Stefanie Goldblatt, CFPB Senior Litigation Counsel Re Case 140304-000750

Stefanie Isser Goldblatt, Senior Litigation Counsel
Enforcement at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

1700 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20002
December 27, 2015
Re: CFPB Case Number: 140304-000750, Status: File 03/04/2014

Re: CFPB Case Number: 120914-000082, Status: Review completed 09/14/2012
Dear Ms. Goldblatt:
My name is Neil J. Gillespie. I am a non-lawyer, a consumer of personal, family and household
goods and services, consumer transactions in interstate commerce, and a person with disabilities.
Does the CFPB intend further action on CFPB Case Number: 140304-000750? Or am I on my
own? If so, I will proceed on that basis. Time is of the essence. Please respond immediately.
The CFPB has finally published my comment about the above cases on the CFPB website, see,
CFPB Consumer advisory: Three steps you should take if you have a reverse mortgage
February 9, 2015, by Nora Dowd Eisenhower
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/consumer-advisory-three-steps-you-should-take-if-you-have-a-reverse-mortgage/
Comment by Neil Gillespie
Avoid reverse mortgages, they are very complicated, and once you sign up, the bank dictates every
thing, and you have NO RIGHTS. Yes, you can hire a lawyer, provided you can afford $350 per
hour, plus expenses, court costs, etc. Better have $50,000 handy - to start. I made two complaints
to the CPFB, Complaint No. 120914-000082, and Complaint No. 140304-000750. Bank of
America quashed both of them, one by an inside job, the second by US Senator Marco Rubio.
For years Bank of America mislead me about "privacy" wrongly asserted for my deceased
mother, a co-borrower. Then I learned privacy laws do not protect the privacy of dead people.
Dead people do not have privacy rights. Privacy rights are personal and die with the individual.
Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003), review
denied, 869 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004).
[E]even where a private confidentiality agreement is otherwise proper, it will not be enforced
where its effect becomes obstructive of the rights of non-parties. See, e.g., Nestor v. PosnerGerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953, 955 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003); Scott v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 1300, 1301
(Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Quoted by U.S. Judge John E. Steele in Tardif, Trustee (Jason Yerk) v.
PETA, USDC, SD Fla. Fort Myers Div. Case No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, at the Pacer link,
Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179 Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 31 PageID 6050
You can read my my motion to reconsider filed in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228311060/Motion-to-Reconsider-Vacate-Modify-Order-C-a-11-No-13-11585-B

Enforcement at Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
RE: CFPB Case Number: 140304-000750, Status: File 03/04/2014
December 27, 2015

Page - 2
The Court denied the motion, but said I could submit a petition under 28 USC 1651, the all writs
act, but changed its mind when I started that process. I still have time to appeal, and may do so.
The CFPB is well-intentioned, but it has little power against corrupt banks and judges. My name
is Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida, 34481, neilgillespie@mfi.net, 352854-7807. If Director Richard Cordray gets this message, I am willing to provide additional
information. I believe in the mission of the CFPB, but found bad banks and bad judges are too
powerful for an ordinary person to get fair treatment. Thank you.
Please find attached the following documents:
Congressional Inquiry of Sen. Rubio to CFPB re HECM Reverse Mortgage; initiated by staff
CFPB close-out letter wrongly asserts privacy for dead persons; dead people do not have privacy
Shaun Donovan, Secretary U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Letter Chief Circuit Judge Ed Carnes CA11 HECM Order Jul-25-2013 all-writs-act 28 USC 1651
Email to Bank of America Investor Relations shareholder US Judge William Terrell Hodges
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Service List December 27, 2015
The Honorable Richard Cordray, Director, c/o

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, c/o
Enforcement at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
VIA Email: Stefanie.Goldblatt@cfpb.gov
CFPB Office of Civil Rights CFPB_EEO@cfpb.gov
CFPB Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act CFPB_504Request@cfpb.gov
CFPB Accessibility CFPB_Accessibility@cfpb.gov
CFPB OIG OIGHotline@frb.gov
CFPB Ombudsman CFPBOmbudsman@cfpb.gov
CFPB Consumer Advisory Board CAB@cfpb.gov
CFPB Academic Research Council ARC@cfpb.gov
CFPB Community Bank Advisory Council CBAC@cfpb.gov
CFPB Credit Union Advisory Council CUAC@cfpb.gov

Enforcement at Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
RE: CFPB Case Number: 140304-000750, Status: File 03/04/2014
December 27, 2015

Page - 3
You may view documents in this matter online at:

https://www.scribd.com/collections/15356452/CFPB-Case-120914-000082-HECM-Reverse-Mortgage
https://www.scribd.com/collections/15354567/CFPB-Case-140304-000750-HECM-Reverse-Mortgage
https://www.scribd.com/collections/4304980/Petition-13-7280-SCOTUS-Gillespie-v-RMS
https://www.scribd.com/collections/4468890/HECM-Foreclosure-Marion-Co-FL-13-CA-115
https://www.scribd.com/collections/3796681/U-S-Eleventh-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals
https://www.scribd.com/collections/3844302/U-S-District-Court-Middle-District-of-Florida
https://www.scribd.com/collections/14072517/FIFTH-DISTRICT-COURT-OF-APPEAL-FLA
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=5505867
Attorney
Search
Attorney
Registration
Registered
In-House
Counsel
Search
Attorney Detail
as of 12/27/2015
Registration Number:
2750594
STEFANIE ISSER GOLDBLATT
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
BUREAU
140 E 45TH ST, 4TH FLOOR
In-House
Counsel
Registration
NEW YORK, NY 10017-7123

United States
(New York County)
Resources
(212) 328-7009
E-Courts
E-mail Address:
Contact Us
Year Admitted in NY:

Appellate Division
Department of Admission:
Law School:
Registration Status:
STEFANIE.GOLDBLATT@CFPB.GOV
1996
1
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Next Registration:
Currently registered
Apr 2016
Disciplinary History:
No record of public discipline
The Detail Report above contains information that has been provided by the attorney
listed, with the exception of REGISTRATION STATUS, which is generated from the OCA
database. Every effort is made to insure the information in the database is accurate and
up-to-date.
The good standing of an attorney and/or any information regarding
disciplinary actions must be confirmed with the appropriate Appellate
Division Department. Information on how to contact the Appellate
Divisions of the Supreme Court in New York is available at
www.nycourts.gov/courts.
If the name of the attorney you are searching for does not appear, please try again with a
different spelling. In addition, please be advised that attorneys listed in this database are
listed by the name that corresponds to their name in the Appellate Division Admissions
file. There are attorneys who currently use a name that differs from the name under which
they were admitted. If you need additional information, please contact the NYS Office of
Court Administration, Attorney Registration Unit at 212-428-2800.
www.NYCOURTS.gov
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"AddressNotFound" <AddressNotFound@cfpb.gov>
"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sunday, December 27, 2015 7:42 AM
Automatic reply: Letter Stefanie Isser Goldblatt, CFPB Senior Litigation Counsel re CFPB Case
140304-000750
Automated Response:
The mail contact you are trying to reach is no longer at with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Thank you.
12/27/2015
March 19, 2013

Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Complaint: 120914-000082
Dear Neil Gillespie:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) would like to take the opportunity to
provide you with an update about the complaint you filed that we received regarding
Bank of America, on September 14, 2012.
Our records reflect the following:
You reported:
Recently we found a material alteration to our HECM reverse mortgage made
by interlineation after execution. Please take notice that we do not ratify the
change. The interlineation is a hand-written alteration, not initialed and not
dated, and vitiates the mortgage.
The interlineation is an attempt to add a new party to the reverse mortgage,
Penelope M. Gillespie individually. The interlineation recently came to our
attention when an attorney we consulted found the altered mortgage on the
Marion County Clerk's website. This mortgagee document differs from the
mortgage documents we signed June 5, 2008 with no interlineation. On January
15, 2009 Bank of America provided us with copies of the mortgage documents
that have no interlineation. Therefore I conclude that the interlineation is
evidence of fraud by the lender and/or lender-affiliated parties.
You requested that the agreement be found to be void and unenforceable.
We forwarded your complaint to Bank of America for review, requesting them to
consider the resolution you requested and respond within fifteen days. Bank of America
reviewed your complaint and your requested resolution and provided the following
response on October 1, 2012:
Laws that govern customer privacy prevent us from providing you with details
about any relationship we may have with any customer without first obtaining
the written consent of such customer. Since our records indicate that no written
authorization has been received to date from the person on whose behalf you
are inquiring, we are unable to discuss any information with you at this time.
Please provide a copy of the will naming the third party as the executor or the
letters of testamentary naming you as the authorized representative. We will
respond to the concerns raised in your correspondence once the
aforementioned documents are provided.
If you wish to submit the will or the letters of testamentary, you can fax them
directly to me at 1.877.373.7139. Please feel free to contact me directly at
1.972.526.3604. I am available Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Central.
The Consumer Response Team requested additional information from Bank of America,
including a response to documents you submitted, concerning this matter. Bank of
America responded by providing a letter addressed to you and dated February 1, 2012.
The letter stated, in part:
Our records indicate that we do not have proper authorization to disclose any
information to you regarding Ms. Penelope M. Gillespies account. Bank of
America values and guards our customers privacy and financial information
and, therefore, does not provide customer-specific information to unauthorized
third parties.
Further, laws that govern customer privacy prevent us from providing you with
details about any relationship we may have with any customer without first
obtaining the written consent of such customer. Our records confirm that we
have not received any written authorization from Ms. Gillespie, therefore, we
are unable to discuss any information about her account with you. In order to
obtain a response to the concerns raised in your correspondence, please provide
us with a copy of a proper third party authorization form naming you as Ms.
Gillespies authorized representative. You may contact Bank of Americas
Reverse Mortgage Department at 1.866.863.5224 for instructions on how to
submit these necessary documents.
Although the CFPB allows for the filing of complaints on behalf of others, Bank of
America has indicated that it is unable to further process the complaint without
authorization from the consumer requesting the resolution above. Unfortunately, no
further action will be taken on your complaint at this time. Our review was limited to
federal consumer financial protection laws within the CFPBs authority. Our disposition
should not be considered to be a determination with respect to the validity of your
complaint. We hope you understand that the CFPB does not represent individuals in
legal matters. If you believe this does not resolve your complaint, you are of course free
to contact a private attorney about this matter or file your own case in court.
For more information on mortgages, or any other consumer financial product or service,
visit Ask CFPB at www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/.
Specifically, please see the following entries from Ask CFPB:
Housing counselors are permitted to charge for reverse mortgage counseling, but the
agency must tell you about the fee before charging it, and the fee has to be reasonable.
Fees are typically about $125. Counseling agencies are also required to waive the
counseling fee if your income is less than twice the poverty level.
TIP: Make sure your reverse mortgage counselor is approved by the U.S. Department
of Urban Development (HUD). You can find HUD-approved housing counselor by
visiting HUD's counselor search page or calling HUDs housing counselor referral line
(1-800-569-4287).
TIP: If you are behind on your taxes and insurance and you are facing foreclosure, you
can receive free reverse mortgage foreclosure prevention counseling. To find a specialist
counselor, call one of the five national counseling agencies and ask for HECM
foreclosure prevention counseling:
CredAbility: 1-888-395-2664
Money Management International: 1-866-765-3328
National Council on the Aging: 1-800-510-0301
National Foundation for Credit Counseling: 1-866-363-2227
NeighborWorks America: 1-888-990-4326
If you paid someone up-front for counseling and they never provided counseling to you,
or if someone is offering you counseling only if you purchase an insurance or financial
product along with your reverse mortgage, report the agency and counselor by filing a
complaint with the CFPB, or calling 1-855-411-CFPB (2372).
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/232/what-will-reverse-mortgage-housingcounseling-cost.html
We take consumer complaints very seriously and are grateful for the information you
have provided throughout this process. Consumer complaints inform us about business
practices that may pose risk to consumers and assist the CFPBs supervisory,
enforcement, and rulemaking responsibilities. Hearing from engaged and proactive
consumers like you is critical to our mission. With this correspondence, we are closing
your file on this matter within Consumer Response. Please feel free to contact the CFPB
should you need help with another consumer finance matter in the future.
Thank you,
Consumer Response Team
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
consumerfinance.gov
(855) 411-CFPB (2372)
CFPB Consumer advisory: Three steps you should take if you have a reverse mortgage
February 9, 2015, by Nora Dowd Eisenhower
Comment by Neil Gillespie
Avoid reverse mortgages, they are very complicated, and once you sign up, the bank dictates every
thing, and you have NO RIGHTS. Yes, you can hire a lawyer, provided you can afford $350 per
hour, plus expenses, court costs, etc. Better have $50,000 handy - to start. I made two complaints
to the CPFB, Complaint No. 120914-000082, and Complaint No. 140304-000750. Bank of
America quashed both of them, one by an inside job, the second by US Senator Marco Rubio.
For years Bank of America mislead me about "privacy" wrongly asserted for my deceased
mother, a co-borrower. Then I learned privacy laws do not protect the privacy of dead people.
Dead people do not have privacy rights. Privacy rights are personal and die with the individual.
denied, 869 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004).
(Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Quoted by U.S. Judge John E. Steele in Tardif, Trustee (Jason Yerk) v.
PETA, USDC, SD Fla. Fort Myers Div. Case No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, at the Pacer link,
Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179 Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 31 PageID 6050
You can read my my motion to reconsider filed in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228311060/Motion-to-Reconsider-Vacate-Modify-Order-C-a-11-No-13-11585-B
The Court denied the motion, but said I could submit a petition under 28 USC 1651, the all writs
act, but changed its mind when I started that process. I still have time to appeal, and may do so.
The CFPB is well-intentioned, but it has little power against corrupt banks and judges. My name
is Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida, 34481, neilgillespie@mfi.net, 352854-7807. If Director Richard Cordray gets this message, I am willing to provide additional
information. I believe in the mission of the CFPB, but found bad banks and bad judges are too
powerful for an ordinary person to get fair treatment. Thank you.
Exhibit 1
Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953 - 3rdDCA
Exhibit 2
Order and Opinion, U.S. Judge John E. Steele, Tardif, Trustee (Jason Yerk)
Exhibit 3
Defamation and Privacy 211 Generally, Florida Jurisprudence 2nd (2007)
The right of privacy has generally been considered personal in nature 1. Generally, an action for
invasion of privacy can be maintained only by a living individual whose privacy is invaded 2.
Privacy rights are thus personal and die with the individual 3.
Williams v. City of Minneola 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1991); Loft v.
Fuller, 408 So. 2d 619 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1981)
2
Ibid.
3
denied, 869 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4250594660189255836&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
857 So.2d 953 (2003)
Brenda NESTOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Victor Posner, and

