Florida Commission On Human Relations, Complaint Dec-10-2013-194p

VIA V.P.S. No.
lZ64589FNY94633807 December 10, 2013

Michelle Wilson, Executive Director
Florida Con1mission on Human Relations
2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100
Tallahassee, FL 32301 RE: New Complaint Enclosed
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Please find enclosed my complaint for civil rights violations and disability discrimination against
the persons and entities shown below.
1. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General of Florida
2. Diana R. Esposito, the Chief-Assistant Attorney General, Tampa
3. Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa
4. Valerie Williford, employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa
5. Laura Martin, employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa
6. David A. Rowland, General Counsel, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida
7. Sandra Burge, employee of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida
8. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida; Chief Judge Manuel Menendez Jr.
9. Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge
10. James M. Barton, II, Circuit Judge
11. Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge
12. Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida
13. Barker, Roden1s & Cook, P.A.
14. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida attorney
15. The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
16. Robert W. Bauer, Florida attorney
17. Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Florida attorney
18. Elisabeth Goodner, State Court Adminstrator
19. Laura Rush, General Counsel, Office of State Court Adminstrator
20. The Florida Bar, John F. Harkness, Executive Director, et al.
21. McCalla Raymer LLC, et al.
Also enclosed are a number of supporting exhibits. Thank you.
Gillespl
8692 SW 11 th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
En1ail: neilgillespie@mfi.net
TECHNICALASSISTANCEQUESTIONNAIRE
Your answers to this questionnaire are confidential pursuant to Florida Statute 760.11 (12)
I,NeilJ.Gillespie,herebywaiveconfidentiality;thedocumentsprovidedarepublic
recordsofandaboutcourtproceedings.
1. EstablishingJurisdiction:
a. Whatis today'sdate?12/10/2013
b. Whatis thenlostrecentorlastdatethatanallegeddiscriminatoryactoccurredagainstyou
bytheestablishnlentyouarefiling aclaimagainst? ONGOING;todaywithOSCA,seebelow.
TodayIreceivedemailfromLauraRush, GeneralCounsel,OfficeoftheStateCourtsAdnlinistrator,
refusingto providedisabilityaccommodationgettingrecordsfromtheThirteenthJudicialCircuit.
Theemailis enclosed. Ms. RushandtheOSCArefusedto complywithF.S. 282.601-282.606
AccessibilityofInformationandTechnology,andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA),and
theRehabilitationActof1973,etc.,etc. anyandallotherdisabilitylaw.
TheStateofFloridahasahistoryofcivilrightsviolationsanddisabilitydiscriminationtowardme
beginningwiththeFLDiv. VocationalRehabilitation(DVR). ImadeacomplaintDVRin 1998,
whichis enclosedwithmylettertoPres. JimmyCarterofOctober25,2013.Igotaresponsefronl
FCHROctober31,2013 whichis enclosed,togetherwithmyletterto FCHRofSeptember30,2013.
2. ContactInformation:
a. Name:NeilJ. Gillespie
MailingAddress: 8092 SW 115thLoop,OcalaFlorida34481
ZipCode: 34481 City: Ocala County: Marion State: Florida
b. Ifyouwantustocontactyoubye-mail,pleaseprovideyoure-mailaddress: neilgillespie@mfi.net
c. HomePhone: (352)854-7807 WorkPhone: N/A
CellPhone: decline DateofBirth: 03/19/1956
d. If youwillberepresentedbyanattorney,pleaseprovidetheattorney'snameandphonenumber:
Name: noattorney
e. Pleaseprovidethenameandtelephonenumberofan individualwhodoesnotlivewithyoubut
wouldknowhowto reachyou:
Name: Dr. KarinHuffer,3236MountainSpringRoad,LasVegas,NV89146;Tel. 702-528-9588,
Email: legalabuse@gn1ail.con1
f. HaveyoufiledacomplaintofdiscriminationwiththeFCHR,EEOC,HUD,oranylocalagency
withinthelastyear? Ifyes,completebelow:
AgencyName: N/A
3. BasisforDiscrimination
a. Onwhatbasisdoyoubelieveyouwerediscriminatedagainst? Pleasecheckonlytheboxorboxesthatapplyto
yourchargeofdiscrimination
RACE:
COLOR:
NATIONALORIGIN
SEX
CREED
)(PHYSICALDISABILITY/HANDICAP
b. Intheboxbelow,provideadescriptionoftheallegeddiscriminatoryactoractsthatthe
establishmenttookagainstyou. Yourdescriptionshouldincludethefollowing:
1. Whathappened,whotooktheactionsagainstyou,andwhen(whatdates)theactions
occurred. Ongoingdenialofdisabilityaccommodation,violationofCivilRights, chapter825 FS,
AbuseNeglect,ExploitationofElderlyPersonsandDisabledAdults.
FraudorimpairmentofmyPetitionNo. 12-7747totheU.S. SupremeCourt(fordenialofdisability
accomn10dation, civilrights,disabilityrights),alegitimategovernmentactivity, 18U.S.C. 371,by
AttorneyGeneralPamBondiandothersinheremploy,whoconspiredwithRespondentDavidA.
Rowland,GeneralCounselforRespondentThirteenthJudicialCircuitFlorida,andotherRespondents
andnon-respondents,inaconspiracyagainstmyrights, 18 U.S.C. 241,to deprivemeof rights
undercoloroflaw, 18 U.S.C. 242.ADA: 42USC12202- A Stateshallnotbein1mune.
AttorneyGeneralBondietal arecurrentlyengagedinongoingMisuseofPublicPositioninPetition
No. 13-7280totheU.S. Supren1eCourt,whereTheFloridaBaris across-partyforpolitical
persecutionofmeinretaliationformyPetitionNo. 12-7747to theGovernmentforaredressof
grievancesprotectedbytheFirstAmendment;ADA: 42USC 12202- A Stateshallnotbeimmune;
ADA: 42USC12203 - Prohibitionagainstretaliationandcoercion;under760.51 F.S. Violationsof
constitutionalrights,theFloridaAttorneyGeneralhadauthorityanddutyto representmebutdidnot.
Enclosedyouwillfindthefollowing documents: PetitionNo. 12-7747totheU.S. SupremeCourt,andguide
PetitionNo. 13-7280totheU.S. SupremeCourt; ComplainttotheFloridaCon1missiononEthics
UrgentAppealtotheUnitedNations,withtwo Supportingaffidavits
ConsolidatedAmendedMotionforDisabilityAccommodation,DeclaratoryRelief,Waive
Confidentiality;NoticeE-filingProhibitionbyDistrictCourt;Affidavitof Conflict,ADAdenial
c. Inthe boxbelow, identify any customers who havebeenin the same situationas
you, butweretreatedmorefavorablybecausetheyhaveadifferentprotectedclass thanyou
(Forexample,theyareadifferentrace,sex,nationalorigin,etc.). Provideabriefdescription
ofhowtheseemployeesweretreateddifferentlythanyou. Unknown.
Attachedis aletterfromDr. KarinHuffer,whowasmyAmericanswithDisabilityAct(ADA)
advocate. Dr. I-Iuffermaybeabletoprovidethisinfoffi1ation. Address: 3236MountainSpringRoad,
LasVegas,NV89146;Tel. 702-528-9588,Email: legalabuse@gmail.com
2
4. ContactInformation:
Providethenameofthebusinessyouarefilingthisclaimagainst.
TheAttorneyGeneralofFloridaetal, theThirteenthJudicialCircuitetatandthe Defendants/Respondentsin
PetitionNo. 12-7747andPetitionNo. 13-7280,personsnamedinthecomplainttothe FloridaCommissionon
Ethics,ElisabethGoodner, StateCourtAdministrator, andLauraRush,GeneralCounsel,Officeofthe
StateCourtsAdministrator; andcross-partyTheFloridaBarinPetitionNo. 13-7280.
McCallaRaymerLLC,225 E. RobinsonSt., Suite660, Orlando,FL32801,Respondent,Petition 13-7280
NOTE:McCallaRaymerLLC,aForeignLimitedLiabilityCompany,isshowing"Inactive"status
ontheFloridaDivisionofCorp. website,"ADMINDISSOLUTIONFORANNUALREPORT"
Providethenameof theHumanResourcesOfficeorothermanagementlevelcontactpersonforthis business.
PamBondiAG; CJManuelMenendezJr., 13thCircuit; JohnHarkness,FloridaBar,ElisabethGoodner,OSCA.
MartyStone,manageretal forMcCallaRaymerLLC,seeattached2012AnnualReport.
Mailingaddressofthebusiness: FLAttorneyGeneral, 101 W. GainesStreet,CollinsBldg,TallahasseeFL
ThirteenthJudicialCircuitFlorida, 800E. TwiggsStreet,Suite603,Tampa,Florida33602
Officeofthe StateCourtsAdministrator,500SouthDuvalStreet,Tallahassee,FL32399-1900
TheFloridaBar,651 E. JeffersonStreet,Tallahassee,FL32399-2300
McCallaRaymerLLC,225 E. RobinsonSt., Suite660,Orlando,FL32801
I understand that information on this questionnaire may be shared, in whole or part, by the
Florida Commission on Human Relations with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and theRespondent indicated. With theexception ofthese parties, this information
willbekeptconfidential.
I unde tand,agreeandrequestCommissionassistance

(Date)
I,NeilJ.Gillespie,herebywaiveconfidentiality;thedocumentsprovidedarepublicrecordsofand
aboutcourtproceedings.
Pleaseprintoutandmailorfax to:
FloridaCommissiononHumanRelations
2009ApalacheeParkway,Suite200
Tallahassee,Florida32301
Telephone(850)488-7082
Facsimile(850)488-5291
3

Neil Gillespie
From: "Laura Rush" <RushL@flcourts.org>
To: "'Neil Gillespie'" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Disability accommodation request, assistance getting public records from the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Page 1of 5
12/10/2013
Dear Mr. Gillespie,

This e-mail responds to your December 5, 2013, request for assistance in obtaining public records within the custody of the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit as a disability accommodation, presumably under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Pursuant to Title II of the ADA, the Office of the State Courts Administrator will make reasonable modifications in policies, practices,
and procedures; furnish auxiliary aids and services; and afford program accessibility through the provision of accessible facilities, the relocation
of services or programs, or the provision of services at alternative sites, as appropriate and necessary.

However, no provision of Title II of the ADA requires the Office of the State Courts Administrator to provide legal advice or counsel, or
administrative assistance, as a disability accommodation.

Therefore, for the reasons stated here and in my November 22, 2013, e-mail to you, the Office of the State Courts Administrator will not
assist you with your records request to the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit.

Sincerely,
Laura Rush
General Counsel
Office of the State Courts Administrator
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900
(850) 488-1824

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 10:25 AM
To: osca; Lisa Goodner; Laura Rush; Cal Goodlett; Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul; Shuaib Chalklen Special Rapporteur Disability; InfoDesk UN Geneva;
Hyacinthe Medenou; Gianni Magazzeni UN Geneva; Eunice Ajambo; Revi Kumar; Css Intern1 Ohchr; Eugene K. Pettis; Gregory W. Coleman; J ack Harkness;
Paul Hill; J ohn Thomas Berry; Kenneth Lawrence Marvin; Mary Ellen Bateman; William Abbuehl; USAFLM.State.Foreclosures@usdoj.gov; Tiffany Caparas2;
Tiffany Caparas1; McCalla Raymer E-service; Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil; Gregory J ones; AG Pamela J o Bondi; Bridget Kellogg Smitha; Renee Elise Thompson;
Patricia Moring; J ohnnye Ladine Friedrich; Barbara Burke; neilgillespie@mfi.net
Subject: Fw: Disability accommodation request, assistance getting public records from the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit

Elisabeth Goodner, State Courts Administrator
(850) 488-1824

RE: Disability accommodation request, assistance getting public records from the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit

Dear Ms. Goodner,

When can I expect a response to my request for disability accommodation, made to your counsel Laura Rush shown below, assistance getting
public records from the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit?

Time is of the essence. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Gillespie
To: Laura Rush ; Elisabeth Goodner ; Cal Goodlett
Cc: J ohn Anthony Tomasino ; neilgillespie@mfi.net
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:12 PM
Subject: Disability accommodation request, assistance getting public records from the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit

Laura Rush
General Counsel
(850) 488-1824

RE: Disability accommodation request, assistance getting public records from the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Dear Ms. Rush:
Thank you for your response. Since at least 2010 Elisabeth H. Goodner communicated with me as "Lisa" Goodner. Please take notice that I do
not work in your office, or in the judicial branch.
Your response below to my request for assistance getting records is misplaced. The Thirteenth J udicial Circuit did not deny access to the records,
so your citation to "the exclusive remedy for a denial of access to administrative records of the judicial branch is stated in rule 2.420(l),"
Unfortunately it appears you, Ms. Goodner and Mr. Goodlett are misusing your public position to secure a special privilege, benefit, or
exemption for himself, herself, or others - the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, in violation of 112.313(6). Please stop this misconduct.
Ms. Rush, I believe the information you provided is not correct. Rule 2.420(l) is not the exclusive remedy according to Section 16.60 F.S., the
Public records mediation program within the Office of the Attorney General, although the Attorney General is not likely to assist me. So I am
asking you for the final time, as a disability accommodation request, for assistance getting public records from the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit.
I am also providing this email cc to the Hon. J ohn A. Tomasino, Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court.
While it does not apply here, the remedy under Rule 2.420(l), an action for mandamus, presumes a fair, honest and functioning judiciary. Florida
does not have a fair, honest and functioning judiciary. Instead, Florida courts operate as a system of favors. You may disagree, but it does not
matter, because Rule 2.420(l) does not apply.
I requested assistance with getting records because each attempt I make is met with harassment as defined by Florida Statutes, Chapter 784,
Assault; Battery; Culpable Negligence
Section 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and
serves no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an
injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the
subject person or that persons property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person
commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
As I stated earlier, you may consider my request made my request under disability law.
Failure to comply with statutes or regulatory provision that either are designed to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to
protect themselves or establish 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 se. Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 3d Dist. 1978).
Under the Eggshell Skull Rule, defendant is liable for the plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's peculiar characteristics. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule
You may comply with the ADA through sections 282.601 through 282.606, Florida Statutes. I believe the records are stored electronically.
All electronic documents filed shall be accessible to persons with disabilities in the manner required by Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, sections 282.601 through 282.606, Florida Statutes
ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
F.S. 282.601-282.606
282.602 Definitions.As used in this part, the term:
(1) "Accessible electronic information and information technology" means electronic information and information technology that conforms to
the standards for accessible electronic information and information technology as set forth by s. 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, and 29 U.S.C. s. 794(d), including the regulations set forth under 36 C.F.R. part 1194.
282.606 Intent.It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this part, due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations
of the federal courts relating to comparable provisions of s. 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 29 U.S.C. s. 794(d), including
the regulations set forth under 36 C.F.R. part 1194, as of J uly 1, 2006. History.s. 73, ch. 2006-227.
Ms. Rush, as a member of The Florida Bar, you have a duty to report misconduct of lawyers and judges as provided by Rule 4-8.3(a) and (b), that
Page 2of 5
12/10/2013
includes J udge Menendez and Mr. Rowland.
Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the
appropriate professional authority.
(b) Reporting Misconduct of J udges. A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that
raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
It appears you, Ms. Rush, have knowledge of the fraud and impairment of Petition No. 12-7747 by J udge Menendez and Mr. Rowland, and thus a
duty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4 - Misprision of felony.
Finally Ms. Rush, your continued obstruction, on behalf of Ms. Goodner, is an impairment of my current Petition No. 7280 to the US Supreme
Court, deprivation of rights under color of law, and a conspiracy against rights. See the links below.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net

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 http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00925.htm
1739 Offenses Related to Obstruction of J ustice Offenses http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01739.htm
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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
From: Laura Rush
To: 'Neil Gillespie'
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Please see attached PDF, paper letter delivered by UPS today

Mr. Gillespie:

This e-mail responds to your October 10, 2013, and November 22, 2013, correspondence directed to State Courts
Administrator Lisa Goodner. I am General Counsel for the Office of the State Courts Administrator and authorized to respond to
your correspondence on behalf of Ms. Goodner.

You have asked that the Office of the State Courts Administrator assist you in obtaining records you requested, but
have not received, from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Please be advised that the exclusive remedy for a denial of access to
administrative records of the judicial branch is stated in rule 2.420(l), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. That provision
states:

(l) Denial of Access Request for Administrative Records. Expedited review of denials of access to administrative
records of the judicial branch shall be provided through an action for mandamus or other appropriate relief, in the
following manner:
(1) When a judge who has denied a request for access to records is the custodian, the action shall be filed in the
court having appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of the judge denying access. Upon order issued by the
appellate court, the judge denying access to records shall file a sealed copy of the requested records with the
Page 3of 5
12/10/2013
appellate court.
(2) All other actions under this rule shall be filed in the circuit court of the circuit in which such denial of access
occurs.

The Office of the State Courts Administrator has no authority to administratively address or resolve a denial of access
to records within the custody of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in lieu of the procedures stated in rule 2.420(l).

Your correspondence also contains allegations of misconduct by the court counsel and chief judge for the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit. The Office of the State Courts Administrator has no authority to investigate or otherwise address these
allegations. Complaints of attorney misconduct should be directed to The Florida Bar. Information about how to file a complaint
is contained on The Florida Bars Internet site at:
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum.nsf/0a92a6dc28e76ae58525700a005d0d53/dbac6623cf5c015f85257a3f0060b781!
OpenDocument. Complaints of judicial misconduct should be directed to the Judicial Qualifications Commission. Information
about how to file a complaint of judicial misconduct is contained on the Internet site for the Judicial Qualifications Commission
at: http://www.floridajqc.com/images/JQCComplaintForm.pdf.

Sincerely,
Laura Rush
General Counsel
(850) 488-1824

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:53 AM
To: osca; Lisa Goodner; Laura Rush; Cal Goodlett; Eugene K. Pettis; Gregory W. Coleman; J ack Harkness; Paul Hill; J ohn Thomas Berry; Kenneth Lawrence
Marvin; Mary Ellen Bateman; Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul; Shuaib Chalklen Special Rapporteur Disability; InfoDesk UN Geneva; Hyacinthe Medenou;
Gianni Magazzeni UN Geneva; Eunice Ajambo; Revi Kumar; Css Intern1 Ohchr; William Abbuehl; USAFLM.State.Foreclosures@usdoj.gov; Tiffany Caparas2;
Tiffany Caparas1; McCalla Raymer E-service; Hon. Hale Ralph Stancil; Gregory J ones; AG Pamela J o Bondi; Bridget Kellogg Smitha; Renee Elise Thompson;
Patricia Moring; J ohnnye Ladine Friedrich; Barbara Burke; neilgillespie@mfi.net
Subject: Fw: Please see attached PDF, paper letter delivered by UPS today

Elisabeth H. Goodner, State Courts Adminstrator
The Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA)
500 S Duval St.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6556
Ms. Goodner:
When can I expect a response from you to my October 10, 2013 letter, and disability request for assistance getting records from the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit of Florida, sent to you by email and in paper by United Parcel Service, No. 1Z64589FP296785173? The proof of delivery
shows J . Moon signed for the letter October 11, 2013 at 10.02 AM. Therefore I conclude that you received the letter.
Other than a limited response October 11, 2013 by General Counsel Laura Rush about the Second District Court of Appeal, I do not show a
response from you, Elizabeth H. Goodner, State Courts Adminstrator.
Kindly provide your response to my October 10, 2013 letter, and disability request for assistance getting records from the Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit of Florida, so that I many inform the U.S. Supreme Court, and International Human Rights Organizations, and others about your
position.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: 352-854-7807
From: Neil Gillespie
To: Lisa Goodner
Cc: Laura Rush ; Cal Goodlett
Page 4of 5
12/10/2013
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:38 AM
Subject: Please see attached PDF, paper letter delivered by UPS today

Page 5of 5
12/10/2013
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082
ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist
Counseling and Forensic Psychology
3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www.lvaallc.com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and
testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways
possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the J udge and
now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with
arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my
medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly
being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of
bullies to sort out a legal problem.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of J ustice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of J ustice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than
two years.
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
INACTIVE
ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
09/27/2013
NONE
Pri nci pal Address
6 CONCOURSE PARKWAY, SUITE 3200
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Mai l i ng Address
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Regi stered Agent Name & Address
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD
PLANTATION, FL 33324
Manager/Member Detai l
Name & Address
Title MGR
STONE, MARTY
ATLANTA, GA 30328
Title MGR
SILVER, ADAM
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...
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
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail/EntityName/forl-m11000002235-5db53846-7a33-40b4-911b-ccf54c883a96/M...
VIA U.P.S. No. lZ64589FNW92586929
October 25, 2013
President Jimmy Carter
The Carter Center
One Copenhill
453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30307
Re: Request for an observer in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dear President Carter,
My name is Neil Gillespie, age 57, a law-abiding, indigent, disabled citizen of the United States.
Recently I becanle aware of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
through your article U.S. Finally Ratifies Human Rights Covenant found on the Carter Center
website. http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html
October 23, 2013 I filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court and invoked
the ICCPR's protection from political persecution by The Florida Bar following the denial of my
Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Sllpreme Court, denied February 19, 2013,
and rehearing denied April 15, 2013. The petition resulted from my experience with the courts
and unsuccessful attempts at justice in a civil lawsuit and disability-vocational rehabilitation.
Petition No. 12-7747 sought protection of consumers of legal and court services through better
regulation of lawyers, law firms, the practice of law, and state judicial officers affecting
interstate commerce, relying in part on Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar that held lawyers engage
in "trade or commerce" and ending the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws.
In May 2013 Diana R. Esposito, Florida Chief-Assistant Attorney General, provided me
incriminating public records showing the Respondents engaged in fraud or impairment of
Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate governnlent activity (18 U.S.C. 371).
I am asking for a referral, an observer in my new petition, due to political persecution to
wrongfully foreclose my home on a "reverse" mortgage by McCalla Raymer LLC, wrongly
aided by U.S. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Ocala Division, U.S. District Court. Also, an open
investigation by The Florida Bar of me for unlicensed practice of law for representing my own
interests pro se, made by Ryan C. Rodems, a partner ofa law firm that stole $7,143 from my
settlenlent in the Amscot case, which is how this matter got started. Each time I hired subsequent
counsel to represent nle, counsel ultimately betrayed me, as shown in Petition No. 12-7747. One
such former counsel is now wrongly threatening to disrupt my Social Security disability benefits.
Enclosed you will find my urgent appeal to Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur, Independence
of Judges and Lawyers, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to Shuaib
Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability, United Nations Enable (website), Secretariat for the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for protection from political persecution,
and for an observer, due to fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747.
President Jimmy Carter October 25, 2013
The Carter Center
Page- 2
As you know the Florida Commission on Human Relations has a role on the ICCPR, although I
am not certain what the FCHR is supposed to accomplish. In 1993 Social Security determined
me totally disabled, and I sought vocational rehabilitation (VR) for a congenital speech disorder.
Prior to that time I was self-employed and hired people to do the things I could not. But VR
would not provide services, and said my disability was too severe to result in employment. I
made a complaint of discrimination in 1998, see enclosed the EEOC Charge of Discrimination.
Also enclosed is my letter September 30, 2013 to FCHR. Since writing that letter I found my
file, although I do not have a response from the FCHR. Back in 1993 VR demanded that I pass a
psychological test because I sought services for a congenital speech disorder. Recently I was
reading the file, and see two things. First, VR discriminated based on my disability by using the
wrong assessment. Second, VR failed to diagnose mental impairment from a traumatic brain
injury I sustained in 1998 when I got mugged in Philadelphia. Mr. Rodems' law firm was
supposed to assist me with VR in exchange for me being a class representative, but never did so.
Enclosed is my current petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a copy of
the previous Petition No. 12-7747. The U.S. Supreme Court does not accommodate persons with
disability, and I got no response to my request for accommodation. The Supreme Court did not
respond to my request for a guardian ad litem either. Enclosed is my disability request.
Previously Justice Thomas granted my Application No. 12A215 to consolidate two appeals and
extended time to file to December 10, 2012. So what happened after that is troubling. Hopefully
you can refer someone to observe the proceedings in my new petition. Thank you.
Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14 Avenue de la Paix, 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland
Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability
United Nations Enable (website)
Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
@ Department of Econonlic and Social Affairs
United Nations, S-2906, New York, NY 10017
VIA V.P.S. No. lZ64589FP290713304 September 30, 2013
Michelle Wilson, Executive Director
Florida Commission on Human Relations
2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100
Tallahassee, FL 32301
RE: 1998 Charge of Discrimination - Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Records request and request for information update
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Enclosed is a copy of a Charge of Discrimination - Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
filed by me June 2, 1998. The complaint is addressed to "Florida Commission on Human ReI.
and EEOC". What was the final outcome on this complaint? This is a request for the case
records. Also, please update my address, I now live in Ocala Florida.
Recently I became aware that a clinical psychologist who evaluated me when I first became a
client ofDVR was either not licensed by the state of Florida, or used a nickname and failed to
provide his business address in his report. The report itself show professional negligence and
disability discrimination, which I only recently came to fully understand. The Department of
Health is sending me a copy of the licensee's licensure file so I can figure this out. Does this new
information allow me to make another complaint of disability discrimination against DVR?
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
AGENCY CHARGE NUUBER
CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
.
0 FEPA
Th1s form 1s affected by the Pr1vacy Act of 1974; See Pr1vacy Act Statement before
complet1ng th1s form.
IX)
EEOC
FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN REL.
and EEOC
Stateor local Agency,ifany
NAUE (Indicate Hr., Hs., Hrs.)
HOUE TE.LEPHONE (Include Area Code)
Mr. Neil J. Gillesoie
STREET ADDRESS CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE DATE OF BIRTH
1121 Beach Drive N.E. Aoartment C-2 St. PetersburQ: FL "1"1701
NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,
STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ir more than one list beloit.)
NAIIE
INUUBER OF EIIPLOYEES. IIEIIBERS ITELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
State Of Florida/Div. Of Voc. Rehab Cat D (501 +)
STREET ADDRESS CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE COUNTY
"1251 "1rd Avenue North St. Petersburll FL 10"1
NAIIE TelEPHONE NUIIBER (Include Area Code)
STREET ADDRESS CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE COUNTY
CAUSE OF DISCRIIIINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es))
DATE DISCRIIIINATION TOOK PLACE
EARLIEST LATEST
DRACE oCOLOR DSEX oRelIGION oNATIONAL ORIGIN
12/04/91 oRETALIATION DAGE IX] DISABILITY oOTHER (Spectt;y)
0 CONTINUING ACTION
THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ir additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):
I. Personal Harm:
On December 4, 1991, I was denied vocational rehabilitation services.
II. Respondent's Reason for Adverse Action:
Douglas Ligibel, Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant, stated: "you are
not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your
disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation services to
result in employment.
III. Discrimination Statement:
I believe that I have been discriminated against on the basis of my
disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) .
o I want th1s charge f1led w1th both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY (When necessary for State and Local Requ1rements)
local Agency, 1f any. I w1ll adv1se the agenc1es 1f I Change my
address or telephone number and cooperate fully w1th them 1n the
I swear or aff1rm that I have read the above Charge and that
1t 1s true to the best of my knowledge, 1nformat10n and bel1ef.
processing of mv charge 1n accordance w1th the1r procedures.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foreg01ng 1s true
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
.,.."oot.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Day, month, and year)
DatJ '",,,',g"",13"..'.=)
EEOC FORM :l (Rev. 06/92)
CHARGING PARTY COPY
STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NAIlE Gillespie vs State 0
CITY/COUNTY OF St. Petersburg/Pinellas
CASE NUMBER _
AFFIDAVIT
I, Neil J. Gill espie beingfirstdulyswornuponmyoathaffirmandherebysay:
(Name)
I have beengiven assurances by an Agent ofthe U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission that this
Affidavit will beconsidered confidential by theUnited States Government andwill not bedisclosed as long as
the case remains open unless it becomes necessary for the Government to produce the affidavit in a formal
proceeding. Upon the closing of this case, the Affidavit may be subject to disclosure in accordance with
Agency policy.
Iam years of age, my gender is Ma 1e and my racial identityis __ ... _
(sex) (race)
Iresideat 1121 Beach Drive N.E. Apartment C-2
(Number/Street)
Cityof St. Pe t er sburg ,Countyof ---=-P-=i:.=.n.:.;:e::..:l=l=-a=s _
Stateof --'F'-"L==-- ,ZipCode__....3 3 ....
My telephonenumberis(tncluding area code) __ ....
Mystatementconcerns whichis
(Name of Union/Company/Agency)
locatedat 3251 3rd Avenue North
(Number/Street)
St. Petersburg FL 33703
(City) (State) (Zip)
Myjobclassificationis(If applicable) ....,.,....,:--:-.,--,- _
(job tit/e)
Myimmediatesupervisoris(If appl icable)'_.....I...;c:-;----:- ---:"....,-:-:-:;--;-- _
(Name) (job tit/e)
I believe that I have been discriminated against on the basis of my
disability, personality disorder and speech disability, in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
Respondent employs over fifteen (15) employees.
On December 4, 1997, I was denied vocational rehabilitation services by
Douglas Ligibel, Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant. Mr. Ligibel
stated: "you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services
because your disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation
services to result in employment. I did appeal the agency's decision.
'V-
K
Page1of __
(ijitia/s)
E:E:OC Att-A (Utl/89)

