) does not provide for
a conference with an unrepresented nonlawyer party. I am not a lawyer, and am not subject to the
plain language of the local rule, which specifies opposing counsel or counsel.
Plaintiffs counsel Ms. Parsons did not respond to any of my Rule 3.01(g) attempts to confer, and
I noted her failure in the three pleadings above.
Ms. Martinez further engaged in UPL by purporting to determine a legal deadline to respond to
my motion to dismiss under Federal Court Rules; Ms. Martinez knew the information she
provided was wrong, and provided with a corrupt purpose. Notwithstanding the knowing
falsehood with malice aforethought about the deadline, she waited until 1 hour and 8 minutes
before the Court closed at 4:00 PM. This is not a good faith effort under Rule 301(g).
My Rule 55 Motion For Default J udgment, Document 16, filed February 26, 2013, shows:
1. Rule 55(a), F.R.C.P., Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is
shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default. In this case the
Plaintiff failed to respond within 14 days (Rule 12(a)(4)) to Gillespies motion to dismiss
filed February 4, 2013. The time for default was February 19, 2013
4
. The Plaintiff has
defaulted and Gillespie is entitled to a Default J udgment.
2. Gillespie filed contemporaneously with this motion a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions
against Plaintiffs Counsel Danielle N. Parsons and the law firm McCalla Raymer, LLC.
The motion shows that Ms. Parsons mislead the Court and Gillespie in her Agreed
Motion For Extension of Time (Doc. 11). Ms. Parsons and her staff also misled
Gillespie regarding the good-faith conference pursuant to Middle District Local Rule
3.01(g). Gillespie respectfully incorporates his Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions into this
Rule 55 Motion for Default J udgment.
3. In reliance upon Ms. Parsons misrepresentations, this Court entered an Order (Doc.
12). Unfortunately, due to Ms. Parsons misrepresentations to the Court in her Agreed
Motion For Extension of Time (Doc. 11), the Order should rescind the Order. (Doc. 12).
My Rule 72/Rule 60 Verified Objection, Motion For Relief, Magistrate J udges Order (Doc.
12) Document 17, filed March 5, 2013.
Appearing pro se, Defendants, NEIL J . GILLESPIE, and NEIL J . GILLESPIE CO-

4
The Court was closed Monday February 18, 2013 for Presidents Day, the actual due date.
TRUSTEE, (herein after Gillespie) hereby make a verified objection under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72 to the Magistrate J udges Order (Doc. 12) entered February 22, 2013. In addition to
and in the alternative to the relief sought above, Gillespie moves under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3) for relief from the Magistrate J udges Order (Doc. 12) entered February 22,
2013, and states:
1. Magistrate J udge Philip R. Lammens entered an Order (Doc. 12) February 22, 2013
granting the Plaintiff relief based on Ms. Parsons Agreed Motion For Extension of
Time filed the previous day February 21, 2013 (Doc. 11). Unfortunately Ms. Parsons
motion was a fraud on the Court wherein she made false statements and material
misrepresentations, and engaged in misconduct, set forth in Gillespies Rule 11 Motion
For Sanctions Against Danielle N. Parsons and McCalla Raymer, LLC (Doc. 15).
Gillespies Rule 11 motion shows Ms. Parsons missed a deadline to file a response to
Gillespies Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5), and engaged in fraud, misrepresentation and
misconduct to secure an extension to file a response, when in fact the Plaintiff defaulted
and Gillespie was entitled to a Default J udgment. (Doc. 16). Gillespie moved for Default
J udgment February 26, 2013. (Doc. 16).
2. Ms. Parsons made a number of false statements and material misrepresentations to the
Court in her motion (Doc. 11) intended to mislead the Court and federal judge(s) for the
purpose of advantage to: A. Cover-up Counsels incompetence and lack of diligence for
not timely filing a response to the motion to dismiss, a response due February 19, 2013.
(Rule 12(a)(4)); and B. Trick Gillespie into believing Plaintiffs response was due J anuary
21, 2013, when otherwise he could move for Default J udgment. (Rule 55). (Doc. 15, 8).
3. Gillespie respectfully incorporates into this pleading the following related pleadings he
previously submitted to the Court, including:
Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions Against Danielle N. Parsons And McCalla
Raymer, LLC (Doc. 15), filed February 26, 2013
Objections To Magistrate J udge Philip R. Lammens Report and
Recommendation, filed March 4, 2013.
4. Ms. Parsons made several material representations to the Court in her Certification
Pursuant To Middle District Local Rule 3.01(g) (Doc. 11) that stated:
Counsel for Plaintiff hereby advises this Honorable Court that it has attempted in
good faith to confer with pro se Defendant, Neil Gillespie via electronic mail as
this is the only form of communication we have. Counsel sent an email to Mr.
Gillespie advising him that we were in need of an extension. Defendant, Neil
Gillespie, has agreed to the within request for an extension of time.
First, Counsel did not contact Gillespie at any time to confer in good faith as required
by Local Rule 3.01(g). Ms. Parsons misled the Court when she wrote electronic mail is
the only form of communication we have. Gillespies home telephone number is
provided on all his pleadings, on his Florida Rule 2.516 notice in state court, and is listed
on the Courts civil docket along with his home address. Ms. Parsons further lied to the
Court when she wrote Counsel sent an email to Mr. Gillespie advising him that we were
in need of an extension. Ms. Parsons did not send Gillespie an email advising that she
was in need of an extension. Instead, Yolanda I. Martinez, paralegal to Ms. Parsons,
contacted Gillespie by email February 21, 2013 at 2.52 PM for the purpose of misleading
Gillespie about the extension: (Doc. 15., 9). (Exhibit A).
Unfortunately Ms. Martinez misrepresented to Gillespie in her email that Our
response to your Motion to Dismiss is due today per the Federal Court Rules...
The statement of Ms. Martinez is false. The Plaintiffs response was due two days
earlier, February 19, 2013. The false statement made in connection with the Local
Rule 3.01(g) was not made in good faith as required, and denied Gillespie
informed consent in which to respond.
of 47 PageID 86
a response was due to the Motion to Dismiss on J anuary 19, 2013
5
, a date certain and no
other date. Accordingly the Plaintiff is in default and Gillespie is entitled to a Default
J udgment.
7. Gillespie agreed to extend the time for Ms. Parsons to file a response, but that was
based on a false statement by Plaintiffs Counsel [through paralegal Ms. Martinez].