Security Management Corporation, Petitioners,
v.
Kelly POSNER-GERSTENHABER, Jarrett Posner, Sean Posner, and Troy Posner,
Respondents.
Nos. 3D02-3094, 3D02-3096.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
October 22, 2003.
954
*954 Ferrell, Schultz, Carter, Zumpano & Fertel and Gregory C. Harrell, Eugene Lindsey, and Joseph Beeler,
Miami; Kirkland & Ellis and Andrew B. Clubok and Stacey L. Bennett; Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell and Joshua
D. Lerner, for petitioners.
Hunton & Williams and Eduardo W. Gonzalez, Marty Steinberg, Thomas R. Julin, and Patricia Acosta, Miami,
for respondents.
Before FLETCHER, RAMIREZ, and WELLS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We grant Brenda Nestor's motion for clarification and correction. The opinion issued on August 13, 2003, is
hereby withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted in its place.
In this consolidated petition, Security Management Corp. ("SMC") and Brenda Nestor, as personal
representative of Victor Posner's estate, seek a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the trial court which
declares a confidentiality agreement between Posner and Jeffrey Breen to be null and void. The petition is
denied.
Victor Posner died in 2002. Several months prior to Posner's death, Nestor had all Posner employees sign
confidentiality agreements which bar the disclosure of any information regarding Posner's "private life, plans,
businesses, finances, assets, liabilities, income, expenses and expenditures, legal matters, visitors,
acquaintances, meetings, activities, state of mind, health or health care ... except to the extent required by
law." All applicable privileges belonged to Posner personally, even if the employee was employed by a related
company and not Posner himself. The agreement also required employees to exert all applicable privileges
and, if requested to divulge confidential information, employees were to immediately notify Posner or
Posner's attorney.
Nestor is involved in a will contest with Posner's grandchildren, the respondents to this petition. Breen is a
witness to the contested will. The grandchildren contacted Breen in order to ascertain Posner's testamentary
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4250594660189255836&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
capacity at the time he signed the will and to determine whether the will was the result of undue influence by
Nestor. Nestor arranged for Breen to meet with the grandchildren and had the meeting secretly taped. SMC
then brought suit against the grandchildren for tortious interference with Breen's confidentiality agreement.
The grandchildren moved to have the confidentiality agreements nullified so they can conduct informal
discovery interviews with Breen and other Posner employees. The trial court nullified the agreement as to
Breen to the extent that it bars appropriate witness interviews, but not as to any others.
Although the trial court allowed SMC to intervene as a third party beneficiary, the confidentiality agreement
does not protect SMC, only "Posner and key persons in his related companies (including Melvin Colvin,
955
Brenda Nestor, and Posner's medical personnel, accountants, attorneys, and private investigators)." SMC
*955 is therefore not a third-party beneficiary to the agreement between Posner and Breen and lacks standing
to contest its validity.
Neither can Nestor, as personal representative, enforce the agreement against Breen for disclosing
information about Posner because Posner's privilege did not survive his death. Privacy rights are personal
and die with the individual. See Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So.2d 683, 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), citing
to Restatement (Second) of Torts 6521 ("Except for the appropriation of one's name or likeness, an action
for invasion of privacy can be maintained only by a living individual whose privacy is invaded."). Although the
agreement survives the employee's employment, there is no provision that requires confidentiality after
Posner's death.
Even if the petitioners have standing, Breen may still disclose information to the extent required by law, as
stated in the agreement. The petitioners agree that Breen can disclose the information the grandchildren
seek, but urge that Breen only be allowed to disclose information at a formal deposition or at trial. Contractual
confidentiality agreements, however, cannot be used to adversely interfere with the ability of nonparties to
pursue discovery in support of their case. See Smith v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1997); Scott v. Nelson, 697 So.2d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ("[S]ettlement agreements which
suppress evidence violate the greater public policy."). Informal ex parte interviews with former employees are
allowed, see H.B.A. Mgmt., Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz, 693 So.2d 541, 544-45 (Fla.1997), and ex parte
interviews with current employees may be allowed as well. See NAACP v. Florida Dept. Of Corrections, 122
F.Supp.2d 1335, 1341 (M.D.Fla.2000). We thus find no need to make the grandchildren jump through legal
hoops to obtain information the petitioners agree may be disclosed.
The trial court based its ruling in part on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.010 which states that "[t]hese rules
shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action." The petitioners seek a ruling which effectively would force the grandchildren to undergo unnecessary
and costly discovery procedures, contrary to the goals that underlie rule 1.010. Because the trial court has
broad discretion in discovery matters, see Dickinson v. Wells, 454 So.2d 758, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and
there has been no clear departure from the essential requirements of law which results in a miscarriage of
justice, we deny certiorari review.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.
Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179
Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 31 PageID 6037
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROBERT E. TARDIF, JR., as Trustee
for Jason Yerk,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC
PEOPLE for the ETHICAL TREATMENT of

ANIMALS, a Virginia not-for-profit
corporation,
Defendant.
______________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the parties cross
motions for summary judgment.
Defendant filed its Dispositive
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #135) on June 19, 2011 and
plaintiff filed his Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #139)
on June 20, 2011.
Both parties filed their respective responses
(Docs. ##145, 146) on July 5, 2011.
The Court heard oral argument
on some of the issues at the final pretrial conference on October

24, 2011.
I.
Summary
judgment
Summary Judgment Standard

is
appropriate
only
when
the
Court
is
satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
An issue is genuine if there is
sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a
Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179
Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 31 PageID 6050
confidential. Fla. Stat. 39.201(b), 39.205(3) (reports of child

abuse or neglect); Fla. Stat. 415.107(3), (6), 415.111(2)(reports
of
vulnerable
adult
abuse);
Fla.
Stat.
17.0401
complaint regarding financial investigations).
(consumer
None of these
relate to animal abuse, and in any case, the confidentiality

allowed by these statutes does not create an absolute privilege
against disclosure. A court, for example, can compel disclosure of
the sources identity and can order that it become public record.
Fla. Stat. 39.202(f) (reporter of child abuse).
Additionally,
even where a private confidentiality agreement is otherwise proper,

it will not be enforced where its effect becomes obstructive of the
rights of non-parties.
See, e.g., Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber,
857 So. 2d 953, 955 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003); Scott v. Nelson, 697 So.
2d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
In this case, the confidentiality agreement allowed PETA to
disclose the substance of the alleged abuse and the identity of the
witnesses to it.
The agreement only precluded the disclosure of
the identity of PETAs source.
While it seems clear that the
confidentiality agreement did not and could not create an absolute

privilege, and would eventually give way to lawful procedures which
could compel disclosure of the sources identity, that stage had
not arrived in this case.
At the time of the disclosure in this
case, PETA was not legally required to answer questions from the
LCSO.
Given the extreme caution the Court must use before
-14-
DEFAMATION AND PRIVACY
211
The entire 2 absence of any malice3 or wrongful motive on

the part of the writer or publisher 4 does not constitute any
defense to an action for invasion of privacr but may be an
element in assessing damages. 6
B.
Personal Nature of Right; Right of Relatives
Research References
West's Key Number Digest

Torts ~331, 335
Primary Authority
540.08, Fla. Stat.
A.L.R. Library
West's A.L.R. Digest, Torts
A.L.R. Index, Privacy
~331,
335
Legal Encyclopedias
Am. Jur. 2d, Privacy 13 to 22
C.J.S., Right of Privacy 4
211
Generally
Research References
West's Key Number Digest, Torts
~331,
335
The right of privacy has generally been considered

personal in nature. 1 Generally, an action for invasion of
privacy can be maintained only by a living individual whose
2Agency for Health Care
Admin. v. Associated Industries of
Florida, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1239 (Fla.
1996).
1996); Armstrong v. H & C Com
munications, Inc., 575 So. 2d 280

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1991).


6 233.
[Section 211]
1Williams v. City of Minneola,

575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
5th Dist. 1991); Loft v. Fuller, 408
So. 2d 619 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th
Dist. 1981).
A.L.R. Library: Invasion of
147
211
FLORIDA JURISPRUDENCE
2n
privacy is invaded. 2 Accordingly, the cause of action is not

assignable, nor can it be maintained by other persons, 3 such
as members of the individual's family, unless their own
privacy is invaded along with the individual's.4
In the event the required consent is not obtained, the
person whose name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness
is so used, or any person, firm, or corporation authorized by
such person in writing to license the commercial use of his
or her name or likeness, or, if the person whose likeness is
used is deceased, any person, firm, or corporation having the
right to give such consent may bring an action to enjoin such
unauthorized publication, printing, display, or other public
use and to recover damages for any loss or injury sustained
by reason thereof, including any amount that would have
been a reasonable royalty, and punitive or exemplary
damages. 5
Privacy rights are thus personal and die with the
individual. 6 In the absence of a statute, the action for inva
sion of privacy generally cannot be maintained after the
death of the individual whose privacy is invaded. 7 The rule
is that relatives of a decedent may not maintain a cause of
action for invasion of privacy either based on their own
privacy interests or as a representative for the deceased
where the alleged invasion was directed primarily at the
deceased. 8 Nevertheless, according the United States Court
of Appeals, although the Florida courts have expressly
privacy by publication dealing with
one other than plaintiff, 18 A.L.R.3d
873.
Dist. 1981).
3Loft v. Fuller, 408 So. 2d 619
Dist. 1981).
As to derivative right to sue
148
in false-light case, see 223.