STATE OF __ _ CASE NAME G111e s p 1e v sState 0
CASE NUMBER _
CITY/COUNTY OF St. Petersburg/Pinellas
AFFIDAVIT (cent.)
I have read and had an opportunity
to correct this Affidavit consisting of '2--h,andwritten 0
typed g pages and swear that these
facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
X
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this
of .:I1z /IL e ( 9
() ,1.2
--.
AfF-B (6/211969)
THE
CARTER CENTER
Wehavereceivedyourrecentletter,butregretthatPresident
Carterisunabletoassistyouas requested.
ONE COPENHILL - 453 FREEDOM PARKWAY - ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30307 - (404) 331-3900 - FAX (404) 331-0283
Index to Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari U.S. Supreme Court
2012 Rule 13.5 Applications
2011 Rule 22 Applications
Petitioner pro se, in forma pauperis, Neil Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop,
Ocala Florida 34481, Telephone 352-854-7807, Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
2012
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court
Filed December 10, 2012; docketed December 14, 2012
Denied February 19, 2013; rehearing denied April 19, 2013
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3796666/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
Application No. 12-A215 to J ustice Thomas - Rule 13.5
Supreme Court of the United States - 2012
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and 12-11028 extended time, consolidate
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104557417/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
2011
Emergency Petition For Writ of Prohibition
Rule 22 Application to J ustice Thomas
Received J une 15, 2011, returned
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction
Received J une 2, 2011, returned
http://www.scribd.com/collections/4370587/
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari U.S. Supreme Court
Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari filed...........................................December 10, 2012
Application 12-A215 extended time to file until Dec-10-12
Re-submitted disability letter to Clerk.........................................................December 10, 2012
Initially submitted August 28, 2012; returned September 4, 2012
Letter to the Solicitor General......................................................................December 13, 2012
Waiver to respond filed, Ryan C. Rodems, Barker Rodems & Cook...........December 20, 2012
No other Respondent filed a waiver to respond to the petition
Rule 8 Notice, conduct unbecoming member of SCOTUS Bar, Mr. Rodems............J an-22-13
Rule 12.6 Notice of no party interest for Mr. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook......J an-22-13
Filed Supplemental Volumes, Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved......J an-22-13
Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie filed..................................February 13, 2013
Petition DENIED............................................................................................February 19, 2013
Petition for rehearing filed.................................................................................March 18, 2013
Rule 21 Motion to correct and supplement petition for rehearing.......................April 10, 2013
Letter to Clerk, Firsthand Accounts disability - 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392........April 12, 2013
Rehearing DENIED.............................................................................................April 15, 2013
Rule 21 Motion and Firsthand Accounts returned out-of-time........................April 16, 2013
Voluminous papers returned by the Clerk...........................................................April 17, 2013
Letter to Kathleen L. Arberg, Supreme Court Public Information Officer...........May 13, 2013
No response by Ms. Arberg or the Supreme Court
Rule 13.5 Applications to J ustice Thomas, Granted..................................September 13, 2012
Rule 22 Applications to J ustice Thomas....................................................................J une 2011
INDEX TO APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747
Appendix 2 Supreme Court Docket, Application No. 12A215
Appendix 3 Supreme Court Docket, Petition No. 12-7747
Appendix 4 Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al.,1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ
Florida state court alleged to operate as a RICO enterprise
1
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari
Supreme Court of the United States - 2012-2013
Appellate Case 1 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-11213
District Court, M.D. Fla., No. 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS
Appellate Case 2 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-11028
District Court, M.D. Fla., No. 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS
_________________________________
December 10, 2012 Petition for writ of certiorari filed, Neil J . Gillespie, pro se, in forma pauperis
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States
Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
Cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES: 12 categories, additional subparts.
C.A.11 Gillespies Affidavit, J udge Isoms Conflict, ADA Violations
C.A.11 Disability, Mental Integrity as 14th Amend. Liberty Interest
C.A.11 E-filing, Disability Accommodation, in support of IFP
C.A.11 Civil RICO, Hobbs Act, Title 15 U.S.C. Trade Commerce
Florida Supreme Court, documents in Case No. SC11-1622
J udicial Qualif. Comm. J udge Martha Cook, J QC Docket 10495
J udicial Qualif. Comm., J udge Clauda Isom, J QC Docket No. 12385
The Florida Bar v. Robert W. Bauer, File No. RFA 13-7675
The Florida Bar v. Eugene Castagliuolo, File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
The Florida Bar v. Ryan C. Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
U.S. Dist. Court pleadings, case 5.10-cv-503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS
U.S. Dist. Court pleadings in case 5.11-cv-539-WTH-TBS
December 10, 2012 Re-submission of request for disability accommodation/guardian ad litem.
Initially submitted August 28, 2012 to the Supreme Court Clerk, the
Honorable William K. Suter; returned September 4, 2012 with letter of
Mr. Clayton R. Higgins, J r., unable to assist you, Article III, U.S. Const.
December 14, 2012 Petition No. 12-7747 docketed. Response due J anuary 14, 2013.
2
December 20, 2012 Waiver to respond filed, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Barker Rodems & Cook.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida: No waiver or response filed.
Claudia Rickert Isom, Florida J udge: No waiver or response filed.
J ames M. Barton, Florida J udge: No waiver or response filed.
Martha J . Cook, Florida J udge: No waiver or response filed.
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel: No waiver or response filed.
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator: No waiver or response filed.
Robert W. Bauer/Law Office of RWB: No waiver or response filed.
J anuary 22, 2013 Rule 8 Notice, Conduct Unbecoming Member of SCOTUS Bar, Mr. Rodems.
NOTE - Notice was received by the Court J anuary 23, 2013 at 12.22 PM, but
does not appear on SCOTUS Docket. UPS No. 1Z64589FNW94832551
Called J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 17, 2013
Letter to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 22, 2013
Called Robert I dont see them in our system, J anuary 31, 2013
Message to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, February 8, 2013
Letter to Hon. William K. Suter, February 11, 2013 - No response
J anuary 22, 2013 Rule 12.6 Notice of No Party Interest for Mr. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook.
NOTE - Notice was received by the Court J anuary 23, 2013 at 12.22 PM, but
does not appear on SCOTUS Docket. UPS No. 1Z64589FNW94832551
Called J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 17, 2013
Letter to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 22, 2013
Called Robert I dont see them in our system, J anuary 31, 2013
Message to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, February 8, 2013
Letter to Hon. William K. Suter, February 11, 2013 - No response
J anuary 22, 2013 Filed Supplemental Volumes, Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.
United States Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.
Florida State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.
J anuary 24, 2013 Petition No. 12-7747 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
February 13, 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie served.
Intervening matters and Florida Bar Complaints.
Lawyer discipline in Florida: Catastrophically Broken - Hawkins Report
Local Discipline Components are a Fatal Defect in Florida Bar Discipline
ABA McKay Report 1992, and the ABA Clark Report 1970
Florida Bars Hawkins Report & Survey - May 2012 - J udges Dissatisfied
The Lawyer-J udge Bias in the American Legal System - Prof. Ben Barton
3
Antitrust - Legal Monopoly - Malice Aforethought, David W. Marston
The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007), J udge J acobs

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES, three (3):
Florida Bars Hawkins Commission on Review of Discipline System
Are Senior J udges Unconstitutional? 92 Cornell Law Review 453 (2007)
Separate Volume Appendix: Appendix 1 through Appendix 13
Book provided, David W. Marston, Malice Aforethought: How Lawyers Use
Our Secret Rules to Get Rich, Get Sex, Get Even...and Get Away with It
Publisher: William Morrow & Co., book provided to the Supreme Court.
February 15, 2013 Supplemental brief arrived and was DISTRIBUTED for conference the same day.
February 19, 2013 Petition DENIED.
March 18, 2013 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Petitioners Invitation to the American Bar Association to audit his
Florida Bar complaints, and disability accommodation. Review Legal
Abuse Syndrome, to complement the ABAs first comprehensive review
of disciplinary enforcement rules in 20 years, by Myles V. Lynk, Chair of
the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline.
March 27, 2013 Petition for Rehearing DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
April 9, 2013 Letter to Clerk: Tomorrow, April 10, 2013, I will send by U.P.S. next day
delivery a Rule 21 motion to correct and supplement my petition for
rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.
April 10, 2013 Rule 21 Motion to Correct and Supplement Petition for Rehearing.
[returned out-of-time, case closed; the Rule 21 Motion appears on Scribd]
Part 1 - Matters Concerning The Florida Bar. Request for Investigation to
Florida Bar President Gwynne Alice Young March 28, 2013 for
witness tampering and obstruction of justice in the complaint against
Robert W. Bauer, TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit. Honest Services
Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1346, Respondent Martha J . Cook, Florida J udge,
acted as Mr. Rodems marionette as described in U.S. v. Terry.
Part 3 - Disability. Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in
Reasonable Accommodations Law. 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)
4
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES:
Request Investigation, Fla. Bar Pres. Gwynne Young March 28, 2013
witness tampering, obstruction of justice, re TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Transcript of phone call - Kim Pruett-Barry Oct-03, 2012, w/audio CD
Opinion, U.S. V. Terry, 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
Honest Services Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1346, Respondent Martha J . Cook
Transcript, September 28, 2010, Final Summary J udgment, Civil
Contempt Errata Sheet, Neil J . Gillespie
Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, April 25, 2011
Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable
Accommodations Law. 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)
April 12, 2013 Letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Firsthand Accounts of disability
[returned, out-of- omitted in April 10th filing - Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement
time, case closed] in Reasonable Accommodations Law. 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)
Follow-up letter to my telephone call April 12, 2013 to J ames Bowden of the
Supreme Court, shipping delayed on a Rule 21 motion served April 10, 2013,
matters with The Florida Bar, and American Bar Association, additional
disability information and how it affected my case. [posted on Scribd]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/138292729/SCOTUS
April 15, 2013 Rehearing DENIED.
April 16, 2013 Supreme Court Clerk returned my Rule 21 Motion out-of-time.
April 16, 2013 Supreme Court Clerk returned my April 12, 2013 letter out-of-time.
April 17, 2013 Supreme Court Clerk returned voluminous pleadings from the petition.
Petition No. 12-7747 will be sent to the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) at the end of the Courts Term.
May 13, 2013 Letter to Kathleen L. Arberg, Supreme Court Public Information Officer.
Ms. Arberg did not respond to my letter, and did not respond to follow-up email sent
J une 11, 2013. Some of the information I requested included:
Public records in Application No. 12A215 showing why it was granted
Public records for the cert. pool memo in Petition No. 12-7747, etc.
Public records, Supreme Court does not e-file, use CM/ECF, or PACER
Disability, law & complications; Rule 21 Motion untimely, no e-filing.
5
May 14, 2013 Notice from The Florida Bar of the Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation
of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5), for appearing pro se in case no.
5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS which forms the basis of Petition No. 12-7747.
UPL complaint was made by Mr. Rodems against Neil J . Gillespie.
Documents in the UPL investigation are on the enclosed CD-ROM.
May 16, 2013 Letter to Kenneth Wilson, Fla. Assist AG, re David Rowland, General
Counsel, 13th Circuit misled you. Cc. to Gov. Scott, A.G. Bondi.
No response from Mr. Wilson, Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, or anyone else.
May 24, 2013 Letter to Gov. Rick Scott and AG Pam Bondi, copy of Petition No. 12-7747,
Re: David Rowland mislead Kenneth Wilson, Assistant Attorney General,
that I did not serve him per Rule 29 a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. No
response from Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, or anyone else.
May 24, 2013 Letter to U.S. Marshal William B. Berger, Sr., Tampa, Florida. Response by
Deputy Roger Devall, telephone call J une 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, said the U.S.
Marshall will serve a federal complaint on judges as provided by law. An
Ocala Division deputy Clerk denied this September 28, 2010 when I filed the
Complaint in 5:10-cv-503. Deputy Devall also advised the Clerk may not
issue summons. From the transcript, Deputy Devall, J une 3, 2013, page 14:
11 ...You might have issues getting summons --
12 summons issued by the Clerks court for Judges.
I served the Complaint(s) in each case under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(d) Waiver
(all parties except Mr. Rodems and firm); later learned waiver provision does
not apply to state governments. PDF copies on enclosed CD-ROM.
Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al., 1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ . This case
also shows the District Clerk would not issue summons against Fla. judges.
Mullerin v Hayter alleges a Florida state court operated as a corrupt RICO
enterprise. The Plaintiff alleged a Florida court deprived her of rights under
42 U.S.C. 1983 through a pattern of racketeering activity to benefit a local
attorney and law firm that used the court for asset stripping - to obtain
fraudulent court orders requiring money or property to be transferred from
the true owners - persons targeted by the enterprise - to the law firm and its
clients. The suit alleges the Alachua County Florida court was not operated in
an effective and expeditious manner for which it was created by statute - but
as a corrupt RICO enterprise for the private benefit of the law firm & clients.
A composite of documents in Mullerin v Hayter is posted on Scribd:
6
The Supreme Courts allotment order effective September 28, 2010 shows for the Eleventh Circuit,
Clarence Thomas, Associate J ustice. For Rule 22 Applications to Individual J ustices.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/ALLOTMENTORDER9-28-10.pdf
Application No. 12-A215 to J ustice Thomas - Rule 13.5
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and C.A.11 No. 12-11028 extended time, consolidate
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook. P.A.
Consolidate Florida Supreme Court No. SC11-1622 (only Aug-13-12 application)
September 13, 2012 Letter of Clayton R. Higgins, Application 12-A215 granted. The application
for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the above-entitled case has been presented to J ustice Thomas, who on
September 13, 2012 extended the time to and including December 10, 2012.
The letter does not show consolidation of the two federal appeals,
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and C.A.11 No. 12-11028.
August 29, 2012 Rule 13.5 Application to J ustice Thomas, extend time to file writ of certiorari
and consolidate two federal appellate orders for review on certiorari:
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and C.A.11 No. 12-11028.
August 17, 2012 Letter, returned papers, response from Mr. Clayton R. Higgins:
The application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the above-entitled case was sent by commercial carrier August 13, 2012
and received August 15, 2012. The papers are returned for the following reason(s):
The lower court opinion must be appended. Rule 13.5.
The application does not specify the amount of additional time requested.
Rule 13.5.
The application does not set forth with specificity the reasons why the
granting of an extension of time is thought justified. Rule 13.5.
It is impossible to determine the timeliness of your application for an
extension of time without the lower court opinions.
A copy of the corrected application must be served on opposing counsel.
If your are attempting to file the extension of time to file your petition for writ of
certiorari seeking review of both state and federal court orders, you must file
separate extension requests. You may not consolidate state and federal court orders.
7
August 13, 2012 Rule 13.5 Application to J ustice Thomas, extend time to file writ of certiorari
[returned, errors] and consolidate state and federal orders for review on certiorari:
Supreme Court of Florida, Case No. SC11-1622
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, 12-11213-C
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Case No. 12-11028-B
Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem
Notice of Extraordinary Circumstances (home foreclosure, reverse mortgage)
__________________________________________
[Not docketed - Returned out-of-time]
Petition for Writ of Certiorari - FLSC No. SC11-1622
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Florida Supreme Court No. SC11-1622
LT Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida
2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC
2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC
2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC
August 23, 2012 Letter response from Mr. Clayton R. Higgins:
The above-entitled petition for writ of certiorari was sent by commercial carrier
August 20, 2012 and received August 22, 2012. The papers are returned for the
following reason(s):
The petition is out-of-time. The date of the lower court judgment or order
denying a timely petition for rehearing was March 12, 2012. Therefore, the
petition was due on or before J une 11, 2012. Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1. When the
time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in a civil case (habeas action
included) has expired, the Court no longer has the power to review the petition.
The May 22, 2012 order from the Florida Supreme Court does not appear to be a
order denying a timely petition for rehearing.
August 20, 2012 Submitted petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for review
[returned out-of-time] of Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC11-1622. This was a five page petition
with six (6) Separate Volume Appendices, Appendix Volumes A through F.
Petition with all exhibits posted on Scribd 904 pages, http://www.scribd.com/doc/103699430/
Petition only posted on Scribd 16 pages, http://www.scribd.com/doc/103687638/
8
2011 Proceedings
[Not docketed - Returned, errors]
Emergency Petition For Writ of Prohibition
J une 15, 2011 Letter response from Mr. Clayton R. Higgins:
The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ of prohibition was received on
J une 15, 2011. The papers are returned for the following reason(s):
The petition does not show how the writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate
jurisdiction, what exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's
discretionary powers, and why adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other
form or from any other court. Rule 20.1.
The petition does not follow the form prescribed by Rule 14 as required by Rule 20.2.