5
The Court was closed Monday February 18, 2013 for Presidents Day, the actual due date.
Gillespie did not agree to Counsel making false statements or representations during the
good-faith conference required by Local Rule 3.01(g), and/or filing a false record of
events with the Court, which appears calculated to:
A. Cover-up Counsels incompetence and lack of diligence for not timely filing a
response to the motion to dismiss, a response due February 19, 2013. (Rule
12(a)(4))
B. Trick Gillespie into believing Plaintiffs response was due J anuary 21, 2013,
when otherwise he could move for Default J udgment. (Rule 55).
prejudiced by the granting of this extension of time. (Doc. 11, 5). Ms. Parsons
statement is false. Gillespie is prejudiced because he is entitled to a Default J udgment.
Gillespie moved for Default J udgment February 26, 2013. (Doc. 16).
14. Gillespie requested in his Notice of Removal (Doc. 1, p 4, 16) that any rulings made
by a U.S. Magistrate J udge be in conformity with the Report and Recommendation
format. The subject Order (Doc. 12) was not made in a Report and Recommendation
format.
My Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, 28 U.S.C. 144, Document 22, filed April 8, 2013, shows:
13. U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings wrote February 25, 2011 to Inspector General
Linick of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) asking that he initiate an
investigation into widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms
hired to process foreclosures as part of the "Retained Attorney Network" established by
Fannie Mae.
14. The Plaintiff in this case is represented by McCalla Raymer, LLC. The letter of Rep.
Cummings complains about McCalla Raymer, LLC by name:
Another firm in the Retained Attorney Network, McCalla Raymer, L.L.C., is a
defendant in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintiffs allege that it engaged in
fraud, racketeering, and the manufacture of fraudulent foreclosure documents.
Reportedly, this firm established operations in Florida under the name Stone,
McGehee & Silver and hired ten former Stern law firm employees. The firm
Stone, McGehee and Silver, LLC, dba McCalla Raymer currently appears as a
"Designated Counsel/Trustee" in Florida for Freddie Mac.
15. Unfortunately McCalla Raymer, LLC is now doing business in Florida under its own
name in Orlando Florida. I have personal knowledge of this firms misconduct in this case.
16. On February 26, 2013 I filed a Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions Against Danielle N.
Parsons And McCalle Raymer, LLC (Doc 15). The Court has not ruled on my motion.
17. On February 26, 2013 I filed a Rule 55 Motion For Default J udgment (Doc. 16.)
The Court has not ruled on my motion.
18. On March 5, 2013 I filed a Verified Objection To, And Motion For Relief From, A
Magistrate J udges Order (Doc. 12) under Fed. R. Civ. P 72, and Rule 60(b)(3). The
Court has not ruled on my motion.
25. [relevant portion only] [Note: Ms. Parsons of McCalla Raymer, LLC filed a
fraudulent civil cover sheet in the state court foreclosure of the subject mortgage.]
25. (number 25 repeated by mistake in the pleading)Unfortunately, I do not believe I can
get a fair hearing in any Florida state or federal court due to the corrupting power and
influence of The Florida Bar set forth in Petition 12-7747.
Section VI Fraud or impairment by Ms. Martinez/Ms. Parsons of the federal case
Evidence shows Yolanda I. Martinez, Danielle N. Parsons, and McCalla Raymer, LLC, engaged
in fraud or impairment of case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
My Rule 11 Motion shows Ms. Martinez emailed me Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 2:52.
Ms. Martinez knowingly misrepresented to me by email the legal date Plaintiffs response to my
Motion to Dismiss was due:
Our response to your Motion to Dismiss is due today per the Federal Court Rules
and at this time we are requesting an extension of time to file a reply to the
Motion to Dismiss of 20 days or on or before March 13, 2013.
The email of Ms. Martinez appears at Exhibit A to my Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions. (Doc. 15).
The email of Ms. Martinez accompanies this UPL complaint as Exhibit 5.
of 47 PageID 86
a response was due to the Motion to Dismiss on J anuary 19, 2013[fn2], a date certain and
no other date. Accordingly the Plaintiff is in default and Gillespie is entitled to a Default
J udgment. [fn2] The Court was closed Monday February 18, 2013 for Presidents Day,
the actual due date.
prejudiced by the granting of this extension of time. Ms. Parsons statement is false.
Gillespie is prejudiced because he is entitled to a Default J udgment....
My Rule 55 Motion For Default J udgment, Document 16, filed February 26, 2013, shows the
Plaintiff defaulted and I am entitled to a Default J udgment.
Section VII Ex parte communication Ms. Martinez/Ms. Parsons, federal judicial officers
Evidence shows Ms. Martinez and Ms. Parsons, thru McCalla Raymers email service, engaged
in ex parte communication with U.S. J udge Hodges and U.S. Magistrate J udge Lammens.
The Order (Doc. 12) entered February 22, 2013 by U.S. Magistrate J udge Lammens arrived by
U.S. Mail first class to me with additional papers that show email communication between the
Court and Yolanda I. Martinez at yim@mccallaraymer.com. This is unusual because the Court
did not communicate by email with Tiffany Caparas of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC,
counsel of record for Mark Gillespie et al. [compare, yolanda.martinez@mccallaraymer.com]
Tellingly the Court did not use MaCalla Raymers designated primary email for service pursuant
to Fla. R. J ud. Admin 2.516, mrservice@mccallaraymer.com (see Exhibit 14, McGough email)
The Court shows this information on a paper sent to me. (Exhibit 6).
5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: Danielle N. Parsons
dnp@mccallaraymer.com, yim@mccallaraymer.com
The signature block of Ms. Martinezs email shows yolanda.martinez@mccallaraymer.com, but
yim@mccallaraymer.com appears in the caption section of email of Ms. Martinez.
Tellingly the Court did not send email to Tiffany Caparas of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC,
counsel of record. Instead Ms. Caparas was provided notice delivered by other means. I got the
notice [the Order Doc. 12] delivered by other means, by US Mail first class. (Exhibit 6).
Tellingly Magistrate Lammens entered the Order (Doc. 12) on Plaintiffs motion the next day.
The Order (Doc. 12) was entered February 22, 2013 but was not mailed to me until February 25,
2013 according to the Courts postage meter imprint. Unfortunately the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida has a discriminatory pro se policy that prohibits e-filing and access
to the Courts CM/ECF system for pro se litigants, consumers of legal and court services
affecting interstate commerce. My motion has been pending since February 6, 2013 for
authorization to file electronically (Doc. 7), so that I may access legal and court services in this
action in an effective and expeditious manner, as provided by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and Constitution and laws of the state of Florida.
I requested in my Notice of Removal (Doc. 1, p 4, 16) that any rulings made by a U.S.
Magistrate J udge be in conformity with the Report and Recommendation format. The subject
Order (Doc. 12) was not made in conformity the Report and Recommendation format.
The above email scenario was repeated in the following decisions by the Court:
Order Remanding Case (Doc. 19) by US J udge Hodges, March 7, 2013:
J udgment in a Civil Case (Doc. 20) by Clerk Sheryl L Loesch March 11, 2013,
Order (Doc. 24) by US J udge Hodges, April 12, 2013 (denied inter alia my affidavit 28 USC 144)
Section VIII UPL of paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez in state court
Yolanda I. Martinez engaged in UPL by email on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 when she
Opinion 70-62]. Specifically Ms. Martinez provided me legal advice on the meaning of an Order
entered J uly 25, 2013 by the U.S. Eleventh Circuit in Appeal Number: 13-11585-B.
Ms. Martinezs UPL began with her email to me August 07, 2013 1:44 PM: (Exhibit 7).
Case No.: 2013-CA-000115
Mr. Gillespie:
We would like to set a hearing on your Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint before
the Honorable Hale R. Stancil. In that regard I have contacted the J udge's J udicial
Assistant and she has provided me with the following available dates and times for
the hearing:
Tuesday, September 3, 2013 between the hours of 1-5
Friday, September 6, 2013 between the hours of 1-5
We would like to secure a 15 minute hearing time during those hours. Kindly let me
know which date and time works best for you so that I can contact the judge and
secure our hearing time.
Thank you.
I responded to Ms. Martinez by email August 07, 2013 4:07 PM. (Exhibit 8).
Dear Ms. Martinez:
Appeals rules on my petition for mandamus relief. Attached is my letter to the court,
served yesterday to Ms. Parsons at mrservice@mccallaraymer.com Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
(352) 854-7807.
I provided my responsive email to Ms. Martinez, and to the following persons by email,
including the trial judge, the Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil:
"Yolanda Martinez" <yim@mccallaraymer.com>;
<TCaparas@kelattorneys.com>;
"Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil" <hstancil@circuit5.org>;
"J ane Bond" <jane.bond@mccallaraymer.com>;
"Robyn Katz" <rrk@mccallaraymer.com>;
"Curtis Wilson" <Caw@McCallaRaymer.com>
Cc: "Danielle Parsons" <dnp@mccallaraymer.com>;
"Mark Gillespie" <mark.gillespie@att.net>;
"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Ms. Martinez responded to me by email August 07, 2013 4:18 PM. (Exhibit 9).
Mr. Gillespie:
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rendered its decision and has denied your Motion
for Reconsideration as you can see from the attached Order. In that regard, kindly advise
as to your availability for a hearing in the Circuit court.
Thank you.
The legal interpretation of the Order Ms. Martinez provided me by email was UPL because she
Opinion 70-62]. In addition Ms. Martinez provided false and misleading information about the
Order entered J uly 25, 2013 by the U.S. Eleventh Circuit in Appeal Number: 13-11585-B.
I responded to Ms. Martinez by email August 07, 2013 4:50 PM: (Exhibit 10).
Dear Ms. Martinez:
Appeals rules on my petition for mandamus relief.
Unfortunately you are not reading the order properly. Kindly consult with an attorney at
your firm. The decision entered allows a separate petition for mandamus relief. The U.S.
Eleventh Circuit entered a favorable Order J uly 25, 2013 that states in relevant part:
"Should Gillespie wish to petition for mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition for
a writ of mandamus or prohibition with this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1651;
Fed.R.App.P.21".
This was the only option the court had, which is why it denied the motion to reconsider a
remand for lack of jurisdiction, but offered mandamus relief. Corporate Mgmt. Advisors,
Inc. 561 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009) held the failure to allege facts sufficient to
establish subject matter jurisdiction in a notice of removal is a defect in the removal
procedure, and consequently, the district court cannot sua sponte remand a case to state
court on that ground.
A writ of mandamus is the proper means by which a party may challenge a remand order.
Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 352-53, 96 S.Ct. 584, 593-94,
46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976). A remand order based on subject matter jurisdiction is not
reviewable by appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1447(d). But such remand order entered sua sponte is
a defect in the removal process within the meaning of 1447(c), and may be challenged
by writ of mandamus. New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th
Cir. 1997).
In the past you and Ms. Parsons disrupted the tribunal in federal district court, and I hope
that does not happen again. Your misconduct is shown in the following pleadings in US
District Court, Middle District, Florida, Ocala Division, 5:13-cv-58-oc-WTH-PRL
Rule 11 sanction motion, Ms. Parsons, McCalla Raymer (Doc. 15)
Gillespie default motion, Rule 55 (Doc. 16)
Gillespie Verified Objection to Magistrate Order Doc. 12 (Doc. 17)
Unfortunately you and Ms. Parsons appear to have engaged in misconduct with the either
US J udge Hodges or Magistrate J udge Lammens. I alerted federal authorities. Attached
you will find a letter from U.S. Senator Bill Nelson instructing me on how to make a
formal complaint under the J udicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C.
351-364.
So, I object to any hearings in state court until the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
rules on my petition for mandamus relief, which is allowed in the order you attached.
However you, Ms. Parsons and foreclosure mill McCalla Raymer are free to do whatever
you like, subject to law.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
(352) 854-7807.
I did not hear back from Ms. Martinez or Ms. Parsons. No hearing was set in state court. The
email was sent to the following persons, including J udge Stancil:
"Yolanda Martinez" <yim@mccallaraymer.com>;
<TCaparas@kelattorneys.com>;
"Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil" <hstancil@circuit5.org>;
"J ane Bond" <jane.bond@mccallaraymer.com>;
"Robyn Katz" <rrk@mccallaraymer.com>;
"Curtis Wilson" <Caw@McCallaRaymer.com>
Cc: "Danielle Parsons" <dnp@mccallaraymer.com>;
"Mark Gillespie" <mark.gillespie@att.net>;
"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
The email included attachments, a one-page letter May 28, 2013 from U.S. Senator Bill Nelson
of Florida, and six pages of information on making a complaint under the J udicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 351-364 ("Act").
After the Eleventh Circuit Order was entered J uly 25, 2013, the Clerk provided instructions on
making a petition for writ of certiorari in forma pauperis to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was
filed October 23, 2013 as Petition No. 13-7280. Ultimately I chose that option over the C.A.11.
Section IX UPL investigation of Neil Gillespie for defending foreclosure of his home
The Florida Bar is wrongly investigating me for UPL for representing my interests in this
foreclosure, initiated on a complaint by Ryan Christopher Rodems. See the Unlicensed Practice
of Law Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5), provided to me May 14, 2013
by letter of Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel. (Doc. 29, case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL).
Ryan Christopher Rodems is a partner in Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and former counsel for
Neil J . Gillespie in the same or substantially similar matter as the prior representation, and a
number of other matters, contrary to McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., etc., and Bar Rules:
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest.
This matter, inter alia, is before the Supreme Court of the United States, Petition No. 13-7280,
Neil J . Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. et al. The Florida Bar is a cross-party.
U.S. Supreme Court review is discretionary, and less than 100 of the approximately 10,000
petitions filed are granted certiorari per Term. Denial is not a judgment on the merits of a case.
As set forth in Petition No. 13-7280, page 34: (Exhibit 13)
Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me appears in this petition at Appendix L and alleges:
Neil J . Gillespie is not a lawyer. He has...represented a Trust in state and federal court
litigation, and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie...
I am not a lawyer. I appear pro se because I am indigent and financially unable to obtain counsel.
I deny Mr. Rodems allegation that I represented a Trust in state and federal court litigation,
and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie... I represent only my
personal interest for myself, and my personal interest as co-trustee, as permitted by law:
First Amendment right to petition the Governmental for a redress of grievances.
28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 17 capacity (a) real interest (1) own name (E) trustee of express trust
Fla Const, Art I, Sec 21: Access to courts. The courts shall be open to every person for
redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Florida Statutes, 454.18, any person, whether an attorney or not . . . may conduct
his or her own cause in any court of this state.
Fla. Prob. Rule 5.030(a) Exception, see Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy. I appear for my
own interest in the Estate. No one was appointed personal representative of the
Estate by Court Order. The last will and testament of my Mother names Mark
Gillespie personal representative and me as substitute personal representative.
Mark Gillespie, et al, represented in foreclosure by Tiffany Caparas Esq., Kaufman,
Englett and Lynd, PLLC; Notice of Consent to J udgment filed in 42-2013CA-000115
because they have no interest in the property. I only represent my interest in the trust.
Pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard, see Tannenbaum v. United States.
The Courts failed to make a counsel appoint for me on basis of mental, physical and
speech disability. I plan to make a new motion for counsel appointment ASAP.
Order of J udge Cook attached to Rodems UPL complaint is a sham. see U.S. v Terry
The ICCPR provides me additional rights to represent my own interest in a fair court.
I was a client of FLSMF and got legal advice on the foreclosure, no advice of UPL.
CLSMF - correction
The Notice of Defendants Consent to J udgment filed in 42-2013CA-000115 by Kaufman,
Englett and Lynd, PLLC for Mark Gillespie, et al. appears at Exhibit 12.
Section X Mr. Rodems legal advice to Gillespie on foreclosure of reverse mortgage
Mr. Rodems provided me legal advice about this HECM reverse mortgage on J une 21, 2011
during his deposition of me in Gillespie v Barker Rodems & Cook, case 05-CA-7205, while I
was held coercive custody at the Hillsborough Courthouse.
On J une 1, 2011 Mr. Rodems corruptly got a civil bodily attachment arrest order issued to
depose me after case 05-CA-7205 closed and was on appeal in 2D10-5197. It was part of a
RICO racketeering scheme to force a coercive confinement settlement of my federal claims in
5:10-cv-503, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida et al, U.S.D.C. M.D.Fla. Ocala Div.,
as described in my Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify Order in Appeal No. 12-11028-B in
the U.S. Eleventh Circuit found on PACER and posted on Scribed (3,157 views as of today):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95369974/Motion-to-Reconsider-RICO-C-A-11-12-11028-B
Prior to providing me legal advice, Mr. Rodems read the all the mortgage documents, and did not
advise me of UPL if I represented myself. Rodems also read The Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement Dated February 10, 1997. Note: Mr. Rodems has lied so much about the Trust, that I
made it public as filed with my affidavit of indigency in case 5:11-cv-00539 (Doc 3) on PACER:
Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Document 3 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 37 PageID 76
Here are sections from the transcript of the deposition where Mr. Rodems voluntarily provided
me legal advice but failed to inform me that appearing pro se to defend the foreclosure would
subject me to an investigation for UPL by The Florida Bar. (made on his UPL complaint).
Page 107
16 [ Mr . Rodems] Q Okay. Let ' s go t hr ough t he i t ems t hat I
17 have r equest ed i n t he deposi t i on. The f i r st i t em
18 was t he t r ust and al l amendment s, modi f i cat i ons or
19 changes. You' ve pr ovi ded me wi t h a document whi ch
20 i s Exhi bi t 4. I s i t your t est i mony t hat t hi s i s a
21 copy of t he t r ust dat ed Febr uar y 10t h, 1997 and al l
22 amendment s or modi f i cat i ons or changes?
23 [ Mr . Gi l l espi e] A Let me t ake a qui ck l ook at i t .
24 [ Mr . Rodems] Q Yes, si r .
25 [ Mr . Gi l l espi e] A Yes, uh- huh.
Page 112
9 [ Mr . Rodems] Q Okay. I f I r ead t hi s cor r ect l y, Mr .
10 Gi l l espi e, t he bor r ower f or t hi s r ever se mor t gage
11 was Penel ope M. Gi l l espi e, Nei l J . Gi l l espi e, and
12 Mar k Gi l l espi e as co- t r ust ees of t he Gi l l espi e
13 Fami l y Li vi ng Tr ust , an agr eement dat ed Febr uar y 10,
14 1997. Cor r ect ?
15 [ Mr . Gi l l espi e] A That ' s one way t o r ead i t . Bank of
16 Amer i ca doesn' t agr ee wi t h t hat .
17 [ Mr . Rodems] Q And I ' l l r ead t he accel er at i on cl ause
18 about when t he debt becomes due. " The Lender may
19 r equi r e i mmedi at e payment i n f ul l of al l sums
20 secur ed by t he secur i t y i nt er est i f a bor r ower di es
21 and t he pr oper t y i s not t he pr i nci pal r esi dence of
22 at l east one sur vi vi ng bor r ower . "
Page 113
8 BY MR. RODEMS:
9 Q Wel l , I guess t hat ' s an i ssue bet ween
10 Bank of Amer i ca and al l of you f ol ks, but i t sur e
11 does appear t o me t hat you' r e a bor r ower and you' r e
12 st i l l l i vi ng t her e, and t her e i s no accel er at i on of
13 t he debt . I s t hat your under st andi ng, Mr .
14 Gi l l espi e?
15 A That ' s what I ' ve been t ol d.
Section XI Political persecution of Neil Gillespie by The Florida Bar et al.
On October 25, 2013 I made an urgent appeal to the United Nations for protection from political
persecution. I am being persecuted by The Florida Bar, U.S. J udge William Terrell Hodges, and
Florida attorneys Ryan Christopher Rodems and Eugene P. Castagliuolo, in retaliation for
petitioning for a redress of grievances in Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court. http://www.scribd.com/doc/179178461/
Unfortunately Petition No. 12-7747 was compromised by fraud of the Respondents. Specific
examples of current and ongoing political persecution of me include:
1. The Florida Bar for an open investigation of me for Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL).
2. Mr. Rodems made the UPL complaint against me for representing myself and my interests.
3. J udge Hodges corruptly assisted McCalla Raymer in a wrongfully foreclosure of my home.
4. Mr. Castagliuolo ongoing threats to interfere with my Social Security disability income.
Petition No. 12-7747 was denied February 19, 2013. Rehearing was denied April 15, 2013.
Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie: Fraud or Impairment of Petition No. 12-7747
http://www.scribd.com/doc/178751175/
In May 2013 Diana R. Esposito, Florida Chief-Assistant Attorney General, provided me
incriminating public records showing Respondent David A. Rowland, General Counsel for
Respondent Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, concocted with others a fraud to falsely portray
to Kenneth Wilson, Florida Assistant Attorney General, that I did not serve Mr. Rowland my
petition as I certified under Supreme Court Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he relied on Rowlands
fraud, and did not submit a brief in opposition due the Supreme Court J anuary 14, 2013.
Without a response, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi denied me due process under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. The U.S. Supreme Court relies on opposition briefs as part of its
adversarial process to properly litigate and decide a petition. Floridas opposition brief was due
J anuary 14, 2013. AG Bondi did not respond for Florida, thus no opposition brief was distributed