As to right of authorized per
son, firm, or corporation to recover
damages for unauthorized use of
deceased person's name or likeness,
see 211, 226 to 228.
5 540.08(2), Fla. Stat.
6N estor
v.
Posner
Gerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003), review
denied, 869 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004).
5th Dist. 1991).
8Tyne v. Time Warner Enter
tainment Co., L.P., 336 F.3d 1286
DEFAMATION AND PRIVACY
212
declined to foreclose all invasion of privacy actions brought

by the relatives of a decedent, such actions are heavily
disfavored. 9
There may be some instances in which relatives of a
deceased may bring a common-law invasion of privacy ac
tion,10 but, in such instances, the relatives shoulder a heavy
burden in establishing a cause of action. 11 Such an exception
occurs when the plaintiffs experience an independent viola
tion of their own personal privacy rights other than the viola
tion alleged to have occurred indirectly by virtue of the
publicity given to the deceased. 12
212
Necessity of egregious conduct
Research References
West's Key Number Digest, Torts
~331,
335
The relational right of privacy is not crafted to provide a

derivative cause of action for minor technical inaccuracies or
even major ones; rather, the defendant's treatment of the
decedent must be egregious. 1 The relational right of privacy
is very limited and applies only where a defendant's conduct
towards a decedent is found to be sufficiently egregious to
give rise to an independent cause of action in favor of
members of the decedent's immediate family.2 Accordingly,
when there are unusual circumstances, it may be that the
defendant's conduct towards the decedent will be found to be
(11th Cir. 2003), certified question
answered, 901 So. 2d 802 (Fla.

5th Dist. 1991).
2005).
As to descendibility of false
light privacy claims, see 222.


2005).
1Loft v. Fuller, 408 So. 2d 619

Dist. 1981).
[Section 212]

2005).
2005).
149
12/2/2015 2:29 PM
12/2/2015 2:29 PM
12/2/2015 2:29 PM
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNW91507926
May 28, 2014
Shaun Donovan, Secretary

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
451 7th Street S.W.
RE: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie, Co-Trustee, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 13-11585-B
District Court no: 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL, removed from Marion County Florida
Marion County Florida, Fifth Judicial Circuit, no. 42-2013CA-000115-AXXX-XX
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Case No. 120914-000082; 140304-000750
RE: FOIA Request 14-FI-RO6-01365
Dear Secretary Donovan:
The enclosed letter from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to Senator Marco
Rubio March 24, 2014 in CFPB Case No. 140304-000750 states, we have forwarded Neil
Gillespies complaint information to the HUD to provide assistance. When can I expect
assistance from HUD, Secretary Donovan? A ruling Jan-04, 2013 in Bennett v. Donovan held,
HUD itself has the capability to provide complete relief to the lenders and mortgagors alike,
which eliminates the uncertainty of third-party action that would otherwise block standing.
I am one of three (3) original borrowers, along with my deceased mother Penelope Gillespie, and
brother Mark Gillespie, on a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) in foreclosure. The
Plaintiff Reverse Mortgage Solutions (RMS) alleges the death of Penelope Gillespie September
16, 2009 is grounds to accelerate the debt. But I am a surviving borrower living in the home.
Enclosed is my Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify Order, Appeal No. 13-11585-B, US
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Courts Order July 25, 2013 that states in relevant part:
"Should Gillespie wish to petition for mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition for a
writ of mandamus or prohibition with this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1651; Fed.R.App.P.21".
I request HUD grant relief as allowed in Bennett v. Donovan for the issues in my motion.
HUD contends Penelope Gillespie is the only borrower, but unfortunately she lacked capacity to
make a HECM due to Alzheimers dementia, and immediate cause of death. A New York court
voided a reverse mortgage for borrowers incapacity. Matter of Doar (Brunson) 2009 NY Slip
Op 29549 [28 Misc 3d 759]. Therefore HUD should void the mortgage because the mortgagee
had knowledge of the mortgagors incapacity and was not a bonefide mortgage for value.
HUD is free to take any action or no action. I believe the issues in my Motion to Reconsider,
Vacate or Modify Order will state a cause of action and ultimately prevail.
Shaun Donovan, Secretary

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
May 28, 2014

Page -2
A ruling in Santos rejected definition of borrower as only natural persons acting individually.
Isabel Santos, individually & trustee, et al. v RMS, 12-3296-SC, USDC, ND Cal.
The district courts Order Remanding Case (Doc. 19) holds on page 4, footnote 1,
This Order should not be interpreted as a ruling concerning whether, or to what extent, Mr.
Gillespie can sue HUD in a separate action. Rather, this Order is limited to whether the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the specific action that has been removed to this Court.
13-7280
The US Supreme Court denied review Petition No. 13-7290. Denial is not a judgment on the merits.
In CFPB Case No. 120914-000082, Bank of America Customer Advocate Christopher Pickle
perpetrated a fraud on the CFPB with this false information: Laws that govern customer privacy
prevent us from providing you with details about any relationship we may have with any
customer without first obtaining the written consent of such customer. This falsehood was then
wrongly incorporated into the CFPB closeout letter, copy enclosed.
Apparently the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does not know that privacy laws do not
protect the privacy of dead people. Dead people do not have privacy rights. Privacy rights are
personal and die with the individual. Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003), review denied, 869 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004).
Apparently U.S. Senator Marco Rubio does not know that privacy laws do not protect the
privacy of dead people either. Enclosed letters from Bank of Americas Anthony Boney dated
March 12, 2014 and March 19, 2014 to Sen. Rubio also wrongly invoke privacy for the dead.
(Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Quoted by the Court in Tardif, Trustee (Jason Yerk) v. PETA, USDC, SD
Fla. Fort Myers Div. Case No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC
HUD has not adequately responded to FOIA Request 14-FI-RO6-01365, see enclosed my letter
to Bill Tolbert/FOIA Liaison. Felicia Jones is n/a. When can I expect to receive all the records?
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Enclosures
https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?Requester=&tracknum=1Z64589FNW91507926&refNumbers=&loc=en_US
Proof of Delivery
Close Window
Dear Customer,
This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.
Tracking Number:
Service:
Weight:
Shipped/Billed On:
Delivered On:
Delivered To:
Signed By:
1Z64589FNW91507926
UPS Next Day Air Saver
1.20 lbs
05/28/2014
05/29/2014 9:59 A.M.
451 7TH ST SW
DONOVAN
WASHINGTON, DC, US 20410
WITHERSPOON
Left At:
Office
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 05/29/2014 12:09 P.M. ET
Print This Page
Close Window
March 24, 2014

The Honorable Marco Rubio
8669 NW 36th Street, Suite 110
Doral, FL 33166
Re: Complaint 140304-000750 (Gillespie)

Dear Senator Rubio:
Thank you for contacting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and providing an
opportunity for us to assist your constituent, Neil Gillespie, with a complaint filed. Our Office of
Consumer Response has reviewed the complaint.
Currently, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is handling complaints related
to this matter. Therefore, we have forwarded Neil Gillespies complaint information to the HUD to
provide assistance.
For more information or to follow up on Neil Gillespies complaint, you may contact the HUD at:
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
451 7th Street, SW
Room 5204
www.portal.hud.gov
(800) 669-9777
With this correspondence, we are closing the file on this matter within Consumer Response. Please
feel free to contact the CFPBs Intergovernment Team should you need help with another consumer
finance matter in the future.
Thank you,
Intergovernment Team
Office of Consumer Response
(202) 435-9400
MARCO RUBIO
COMMITTEES:
FLORIDA
COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND

TRANSPORTATION
tinitm ~tQtrs
~rnatf
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SELECT COMMITIEE ON INTELLIGENCE
SMALL BUSINESS AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
March 20, 2014
Mr. Neil Gillespie

8092 Sw 115th Loop, Ocala, FI
Marion, FL 3448 I
Dear Mr.
Gillespie~
You wrote to me regarding your home loan modification. A member of my staff

was advised by Bank of America that it mailed you a response to your concerns on March
18,2014.
Should you require further assistance with this matter or with any other issues
pertaining to the federal government, I am at your service. You may contact my staff at
(305) 4 18-8553 or toll-free in Florida by calling (866) 630-7106. I hope you find this
information helpful.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me and the opportunity to serve you.
am humbled by my responsibilities in the United States Senate, and I will continue to
work on behalf of our state of Florida.
Sincerely,
Ivlarco Rubio
United States Senator
MR/ga
WF #1647638
~~
Bank ofAmerica ....

()ffice of the CJlJ) and
Preaident
Enterpri.. ('''ustomer RPlations
March 12, 2014
Mr. Neil Gillespie

8092 Southwest 11 5 th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Contact Us:
, .336.333.7329
Service Request Number:
, -48760622'
Correspondence received on: March 04, 2014

Page 1 of 2
Dear Mr. Gillespie:

The Office of the CEO and President at Bank of America has received your correspondence
related to our customer and his or her loan.
Privacy is important to us
Our customers' privacy is a top priority. Due to customer privacy laws and our own strict privacy
policy, we can provide customer account information only to our customers and third parties
that our customers have authorized to receive information. Since we do not have such written
authorization from our customer for you, we are unable to provide you with any information, at
this time.
For more information about

help for homeowners, visit
bankofamerica.com/
homeloanhelp or
makinghomeaffordable.gov
To check on the status of a
loan modification, go to
bankofamerica.com/
loanhelpstatus
If you have any questions

If you have questions or wish to submit a form of third party authorization, you may contact me.
My phone number is 1.336.333.7329, and I'm available Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. Eastern.
Sincerely,
Anthony Boney
Customer Advocate
Office of the CEO and President
cc: Ms. Gina Alonso, the Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
Bank of America., NC1-007-58-16

100 N TRYON ~~~ CHARLOTTE NC 28255-0001
ORet:yded PAper
We want you to know
March 12, 2014
Bank of America, N.A. is required by law to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector.
If you are currently in a bankruptcy proceeding, or have previously obtained a discharge of this debt under
applicable bankruptcy law, this notice is for information only and is not an attempt to collect the debt, a
demand for payment, or an attempt to impose personal liability for that debt. You are not obligated to
discuss your home loan with us or enter into a loan modification or other loan-assistance program. You
should consult with your bankruptcy attorney or other advisor about your legal rights and options.
Mortgages funded and administered by an tit Equal Housing Lender.
OProtect your personal information before recycling this document.
Contact Us:
1.336.333.7329
1-487606221
Page 2 of 2
Bank of AmeriaL, NCI-0<Y7-58-16

100 N TRYON ~-r, CHARU.YrTE NC 28255-0001
ORccycied l~per
. . . . . 111
1_111
"'%111.'.
1111.1
1.
iiI"..
IT.'
.'TI.
:::=: ..... :L ..;:: ..... :1
Bankof America ~
LU(/)
J-<t
Bank of America NC 1-007 -58-16
(,?J
100 North Tryon Street CharlotteJ~C 28255-0001
rr:~
lin
....~. . . . r
btl
:::~
~d
U,J(/)
c...ii:
:;it.:
~fS;::'OSi'
~
9~..
~~
......... ,.:i,;:~~
0(1)
t1i ca:.
j. _.
II
-1~
~
,~)"~' ~ ([I~.
~ \'tt':f-.~~..
__
:
'.~~.; ~.~J: ~, - '~h'.
f.....
'-i
'
-;"7
:.
-:
, _
O(Cl\(A.)
AA{t~PAB
3448i
JI~"'}.U
..t;~:L.: r.......
~-1AllEDFRr,M
.~.~
,_ "7/pr'I'--iDE
"''''_
_."':")c::.(;
__ ~_.
);\"'. ~e;\ G~ \\esy'~ ~

~Dq2 Sw \ \sth
" ...::-,,:i
.;~; . ~ ~
$ 00 40 6
~ ~
:W::.
-\,
,~:if;)~.. '" "-,",0_ .,.. ~ _. _
llop
\=L 334)5'
,"III fill J, I, '1,'1
'I J t 1,'1 ',fI,ll JI JII "I t " JI J. 'I J'1 t ,J '1,1111
b...........
~~
BankofAmerica . .
Off'1OO of the (~I) and President
Enterprise (..u.tomer Relation
March 19, 2014
Mr. Neil Gillespie