A copy of the corrected petition must be served on opposing counsel.
J une 11, 2011 Rule 22 Application to J ustice Thomas, Emergency Petition For Writ of
[returned, errors] Prohibition, Appeal Order of The Supreme Court of Florida, No. SC11-858
For review by this Court is the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court
of Florida in Case No. SC11-858, by Order issued May 18, 2011, that
denied Gillespies Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, that sought
to remove Circuit Court J udge J ames D. Arnold and the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit, Florida from presiding over the lower tribunal case, Neil
J . Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J . Cook, Case
No. 05-CA-007205. Pursuant to Rule 23.3, a copy of the Order is
attached to this application. (Rule 22 Application, 10 pages)
Exhibits 1 - 10 in a Separate Volume Appendices (809 pages total)
From the Rule 22 Application, paragraph 7, page 4:
7. Gillespie is currently being pursued by law enforcement on an active arrest
warrant as a civil contemnor. J udge J ames D. Arnold found Gillespie in civil
contempt J une 1, 2011 and caused warrant number 22044323 to be issued for
his arrest. Gillespie is indigent and disabled. Gillespie was found indigent by
Allison Raistrick of the Clerks Indigent Screening Unit May 27, 2011
pursuant to section 27.52 Florida Statutes to appoint the public defender.
9
The public defender appeared at the civil contempt hearing J une 1, 2011 and
moved to clarify with the Court the applicability of the Application for
Criminal Indigent Status and Clerk's Determination. The Court found there
was no lawful basis for the appointment of the public defender to represent
the plaintiff, and issued Order Relieving The Office of The Public Defender
of The Thirteenth J udicial Circuit From Representation of Plaintiff Neil
Gillespie. (Exhibit 5).
___________________________________________________
[Not docketed - Returned, errors]
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction
J une 2, 2011 Letter response from Mr. Danny Bickell:
Your application for stay or injunction, received J une 2, 2011 is herewith returned
for the following reason(s):
You failed to comply with Rule 23.3 of the Rules of this Court which requires
that you first seek the same relief in the appropriate lower courts and attach
copies of the orders from the lower courts to your application filed in this Court.
You failed to identify the judgment you are asking the Court to review and to append
a copy of the order or opinion as required by Rule 23.3 of this Court's Rules.
You are required to state the grounds upon which this Court's jurisdiction is
invoked, with citation of the statutory provision.
May 31, 2011 Rule 22 Application to J ustice Thomas, Emergency Petition for Stay or
[returned, errors] Injunction, from Order of The Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC11-858.
The Supreme Court of Florida by Order in SC11-858 dated May 18, 2011
denied Gillespies Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and
Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed May 3, 2011. Gillespie
appeals that Order to this Court. (Rule 22 Application, 12 pages)
Exhibits 1 - 12 in a Separate Volume Appendices (918 pages total)
From the Rule 22 Application, paragraphs 1 and 2, page 2:
10
1. Petitioner pro se, Neil J . Gillespie (Gillespie), makes application to
J ustice Clarence Thomas pursuant to Rule 22 for an Emergency Petition For
Stay or Injunction, and states:
2. Gillespie is a disabled, indigent civil contemnor facing incarceration J une
1, 2011 at 11:00AM before J udge J ames D. Arnold, Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit, Florida, for violating a state court order. The question whether an
indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil
contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration is currently before this
Court in Turner v. Rogers, U.S. Docket 10-10 and was argued March 23,
2011. Based upon argument in Turner, Gillespie filed Plaintiffs Motion For
Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation Request, and Memorandum
Of Law, May 24, 2011. (Exhibit 1). The next day Gillespie emailed counsel
who participated in Turner seeking assistance. (Exhibit 2). About an hour
later attorney Krista J . Sterken called Gillespie at home with an offer of
representation contingent on a conflict search. Mr. Sterken is co-counsel with
Michael D. Leffel of Foley & Lardner LLP who submitted an amicus brief in
Turner for the Center for Family Policy and Practice. Unfortunately Mr.
Leffel declined representation by letter May 27, 2011. (Exhibit 3).
___________________________________________
Note x: Two Rule 22 Applications to J ustice Thomas were cross-filed in case 5:10-cv-503 on
August 30, 2011, see Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Notice of Filing Rule 22 Applications to United
States Justice Clarence Thomas. (Doc. 44). A three-page Notice appears at Doc. 44 on PACER, and
is attached here as Exhibit E. The full 246 page filing is posted on Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104658149/SCOTUS-Rule-22-Applications
Note x. Florida Supreme Court petition SC11-1622 was cross-filed in case 5:10-cv-503 on J anuary
10, 2012, see Notice of Filing Copy, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Supreme Court of Florida,
Case No. SC11-1622. (Doc. 62, 62-1) The two-page Notice (Doc. 62) is attached here. Exhibit F.
The full 59-page Florida Supreme Court petition SC11-1622, is posted on Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77963746/Notice-Petition-Mandamus-SC11-1622
Note x: Also in Fla.Sup.Ct. No. SC11-1622, Notice of Filing Copy, Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie
(Doc. 61) is my affidavit on the Representation of Eugene P. Castagliuolo FL Bar ID no. 104360.
The two-page Notice (Doc. 61) is attached here. Exhibit G. The affidavit is 58 pages on Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77963462/Affidavit-NJ G-Re-Castagliuolo
FRAUD OR IMPAIRMENT OF PETITION NO. 12-7747
A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY, 18 U.S.C. 371
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, 18 U.S.C. 242
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS, 18 U.S.C. 241
David A. Rowland - concocted a fraud to deny 12-7747 due process - a Respondent himself
Pamela J o Bondi, Florida Attorney General - failed to file a response brief due J anuary 14, 2013
Ryan C. Rodems - his firm stole $7,143. J udge Nielsen found a cause of action, Order J anuary 13 2006

Robert W. Bauer
Public records show David A. Rowland, General Counsel for the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit, Florida, concocted with others a fraud to falsely portray to
Kenneth Wilson, Florida Assistant State Attorney, that I did not serve
Rowland my petition per Supreme Court Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he
relied on Rowlands fraud, and did not submit a brief in opposition to the
Supreme Court due J anuary 14, 2013. See my letter to Kenneth Wilson,
Florida Assistant State Attorney, May 16, 2013.
Without a response by Mr. Wilson or Attorney General Pam Bondi for the
State of Florida, my petition was denied due process under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court relies on briefs in opposition
as part of its adversarial process to properly litigate a petition. The responses
were due J anuary 14, 2013. AG Bondi did not submit a response for Florida,
and therefore no response was distributed for the Conference of February 15,
2013. See my letter to Gov. Rick Scott and AG Pam Bondi May 24, 2013.
Instead of filing a waiver to respond to the petition, Attorney General Bondi,
acting for the state of Florida, was part of a fraud along with Mr. Rowland,
Mr. Wilson and Respondent Robert Bauer, where Mr. Rodems was selected as
the only party who would appear in the Supreme Court and submit a waiver to
respond to the petition, unless one was requested by the Court. This fit nicely
with plans of AG Bondi, and would allow Mr. Rodems to continue to harass
me, and lie to the Supreme Court to protect himself and all other Respondents.
This also shows why counsel Catherine Chapman did not represent Mr. Bauer
in the Supreme Court, and why she would not respond to me about her role.
Robert W. Bauer, referred to me by The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service.
TFB file No. 2013-00,540 (8B) alleges Mr. Bauer churned $31,863 in fees for
himself, failed to file an amended complaint, dropped the case, switched sides.
Violation of Rule 4-1.1. not competent.
Violation of Rule 4-1.3. not diligent.
Violation of Rule 4-8.4(c). dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Violation of Rule 4-8.4(d). conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Violation of Rule 4-8.3(a). failed to report misconduct of Mr. Rodems.
The Florida Bar has conflict in complaint due to its 12% LRS fee, $2,305.49.
Feb-09-2013 Mr. Bauer wrote in his response to Annemarie Craft that my
petition would be dismissed shortly- showing he had inside information.
Appendix A
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 May 16, 2013
and kenneth.wilson@myfloridalegal.com
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa
Office of the Attorney General
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States
Dear Mr. Wilson:
So sorry to see you got duped by court counsel David Rowland and paralegal Sandra Burge, who
misrepresented to you that I did not provide Mr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. That
must explain why the petition was not among the 323 pages of public records provided by your
office that arrived here in Ocala May 9, 2013 in response to my records request.
An email (Exhibit 1) from Mr. Rowlands paralegal Sandra Burge to Chief Assistant Attorney
General Diana R. Esposito 12/20/2012 at 12:51 PM, Cc to David Rowland and Chris Nauman,
advanced this material falsehood, which Ms. Esposito sent to you, Cc to Amanda Cavanaugh:
The Plaintiff's Notice of Filing the petition for writ of certiorari was received in the Legal
Department's Office on 12/18/12 is attached as well as the Court's docket indicating a
response is due, if needed, by J anuary 14, 2013. Neither a copy of the petition nor
"separate Volume Appendices" accompanied the Notice.
A letter (Exhibit 2) emailed by you J anuary 8, 2013 repeated the falsehood back to Mr. Rowland:
While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition....
On December 10, 2012 I served Mr. Rowland per Rule 29, proof of service, the following:
1. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States,
2. Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
3. Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
4. Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.
5. My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking 1Z64589FP297520287 shows delivery December 11, 2012
at 10:55 AM to the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 34481.
FYI, all UPS ground shipping within Florida is delivered next day, unless shipped on Friday.
The UPS proof of delivery for 1Z64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows DAVIS at
the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature D. Davis. A seven
(7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General May 16, 2013
Office of the Attorney General Page - 2
The document referred to by Ms. Burge in her deceptive email to Ms. Esposito was a Rule 12.3
notice, and notice of waiver to file a response, delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM to the
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit. Unfortunately Ms. Burge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Nauman failed to
inform you that my petition was delivered a week earlier, December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM.
The Thirteenth Circuit gang further mislead you by providing you my December 10, 2012 cover
letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court which they date-stamped December 18, 2012, when this
letter was in fact a second courtesy copy of the one received by Rowland December 11, 2012 but
does not appear date-stamped as such in the records your office provided me May 9, 2013.
Enclosed you will find evidence showing I served by UPS the Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of
waiver to Mr. Rowland December 17, 2012 tracking no. 1Z64589FP291778029, which was
delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, to the Courts address, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa,
Florida. The UPS proof of delivery shows DAVIS at the front desk signed for the delivery. A
composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 4).
The Supreme Court sent me three (s) sets of Rule 12.3 notices, and notices of waiver to file a
response, December 14, 2013 after my petition was docketed, with instructions for notifying
opposing counsel(s) that the case was docketed. (Exhibit 5).
You have my sympathy for any embarrassment caused by the deception of Mr. Rowland and his
accomplices, that caused an inaccurate letter to issue from the Office of the Attorney General
falsely implying I did not provide a copy of my petition to Mr. Rowland. (Exhibit 2).
Enclosed you will find my records request to Mr. Rowland intended to correct the record. If and
when I get an accurate response back, I will provide you the correct date-stamped petition for
inclusion in the record showing it was received by Mr. Rowland December 11, 2012.
Until then you can find Petition No. 12-7747 online at the link below. Thank you.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
cc: Gov. Rick Scott, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290544836
cc: Attorney General Pam Bondi, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294245643
Email to: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list; Mr.
Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth
Circuit BOG, David Rowland, K. Christopher Nauman, Sandra Burge.
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297024724 (Gov. Scott) May 24, 2013
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296600737 (AG Bondi)
Governor Rick Scott Attorney General Pam Bondi
Office of Governor Rick Scott Office of Attorney General
State of Florida, The Capitol State of Florida
400 S. Monroe St. The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Dear Governor Scott and Attorney General Bondi:
Please find enclosed copies of Petition No. 12-7747. Unfortunately David Rowland, General
Counsel for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al., mislead Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General, when Mr. Rowland misrepresented that I did not provide him a copy of
Petition No. 12-7747. Enclosed is a copy of my letter (only) to Mr. Wilson of May 16, 2013.
Also enclosed is my public records request (only) to Mr. Rowland, which so far he has not
responded to, or acknowledged. In lieu of the date-stamped petition from Mr. Rowland, I have
provided separately to each of you a computer copy of Petition No. 12-7747. If Mr. Rowland
ever provides the date-stamped petition I requested from him, I will provide you each a copy.
Unfortunately the Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, found
in the enclosed two-page AG Case #Tampa Monitor, is not factually accurate. I attribute the
errors to Mr. Rowlands falsehoods to Ms. Esposito and Mr. Wilson about the petition.
I will respond directly to Ms. Esposito about the Synopsis of Major Issues in the AG Case
#Tampa Monitor, to accurately inform and correct the record in Petition No. 12-7747.
Thank you for considering this matter affecting Floridas consumers of legal and court services.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
Cc: Diana R. Esposito, Chief-Assistant Attorney General, 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33602, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297792743; and email.
Cc email: ABA service list; the Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit
J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth Circuit BOG; David Roland, et al.

No. 12A215
Title:
Neil J . Gillespie, Applicant
v.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, et al.
Docketed: August 31, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-11028, 12-11213)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.
Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2012.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Peti ti oner:
Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807
Ocala, FL 34481
Party name: Neil J . Gillespie
Appendix B

No. 12-7747
Title:
Neil J . Gillespie, Petitioner
v.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit of Florida, et al.
Docketed: December 14, 2012
Linked with 12A215
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-11028-B)
Decision Date: J uly 13, 2012
Rule 12.4
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.
Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2012.
Dec 10 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis filed. (Response due J anuary 14, 2013)
Dec 20 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. to respond filed.
J an 24 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Feb 13 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie filed. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2013 Petition DENIED.
Mar 18 2013 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Mar 27 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
Apr 15 2013 Rehearing DENIED.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Peti ti oner:
Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807
Ocala, FL 34481
neilgillespie@mfi.net
Party name: Neil J . Gillespie
Attorneys for Respondents:
Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (813)-489-1001
Appendix C
Counsel of Record 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
Tampa, FL 33602
Party name: Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Mullerin v Hayter alleges a Florida state court operated as a corrupt RICO enterprise. The
Plaintiff alleged a Florida court deprived her of rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 through a pattern of
racketeering activity to benefit a local attorney and law firm that used the court for asset
stripping - to obtain fraudulent court orders requiring money or property to be transferred from
the true owners - persons targeted by the enterprise - to the law firm and its clients. The suit
alleges the Alachua County Florida court was not operated in an effective and expeditious
manner for which it was created by statute - but as a corrupt RICO enterprise for the private
benefit of the law firm and its clients. This case also shows the District Clerk would not issue
summons in a lawsuit against Florida judges. A composite of documents is posted on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/163229364/Sonja-Mullerin-v-J ohn-Hayter-1-12-Cv-190
Case: Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al.,1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ
U.S. District Court, Northern District, Florida - case filed August 20, 2012
Plaintiff - Sonja Mullerin, UF grad student in a landlord-tenant dispute. The Plaintiff was
previously an attorney licensed in Colorado but not licensed in Florida.
Defendants -J ohn Hayter, a Florida licensed attorney ID 275141.
J ohn F. Hayter, Attorney At Law, P.A., 704 NE 1st St., Gainesville, Florida 3260-15303
J udith Yesha Brill, individual, the landlord, and client of J ohn Hayter.
David Kreider is a judge of the Alachua County Court in his individual capacity.
[David Philip Kreider is a member of the judiciary and The Florida Bar, ID 961248]
Denise Ferrero is a judge of the Alachua County Court in her individual capacity.
[Denise Rae Ferrero is a member of the judiciary and of The Florida Bar, ID 971944]
Debbie Spivey, individual, and J udge Kreider's judicial assistant.
Doc. 16. First Amended Complaint, Civil RICO, 42 U.S.C. 1983, October 18, 2012.
Doc. 19. Motion for Order Directing Issuance of Summons, October 30, 2012.
Doc. 20. Letter to U.S. J udge Stephan P. Mickle, re summons, November 15, 2012.
Doc. 21. Order, Gary R. J ones, U.S. Magistrate J udge, in part below...J anuary 15, 2013.
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 and of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs
claims stem from state civil court proceedings involving a dispute with her landlord. She
contends that her landlord and her landlords attorney violated RICO by using the courts to strip
Plaintiff of her assets and that the attorney, three state court judges, and a judicial assistant
conspired to obstruct justice and violate Plaintiffs civil rights. The state court proceedings were
pending at the time Plaintiff filed her complaint. Plaintiff requests damages, permanent
injunctive relief, and attorneys fees....
Doc. 23. Order, dismissed w/o prejudice, U.S. Magistrate J udge Gary R. J ones, March 4, 2013.
Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al.,1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ
Florida state court alleged to operate as a RICO enterprise
District Clerk would not issue summons for Florida judges
Appendix D
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNY93689732 December 9, 2013
Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director
Florida Commission on Ethics
325 J ohn Knox Road
Building E, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Dear Ms. Doss:
Please find enclosed seven (7) sworn complaints for Misuse of Public Position, 112.313(6) F.S.
in the fraud or impairment of my Petition No. 12-7747 to the U.S. Supreme Court, a legitimate
government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, by Attorney General Pam Bondi and others in her employ,
who conspired with Respondent David A. Rowland, General Counsel for Respondent Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit Florida, and other Respondents and non-respondents, in a conspiracy against my
rights, 18 U.S.C. 241, to deprive me of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242.
Attorney General Bondi et al are currently engaged in ongoing Misuse of Public Position in
Petition No. 13-7280 to the U.S. Supreme Court, where The Florida Bar is a cross-party for
political persecution of me in retaliation for my Petition No. 12-7747 to the Government for a
redress of grievances protected by the First Amendment. Petition No. 13-7280 calls into question
the constitutionality of the federal HECM reverse mortgage statute, and eight Florida statutes.
Please find enclosed sworn complaints for Misuse of Public Position for the following:
1. Pamela J o Bondi, Attorney General of Florida
2. Diana R. Esposito, the Chief-Assistant Attorney General, Tampa
3. Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa
4. Valerie Williford, employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa
5. Laura Martin, employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa
6. David A. Rowland, General Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida
7. Sandra Burge, employee of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida
Petition No. 12-7747 was denied February 19, 2013. Rehearing was denied April 15, 2013.
In May 2013 I obtained 323 pages of public records from the Attorney General showing
Respondent David Rowland concocted with others a fraud to falsely portray to Asst. AG
Kenneth Wilson that I did not serve Rowland my petition as I certified under S.Ct. Rule 29.
Wilson claims he relied on Rowlands fraud, and did not submit a brief in opposition due the
Supreme Court J anuary 14, 2013. Without the Attorney Generals response, I was denied due
process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court relies on opposition
briefs as part of its adversarial process to litigate and decide a petition. Floridas opposition brief
was due J anuary 14, 2013 but was impaired by fraud. AG Bondi did not respond for Florida, thus
no opposition brief was distributed for the Supreme Courts Conference February 15, 2013.
Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director December 9, 2013
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 2
It now appears certain that Attorney General Bondi, AAG Esposito, AAG Wilson, Ms. Williford
and Ms. Martin were co-conspirators with Mr. Rowland all along. Attorney General Bondi,
AAG Esposito, AAG Wilson, Ms. Williford and Ms. Martin created with a corrupt intent the
following false public documents in furtherance of the fraud or impairment of Petition 12-7747:
Letter dated May 18, 2012 of Asst. Attorney General Diana Esposito sent through the U.S.
mail to me about Eleventh Circuit docket number 12-11028-B, an appeal of District Court
case 5:11-cv-00539, that stated a material falsehood, ...your initial complaint was dismissed
for, among other reasons, failure to make service of process on any of the defendants. Since
that is the Order of the Court.... Tellingly no such order exists in case 5:11-cv-00539.

Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor, a false public record corruptly created
by AAG Esposito, AAG Wilson, Ms. Williford and Ms. Martin to impair Petition 12-7747.

The Office of Attorney General is very familiar with this matter since at least 2007.

Attorney General Bill McCollum responded in December 2007 The Attorney General's
Office does not have jurisdiction in this matter with Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. who stole $7,143 from my contingency fee case.

In 2010 I made a complaint to McCollum under the 19th Statewide Prosecution Office
because this matter involves racketeering in several different circuits: Hillsborough (13),
Marion (5th), Alachua (8th), Leon (2nd) and now Pinellas (6th) with Eugene Castagliuolo.
The Attorney General has my federal complaint in its files since 2010 which I forgot about
until Pam Bondis Office provided me hundreds of pages of my filings with the AG.

Pam Bondi is well aware of this case too and J udge Martha Cook, and Floridas first
Husband and Husband vested mortgage to benefit a wealthy banker who bailed-out Cooks
community bank that was about to fail in 2009 under FDIC order. Unfortunately J udge Cook
is for sale. Petition 13-7280 shows honest services fraud with J udge Cook and Mr. Rodems,
as recently held in U.S. v Terry, pages 35-37 in my petition, and accompany this complaint.

Letter dated J anuary 8, 2013 of Asst. Attorney General Wilson to Mr. Rowland, a false
public record corruptly created as part of a conspiracy to impair Petition 12-7747, and sent
by email J anuary 8, 2013 at 12.52 PM to Mr. Rowland and Ms. Burge.
Sandra Burge, a paralegal assistant to David Rowland of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit,
corruptly created and sent false public email December 20, 2012 at 12.51 PM to AAG Esposito,
Cc to Mr. Rowland and Chris Nauman (Asst. General Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit), a
falsehood representing that I did not serve my petition or appendices as claimed, and in
furtherance of the fraud or impairment of Petition 12-7747.
My enclosed affidavit to the United Nations, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in 13, 7280 shows
how the conspiracy worked between the Attorney General and the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit.
Public records show that between September 27, 2012 and December 28, 2012, the persons
shown below knowingly and corruptly created a false official record for the state of Florida, the
Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor.
Diana R. Esposito, Chief-Assistant Attorney General of Florida, Tampa, Bar ID 16523
Author, Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor 12/20/2012 01:53:45 PM
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, Tampa, Bar ID 45212
Author, Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor 12/20/2012 02:42:13 PM
Laura Martin, author, Synopsis of Major Issues. May be employee of Thirteenth Circuit
Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor 09/27/2012 03:16:26 PM
Valerie Williford, author, Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor 12/28/2012
Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor 12/28/2012 10:48:19 AM
The Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues states the following in general
1
.
Plaintiff sued his former attorney and law firm in the 13th judicial Circuit Court. He lost
by summary judgment. He now brings this claim against his former attorney and law firm
and all the judges who had any involvement in his 13th J udicial Circuit Case. Notably, he
had until October 29, 2010 to file an amended complaint and has not done so. He filed a
voluntary dismissal as to his former attorney and law firm. The J udges and the 13th
J udicial Circuit have not been served.
The Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues makes false statements:
He lost by summary judgment. He now brings this claim against his former attorney and
law firm and all the judges who had any involvement in his 13th J udicial Circuit Case.
Case No. 5:10-cv-503 was filed before He lost by summary judgment, and before J udge
Cook and Mr. Rodems engaged in honest services fraud, and used the mail to carry out a
scheme or artifice to defraud another, 18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest
services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
Case No. 5:10-cv-503 brings claims against one former attorney, Robert W. Bauer, one
opposing counsel, Ryan Christopher Rodems, and two former law firms, Barker, Rodems &
Cook, P.A., and the Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.