for the Supreme Courts Conference February 15, 2013.
Persecution of me by U.S. J udge William Terrell Hodges
J udge Hodges made unlawful rulings to benefit the Plaintiff in a foreclosure action on my home.
Yolanda Martinez, a paralegal to Plaintiffs counsel Danielle Parsons of McCalla Raymer, LLC,
engaged in the Unlicensed Practice of Law in furtherance of a scheme to take my home by fraud,
see my Rule 11 sanction motion (Doc. 15), my Rule 55 default motion (Doc. 16), and my
verified objection to magistrate order Doc. 12 (Doc. 17) in case 5:13-cv-58-oc-WTH-PRL.
J udge Hodges is a shareholder in Bank of America, the real party Plaintiff, but failed to recuse as
required by 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4) for his financial interest Bank of America. J udge Hodges then
ignored my 48 page affidavit for bias or prejudice, 28 U.S.C. 144, filed April 8, 2013 (Doc 22).
Tellingly J udge Hodges entered an order (Doc. 24) that wrongly denied under 144 his own
disqualification, and thus wrongly denied my Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment.
J udge Hodges will not acknowledge certain federal laws of the United States, specifically the
DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. Chapter 53), or the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB, 12 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Subchapter V) in orders
responsive to my pleadings in a contested HECM reverse mortgage foreclosure by Reverse
Mortgage Solutions, Inc. for Bank of America, the real party Plaintiff.
On March 15, 2013 I wrote to U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts about J udge
Hodges misconduct. Sen. Warren helped create and pass the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act and the CFPB. J udge Hodges wrongly remanded the foreclosure
back to state court, which I appealed. U.S. Eleventh Circuit, Appeal No. 13-11585-B.
Section XII U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings letter to FHFA; McCalla Raymer
U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings wrote February 25, 2011 to Inspector General Steve A.
Linick of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) asking that he initiate an investigation into
widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms hired to process foreclosures
as part of the "Retained Attorney Network" established by Fannie Mae. Homeowners will get
abused by attorneys, paralegals and foreclosure mills like I got abused by McCalla Raymer LLC
while defending my HECM foreclosure. Rep. Cummings cited McCalla Raymer, LLC by name:
Another firm in the Retained Attorney Network, McCalla Raymer, L.L.C., is a
defendant in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintiffs allege that it engaged in fraud,
racketeering, and the manufacture of fraudulent foreclosure documents. Reportedly, this
firm established operations in Florida under the name Stone, McGehee & Silver and
hired ten former Stern law firm employees. The firm Stone, McGehee and Silver, LLC,
dba McCalla Raymer currently appears as a "Designated Counsel/Trustee" in Florida for
Freddie Mac.
U.S. Congressman Cummings six-page letter appears at Exhibit 11.
McCalla Raymer, LLC was also sued in the following federal lawsuits of which I am aware:
Muradas et al v. M&T Bank, RMS, 0.13-cv-60178-RSR
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 1.13-cv-20035
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
J enkins et al v. McCalla Raymer, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-03732-CAP
U.S. District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Marcia Moore v McCalla Raymer, LLC, 1:12-CV-1714-TWT
Thompson-El v. Bank of America, et al, case no. 1:12-CV-840-TWT
This list is not exhaustive, and I do not know the current status of these lawsuits. In the state
court action I alleged wrongdoing by Ms. Parsons (Doc. 5, 17-20) and perjury by Debbie
Sims, RMS vice president in her verification, see motion to dismiss (Doc. 5, 157-158).
Section XIII McCalla Raymer LLC, criminal enterprise for Atty. Gen. investigation
On information and belief, McCalla Raymer LLC operates as criminal enterprise and this is an
appropriate matter for the Attorney General of Florida to investigate and prosecute.
Section XIV Disability of Neil J. Gillespie, exploitation by McCalla Raymer/RMS
I am a disabled adult as defined by the following:
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq.
Section 825.101(4), Florida Statutes, Abuse and Exploitation of Disabled Adults
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)
Paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez and attorney Danielle N. Parsons know I am disabled from my
filings in this matter, and engaged in Exploitation of a Disabled Adult as defined by Chapter 825,
Fla. Stat. as shown in this UPL complaint, and cases related to foreclosure of my homestead.
My Rule 11 Motion For Sanctions against Danielle N. Parsons McCalla Raymer, LLC,
Document 15, filed February 26, 2013, shows at 2:
2. Gillespie informed the Court that he is reluctantly appearing pro se to defend his home,
McCalla Raymer LLC, Orlando Florida
Page - 23
but he is not a lawyer and did not go to law school. (Doc. 1, p. 4, ~ 15; Doc. 7, p. 1, ~ 2).
Gillespie is also disabled [fnl]. (Doc. 7, p. 6-7, ~ 16). Gillespie's ability to perform the
kinds of tasks need in this lawsuit, such as reading and handling documents, is declining.
Gillespie's concentration and short term memory has declined, and he becomes confused.
(Doc. 7, p. 7). Gillespie's confusion is most problen1atic in real-time situations. Given
enough tin1e, he can usually figure things out, but not in a timely manner; it may take
weeks, months or years. [fnl] Gillespie's disability is known to the Hon. Wm. Terrell
Hodges from earlier cases, see Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.
Gillespie, Case 5: 10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Doc. 36 Filed 07/07/11. Also see Case 5: 11-
cv-00539-WTH-TBS Doc. 15-1.
Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4(d) should protect me, a disabled adult and litigant: "A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration
ofjustice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or
discriminate against litigants... on any basis, including, but not limited to ... disability...."
Negligence per se: Violation of statutes or regulatory provision that either are designed to protect
a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves or establishes a duty to
take precautions to guard a certain class of persons from a specific type of injury. Failure to do
so establishes negligence per see Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 3d Dist. 1978).
The Eggshell Skull Rule holds a defendant is liable for the plaintiffs unforeseeable and
uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. If the defendant commits a
tort against the plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury
that is magnified by the plaintiffs peculiar characteristics.
http://www.law.cornell. edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule
Florida Bar Rule 3-7.4(e) No Delay for Civil or Criminal Proceedings. An investigation shall not
be deferred or suspended without the approval of the board even though the respondent is made a
party to civil litigation or is a defendant or is acquitted in a criminal action, notwithstanding that
either of such proceedings involves the subject matter of the investigation.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that to the best
of my knowledge and belief the facts stated in it are true.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespi' "
8092 SW 115th ~
Ocala, Florida 34481 http://www.scribd.com/doc/186795734/uPL-Complaint-YIM
Note: This UPL complaint exhausted The Florida Bar's 25 page limit, as follows: UPL complaint
form (1 page), this complaint (23 pages), and the Index to Exhibits (1 page). Thus, the 52 pages of
Exhibits shown on the Index are available on request, or online at the above URL.
UPL Complaint - Yolanda I. Martinez - December 1, 2013
Index to Exhibits - due to The Bars 25 page limit, Exhibits are available, not enclosed.
The complaint posted online includes all Exhibits, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/186795734/
Exhibit 1 Ethics Opinion 70-62, The Florida Bar
Exhibit 2 Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law. (UPL Update)
Florida Bar News - February 15, 2004, by Ghunise Coaxum
Exhibit 3 Invoice $5.95, Amazon Order J une 3, 2013, Paralegals in a law office and UPL
Exhibit 4 Yolanda I. Martinezs paralegal profile, LinkedIn
Exhibit 5 Email of Yolanda I. Martinez, February 21, 2013 2.52 PM
Exhibit 6 Evidence of ex-parte email U.S. District Court and Danielle N. Parsons
Exhibit 7 August 7, 2013 email 1.44pm paralegal Martinez/McCalla Raymer LLC to Gillespie
Exhibit 8 August 7, 2013, email 4.07pm Gillespie to paralegal Yolanda Martinez/McCalla
Raymer LLC, w/attached letter to Clerk
Exhibit 9 August 7, 2013, email 4.18pm paralegal Yolanda Martinez/McCalla Raymer
LLC to Gillespie, w/attached court order denied reconsideration
Exhibit 10 August 7, 2013, email 4.50pm Gillespie to paralegal Yolanda Martinez/ McCalla
Raymer LLC, w/attached letter-Sen. Nelson w/information for judicial complaint
Exhibit 11 U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings letter Feb-25-11 to FHFA, McCalla Raymer
Exhibit 12 Notice of Defendants' Consent to J udgment, case no. 2013-CA-000115
Exhibit 13 Gillespies denial of UPL accusation, Page 34, Petition No. 13-7280 SCOTUS
Exhibit 14 Email J uly 5, 2013 Robin McGough paralegal for Curtis A. Wilson, Esq.
McCalla Raymer to Neil Gillespie: The correct email address for service is
MRService@mccallaraymer.com. RE: Service of Court Document, 13-11585-B
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF THE FLORIDA BAR
OPINION 70-62
February 12, 1971
Lay personnel may be used in a law office only to the extent that they are delegated mechanical,
clerical or administrative duties. The attorney may not ethically delegate to a lay employee any activity
which requires the attorney's personal judgment and participation.
Canon: 3
CPR: EC 3-5, 3-6
Chairman Massey stated the opinion of the committee:
Inquiry is made pertaining to the use of lay personnel within a law office. The opinion will be divided
into two parts.
The first portion is quoted from the inquiry as follows:
We anticipate using the lay person in the real estate field to handle the following matters:
1. After the contract between the parties has been executed and a file set up by the attorney's
secretary, the file will be delivered to the lay specialist who will obtain all preliminary data. This would
include location and ordering of abstracts and survey where appropriate, checking our internal files to
determine if a prior opinion or title policy has been issued by our firm on said property, obtaining
pay-off or assumption figures on existing mortgages and liens and, in general, gathering all necessary
data involving said transaction.
2. We envision that after the contract stage the next time the file would come back to the attorney
would be after the abstract continuation, surveys, and all necessary data has been compiled. The lay
assistant would then forward the file back to the responsible attorney with all such data included. The
responsible attorney would then examine the abstract and dictate either an Opinion of Title or title
binder based on his examination. The file would then go back to the lay assistant who would, following
the directives of the attorney, prepare closing statements, and notify all parties of the scheduled
closing.
3. All work and documents prepared by the lay assistant would be forwarded back to the responsible
attorney at some predetermined time prior to the closing for the attorney's review and approval.
4. The attorney closes the real estate transaction.
5. After the closing the attorney forwards a file back to the lay assistant with appropriate directives as
to the recording of documents, pay off of any liens, and disbursements of expenses not disbursed during
the closing.
The Committee basically approves the proposal as outlined in the inquiry finding that there is no ethical
problem. The sole reservation to be expressed by the Committee is that the attorney should at no time
leave to the lay employee those matters calling for the expertise of an attorney. For example, if lay
personnel prepare all closing documents, such lay personnel should not be allowed to draw complicated
escrow agreements or other collateral contracts. See Canon 3 and ethical considerations thereunder
(EC 3-5 and 3-6).
The second part of the inquiry is not quite as easy to answer. It asks of the propriety of:
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBETOpin.nsf/ca2dcdaa853ef7b885256728004f87db/4dc1fc91661b101185256b2f006cb7cc?OpenDocument
1
. . . In the probate field we propose the utilization of lay personnel to prepare estate forms,
accountings, tax returns, obtain necessary facts from outside sources for preparation of such estate
pleadings, and perform other duties of this nature. In the litigation field we propose utilization of lay
personnel to index depositions, prepare interrogatories, prepare schedules of witnesses to be deposed,
schedules of witnesses necessary for trial, summarize facts, interview witnesses, and other such related
matters. We propose that all work done by a lay person in our office shall be reviewed and approved by
a responsible attorney before any item either goes to the files or outside of the office as a completed
item of work.
These plans are similar to the proposal as to real estate transactions but not as detailed. Again, the
Committee does recognize and approve the use of lay personnel in probate and litigation under the
appropriate considerations of Canon 3. Delegation to lay employees of the mechanical, clerical and
administrative duties is encouraged. However, the attorney may not ethically delegate an activity in
which he personally should give his judgment and participation.
While generally approving the concept stated in this second part of the inquiry, the Committee gives it
but a qualified approval as the Committee would prefer to determine such matters on specific factual
cases. This is true because the Committee does have reservations as to authorizing lay personnel to
prepare interrogatories and to interview all witnesses in every case. What may be permissible in a
run-of-the-mill case may not be so in complicated, unusual matters.
[Revised: 08-24-2011]
2013 The Florida Bar | Disclaimer | Top of page |
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBETOpin.nsf/ca2dcdaa853ef7b885256728004f87db/4dc1fc91661b101185256b2f006cb7cc?OpenDocument
Paral egal s i n a l aw offi ce and the unl i censed practi ce of l aw.(UPL
Update)
Florida Bar News - February 15, 2004
Ghunise Coaxum
Word count: 469.
citation details
Attorneys rely on paralegals and other nonlawyer office staff to perform various activities. Generally, the
activity may constitute the unlicensed practice of law if it is something that requires the attorney's
independent judgment and participation, and it is performed by the paralegal. See, The Florida Bar Ethics
Opinion, 70-62.
There are several areas where ethics opinions and case law provide guidance as to specific activities that
constitute the unlicensed practice of law if performed by a paralegal in a law office.
The comment to Bar Ethics Opinion 88-6 discourages attorneys from having a paralegal conduct the initial
interview with a new client; however, the paralegal may do so, provided that the lawyer makes certain that
the employee clearly identifies his/her nonlawyer status, only obtains factual information, and gives no legal
advice about the case or the representation agreement.
A paralegal may be listed on a firm letterhead and may also have firm business cards. The paralegal must
be clearly identified by title and the card must bear the firm name, address, and telephone number. See Bar
Ethics Opinion 86-4.
A paralegal may sign letters as long as the nonlawyer status is disclosed under the signature. See The
Florida Bar v. Spann, 682 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1996); The Florida Bar v. Pascual, 424 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1982).
However, the letter should not contain any misleading language that may cause the reader to believe that the
paralegal is providing legal advice or representing the client.
Bar Ethics Opinion 87-11 provides that a paralegal can never sign the attorney's name on any pleadings
under any circumstances.
A paralegal cannot conduct any legal proceedings on behalf of a client. A paralegal cannot appear in court
on behalf of a client. The Florida Bar v. Riccardi. 304 So. 26, 444 (Fla. 1974). A paralegal cannot conduct
settlement negotiations. See The Florida Bar v. Neiman, 816 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2002); Florida Bar Ethics
Opinion 74-35.
A paralegal may conduct real estate closings under very limited circumstances; however, the attorney must
supervise and review all work performed up to the closing; the attorney determines that the closing will be a
ministerial act; the client consents to the closing being handled by a nonlawyer; the supervising attorney is
readily available; and the paralegal does not give legal advice or make impromptu decisions that should be
made by the attorney. See Bar Ethics Opinion 89-5.
In addition to UPL concerns for the paralegal, the attorney is also prohibited from assisting a nonlawyer
engage in UPL. Ultimately, the attorney is responsible for supervising any work that is delegated to the
paralegal and other nonlawyer staff. See Rule 4-5.3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Ci tati on Detai l s
Title: Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update)
Author: Ghunise Coaxum
Publication: Florida Bar News (Magazine/J ournal)
Date: February 15, 2004
Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update) http://media-server.amazon.com/exec/drm/amzproxy.cgi/Mjk2IPM26UQa...
1 of 2 6/4/2013 3:01 AM
2
Publisher: Florida Bar
Volume: 31 Issue: 4 Page: 35(1)
Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update) http://media-server.amazon.com/exec/drm/amzproxy.cgi/Mjk2IPM26UQa...
2 of 2 6/4/2013 3:01 AM
Details for Order # D01-4381574-8524851
Print this page for your records.
Amazon.com order number: D01-4381574-8524851
Order Total: $5.95
Digital Order: June 3, 2013
Items Ordered Price
Paralegals in a law office and the unlicensed practice of law.(UPL Update):
An article from: Florida Bar News [eDoc/Amazon Short]
By: Ghunise Coaxum
Sold By: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
$5.95
----
----
Total for this Order: $5.95
Payment Information
Payment Method
VISA | Last 4 digits: 6739
Billing Address
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
United States
----
----
Grand Total: $5.95
Return to the Order Summary.
Please note: This is not a VAT invoice.
Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice 1996-2013, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates
Amazon.com: Digital Order Summary https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/your-account/order-summary.html?i...
1 of 1 6/12/2013 11:12 PM
3
Yolanda Martinez's Overview
Paralegal at McCalla Raymer
Litigation Paralegal at Katzman Garfinkel & Berger
Paralegal at South, Millhausen
Legal Assistant at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
see all
July 2009: Kaplan University
Kaplan University
90 connections
Yolanda Martinez's Summary
Experienced Litigation Paralegal - with vast knowledge of civil litigation, trial preparation; experience in Media Law, Federal Laws, Contract, Personal
Injury, Medical Malpractice, ability to draft pleadings; perform legal research; communicate well with clients; perform investigation and ability to read,
speak and write in Spanish
Yolanda Martinez's Experience
Paralegal
McCalla Raymer
Partnership; 201-500 employees; Law Practice industry
December 2011 Present (2 years) McCalla Raymer
Litigation paralegal for busy foreclosure firm
Litigation Paralegal
Katzman Garfinkel & Berger
Privately Held; 51-200 employees; Legal Services industry
July 2008 December 2011 (3 years 6 months)
Paralegal
South, Millhausen
January 2007 July 2008 (1 year 7 months)
Legal Assistant
Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Privately Held; 51-200 employees; Law Practice industry
June 2004 January 2007 (2 years 8 months)
Assisted with drafting all pleadings
Assisted with document production and trial preparation
Drafted discovery
Assisted with scheduling meetings with clients, hearings, mediations and depositions
Litigation Paralegal
Law Office of Anthony L. Coviello
October 2001 June 2004 (2 years 9 months)
Legal Asst
Zazzali, Fagella, et al
March 2001 October 2001 (8 months)
Yolanda Martinez's Languages
Spanish
Civil Litigation Westlaw Legal Research Pleadings Trials Legal Writing Administrative Assistants Lexis
Yolanda Martinez's Skills & Expertise
Current
Past
Education
Connections
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/yolanda-martinez/16/5a4/3a
4
career opportunities consulting offers
new ventures job inquiries
expertise requests business deals
reference requests getting back in touch
View Full Profile
Criminal Defense Courts Research Depositions Mediation Medical Malpractice Hearings
Yolanda Martinez's Education
July 2009: Kaplan University
Bachelor of Applied Science (BASc), Paralegal Studies; Advanced Start Paralegal Studies Program
2008 2011
Kaplan University
Associates in Science of Paralegal Studies, Paralegal Studies
2007 2009
Yolanda Martinez's Additional Information
Central Florida Paralegal Association, Inc.
Institute for Paralegal Education (IPE)
KNOW, The Magazine for Paralegals
Kaplan University (Official)
NALA Certified Paralegals as Virtual Paralegals
Search it Right Insights - Online Research, Web Research Training & Attorney CLE/MCLE Paralegal CLE
Virtual Paralegal
e-LEGAL
e-LEGAL Support: Paralegals, Legal Secretaries, Virtual Assistants, Law Clerks & Admin Staff
Contact Yolanda for:
View Yolanda Martinezs full profile to...
See who you and Yolanda Martinez know in common
Get introduced to Yolanda Martinez
Contact Yolanda Martinez directly
Not the Yolanda Martinez you were looking for? View more
LinkedIn Corporation 2013
LinkedIn member directory - Browse members by country a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z more
Groups and
Associations:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/yolanda-martinez/16/5a4/3a
Case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Document 15 Filed 02/26/13 Page 13 of 23 PageID 631
5
MIME-Version:1.0
From:cmecf_flmd_notification@flmd.uscourts.gov
To:cmecf_flmd_notices@localhost.localdomain
Bcc:
--Case Participants:
--Non Case Participants:
--No Notice Sent:
Message-Id:<10937099@flmd.uscourts.gov>
Subject:Activity in Case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.
v. Neil J. Gillespie as Co-Trustees et al Order on Motion for Extension of Time
to File Response/Reply
Content-Type: text/plain
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system.
Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States
policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se
litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed
electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER
access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of
each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is
a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/22/2013 4:55 PM EST and filed
on 2/22/2013
Case Name: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie as Co-Trustees
et al
Case Number: 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?280602
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web
browser to view the document: Document:

c num=MAGIC
Docket Text:
ORDER granting [11] Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Extension of Time
to the extent that Plaintiff shall respond to Mr. Gillespie's Motion
to Dismiss on or before the tenth day after the District Judge enters an
order on the Report and Recommendation, and only if the Court does not remand
this case. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R.
Lammens on 2/22/2013. (JLS)
5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Danielle N. Parsons dnp@mccallaraymer.com, yim@mccallaraymer.com
5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Notice has been delivered by other means to:
Neil J. Gillespie as Co-Trustees
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
6
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tiffany Caparas
Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC
111 N. Magnolia Avenue
Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description: Main Document
Original filename: n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1069447731 [Date=2/22/2013] [FileNumber=10937098-0]

5b88a169ccOddcge4b4088096458d702b3a9f1c3c797bc6bO]]

Neil Gillespie
From: "Yolanda Martinez" <yim@mccallaraymer.com>
To: <neilgillespie@mfi.net>; <TCaparas@kelattorneys.com>
Cc: "Danielle Parsons" <dnp@mccallaraymer.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 1:44 PM
Subject: 12-02121 - Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Gillespie
Page 1of 2
8/8/2013
Case No.: 2013-CA-000115

Mr. Gillespie:

the Honorable Hale R. Stancil. In that regard I have contacted the Judge's Judicial
the hearing:



Thank you.


MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC

225 E. Robinson St. , Ste 660
Orlando, FL 32801
Direct Dial: (407) 674-1660
Danielle Parsons Direct Dial (407)674-1657
Fax: (321) 248-0420
7

This electronic message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this electronic message or its contents is strictly prohibited.

If you received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email or telephone
to the number above.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE NOTICES: If you are a client, this message
is a privileged attorney-client communication. This email and all attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and
intended SOLELY for the recipients as identified in the "To", "Cc" and Bcc" lines of this email. If you
are not an intended recipient, your receipt of this email and its attachments is the result of an inadvertent
disclosure or unauthorized transmittal. Sender reserves and asserts all rights to confidentiality, including
all privileges which may apply. Pursuant to those rights and privileges, if you are not the intended
recipient, please immediately DELETE and DESTROY all copies of the email and its attachments, in
whatever form, and immediately NOTIFY the sender of your receipt of this email. And if you are not the
intended recipient, DO NOT review, copy or rely in any way on the contents of this email and its
attachments. NO DUTIES ARE INTENDED OR CREATED BY THIS COMMUNICATION. If you
have not entered into a fee agreement or executed an engagement letter with this firm, the firm DOES
NOT represent you as your attorney. You are encouraged to retain counsel of your choice if you desire
to do so. All rights of the sender for violations of the confidentiality and privileges applicable to this
email and any attachment are expressly reserved. IRS CIRCULAR 230 REQUIRED NOTICE : U.S.
Treasury Regulations require that we inform you as follows: Any U.S. federal tax information contained
in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (I) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter(s). FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES ACT NOTICE: Please be advised that a portion of this firms practice involves the
collection of debts. If you are a debtor, anything you say or communicate by email can be used for that
purpose.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Page 2of 2
8/8/2013

Neil Gillespie
To: "Yolanda Martinez" <yim@mccallaraymer.com>; <TCaparas@kelattorneys.com>; "Hon. Hale Ralph
Stancil" <hstancil@circuit5.org>; "J ane Bond" <jane.bond@mccallaraymer.com>; "Robyn Katz"
<rrk@mccallaraymer.com>; "Curtis Wilson" <Caw@McCallaRaymer.com>
Cc: "Danielle Parsons" <dnp@mccallaraymer.com>; "Mark Gillespie" <mark.gillespie@att.net>; "Neil
Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Attach: Letter to Clerk, re petition Aug-06-2013.pdf
Subject: Re: 12-02121 - Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Gillespie
Page 1of 3
8/8/2013
Dear Ms. Martinez:
Good afternoon. I object to any hearings in state court until the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules
on my petition for mandamus relief. Attached is my letter to the court, served yesterday to Ms. Parsons
at mrservice@mccallaraymer.com Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
(352) 854-7807.
----- Original Message -----
From: Yolanda Martinez
To: neilgillespie@mfi.net ; Tiffany T. Caparas (TCaparas@kelattorneys.com)
Cc: Danielle Parsons

Case No.: 2013-CA-000115

Mr. Gillespie:

the Honorable Hale R. Stancil. In that regard I have contacted the Judge's Judicial
the hearing:



8
Thank you.


MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC

Orlando, FL 32801
Direct Dial: (407) 674-1660
Fax: (321) 248-0420

This electronic message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an employee or
agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this electronic message or its contents is strictly prohibited.

If you received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email or
telephone to the number above.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE NOTICES: If you are a client, this
message is a privileged attorney-client communication. This email and all attachments are
CONFIDENTIAL and intended SOLELY for the recipients as identified in the "To", "Cc" and Bcc"
lines of this email. If you are not an intended recipient, your receipt of this email and its attachments is
the result of an inadvertent disclosure or unauthorized transmittal. Sender reserves and asserts all rights
to confidentiality, including all privileges which may apply. Pursuant to those rights and privileges, if
you are not the intended recipient, please immediately DELETE and DESTROY all copies of the email
and its attachments, in whatever form, and immediately NOTIFY the sender of your receipt of this
email. And if you are not the intended recipient, DO NOT review, copy or rely in any way on the
contents of this email and its attachments. NO DUTIES ARE INTENDED OR CREATED BY THIS
COMMUNICATION. If you have not entered into a fee agreement or executed an engagement letter
with this firm, the firm DOES NOT represent you as your attorney. You are encouraged to retain
counsel of your choice if you desire to do so. All rights of the sender for violations of the
confidentiality and privileges applicable to this email and any attachment are expressly reserved. IRS
CIRCULAR 230 REQUIRED NOTICE : U.S. Treasury Regulations require that we inform you as
Page 2of 3
8/8/2013
follows: Any U.S. federal tax information contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used, for the purpose of (I) avoiding penalties
under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or tax-related matter(s). FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT NOTICE: Please
be advised that a portion of this firms practice involves the collection of debts. If you are a debtor,
anything you say or communicate by email can be used for that purpose.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Page 3of 3
8/8/2013
VIA U.P.S. No. lZ64589FNW94106676 August 6,2013
John Ley, Clerk of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
56 Forsyth S1., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Appeal Number 13-11585-B
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie as co-trustee, et al.
District Court Docket No: 5: 13-cv-00058-oc-WTH-PRL
Dear Clerk Ley:
Thank you for your letter dated July 25, 2013, copy enclosed. The letter states in part:
This Court requires all counsel to file documents electronically using the Electronic Case
Files (nECF
n
) system, unless exempted for good cause.
While I would like to file documents electronically using ECF, please note that I am not an
attorney, I am not licensed to practice law, and I did not attend law school.
Instead and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1654, I appear pro se because I am financially unable to
obtain adequate representation. The First Anlendment also provides a Constitutionally-protected
right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. Should the Court find the interest of
justice would be served by the presence of counsel, either independently or as a disability
accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., or
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., I will provide more information. I am
disabled and believe a counsel appointment or guardian ad litem may serve justice.
This letter is to confirm my wish to petition for mandamus relief as provided in the Court's
Order, copy enclosed. The Order entered July 25, 2013 states in relevant part:
Should Gillespie wish to petition for mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition for a
writ of mandamus or prohibition with this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1651; Fed.R.App.P.21
The Court has a substantial portion of the record in 13-11585-B, which I provided July 1,2013.
FRAP, Rule 21 (a)(2)(C) requires a copy of any order or opinion or parts of the record that may
be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition.
July 31, 2013 I spoke with Ms. Gaddis about the substantial record already at the Court. She said
I must send payment to have the record returned to me, or I could provide a return shipping label
from my U.P.S. account, which is enclosed; in a self-adhering plastic pouch for shipping labels.
Then, upon return of the record, I would resubmit the record to the Court with my petition for
mandamus relief, is that correct? Or would the Court prefer to keep the record it has, and accept
my petition with citation to that record? I would supplement the record as needed.
John Ley, Clerk of Court August 6, 2013
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Page -2
Also, as I recall, Ms. Gaddis did not know of any time limitation to submit a petition, and I could
not locate a time limitation in the FRAP, although I plan to submit a petition as soon as possible.
I would appreciate any guidance the Court can provide.
I will submit a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis as discussed with Ms. Gaddis.
Thank you for your assistance.
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
E-mail: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures
Cc: Counsel of record, persons and entities on the updated service list by email.
UPS Return Ground Shipping label enclosed, No. lZ64589F9093845892
SERVICE LIST - August 6, 2013
Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, United States District Court J udge (not served by email)
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division (served by third party carrier only)
Golden-Collum Memorial Federal Building & US Courthouse
207 NW Second Street, Ocala, Florida 34475-6666
Provided in compliance with FRAP, Rule 21(a)(1)
J ohn F. Harkness, Executive Director, jharkness@flabar.org
The Florida Bar, 651 East J efferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
For interest in my alleged UPL, Case No. 20133090(5).
Curtis Wilson, Danielle N. Parsons
McCalla Raymer, LLC (for Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff)
225 E. Robinson St. Suite 660, Orlando, FL 32801
Service of court documents: MRService@mccallaraymer.com
Tiffany Caparas, Esq. (for Mark Gillespie Co-trustee)
111 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite 1600, Orlando, FL 32801
Primary Email: TCaparas@kelattoneys.com
Secondary Email: KELinbox@kelattorneys.com
Mark Gillespie (Co-trustee), mark.gillespie@att.net
7504 Summer Meadows Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76123
Case: 13-11585 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 1
IN TI-IE UNITED STAl'ESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTI-IE ELEVENrrH CIRCUIT
No. 13-11585-B
REVERSEMORTGAGESOLUTIONS,INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NEILJ. GILLESPIEAS CO-TRUSrfEES,
ofthe GillespieFanlilyLivingTrust
AgreelnentDated February 10, 1997,
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Defendants-Appellants,
MARKGILLESPIEAS CO-TRUSTEES,etc.,etaI.,
Defendants.
Appeal fron1 the United StatesDistrictCoul1
for the MiddleDistrictofFlorida
Before: HULL, WILSONandJORDAN,CircuitJudges.
BYl"I-IE COURT:
AppellantNeilGillespie'sJuly2,2013 Ill0tionfor reconsiderationofourJune 12,2013
orderdisn1issing thisappeal for lackofjurisdictionis DENIED. All otheroutstandingmotions
are DENIED as 11100t. ShouldGillespiewishto petitionfor nlandalTIUS relief,hemayfile a
separatepetitionfor awritofnlandanlusorprohibitionwiththisCourt. See 28 U.S.C. 1651;
Fed.R.App.l>.21.
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHEELEVENTHCIRCUIT
ELBERTPARRTUITLECOURTOFAPPEALS BUILDING
56ForsythStreet,N.W.
Atlanta,Georgia30303
JohnLey
ClerkofCourt
Forrulesandfonus visit
\vww.('a
July25,2013
NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW115THLOOP
OCALA,FL34481
AppealNumber: 13-11585-B
CaseStyle: ReverseMortgageSolutions,In v. NeilGillespie,etal
DistrictCourtDocketNo: 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
ThisCourtrequiresallcounseltofiledocumentselectronicallyusingtheElectronicCase
Files("ECF")system,unlessexemptedforgoodcause.
TheenclosedorderhasbeenENTERED.
Sincerely,
JOHNLEY,ClerkofCourt
Replyto: MelanieGaddis,B/rvg
Phone#: (404)335-6187
MOT-2