8092 Southwest 11 Sth Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Contact Us:
1.336.333.7329

1-48961 4826
Correspondence received on: March 13, 2014

Page 1 of 2
Dear Mr. Gillespie:

The Office of the CEO and President at Bank of America has received your correspondence
related to our customer and his or her loan.
Privacy is important to us
Our customers' privacy is a top priority. Due to customer privacy laws and our own strict privacy
policy, we can provide customer account information only to our customers and third parties
that our customers have authorized to receive information. Since we do not have such written
authorization from our customer for you, we are unable to provide you with any information at
this time.
For more information about

help for homeowners, visit
bankofamerica.com/
homeloanhelp or
makinghomeaffordable.gov
To check on the status of a

loan modification, go to
bankofamerica.com/
loanhelpstatus
Our third party authorization requirements have been updated and can no longer accept a
durable power of attorney as authorization. Once we receive a letter of testimony or documents
from court showing that you are executor of the Estate or appointed through probate court we
will be able to discuss account details with you.
If you have any questions

If you have questions or wish to submit a form of third party authorization, you may contact me.
My phone number is 1.336.333.7329, and I'm available Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to
Sp.m. Eastern.
Sincerely,
~~~
Anthony Boney
Customer Advocate
Office of the CEO and President
cc: Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
Bank of America, NC1-007-58-16

100 N TRYON ~~, CHARLOTTE NC 28255-0001
ORecydcd Paper
March 19, 2014
We want you to know

Bank of America, N.A. is required by law to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector.
If you are currently in a bankruptcy proceeding, or have previously obtained a discharge of this debt under
applicable bankruptcy law, this notice is for information only and is not an attempt to collect the debt, a
demand for payment, or an attempt to impose personal liability for that debt. You are not obligated to
discuss your home loan with us or enter into a loan modification or other loan-assistance program. You
should consult with your bankruptcy attorney or other advisor about your legal rights and options.
Contact Us:
1.336.333.7329

1-489614826
Page 2 of 2
Mortgages funded and administered by an tit Equal Housing Lender.

OProtect your personal information before recycling this document.
Bank of AmeriC3ry NC1-007-58-16

100 N TRYON h-r, CHARLOTTE NC 28255-0001
.WII"
_'..
.~
i.
'.
'!!:" . . . . . .- - _ . _............
-.IUJ.-........
P' ......-IllI..n
~t--~~~
BankofAmerica.
..-: .-::.._...0:.
0(1)
w(,J')..
~ o'+-~::-i-
'_. .... .:.... o::ti

g....
Bank of America NC 1-007 -58- 16
w:Q
fu::
100 North Tryon Street Charlotte.hle 28255-0001
~~
~~
"HAW ,~
Z
A . .t~~~
::>
~~ PITNI'l BOWl S
~~
"
$ 00 40
rR
6
0002008092
MAR 20 2014
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 28269
~Vl ~e,~ \ G\\lesp\~
~bq2..
Southwest t\51"h LoD~
OCoJ~
AA{t~PAB
~L. 3LfLf ~ ,
34481
" JI J'
l'L
Iff '11,,1, fI "till" fi,II, I," ,J,I'll'",,,1'11 .", I J'" "
Case .. 140304-()()()750 - Congressional :In.quiry for Mr. Neil J. G.illespi.e
Congressional Inquiry for
Mr~
Page lof3
Neil J" Gjllespie
Statu.
Oi$cussion Thread
Re1erred to egerlCy
Note (JetnrM ""'t$On)

Al.RFCO for QOngre~onal I'der(ft! iltTaGllGd
03;211201402:39 PM
Product
ResponM (Br8nd8ce 1"Olt)
03/10;"201402;50 PM
Mottgage
RO'lerse Pr.oOrtgage
I,. .
Lean moCi!icaticrl:ooJiec;licn.!Drealosulll
DllpMlUon
Thank yeu for comacUrlg ttle Consumer Financial Pra1ecticn 8ureuu.
~Hl!
SlA
Intour.d Referrals 120822
Queue
Outbound ..OlMr
D Cre.ted
03/04!2014 11 :50 AM
DaM tntttil SOlutton ~,pon..
OOl1Uf20~4 02:50 PM
.....
Alter rev ng your compla~nt ~ars the Consume-' FinandaJ Protection Q.in~au
)IOU de8cribed.
cannot purS"~ the 18&00
The D~pal1lT1ent of Hou~nQ and Urban O&veJOpment (HUD) may b~ able to addr&66 Ihis i$6U9. For more
intorrr..atIDn Or to file a l;OI'=1'lainll to..'da~t mem at:
Department of HOusing and Urban DeWllopmBnt

451 '71h sr,eet SW
Wa$hingfott, DC 20410
Phone: eoO66fr9111
Websit&: hud.gov
Thank ~'Otl
Consumer Respon T8al11
Cl')f1surr..er Fircanci81 P(v1eCtion 8~lfesU consumernnance.Qov

(855) 411CFPB (2372)
No" (8t.ndee. E1lott)
03,10;201402:50 PM
i$6ue was t&la1ed to oompl'ltI\112Oj14-000082.
00.121,'20 i 4 02:39 PM
~le COI\61J~"6 HCO.l(j
0." Cloeed
Note (Mel.he Wood)
'-tEeM i. fegulated by HUD Mn1 to c\Jtb~od O1her.
03110/201408:31 AM
Customer (Hell Giltupie)

Issue 1. from Pe+Jlion No. 137280 ..!'it 01 certic:ar: US &:preme Court My hosne is in wror.gfuJ forecloSOfQ
OIl a federal HECM teverse mortgage. N<;r mortgage paY f ne:1ts are required on i HECf\,1 Fe\'erse mQrfgage.
Instead: thB loan beoomes payable when the tast borrOWBf dies or rnowd trorn tho home. ~ am a borrow.:Jr
and stiJlli;ting in the nome.
O~c~e $wgl1l: Stop the fOtaoclowrs. and "-oid the mOf'fgage for the boN'owers klCGPacily iPenelope
G~~elipifJJ. as hBId ~n Matter 01 Coal (Brun600) 2009 NY Slip Op 28549 128 MISC 3d 7591. or a.~ cth6r
QfOlolnCt aet forth in In. Perilioner:s Mo~ ~o RaconIQer, VaealO Or Mod~iy CH'd!et dtr;ied Ju:y 25: 2013 b;;
the EIe'"etllh Cftcuit See 111'{ tnt ~tiOn Pr~get,tad ~n Petiticn Nc. 13-7280.
Issue 2. Petition No. 13-7280 writ 01 cernorari: US Supreme Court (and Petition No. 12- n47j: Oisbarthe
Florida Bar. Fsortd. it the moat corrupt staIB in America. according to the FQ'SI tnterim Report or the
Nirnlleenth Sta1e~.de Grand jury at~ OOJ numbers. The Florida Bar is ~M1roptlica~y orclc.&f1 as shewn by
"tr\r"eY 'fi~'i8S to the HaWk:ns C!immjss'<m Rsport 2D12.
03;041201406:47 PM
Aut~tt.spOMe
03i04l"2014 06~47 PM
0311 ~"2a14 D2:50 PM
C.-omer Strl8ftse.....
+1 lon 3 10 +3 scaie)
ShIff 8mIIrl8erule
oton -3 ~ .3 scalo)
Send 10 compIIIJ?
Yes
SUbmit thl. artOC\ymoutly?
No
We ,ee.eiwed your ~siort from me Co~ress and wiil review it as soon as poaSbIe 10 determine
inv~""fIS a Feti8~aJ GVraat.mef t:nanciall3w wjthin oor au~.orny.
lMcrimlnation nationat origin
No
.f it
Depending on what we find, wv wiN:
send your complain' to tne company for a response; or
send YOU' complaint to the appropriate regulator or hetp you get in touch with your state and
local consumer protection office if your co,nplaint is not w4thin our authority; or
Let you kllOW if we need more 'ntorm8tl011 to con"nue our work.
While we canOt give legal 8dvicEt or fltJY8S8nt individual! in :egal matters\ if you want mont help
you can contact 8 private attorney Of your local legal aid office for free or :O"~-cost lBgal resources
I.lIIcrtmlnetJon relglon
at ~!!!!J!i.llilY..
No
You can register tD track the status of yOOf submission at:
DiaerimIftation ...
~L~Jt;~rtL~JIL~J'~!y"'..";_~ji:l!li~'_~QJt~:l!s~L{\~io.;Jjj1,:y_~1jjl~~jJ1;iL~l~1-.
No
eontactedCFPB
I'.to
In the meantime. jf you're ha~ng trouble pay~ng YO\Jt mortgage and need immediate assistance:
call us at (855) 411 ..CFPB (2312). We can connect you to a frse r HUD-approved housing
counselor who ca.'1 help you QHp!ore OpUOtlS avaf!able to avoid to(ecIosure~ inc:uc:1ing
Inodif.ctilions. short saJes. repaymem plans and gover:1menl programs. Special 8ssis.ance may
be avajlabKJ to m~!ilary membBrs or veterans. You can atso explore your options at
!'1!.t.P_ir:w'!.'!~:.::!!~~~9!~!S!g!!Q!Jl~5!::.9.Q..YLQ!9~.!:1.~~P~~:~.l.q~~~~!r=J.t.l~~,
Please note that SUbmitting
a complaint With us wiU not automaticaYy stop or delay a foreclo&Ul'e.
At flnanc4a. Instttulton?
No
On '*-" of my_II
Ves
On Nhalf Of .omaone ...
Nt)
country
TrtMIkyou:
Consume! Rnanctal ProtectIon Bureau

;~j)!iJ.oo.~ttr1\~ . J&~l
(855~
411..cFPB (2372J
Ur~States
State
FL
Ojf04i2014 11 ~50 A.M
ZlPoode
34481
In.o gJwn Ia true to best o'
GINA ALONSO
Fl
OFFIC'E OF UNITf.D S'TATES SENA'roR MARCO R.U810
8~9 N\f/ ::Gth Stn:;~~
Yes
Sbd8
ZIP coda
34481
(":x~s/fw~/:tStffl.'iCt!5 k~,Urf'5~ntMi~
SUtt~
l1n
https:llhel.poconsulnerfinance.g()v/cgi-binlvangentcfglphp/adnlin/display/inc-print.php?p_i... 3/27/2014
Case .. 140304()()()750 - Congressional :In.quiry for Mr. Neil J. G.il1.espi.e
Page 2 of3
~;,"i?Jrni~ n~rfdi' 33166

(305) 418.. 8~;e.:;
{3QS; 59t."..40j"4 .. fiD!
NoA~..
Flag
Primary Contact
No
Refer... By
CongrGS!I, Whiti HOU$li:

RtIhIrredlo
Flr.t Heme~ Ne~
Last NIune; Gitle$pie
OrganiDtiGn:
em.
HUD
logt":
n~lespie@m1. net
TI"*:Mr.
Contacl Tyj)lt;
email;
n.;IgiH85pl8@:nf~.Jlet
Erne. Allemlte '1 :
D8W R.VIewed
OOl10i2014
~tt .. Wblstkablowef?
No
Email AlMmatt M2:
Prlmery PhoM; 352-854-1801
Mobile Phone:
FD~
Asslsta"t Phone;
Home Phone:
Str_t
CIt~
Old. AJneriaan?
No
8-~2 S. W.
115m Lcop
Ocala
Stat.fPrcwlnce Fl.
Postal Code 34481
country Urlfttd States
Additional Information
Country (behalf); United S1ates
Country: United States
Name Oft .Cd: Nell J GiIe$pt& and pene;ope ailies.pie
AedfLoln numtJer: ..........-

C~1~~HECM
country: United States
Addf_1: 81192 S.W. 115..'tIl.oop
Clty~ Ocma
ApplyIng lor tbe loan

No
COUf'tty:
U~~e<J
States
Addr 1: 8092 S.W. 115!t1 Loop
CIty: oeaJa
Country; Un~ed Srale$
Currency .,.. (Error Amount): usa UnOd StatH DotJar
Cttneftey type (T.......-.d)~ usc Ur:itl8d states Dollar
. _._n_._._.._n_
.~~_~1_
_n_n_.._._.._.._._. .._ _ _._. n _.
..n_.__._.._ _._.._..__._.._..
_._n_.._n_._._ _._n_.._.._.._n_.._.._.._.._.._n_n_._.._n_n_. n_n_.
..n_._.
Ia$ue 1~ b'om P~tWon No. 13-7280 writ of cer.~ari. US Supt~o Co:.:n. M't home is if" wroogfulloreclcsur'o en e redef8: HECM
riWeB" mortgage. Nor mortgage paymen16 are requm 00 a HECht rBY8fS8 mortgage. ~rnd8ad, tr.D loan b&oomes payable \\'hen the
last botTowei' <ies or n1Q\red from !he homo. ~ am D borrower and ditllMr.g in the home.
0IJ1come Ili~ Slop the fofec:Ios~e. and void the mortgage for 1ho borrowers ~acjty (PeneiQp6 Giliespie). as held h, Matter of
Doar CBruIlSH1) 2009 NY Slip Op 29549 l28 MlSC 3d 7591: Of any other grouOOi set torth in the PeUoonefs Motion to Reconstder.
Vacate or Modify O:det' denied Ju=V 25. 2013 the Eleventh Circuit see my tnl Ques~ion P(a'~ed 11 PeliliGn No, 137280.
188UiI 2: Pvtiiior; No. 13..7280 wrjt 01 certiOrari. US SUJ:U1tnw Court (and Petdion No. 12714ij! DisbaJ 1h8 RorKJa 88f. FlOrkia is thit
moil ClOITlif)' shate in America. ICCOrdinQ to the Fir,. lrrterim Report 01 tt".a Nm!Heenll Stmewk'Je Grand jury and OOJ nUFr.obers. thi!
Fjord Bar is cahl~l'~~ as sho-.vr. by sun."f ret;pOn5eS to the Ha-Nkins Co..'nmissian Report 2012.
0'"
IS Repotl
No
Copy to company addr
No
Copy to property addr...
No
F, resoIutton?
"~100;;"~i~";;;d"iheFkF.idaBai;;;;di.~~.ijj;j~s~t.;~;F~da.;;(i"_th;i~irea;m~~;dAti~~;"iji"tt.""1992t:1d<~Y-
~"'ft or ,he Amerioa Bir AlIDdafioo. Il.ld end crony kloaI dilciplne components Uke ;oca; gJ'iAvullCe oommilieQ5, wtrich are POl!1lC!il
decision$.
~!ff!l!~~~R!!~!!~ ._ _
_..._
_
~.n
_ _
_
_ ..
In the m8un1imer it you're hnving trouble paying YOLir mortg-ae a.'1d need immediate IASis1aOCfl: caJi t,~ a1 (85SJ 411oCFPS t~72l. Vole
~n connect ~ 10 a Iree: HUC,~oved hou9ing cou098ior who can help )101.1 e~pIor8 optione available \0 avoid 1orecIO!1JJ9.
'nc:a.:ding modifications! short sales, ntP8)'ment plans and go...emmer.t prcgtaii'iS. Special assistance may be a-wailable to military
members or vr.erans. Yew can alsD exptore ~r OptiOllS at.: '1ttp}/www.makJrlghomeBffordabte.gcviprogfi.lmS/P3giisldefaUt1.aB;:u:.
p~ note that submitting a cornplairt. with ~ wiN nor aufomaticany Slop or delay a foreclosure.
~~.=~ft'!!ft~.=~ __
COpyto~"""'''''''',
~J
~-oi~-------------------31'19158
Mienv.. tanto, Ii tiene ~, para. paoIf ~ hipoteca Y fleeeshan aaiS1eneia inmed!ata. :1'met~O$ al (855) ~ 11-CFra (?~72}.
Pocierr.os ponerJe en oontado cor. t1 aseso: de \-Milnda gratl.:JtD au1orlzado por eI MUD qtHn podrfl ayudarle 21 explorar :as opeionss
dit~ para _at una ojecuca6n hipotoearia. todc..oyGl1dc moamcaekmes. ~tas eFt corte. pIar:es de pago 'I programas del
aobIoroo. 810 Mponible gjst\tr'Oa ~ para to. m.1iwes 0 ~I'\()S. T~ puedo e~8r sus opcionG$ e":
,1ttp:I.'w\\~.mBkJnghomem1ordabie-QCV/progr
.. msiP~e13ui1~~- Tonga en a..:ema qt.:e :a presenmdOn d~ una queju a."le
nosotroc i'4 deCOI'dt'6 nj 1'~1raud automjticamonte ~I o~ hipofeCaJfa.
Filo A1tDChments
Name
.~~
~~.!~.