1
There is no mention of my second case which shows racketeering, and failure of The Florida
Bar to discipline Robert W. Bauer, a Bar LRS referral, who charged me $31,863 in fees that only
benefited him, then he switched sides and joined Mr. Rodems to undermine my Bar complaints,
and Petition 12-7747.
Case No. 5:10-cv-503 does not make claims against all the judges who had any involvement
in his 13th J udicial Circuit Case. No claim was made against Hillsborough J udge Richard
Nielsen, the first trial judge. No claim was made against J udge J ames Arnold, the last judge.
The Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues makes a false or misleading statement:
Notably, he had until October 29, 2010 to file an amended complaint and has not done so.
He filed a voluntary dismissal as to his former attorney and law firm.
In Case No. 5:10-cv-503, voluntary dismissal was made in lieu of an amended Complaint,
and accepted by the Court, See PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AS
TO DEFENDANTS RODEMS & BRC IN LIEU OF AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 22)
The Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues makes a false or misleading statement:
The J udges and the 13th J udicial Circuit have not been served.
In Case No. 5:10-cv-503, The J udges and the 13th J udicial Circuit were served under Rule
4(d) waving service, a last ditch effort when clerks will not issue summons for judges. This is a
detailed matter, Deputy U.S. Marshall Devall admitted this is an issue. In Alachua County, Sonja
Mullerin, a former lawyer, filed a civil RICO lawsuit in Gainesville but the District Clerk would
not issue summons for judges. See Consolidated Notice of Filing Service of Process (Proposed)
page 1, 155 pages online http://www.scribd.com/doc/172064977/
Currently the Attorney General will not provide public records for Eugene Castagliuolo, a
former AAG who went into private practice many years ago who represented me in 2011 and
should not be practicing due to mental health issues, in my opinion. In 2012 Castagliuolo
wrongly sued Florida attorney J ackson K. Hilliard in Pinellas County, initially in small claims
court. The case was later transferred to county court. Mr. Castagliulo was unable to state a cause
of action for himself, and the matter and others warranted a Rule 3-5.2(a) Emergency Suspension
in my view.
Political Persecution by The Florida Bar
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 to the U.S. Supreme Court. Also see Petition No.
SC11-1622 for writ of mandamus, Florida Supreme Court, J anuary 9, 2012.
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.
In a few days I plan to submit a Supplemental Brief on Misuse of Public Position and will
provide a copy on request, along with whatever else you require. Please find enclosed:
1. The docket in Petition 12-7747, and first page of Statement of the Case, appears at Exhibit 1.
2. The docket in Petition 13-7280, and first page of Statement of the Case, appears at Exhibit 2.
3. The cover page for the current Constitutional Challenge appendix appears at Exhibit 3.
4. Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, Non-Cooperation of the Florida Attorney General, Exhibit 4.
5. Urgent Appeal to the United Nations for protection from political persecution. Exhibit 5.
6. My Affidavit to the UN, Fraud or Impairment of Petition No. 12-7747. Exhibit 6.
7. Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor. Exhibit 7.
8. Consolidated Notice of Filing Service of Process (Proposed). Exhibit 8.
9. Honest Services Fraud, J udge Cook and Mr. Rodems. Exhibit 9.
10. Letter of Bill McCollum November 7, 2007. Exhibit 10.
11. Letter of Bill McCollum November 5, 2010, re Statewide Grand J ury. Exhibit 11.
12. Letter of Diana Esposito May 18, 2012 to Neil Gillespie. Exhibit 12.
13. Letter of Kenneth Wilson J anuary 8, 2013 to David Rowland. Exhibit 13.
14. Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie to the U.N., I have a well-founded fear of political persecution.
Department of Legal Affairs, Office of Civil Rights
Fla. Stat. 16.57, as amended in 2003, authorizes the Attorney General to investigate alleged
civil rights violations under chapter 760. Fla. Stat. 760.021, as added in 2003, provides that the
Attorney General may commence a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties,
and other relief against any person or group perpetuating discriminatory practices. Any damages
recovered shall accrue to the injured party.
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida et al, case no. 5:10-cv-503-WTH-(DAB)-
TBS, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, is a civil rights lawsuit:
1. This lawsuit arises under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C., Chapter 126, Equal Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities,...
Plaintiff also makes claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights,
and the following amendments to the Constitution of the United States: The Fifth and
VirlindiaA. Doss,ExecutiveDirector December9,2013
FloridaCommissiononEthics
Page- 6
FourteenthAmendmentsas toDueProcess;TheEightAmendmentasto Cruel&
UnusualPunishment;andtheFourteenthAmendmentasto EqualProtection. This
lawsuitalsobringsclaimsunderArticle 1, Section21 of theConstitutionoftheStateof
Florida,Accessto Courts; Article 1, Section 17of theConstitutionoftheStateof
Florida,ExcessivePunishments.ThisCourtis vestedwithoriginaljurisdictionunder28
U.S.C. 1331, 1343,andsupplementaljurisdictionoverthestatelawclaimspursuantto
28 U.S.C. 1367.NOTE: TheComplaintwasservedunderRule4(d)waiver. See
http://www.scribd.com!doc/172064977/Thirteenth-Judicial-Circuit-Service-of-Process-Appendix
TheAttorneyGeneralofFloridashouldhaveappearedinthismatter,andrepresentedme, not
triedto cover-upwrongdoing. Thiscasehasanumberofdisabilityissues. Iwillprovidemore
informationassoonaspossible.Thankyou.
N 11 J. Gilles 'e
8 92 SW 15thLoop
Ocala,Florida34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Enclosures
-------------------------------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O.DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32317-5709
COMPLAINT
I. PERSON BRINGING COMPLAINT:
Neil J. Gillespie T I h
one
N b
er:
352-854-7807
N
arne: e ep urn _
Address:8092SW 115th Loop
C
t Ocala C
oun
t
y:
Marion Z C d
e:
34481
1 y: lp 0 _
2. PERSON AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT:
Currentorformerpublicofficer,publicemployee,candidate,orlobbyist- pleaseuseonecomplaintform
foreachpersonyou wish tocomplainagainst:
Telephone 850-414-3300
TheCapitol PL-01, Office oftheAttorneyGeneral
ress:__-_- _
Add
C
t Tallahassee C Leon Z C d 32399-1050
1 y: ounty: lp 0 e: _
T
"tl f ill "t" h ld ht AttorneyGeneralofFlorida
1 eo 0 lceorposllon e orsoug : _
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Please explain your complaint fully, either on the reverse side of this form or on additional sheets,
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions oftheperson named above. Include relevant
dates and the names and addresses ofpersons whomyou believe may be witnesses. Ifyou believe that a
particular provision ofArticle II, Section 8, Florida Constitution (the Sunshine Amendment) orofPart
III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (the Code ofEthics for Public Officers and Employees) has been
violated, please statethe specific section(s). Pleasedo notattach copies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionofthemwillsuffice" Also,pleasedonotsubmitvideotapesoraudiotapes"
4. OATH STATEOFFLORIDA "
COUNTYOF _
this _
I, the person bringing this complaint, do
depose on oath or affirmation and say that
thefacts setforth in theforegoingcomplaint
and attachmentstheretoaretrueandcorrect
tothebestof myknowledgeand belief
S
CEFORM 50-EFF.4/2008
------------------------------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O. DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 82817-5709
COMPLAINT
1. PERSON BRINGING COMPLAINT:
NeilJ. Gillespie T I h N b 352-854-7807
N
arne: e ep one urn er: _
Address:8092SW115thLoop
C
at Ocala C t Marion
Z
" C d
0
34481
_
1 y: _-----_-----_-_ oun y: _
Ip e:
Currentorformerpublicofficer,publicemployee,candidate,orlobbyist- please useonecomplaintform
foreachpersonyouwishtocomplainagainst:
Diana R. Esposito, Chief-AssistantAttorneyGeneral T I h N b 813-233-2600,x110
Narne: ----_---_------ e ep one urn er: _
501 EastKennedyBlvd., Suite 1100,OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
ress: ---- _
Add
C
at Tampa C t Hillsborough C d 33602
1 y: oun y: ---
Z
"
0 - lp e:
T
"tl f ffi "t" h ld ht Chief-AssistantAttorneyGeneralTampa
1 eo 0 lceorposllon e orsoug : -
Please"explain your complaint fully, either on the reverse side of this form or on additional sheets,
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions ofthe person named above" Include relevant
dates and the names and addresses ofpersons whom you believe may be witnesses. Ifyou believe that a
particular provision ofArticle II, Section 8, Florida Constitution (the Sunshine Amendment) or ofPart
III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees) has been
violated, pleasestatethe specific section(s). Pleasedo notattachcopies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionofthemwill suffice. Also,pleasedonotsubmitvideotapesoraudiotapes.
4. OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA
COUNTYOF
-------...;;------------
andattachmentstheretoaretrueandcorrect
tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief
_
CE FORM 50-EFF.4/2008
------------------------------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P. o.DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 82817-5709
COMPLAINT
I. PERSON BRINGING COMPLAINT:
N
arne:
NeilJ. Gillespie
-_____________
Teleph
one
N
urn
b
er:
352-854-7807
_
Address:8092SW 115thLoop
C
t Ocala
-________
C t Marion Z
Ip
C d
e:
34481
1 y: oun y: 0 _
foreachpersonyouwish tocomplainagainst:
Kenneth V. Wilson, AssistantAttorneyGeneralTampa 813-233-2600
N
arne: TelephoneNumber: -_
501 EastKennedyBlvd., Civil Litigation Bureau, OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
ress: - _
Add
Hillsborough Z C d 33602
City:Tampa
C
oun
t
y: Ip 0 e: _
T
"tl f ill "t" h ld ht AssistantAttorneyGeneralTampa
1 eo 0 lceorposllon e orsoug : -
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions oftheperson named above. Include relevant
dates and the names and addresses ofpersons whom you believe may be witnesses" Ifyou believe that a
violated, pleasestate thespecific section(s). Pleasedo notattach copies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionofthemwill suffice. Also,pleasedonotsubmitvideotapesoraudiotapes.
4. OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA ""\
COUNTYOF ~ . . . . . = . . ~ ~ ~ _
tothebestof myknowledgeandbelief
this-------..,e;-----
CEFORM50-EFF.4/2008
------------------------------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
COMPLAINT
Neil J. Gillespie T I h N b 352-854-7807
Narne: ------------ e ep one urn er: _
C
t Ocala C t Marion Z C d 34481
I y: oun y: lp 0 e: _
ValerieWilliford 813-233-2600
N
arne: TelephoneNumber: - _
501 EastKennedyBlvd., Suite 1100,OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
Add
ress: --------- _
Hillsborough
C d City: Tampa 33602
C
oun
t
y: _
Z
lp 0 e: _
Titleof officeorpositionheldorsought: EmployeeoftheOfficeofAttorneyGeneral
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions ofthe person named above. Include relevant
violated, pleasestatethespecific section(s). Pleasedo notattach copies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionofthemwillsuffice. Also,pleasedonotsubmitvideotapesoraudiotapes.
4. OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA \
COUNTYOF _
Sworpto(oraffirmeqJandsubscribedbeforeme
I, the person bringing this complaint, do this 'LQ dayof USh!..gtk.Qs:z-..-..:. ,
20 l3 liiit.le:r: L ,I!:'
thefacts setforth in theforegoingcomplaint (nameof personmlaJiiJ"11I!J.s!at.el;J;.en1:j
andattachmentstheretoare trueandcorrect
tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief.
CE FORM50-EFF.4/2008
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P. O. DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 82817-5709
COMPLAINT
NeilJ. Gillespie T I h N b 352-854-7807
Narne: ---------------- e ep one urn er: _
C
t Ocala Marion Z C d 34481
I y: ---
C
oun
t
y: lp 0 e: _
Laura Martin 813 233 2600
N
ame:__- TelephoneNumber: - -
Address: 501 EastKennedyBlvd., Suite 1100,OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
City: Tampa
C
oun
t
y: lp 0 e: _
Titleof officeorpositionheldorsought: EmployeeoftheOfficeofAttorneyGeneral
providinga detailed description ofthefacts and the actions ofthe person named above. Include relevant
violated, please statethespecific section(s). Pleasedo not attach copies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
4. OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA
COUNTYOF
to(oraffirmed) andsubscribedbeforeme
I, the person bringing this complaint, do this dayof ,
20 \3 ,by ;j. .
(name fperson
------------------------------------
this
20 ?2
(,--tk
,by
dayof
l0iA-k
(name

:r. ,u...@'?PC.-e
ofRe
,
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O.DRAWER 15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 82817-5709
COMPLAINT
Narne: e ep one urn er: _
C
t Ocala C t Marion
Z
C d 34481
1 y: ----___ oun y: _ Ip 0 e: _
DavidA. Rowland, GeneralCounsel T I h N b (813)272-6843
N
arne: e ep one urn er: _
800 E. TwiggsStreet, Suite603, Legal Department,ThirteenthJudicialCircuitOfFlorida
ress: _
Add
City:Tampa
C
oun
t
y: Ip 0 e: _
T
tl f ill t h ld ht GeneralCounsel,ThirteenthJudicialCircuitOfFlorida
1 eo 0 lceorposllon e orsoug : -_
providinga detailed description ofthefacts and the actions oftheperson named above. Include relevant
dates and the names and addresses ofpersons whom you believe may be witnesses. Ifyou believe that a
violated,pleasestatethespecific section(s). Pleasedo notattach copies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
4. OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA
COUNTYOF
Swornto(oraffirmed) andsubscribedbeforeme

OFCOMPLAINANT
CEFORM50-EFF.4/2008
------------------------------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
COMPLAINT
Narne: -------_______ e ep one urn er: _
C
t Ocala
--___________
C t Marion Z
Ip
C d 34481
1 y: __ oun y: 0 e: _
TelephoneNumber: (813)272-6843
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite603, Legal Department,ThirteenthJudicial CircuitOfFlorida
Add
ress: ---------- _
City:Tampa
Hillsborough
C d 33602
C
oun
t
y:
Ip 0 e: -
_
Z
__ __
T
tl f ffi t h ld ht ParalegalAssistant,ThirteenthJudicial CircuitOfFlorida
1 eo 0 lceorposllon e orsoug : --- _
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions ofthe person named above. Include relevant
violated, please statethe specific section(s). Pleasedo notattachcopies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
4. OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA
COUNTYOF_...-.._A_tlL_"""_o _
Swornto(oraffirmed)andsubscribedbeforeme
I, the person bringing this complaint, do this tD.... dayof L- ,
20 ,by f..) eu- :r: LL$ t? l6
thefacts setforth in theforegoingconlplaint (nameof personmakin statement)
andattachmentstheretoaretrueandcorrect
ignatureof NotaryP c- StateofFlorida)
tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief.
III

Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on
Independence of J udges and Lawyers Disability, United Nations Enable (website)
Office of the United Nations High Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights
Commissioner for Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities @ Department
United Nations Office at Geneva of Economic and Social Affairs
8-14 Avenue de la Paix United Nations, S-2906
1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland New York, NY 10017 United States
October 25, 2013
Urgent Appeal - For Protection from Political Persecution in the United States
Observer requested for new petition filed October 23rd in the U.S. Supreme Court
Dear Mrs. Knaul and Mr. Chalklen:
My name is Neil Gillespie, age 57, a law-abiding, indigent, disabled citizen of the United States.
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.
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.
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.
Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur, Independence of J udges and Lawyers October 25, 2013
Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability Page -2
Political persecution of Neil Gillespie
I am being persecuted in retribution for two recent petitions for redress of grievances:
Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
Petition No. SC11-1622 for writ of mandamus, Florida Supreme Court, J anuary 9, 2012
I. Persecution of me by The Florida Bar and Mr. Rodems - UPL and foreclosure defense.
On May 14, 2013 Ghunise L. Coaxum, Florida Bar Counsel of the Unlicensed Practice of Law
(UPL) Department, Orlando Florida, informed me by letter of the Unlicensed Practice of Law
Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie; Case No. 20133090(5). The UPL complaint was made by
Ryan Christopher Rodems, and alleges I engaged in UPL for representing my own interests in:
Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc. v. Neil J . Gillespie, et al, the wrongful foreclosure of
my home on a reverse mortgage called a HECM, Home Equity Conversion Mortgage.
Gillespie et al. v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, et al, case 5:11-cv-539-WTH-TBS,
part of Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
UPL is a violation of Florida Bar Rule 10.2-1(a), and a felony crime in Florida punishable by
five (5) years incarceration and a $5,000 fine. F.S. 454.23.
But it was Mr. Rodems who engaged in UPL by wrongly representing the state of Florida in my
federal 1983 and ADA disability lawsuit no. 5:10-cv-503, more information to follow.
II. Persecution of me by U.S. J udge William Terrell Hodges - wrongful home foreclosure.
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.
Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur, Independence of J udges and Lawyers October 25, 2013
Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability Page -3
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.
III. Persecution by The Florida Bar and Mr. Castagliuolo of Neil J . Gillespie - Disability.
Florida attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo has disparaged me on the basis of disability for over a
year, and made numerous threats to disrupt my disability benefits in letters to The Florida Bar.
The last letter I received from Mr. Castagliuolo is addressed to Susan Varner Bloemendaal,
Chief Branch Discipline Counsel, Tampa Branch Office, dated J une 19, 2013, and states in part:
I have collected a large pile of the many, many documents filed in various, places by
Gillespie over the past several years, and I am looking forward to furnishing that pile to
the SSDI abuse investigator for Florida....Once the SSA reviews the fruits of Gillespie's
labor, I'm confident that his handicap status will be very much at issue.
The letter shows cc: Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Disability Administration
(by regular U. S. Mail). Mr. Castagliuolo infers that I am not disabled, but feign disability as
part of a plan to abandon my former prosperous business, and to opt instead for a life dependent
on disability income. I have a number of similar writings from Mr. Castagliuolo. It appears he
does not know or understand much about my disability, and my life-long habilitation efforts.
Please find enclosed the following:
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J . GILLESPIE, FRAUD-IMPAIRMENT OF PETITION No. 12-7747
October 21, 2013- To the Special Rapporteur, Independence of J udges and Lawyers,
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Special
Rapporteur on Disability, United Nations Enable (website), Secretariat for the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Affidavit: Fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate government activity
(18 U.S.C. 371), deprivation of my rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. 242), and
conspiracy against my rights (18 U.S.C. 241).
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J . GILLESPIE-WELL-FOUNDED FEAR-POLITICAL PERSECUTION
October 21, 2013- To the Special Rapporteur, Independence of J udges and Lawyers,
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Special
Rapporteur on Disability, United Nations Enable (website), Secretariat for the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Affidavit: I have a well-founded fear of political persecution
Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur, Independence of Judges and Lawyers October 25, 2013
Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability Page-4
Also enclosed is a copy of Petition No. 12-7747, and a CD with the whole case file. My current
petition also enclosed, also with a CD with the files up to now.
I also wrote to President Jimmy Carter as I know he is interested in the ICCPR and the UN. A
copy of my letter to President Carter is enclosed.
This is all I can do now, I will follow-up as soon as possible. Thank you.
8092 SW 1 th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Enclosures
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON DISABILITY UNITED NATIONS ENABLE
SECRETARIAT FOR THE CONVENTION OF RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, NEW YORK, NY
_________________________________________
NEIL J . GILLESPIE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Petitioner pro se, in forma pauperis, Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, pro se IFP
vs. Denied Feb-19-2013; rehearing denied Apr-15-2013
THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT Application No. 12A215 granted by J ustice Thomas
FLORIDA, et al, September 13, 2012 to extend time and consolidate
Respondents. Eleventh Circuit Appeals Nos. 12-11213, 12-11028
________________________________/
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE:
FRAUD OR IMPAIRMENT OF PETITION NO. 12-7747, A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT
ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. 371), DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
(18 U.S.C. 242), AND CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS (18 U.S.C. 241)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
I, Neil J . Gillespie, under oath, testify as follows:
1. My name is Neil J . Gillespie. I am over 18 years old. I was the Petitioner appearing pro
se, in forma paupers, in the above-captioned Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court, an important and legitimate government activity.
2. I made this affidavit to document the fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, a
legitimate government activity (18 U.S.C. 371), deprivation of my rights under color of law
(18 U.S.C. 242), and conspiracy against my rights (18 U.S.C. 241).
3. Petition No. 12-7747 was denied February 19, 2013. Rehearing was denied April 15,
2013. In May 2013 Diana R. Esposito, Florida Chief-Assistant Attorney General, provided me
incriminating public records showing Respondent David A. Rowland, General Counsel for the
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 Mr. Rowlands fraud,
and did not submit a brief in opposition due the Supreme Court J anuary 14, 2013.
4. My letter to Mr. Wilson of May 16, 2013 shows how the fraud worked, and is attached
hereto. The letter consists of two (2) pages, supported by five (5) exhibits, 26 pages total.
5. 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.
6. I notified Florida Governor Rick Scott and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi of the
foregoing by letter May 24, 2013. Neither Gov. Scott nor AG Bondi responded. Attached hereto
is the one page letter to Gov. Scott and AG Bondi, and 5 pages of supporting documents.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts, upon personal
knowledge, and information and belief, are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
Dated this 21st day of October 2013.

NEIL J . GILLESPIE
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 May 16, 2013
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
Fw:Gillespiev. 13thJCC,etal: USSupremeCourt/ResponseDue
Diana Esposito to: KennethWilson 12/20/201201:58PM
Cc: AmandaCavanaugh
History: Thismessagehasbeenforwarded.
Ken, heretsthenewestemailfrom Sandy- nowparalegalassistanttoDavidRowland... D
Diana R. Esposito
Chief-AssistantAttorneyGeneral
Civil LitigationBureau
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
501 E. KennedyBlvd,Suite1100
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: 813-233-2600, x110
Fax: 813-233-2886
----- Forwardedby DianaEsposito/OAGon 12/20/201201:57 PM -----
From: "Burge.Sandra" 13.org>
To: "Esposito.Diana@myfloridalegal.com"<Esposito.Diana@myfloridalegal.com>
Cc: "Rowland, Dave"<ROWLANDA@fljud13.org>,"Nauman, Chris"<NAUMANKC@fljud13.org>
Date: 12/20/201212:51 PM
Subject: Gillespiev. 13thJCC, etal: USSupremeCourt/ResponseDue
Diana,
The Plaintiff'sNoticeofFilingthepetitionforwritofcertiorariwas received inthe Legal Department's
Officeon 12/18/12 is attachedas wellas theCourt'sdocketindicatingaresponse isdue,ifneeded,by
January14, 2013. Neitheracopyofthepetitionnor"separateVolumeAppendices"accompaniedthe
Notice.
Ipulledthedocketsforeachoftheappellatecases as wellas otherdocumentsthatyou mayfind
relevant.
Please adviseoftheplannedcourseofactionand providea copyoftheresponse, ifany,via attachment
toemail.
Thankyou inadvanceforyourassistance.
.. ,.:;:iHappy
Sandy Burge
Paralegal Assistant
ThirteenthJudicialCircuit
OAG- 006
1
Legal Department
800EastTwiggsStreet,Suite603
Telephone: (813)272-6843

....
Gillespiev. 13JCC.USC.121220.pdf
OAG- 007
PAM BONDI
ATTORNEYGENERAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEYGENERAL
General Civil Litigation - Tampa Bureau
Kenneth V. Wilson
Assistant Attorney General
501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone (813) 233-2880 Fax (813) 233-2886
Kpnnp,II.
January 8,2013
David Rowland
General Counsel
Administrative Office of the Courts
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida
800 East Twiggs Street, Suite 603
Re: Neil Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit et af.
U.S. District Court: 5: 1O-cv-503-0c-l OTBS, 5: l1-cv-539
1J.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: 12-11028, 12-11213
lJ.S. Supreme Court Application, No. 2A215
U.S. Supreme Court Petition, No. 12-7747
Dear Attorney Rowland:
Ihave been assigned to review the recent tiling and notification from Plaintiff concerning
his Petition for Writ of Certiorari C'Petition") and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis ('"'Motion") before the United States Supreme Docket No. 12-7747.
PlaintitT's letter, as well as, the docket of Proceedings and Orders before the U.s.
Supreme Court indicate Plaintiff filed his Petition and Motion on December 10, 2012.
While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition, it appears from his appeal cases
that he is attempting to '''combine'' two (2) appeal cases (12-11028 and 12-11213) as basis
for his Petition. The case numbers listed above are revised to reflect the additional cases.
Nonetheless, the nature and course of his Petition are not changed from our previous
communications, in his Petition will be dismissed relatively quickly. I do not plan
nor do I advise any action or response in regard to his Petition. This is particularly true
as service below was never perfected for any defendants of our mutual concern.
I will continue to monitor the matter until there is certain finality. Please do not hesitate
to contact me for any questions or concerns. [can easily accommodate an office visit as
well.
Sincerely,
lsi Kenneth V. Wilson
Kenneth V. Wilson
OAG- 005
2
Fw: Gillespiev. 13thJCC,etal: USSupremeCourt. No. 12.7747
KennethWilson to: MaryAnn Robinson,Amanda Cavanaugh 01/08/201301:28 PM
Thismessageisdigitallysigned.
Sincerely,
KennethV. Wilson
AssistantAttorneyGeneral
Civir LitigationBureau- Tampa
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
501 EKennedyBlvd., Suite1100
Tampa,Frorida 33602
Tel: (813)233-2880ext. 712
Fax: (813)233-2886
E-mail: kenneth.wifson@myfloridalegal.com
----- Forwarded by KennethWilson/OAGon01/0812013 01:28PM -----
From: "Rowland, Dave"<ROWLANDA@fljud13.org>
To: KennethWilson<Kenneth.Wilson@myfloridalegal.com>
Date: 01/08/201301:16 PM
Subject: RE: Gillespiev. 13thJCC,etal: USSupremeCourt,No. 12.7747
Mr. Wilson:
Thanks for your letter and your advice. We plan to follow your advice and w ~ take any
action. I'll alert you if anything changes on our end.
Thanks again - Dave
David A. Rowland
General COllnsel, ThirteenthJudicialCircuit
800East Twiggs Street I Suite603
Tampa, Florida33602
Telephone: (813) 272-6843
rowlanda@fljud13.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Wilson [mailto:Kenneth. Wilson@myfloridalegal.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08,2013 12:52 PM
To: Rowland, Dave; Nauman, Chris
Cc: Burge,Sandra
Subject: Gillespie v. 13th lee, et a]: US Supreme Court, No. 12.7747
GAG- 001
Please find attached my advice regarding Gillespie's recent Petition for Writ of ~ e r t i o r r i
before the United State Supreme Court. I do not advise or recommend any action. Please
do not hesitate to contact me for any questions or concerns, If desired, I can easily meet
with you to discuss any issues concerning this matter. Thank you - ken
(See attached file: Ltr.Rowland.130 108.pdf)
Sincerely,
Kenneth V. Wilson
Civil Litigation Bureau - Tampa
Tel: (813) 233-2880 ext. 712
Fax: (813) 233-2886
E-mail: kenneth. wilson@mytloridalegal.com Ltr.Rowland.13010B.pdf
OAG- 002
Proof of Del i very
Tracking Number: 1Z64589FP297520287
Service: UPS Ground
Weight: 1.00 lb
Shipped/Billed On: 12/10/2012
Delivered On: 12/11/2012 10:55 A.M.
Delivered To: 800 E TWIGGS ST
TAMPA, FL, US 33602
Signed By: DAVIS
Left At: Front Desk
Print This Page
Close Window
Dear Customer,
This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 05/13/2013 7:43 P.M. ET
Close Window
UPS: Tracking Information https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Tampa^...
1 of 1 5/13/2013 7:44 PM
3
Track
View Tracking History
Tracki ng Detai l A A A Help Print
1Z64589FP297520287
Updated: 05/11/2013 8:37 P.M. Eastern Time
Del i vered

Request Status Updates
Report a Claim
Addi ti onal Informati on
Type: Package
Weight: 1.00 lb
Shi pment Progress
What's This?
Delivered On:
Tuesday, 12/11/2012 at 10:55 A.M.
Left At:
Front Desk
Signed By:
DAVIS
Proof of Delivery
Shipping Information
To:
800 E TWIGGS ST
TAMPA, FL, 33602, US
Shipped By
UPS Ground
UPS My Choice
UPS My Choice Help
Add Description
Subscribe to UPS E-mail: Modify E-mail Preferences ViewExamples Site Feedback
Contact UPS
Browse Online Support
E-mail UPS
Live Chat
Call Customer Service
Support
Open a Shipping Account
Manage Accounts
Access Billing Options
Change Your Delivery
Solutions for:
Healthcare
Small Business
High Tech
More...
Other UPS Sites:

Home About UPS Site Guide Investors Careers Pressroom UPS Global UPS Mobile UPS Blog
Service Terms and Conditions Website Terms of Use Privacy Notice Your California Privacy Rights Protect Against Fraud
Copyright 1994-2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved.
My UPS Shipping Tracking Freight Locations Support UPS Solutions
Uni ted States | Contact UPS | The UPS Store Search Welcome, Neil J. Gillespie | Logout
UPS: Tracking Information https://www.ups.com/WebTracking/returnToDetails?loc=en_US
1 of 1 5/11/2013 8:37 PM

Neil Gillespie
From: "UPS Quantum View" <auto-notify@ups.com>
To: <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:37 AM
Subject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FP297520287
Page 1of 2
12/11/2012

UPS My Choice
can help you avoid
missed home
deliveries.

Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J .
Gillespie will not receive your reply.
At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice
is to confirm that the following shipment has
been delivered.
Important Delivery Information
Delivery Location: FRONT DESK
Signed by: DAVIS
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida
800 E TWIGGS ST
TAMPA
FL
33602
US

____2@@2@@2uo95wcv____
Delivery Date /
Time:
11-December-2012 / 10:55
AM
Number of Packages: 1
UPS Service: GROUND
Weight: 1.0 LBS

2012 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved.
For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy.
Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message.
For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS.