Neil Gillespie
From: "Yolanda Martinez" <yim@mccallaraymer.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>; <TCaparas@kelattorneys.com>; "Curtis Wilson"
<caw@mccallaraymer.com>
Cc: "Danielle Parsons" <dnp@mccallaraymer.com>; "Mark Gillespie" <mark.gillespie@att.net>
Attach: 13-11585_Documents.pdf
Subject: RE: 12-02121 - Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Gillespie
Page 1of 4
8/8/2013
Mr. Gillespie:

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rendered its decision and has denied your Motion for
Reconsideration as you can see from the attached Order. In that regard, kindly advise as to your
availability for a hearing in the Circuit court.

Thank you.


MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC

Orlando, FL 32801
Direct Dial: (407) 674-1660
Fax: (321) 248-0420

This electronic message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this electronic message or its contents is strictly prohibited.

If you received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email or telephone
to the number above.

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]
To: Yolanda Martinez; TCaparas@kelattorneys.com; Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil; J ane E. Bond; Robyn R. Katz; Curtis
9
Wilson
Cc: Danielle Parsons; Mark Gillespie; Neil Gillespie

Dear Ms. Martinez:
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
(352) 854-7807.

Case No.: 2013-CA-000115

Mr. Gillespie:

We would like to set a hearing on your Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
before the Honorable Hale R. Stancil. In that regard I have contacted the Judge's
Judicial Assistant and she has provided me with the following available dates and
times for the hearing:



Thank you.

Page 2of 4
8/8/2013

MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC

Orlando, FL 32801
Direct Dial: (407) 674-1660
Fax: (321) 248-0420



lines of this email. If you are not an intended recipient, your receipt of this email and its attachments is
the result of an inadvertent disclosure or unauthorized transmittal. Sender reserves and asserts all rights
to confidentiality, including all privileges which may apply. Pursuant to those rights and privileges, if
you are not the intended recipient, please immediately DELETE and DESTROY all copies of the email
and its attachments, in whatever form, and immediately NOTIFY the sender of your receipt of this
email. And if you are not the intended recipient, DO NOT review, copy or rely in any way on the
contents of this email and its attachments. NO DUTIES ARE INTENDED OR CREATED BY THIS
COMMUNICATION. If you have not entered into a fee agreement or executed an engagement letter
with this firm, the firm DOES NOT represent you as your attorney. You are encouraged to retain
counsel of your choice if you desire to do so. All rights of the sender for violations of the
confidentiality and privileges applicable to this email and any attachment are expressly reserved. IRS
CIRCULAR 230 REQUIRED NOTICE : U.S. Treasury Regulations require that we inform you as
follows: Any U.S. federal tax information contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used, for the purpose of (I) avoiding penalties
under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or tax-related matter(s). FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT NOTICE: Please
be advised that a portion of this firms practice involves the collection of debts. If you are a debtor,
Page 3of 4
8/8/2013
anything you say or communicate by email can be used for that purpose.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Page 4of 4
8/8/2013
Case: 13-11585 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 1 (1 of 2)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
J ohn Ley
Clerk of Court

J uly 25, 2013
For rules and forms visit
www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481

Appeal Number: 13-11585-B
Case Style: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, In v. Neil Gillespie, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL

This Court requires all counsel to file documents electronically using the Electronic Case
Files ("ECF") system, unless exempted for good cause.
The enclosed order has been ENTERED.

Sincerely,

J OHN LEY, Clerk of Court

Reply to: Melanie Gaddis, B/rvg
Phone #: (404) 335-6187

MOT-2 Notice of Court Action

Case: 13-11585 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 1 (2 of 2)

Neil Gillespie
To: "Yolanda Martinez" <yim@mccallaraymer.com>; <TCaparas@kelattorneys.com>; "Curtis Wilson"
<caw@mccallaraymer.com>; "Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil" <hstancil@circuit5.org>; "J ane Bond"
<jane.bond@mccallaraymer.com>; "Robyn Katz" <rrk@mccallaraymer.com>
Cc: "Danielle Parsons" <dnp@mccallaraymer.com>; "Mark Gillespie" <mark.gillespie@att.net>; "Neil
Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Attach: US Sen Nelson letter, judicial complaint.pdf
Page 1of 5
8/8/2013
Dear Ms. Martinez:
on my petition for mandamus relief.
Unfortunately you are not reading the order properly. Kindly consult with an attorney at your firm. The
decision entered allows a separate petition for mandamus relief. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit entered a
favorable Order J uly 25, 2013 that states in relevant part: "Should Gillespie wish to petition for
mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with this Court.
See 28 U.S.C. 1651; Fed.R.App.P.21".
This was the only option the court had, which is why it denied the motion to reconsider a remand for
lack of jurisdiction, but offered mandamus relief. Corporate Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. 561 F.3d 1294, 1296
(11th Cir. 2009) held the failure to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction in a
notice of removal is a defect in the removal procedure, and consequently, the district court cannot sua
sponte remand a case to state court on that ground.
A writ of mandamus is the proper means by which a party may challenge a remand order. Thermtron
Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 352-53, 96 S.Ct. 584, 593-94, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976). A
remand order based on subject matter jurisdiction is not reviewable by appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1447(d). But
such remand order entered sua sponte is a defect in the removal process within the meaning of 1447
(c), and may be challenged by writ of mandamus. New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092,
1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997).
In the past you and Ms. Parsons disrupted the tribunal in federal district court, and I hope that does not
happen again. Your misconduct is shown in the following pleadings in US District Court, Middle
District, Florida, Ocala Division, 5:13-cv-58-oc-WTH-PRL
Rule 11 sanction motion, Ms. Parsons, McCalla Raymer (Doc. 15)
Gillespie default motion, Rule 55 (Doc. 16)
Gillespie Verified Objection to Magistrate Order Doc. 12 (Doc. 17)
Unfortunately you and Ms. Parsons appear to have engaged in misconduct with the either US J udge
Hodges or Magistrate J udge Lammens. I alerted federal authorities. Attached you will find a letter from
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson instructing me on how to make a formal complaint under the J udicial Conduct
and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 351-364.
So, I object to any hearings in state court until the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules on my
petition for mandamus relief, which is allowed in the order you attached. However you, Ms. Parsons and
foreclosure mill McCalla Raymer are free to do whatever you like, subject to law. Thank you.
10
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
(352) 854-7807.
To: Neil Gillespie ; TCaparas@kelattorneys.com ; Curtis Wilson
Cc: Danielle Parsons ; Mark Gillespie
Subject: RE: 12-02121 - Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Gillespie

Mr. Gillespie:

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rendered its decision and has denied your Motion for
Reconsideration as you can see from the attached Order. In that regard, kindly advise as to your
availability for a hearing in the Circuit court.

Thank you.


MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC

Orlando, FL 32801
Direct Dial: (407) 674-1660
Fax: (321) 248-0420



Page 2of 5
8/8/2013

To: Yolanda Martinez; TCaparas@kelattorneys.com; Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil; J ane E. Bond; Robyn R. Katz;
Curtis Wilson
Cc: Danielle Parsons; Mark Gillespie; Neil Gillespie

Dear Ms. Martinez:
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
(352) 854-7807.

Case No.: 2013-CA-000115

Mr. Gillespie:

We would like to set a hearing on your Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
before the Honorable Hale R. Stancil. In that regard I have contacted the Judge's
Judicial Assistant and she has provided me with the following available dates and
times for the hearing:


We would like to secure a 15 minute hearing time during those hours. Kindly let
me know which date and time works best for you so that I can contact the judge
and secure our hearing time.