362.12k
1...8Sk
app!icatioNpO'
applica1ionipdf
CFPBCIGad
0311111201402=50 PM
https:/lhelp.consumerfinance.g()vIcgi-binlvangentcfglphp/adnlinld'isplayline-print.php?p_i... 3/27flO 14
Case .. 14030400<)750 - Congressional :In.quiry for Mr. Neil J. Goil1.espi.e
Page 3 of3
scrubS'."
Scrub rnm"ted
Matched To Company
~-lo
hnps:/lhelp.consulnerfinance.gO()v/cgi-bin/vangent.cfglphp/adnlinldisplay/inc..jlrint.php?p_i... 3/27/2014
Office of
u.s. Senator Marco Rubio
Privacy Act Consent Form

in a:c('Jdunce \\,t(h the prol:j~jon~
(\f
'i"he :.Pn\',~~y ,.\ct (t1"" t 97-1. O~tlbli~" Luw
y~n.lr hdi~.ti. Sint:L! ~ ... n1:tds tli.1 not t;Uitt~.ia ~i

i~
rJcc~s~nr,,'
18 (Ir older. it" is
Title: (seJect one)
[lj
ttus(
h~
MT. D ~ts.
Qr ~hc
0
9J579)~ your \'!-TItlc;n <:(ln~tnC ~s rcqnirt,."tJ ~c that \"':1; lTUI.Y c\~nr.act a. f:dcrnt i~gelKY ')'r,
vulid sigJi~.turl\ l"ht~y d() no.l fulfitJ lh~ rCl.1Lj1eaU!nt.~ ofr.h~ !~.v... 1f ynu are ilH.llLidng un be~,!fofaJH~the1'p~::{or. that.
sigl1lhi$ dvcur:n~llt All iJJfo:rallition arust be 'written ]n Eng'iish,
"[vIrs.
0 ~1r. &
o Rev.
tv1rs.
Doctor
Other:
Neil Jr GHlespie
Nlilnc~
(last 'Narne)
8092 SW 115th Loop

}\ddress: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34481
Zip cod~: ..__
n _ _
Ocala
(~i.ty
FL
State:
352-854-7807
_ _. _ _
_ _
11]\011C; ._.___.__ ...__._______.
neilgiUespie@mfLnet
E-mail ,Address: ..._ _ __
,_ _.._ _._
__ __
__
tv1arch 19. 1956

_._ _ _ Date of Birl~): ._
_._ _._.. _.~
_ _.._
Sen Sil! Nelson
_ _._ _ _
Jfyou. have COOlacloo another ,;(~ngresSil)n:l.1 otlice to assist you) ptease list. the otlice: _
HECM reverse
l~ ecleral Agen.ey .r ~5iu.e:
Mortgage~
_
_._
_ __ ,.
_..~..~_
_._ _._.
HUD; OOJ Public Integrity Section referral to the FBI

__
_ _ _
_._
_._
_._._
_._
_._._
_._._
_._ _.._
(Please complete the sections that apply to your case on page 2)
1~.~.ue._
. .LfroID Petition No.
Dlortgage. No lllorlgag'C:
or nl()Vc~ fron) the h()m~.

~)!!t!:R.lJl~ ...~.:)!..lth!:
JJ.. 7280 wIlt of certiorari, US Su.preln~ (:ourt. ~1y horne is .in wrongful fore' Josure on a federal. H.E(~1 reverse
required on a l'lEC~1 reverse Inol1gage. I.nste~ld. th.e: loan beconles payable \vhen Lhe l.a.~l bOIH>W"cr dies
r a.nl a horro\\'cr and slillli\ling in '-he h(l11l'~,
IJaynlel1t~ an~
Stop lhe fore(:lo~un~" and void the mortgage for the borrowers Inca~)cll:y (Penelope [,illespie)1 tiS held in M.ulter of Doar
(Brunson) 2009 NY Slip Op 29549 (28 MiS(: 3d 759]1 or an~ other grounds ~e( forth in fhe Petitioner's ~1Q!iQ.nJQ . _Rer_Qn.5..i.{\~[I . _y!.t~!:!.t~Jg_ ..M~QQ.ifr
QI!:J.~ denied July
25, 20J ~~ by the 'Eleventh ("ircuit. Sec D1Y first Question Prescnled in Petition No. 1.3-7280.
1~~~t~t1t
Petition Nc.l. '.37280 writ of certi(JrCL~J lJS Sup,"cJne COLlrt (and Petitlt)Jl No. 12.. 774 7)~ Disbar 1hc l:}orida Bt\f. 'Fhlrida is r.he IJ\OS{
corrupt state in l\lnerieu. uccording lo the First lntel;m Report of the Ninet:eenth Statewide fintnd jury ~md .D()J IlllTDbern. The Fltlrida Bar 1S
cablstrophicaJly broken ..l~ sho\\'n by survey responses to the H~\\"k.in~ Cornfni~$ion Report 20J 2.
Q~t{;Qm.~ . . $.9.y.&hl:: end The .Florida Bar. end the unified bar systC!rn in Florida, and adopt lhe J:uLl recolnJllcndations of the 1992 J\.1.cI(ay .Report of
the AJn~rican l~ar Ass()cjati(}n~ t\od end crooy }t>C4d \H~~jpline components lik'e h)f;al grievan~ r;()mmittees~ ,"vhich ~'re pt)J.ili,~~\1 decisions.
Date:
I have (liscn...;sed DIy ~Olll~~riL~ wit.h Sc:nator 1v1;u'Co Rubio u1kiJ~)r h~ rcpr~sentaijve(s). :lnd request tilat any relevant
$lRtJldin~
February 23, 2014
itlt'tl'"Jn~ti(,n
thnt
i~
requir.ed in nssi~t i.n re
w nlY inq Ul ry rnrty be fumi:1hcd u.porJ ri;q\t~f.
Please return thl~ con'pleted forln~
By n'~lil:
By fax:
By email:
U.S. 5enato'T fvfarcD Rubio

8669 N~V 36th Street Suite 110
Doral, Florida 33166
(305) 594-401.4
cast~\\ro.rk@r ubio. senatc.gov-
If you. ha.\te all}' qu.(~sti()llS, plea.se call the South Florida R.egional ()fiee at (305) 418 ..8553 or (866) 630..71.061 to.ll...fl"ee in Florida..
Page 1
Name:
Neil J Gillespie
------------------------------(Fint NamE-)
(Middle Name)
Sorial Secllrit): Number=_1_60_-_5_2-_5_1_1_7
\\'ORKFLO'V ~~.
Child Support Case Nunlbt-ar:

N(lm~
of Custodial Pa.rent:
Nam.e of Non-custodial
Date of Birth.:
Parent~
S-<:iN':
Date L.1f Birth:
j jIM:MI(;:R;\l]O:N
'Type of Application File'i:

(E.x: j\/-4oo1 I-IJ(Jf 1~765)
Bent?ficiary Name:
Rt.~ei pt
Number:
_
._._~
..
DM~Er)ICAI~:E1S()CIAL SECUI~rIY
'rypt~
of Clain1 .Filed~
SSN:
1)1\t(:' FjJt~d:
Dl\-1ILITARyfVE~rERAN (l.Jot?: C0l11pleft' this section o,t!y ~f yo'u arc Seek;'l[{ ilSsisfill1Ce with a rlliJitary/\1..4
-issue.
If ytlu }ut'l'e II '1",.;
cart IJr,"blell'l, pl!!ilse fontact ot.r ~iffil"'f~ to ,1bfain a ?rlican~ J4.utJzorization FornI. )
f\lli1itary Rank and Unit:
Ilome of Rl.~()rd.
~rype
Out}" Sta.hon:
V~\ C.lainl Number:
Addl~('~8:
of Claim: ._._
_ __
..--...
V.,\ Office 'Where
Clailn:L~ Locat(.~i:
...
U~IORTGA~GE
Reverse Mortgage Soiutions Inc for Bank of America

_
__._ .
Loall ~rvicer:
'wan N'Ulnber:
6801;002615899
_
-.
UVISAS
Nalne of Applic.ant:
[late of Birth:
_ Place of Birth:
CoC\oulate:
Page 2
https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/account/complaints/review_print/i_id/752191
Case number: 140304-000750
WHAT HAPPENED
Describe what happened so we can understand the issue...
Issue 1, from Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari, US Supreme Court. My home is in wrongful
foreclosure on a federal HECM reverse mortgage. Nor mortgage payments are required on a HECM
reverse mortgage. Instead, the loan becomes payable when the last borrower dies or moved from
the home. I am a borrower and still living in the home.
Outcome sought: Stop the foreclosure, and void the mortgage for the borrowers incapacity
(Penelope Gillespie), as held in Matter of Doar (Brunson) 2009 NY Slip Op 29549 [28 MISC 3d 759],
or any other grounds set forth in the Petitioners Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify Order
denied July 25, 2013 by the Eleventh Circuit. See my first Question Presented in Petition No.
13-7280.
Issue 2, Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari, US Supreme Court (and Petition No. 12-7747),
Disbar the Florida Bar. Florida is the most corrupt state in America, according to the First Interim
Report of the Nineteenth Statewide Grand jury and DOJ numbers. The Florida Bar is
catastrophically broken as shown by survey responses to the Hawkins Commission Report 2012.
Which part of the mortgage process is your issue related to?
DESIRED RESOLUTION
What do you think would be a fair resolution to your issue?
Outcome sought: end The Florida Bar, end the unified bar system in Florida, and adopt the full
recommendations of the 1992 McKay Report of the America Bar Association, and end crony local
discipline components like local grievance committees, which are political decisions.
MY INFORMATION
Contact information
Mailing address
Mr Neil Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala FL 34481
United States
Email neilgillespie@mfi.net
I am submitting on behalf of
Myself
PRODUCT INFORMATION
Property address
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala FL 34481
United States
Account/Loan number ***********
Information about the company
HECM
United States
Supporting documents
Neil J Gillespie PAC MIA.pdf
(362.12 KB)
RL.RFCO140304-000750.pdf
(14.83 KB)
COMPLAINT HISTORY
Thank you for contacting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

After reviewing your complaint, it appears the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cannot
pursue the issue you described.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may be able to address this issue. For
more information or to file a complaint, contact them at:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW
Phone: 800-669-9777
Website: hud.gov
Thank you
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumerfinance.gov
(855) 411-CFPB (2372)
Issue 1, from Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari, US Supreme Court. My home is in wrongful
foreclosure on a federal HECM reverse mortgage. Nor mortgage payments are required on a HECM
reverse mortgage. Instead, the loan becomes payable when the last borrower dies or moved from
the home. I am a borrower and still living in the home.
Outcome sought: Stop the foreclosure, and void the mortgage for the borrowers incapacity
(Penelope Gillespie), as held in Matter of Doar (Brunson) 2009 NY Slip Op 29549 [28 MISC 3d 759],
or any other grounds set forth in the Petitioners Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify Order
denied July 25, 2013 by the Eleventh Circuit. See my first Question Presented in Petition No.
13-7280.
Issue 2, Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari, US Supreme Court (and Petition No. 12-7747),
Disbar the Florida Bar. Florida is the most corrupt state in America, according to the First Interim
Report of the Nineteenth Statewide Grand jury and DOJ numbers. The Florida Bar is
catastrophically broken as shown by survey responses to the Hawkins Commission Report 2012.
We received your submission from the Congress and will review it as soon as possible to determine
if it involves a Federal consumer financial law within our authority.
Depending on what we find, we will:
Send your complaint to the company for a response; or
Send your complaint to the appropriate regulator or help you get in touch with your state and local consumer protection
office if your complaint is not within our authority; or
Let you know if we need more information to continue our work.
While we cant give legal advice or represent individuals in legal matters, if you want more help you can contact a private
attorney or your local legal aid office for free or low-cost legal resources at www.lsc.gov.
You can register to track the status of your submission at: https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/account
/complaints/list.
In the meantime, if youre having trouble paying your mortgage and need immediate assistance, call us at (855) 411-CFPB
(2372). We can connect you to a free, HUD-approved housing counselor who can help you explore options available to avoid
foreclosure, including modifications, short sales, repayment plans and government programs. Special assistance may be
available to military members or veterans. You can also explore your options at: http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov
/programs/Pages/default.aspx. Please note that submitting a complaint with us will not automatically stop or delay a
foreclosure.
Thank you,
consumerfinance.gov
(855) 411-CFPB (2372)
GINA ALONSO
Constituent Services Representative
OFFICE
OF
UNITED STATES SENATOR MARCO RUBIO
8669 NW 36th Street

Suite 110
Miami, Florida 33166
(305) 418-8583
(305) 594-4014 -Fax
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" <donotreply@consumerfinance.gov>

<neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Monday, March 10, 2014 2:50 PM
Your submission, [Case number: 140304-000750]
Subject
Congressional Inquiry for Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
Discussion Thread
Response Via Email (CFPB)
Thank you for contacting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
03/10/2014 02:50 PM
After reviewing your complaint, it appears the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cannot pursue
the issue you described.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may be able to address this issue. For
more information or to file a complaint, contact them at:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW
Phone: 800-669-9777
Website: hud.gov
Thank you
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumerfinance.gov
(855) 411-CFPB (2372)
3/10/2014
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" <donotreply@consumerfinance.gov>

Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:47 PM
Your submission, [Case number: 140304-000750]
We received your submission from the Congress and will review it as soon as possible to determine if
it involves a Federal consumer financial law within our authority.
Depending on what we find, we will:
Send your complaint to the company for a response; or