This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
the reading, copying, disclosure or other use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed
to please delete this e-mail immediately.
Privacy Notice
Contact UPS
Page 2of 2
12/11/2012
Track
Log-In for additional tracking details.
1Z64589FP297520287
Updated: 12/11/2012 8:17 A.M. Eastern Time
On Vehi cl e for Del i very Today

Change Delivery
Type: Package
Weight: 1.00 lb
Shi pment Progress
What's This?
Scheduled Delivery:
Tuesday, 12/11/2012, By End of Day
Last Location:
Tampa, FL, United States, Tuesday, 12/11/2012
Location Date
Local
Time
Activity
Tampa, FL, United States 12/11/2012 6:58 A.M. Out For Delivery
12/11/2012 3:30 A.M. Arrival Scan
Orlando, FL, United States 12/11/2012 2:30 A.M. Departure Scan
Orlando, FL, United States 12/10/2012 11:46 P.M. Arrival Scan
Ocala, FL, United States 12/10/2012 9:24 P.M. Departure Scan
12/10/2012 7:11 P.M. Origin Scan
United States 12/10/2012 5:59 P.M. Order Processed: Ready for UPS
To: TAMPA, FL, US
Shipped By
UPS Ground
Subscribe to UPS E-mail: Enter e-mail address Sign Up ViewExamples Site Feedback
Contact UPS
E-mail UPS
Live Chat
Support
Get Started
Register
Solutions for:
Healthcare
Small Business
High Tech
More...
Other UPS Sites:

Uni ted States | Contact UPS | The UPS Store Search New User | Log-In
UPS: Tracking Information http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processRequest?HTMLVersion=5...
1 of 1 12/11/2012 8:18 AM

Neil Gillespie
Subject: UPS Ship Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FP297520287
Page 1of 2
12/11/2012

UPS My Choice
can help you avoid
missed home
deliveries.

Learn More

This message was sent to you at the request of
Neil J . Gillespie to notify you that the electronic
shipment information below has been transmitted
to UPS. The physical package(s) may or may not
have actually been tendered to UPS for shipment.
To verify the actual transit status of your
shipment, click on the tracking link below or
contact Neil J . Gillespie directly.
Scheduled Delivery: 11-December-2012
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603
Legal Department
TAMPA
FL
336023558
US
Click here to track if UPS has received your
shipment or visit
http://www.ups.com/WebTracking/track?
loc=en_US on the Internet.

UPS Service: GROUND
Weight: 1.0 LBS


____2@@2@@2aoNk9CH____


Privacy Notice
Contact UPS
Page 2of 2
12/11/2012
Proof of Del i very
Service: UPS Ground
Weight: 1.00 lb
Delivered On: 12/18/2012 10:44 A.M.
Delivered To: 800 E TWIGGS ST
TAMPA, FL, US 33602
Signed By: DAVIS
Left At: Front Desk
Print This Page
Close Window
Dear Customer,
This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 05/13/2013 7:45 P.M. ET
Close Window
UPS: Tracking Information https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Tampa^...
1 of 1 5/13/2013 8:01 PM
4
Track
View Tracking History
1Z64589FP291778029
Del i vered

Report a Claim
Type: Package
Weight: 1.00 lb
Shi pment Progress
What's This?
Delivered On:
Tuesday, 12/18/2012 at 10:44 A.M.
Left At:
Front Desk
Signed By:
DAVIS
Proof of Delivery
To:
800 E TWIGGS ST
TAMPA, FL, 33602, US
Shipped By
UPS Ground
UPS My Choice
UPS My Choice Help
Add Description
Subscribe to UPS E-mail: Modify E-mail Preferences ViewExamples Site Feedback
Contact UPS
E-mail UPS
Live Chat
Support
Manage Accounts
Access Billing Options
Solutions for:
Healthcare
Small Business
High Tech
More...
Other UPS Sites:

Uni ted States | Contact UPS | The UPS Store Search Welcome, Neil J. Gillespie | Logout
UPS: Tracking Information https://www.ups.com/WebTracking/returnToDetails?loc=en_US
1 of 1 5/11/2013 10:21 PM

Neil Gillespie
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FP291778029
Page 1of 2
5/13/2013

UPS My Choice
can help you avoid
missed home
deliveries.

Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J .
Gillespie will not receive your reply.
At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice
is to confirm that the following shipment has
been delivered.
Delivery Location: FRONT DESK
Signed by: DAVIS
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
800 E TWIGGS ST
TAMPA
FL
33602
US

____2@@2@@2koKpX@-____
Delivery Date /
Time:
18-December-2012 / 10:44
AM
UPS Service: GROUND
Weight: 1.0 LBS


Privacy Notice
Contact UPS
Page 2of 2
5/13/2013
Track
Log-In for additional tracking details.
1Z64589FP291778029
In Transi t: On Ti me
Business
Day(s) Left 1

Change Delivery
Type: Package
Weight: 1.00 lb
Shi pment Progress
What's This?
Scheduled Delivery:
Tuesday, 12/18/2012, By End of Day
Last Location:
Departed - Ocala, FL, United States, Monday, 12/17/2012
Location Date
Local
Time
Activity
Ocala, FL, United States 12/17/2012 9:36 P.M. Departure Scan
12/17/2012 5:38 P.M. Pickup Scan
12/17/2012 5:18 P.M. The shipment has been dropped off and is now at The UPS Store.
United States 12/17/2012 4:44 P.M. Order Processed: Ready for UPS
To: TAMPA, FL, US
Shipped By
UPS Ground
Subscribe to UPS E-mail: Enter e-mail address Sign Up ViewExamples Site Feedback
Contact UPS
E-mail UPS
Live Chat
Support
Get Started
Register
Solutions for:
Healthcare
Small Business
High Tech
More...
Other UPS Sites:

Uni ted States | Contact UPS | The UPS Store Search New User | Log-In
UPS: Tracking Information http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processRequest?HTMLVersion=5...
1 of 1 12/17/2012 10:39 PM

Neil Gillespie
Subject: UPS Ship Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FP291778029
Page 1of 2
12/17/2012

UPS My Choice
can help you avoid
missed home
deliveries.

Learn More

This message was sent to you at the request of
Neil J . Gillespie to notify you that the electronic
shipment information below has been transmitted
to UPS. The physical package(s) may or may not
have actually been tendered to UPS for shipment.
To verify the actual transit status of your
shipment, click on the tracking link below or
contact Neil J . Gillespie directly.
Scheduled Delivery: 18-December-2012
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
Legal Department
TAMPA
FL
336023558
US
Click here to track if UPS has received your
shipment or visit
http://www.ups.com/WebTracking/track?
loc=en_US on the Internet.

UPS Service: GROUND
Weight: 1.0 LBS


____2@@2@@2Nohb1Ko____


Privacy Notice
Contact UPS
Page 2of 2
12/17/2012
I
Drop-Of f Package Receipt: 1 of 1
THIS IS NOT SHIPPING FOR YOUR RECORDS.
DROP-OFF DROP-OFF
The UPS Store #5520 Man 17 Dec 2012 5:18 PM
11100 SW 93 COURT RD
STE 10 PICKUP
(352) 402-0099
UPS Man 17 Dec 2012 3 pkgs
CUSTOMER:
Not Provided
ID Type: Not Provided 3 pkgs
TRACKING NUMBER CARRIER & SERVICE wt(lbs)
1Z64589FP291778029 UPS Ground 0.100
1Z64589FP290805241 UPS Ground o 100
1Z64589FP294720432 UPS Ground o 100
This receip* 1is*s each package received by The UPS S*ore 115520 and
indica*es *ha* *he informa*ion for each package has been *ransmi**ed *0 each
car r ier's da*a sys*em This receip* is no* conf i rma* ion *ha* *he car r ier has
picked up *he packages To ver ify when and if a package has been picked up,
en*er one of *he fo 11 owing web addresses in your browser and en*er *he
* rack ing numbers 1is*ed above.
h**p://*heupss*ore.com (selec* Tracking, *hen en*er Tracking II)
h**p://mbe.com (selec* Tracking, *hen en*er Tracking II)
You acknowledge *ha* *he shipmen* services provided by The UPS S*ore 115520
for *he 1is*ed packages are subjec* *0 and governed by each Car r ier
Agreemen*, if applicable, *he Ra*es and Service Guide for each carrier, and
*he *ariff in effec* a* *he *ime of shipmen*.
HOLIDAY RETURNS?
THE SHIPPING TO US,
WITH A VARIETY SHIPPING OPTIONS ONE THAT
Powered by iShip(r)
12/17/2012 02:20 PM Pacific Time
SEE NOnCE ON REVERSE regarding UPSTerms. and notice of limitation of \lability. Where allowed by Jaw, shipper authorizes UPS to act as forwarding agent for exPOrt control an"
customs purposes. If exported from the US. shipppercertlfies that tlrecommodlttes. technology or software expprted fromthe US In accordancewlth the Export AdmlDlstratiorf
Regulatlom. Divers/on tontrarylo lawIs prohibited:
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
OfficeoftheClerk
Washington,DC 20543-0001
WilliamK. Suter
ClerkoftheCourt
(202) 479-3011
December14, 2012
Mr. NeilJ.Gillespie
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala,FL 34481
Re: NeilJ.Gillespie
v. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etale
No. 12-7747
DearMr. Gillespie:
Thepetitionfor awritofcertiorariintheaboveentitledcasewasfiledon
December10, 2012andplacedonthedocketDecember14, 2012asNo. 12-7747.
Aformisenclosedfor notifyingopposingcounselthatthecasewasdocketed.
Sincerely,
WilliamK. Suter,Clerk
by I
ClaytonHiggi
CaseAnalyst
Enclosures
5
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
NeilJ.Gillespie
(Petitioner)
v. No. 12-7747
ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etale
(Respondent)
To Counselfor Respondent:
NOTICEISHEREBYGIVENpursuanttoRule 12.3thatapetitionforawritof
certiorariintheabove-entitledcasewasfiledintheSupremeCourtof theUnitedStates
onDecember10,2012,andplacedonthedocketDecember14,2012. PursuanttoRule
15.3,theduedateforabriefinoppositionisMonday,January14,2013. If tileduedate
isaSaturday,Sunday,orfederal legalholiday,thebriefisdueonthenextdaythatisnot
aSaturday,Sundayorfederal legalholiday.
UnlesstheSolicitorGeneraloftheUnitedStatesrepresentsthe
respondent,a waiverformisenclosedandshouldbesenttotheClerkonlyin
theeventyoudo notintendtofile a responsetothepetition.
OnlycounselofrecordwillreceivenotificationoftheCourt'sactionin
thiscase. Counselofrecordmustbea memberoftheBarofthisCourt.
Mr. NeilJ.Gillespie
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala, FL 34481
(352) 854-7807
NOTE: Thisnoticeisfor notificationpurposesonly, andneithertheoriginalnora copyshould
befiledintheSupremeCourt.
WAIVER
SupremeCourtof theUnitedStates
No. 12-7747
NeilJ.Gillespie v. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etal.
(petitioner) (Respondents)
IDONOTINTENDTOFILEARESPONSEtothepetitionfor a writofcertiorariunless
oneisrequestedbytheCourt.
Pleasecheckoneofthefollowingboxes:
o PleaseentermyappearanceasCounselofRecordfor allrespondents.
o Therearemultiplerespondents,andIdonotrepresentallrespondents.Pleaseentermy
appearanceasCounselofRecordforthefollowingrespondent(s):
IcertifythatI ama memberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates(Please
explainnamechangesincebaradmission):
Signature _
Date: _
(Typeorprint)Name _
oMr. OMs. oMrs. oMiss
Firm _
Address _
City&State Zip _
Phone _
SENDACOpyOFTHISFORMTOPETITIONER'SCOUNSELORTOPETITIONERIF
PRO BE. PLEASEINDICATEBELOWTHENAME(S) OFTHERECIPIENT(S)OFACOpy
OFTHISFORM. NOADDITIONALCERTIFICATEOFSERVICEISREQUIRED.
Cc:
Obtainstatusofcaseonthedocket.Byphoneat202-479-3034orviatheinternetat
http://www.supremecourtus.gov.HavetheSupremeCourtdocketnumberavailable.
_1m" III 1'.1111 rrr .'01_ t"
OFFICEOFTHE CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE S300
,. .1 . 'r"" '" 'If' .I ., I
_mY.'I'1'11111 IIIUt.1 .1U1 I " .1 d
u.s OFFICIALMAIL

Z ". 4
:J PlTNIV BOWl.S
02 1R $ 00.45
0000012042 DEC142012
MAILEDFROM ZIPCODE 20543
)
:::i44Bi F-r.()E:"? ,.,11111. ,1.' 1'11/11, ,111.111,', J1.11, J JII' II. J'II' 1.11. f IJ I
i .# t $ ....
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297024724 (Gov. Scott) May 24, 2013
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296600737 (AG Bondi)
Governor Rick Scott Attorney General Pam Bondi
Office of Governor Rick Scott Office of Attorney General
State of Florida, The Capitol State of Florida
400 S. Monroe St. The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Dear Governor Scott and Attorney General Bondi:
Please find enclosed copies of Petition No. 12-7747. Unfortunately David Rowland, General
Counsel for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al., mislead Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General, when Mr. Rowland misrepresented that I did not provide him a copy of
Petition No. 12-7747. Enclosed is a copy of my letter (only) to Mr. Wilson of May 16, 2013.
Also enclosed is my public records request (only) to Mr. Rowland, which so far he has not
responded to, or acknowledged. In lieu of the date-stamped petition from Mr. Rowland, I have
provided separately to each of you a computer copy of Petition No. 12-7747. If Mr. Rowland
ever provides the date-stamped petition I requested from him, I will provide you each a copy.
Unfortunately the Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, found
in the enclosed two-page AG Case #Tampa Monitor, is not factually accurate. I attribute the
errors to Mr. Rowlands falsehoods to Ms. Esposito and Mr. Wilson about the petition.
I will respond directly to Ms. Esposito about the Synopsis of Major Issues in the AG Case
#Tampa Monitor, to accurately inform and correct the record in Petition No. 12-7747.
Thank you for considering this matter affecting Floridas consumers of legal and court services.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
Cc: Diana R. Esposito, Chief-Assistant Attorney General, 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33602, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297792743; and email.
Cc email: ABA service list; the Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit
J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth Circuit BOG; David Roland, et al.
AG Case#Tampa Monitor- Page 1
AG #Tampa Monitor
ActiveCase
Neil_v. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etal
venue
Currentcourt{s): u.s.Sup. Court
Courtnumber: No. 12-7747 (rinked12A215)(11th 12-11028-8)
Judge: SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
OfficeoftheClerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001
JudicialContacts: WilliamK. Suter,ClerkoftheCourt
202-479-3011
Originatingcounty: Hillsborough
staffing
Lead counsel: KennethWilson
Unit: Potential
Location: Tampa
Appeal:
synopsis
Category: ADA, Civil Rights
Majorissues: Plaintiffsued hisformerattorneyand lawfirm inthe13th
judicialCircuitCourt. Helostby summaryjudgment. Henow
bringsthisclaimagainsthisformerattorneyand lawfirmandall
thejudgeswhohad anyinvolvementinhis 13thJudicialCircuit
Case. Notably,hehad untilOctober29,2010tofilean
amendedcomplaintandhasnotdoneso. Hefiledavoluntary
dismissalastohisformerattorneyand lawfirm. TheJudges
andthe 13thJudicialCircuithavenotbeenserved.
Constitutionalissue: None
Challenged
statute/constitutional
provision/code:
Multi-Stateissue: Yes e No
ReliefSought/Economic
Impact:
casehistory
Yearcaseopened: 2012
Databaseentry: 09/27/2012
Mostrecentactivity
(mmldd/yy):
12/18/2012
Natureofmostrecent
activity:
NoticeofPetitionforaWritofCertiorariwasfiledon 12/10/12
andplacedondocket12/14/12. Briefisoppositionisdue
--.-,1/14/13
Outcome:
Additionalparties
Additionalparties:
Amicusactivity:
Additionalcasenumbers
Lowercourt
OAG- 048
AG Case#Tampa Monitor- Page2
number:
Contract AOOOO
number:
LOAnumber:
Agency Judicial
represented:
Risk RiskClaimCategory:
Management: RiskClaimNumber:
RiskExaminer:
Phone:
Otherrepresentation
AG attorneyspreviously DianaEsposito
assignedtothiscase:
Opposingcounsel ProSe
category:
Opposingcounsel Neil J. Btl_I
name(s): 8092SW115thLoop
Ocala, FL34481
352-854-7807
Othercounsel incase:
Specialcomments
Casedocket
1. Application Granted By Justice Thomas Extending The Time To File
Until December 10, 2012
09/13/12 entered (Thomas)
09/17/12 filed
09/26/12 retrieved
2. Proof of Service [David A. Rowland, Court Counsel]
12/10/12 served
3. Notice of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on 12/10/12
and placed on docket 12/14/12. Brief is opposition is due Monday
1/14/13
12/18/12 received by court counsel
Authorhistory
Informationin thisrecordhasbeenfiled by:
LauraMartin(09/27/201203:16:26PM), DianaEsposito(12/20/201201:53:45PM), KennethWilson(12/20/2012
02:42:13PM), ValerieWilliford(12/28/2012 10:48:19AM)
OAG- 047
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 May 16, 2013
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291464859 May 16, 2013
and rowlanda@fljud13.org
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Of Florida
Legal Department
Dear Mr. Rowland:
This is a request for records, copies of the following documents I served you December 10,
2012, and were delivered December 11, 2012 to the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida:
1. U.S. Supreme Court Petition, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
(Provide a copy of the cover and CD itself, not the contents of the CD)
The petition, Rule 39 motion, Rule 29 proof of service, CD, and cover letter, were served on you
December 10, 2012 as provided for by Rule 29, by United Parcel Service (UPS), tracking no.
1Z64589FP297520287. UPS records show delivery the next day, December 11, 2012 at 10:55
AM to your address, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 33602.
(7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed.
Also provide copies of any logs showing receipt of the documents. For the documents, include
copies of the date-stamp received December 11, 2012 by your office, court counsel, and/or the
date-stamp of any other person, judge, office, or entity of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida.
Time is of the essence. Provide the records immediately. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Via email with attachments: K. Christopher Nauman, Assistant Court Counsel; Sandra Burge
Enclosures: UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents for 1Z64589FP297520287
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON DISABILITY UNITED NATIONS ENABLE
SECRETARIAT FOR THE CONVENTION OF RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, NEW YORK, NY
My safe room at home since J une 1, 2011
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
I have a well-founded fear of political persecution
I, Neil J . Gillespie, under oath, testify as follows:
1. My name is Neil J . Gillespie. I was the Petitioner pro se in Gillespie v. Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit Florida, et al, Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court.
The petition was denied February 19, 2013. Rehearing was denied April 15, 2013.
2. On Friday, April 19, 2013 at 9:32 AM I received harassing email from attorney Ryan C.
Rodems, taunting me about Petition No. 12-7747. I responded to Mr. Rodems by letter April 29,
2013 instructing him Mr. Rodems, this case is over. Move on with your life. Do not contact me
again. I provided a PDF copy of my letter by email to 31 people including Fla. Gov. Scott, AG
Bondi, Florida Bar officials, and American Bar Association officials. (the letter attached hereto).
3. Two days later, May 1, 2013, Mr. Rodems made a written complaint against me to The
Florida Bar for the unlicensed practice of law (UPL), for appearing pro se for my own interest.
The complaint is vexatious and without merit. The Florida Bar opened a UPL investigation of
me May 14, 2013. UPL is a felony, F.S. 454.23, with punishment up to 5 years incarceration.
4. On J une 1, 2011 Mr. Rodems corruptly got a civil bodily attachment arrest order issued
for a coercive confinement settlement J une 21st of my federal claims at the Tampa courthouse.
5. I have a well-founded of the sheriff breaking down my door to arrest me on a fraudulent
charge concocted by The Florida Bar and/or Mr. Rodems, who has terrorized me since 2006.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury,
that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
Dated this 22nd day of October 2013.
NEIL J . GILLESPIE
STATE OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR
Ghunise L. Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel
Unlicensed Practice of Law Department,
Orlando Branch Office
VS.
Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) Investigation, on
complaint by Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.

Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
To: "Rick Scott" <Rick.Scott@eog.myflorida.com>; "Pam Bondi" <pam.bondi@myfloridalegal.com>;
"J effrey Carter Andersen" <candersen@bushross.com>; "Laurel G Bellows"
<lbellows@bellowspc.com>; "J ames R. Silkenat" <jsilkenat@sandw.com>; "Ellyn Rosen"
<Ellyn.Rosen@americanbar.org>; "Myles Lynk" <Myles.Lynk@asu.edu>; "J oseph Bluemel"
<jbluemel@hamsfork.net>; "Nancy Cohen" <ncohen@mcpclaw.com>; "Dolores Dorsainvil"
<DorsainvilD@dcobc.org>; "Linda Gosnell" <lindagosnell1@gmail.com>; "J ames Hill"
<jhill@zkslaw.com>; "J ames A Kawachika" <J AK@opglaw.com>; "Amy Lin Meyerson"
<amy@almesq.com>; "Cleaveland Miller" <cmiller@semmes.com>; "Eugene Keith Pettis"
<epettis@hpslegal.com>; "Gwynne Alice Young" <gyoung@carltonfields.com>; "J ames N Watson"
<jwatson@flabar.org>; "J ohn F Harkness" <jharkness@flabar.org>; "J ohn Thomas Berry"
<jberry@flabar.org>; "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <kmarvin@flabar.org>; "Leonard E Clark"
<LClark@flabar.org>; "Paul F Hill" <phill@flabar.org>; "Susan Varner Bloemendaal"
<sbloemen@flabar.org>; "Theodore P Littlewood" <tlittlew@flabar.org>; "William W Wilhelm"
<wwilhelm@flabar.org>; "Gregory Harrison Fisher" <fishlaw@gte.net>; "Belinda Barndollar Lazzara"
<blazzara@mslo-law.com>; "Maribeth L. Wetzel" <beth@goldmanwetzel.com>; "Michael G Stofer"
<mstofer@deaconandmoulds.com>; "Sandra Fascell Diamond" <sdiamond@wdclaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:11 AM
Attach: Final response to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Apr-29-2013.pdf
Subject: Final response to Ryan Christopher Rodems
Page 1of 2
4/30/2013
Rick Scott, Governor of Florida
Pam Bondi, Office of the Florida Attorney General
The American Bar Association
The Florida Bar
J effrey Carter Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit J NC
Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D"