Thank you.
Page 3of 5
8/8/2013


MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC

Orlando, FL 32801
Direct Dial: (407) 674-1660
Fax: (321) 248-0420



lines of this email. If you are not an intended recipient, your receipt of this email and its attachments
is the result of an inadvertent disclosure or unauthorized transmittal. Sender reserves and asserts all
rights to confidentiality, including all privileges which may apply. Pursuant to those rights and
privileges, if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately DELETE and DESTROY all
copies of the email and its attachments, in whatever form, and immediately NOTIFY the sender of
your receipt of this email. And if you are not the intended recipient, DO NOT review, copy or rely in
any way on the contents of this email and its attachments. NO DUTIES ARE INTENDED OR
CREATED BY THIS COMMUNICATION. If you have not entered into a fee agreement or
executed an engagement letter with this firm, the firm DOES NOT represent you as your attorney.
You are encouraged to retain counsel of your choice if you desire to do so. All rights of the sender for
violations of the confidentiality and privileges applicable to this email and any attachment are
expressly reserved. IRS CIRCULAR 230 REQUIRED NOTICE : U.S. Treasury Regulations require
that we inform you as follows: Any U.S. federal tax information contained in this communication
Page 4of 5
8/8/2013
(including any attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used, for the purpose of (I)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or recommending
to another party any transaction or tax-related matter(s). FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES
ACT NOTICE: Please be advised that a portion of this firms practice involves the collection of
debts. If you are a debtor, anything you say or communicate by email can be used for that purpose.-
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Page 5of 5
8/8/2013
~ n t n ~ t t s ~ n t
WASHINGTON, DC 205I0-OB05
BILLNELSON
FLORIDA
May 28,2013
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your complaint ofjudicial misconduct. I
appreciate being made aware of your concerns.
Congress has created a procedure that permits any person to file a complaint in the courts about
the behavior of federal judges, but not about the decisions federal judges make in deciding cases. The
law says that complaints about judges' decisions and complaints with no evidence to support them must
be dismissed.
If you are a litigant in a case and believe the judge made a wrong decision, you may not use this
procedure to complain about the decision. An attorney can explain the rights you have as a litigant to
seek review of a judicial decision.
However, if you still believe that you have a legitimate case ofjudicial misconduct, you may
submit a formal complaint to the U. S. Court of Appeals. You will find enclosed instructions for filing a
written complaint as well as a form to complete and submit. I trust this information will be of assistance
to you.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. I want you to know as your U. S. Senator from
Florida, I welcome the opportunity to serve you. If I can assist you with any other matter, please do not
hesitate to let me know.
BN/ut
Enclosures
United States Senator Bill Nelson, Landmark Two, 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 410, Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 872-7161 Toll-Free in Florida Only (888) 671-4091 Fax: (407) 872-7165
http://billnelson.senate.gov
3.2010
JUDICIALCONFERENCEOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
COMMITTEEONJUDICIALCONDUCTAND DISABILITY
FILINGACOMPLAINTOFJUDICIALMISCONDUCTORJUDICIALDISABILITY
AGAINSTA FEDERALJUDGE
Thisdocumentexplainsthelegallyprescribedprocessforconlplainingthata federaljudgehas
committedmisconductorbecomedisabled. Theprocessis governedbytheJudicialConduct
andDisabilityActof1980,28U.S.C. 351-364("Act"),andRules for Judicial-Conduct and
Judicial-Disability Proceedings, 248F.R.D.674(2008)("Rules"),whichyoushouldconsult
beforeproceedingwithanycomplaint. TheRulesandaconlplaintformareavailableatfederal
courtWebsitesandclerk'soffices.
1. WHOMAYBECOMPLAINEDABOUT;WHERETOFILEA COMPLAINT
If youbelievethatafederaljudgecommittedmisconductorhasadisability,younlayfile a
complaintaboutitwiththepropercourtoffice. If thecomplaintis againstaUnitedStates
DistrictJudge,aUnitedStatesBankruptcyJudge,oraUnitedStatesMagistrateJudge,youmust
file itattheclerk'sofficeof theUnitedStatesCourtof Appealsfortheregion("circuit")in
whichthejudgeserves. If thecomplaintis againstajudgeof theUnitedStatesCourtof Appeals
fortheFederalCircuit,youmustfile itatthecircuitexecutive'sofficeforthatcourt. If the
complaintisagainstanyotherUnitedStatesCircuitJudge,oragainstajudgeof anationalcourt
(theCourtof InternationalTradeortheCourtof FederalClaims),youmustfile itattheclerk's
officeof thecourtonwhichthatjudgeserves.
Thepropercourtofficeistheonlyplaceauthorizedtoreceiveyourcomplaint. Youshouldnot
giveorcopyyourcomplainttoanyjudgeoranyotherofficeoremployeeintheJudiciary. Also,
youshouldnotconlmunicateaboutyourcomplaintwitlljudgesorothersintheJudiciary,except
attheirrequestorasotherwiseallowedbytheRules.
NOTE: This process cannot be used to complain about anyone who is not a
federal judge as identified in the Rules. Ifyou have concerns about the behavior
ofa federal court employee other than a judge, you may report them to the clerk
ofthe employing court. To complain about afederal prosecutor's conduct,
contact the United States Attorney's office that employs the prosecutor. To
complain about the conduct ofafederal public defender, contact the appropriate
Federal Public Defender's office. To object to any other attorney's conduct,
contact the state bar ofthe state in which the attorney practices or in which the
conduct occurred. To learn how to complain about a state judge, county judge,
or cityjudge, consult an official ofthe state in which that judge serves.
2. WHAT TOINCLUDEINACOMPLAINT
Theterms"misconduct"and"disability,"asusedinthiscomplaintprocess,aredefinedbylaw.
"Misconduct"is"conductprejudicialtotheeffectiveandexpeditiousadministrationof the
1
businessof thecourts." A "disability"is a"temporaryorpermanentcondition"thatrendersthe
judge"unabletodischargetheduties"of thejudicialoffice. If neitherternl,sodefined,
describesthefacts youallege,yourcomplaintwillbedismissed.
Youmaycomplainaboutactionstakenbyajudgeoutsideof hisorherofficialrole,butonlyif
theyqualifyasmisconductundertheabovedefinition. Theymaysoqualifyif theywouldcause,
amongreasonablemembersof tilepublic,asubstantialandwidespreadloweringof confidence
inthecourts.
Examplesofjudicialmisconductinclude
usingthejudge'sofficeto obtainspecialtreatmentforfriends orrelatives;
acceptingbribes,gifts,orotherpersonalfavorsrelatedtothejudicialoffice;
havingimproperdiscussionswithpartiesorcounselforonesideinacase;
treatinglitigantsorattorneysinademonstrablyegregiousandhostilemanner;
discriminatingagainstlitigantsorattorneysonaccountofrace,ethnicity,sex,orother
legallyprotectedattribute;
engaginginpartisanpoliticalactivityormakinginappropriatelypartisanstatements;
solicitingfunds fororganizations;or
violatingotherspecific,mandatorystandardsofjudicialconduct,suchasthosepertaining
torestrictionsonoutsideincomeandrequirementsforfinancialdisclosure.
NOTE: Many complaints claim only that a judicial decision was wrong. Under
the law, such complaints must be dismissed. A judicial decision that is
unfavorable to you - or even wrong - does not in itselfestablish misconduct
or disability. Ifyou wish to challenge the correctness ofa judge's decision, you
must do so in court under the proper procedural rules.
Yourcomplaintmustbelegibleandshouldbetypewritten. Itmustincludeacontactaddress,a
descriptionof therelevantevents,adescriptionofwhenandwheretheytookplace,andany
otherinformationthatwouldhelpaninvestigatorcheckthefacts. Thecomplaintsllouldcontain
asmuchpertinentdetailaspossible,includinginformationthatidentifiestranscriptsand
witnessessupportingyouraccountof whathappened. Youmustsigntheconlplaintunder
penaltyof perjury. Tofindoutwhetheryoumustalsofile copiesofthecomplaint,checkwith
thecourtofficetowhichyouaresubmittingit.
Whenyourcomplaintisreadytobefiled, placetheoriginalandanyrequiredcopiesinan
envelopemarked"ComplaintofMisconduct"or"ComplaintofDisability." Donotwritethe
nameofthejudgeyouarecomplainingabout("thesubjectjudge")ontheenvelope. Submitthe
envelope,inpersonorbymail,tothecourtclerk'soffice.
Courtstaffwillensurethatyourcomplaintis conveyedtothejudgewhomustconsiderit, andto
thesubjectjudge.
2
3. HowACHIEFJUDGECONSIDERSACOMPLAINT
In most instances,the judge who considers your complaint will be thechiefjudge of the court in
whichitispending. Thatjudgemayconductalimitedinquiry,interviewingwitnessesand
examiningotheravailableinformation. Youmayormaynotbecontactedaspartof thisprocess.
Theconsiderationofacomplaintis confidential,although, inextraordinarycircunlstances,the
chiefjudgemaypubliclydisclosethecomplaint'sexistence. Ordersregardingacomplaintwill
beconlepublic,butonlyafterthecomplainthasreceivedfinal actionwithno furtherrightof
review.
NOTE: Although the chiefjudge is required to review your complaint
expeditiously, you should not expect an immediate decision. Ifyou must inquire
about a complaint's status, you should do so only by contacting the office where
the complaint was filed. Repeated inquiries will not speed the process.
4. WHATHAPPENSAFTERACOMPLAINTISCONSIDERED
Afterconsideringyourcomplaint,thechiefjudgemay,byorder,terminateit(by"dismissing"or
"concluding"it) if thereis reasontodoso. Otherwise,thechiefjudgemustappointaspecial
committeeofjudgestoinvestigatethecomplaint,as explainedin 6, below. Ifsuchan
appointmentis made,youwillreceiveacopyof theordernamingthecommittee'smembers.
The chiefjudge must dismissyour complaintif it does not identify evidence tending to show
misconductordisability, orifitisconclusivelyrefutedbyobjectiveevidencefronltranscripts,
witnesses,orothersources.
The chiefjudge must also dismissyour complaintif the facts it describesdo not amount to
misconductordisabilityas definedbylaw. (See 2,above,forthelegaldefinitionsof
"misconduct"and"disability.") Acomplaintwillbedismissedforthisreasonifitchallengesthe
meritsofajudge'sdecision- inotherwords,ifitclaimsthatthedecisionis wrong- without
establishingthatthejudgeactedwithanimpropermotive. Becauseadecision'svaliditycan
onlybechallengedincourt,tlliscomplaintprocedurewillnotallowyoutoclaimsolelythata
caseorissuewaswronglydecided. Forexample,youcannotusethisprocessto complainonly
thatthejudgeerredinstatingorapplyingthelaw, statingthefacts, sentencingadefendant,or
decidingacivilcase. Thesameis trueof themorepreliminaryoradministrativedecisionsa
judgemaymake. Forexanlple,youcannotinvokethisprocessto claimmerelythatajudgewas
mistakeninfailingtorecuse,indeterminingthatyoumustpayfees, insettinghearingsand
deadlines,orindismissingpartiesfromacase. Claimssuchas thesewouldbe"merits-related"
andthereforeimproperunderthecomplaintprocedure. Alsoinlproperwouldbeacomplaint
asserting,withoutmore,thatajudgetooktoolongtoactinaparticularmatter.
If,however,acomplaintofdelayoranotherwisemerits-relatedcomplaintincludessupported
allegationsthatthejudgehadanimpropermotiveinactingordelaying, orthatthejudge
habituallydelayedinmanyunrelatedcases,thoseallegationswillbeconsidered. Animproper
motivecouldinvolveracial, ethnic,orpersonalbias,orabribe;orcouldstemfromimproper
3
contactswithpartiesorcounselforonesideinacase. Likewise,ifacomplaintincludes
supportedallegationsthatafailuretorecusewasnotonlywrongbutill-motivated- in
particular,thatthejudgeknewofarecusalrequirementbut,forillicitreasons,deliberatelyfailed
toheedit- theywillbeconsidered. And,ifacomplaintincludessupportedallegationsthata
judgemadepersonallyderogatoryremarksirrelevanttotheissues,ortreatedlitigantsand
attorneyswithextremehostilitywhileonthebench,thoseallegationswillbeconsidered.
The chiefjudge may conclude your complaintif thesubjectjudge voluntarily takes corrective
actionthatacknowledgesandremediestheproblemyoucomplainedabout. Thechiefjudgewill
concludeyourcomplaintifinterveningevents- suchasthesubjectjudge'sretirement,
resignation,ordeath- haveeliminatedtheneedforfurtheraction.
If the chiefjudge dismissesor concludes your complaint, you will receivea copyof the resulting
orderandbenotifiedof yourrighttohavethatorderreviewedbythejudicialcouncilof the
regionalappellatecourt(orbythenationalcourt,ifapplicable)inwhichthecomplaintis
pending. Thereviewprocessis discussedin 5,below. Ifyoudonotmakeatimelyrequestfor
suchreview,thechiefjudge'sorderwillbethefinal actiononyourcomplaint.
Whenacomplainthasreceivedfinal actionandisnolongersubjectto anyrightof review,
ordersonthatcomplaintarenladepubliclyavailableinthecourtclerk'sofficeandmayalsobe
postedonthecourt'sWebsite.
5. HowTOPETITIONFORREVIEWOFA CHIEFJUDGE'SORDERONA COMPLAINT
If thechiefjudgehasorderedthatyourcomplaintbedismissedorconcluded,youmaypetition
thecircuitjudicialcouncil(ornationalcourt,ifapplicable) forreview. Ifyouwishtoexercise
thisoption,youmustdosowithin35 daysfromthedateonthecourt'sletterthatinformedyou
of the chiefjudge's order. Your petition mustbe in letter form, addressed to the circuit clerk, in
anenvelopenlarked"MisconductPetition"or"DisabilityPetition." Thenameof the subject
judgemustnotbewrittenontheenvelope. Thelettershouldbetypewrittenorotherwiselegible
andshouldbeginwith"Iherebypetitionthejudicialcouncilforreviewof..."
Afterconsideringyourpetitionforreview,thejudicialcouncilwillactonit. Thecouncilmight
affirmthechiefjudge'sdisposition,oritmightreturnthemattertothechiefjudgeforfurther
inquiryorforappointmentofaspecialinvestigatingcommittee.
Youwillbegivenacopyofthejudicialcouncil'sorderonyourpetition. IftIle orderaffirmsthe
chiefjudge'sdispositionof yourcomplaint,withnodissentbyacouncilmemberassertingthata
specialconlmitteeshouldinvestigate,youhavenorightoffurtherreview. (In theeventofsuch
adissent,youmayrequestthattheJudicialConferenceCommitteeonJudicialConductand
Disabilityconsiderwhetheraspecialcommitteeshouldinvestigatethecomplaint.)
NOTE: You have no right offurther review ifthe chiefjudge dismissed or
concluded your complaint and the judicial council unanimously affirmed that
result. The same is true ifyou did not make a timely request for judicial council
review after your complaint was dismissed or concluded. Ifyou request further
4
review when you have no right to it, no action will be taken on your request.
Thejudicialcouncil'sorderonyourpetition,alongwiththechiefjudge'sorderonyour
complaint,willbemadepubliclyavailableinthecourtclerk'soffice. Insomeinstances,these
orderswillalsobepostedonthecourt'sWebsite.
6. WHAT HAPPENSIFYOURCOMPLAINTISREFERREDTOA SPECIALCOMMITTEE
If thechiefjudgerefersyourcomplaintto aspecialcon1mitteeofjudges,thatcommitteewill
investigateitandreportonittothejudicialcouncilof thecircuit- orto thefull bench,in
certainnationalcourts. (Acircuitjudicialcouncilisastandingbodyofjudgeswith
administrativeandmanagementfunctions.)
Initsinvestigation,thespecialcommitteemayconductanyinterviewsandhearingsitconsiders
necessary. Ifthespecialcommitteedeterminesthatyoumightpossessevidencenotalready
availableinwriting,itsrepresentativewillinterviewyou. Youmay,unaidedorthroughcounsel,
submitwrittenargumenttothespecialcommittee. Thespecialcommitteemay,initsdiscretion,
permityoutopresentoralargument,whichyoumaythendoeitheronyourownorthrough
counsel. Thesubjectjudgealsohastherighttocounsel.
Uponconcludingitsinvestigation,thespecialcommitteewillsubmitareportofitsfindingsand
recommendationstothejudicialcouncil. Youwillbenotifiedof thatsubmission. Thejudicial
councilmay,butneednot,provideyouwithacopyof thereport.
Afterthejudicialcouncilconsidersthespecialcommittee'sreport,itwillissueanorderonthe
con1plaint. Theordermayterminatethecomplaint(bydismissingorconcludingit). Or,itmay
prescribeotheraction,whichcouldinvolvefurtherproceedingsortheimpositionofanyof the
followingsanctions:
censuringorreprin1andingthesubjectjudge,eitherprivatelyorpublicly;
orderingthatnonewcasesbeassignedtothesubjectjudgeforalimited,fixedperiod;
in the caseof a magistrate judge,ordering thechiefjudge of thedistrict court to take
specifiedactionthatcouldincludeinitiatingthemagistratejudge'sren10val fromoffice;
inthecaseof abankruptcyjudge,removingthejudgefromoffice;
inthecaseof acircuitordistrictjudge,requestingthejudgetoretirevoluntarily; and
inthecaseof acircuitordistrictjudgewhoiseligibletoretirebutdoesnotdoso,
certifyinghisorherdisabilitysothatanadditionaljudgemaybeappointedtothatcourt.
Theprocessof impeachment,whichcanresultinacircuitordistrictjudge'sremovalfrom
office,isbeyondthescopeof thiscomplaintprocess. Impeachmentcanonlybeundertakenby
Congress. Ifthejudicialcouncilfindsthatthesubjectjudge'sconductmaywarrant
impeachment,itmustreferthatfindingtotheJudicialConferenceof theUnitedStates. The
ConferencewouldthendeterminewhethertocertifythemattertoCongress,whichwouldintum
decidewhethertoinitiateimpeachn1entproceedingsagainstthejudge. (TheConferencemayso
certifythematterwithoutanyunderlyingjudicialcouncilreferralifthesubjectjudgehasbeen
convictedof afelonyandthejudgmentisfinal.)
5
7. HowTOPETITIONFORREVIEWOFAJUDICIALCOUNCILORDERONASPECIAL
COMMITTEEREpORT
If a judicialcouncilhasissuedanorderactingonaspecialinvestigatingcomnlittee' sreporton
yourcomplaint,youmaypetitiontheJudicialConferenceCommitteeonJudicialConductand
Disabilityforreviewofthatorder. Ifyouwishto exercisethis option,younlustdosowithin63
days fromthedateofthecouncil'sorder,andyoumustsendtheJudicialConferenceCommittee
sevencopiesofyourpetition. (Ifyoucannotaffordtoproducethesevencopies,younlust
followthespecialprocedureprovidedinRule22(d).)
NOTE:Ifyour complaint did not result in the appointment ofa special
investigating committee, and the judicial council, without dissent, issued an order
on that complaint, you have no right offurther review. Ifyou request review
when you have no right ofreview, no action will be taken on your request.
Yourpetitionmustbrieflystatethefacts ofthecomplaint,thehistoryofthecomplaint's
consideration,andthegroundsonwhichyouseekreview. Itmustspecifythejudicialcouncil
order'sdateanddocketnumber,andincludeacopyoftheorder. Thepetitionshouldnotexceed
20pagesplusanynecessaryattachments.
Ordinarily,theJudicialConferenceCommittee'sconsiderationofyourpetitionwillnotinvolve
anypersonalappearancesororalargument,althoughtheCommitteemaypermitawritten
subnlissionfromyouorthesubjectjudge. Onlyinextraordinarycircumstancescanthe
Committeegobeyondtheexistingrecordandconductafurtherinvestigation.
TheJudicialConferenceCommittee'sorderdecidingyourpetitionwillbemadepublicly
availableonwww.uscourts.govandintheclerk'sofficeofthecourtwhosejudicialcouncil
actionwasreviewed. (Theunderlyingorderbythejudicialcouncilwillalsobepublicly
available.) YouhavenorightofreviewoftheJudicialConferenceCommittee'sorder.
8. WHAT HAPPENSIFYOUABUSETHECOMPLAINTPROCESS
IfyouabusetIlejudicialnlisconductordisabilityconlplaintprocessbyfiling frivolous or
repetitivecomplaints,youmayberestrictedfromfiling furthercomplaints. Youwouldfirstbe
givenanopportunityto showcauseinwritingwhyyourrightto file furthercomplaintsshould
notberestricted.
6
DARRn.L r: ISSA, CALIFORNIA
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS U.IJAH E CUMMINGS, MARYLAND
CHAIHMAN RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
DAN BURTON, INDIANA EDOLPHUS TOWNS, NFW YORK
JOHN L MICA, FLORIDA CAROLYN B. MALONEY, NEW YORK
(!Congress of tbeWntteb
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, PFNNSYI VANI!\ H CANOR HOLMES NORTON,
M ICHACL R TURNER, OHIO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PATRICK McHENRY, NORTH CAFWLlNA DENNIS J KUCINICH, OHIO
JIM JORDAN, OHIO JOHN F. TIERNEY, MASSACHUSETTS 1l,oltgr of l\rpregentatiueg
JASON CHAFFETZ, UTAH WM LACY CLAY, MISSOURI