Send your complaint to the appropriate regulator or help you get in touch with your state and local consumer protection office if your
complaint is not within our authority; or
Let you know if we need more information to continue our work.
While we cant give legal advice or represent individuals in legal matters, if you want more help you can contact a private attorney or
your local legal aid office for free or low-cost legal resources at www.lsc.gov.
You can register to track the status of your submission at:
https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/account/complaints/list.
In the meantime, if youre having trouble paying your mortgage and need immediate assistance, call us at (855) 411-CFPB (2372). We
can connect you to a free, HUD-approved housing counselor who can help you explore options available to avoid foreclosure, including
modifications, short sales, repayment plans and government programs. Special assistance may be available to military members or
veterans. You can also explore your options at: http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/programs/Pages/default.aspx. Please note that
submitting a complaint with us will not automatically stop or delay a foreclosure.
Thank you,
consumerfinance.gov
(855) 411-CFPB (2372)
3/10/2014
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Rubio, Casework (Rubio)" <Casework_Rubio@rubio.senate.gov>

Monday, February 24, 2014 8:45 AM
RE: Neil J Gillespie PAC MIA form attached
Dear Mr. Gillespie,
The Office of United States Senator Marco Rubio has received the Privacy Act Consent
Form you sent to our office by e-mail on February.
We thank you for allowing us to assist you.
David
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 350
Orlando, Florida 32801
From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]

Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:22 PM
To: Rubio, Casework (Rubio)
Subject: Neil J Gillespie PAC MIA form attached
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
3/10/2014
Case: 13-11585
Date Filed: 01/13/2015
Page: 1 of 1
Case: 13-11585
Page: 1 of 1
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
For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov
January 20, 2015

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
Appeal Number: 13-11585-B
Case Style: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, In v. Neil Gillespie, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
I am returning to you unfiled the papers which you have submitted.
In the absence of a pending appeal, as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, this court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.
This appeal was dismissed on 6/12/2013, and reconsideration on 7/25/2013.
No further action will be taken.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Melanie Gaddis, B
Phone #: (404) 335-6187
Enclosure(s)
PRO-3 Letter Returning Papers Unfiled
Case: 13-11585
Page: 1 of 1
Case: 13-11585
Page: 1 of 1
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
For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov
July 25, 2013

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
Appeal Number: 13-11585-B
Case Style: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, In v. Neil Gillespie, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
This Court requires all counsel to file documents electronically using the Electronic Case
Files ("ECF") system, unless exempted for good cause.
The enclosed order has been ENTERED.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Melanie Gaddis, B/rvg
Phone #: (404) 335-6187
MOT-2 Notice of Court Action
https://ecf.ca11.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-11585
Nature of Suit: 3290 Other Real Property Actions
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, In v. Neil Gillespie, et al
Appeal From: Middle District of Florida
Fee Status: Fee Not Paid
Docketed: 04/15/2013
Termed: 06/12/2013
Case Handler: Gaddis, Melanie, B
(404) 335-6187
Case Type Information:

1) Private Civil
2) Federal Question
3) Originating Court Information:
District: 113A-5 : 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
Civil Proceeding: Wm. Terrell Hodges, U.S. District Judge
Secondary Judge: Philip R. Lammens, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Date NOA Filed:
04/10/2013
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
None
REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.

Plaintiff - Appellee
Curtis Wilson
Direct: 407-674-1850
[COR LD NTC Retained]
McCalla Raymer, LLC
225 E ROBINSON ST STE 660
ORLANDO, FL 32801
Danielle N. Parsons
Direct: 954-319-7121
[NTC Retained]
McCalla Raymer, LLC
225 E ROBINSON ST STE 660
ORLANDO, FL 32801
versus
Neil J. Gillespie
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, as Co-Trustees of the Gillespie Family Living Trust
Direct: 352-854-7807
Agreement Dated February 10, 1997
Defendant - Appellant [NTC Pro Se]
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Defendant - Appellant
REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NEIL J. GILLESPIE AS CO-TRUSTEES,
of the Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement Dated February 10, 1997,
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Defendants - Appellants,
MARK GILLESPIE AS CO-TRUSTEES, etc., et al.,
Defendants.
04/15/2013
14 pg, 810 KB
04/15/2013
CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Neil J. Gillespie on 04/10/2013. Fee
Status: Fee Not Paid. No hearings to be transcribed.
USDC order denying IFP as to Appellant Neil J. Gillespie was filed on 03/07/2013. Docket Entry 19.
7 pg, 43.4 KB
8 pg, 323.51 KB
Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Neil J.
Gillespie.
1 pg, 52.95 KB
APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Danielle N. Parsons for Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.. (ECF:
Curtis Wilson)
05/02/2013
05/09/2013
05/09/2013
E-filed Appearance of Counsel processed for Attorney Curtis Wilson for Appellee Reverse Mortgage
Solutions, Inc. in 13-11585.
05/17/2013
USDC order denying IFP as to Appellant Neil J. Gillespie was filed on 05/09/2013. Docket Entry 28.
3 pg, 47.22 KB
ORDER: On its own motion, the court DISMISSES the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (RB/SM/AJ).
06/12/2013
3 pg, 52.2 KB
62 pg, 4.97 MB
MOTION for reconsideration of a panel order entered on 06/12/2013 filed by Appellants Neil J. Gillespie
and Neil J. Gillespie. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [6911968-1]
21 pg, 1.09 MB
Public Communication: Letter from Pro Se Appellant to update and correct previous letter dted 07/01/2013
- no action requested..
10 pg, 608.7 KB
Public Communication: Letter from Pro Se Appellant Additional documents for reconsideration of denial of
recon motion - returned with SPCT-5 information.
2 pg, 202.02 KB
ORDER: Motion for reconsideration of panel order filed by Appellants Neil J. Gillespie and Neil J. Gillespie
is DENIED. [6911968-2] FMH, CRW and AJ
5 pg, 306.04 KB
Public Communication: Letter from Pro Se Appellant with UPS voucher to return his filed
documents/records..
07/02/2013
07/19/2013
07/22/2013
07/25/2013
08/07/2013
10/30/2013
Public Communication: Letter from Pro Se Appellant Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court - returned.
2 pg, 294.11 KB
Notice of Writ of Certiorari filed as to Appellants Neil J. Gillespie and Neil J. Gillespie. SC# 13-7280.
11/08/2013
1 pg, 41.63 KB
ADDENDUM FIVE
NON-CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS
The court adopts these provisions for furnishing representation for persons financially unable
to obtain adequate representation in cases and situations which do not fall within the scope of 18
U.S.C. 3006A, as amended but in which the court believes that the interests of justice will be
served by the presence of counsel.
(a) Determination of Need.
In determining need for appointment of counsel, the court shall generally be governed by the
guidelines outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3006A.
(b) Appointment of Counsel.
(1) Counsel shall be selected from the same panels of attorneys designated or approved by
the district courts of the Eleventh Circuit as described in Addendum Four, which are hereby
approved by this court, or from a bar association, legal aid agency, or other approved organization.
In addition, any judge of this court may appoint competent counsel not otherwise included in the
preceding categories.
(2) Any person seeking relief under 29 U.S.C. 621, 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C. 1982,
42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, 42 U.S.C. 1986, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, and
42 U.S.C. 2000e or in such other cases as the court shall determine to be appropriate may be
eligible for representation. The court may approve such representation on a determination that the
interests of justice so require and that the person is financially unable to obtain representation.
(3) The court may at its discretion and in the interest of justice substitute one appointed
counsel for another at any stage of the proceedings on appeal.
(4) The court may at its discretion and where circumstances warrant make appointments of
counsel retroactive so as to include representation furnished prior to appointment.
(c) Withdrawal or Release of Appointed Counsel.
Counsel appointed under this rule to represent a party shall continue such representation until
relieved by order of the court of appeals.
(d) Duties of Appointed Counsel.
(1) Appointed counsel shall furnish the party represented, upon written request, with a copy
of motion papers and briefs filed for the party on the appeal, and shall send the party a copy of the
Rev.: 8/07
Addendum Five
court's decision when issued; the clerk will send appointed counsel an extra copy of the decision for
this purpose.
(2) Appointed counsel shall appear for oral argument only when directed by the court.
(3) In the event of affirmance or other decision adverse to the party represented appointed
counsel shall promptly advise the party in writing of the right to seek further review by the filing of
a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
(4) Appointed counsel shall advise the party represented in each case that, if the party wishes
to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, the party may have the right to do
so without prepayment of fees and costs or giving security therefor.
(5) No appointed representative under this rule shall accept a payment from or on behalf of
the person represented in this court without prior authorization by a United States circuit judge.
(e)
Payment of Claims for Expenses.
(1) In all appeals covered by this rule, the court of appeals may authorize reimbursement of
necessary expenses reasonably incurred in representing a party on appeal, consistent with the
limitations contained in the Criminal Justice Act, by any private attorney, bar association, legal aid
agency, or other approved organization appointed by the court for the purpose of representing a party
on appeal pursuant to this addendum. Compensation for attorney services as a fee for either in-court
or out-of-court time is not authorized.
(2) Travel expenses and other expenses reasonably incurred and necessary for adequate
representation on appeal may be claimed by an appointed attorney or other legal representative. The
clerk of court shall furnish each attorney or other representative at the time of appointment with
information as to expenses currently allowable and in accordance with rules, regulations and
guidelines promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Per diem may not be
claimed in lieu of actual travel and subsistence expenses. Meal and lodging expenses incurred
incident to representation on appeal, necessary long distance telephone calls or telegrams, and the
cost of photocopying (but not printing), are reimbursable expenses within the guidelines established
by the court. Expenses of general office overhead, personal items, filing fees and expenses of
printing of briefs are not reimbursable. Expenses of travel by private automobile may be claimed
on a straight mileage basis at the authorized rate. See (6) of the guidelines, below. Parking fees