Dear Governor Scott, Attorney General Bondi, Mr. Anderson, and Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please find attached my final response to Ryan Christopher Rodems, prompted by his unwanted
and harassing email of April 19, 2013.
My letter gives notice to Mr. Rodems that our litigation is over, and that he should move on with
his life and not contact me again. The letter is also a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, rebuttal
to a number of issues raised by Mr. Rodems.
This matter is no longer about Mr. Rodems, or any individual bad lawyer; it is about the failure
of the State of Florida to adequately protect consumers of legal and court services, its failure to
properly regulate lawyers, law firms, the practice of law, and state judicial officers, which I
intend to pursue as long as possible, along with disability advocacy.
Florida Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood should be commended for his professionalism in
conducting the initial review of my Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems, and opening disciplinary
File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) pursuant to Fla. Bar Rule 3-7.3(b), as required and in compliance
with The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Unfortunately The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office is a crony "local discipline component",
as describe by the ABA McKay Report, and improperly closed my meritorious complaint against
Mr. Rodems.
This letter is provided to Mr. Rodems as a final response, and to make a record thereof with the
American Bar Association, The Florida Bar, the Thirteenth Circuit J NC, the Sixth Circuit
Grievance Committee "D", the Office of the Florida Attorney General, and the Governor of Florida.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Page 2of 2
4/30/2013
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296592596 April 29, 2013
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790
RE: Your unwelcome, harassing email Friday, April 19, 2013 at 9:32 AM
Dear Mr. Rodems:
In response to your unwelcome and harassing email captioned above, I suggest you move on
with your life and stop contacting me. Our case is over and you need to accept that fact.
Nonetheless, you and your partners concocted a scheme and stole $7,143 from my settlement in
the Amscot case. While representing your firm in conflict with me, a former client in the same
matter as the prior representation, you engaged in a wide range of misconduct, described in part
by Robert Bauer, Esq. in open court August 14, 2008: Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to
take a full nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work this out in a professional manner.
In matters before The Florida Bar, you have and engaged in misconduct, and joined with my
former lawyers in a pattern of racketeering activity to subvert or undermine my complaints.
In 2003 your firm accused me of extortion for making a $4,524 settlement offer under ACAP.
You have also committed crimes while improperly representing your firm and partner, including
honest services fraud with J udge Martha Cook, as set forth in my Rule 21 Motion to correct and
supplement my petition for rehearing, citing U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals. Unfortunately my motion was not heard, and was returned April 16, 2013.
You have also repeatedly disparaged me on the basis of disability, with a strategy intended to
inflict severe emotional distress on me, knowing I am vulnerable from your firms consultation
with me on disability and the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in DLES case 98-066-DVR.
Mr. Rodems, you are an unindicted criminal, a crook, a bully, and a liar. Nothing in your email
changes that fact. Your former client Heike Albert called you an a--hole, according to your
testimony April 4, 2012 before U.S. District J udge Honeywell. Mr. Castagliuolo referred to you
as asshole Rodems in his email to me J une 14, 2011.
However this matter is no longer about you, it is about the failure of the State of Florida to
adequately protect consumers of legal and court services, its failure to properly regulate lawyers,
law firms, the practice of law, and state judicial officers affecting interstate commerce. This is
my calling, in addition to disability advocacy, which I intend to pursue as long as possible.
This letter is provided to you as a final response, and to make a record thereof with the American
Bar Association, The Florida Bar, the Thirteenth Circuit J NC, the Sixth Circuit Grievance
Committee D, the Office of the Florida Attorney General, and the Governor of Florida.
Ryan Christopher Rodems April 29, 2013
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Page - 2
Your contumacious disregard of a court-imposed prohibition of conduct
Previously I instructed you not to contact me by email (or telephone) which you have disobeyed.
Your email captioned above provided no new information. As such, you are engaged in a course
of conduct directed at a me which causes substantial emotional distress to me and serves no
legitimate purpose. Your ongoing harassment of me is a volition of a court-imposed prohibition
of conduct and therefore a criminal felony offense (3rd degree) under F.S. 784.048(4).
We are not on a first name basis. I provided you notice thereof by certified letter December 22,
2006, with a copy to Hillsborough J udge Claudia Isom, who on February 5, 2007 entered the
following court-imposed prohibition of conduct on the record in open court.
Transcript, February 5, 2007 hearing before J udge Claudia Isom, page 9:
16 THE COURT: All right, back on the record. In
17 the context of this litigation please refer to each
18 other by your surnames so we won't have any question
19 about whether or not people are being professional.
20 Okay.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: And, J udge, would that go for
22 letters he sends me as well?
23 THE COURT: I said in the context of this
24 litigation. So if the letters have to do with this
25 litigation that would be encompassed in this.
A PDF copy of your email accompanies this letter, with the text set forth below.
From: "Ryan Rodems" <Rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:32 AM
Attach: Ltr Denying Gillespie motion for rehearing 4-15-2013.pdf; Finding of No
Probable Cause [Gillespie Complaint] [Fla Bar No. 2013-10,271 (6D).pdf
Subject: Supreme Court letter denying your motion for rehearing and Florida Bar
rejecting your grievance no probable cause
Neil:
The United States Supreme Court rejected your petition for writ of certiorari, and your
motion for rehearing on that. The Florida Bar rejected your grievance against me as
unfounded. I am sending you copies for your records, and you have my permission to
post them on your website.
Sincerely,
813/489-1001 (Office)
813/205-1198 (Mobile)
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com
You violated J udge Isoms court-imposed prohibition of conduct [F.S. 784.048(4)] by failing
to address me by my surname in the email, which letter is in the context of our litigation.
Your email of Friday, April 19, 2013 9:32 AM was blocked by my spam filter, and may have
been infected with a virus. I did not open the attachments, and deleted the email after making a
PDF copy. Any future email from you will be deleted unread. Any mail from you will be
refused. If you need to contact me, hire counsel. You are not welcome to contact me at all.
Petition No. 12-7747 - Supreme Court of the United States
Your statement about Petition No. 12-7747, captioned below, is false:
The United States Supreme Court rejected your petition for writ of certiorari, and your
motion for rehearing on that.
My petition and rehearing were denied - not rejected. The Court denies about 99% of the
approximately 10,000 petitions filed with the Court in the course of a Term. Review is
discretionary, and less than 100 petitions are granted certiorari per Term. Therefore most
petitions are denied certiorari, which denial is not a judgment on the merits of a case.
On September 13, 2012, J ustice Thomas GRANTED my Application No. 12A215 extending the
time to file until December 10, 2012. Certainly J ustice Thomas would not grant an application if
the petition was without some merit. However the process of selection is opaque, and relies on
cert. pool, briefings by law clerks, which unfortunately can prejudice a case. The fate of a
petition may be disproportionately affected by which clerk writes the pool memo. - Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cert_pool
The Supreme Court docket shows two cases for me, and only one for you. My Application No.
12A215 was granted by J ustice Thomas. A docket search shows nothing ever granted for you.
As shown in my Rule 12.6 notice of party interest submitted J anuary 22, 2013, you had no real
party interest in the petition anyway. I gave notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)
to you and BRC October 29, 2010 in Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB. On J une 21, 2011 you
and BRC improperly, and unsuccessfully, attempted to reenter the case. The Court henceforth
did not respond to any of your pleadings. J udge Hodges rejected you and your unprofessional
tactics. You and BRC were never a party in the main case, Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS.
(Note: You and BRC had an interest in my first petition filed August 20, 2012, in Fla. Supreme
Court No. SC11-1622, which was returned out-of-time, due to my confusion over a rehearing)
Unfortunately my Rule 21 Motion to correct and supplement my petition for rehearing was
returned unheard April 16, 2013, as well as a second letter to the Clerk April 12, 2013. The
motion arrived untimely and not considered on the merits, which included the following issues:
Part 1, Racketeering, The Florida Bar, and my letter to Ms. Young of March 28, 2013:
Ms. Young, the requested investigation into witness tampering and obstruction of justice
may vindicate Ms. Pruett-Barry. In that case it would show Robert W. Bauer is engaged
in the worst kind of misconduct possible: Betrayal of his clients with malice forethought.
Mr. Bauer may have discovered the perfect crime: He represents himself to clients as a
specialist in attorney malpractice, and once retained, bleeds the client of funds in a fake
representation that is intended to break the client, and intended to protect the subject
attorney. This looks like a pattern of racketeering that is aided and abetted by other
attorneys, such as Ryan Christopher Rodems, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, and Catherine
Barbara Chapman in my cases.
Ms. Young, is The Florida Bar part of this racketeering activity?
Part 2, Honest services fraud citing U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals, decided February 14, 2013, where you and J udge Cook carried out a scheme or
artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest services in violation of 18 U.S.C.
201(b)(2), 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1346, F.S. 839.13(1) and 837.06.
J udge Cook accepted campaign donations from you, and two of my former lawyers, your
partners William J . Cook and J onathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings on summary
judgment, and civil contempt, during ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in Gillespie v.
Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205. Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major
J ames Livingston, provided evidence that you and J udge Cook falsified the record of the hearing.
As in Terry, J udge Cooks collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002
bid, according to Florida donation records of you and Messrs. Cook and Alpert - $100 each. An
honest services fraud agreement need not spell out which payments control which act, just that
J udge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.
Unfortunately, J udge Cook acted like your marionette. Terry at p. 11.
Part 3, Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable Accommodations
Law, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013) gave me language to explain my disability to the Court.
This Note only came to my attention March 21, 2013 via an email subscription.
Much of my accommodation was need due to Mr. Rodems S.O.B. Litigator style that went
beyond zealous advocacy, and was abusive behavior, harassment, obstruction of justice, and part
of a scheme or artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest services.
Unfortunately the lower courts negligently failed their role of establishing proper conduct for
Mr. Rodems. Respondent Court Counsel David Rowland wrote J uly 9, 2010: (Appendix C)
This is a response to your J uly 6, 2010 ADA request for accommodation directed to
Gonzalo Casares, the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit ADA Coordinator. You request the same
ADA accommodations previously submitted on February 19, 2010. Your February 19,
2010 ADA request was a request for the court to take the following case management
actions: (Only 1 and 4 are relevant on this point)
1. Stop Mr. Rodems' behavior directed toward you that is aggravating your post traumatic
stress syndrome. (sic)
4. Enforce J udge Isom's directives imposed on February 5, 2007 which require both
parties to only address each other by surname when communicating about this case and
require parties to communicate in writing instead of telephone calls.
Mr. Rowlands statement is an admission that I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
and that Mr. Rodems behavior was directed toward me to aggravate my PTSD. The undisputed
allegation shows Mr. Rodems harassed me, which behavior was a crime under section F.S.
784.048(4) because he violated a prior court-imposed prohibition of conduct by J udge Isom, a
course of harassing conduct directed to me, that aggravated my disability, intentionally inflicted
on me severe emotional distress, and served no legitimate purpose. Because an attorney is an
officer of the court, injunctive relief was appropriate. F.S. 784.0485.
Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component of
the administration of justice, and, as such, his conduct is subject to
judicial supervision and scrutiny. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Evans.
Disability statutes provide little guidance to the judges who must decide whether [an
accommodation]...is an innovative accommodation...or a clever way of gaming...and whether
[the accommodation]...is genuinely related to the disabling aspects of posttraumatic stress
disorder. (id. 1392). Here the accommodation sought was genuinely related to the disabling
aspects of posttraumatic stress disorder, and accompanying depression. Unfortunately no
medically qualified court personnel reviewed my disability request.
Finally, the Supreme Court is not infallible, see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857),
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
The Florida Bar
Regarding your claim that The Florida Bar rejected your grievance against me as unfounded, I
disputed this finding by email April 14, 2013 to ABA President Laurel Bellows, with copies to
those on the ABA and Florida Bar service lists, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D.
One reader, who has a law degree, commented on my email and wrote:
Look, Neil. These people are criminals. I suggest you file a criminal complaint with a US
Attorney or FBI
Shortly I will submit a comprehensive response to Florida Bar President Gwynne Young.
Pursuant to Fla. Bar Rule 3-7.3(a), Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood reviewed my complaint
against you, and determined that the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of
the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline. Mr. Littlewood
opened disciplinary File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) pursuant to Fla. Bar Rule 3-7.3(b), notified you
in writing, conducted an investigation, considered your response, my rebuttal and addendum, and
concluded the complaint warranted further consideration. On October 26, 2012 Mr. Littlewood
advised you by letter that the matter has been forwarded to The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch
Office for consideration.
Mr. Littlewood should be commended for his professionalism in conducting the initial review as
required and in compliance with The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Unfortunately The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office is a crony local discipline component as
describe by the ABA McKay Report.
Local components, such as local bar investigative committees, foster cronyism
as well as prejudice against unpopular respondents. - ABA McKay Report
Local discipline components are a fatal defect in The Florida Bars lawyer discipline system.
Susan V. Bloemendaal was then, and is today, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for the Tampa
Branch Office. Unfortunately Ms. Bloemendaal has provided you protection since my initial
complaint. On J une 21, 2004 the Florida Bar assigned my initial complaint to Assistant Staff
Counsel William L. Thompson who opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C). Mr. Thompson
diligently investigated my complaint, but after six months he was removed from the inquiry.
Susan Bloemendaal personally assumed investigation of my complaint, instead of assigning it to
another Assistant Staff Counsel as usually happens. Ms. Bloemendaal soon closed the file, and
notified me of the case closure by letter February 9, 2005, stating in part:
Mr. Gillespie, the bar has carefully reviewed all the information and documents provided
by you and Mr. Cook. Based upon this review, it is the bar's position that the objective
evidence is insufficient to support a finding of misconduct behalf of Mr. Cook.
Henceforth Ms. Bloemendaal assigned my subsequent complaints to Troy Matthew Lovell, who
is now Lead Attorney for the Tampa office of The Florida Bar. Mr. Lovell refused to honestly
consider my complaints, and continued to provide protection for Barker, Rodems & Cook.
For example, my complaint of August 5, 2006 alleged on page 2, 3 that the Closing Statement
did not comply with Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) in that no costs or expenses were itemized, and
payment of $2,544.79 to Mr. Alpert was not shown. Mr. Cook claimed that he was exempt from
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) because Amscot separately paid $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for
their claim against Amscot for court-awarded fees and costs. Mr. Cooks assertion was just a
perpetuation of his original fraud. First, the claim to $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs was
rejected by J udge Nielsen by Order entered J anuary 13, 2006. Second, there is no exemption to
the Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) requirement of to itemize costs and expenses even if paid separately.
Mr. Lovell immediately closed my complaint by letter August 8, 2006, just three days after I
submitted the complaint August 5, 2006. Mr. Lovell wrote:
Assuming all of these allegations are true, we nevertheless conclude that further
proceedings are unwarranted. Your case presents certain unusual situationsSimilarly,
your complaints about the itemization of fees and costs do not merit further
proceedings.We acknowledge that the language of the rule could be interpreted more
broadly, but undersigned Bar counsel is unaware of any binding precedent adopting that
interpretation.We further note that these supplemental issues have been raised in a civil
matter you have brought against Respondent's law firm. The Supreme Court of Florida
has made clear that the attorney disciplinary process is not a substitute for civil court in
seeking remedies against attorneys for civil claims.
In this case, there is no arguable basis on which you were harmed by the events you
described...
Similarly, your complaints about the itemization of fees and costs do not merit further
proceedings. The purpose of the rule in question is to address fees and costs which were
paid out of the settlement proceeds you received. No monies were paid out of your
settlement. We acknowledge that the language of the rule could be interpreted more
broadly, but undersigned Bar counsel is unaware of any binding precedent adopting that
interpretation. Given that you received 100% of the proceeds of your settlement, we find
no basis for disciplining Respondent for the content of the closing statement. Similarly,
the purpose of the rule about disclosing payments is for transparency, to prevent secret
arrangements between attorneys when clients do not realize how their fees are being
shared.
Mr. Lovells claim that I received 100% of the proceeds of my settlement, or that No monies
were paid out of your settlement, is a dishonest assessment in conflict with a lawyers fiduciary
duty to a client. Under Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees, me and the other 2 plaintiffs would
have done far better to collect our rightful settlement share of $9,143 each, and pay attorneys
fees to BRC of $28,569. Each plaintiff would have an additional $7,143 under Bar Rule 4-1.5(f).
If the purpose of the rule is for transparency, then itemization of the actual costs and expenses
paid would have prevented Mr. Cook from using a fraudulent Closing Statement to steal $7,143
from me and each of the other 2 plaintiffs. Attorney Seldon Childers determined that Mr. Cook
stole $7,143 from my settlement, not $6,224.68 claimed in my original pro se Complaint, see Mr.
Childers Economic Analysis Spreadsheet dated September 17, 2009.
Attorney Robert Bauer believed I was entitled to a contingent fee share of the $56,000 total
recovery, which was the basis for his representation of my claims in 05-CA-7205. Mr. Bauer
outlined your fraud to J udge Barton October 30, 2007 during a hearing for judgment on the
pleadings: (Transcript, October 30, 2007, pp.39-40)
22 [MR. BAUER] Another issue to point out the fact this is for
23 their claim of court-awarded attorney's fees, there
24 was no claim. The claim had already been determined
25 by the court, denied. It didn't exist any more.
1 [MR. BAUER] Yes, there was an appeal outstanding, but that
2 doesn't resurrect any claim. The only thing that's
3 going to resurrect a claim is an overruling by the
4 appellate court. A claim no longer exist once it's
5 been denied, even if it's on appeal. So in
6 asserting there existed a claim for attorney's fees
7 is false. It - it's not there.
And J udge Nielsen entered an Order J anuary 13, 2006 that established a cause of action for fraud
and breach of contract against Mr. Cook and BRC. J udge Nielsen rejected your claim to
$50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs. The matter was decided res judicata J anuary 13, 2006.
In concluding my Bar complaint of August 5, 2006, I cited the following case law:
Failing to provide clients with written fee agreement and failing to itemize costs in a
closing statement warrants one year suspension. (The Florida Bar v. Rood, 633 S02d 7
(1994). Attorneys must strictly comply with disciplinary rule requiring consent of client
in writing in contingency cases, along with similar rules requiring client's written consent
to attorney's fee regardless of circumstances involved. (The Florida Bar v. Carson, 737
So.2d 1069 (1999), rehearing denied). Securing fees by intentional misrepresentation or
fraud upon client or court warrants two year suspension from practice of law when it is
apparently isolated ethical breach in the context of fee dispute. (The Florida Bar v.
Garland, 651 So.2d 1182 (1995).
Unfortunately Mr. Lovell refused to follow the above case law in closing my Bar complaint, and
refused to acknowledge that I suffered harm, the loss of $7,143 in settlement proceeds.
The Tampa Branch Office has continued to protect you, by and through Ms. Bloemendaal, then
Mr. Lovell, and now by and through Bar Counsel Leonard E. Clark, Michael G. Stofer, Chair of
the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, and Sandra Fascell Diamond, Designated Reviewer.
The letter report does not specifically respond to any of my allegations, and falsely states
Furthermore, many of the allegations related to alleged conduct that occurred in 2005 and 2006.
Thus, these allegations are outside the Bar's time limitations to prosecute a case. This is
nonsense, because my complaint focused on misconduct that occurred in 2010 and 2011.
References to earlier events were for historical reference, or in reply to your response.
My Bar complaint alleged you and J udge Cook collaborated September 28, 2010 and created a
false record of the hearing on final summary judgment and civil contempt. This was a scheme or
artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest services, as alleged in my Rule 21 Motion
for leave to correct and supplement the petition for rehearing in Petition No. 12-7747.
In 2011 you made a number of false representations to J udge Arnold to obtain a civil arrest
warrant on a writ of bodily attachment. You also failed to cooperate with Mr. Bauer, and Mr.
Castagliuolo. None of that is mentioned in the letter report, as required by Rule 3-7.3(d).
Unfortunately Mr. Rodems, The Florida Bar has given you a pass on every complaint made
against you by me, the persons shown below, and likely many more complaints unknown to me.
Robert Cash v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, RFA No. 12-15330
Carl Montag v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No. 2012-10,734 (13E)
Rita Pesci v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No. 2006-10,278(13D)
Heike Albert v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, RFA No. 12-14,769
Roslyn Vasquez v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No. 2003-11,462(13A)
Mr. Rodems, the lawyer discipline system in Florida is catastrophically broken. The Florida Bar
itself has conducted a survey of judges who have filed bar complaints against lawyers with the
results published in the Hawkins Report, showing statistical proof of governmental ineptitude:
Nearly three-fifths (58%) of judge respondents say they are dissatisfied with the disciplinary
job The Bar has done. A staggering 82% of all county, circuit, and appellate judges in the most
populous District (the Third DCA) are dissatisfied with the job The Florida Bar is doing.
In Broward County the level of judicial dissatisfaction is an appalling 65%. This is the county in
which Scott Rothstein served on a Florida Bar grievance committee, and was a Commissioner on
the Fourth Appellate District J udicial Nomination Commission, while operating a $1.2 billion
dollar Ponzi scheme from the law offices of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A. right under the
Bars nose, to which he plead guilty and on J une 9, 2010 received a 50-year prison sentence.
Tellingly, the indictment of The Florida Bar revealed in the Hawkins Report is from judges who
filed complaints. The general publics experience and level of dissatisfaction with Bar discipline
is worse, based on my discussions with people who made Bar complaints.
In conclusion, there is no need, as you suggested, to post on my website whatever you
purportedly attached to your unwanted, harassing email. First, my website and blog are linked to
the Supreme Court docket page, allowing readers to see the decision directly.
Second, Petition No. 12-7747, and all the supporting documents, will be preserved by the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), along with all other denied petitions
submitted in forma pauperis. Paid petitions which are denied go to the Library of Congress.
Thus Mr. Rodems, this matter is forever documented by the National Archives, the agency of the
United States charged with preserving and documenting government and historical records.
Mr. Rodems, this case is over. Move on with your life. Do not contact me again.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
cc: ABA email service list; Florida Bar email service list; Thirteenth Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit
Grievance Committee D; Office of the Florida Attorney General; and the Governor of Florida.

Neil Gillespie
From: "Ryan Rodems" <Rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:32 AM
Attach: Ltr Denying Gillespie motion for rehearing 4-15-2013.pdf; Finding of No Probable Cause [Gillespie
Complaint] [Fla Bar No. 2013-10,271 (6D).pdf
Subject: Supreme Court letter denying your motion for rehearing and Florida Bar rejecting your grievance -- no
probable cause
Page 1of 1
4/19/2013
Neil:

The United States Supreme Court rejected your petition for writ of certiorari, and your motion for
rehearing on that. The Florida Bar rejected your grievance against me as unfounded. I am sending you
copies for your records, and you have my permission to post them on your website.

Sincerely,

813/489-1001 (Office)
813/205-1198 (Mobile)
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com

NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client
privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies.
Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 1 of 42 (1 of 43)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John Ley
Clerk of Court
August 09, 2012
For rules and forms visit
www.ca11.uscourts.gov
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
Appeal Number: 12-11213-C
Case Style: Neil Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, F, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS
I am returning to you unfiled the papers which you have submitted. This case is closed.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Walter Pollard, C
Phone #: (404) 335-6186
PRO-3 Letter Returning Papers Unfiled
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
Appellants/Plaintiffs,
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTH J UDICAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.
_______________________________/
APPENDIX - 1
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED MOTION FOR DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION
WAIVER OF CONFIDENTIALITY
MOTION FOR DECLARATORY J UDGMENT - APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Exhibit 1 The ADA does not apply to the Federal J udiciary
Exhibit 2 Social and Psychological Implications of Dento-Facial Disfigurement; Macgregor
Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, panic attack J uly 12, 2010, J udge Martha Cook
Exhibit 4 Plaintiff's Amended Accommodation Request, ADA, March 5, 2007
Exhibit 5 Medical History of Neil J . Gillespie
Exhibit 6 Exhibits 6.1-6.17, Doctor letters and medical evaluations of Neil J . Gillespie
Exhibit 7 Velopharyngeal inadequacy - Wikipedia
Exhibit 8 Psychosocial Implications of Congenital Craniofacial Disorders; Gillespie
Exhibit 9 Psychotherapy for Persons with Craniofacial Deformities; Bennett-Stanton
Exhibit 10 Deficits in short-term memory in adult survivors of childhood abuse; Bremner
Exhibit 11 Hahnemann University Hospital ER, Aug-20-1988, Gillespie head trauma/TBI
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
FLORIDA, et al.
_______________________________/
APPENDIX - 2
Exhibit 12 FDLE, NO Florida criminal history for Neil J . Gillespie
Exhibit 13 HCSO, NO criminal history for Neil J . Gillespie
Exhibit 14 Gillespie certified as Eagle Scout, December 3, 1971
Exhibit 15 University of Pennsylvania, Wharton Evening School, ABA, Dec-23, 1988
Exhibit 16 The Evergreen State College, BA, December 16, 1995
Exhibit 17 Letter from Terry D. Silver, CPA, December 13, 2001, Re: Neil Gillespie
Exhibit 18 News stories of Gillespies business, Bucks County Courier Times
Exhibit 19 Mr. Rodems law firms representation of Gillespie, DVR
Exhibit 20 Gillespie letter to Mr. Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook, Re: Hate Speech
Exhibit 21 Letter of Dr. Karin Huffer, Re: Neil Gillespie and the ADA
Exhibit 22 Gillespies Nov-11-06 letter to J udge Neilsen, ADA; Mr. Naumans response
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
FLORIDA, et al.
_______________________________/
APPENDIX - 3
Exhibit 23 13th Circuit Counsel David Rowland to Gillespie, Re: ADA J uly 9, 2010
Exhibit 24 Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, Re: J udge Cook and Rodems disqualification
Exhibit 25 Mr. Rodems Motion for Order Determining ADA Disability for Gillespie
Exhibit 26 Order by Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Gillespie established a cause of action in
Gillespie v. HSBC Bank, Case 5:05-cv-00362-WTH-GRJ Document 32 09/25/06
August7, 2012
JohnLey,ClerkofCourt
U.S. Courtof Appeals for the 11th Circuit
56ForsythSt.,N.W.
Atlanta,Georgia30303
AppealNos. 12-11213-Cand 12-11028-B
DearMr. Ley:
PleasefindenclosedforfilingAppendixes 1-3tomytoConsolidatedAmended
MotionForDisabilityAccommodation, etc. submittedyesterday,August6, 2012.
AlsoenclosedisaCertificateofService.
OnJuly27,2012,andagainonJuly30,2012,IwroteyouthatmyConsolidated
AmendedMotionforDisabilityAccommodationwasforthcoming, butitwasdelayeddue
todisabilityanddeclininghealth. Iam sorryittookuntilAugust6, 2012tosubmit.Ialso
regretthedelayinprovidingtheenclosedAppendixes 1-3.
IapologizeforanyinconveniencecausedtotheCourtbymydelay.
Thankyouforyourconsideration.
/ /1