CONNIE MACK, FLORIDA STEPHEN F. LYNCH. MASSACHUSETTS
TIM WALBERG, MICHIGAN
COMMITIEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JIM COOPER. ll:NNESSEE
JAMES LANKFORD, OKLAHOMA GERALD E. CONNOLLY, VIRGINIA
JUSTIN AMASH, MICHIGAN MIKE QUIGLEY, ILLINOIS
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, NEW YORK 2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
PAUL A GOSAR, D D.S., ARIZONA BRUCE L. BRALEY, IOWA
RAUL R. LABFlADOR. IDAHO PEHR WELCH, VERMONT
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143
PATRICK MEEHAN, PENNSYl VANIA JOHN A. YARMUTH, KENTUCKY
sc:on Drs,JARLAIS, M.D , fFNNESSH CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, CONNECTICUT
(;'O?):'2b ',0/4
,fOE WALSH, ILLINOIS JACKIE SPEIEH, CALIFORNIA
f ,\( 'dMII I l,'O?) ??'i 397.1
TRFY GOWDY, SOUTH CAROliNA
MIN' )HI; ( 1?02, 1
DENNIS A. ROSS, FLORIDA
FRANK C. GUINTA, NEW HAMPSHIHE
BLAKE FI\RFNTHOI 0, TEXAS
MIKE KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA
LAwnENCl J UHADY
STAFF DIRf:.CTOH
February25,2011
TheI-Ionorable SteveA. Linick
InspectorGeneral
Federal HousingFinanceAgency
1625 Eye Street,NW
Washington, DC 20006
DearMr. InspectorGeneral:
Iamwritingto requestthatyouinitiatean investigationintowidespreadallegationsof
abusebyprivateattorneysand lawtirinshiredto processforeclosllres aspartofthe"Retained
AttorneyNetwork"establishedby FannieMae. Ialsorequestthatyouexamineallegationsof
abusivebehavioronthepartofdefaultmanagenlentfirms engagedbybothmortgageservicers
managingFannieMae-backedloansand attorneysandfirms thatarepartoftheRetained
AttorneyNetwork. Finally, IrequestthatyouexamineeffortsbyFannieMaeandthe Federal
I-Iousing FinanceAgency(FHF'A) toinvestigatetheseallegationsand implementcorrective
action.
AllegationsofAbuseintheRetainedAttorneyNetwork
In August2008,FannieMaecreated"anewnlandatorynetworkofretainedattorneysto
handleall foreclosure andbankruptcymatters"relatingto FannieMaemortgage loans,whether
held in portfolioormortgage-backedsecurities. FannieMaerequiredthatonlytheseretained
attorneysrepresentFannieMae1110rtgage servicers,andit establishedthemaximumallowable
reinlbursablefees for foreclosure-relatedwork.I In December2010,FannieMaeExecutiveVice
PresidentTerenceEdwardsannouncedthattheRetainedAttorneyNetworkwouldbeexpanded
from 31 to 50 states.
2
I Fannie Mae,Netv Foreclosure and BankruptL)l Attorney Netvvork and Attorney's Fees
and ('osts (Announcement08-19)(Aug. 6, 2008)(onlineat https://www.efanniemae.com
/st/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2008/0819.pdt)(requiringalso that'''requestsfor approval ofexcess
fees by FannieMaemustbe submittedviaemail''!).
2 Testilnonyofl'erenceEdwards, ExecutiveVice President, CreditPortfolio
Managelnent, FannieMae, beforethe u.S. SenateCommitteeonBanking, Housingand Urban
Affairs (Dec. 1,2010)(onlineatwww.fannielnae.coln/medialpdf/Edwards_
SenateBankingComnlittee_12-1-10. pdt).
11
'The Honorable Steve A. Linick
Page 2
Recent reports indicate that nlany of the private attorneys, law firms, and other entities
participating in the Retained Attorney Network have been accused of practices that are fraught
with flaws, errors, conflicts of interest, and fraud, and these allegations have prompted numerous
state and federal investigations.
For example, on August 10, 20 la, the Florida State Attorney General announced an
investigation into unfair and deceptive practices by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., the
l.Jaw Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., and Shapiro & Fishnlan, L.L.P. The allegations
against the tirlns include creating and filing with Florida courts improper documentation to speed
foreclosures and establishing affiliated companies outside the United States to prepare false
documents.
3
In announcing this investigation, the Attorney General stated:
On nunlerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to
the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judglnents against homeowners.
Thousands of final judglnents of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may
have been the result of allegedly inlproper actions of the law firlns under
4
InvestIgatIon.
Fornler enlployees of the Stern law firn1 also reportedly alleged that the firm engaged in
"robo-signing," a practice in which employees signed hundreds of foreclosure affidavits each
day, falsely swearing to have personal knowledge of the underlying documents. One employee
testified that the firln' s chief operating officer "signed as Inany as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a
day without reading a single word."s The elnployees also reported that the firln backdated and
altered documents, and that it took steps to cover its 111isconduct by changing the dates on
hundreds of docUlnents.
6
Last November, Fannie Mae issued a public notice stating that it had "terminated its
relationship with the Law Offices of David J. Stern" and inforlning servicers that they "may not
refer any future Fannie Mae nlatters to the Stern finn.,,7
the U.S. Trustee Progranl (UST'P) of the Department of Justice is
investigating another firnl in the J{etained Attorney Network, the firln of Steven J. Baum, P.C. of
A111herst, Ne\v York, for tiling foreclosure dOClunents that appear to be false or
3 Attorney General of Florida, Press Release: Floril1a Lalv Firms Subpoenaed Over
F'oreclosure [Jractices (Aug. 10, 2010) (online at \vww.nlytloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsfi
newsreleases/2BAC 1AF2A61 BBA398525777B0051 BB30).
4/
e
/.
5 1'he l?ise anel J?all qf'o Associated Press (Feb. 6, 2011).
6 Questions Risin<.g ()ver F'annie anlll;rel/llie 's ()vers(ght New York
rrilnes (Oct. 19,2010); The Foreclosure New York 'Tilnes (Mar. 20,2008).
7Fannie Mae, L)ervicing Notice: ]'erlnination lvilh the Stern Lavv Firm
(Nov. 1 20 10) (online at w\vw.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/
pdf/20 1O/ntce 11101 a.pdf).
J-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Page 3
attel1lpting to foreclose on borrowers after rejecting their attelnpts to 111ake on-tinle
and failing to prove ownership of mortgages as it seized homes. The firm has also been accused
of illegally charging for foreclosure-settlement conferences, overcharging on foreclosure fees,
and racketeering.
8
Another firnl in the Retained Attorney Network, McCalla Raymer, L.L.C., is a defendant
in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintit1s allege that it engaged in fraud, racketeering, and the
manufacture of fraudulent foreclosure documents. Reportedly, this firnl established operations
in Florida under the nalne Stone, McGehee & Silver and hired ten forlner Stern law firm
elnployees.
9
The firm Stone, McGehee and Silver, LLC, dba McCalla Raymer currently appears
as a "Designated Counsel/Trustee" in Florida for Freddie Mac.
ID
Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), a $2.8 billion company headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida-and the largest provider of default loan services in the nation-is also
under investigation by the Florida Attorney General for producing apparently forged or
fabricated dOCUl1lents in foreclosure actions. 11 LPS is also a defendant in a federal suit alleging
an illegal fee-sharing schelne. Filed in federal bankruptcy court in Mississippi, the suit alleges
that LPS and another company, Pronlmis Solutions I-Iolding COlnpany, illegally required
attorneys in their networks to turn over a portion of their fees for foreclosure services, and that
another large law firnl, Johnson & Freedman, I-J.L.C., joined in this schenle. The Chapter 13
'rrustee [or the Northern District of Mississippi, a unit of the DepartInent of Justice, has joined as
a plaintiff. 12
A special investigation by Reulers last Decelnber reported that LPS and its affiliated
cOlllpanies also allegedly deployed low-skilled, non-lawyers to prepare foreclosure documents,
created invalid Inortgage assignl1lents to facilitate foreclosures, and rewarded attorneys for speed
rather than accuracy in filing court pleadings. Reuters reported:
8 See Federal Honle [.Joan Mortgage Corp. v. Raia, SP 002253/10, District Court of
Nassau County, New York (Henlpstead); Campbell v. Baunl, 10-cv-3800, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of New York Menashe v. Steven J. Baum P.C., 10-cv-5155, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District ofNe\v York (Central Islip); and Saum v. Lask, 2010- 012048,
New York Suprenle Court, County (Buffalo).
9 Novice J:;7orida Lcnv)Jers l.)llSIJicion in Foreclosure A1ess, Palm Beach Post (Jan.
13, 2011 ) (online at www.palnlbeachpost.com/nl0ney/real-estate/novice-florida-lawyers-draw-
suspicion-in-foreclosure-nless-1146402.htnl1).
10 Freddie Mac, (]uicle Exhibit 79: Designate(/ ("olinselIT'rustee (Florida) (revised 2/8/11)
(online at wvvw. freddienlac.coln/service/nlsp/exh79_ n.html).
II ()ftice of the Attorney General of Case Nunlber L10-3-1 094 (online at
http://nlyfloridalegal.conl/_85256309005085AB. nsf/0/98099A9003203OBE8525771300426A
68?C)pen&I-lighlight==0,lps).
12 'Thorne v. Pronlnlis Solutions I-Iolding Corp. et aI., Second Amended Class Action
COlnplaint, 10-01172 (BR Oct. 10,2010).
l"'he I-Ionorable SteveA. Linick
Page4
ThelawfiriTIS are on astopwatch. [An LPS spokesman] COnfirlTIed thatthe LPS Desktop
systelTI automaticallytinles howlongeach firm takes to completeatask. It assignsfirnls
thatturn outwork the fastest a"green"rating; slowerones"yellow"and"red"for those
thattake the longest. Courtrecords showthatgreenratings go to firiTIS thatjumpon
offeredassignlnentsfrom theirLPS computerscreensand almostinstantlyturnoutready-
to-filecourtpleadings,oftenusingteanlS oflow-skilledclerical workers with little
oversight fro111 the lawyers.13
Although Fannie Mae terll1inated its relationshipwith the Sternlawfirm lastNovember,
it does notappearto have terminated its relationshipswithanyofthe otherfirms described
above.
14
for Investigation
T'hese are seriousallegationsthat nlay have affectedthousandsofhomeowners. Forthese
reasons, Irequestthat youroffice initiateacOlnprehensive investigation into allegationsofabuse
by attorneysand lawfirms participatingin the Retained AttorneyNetwork,as well as servicers
and defaultloanservice providersalleged to have participated in these abuses.
Itis Illy understandingthatthe ll1issionofyourofliceis to "promotethe economy,
etliciency,and effectivenessofthe FHFA'sprogranls;to assistFHFAin the perforn1anceofits
111ission; to preventand detectfraud, waste, and abusein FHFA's and to seek
sanctionsand prosecutionsagainstthosewho areresponsible for suchfraud, waste, and abuse.,,15
In 2008, FHFAreplaced the OfficeofFederal HousingEnterpriseOversightandbecamethe
regulatorand conservatorfor Fannie Mae. As such,the agency'sduties includeoverseeingthe
"prudential operations"ofFannieMae and its contractorsand ensuringthattheiractivitiesand
operations"areconsistentwith the public
With this background,I requestthat you addressthe following issueswith respectto
attorneysand law firnls participatingin the Retained AttorneyNetworkprogramand with
respect to otherentitiesengagedby bothmortgage servicers InanagingFannieMae-backed loans
andattorneysand finns that are partofthe RetainedAttorneyNetwork:
1. '"1"'0 whatextent have hon1eo\vners lost theirhon1es to inlproper, illegal,orotherwise
invalid foreclosures as aresultofthe typesofabusesdescribed above?
13 Jd.
14 Fannie Mae, I?etainecl /ll1orney List (effective February 10,2011)(onlineat
https: IIw\vw. efanni enlae. colnlsf/technologyIservi nvreportlanl n/pdfl retai nedattorneylist. pdf).
15 Websiteofthe Federal I-lousing FinanceAdn1inistrationOfficeofInspectorGeneral
(accessedon Feb. 3,2011)(onlineat Www.fllfaoig.gov/).
16 Section 1313(a)(1 I-Iousing and Economic Recovery Actof2008 (P.L. 110-
289).
'rheI-Ionorable SteveA. Linick
Page 5
2. To what extenthave homeowners beencharged inlproper, illegal, orotherwiseinvalid
fees duringthe foreclosure process?
3. 1"0 whatextentare attorneys, lawiirlTIS, and otherentitiesengaged in fee-splitting,
kickbacks, orothersilnilarschenles?
4. What is the total anlount in 'excess fees" thathas been requestedfrom FannieMae by
attorneys and lawfirlns? Ofthis amount, howmuch has been reilnbursed, andhownluch
has beendeterlninedto be inappropriateorunwarranted?
5. I-lave FJ-IFA or Fannie Mae conducted investigations into allegationsofabuse by
attorneys, lawfirlTIS, orotherentities,and ifso, \vhat are the results? Werethese
allegationsconsideredbeforethe recentexpansionofthe RetainedAttorneyNetworkto
all 50 states?
6. Whatspecificinforlnation has been collectedregardingallegationsagainstthe following
firnls and theiraffiliates?
a. LawOfficesofDavid J. Stern, P.A.
b. l.law ()fticesofMarshall C. Watson, P.A.
c. Shapiro& Fishn1an'l l.l.L.P.
d. StevenJ. Baunl, P.C.
e. McCallaRaymer, L.L.C.
f. Johnson& Freednlan, L.L.C.
g. Prolnmis Solutions IIolding COlnpany
h. LenderProcessingServices,Inc. and LPS Default Solutions, L.L.C.
7. t-Iave there beenclaimsallegingthatotherattorneysorlawfirms participatingin the
Retained AttorneyNetworkprogranlorany defaultnlanagementfirms Inanagingthe
foreclosure ofFannieMae-backed loans have engaged in similarconductthat violatesthe
rightsofborrowersorinvestors, federal orstate foreclosure Initigationprograln
guidelines, federal orstate la\v, federal orstatejudicialrequirements, statebarethics
requirelnents,orotherregulations, rules, guidelines, orlaws?
8. 'fowhatextenthave the allegedabusesdescribed above underlnined lossandforeclosure
nlitigationeffortsand outcoll1es? Whatresponsibilitiesdo loanservicershave in
1110nitoring and overseeingthe activitiesofattorneys and otherthird party companies?
Whatare the levelsofcure rate and loss Initigationactivitiesamong retainedattorneys?
'rhe Honorable Steve A. Ljnick
Page 6
If you have any questions about this request, please have a member of your staff contact
Lucinda LJessley of the conlmittee staff at 202-225-4290.
'r'hank you for your consideration, and please feel free to contact me or my staff with any
questions.
Sincerely,
cc: The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairnlan
Electronically Filed 07/08/2013 07:33:04 PM ET
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
FLORIDA IN AND MARION COUNTY
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.: 2013-CA-000115
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK GILLESPIE, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________
NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' CONSENT TO ,JUDGMENT
Defendants, MARK GILLESPIE and JOEITA GILLESPIE AKA UNKNOWN SPOUSE
OF MARK GILLESPIE and ELIZABETH BAUERLE NKA ELIZABETH BIDGOOD
(hereinafter, the "Defendants"), file this Notice of Defendant's Consent to Judgment:
1. The Defendants, MARK GILLESPIE and JOETTA GILLESPIE AKA
UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MARK GILLESPIE and ELIZABETH BAUERLE NKA
ELIZABETH BIDGOOD, have been named as Defendants in this action.
2. Plaintiff is seeking to recover the property located at 8092 SW 115th Loop,
Ocala, FL 34481 based on an "event of default" under the terms of the Adjustable Rate Note
(Home Equity Conversion) a/kIa "reverse mortgage".
3. Because this is a reverse mortgage, the Defendants have no financial liability
under the terms of the subject loan. See paragraph 7(a) of the Note and 9(a) of the Mortgage.
4. Defendants do not wish to contest entry of final judgment against Defendants.
5. The Defendants desire swift resolution to this action so they hereby give consent
to having Judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff in this action.
KEL File #13LAW34876
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have electronically filed via the Florida Courts eFiling
Portal and furnished a true and correct copy of the foregoing to Angela M. Brenwald, Esquire, of
McCalla Raymer LLC, 225 E. Robinson S1., Orlando, FL 32801,
mrservice@mccallaraymer.com; via [x] Email Delivery, today July 5, 2013.
KAUFMAN, ENGLETT & LYND, PLLC
/s/ Anthony J. Solomon
Anthony J. Solomon, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 93057
111 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone No.: (407) 513-1900
Primary Email: asolomon@kelattorneys.com
Secondary Email: KELinbox@kelattomeys.com
Attorney for Defendants: MARK GILLESPIE and
JOETIA GILLESPIE AKA UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF
MARK GILLESPIE
KEL File #13LAW34876
34
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) in the state of Florida
UPL is a 3d felony subject to 5-yrs in prison (454.23), defined by Florida Bar Rule 10-2.1(a):
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me appears in this petition at Appendix L and alleges:
Neil J . Gillespie is not a lawyer. He has...represented a Trust in state and federal court
litigation, and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie...
I am not a lawyer. I appear pro se because I am indigent and financially unable to obtain counsel.
I deny Mr. Rodems allegation that I represented a Trust in state and federal court litigation,
and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie... I represent only my
personal interest for myself, and my personal interest as co-trustee, as permitted by law:
First Amendment right to petition the Governmental for a redress of grievances.
28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 17 capacity (a) real interest (1) own name (E) trustee of express trust
Fla Const, Art I, Sec 21: Access to courts. The courts shall be open to every person for
redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Florida Statutes, 454.18, any person, whether an attorney or not . . . may conduct
his or her own cause in any court of this state.
Fla. Prob. Rule 5.030(a) Exception, see Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy. I appear for my
own interest in the Estate. No one was appointed personal representative of the
Estate by Court Order. The last will and testament of my Mother names Mark
Gillespie personal representative and me as substitute personal representative.
Mark Gillespie, et al, represented in foreclosure by Tiffany Caparas Esq., Kaufman,
Englett and Lynd, PLLC; Notice of Consent to J udgment filed in 42-2013CA-000115
because they have no interest in the property. I only represent my interest in the trust.
Pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard, see Tannenbaum v. United States.
The Courts failed to make a counsel appoint for me on basis of mental, physical and
speech disability. I plan to make a new motion for counsel appointment ASAP.
Order of J udge Cook attached to Rodems UPL complaint is a sham. see U.S. v Terry
The ICCPR provides me additional rights to represent my own interest in a fair court.
I was a client of FLSMF and got legal advice on the foreclosure, no advice of UPL.
UPL by Mr. Rodems: Represented the state of Florida in 5:10-cv-503, J une 21, 2011, prohibited:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action, Fla. Const. Art IV 4, F.S. 16.01, State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein.
Mr. Castagliuolo, misprision of felony 18 U.S.C. 4, J une 21, 2011 failed to report Rodems UPL.
UPL by Mr. Rodems: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205 (and 20 related cases),
prohibited by Fla. Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, and McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.
UPL by paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez, McCalla Raymer, Rule 10-2.1(a), Ethics Opinion 70-62,
activity which requires the attorney's personal judgment and participation; Florida Court, see
emails Aug-07-2013 Gillespie-Martinez (Sep. Vol. App No. 2); District Court, see Rule 11
sanction motion (Doc. 15); Rule 55 motion for default judgment, (Doc. 16); Rule 72/Rule
60(b)(3) Verified Objection to Magistrate Order (Doc. 17); Affidavit 28 U.S.C. 144 (Doc. 22)
13