and toll expenses are allowable. Transportation other than by private automobile may be claimed
on an actual cost basis, but first class fare is not permitted unless absolutely necessary and
documentation is provided that tourist or economy fares were not available.
(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the court for good cause shown, travel expenses other than
those incurred in connection with attending oral argument will not be reimbursed without a prior ex
parte application to and approval by the court.
Rev.: 8/07
Addendum Five
(4) All claims for reimbursement of expenses for representation on appeal shall be itemized
in detail and filed with the clerk of court on officially approved forms that the clerk's office will
provide. Claims should be filed as promptly as possible and in no event later than 60 days after
issuance of the mandate.
(5) After approval of allowable reimbursable expenses by the court, the claim form will be
forwarded to the circuit executive for payment.
(6) Reimbursable Expenses.
(a) Travel and transportation expenses. Travel and transportation must be accomplished by
the most economical means available. Only actual expenses may be claimed.
(i) Air transportation. Tourist or economy accommodations must be used except
where unavailable. A copy of the ticket must be attached to the claim form. If travel
by first class air transportation is claimed a detailed explanation of the reasons
therefor must be provided with the ticket copy.
(ii) Automobile transportation. The total mileage cost shall not exceed the fare
authorized for travel by tourist or economy air transport except in an emergency or
for other compelling reasons. Travel by privately owned automobile shall not exceed
the current government authorized rate for official travel per mile on a straight
mileage basis, plus parking fees, ferry, bridge, road, and tunnel fares.
(iii) Local transportation. Local travel will be accomplished by the most economical
means available and only actual expenses may be claimed. Transportation to and
from an airport should be by airport shuttle, if available.
(iv) Meals and lodging. Reasonable compensation for hotel or motel
accommodations and meals will be allowed on an actual expense basis subject to the
limitations governing compensation for federal employees traveling to the same
destination. Counsel will be notified by the clerk prior to the scheduled oral
argument session of the current limitations. A copy of the hotel or motel bill shall
be attached to the claim form.
(b) Photocopying. Actual costs not to exceed 25 cents per page will be paid if copy bill is
submitted. For in-house copying, actual costs not to exceed 15 cents per page will be paid.
(c) Express mail and other special arrangements. For delivery of items that could have been
mailed via U.S. Postal Service first class mail, additional expenses will be reimbursed only
if a satisfactory explanation is given why first class mail service was not utilized. In
non-emergency cases routine documents such as briefs and motions should be prepared early
enough to permit use of first class mail.
Rev.: 8/07
Addendum Five
(d) Computer Assisted Legal Research.

(i) By Court Appointed Counsel. The cost of use, by appointed counsel, of computer
assisted legal research services, may be allowed as a reimbursable out-of-pocket expense,
provided that the amount claimed is reasonable. Whenever appointed counsel incurs charges
for computer assisted legal research, counsel should attach to the claim form a copy of the
bill and receipt for the use of the legal research services or an explanation of the precise basis
of the charge (e.g., indicating the extent to which it was derived by proration of monthly
charges, or by charges identifiable to the specific research). If the amount claimed is in
excess of $500 or if it includes costs for downloading or printing, counsel should include a
brief statement of justification.
(ii) By Commercial Computer Assisted Legal Research Services. The court may in
advance authorize counsel to obtain computer assisted legal research services, where the
research is performed by employees of a commercial legal research firm or organization
rather than by appointed counsel, provided that the total amount charged for computer
assisted legal research services is reasonable. Requests by counsel for authority to obtain
such computer assisted legal research services should include the following:
a - a brief explanation of the need for the research services; and
b - an estimate of the charges.
(e) Miscellaneous Expenses. The lowest possible cost for expenses such as postage,
telephone calls, brief supplies, and parking, shall be incurred.
(f) Briefs.
Reimbursement will be provided only for the number of copies of briefs and record excerpts
required by the rules to be filed and served, plus two copies for each party signing the brief. The
number of copies and number of pages must be itemized on the claim form.
(g) Funding.
By resolution the court may allocate from time to time certain monies from its
nonappropriated fund account to support this program of non-CJA counsel appointments.
Rev.: 8/07
Addendum Five
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/civil_right_to_counsel.html
Home > ABA Groups > Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants > Initiatives > Civil
Right to Counsel
Civil Right to Counsel

NEW! Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in State Civil
Proceedings
The map below provides access, by clicking each state, to a
research report detailing existing authority for appointment of
counsel in various types of civil proceedings. Additional prefatory
material and appendices are available through links below.
Introduction
Acknowledgments
Foreword
Appendix: International Law Relating to Appointment
of Counsel in Civil Proceedings
Civil Appt. Authority
Additional Resources
ABA Toolkit for a Right to Counsel in Civil
Proceedings
ABA House of Delegates Policy Resolution Urging

Recognition of a Civil Right to Counsel
The Toolkit includes in one package the "ABA Basic

Principles for a Right to Counsel in Civil Proceedings"
For additional information regarding civil right to
and "The ABA Model Access Act," which provide two
counsel issues, please visit:
important tools for jurisdictions seeking to implement a

civil right to counsel.
National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0029/Sections/0029.007.html
Select Year:
The 2015 Florida Statutes

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Chapter 29
COURT SYSTEM FUNDING
View Entire Chapter
29.007
Court-appointed counsel. For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution,
the elements of court-appointed counsel to be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law are
as follows:
(1) Private attorneys appointed by the court to handle cases where the defendant is indigent and cannot
be represented by the public defender or the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel.
(2) When the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel has a conflict of interest, private
attorneys appointed by the court to represent indigents or other classes of litigants in civil proceedings
requiring court-appointed counsel in accordance with state and federal constitutional guarantees and federal
and state statutes.
(3) Reasonable court reporting and transcription services necessary to meet constitutional or statutory
requirements, including the cost of transcribing and copying depositions of witnesses and the cost of foreign
language and sign-language interpreters and translators.
(4) Witnesses, including expert witnesses, summoned to appear for an investigation, preliminary hearing,
or trial in a case when the witnesses are summoned on behalf of an indigent, and any other expert witnesses
approved by the court.
(5) Mental health professionals appointed pursuant to s. 394.473 and required in a court hearing involving
an indigent, mental health professionals appointed pursuant to s. 916.115(2) and required in a court hearing
involving an indigent, and any other mental health professionals required by law for the full adjudication of
any civil case involving an indigent person.
(6) Reasonable pretrial consultation fees and costs.
(7) Travel expenses reimbursable under s. 112.061 reasonably necessary in the performance of
constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
Subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) apply when court-appointed counsel is appointed; when the court
determines that the litigant is indigent for costs; or when the litigant is acting pro se and the court determines
that the litigant is indigent for costs at the trial or appellate level. This section applies in any situation in
which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigants due process rights. The Justice Administrative
Commission shall approve uniform contract forms for use in processing payments for due process services
under this section. In each case in which a private attorney represents a person determined by the court to be
indigent for costs, the attorney shall execute the commissions contract for private attorneys representing
persons determined to be indigent for costs.
History.s. 7, ch. 2000-237; s. 43, ch. 2003-402; s. 16, ch. 2005-236; s. 18, ch. 2007-62.
Copyright 1995-2015 The Florida Legislature Privacy Statement Contact Us
Neil J. Gillespie
Birth Date: 3/19/1956
Accu-Chek Compass
One Page Summary Report
12/29/2014 - 1/11/2015
Trend Graph
600
550
500
450
bG (mg/dL)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
12/29
2014
12/30
12/31
1/1
2015
1/2
1/3
1/4
1/5
1/6
1/7
1/8
1/9
1/10
1/11
Average Day
600
550
500
450
bG (mg/dL)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Night
Before
Breakfast
After
Breakfast
Before
Lunch
After
Lunch
Before
Dinner
After
Dinner
Evening
Target Range
Overall
Above 100.0% (11 tests)

Before Meals
After Meals
Range
Above Target
Within Target
Below Target
Hypo
( > 140 mg/dL ):

( 70 - 140 mg/dL ):
( 50 - 69 mg/dL ):
( < 50 mg/dL ):
Printed: 1/11/2015
Tests Percent
11 100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
356
Highest bG (mg/dL):
213
Lowest bG (mg/dL):
Average bG (mg/dL): 270.5
Number of HIs:
0
Number of LOs:
0
Page 1 of 1
11
Total # of Tests:
Avg. # Tests per Day: 0.8
Standard Deviation: 48.3
Roche Diagnostics

Via email: james_gerstenlauer@ca11.uscourts.gov
October 6, 2015
James Gerstenlauer, Circuit Executive

U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth St. N.W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Dear Mr. Gerstenlauer:
Addendum Five to the local rules for the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, provides for a
Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel Appointment. What is the procedure for a qualified person to
obtain a Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel Appointment as described in Addendum Five?
On information and belief, I was entitled to a Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel Appointment in
past cases before the Eleventh Circuit, but did not get one. Addendum Five states,
The court adopts these provisions for furnishing representation for persons financially
unable to obtain adequate representation in cases and situations which do not fall within
the scope of 18 U.S.C. 3006A, as amended but in which the court believes that the
interests of justice will be served by the presence of counsel.
(b)(2) Any person seeking relief under 29 U.S.C. 621, 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C.
1982, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, 42 U.S.C. 1986, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, 42
U.S.C. 2000d, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e or in such other cases as the court shall determine
to be appropriate may be eligible for representation. The court may approve such
representation on a determination that the interests of justice so require and that the
person is financially unable to obtain representation.
On September 11, 2015 I submitted this question by email to Assistant Federal Public Defender
Rick Carey, but got no response, other than a read acknowledgment from Mr. Carey.