//.
eilJ. G

8092SW IlsfhLoop
- Ocala,Florida34481
Enclosures
cc: CatherineBarbaraChapman,Esq.
RyanChristopherRodems,Esq.
-------------
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHEELEVENTHCIRCUIT
NEILJ. GILLESPIE,
ESTATEOFPENELOPEGILLESPIE,
CASENO.: 12-11213-C
vs. CASENO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTHJUDICALCIRCUIT,
FLORIDA,etal.
/
CertificateofService
IHEREBYCERTIFYthataPDFof Appendixes1-3toConsolidated Amended
Motion For Disability Accommodation, etc., wasemailedAugust7,2012toCatherine
BarbaraChapman(ForRobertW. Bauer,etal),atcatherine@guildaylaw.com,Guilday,
Tucker,Schwartz& Simpson,P.A., 1983 CentrePointeBoulevard,Suite200,
Tallahassee,FL32308-7823.
GillespierespectfullyrequestsMs.ChapmanforwardaPDFcopytoMr.Rodems
becauseGillespiecannotafforddueto indigenceand/orinsolvencytomailapapercopy
toMr.Rodems.GillespiecannothaveemailortelephonecontactwithMr.Rodems
becauseofMr.RodemspastmisconducttowardGillespie.Gillespierespectfullyrequests
Ms.ChapmanalsoforwardtoMr.RodemsaPDFcopyof theAffidavit(Jul-30-12)and
Notice(July-27-12)insupportof thismotion.
RyanChristopherRodems,Esquire
(Forhimself,hislawpartner,andhisfirm Barker,Rodems&Cook,PA)
Barker,Rodems& Cook,PA
501 E.KennedyBlvd,suite790
}
Tampa,Florida33602
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John Ley
Clerk of Court
August 09, 2012
For rules and forms visit
www.ca11.uscourts.gov
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
Appeal Number: 12-11213-C
Case Style: Neil Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, F, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS
I am returning to you unfiled the papers which you have submitted. Your appendices to your
motion for accomodation are returned unfiled because these cases are closed.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Walter Pollard/aw, C
Phone #: (404) 335-6186
PRO-3 Letter Returning Papers Unfiled
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 1 of 1
-------------
-_......-- .......
TATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
ELEVENTHCIRCUIT
APPEALNO.: 12-11213-C
vs. APPEALNO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTHJUDICALCIRCUIT,
FLORIDA,etal.
/
CONSOLIDATEDNOTICEOFPROSE
ELECTRONICCASEFILINGPROHffiITIONBYDISTRICTCOURT
In support ofDisability Accommodation and IFP Fee Waiver
I. Appellants,NEILJ. GILLESPIE("Gillespie")andESTATEOFPENELOPE
GILLESPIE,givenoticeofelectronicfiling(e-filing)prohibitionintheDistrictCourt,
whichcostGillespienotlessthan$1,094.94,and 178.5hourslabor.TheDistrictCourt
requiresproselitigantstofilepaperdocumentswiththeCourt,anddoesnotpermitpro
see-filingwithoutauthorization,butthereisnoprocedureforobtainingauthorization.
ThispracticebytheDistrictCourtisunconstitutionalassetforth inthisnotice.
2. ThisCourtdismissedGillespie'sappealno. 12-11028-BonJuly 13,2012for
failuretopayfilinganddocketingfees. TheextracostofpaperfilingtoGillespieisnot
lessthan$1,094.94.Thismoneycouldhavebeenusedtopaythefees. Gillespieis
indigentand/orinsolvent.ThisCourtgaveGillespienoticeJuly 16,2012inappealno.
1.2-11213-CthatpursuanttoEleventhCircuitRule42-1 (b)itwilldismisstheappeal
unless he pays $455 to the District Court. Gillespie is indigent and/or insolvent and
cannot pay the fee. The extra cost of paper filing to Gillespie of not less than $1,094.94
represents money that could have been used to pay the fees.
3. The additional time required of a pro se litigant for paper-only filing is a burden.
This burden is especially onerous to the disabled. Gillespie is disabled. Gillespie spent
not less than 178.5 hours filing paper documents. The time saved by e-filing would have
allowed Gillespie to make better pleadings. This extra time burden is unconstitutional.
PACER and CM/ECF
4. Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public
access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal
appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet.
PACER is provided by the federal J udiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing
public access to court information via a centralized service. See http://www.pacer.gov/
5. The Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system is the Federal
J udiciary's comprehensive case management system for all bankruptcy, district and
appellate courts. CM/ECF allows courts to accept filings and provide access to filed
documents over the Internet. See http://www.pacer.gov/cmecf/ (Exhibit 1).
CM/ECF keeps out-of-pocket expenses low, gives concurrent access to case files
by multiple parties, and offers expanded search and reporting capabilities. The system
also offers the ability to: immediately update dockets and make them available to users,
file pleadings electronically with the court, and download documents and print them
directly from the court system. See http://www.pacer.gov/cmecf/ (Exhibit 1)
CM/ECF Policy in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
6. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida filed a
CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order, No. 6:07-MC-0027-ORL-19, by Chief J udge
Patricia C. Fawsett, signed February 28, 2007. (Exhibit 2). The Order states that
electronic filing is mandatory:
I(A) EFFECTIVE DATE
Electronic filing is mandatory, unless otherwise permitted by these administrative
procedures, by a general order of the Court, or by authorization of the J udge;. All
documents filed in Civil and Criminal cases in this District on or after J uly 12,
2004, no matter when a case was originally filed, shall be filed electronically.
The Courts CM/ECF Order requires pro se to file in paper format unless authorized to
file electronically, but provides no information on how to obtain such authorization:
III(C) PRO SE FILER
Unless authorized to file electronically, a pro se filer shall file any pleading and
other paper in paper format. The Clerk will scan and file these papers
electronically and will also maintain a paper file of such documents. If authorized
by the assigned J udge, a party proceeding pro se may file electronically. If
authorized to file electronically, the pro se filer must follow these procedures.
7. The Middle Districts CM/ECF Order is discriminatory on its face to pro se filers,
and contrary to PACERs mandate - Public Access to Court Electronic Records. The
Courts Order violates the Constitutionally protected rights of pro se filers as follows:
First Amendment, Pro se free speech, pro se right to petition for a governmental
redress of grievances, in the customary manner;
Fifth Amendment, depravation of liberty to pro se filers to file electronically;
Eighth Amendment, prohibition from excessive fines; the excessive cost to pro se
filers to make, transport, and mail or serve by courier paper filings to the Court;
Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Constitution does not prohibit pro se electronic
filing, so that right is retained by the people;
Fourteenth Amendment, the due process clause, and the equal protection clause.
8. Gillespie submitted October 1, 2010 Plaintiffs Motion to File Electronically in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-
WTH-DAB, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. (Doc. 6)
(Exhibit 3). The motion was brief, at the suggestion of personnel in the Clerks office:
Pursuant to local Rule 1.0t(a) Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves to file documents
electronically in this lawsuit.
The Courts CM/ECF Order, described above in paragraph 6, and attached as Exhibit 2,
does not provide further instruction on obtaining pro se e-filing authorization.
9. U.S. Magistrate J udge David A. Barker Denied by Order (Doc. 17) October 24,
2010, Gillespies motion to e-file. (Exhibit 4). The Court held:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion To File Electronically (Doc. No.
6). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, seeks leave to file documents
electronically in this action. Pro se litigants, however, are generally not permitted
access to the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF)
system unless extenuating circumstances exist. Because Plaintiff has failed to
state any reason why he needs access to the CM/ECF system, Plaintiffs Motion
To File Electronically (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED.
The Courts Order does not give Gillespie leave to amend his motion, or show cause of
extenuating circumstances, or any other reason to e-file. However it should be obvious
that a pro se litigant would want to e-file for the same reasons that attorneys e-file:
CM/ECF keeps out-of-pocket expenses low, gives concurrent access to case files
by multiple parties, and offers expanded search and reporting capabilities. The
system also offers the ability to: immediately update dockets and make them
available to users, file pleadings electronically with the court, and download
documents and print them directly from the court system.
$811.48 Additional Cost of Paper Filing in Case No. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB
130.5 Additional Hours Time Spent Filing Paper in Case No. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB
10. a. Gillespie estimates that he incurred not less than $811.48 in additional expenses
in case no. 5:10-cv-503 because the Court denied his motion to e-file. Gillespie resides
13.9 miles from the Court, according to Google Maps. (Exhibit 5). A round trip is 27.8
miles. To file paper documents with the Court, Gillespie must either hand deliver the
documents to the Court, or drive to the post office and mail the documents, or hire a
courier service to deliver the documents to the Court. Each of these options are costly and
time consuming, but hand delivery appears to be the most efficient.
b. Gillespie believes he made not less than 31 round trips in his vehicle to file
paper documents, which amounts to not less than 861.8 miles. At least 9 trips were made
in 2010, at least seventeen 17 trips made in 2011, and at least 5 trips in 2012.
c. Gillespie estimates his mileage cost for filing paper documents at $461.48. The
standard business mileage rate set by the Internal Revenue Service in 2010 was 50 cents
per mile; in 2011 the rate was 55.5 cents per mile; in 2012 the rate is 55.5 cents per mile.
2010: 9 trips x 27.8 miles each =250.20 miles x $0.50 =$125.10
2012: 5 trips x 27.8 miles each =139 miles x $0.55 =$76.45
Total mileage costs: $461.48
d. Gillespie estimates his postage cost at $150 for filing and serving paper
documents by mail. While relatively few paper documents were mailed to the court, there
was postage to serve copies to the parties, as well as to mail Rule 4(d) waivers of service.
e. Gillespie estimates his paper and printing cost at $200 for filing and serving
paper documents by mail, for paper, envelopes, ink, toner, and drum cartridges, etc.
Total for postage and supplies: $350.00
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: $811.48
11. Gillespie spent at least 46.5 hours driving to the Court to file paper documents.
Google maps estimates about 28 minutes to drive from Gillespies residence to the Court.
(Exhibit 5). A round trip is 56 minutes. Additional time is needed to park, walk to the
Court building, pass through security, ride the elevator to the third floor, and file paper
documents with a deputy clerk. The entire process takes about 1.5 hours. Gillespie made
not less than 31 trips to the Court, and expended about 46.5 hours - over a weeks work.
(31 trips x 1.5 hours =46.5 hours). In addition, for items filed in paper, approximately
two hours average additional time is needed to print and assemble paper documents for
hand delivery to the Court, and more time to prepare documents for mailing to the Court,
or to serve paper documents by mail on parties. (42 filings x 2 hours =84 hours).
Gillespie believes that two hours is a conservative estimate of the time needed to
physically assemble, and prepare for hand delivery or mailing, paper documents to the
court. Simple filings take less time, and larger paper filings take much longer to prepare.
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: 130.5 hours. (46.5 +84).
$283.46 Additional Cost of Paper Filing in Case No. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS
48 Additional Hours of Time Spent Filing Paper in Case No. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS
12. a. Gillespie estimates that he incurred not less than $283.46 in additional expenses
in case no. 5:11-cv-539 because he was not authorized to e-file. Gillespie estimates his
mileage cost for filing paper documents at $183.46:
Total mileage costs: $183.48.
b. Gillespie estimates his postage cost at $25 for serving paper documents by
mail. While no paper documents were mailed to the court in this case, there was postage
to serve copies on the parties, and to mail Rule 4(d) waivers of service to parties.
c. Gillespie estimates his paper and printing cost at $75 for filing and serving
paper documents, for paper, envelopes, ink, toner, and drum cartridges, etc.
Total for postage and supplies: $100.
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: $283.48.
13. Gillespie spent not less than 18 hours driving to the Court to file paper
documents. As described in paragraph 11, the entire process takes about 1.5 hours.
Gillespie made not less than 12 trips to the Court. (12 trips x 1.5 hours =18 hours). For
items filed in paper, approximately two hours average additional time is needed to print
and assemble paper documents for hand delivery to the Court, and more time to prepare
documents for service by mail to parties. (15 filings x 2 hours =30 hours).
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: 48 hours. (18 +30).
Combined Totals for Additional Costs and Time
14. Combined totals calculated as follows:
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: $811.48.
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: $283.48.
Combined total costs to file paper in both cases: $1,094.96.
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: 130.5 hours.
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: 48 hours.
Combined time to file paper in both cases: 178.50 hours.
Seven (7) Hour Time Advantage with Electronic Case Filing in District Court
15. There is a seven (7) hour time advantage to e-filing within the same time zone.
The Ocala Clerks offices closes at 4:00 p.m., with after-hours drop off until 5:00 p.m.
Those authorized to e-file have until midnight.
FRCP, Rule 6. Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Rule 6(a)(4) Last Day Defined. Unless a different time is set by a
statute, local rule, or court order, the last day ends:
(A) for electronic filing, at midnight in the court's time zone; and
(B) for filing by other means, when the clerk's office is scheduled to close.
E-Filing as a Disability Accommodation
16. Gillespies motion to e-file is a reasonable disability accommodation request.
a. Gillespies disability request submitted to the District Court September 28,
2010 in case no. 5:10-cv-503, and resubmitted publicly in Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies
Notice of Filing Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie
(Doc. 36) , Exhibit 2, page 17, states as follows:
ADA Request No.6: Mr. Gillespie requests time to scan thousands of pages of
documents in this case to electronic PDF format. This case and underlying cause
of action covers a ten year period and the files have become unmanageable and
confusing relative to Gillespie's disability. Mr. Gillespie is not able to concentrate
when handling a large amount of physical files and documents. He is better able
to manage the files and documents when they are organized and viewable on his
computer. Mr. Gillespie will bear the cost of converting files and documents to
PDF. (Doc. 36, Page 47 of 62 Page ID 803).
Gillespies disability notice to the Court (Doc. 36) shows Depression, Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder, Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, and
Velopharyngeal Incompetence.
b. The notice shows that Since March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems,
counsel for the Defendants, has directed, with malice aforethought, a course of harassing
conduct toward Gillespie that has aggravated his disability, caused substantial emotional
distress and serves no legitimate purposeGillespie is disabled, and Mr. Rodems knows
of Gillespie's disability from Defendants' prior representation of him. (Doc. 36, Page 1
of 62 Page ID 757). The notice shows in paragraph 3 a statement on the record by
Gillespies former attorney Robert W. Bauer about Mr. Rodems:
3. Mr. Rodems has set a level of animosity in this lawsuit best described by
Gillespies former attorney Robert W. Bauer August 14, 2008 during an
Emergency Hearing on garnishment before J udge Marva Crenshaw (p16, line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Rodems' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated Gillespie's disability to
the point where Gillespie can no longer represent himself at hearings. Gillespie
becomes easily distracted and confused, and can no longer speak coherently
enough during a hearing to represent himself. See Plaintiffs Motion For
Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation Request, and Memorandum of
Law filed May 24, 2011.
(Doc. 36, Page 2 of 62 Page ID 758)
c. The Complaint (Doc. 1) shows Florida attorney Seldon J . Childers estimated on
September 17, 2009 the non-pecuniary cost of this litigation to Gillespie at $100,000 for
physical and emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation. (Doc. 1, 135, page 39).
d. A study by the World Health Organisation shows depression is more damaging
to everyday health than chronic diseases such as angina, arthritis, asthma and diabetes.
Researchers found if people are ill with other conditions, depression makes them worse.
Somnath Chatterji of the World Health Organisation led the study. The most disabling
combination was diabetes and depression, the researchers said. "If you live for one year
with diabetes and depression together you are living the equivalent of 60 percent of full
health," Chatterji said in a telephone interview. News of this study was reported by
Reuters on September 7, 2007. (Exhibit 6). The study is reported in the Lancet Medical
J ournal, Vol. 370 No. 9590 pp 851-858. (Exhibit 7).
e. Gillespies ability to perform the kinds of tasks need in this lawsuit, such as
reading and handling documents, has declined further since ADA Request No. 6 was
initially submitted to the state court in February 2010. Gillespies concentration and
short-term memory have declined, and he becomes confused when handling numbers of
physical files and documents. He able to manage PDF files and documents when they are
organized and viewable on his computer. The computer screen helps Gillespie maintain
his concentration. When he looks away from the computer screen to perform manual
tasks, such as looking in a file drawer for a pleading, he often forgets the purpose of the
task. As such, authorization to e-file is a reasonable disability accommodation.
District Clerk Failed to Comply With CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order
17. As set forth in Gillespies letter to District Clerk Sheryl L. Loesch dated April 5,
2012 (Exhibit 8), the Clerk failed to file on PACER Exhibits 1-15 to Gillespies
Complaint (Doc. 1) in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB. Gillespie provided paper
copies to the Clerk for e-filing as required by CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order,
No. 6:07-MC-0027-ORL-19: (Exhibit 3)
III(C) PRO SE FILER
Unless authorized to file electronically, a pro se filer shall file any pleading and
other paper in paper format. The Clerk will scan and file these papers
electronically and will also maintain a paper file of such documents.
However the Clerk failed to comply with the Order which required the Clerk to scan and
file these papers electronically. Gillespie notified the District Clerk Loesch of multiple
failures by the Clerk, but has not received any response to his letter. (Exhibit 8). Had
Gillespie been authorized to e-file, he could have corrected these mistakes by the Clerk:
THE CLERK FAILED TO PUT VITAL DOCUMENTS ON CM/ECF AND
PACER
2. The Clerk failed to put vital documents I filed in this case on the Case
Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system to view on PACER.
One such document is Doc. 2, Exhibits 1-15 to the Complaint (Doc. 1) filed
September 28, 2010 when I personally commenced the case in the Ocala Division
and hand-delivered the complaint and exhibits to a deputy clerk.
Doc. 2, Exhibit 4 is my Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel
Ryan Christopher Rodems & Baker, Rodems & Cook, PA submitted J uly 9, 2010
in the state court action; in this Court the motion is Doc. 2, Exhibit 4 to the
Complaint (Doc. 1), but not viewable on PACER. This negatively affected my
case because Magistrate J udge David Baker, who is located in Orlando, could not
view the document located in Ocala when he made rulings in the case. The
document was only viewable in person in Ocala, or by request to send the
physical file to Orlando. There is no evidence that the physical file was sent to
Orlando.
I brought this issue to the attention of Chief J udge Anne Conway by letter dated
March 22, 2012, see Doc. 68, Motion To Amend The J udgment, the letter is
attached as an exhibit to the motion, and contains 33 pages; a three page letter to
Chief J udge Conway and 30 pages of enclosures.
PRE-LITIGATION COMMUNICATION WITH J AMES LEANHEART
3. Prior to personally filing this pro se case, I wrote August 30, 2010 to
J ames Leanheart, Court Operations Supervisor, about filing documents on the
CM/ECF system and PACER. This is the operative language from paragraph five
of the accompanying letter: (Exhibit 2)
Myclaimsinvolve documents in the state court record from the
Circuit Civil Court of the 13th J udicial Circuit, includingan amended
complaint (150 pages), and an emergency motion to disqualify counsel
(190 pages). What is the procedure for including or incorporating these
numerous and sometimes large documents into mycivil rights
complaint?
Mr. Leanheart did not respond in writing, but we spoke by phone September 10,
2010. Following Mr. Leanhearts instructions, I filed all the documents in paper
September 28, 2010. I personally filed the case September 28, 2010 and
personally handed the paper documents to a deputy clerk. But the Clerk did not
put any of the exhibits on the CM/ECF system and/or PACER, not the amended
complaint (Exhibit 3), not the emergency motion to disqualify counsel (Exhibit
4), none of the 15 exhibits were put on PACER. I complained to the deputy clerks
in Ocala more than once to no avail. I complained in person a number of times
and the error was not corrected. I live in Ocala and almost always hand deliver
my documents to a deputy clerk in order to save the cost of postage or courier
service as I am indigent.
My letter dated August 30, 2010 to Mr. Leanheart states I planned to file a pro se
lawsuit in two weeks or so, but I was delayed until September 28, 2010 due to
mental illness and other disabilities, see Doc. 36 for my notice of filing disability
information.
INCORRECT DATE/TIME STAMP ON COMPLAINT BY CLERK
8. The Clerks date/time stamp shows the Complaint (Doc. 1) was filed
2010 SEP 28 AM 7:47 which time is incorrect. The Court does not open until
8:30 AM, and I filed the Complaint myself in person by handing the Complaint
directly to a deputy clerk about 8:47 AM.
INCORRECT PLAINITFF ADDRESS BY CLERK OF COURT
9. The Clerk used an incorrect mailing address for me, necessitating a
corrective motion, see Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Mailing Address, filed
October 5, 2010. (Doc. 9). My correct address is listed on the complaint and every
document filed in this case. My address has not changed since 2005. The motion
states as follows:
Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves Court to correct his mailing address:
1. The Court is sending Plaintiff Gillespie's mail to the wrong
address. Please use the correct address, listed on the complaint: 8092 SW
I15th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481.
INCORRECT PLAINITFF PHONE NUMBER BY CLERK OF COURT
10. The Clerk used an incorrect telephone number for me, necessitating a
corrective motion, see Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Phone Number, filed October
13, 2010. (Doc. 15). My correct phone number is listed on the complaint and
every document filed in this case. My home phone number has not changed since
2005. The motion states as follows:
Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves the Court to correct his phone number
and states:
1. The PACER docket shows an incorrect phone number for Plaintiff pro
se Gillespie. The correct phone number is listed on the complaint: (352)
854-7807.
Gillespie believes the Clerks failure to comply with the Courts CM/ECF Order and scan
and file electronically his paper documents is a violation of due process.
Other U.S. District Courts Offer Online Pro Se E-filing Registration and Instruction
18. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California offers
online e-filing registration instructions for pro se litigants, found at this URL:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ECF/proseregistration
1. A computer, the internet, and email on a daily basis so you can e-file your
documents and receive notifications from the Court.
2. A scanner to scan documents that are only in paper format (like exhibits).
3. A printer/copier because each documents that you e-file will also need to be
sent to the judge in hard copy (the judges copy is called the chambers copy).
4. A word-processing program to create your documents.
5. A .pdf reader and a .pdf writer, which enables you to convert word processing
documents into .pdf format. Only .pdf documents are accepted for e-filing. Adobe
Acrobat is the most common program used. The reader (Adobe Acrobat Reader)
is free, but the writer is not. Some word processing programs come with a .pdf
writer already installed.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California offers an online
pro se ECF Registration form in active PDF format.
Gillespie PACER Account In Good Standing Since 1999
19. Gillespie has maintained a PACER account in good standing since December 22,
1999, thereby demonstrating his ability to competently handle the account. (Exhibit 9).
Gillespie meets the technical requirements for e-filing set forth by the U.S. District Court
for the N.D. of California shown in paragraph 17, and on the Courts website.
Cost to File Paper Documents in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
20. Gillespie incurred time and costs filing paper documents in this Court. The
Eleventh Circuit, located in Atlanta, Georgia, is 376 miles from Gillespies home in
Ocala, Florida, according to Google Maps. A round trip is 752 miles. This distance
requires Gillespie to submit paper documents to this Court by mail or by courier at
considerable expense. There is also a time delay in serving documents by mail or courier,
as compared to filing documents personally by hand delivery to the Court.
uer, et .
CONCLUSION
21. The District Court's denial of Gillespie's motion to e-file denied him equal rights
with all the other parties in this case, all of whom could e-file pleadings and documents
from the comfort of their office or home at little or no extra expense. For the reasons set
forth in this notice, Gillespie was wrongfully denied authorization to e-file in the u.S.
District Court, Middle District of Florida, contrary to the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and suffered damages of not less than
$1,094.94, and sustained the loss of not less than 178.5 hours of labor. This time and
money could have been better spent on G-illespie's actions in the U.S. District Court, and
the payment of fees in this Appellate Court, as well as expenses in his state court actions,
and was a significant factor in the negative outcomes of those actions, thereby creating
new additional Constitutional and other grounds for redress.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED July 27, 2012..
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was provided July 27, 2012 by
email onlytoCatherineBarbaraChapman(catherine@guildaylaw.com).Guilday.
Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A. 1983 Centre Pointe Bo vard, Suite 200.
Tallahassee, FL 32308-7823, counsel for Robert W.
(------
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
APPEAL NO.: 12-11213-C
vs. APPEAL NO.: 12-11028-B
FLORIDA, et al.
_______________________________/
APPENDIX
CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF PRO SE
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING PROHIBITION BY DISTRICT COURT
In support of Disability Accommodation and IFP Fee Waiver
Exhibit 1 Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) information
Exhibit 2 CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order, No. 6:07-MC-0027-ORL-19
Exhibit 3 Plaintiffs Motion to File Electronically, Case 5:10-cv-00503 (Doc. 6)
Exhibit 4 Order, Denied - Plaintiffs Motion to File Electronically (Doc. 17)
Exhibit 5 Google Maps, mileage and driving time to District Court, Ocala Division
Exhibit 6 Reuters: Depression more damaging than some chronic illnesses
Exhibit 7 Lancet Medical J ournal, Vol. 370 No. 9590 pp 851-858, WHO study
Exhibit 8 Letter to District Clerk Sheryl L. Loesch, April 5, 2012
Exhibit 9 PACER welcome letter to Gillespie, December 22, 1999 (Redacted)