Neil Gillespie
From: "Robin McGough" <rmc@mccallaraymer.com>
To: <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Friday, J uly 05, 2013 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT, 13-11585-B
Page 1of 3
11/30/2013
Good morning,

The correct email address for service is MRService@mccallaraymer.com.

Thank you,

Robin McGough
Paralegal for Curtis A. Wilson, Esquire
____________________________
225 E. Robinson St., Ste. 660
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 674-1850
Fax: (321) 248-0420
Email: rmc@mccallaraymer.com

From: Curtis Wilson
To: Robin McGough
Cc: Yolanda Martinez
Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT, 13-11585-B

To: Curtis Wilson
Subject: Fw: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT, 13-11585-B

Curtis Wilson
McCalla Raymer, LLC
225 E Robinson St., Suite 660
Orlando, FL 32801

Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. vs. Neil J . Gillespie, et al.,
C.A. 11 Appeal Number 13-11585-B; LT District Court Docket No: 5:13-cv-58-oc-WTH-PRL
Dear Mr. Wilson,
14
Email-service of court documents I sent you Monday J uly 1, 2013 was returned for some reason, so I
updated your email address from the Florida Bar directory page, it seems okay now, i.e., the service of
court documents sent you J uly 3, 2013 did not bounce back. So I am resending, by forwarding below,
the email-service of court documents I sent you Monday J uly 1, 2013.
FYI, a similar problem happened with one of the HUD recipients, Michalene.Rowells@hud.gov, this
email is not good, but appears on a service list provided by your colleague Ms. Parsons. The correct
email address is Michalene.Y.Rowells@hud.gov as provided by Amber Watson of the U.S. Attorneys
Office J uly 3, 2013. I will forward Ms. Watsons email with the correction.
Thank you.
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
(352) 854-7807

From: Neil Gillespie
To: J ohn F Harkness ; caw@mccallaraymer ; Danielle Parsons1 ; Danielle Parsons2 ; Robert Stermer1 ; Robert
Stermer2 ; United States of America, HUD ; Michalene Rowells ; Tiffany Caparas1 ; Tiffany Caparas2 ; Ryan
Ghantous ; Mark Gillespie ; DECCA ; Neil Gillespie
Sent: Monday, J uly 01, 2013 8:56 PM
Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT, 13-11585-B

Court: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, 13-11585-B
Case caption: REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC v. NEIL J . GILLESPIE AND MARK
GILLESPIE AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE GILLESPIE FAMILY LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT
DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1997, et al.
PDF attachments for Neil J . Gillespie, individually and co-trustees
Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify Order
Motion to Stay or Recall Mandate
Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
Certificate of Interested Persons
Civil Appeal Statement and Appendix 11th Cir. R. 33-1(b) Portions of Record
Letter to Clerk
Transcript of HECM counseling April 22, 2008
Message: The attached court documents were sent U.P.S. Next Day Air Saver to the court today.
Please contact the undersigned with any questions. Thank you.
Sender: Neil J . Gillespie
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE NOTICES: If you are a client, this message
Page 2of 3
11/30/2013
is a privileged attorney-client communication. This email and all attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and
intended SOLELY for the recipients as identified in the "To", "Cc" and Bcc" lines of this email. If you
are not an intended recipient, your receipt of this email and its attachments is the result of an inadvertent
disclosure or unauthorized transmittal. Sender reserves and asserts all rights to confidentiality, including
all privileges which may apply. Pursuant to those rights and privileges, if you are not the intended
recipient, please immediately DELETE and DESTROY all copies of the email and its attachments, in
whatever form, and immediately NOTIFY the sender of your receipt of this email. And if you are not the
intended recipient, DO NOT review, copy or rely in any way on the contents of this email and its
attachments. NO DUTIES ARE INTENDED OR CREATED BY THIS COMMUNICATION. If you
have not entered into a fee agreement or executed an engagement letter with this firm, the firm DOES
NOT represent you as your attorney. You are encouraged to retain counsel of your choice if you desire
to do so. All rights of the sender for violations of the confidentiality and privileges applicable to this
email and any attachment are expressly reserved. IRS CIRCULAR 230 REQUIRED NOTICE : U.S.
Treasury Regulations require that we inform you as follows: Any U.S. federal tax information contained
in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (I) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter(s). FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES ACT NOTICE: Please be advised that a portion of this firms practice involves the
collection of debts. If you are a debtor, anything you say or communicate by email can be used for that
purpose.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Page 3of 3
11/30/2013

UPL Complaint Yolanda Martinez-File Closed

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UPL Complaint Yolanda Martinez-File Closed

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TheFloridaBar

Potrebbero piacerti anche