URT OFAPp
July 30, 2012 0 RECElve.o
Cb" Cl.ERK '#n
\J'
John Ley, Clerk of ourt JUl 31 2.0\2
u.s. Court of Appe s for the 11th Circuit
56 Forsyth St., N.W.. An. r'_ '\\.
Atlanta, Georgia TLAN11\, \)
Appeal Nos. 12-11213-C and 12-11028-B
Dear Mr. Ley:
Earlier today I filed in the District Court a Motion To Apply Funds Toward Filing Fees,
in support of IFP fee waiver. A copy was mailed today to the Circuit Court by first class
mail. A second courtesy copy is enclosed here.
I believe the ruling on this motion affects all pro se filers who are denied e-filing.
Please find enclosed for filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, with Appendix, Conflict of
Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205,
Hillsborough Co., submitted in support of Consolidated Amended Motion for Disability
Accommodation.
On July 27, 2012 I wrote you that my Consolidated Amended Motion for Disability
Accommodation would be submitted today, but it has been delayed due to disability and
declining health. I plan to submit my disability request by Friday August 3, 2012.
I regret any caused to the Court by my delay.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
/ / '/
#;1 / '"
0/ 1.// / Ca..
092 SW 5th Loop
Enclosures
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
FLORIDA, et al.
__________________________________/
Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie
Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom
in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.
Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability Accommodation
Neil J . Gillespie, under oath, testifies as follows:
1. My name is Neil J . Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This affidavit
is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.
2. I am disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq., the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq., and 825.101(4), Florida Statutes.
3. I filed May 27, 2011 Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.
Gillespie in Hillsborough Circuit Court that shows I have Depression, Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD), Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, and
Velopharyngeal Incompetence. I also have impaired hearing, especially under stress.
4. I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot).
J onathan Alpert filed the Amscot lawsuit December 9, 1999 as partner of the firm Alpert,
2
Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. Substitute counsel Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. (BRC) and William J . Cook (Cook) represented me beginning December 12,
2000. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. BRC and Cook appealed.
5. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and
Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit.
Amscot settled for business reasons before the appeal was decided. The Certificate of
Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1) attached to the Joint
Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this Affidavit:
Alpert, J onathan L., Esq.
Amscot Corporation
Barker, Chris A., Esq.
Cook, William J ., Esq.
Gillespie, Neil
MacKechnie, Ian
Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq.
This stipulation was not provided to me by my former lawyers. I obtained it from the
Court in April 2006 with a records request. (Exhibit 1).
6. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA
with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorneys fees. (Exhibit 2).
7. BRC and Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot.
Cook lied to me about a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the
closing statement. (Exhibit 3). There was no such award. The $50,000 was actually part
of the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned contingent fee agreement, or Florida
Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was later
found to be $7,143.68. I filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Cook for violation
of ethics rules. The Florida Bar failed to properly adjudicate my complaint.
3
8. On August 11, 2005 I sued, pro se, BRC and Cook to recover $6,224.78. The case
was caption was Neil J . Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J . Cook,
Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. BRC partner Ryan Christopher
Rodems defended his firm BRC and law partner Cook.
9. On J anuary 13, 2006 J udge Richard A. Nielsen found by Order that I established
a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Cook. (Exhibit 4). On
information and belief, partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for
the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the
ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There was an actual conflict of interest in Mr.
Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves in this case.
10. On J anuary 19, 2006, BRC and Cook countersued me for Libel over a letter I
wrote to Ian MacKechnie, president of Amscot, about the prior litigation.
11. On February 4, 2006 I moved to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. On
information and belief, disqualification was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered J une 30, 1995 by J udge
Kovachevich, U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida, Tampa Division:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional
impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.
[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show
existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for
purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing
party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court
must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal
advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related
4
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial
relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant
and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information
was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
McPartland cites State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 75 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991), a
Florida Supreme Court case. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I found
McPartland and other similar cases in 2010.
12. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify
him and an argument ensued. During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech,
and threatened me. Rodems said you will pay for writing a letter to Ian MacKechnie,
president of Amscot. All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-
7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use exemption
of Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health
Care Servs., Inc. v. J efferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
13. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with a sworn
affidavit under the penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of the J udge Nielsen in
Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions. Mr. Rodems falsely
named J udge Nielsen in an exact quote attributed to me. Upon information and belief,
it was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage.
14. A voice recording of the call impeached Mr. Rodems sworn affidavit. Kirby
Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department, investigated the matter and
wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing
5
to the Court as an exact quote language that clearly was not an exact quote. The
investigation did not show any wrongdoing by me.
15. Beginning on March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems has directed, with malice aforethought,
a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disabilities, caused
substantial emotional distress and served legitimate purpose.
16. On March 20, 2006 I requested from Mr. Rodems pursuant to Bar Rule 4-
1.5(f)(5) settlement documents at the heart of the lawsuit. The documents were in dispute
as to their existence or whether the documents were signed. (Exhibit 5).
17. On March 27, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a hostile email in response to my Bar
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) request, with his typical false reference to threats of physical violence.
(Exhibit 6). Mr. Rodems wrote:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requested
have been previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to your
initial complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Given your threats of physical
violence against me during our last telephone conversation, and given that you
have copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort to harass us.
Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I was
advised that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse of
the rules by former clients, the most practical response would be to send the
documents to you again. They are attached in pdf format. In the event you make
this request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format is not to your
liking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. to inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that we
may arrange to have security present.
18. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard.
J udge Richard Nielsen failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of
McPartland. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c)
when he failed to disclose McPartland to J udge Nielsen:
6
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be
directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing
counsel, in this instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v.
ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal
authority directly adverse to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are
just two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the
Table of Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully
inform the court on applicable law whether favorable or adverse to position of
client so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of
the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced by
this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr. Rodems and
BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
Paragraph 61, Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. J uly 9, 2010, also Exhibit 10 to the Complaint
in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
19. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment. It was set
for a hearing before J udge Nielsen August 1, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Rodems objected by
email the same day. I canceled the hearing with the intention of resetting the hearing, and
hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was never heard.
20. On April 25, 2006 Mr. Rodems waited outside J udge Nielsens chambers to taunt
me following a hearing. At the next hearing J une 28, 2006 I requested protection from the
Court to prevent a reoccurrence. J udge Nielsen did not provide the requested protection:
(Transcript, J une 28, 2006, page 21, beginning at line 20)
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, J udge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.
Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallway
and I dont want that to happen today.
THE COURT: Well, you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and then
you can decide what you want to do, sir.
21. Initially I had a good working relationship with J udge Nielsen and his judicial
assistant Myra Gomez. After Rodems stunt J udge Nielsen did not manage the
7
case lawfully, favored Defendants in rulings, responded to me sarcastically, and
sanctioned me for failing to comply with Mr. Rodems discovery requests, even though I
complied with the discovery requests to the best of my ability. I moved to disqualify
J udge Nielsen, which he denied, but recused himself sua sponte November 22, 2006.
22. Upon information and believe, the right to bodily integrity and security of person
includes mental integrity, that is, freedom from mental and psychological abuse. The
right to safely pursue justice is a fundamental civil right that underscores a litigants right
not to be subjected to physical, sexual, mental or emotional violence inside or outside the
court, either by private attorneys or by judges and people acting on the part of the state.
The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. Litigants in civil proceedings
must be free from mental or emotional violence, which may be a form of torture, or their
Constitutionally protected rights, including due process, are rendered meaningless.
23. My case was reassigned to J udge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006.
24. On December 3, 2006 I read a notice on J udge Isoms web page that advised that
the judge had a number of relatives practicing law and If you feel there might be a
conflict in your case based on the above information, please raise the issue so it can be
resolved prior to me presiding over any matters concerning your case. One relative
listed was husband A. Woodson Woody Isom, J r.. (Exhibit 7).
25. On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict,
and moved for disclosure of conflict with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other
conflict of interest in this case. My motion noted the following possible conflicts:
Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J . Cook apparently paid $100.00 by
check to Woody Isom on or about J uly 2, 2002. (3, page 2)
8
J onathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002,
and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002.
(4, page 2)
My motion informed J udge Isom of the significance of J onathan Alpert to this case:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protges and former law partners, and the contract
that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,
between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook,
P.A. (4, page 2)
On J anuary 5, 2007 I served Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict.
26. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Discovery, to reconsider a J uly 24, 2006 Order by J udge Richard Nielsen for discovery
sanctions against me.
27. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Disqualify Counsel, to reconsider J udge Nielsen's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to
Disqualify Counsel (Mr. Rodems and BRC) entered May 12, 2006.
28. On December 12th and December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems left voice mail messages
on my cell phone. (Exhibit 8.4). Rodems called me cheap and other such:
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)
24 I would also point out that the problem that
25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probably more
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 7, beginning at line 1)
1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and
2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're
3 usual hours rates are for litigation like this,
19. ..And then on top of all
20. that you always fall back on your medical
21. condition, which I have never seen any
22. documentation of, that you always allude to that in
23. your Court fillings. And quite frankly, you play
24. the victim when it suits you and you play the
9
25. advocate when it suits you
29. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a five page letter of insults,
including ridicule of mental illness: (Exhibit 8.3)
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your
own poor choices in life. You also claim to have mental or psychological
problems, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in
this case has been so abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of
mental problems. (P1, 3)
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay
the required hourly rates for representation. (P3, 2).
30. On December 27, 2006 I responded to Mr. Rodems letter. (Exhibit 7.1).
Dear Mr. Rodems,
This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, and
your subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lost
perspective in this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting your
disqualification as counsel.
As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theories
are little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside the
bounds of acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I have
referred them to the attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your name
calling, that I am a pro se litigant of dubious distinction, cheap, and other
such, is harassment. Be advised that I received your telephone message while at
the oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, and was so upset that I
had to cancel my appointment and leave.
Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in
response to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created to
identify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse,
mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers
(Bar Rule 2-9.11).
Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of J udge
Nielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoing
harassment of me. I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.,
or a provider of your choice.
10
Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type of
communication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourself
accordingly.
31. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to J udge Isom about Mr. Rodems harassment of
me. (Exhibit 8). I provided J udge Isom a transcript of Rodems ranting phone message of
December 13, 2006. I provided J udge Isom a copy of Rodems five page diatribe to me of
December 13, 2006. (Exhibit 8.3).
Dear J udge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephone
message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his subsequent five page
diatribe of even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling,
ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all is
evidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lost
perspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that led
to the recusal of J udge Nielsen.
Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribe
of wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodems
contacts the Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. Apparently
Mr. Rodems has been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from home
during normal business hours. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line
15). As stated before, I am concerned for his well-being and mine. I also
requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and
letters.
32. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For An Order To Compel
Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop Harassing Behavior. (Exhibit 9).
33. On February 1, 2007 J udge Isom presided over a hearing Plaintiffs Amended
Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Mary
Elizabeth Blazer and is part of the record. J udge Isom denied the existence of any
conflict. The transcript shows that J udge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husband
Woody Isom and J onathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at the
11
law firm Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and
J onathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.
34. Upon information and belief, J udge Isom engaged in deception and dishonesty
prejudicial to the administration of justice February 1, 2007 when she lied by omission
and failed to disclose that Woody Isom and J onathan Alpert were previously law partners
and shareholders at Fowler White:
a. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their counsel
might consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to
disclose relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v.
Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006.
b. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the
common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and
wife are considered as one person and the relatives of one spouse by
consanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the same degree. State v.
Wall, 41 Fla. 463.
c. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings
with a relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that a
judge's prejudice may bar a party from having his or her day in court. The
function of the trial court on motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to a
determination of the legal sufficiency of an affidavit, without reference to its truth
and veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
d. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of J udicial Conduct provides a judge shall
disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under this
rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.
The question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on those
matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality
rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially.
e. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethical
responsibility of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code of
J ud. Conduct, Canon 3.
12
35. In 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with J onathan Alpert. While
researching accusations in one of Rodems harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit
signed by J onathan Alpert in Alperts divorce case that stated in 3c: (Exhibit 10).
I contributed to J udge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in
last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called
to J udge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;
36. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed in an email to me that he practiced
law with J onathan Alpert. (Exhibit 11). Woody Isom wrote: He and I were shareholders
at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in J an. 1985.
37. On February 5, 2007 J udge Isom presided over a hearing in the case.
a. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Denise L. Bradley, and is part of
the record. J udge Isom considered the following matters:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify Counsel
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery (Sanctions)
Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ABA)
On February 6, 2007 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter with two proposed Orders. (Exhibit 20)
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery (Sanctions)
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim
Neither Order was signed by J udge Isom, and neither Order was entered into the record.
These motions were not considered by any successor judge.
b. J udge Isom did not rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify
Counsel. The Court considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as shown in the
transcript, from page 22 through 40, which is presented as Exhibit 21, but then Mr.
Rodems objected, as shown on pages 36-37 of the transcript, February 5, 2007:
12 MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,
13 Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into
13
14 earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he
15 didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes
16 say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be
17 considered for any purposes by the court in any
18 hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie
19 for illegally recording the conversation.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address
1 the motion for reconsideration and the motion to
2 disqualify today.
(Note: Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department,
investigated this matter and wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not
right and not accurate in representing to the Court as an exact quote language
that clearly was not an exact quote. The investigation did not show any
wrongdoing by me.)
c. J udge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions. Upon
information and belief, J udge Isom failed to follow her own law essay on discovery
sanctions, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 12).
J udge Isoms essay describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors intensive case
management for lawyers to avoid costly sanctions, because Florida judges are elected and
need the financial support of lawyers. J udge Isom acknowledged that lawyers behave
badly in court, and this bad behavior - which J udge Isom calls cutting up - is intended
to churn more fees for themselves. J udge Isom refused to provide me the same kind of
intensive case management to avoid sanctions. J udge Isom denied me the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of the court, specifically mediation services:
(Transcript, February 01, 2007, page 15, line 20)
THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolve
this without litigation?
MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
J udge Isom did not offer me mediation. J udge Isom let the sanction Order stand. Upon
information and belief the sanction Order is contrary to the law on discovery:
14
Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to encourage
the settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d
517 (Fla. 1996). The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedy
determination every action (In re Estes Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast Dental
Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure that
judgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd.
Partnership v. Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not
upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division of
Administration, State Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d
Dist. 1977).
The sanction Order was later used by J udge J ames M. Barton to penalize me with a
$11,550 sanction. Mr. Rodems used this sanction to extort a settlement from me.
d. J udge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems counterclaim for libel
against me. The counterclaim was a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to Ian
MacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are interested parties on the
Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1). My
letter complained about the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation by BRC and
Cook. Upon information and belief, J udge Isom should have, but did not, disqualify
Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems pursued vexatious litigation against me
that began J anuary 19, 2006 and continued through September 28, 2010, whereupon
Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I retained counsel to
defend against the vexatious lawsuit and incurred over $33,000 in legal fees by attorney
Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for libel.
e. J udge Isom conducted an ADA assessment of me during the February 5,
2007 hearing. This matter is more fully described in Verified Notice of Filing Disability
Information of Neil J. Gillespie, submitted May 27, 2011 in Hillsborough County. (And
15
later filed in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala, case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc (Doc. 36),
and case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc (Doc 15, Appendix 2).
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, J udge, my head is
7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even
8 hearing you. But it sounded all right.
9 THE COURT: What's is the nature of your
10 disability?
11 MR. GILLESPIE: It's depression and
12 post-traumatic stress disorder.
13 THE COURT: Are you under the care of a doctor?
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, J udge.
15 THE COURT: And do you have a disability rating
16 with the Social Security Administration?
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, J udge. In the early '90s,
18 I'm going to say '93 or '94, I was judged disabled by
19 Social Security. And I applied for vocational
20 rehabilitation. And to make a long story short, I
21 guess it was in about '98 or '99 I received a
22 determination from vocational rehabilitation that my
23 disability was so severe that I could not benefit from
24 rehabilitation.
25 I would say in the interim that they had prepared
1 a rehabilitation plan for me and they didn't want to
2 implement it. And that's the reason that they gave for
3 not implementing it. I brought that cause of action to
4 the Barker, Rodems and Cook law firm and they reviewed
5 that. And apparently they were in agreement with it
6 because they decided not to represent me on that claim.
7 And a copy of their letter denying that is part of my
8 motion for punitive damages. You can read that letter.
9 I think I have it here.
After taking testimony about my disability, J udge Isom offered to abate the matter
for three months so I could find counsel, but Mr. Rodems objected. I retained attorney
Robert W. Bauer one month later.
16
10 THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of direction
11 today, do you want to just stop everything and abate
12 this proceeding for three months so that you can go out
13 and try to find substitute counsel or --you know, I
14 realize there's a counterclaim.
15 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, J udge.
16 THE COURT: But originally, at least, it was your
17 lawsuit. So if you feel that you're at a disadvantage
18 because of your lack of counsel, I guess I could abate
19 it and give you additional time to try to find an
20 attorney.
21 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, we would oppose that.
22 And let me tell you why.
Mr. Rodems continued with a self serving diatribe and accused me of criminal
extortion for trying to resolve this matter through the Florida Bar ACAP Program, and
other such. Then Mr. Rodems made this accusation in open court:
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 49, beginning at line 12).
12 [MR: RODEMS:] In any event, at every stage of the proceedings
13 when Mr. Gillespie is about to be held accountable for
14 his actions he cries that he's got a disability or he
15 complains about the fact that he can't get a lawyer.
16 The reason he can't get a lawyer is because he's not
17 willing to pay a lawyer by the hour for the services he
18 wants.
And I responded: (Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 50, beginning at line 14).
14 MR. GILLESPIE: I am willing to pay an attorney
15 by the hour. I have sent a payment of $350 an hour to
16 an attorney with the promise of a retainer if they
17 would take the case. So Mr. Rodems calling me cheap
18 and all of this name-calling and not willing to pay,
19 that's not true. In fact, I offered Rick Mitzel who
20 said the cost would be $200 an hour, I gladly offered
21 to pay him $200 an hour. He wouldn't take the case.
22 These lawyers don't want to litigate against this firm
23 because they're aware of what this firm does and what
24 they're capable of.
17
38. J udge Isom went against her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused to
abate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to continue the
lengthy hearing due to disability. I was too confused:
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, J udge, my head is
7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even
8 hearing you.
39. Upon information and belief, J udge Isom misused and denied me judicial
process under the color of law. Two days later on February 7, 2007 I gave notice
of voluntary dismissal (Exhibit 13) and submitted a motion for an order of
voluntary dismissal. (Exhibit 14). Mr. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his
counterclaim. If Rodems did so, that would have ended the case February 7, 2007.
40. On February 26, 2007 The Lawyer Referral Service of The Florida Bar provided
me a referral to Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville (Florida Bar ID: 11058) for Libel &
Slander. (Exhibit 15). I was not able to find counsel in Tampa. After reviewing my case,
Mr. Bauer told me the jury would love to punish a slimy attorney. (Transcript,
March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer encouraged me to reinstate my claims.
41. Mr. Bauer reinstated my voluntarily-dismissed claims in Hillsborough County.
Mr. Rodems appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA),
Case No. 2D07-4530. The 2dDCA denied Mr. Rodems Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
and held as follows: (Exhibit 22).
PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix Super
Markets, Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that when
counterclaim is pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint without
order of court).
18
42. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems sent threatening email to Mr. Bauer in
May 2007. Mr. Rodems objected to Mr. Bauers leave to amend, threatened Bauer with
sanctions under 57.105, Fla. Stat., and reiterated his usual laundry list of alleged bad
acts against me, which had no bearing on the matter at hand. (Exhibit 16). Rodems wrote:
I am serving the 57.105 motion today...we object to the motion for leave to
amend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and you
are flat wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked at
Rule 1.100(a)? I assume you are aware of the line of cases that hold that a
mislabeled pleading or motion is not a nullity. We'll send you a 57.105 motion,
and you can decide how to proceed.
Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for a
court appointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriate
defenses, the economic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQ
the trial judges, appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and false
statements about a judge in a letter to the court, threatening to slam me against the
wall, and telling an insurance company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims),
I am surprised you would rely on any portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.
This example is representative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior.
43. On August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an Emergency
Hearing on garnishment before J udge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Rodems' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated my disability to the
point where I can no longer represent my at hearings. I become easily distracted and
confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent
himself. See Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011.
19
44. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case. Mr. Bauer
sent me this email J uly 8, 2008 at 6.05PM stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be
able to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the
situation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I
believe it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You
have had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much more
difficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be
avoided.
See Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie filed September 18, 2010,
Exhibit 10 to the Complaint in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
I was denied access to court in my own case due to Rodems conflict and misconduct.
45. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 13, 2008; it was granted October 1,
2009. Mr. Bauer charged me $31,863 in legal fees. $12,650 remains unpaid.
46. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with
Eugene P. Castagliuolo (Florida Bar ID 104360) who represented me in J une 2011. Mr.
Rodems refused to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodily
attachment. In his email to me J une 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part Last but not
least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but
unhappy message. (Exhibit 17). On J une 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an
asshole in an email to me. (Exhibit 18). Castagliuolo wrote (in part): Based on what I
know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged
in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you. This example is
representative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo.
47. There are now fifteen (15) additional related cases in this matter due to J udge
Isoms dishonesty and denial of justice. (Exhibit 19). J udge Isom was dishonest when she
failedtodiscloseaconflil;twithhusbandWoodyIsomandMr. Alpert.JudgeIsom
deniedmejusticeunder ~ e coloroflawwhenshefailedtodisqualifyMr. Rodemsand
BRCascounselasrequiredbyMcPartland.JudgeIsomdeniedmejusticeunderthecolor
oflawwhenshefailedtoprovideintensivecasemanagementassheadvocatedinherlaw
review,Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, andwhenshefailedtoabatethehearing
February5,2006untilMr. Bauercouldberetained.ThecostofJudgeIsom'sdishonesty
anddenialofjusticehasbeenenormoustome,allthelawyers,andthecourtsystem.
FURTHERAFF]ANTSAYETHNAUGHT.
Datedthis30thdayofJuly2012.
STATEOF FLORIDA
COUNTYOFMARION
BEFOREME,theundersignedauthorityauthorizedtotakeoathsandacknowledgments
intheStateofFlorida,appearedNEILJ. GILLESPIE,personallyknowntomeorprovided
identificationwho,afterhavingfirstbeendulysworn,deposesandsaysthattheabovematters
containedinthisAffidavitaretrueandcorrecttothebestofhisknowledgeandbelief.
WITNESSmyhandandofficialsealthis30thdayofJuly2012.
I ~ W CECIUAROSENBERGER .. ~ ~
i: ~ Cormission#EE 191610
~ ~
1 Expires m6, 2016
NotaryPublic,StateofFlorida
"... !Ii Bonded Thruna,Flirt......800-315-7019
CertificateofService
I HEREBYCERTIFYthatacopyof theforegoingwasprovidedJuly30,2012by
emailonlytoCatherineBarbaraChapman(catherine@guildaylaw.com).Guilday.
Tucker,Schwartz& Simpson,P.A. 1983CentrePointeBoulevard,Suite200.
20
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
FLORIDA, et al.
__________________________________/
APPENDIX
To the Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie
Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom
in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.
Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability Accommodation
Exhibit 1 Certificate of Interested Persons, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, Nov-06-2011
Exhibit 2 Final Order, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, December 7, 2001
Exhibit 3 Closing Statement, Amscot - BRC and Cook, November 1, 2001
Exhibit 4 Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike, J anuary 13, 2006
Exhibit 5 Gillespie letter to Mr. Rodems, Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), March 20, 2006
Exhibit 6 Email of Mr. Rodems to Gillespie, threats of physical violence, Mar-27-2006
Exhibit 7 Website Notice About Conflict, J udge Claudia R. Isom, December 6, 2006
Exhibit 8 Gillespie letter to J udge Isom, Re: Harassment by Mr. Rodems, Dec-27-2006
Exhibit 9 Gillespies Motion for an Order to Stop Rodems Harassment, Deb-02-2007
Exhibit 10 Affidavit of J onathan Alpert, Sep-11-2003, Re: law partner Woody Isom
Exhibit 11 Email of Woody Isom to Gillespie, March 23, 2010, Re: law partner J . Alpert
Exhibit 12 J udge Isom, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323
Exhibit 13 Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 05-CA-7205, February 7, 2007
Exhibit 14 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal, February 7, 2007
Exhibit 15 The Florida Bar LRS referral to Robert W. Bauer, February 26, 2007
Exhibit 16 Threatening Email of Mr. Rodems to Robert W. Bauer, May 3, 2007
Exhibit 17 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, J une 10, 2011, Re: Rodems
Exhibit 18 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, J une 14, 2011, Re: Rodems
Exhibit 19 18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
Exhibit 20 Mr. Rodems cover letter and proposed Orders for J udge Isom, February 6, 2007
Exhibit 21 Transcript, Hearing before J udge Isom, February 5, 2007, pages 1-3 and 11-40
Exhibit 22 Order, Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2D07-4530

Florida Commission On Human Relations, Complaint Dec-10-2013-194p

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

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

Florida Commission On Human Relations, Complaint Dec-10-2013-194p

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

VIA V.P.S. No.

lZ64589FNY94633807 December 10, 2013

Potrebbero piacerti anche