On September 12, 2015 I submitted a follow-up email to Assistant Federal Public Defender Rick
Carey, and others, including Federal Public Defender Donna Elm, but got no response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
Enclosure: Addendum Five to the local rules for the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Proof of Delivery
Close Window
Dear Customer,
Tracking Number:
Service:
Weight:
Shipped/Billed On:
Delivered On:
Delivered To:
Signed By:
1Z64589FNW92003432
.40 lb
10/06/2015
10/07/2015 10:29 A.M.
56 FORSYTH ST NW
ATLANTA, GA, US 30303
GREENE
Left At:
Mail Room

Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 10/07/2015 11:03 A.M. ET
Print This Page
Close Window
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297867029
December 11, 2015
The Honorable Steven D. Merryday

Chief United States District Judge
U.S. District Court, Middle District, Florida
Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse
801 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel. 813-301-5400
Chambers 1530, Courtroom 15A
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/home.htm
RE: CIVIL COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS

Dear Chief Judge Merryday:
I regret to inform you that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is in violation
of laws requiring civil counsel appointment. I demand you correct this lawlessness immediately.
I also regret to inform you that certain US Magistrate Judges are not in compliance with the
Report and Recommendation law, 28 U.S. Code 636 (b), and/or Middle District local rule
Chapter 6, Untied States Magistrate Judges. I demand you correct this lawlessness immediately.
Unfortunately US Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones wrongly failed to appoint civil counsel in an
employment civil rights case, and wrongly failed to follow the Report and Recommendation law,
28 U.S. Code 636 (b), and Chapter 6, Untied States Magistrate Judges, in the case of Antonio
J. Ortiz-Carballo v. David R. Ellspermann, Clerk and Comptroller of Marion County, US District
Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No. 5:08-cv-00165.
Mr. Ortiz-Carballo successfully sued Clerk Ellspermann for employment discrimination and
obtained a $125,000 settlement against Clerk Ellspermann. See enclosed a copy of my letter to
Mr. Ortiz-Carballo, and a 93 page composite of court records in Ortiz-Carballo v. Ellspermann.
The court records show, in my personal opinion, the denial of Mr. Ortiz-Carballos civil rights
under color of law. Mr. Ortiz-Carballo established a cause of action against Clerk Ellspermann
for employment discrimination. The settlement amount of $125,000 shows the violation of his
employment civil rights was substantial. On that basis, several things look wrong:
1.
I believe the U.S. Attorney had a duty to bring a civil rights case against Clerk David
Ellspermann. I believe the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Ocala then was Philip R. Lammens.
To determine when Philip R. Lammens was the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Ocala, I requested the
application for U.S. District Judge submitted by Philip R. Lammens to John M. Fitzgibbons,
Statewide Chair, Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission. As of today, Fitzgibbons has

December 11, 2015

Page - 2
not provided the records I requested from him November 30, 2015. Mr. Fitzgibbons has claimed
several excuses, which in my view is a deliberate delay or refusal to provide the records.
2.
I do not understand why Mr. Ortiz-Carballo had to pay a lawyer on any basis other than a
contingent fee agreement in a successful employment civil rights case. See Poindexter v. FBI.
3.
US Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones failed to follow the Report and Recommendation
law, 28 U.S. Code 636 (b), and Chapter 6, Untied States Magistrate Judges, in this case.
4.
I believe Magistrate Judge Gary Jones was wrong to grant, without a hearing, a motion
by Cynthia Sass to withdrawal as counsel for Mr. Ortiz-Carballo, without replacement counsel to
represent him. A lawyer is bound by the rules of professional conduct to see a case to the end.
See Rule 4-1.3 Diligence, https://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/7CAA33D4D0F911B585257170006DC334
Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel for Plaintiff by Cynthia N. Sass et al.
Case 5:08-cv-00165-WTH-DAB Document 22 Filed 02/23/09 Page 1 of 4 PageID 385
Order by US Magistrate Jones, GRANTED without a hearing, a motion to withdrawal as
counsel, filed by Cynthia N. Sass et al., thereby leaving the Plaintiff unrepresented
5.
I believe Magistrate Judge Gary Jones was wrong to deny Mr. Ortiz-Carballos pro se
Motion For A Federal Public Defender. I believe he was entitled to counsel appointment in an
employment civil rights case if he could not obtain adequate counsel.
Plaintiffs PRO SE Motion For A Federal Public Defender, Doc. 24, March 20, 2009
Order, DENIED counsel appointment, by US Magistrate Gary R. Jones
Rick Carey is the Assistant Federal Public Defender in Ocala. Donna Lee Elm is the Federal
Defender, appointed by the US Eleventh Circuit COA for a term of 4 years. If the Federal
Defender is not appropriate for a civil counsel appointment, the Chief Judge of the Middle
District has a duty to provide an alternative way to provide a civil counsel appointment.
Florida Statutes, section 29.007, Court-appointed counsel, applies in any situation in which the
court appoints counsel to protect a litigants due process rights.
Addendum Five, US Eleventh Circuit, Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel Appointment:

December 11, 2015

Page - 3

1982, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, 42 U.S.C. 1986, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, 42
Enclosed is my letter to James Gerstenlauer, Circuit Executive, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit, asking about Addendum Five. Mr. Gerstenlauer has not responded.
The American Bar Association (ABA), in its Florida Directory of Law Governing Appointment
of Counsel in State Civil Proceedings, 2. Sustenance, states,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination. While
nearly all Title VII claims are brought in federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court has
specified that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts for Title VII
claims. Yellow Freight System Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 826 (1990).
Title VII provides that [u]pon application by the complainant and in such circumstances
as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant.
42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). In Poindexter v. FBI, the D.C. Court of Appeals observed:
Title VII's provision for attorney appointment was not included simply as an
aforethought; it is an important part of Title VII's remedial scheme, and therefore courts
have an obligation to consider requests for appointment with care. In acting on such
requests, courts must remain mindful that appointment of an attorney may be essential
for a plaintiff to fulfill the role of a private attorney general, vindicating a policy of
the highest priority. Once the plaintiff has triggered the attorney appointment
provision, courts must give serious consideration to the plaintiffs request such
discretionary choices are not left to a court's inclination, but to its judgment; and its
judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles. Furthermore, in exercising this
discretion, the court should clearly indicate its disposition of the request for appointment
and its basis for that disposition. 737 F.2d 1173, 1183-85 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Magistrate Judge Gary Jones should have followed Poindexter v. FBI, Addendum Five, and the
Report and Recommendation rules. Article III Judge William Terrell Hodges had a duty to
follow Poindexter v. FBI, Addendum Five, and Report and Recommendation.

December 11, 2015

Page - 4
Please advise the undersigned if, and when, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida will comply with laws requiring civil counsel appointment.
Also advise the undersigned if, and when, certain US Magistrate Judges will comply with the
Report and Recommendation law, 28 U.S. Code 636 (b), and/or Middle District local rule
Chapter 6, Untied States Magistrate Judges. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/user/32458790/Neil-Gillespie
Website: http://www.nosue.org/
Blog: http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Justice-Network/150432974991704
Cc: Mr. Antonio J. Ortiz-Carballo, 1748 NE 60th Street, Ocala, FL 34479
Cc: James Gerstenlauer, Circuit Executive, james_gerstenlauer@ca11.uscourts.gov
http://www.scribd.com/doc/284367285/Letter-to-James-Gerstenlauer-Circuit-Executive-US-Eleventh-Circuit-COA
Cc: Donna Lee Elm, Federal Defender, Donna_Elm@fd.org

Website, http://flm.fd.org/ Appointed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cc: John M. Fitzgibbons, Statewide Chair, Email: fitzgibbons.law@verizon.net
Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission. Email: b.kayklein@verizon.net
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBComm.nsf/6b07501281c8e567852570000072a0b9/04c1fedbfa11cdcb852571b6005b9bf4
NPR: Report: Judges Have Too Much Control In Public Defense System
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/09/438581667/report-judges-have-too-much-control-in-public-defense-system
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Report: Federal Indigent Defense 2015
http://www.nacdl.org/federalindigentdefense2015/
28 U.S. Code Chapter 23 - CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLANS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-23

December 11, 2015

Page - 5
28 U.S. Code 471 - Requirement for a district court civil justice expense and delay reduction plan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/471
There shall be implemented by each United States district court, in accordance with this chapter, a
civil justice expense and delay reduction plan. The plan may be a plan developed by such district
court or a model plan developed by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The purposes of
each plan are to facilitate deliberate adjudication of civil cases on the merits, monitor discovery,
improve litigation management, and ensure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions of civil disputes.
Ortiz-Carballo v Ellspermann, $125,000 Settlement Case No. 5.08-cv-00165 Marion Co. FL
http://www.scribd.com/doc/271966970/Ortiz-Carballo-v-Ellspermann-125-000-SETTLEMENT-Marion-Co-Florida
American Bar Association, Civil Right to Counsel

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/resource_center_for_access_to_justic
e/resources---information-on-key-atj-issues/civil_right_to_counsel1.html
ABA, Florida Directory of Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in State Civil Proceedings
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_judges_manu
al_fl.authcheckdam.pdf
Justice Network, Civil Right to Counsel

http://www.nosue.org/home/civil-right-to-counsel/
Justice Network, Civil Rights
http://www.nosue.org/civil-rights/
Justice Network, Marion County Florida
http://www.nosue.org/civil-rights/marion-county-florida/
Justice Network, Wesley Snipes Trial
http://www.nosue.org/wesley-snipes-trial/
Justice Network, US Judge Hodges: Bus Stop Shelter Destroyed
http://www.nosue.org/wesley-snipes-trial/us-judge-hodges-bus-stop-shelter-destroyed/
Judicial Conduct & Disability (For complaints against federal judges)
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct-disability
https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?Requester=NES&tracknum=1Z64589FP297867029&refNumbers=&loc=en_US
Proof of Delivery
Close Window
Dear Customer,
Tracking Number:
Service:
Weight:
Shipped/Billed On:
Delivered On:
Delivered To:
Signed By:
1Z64589FP297867029
UPS Ground
1.00 lb
12/11/2015
12/14/2015 2:11 P.M.
801 N FLORIDA AVE
15A
TAMPA, FL, US 33602
B KLINE
Left At:
Inside Delivery

Sincerely,
UPS
Print This Page
Close Window
12/14/2015 9:48 PM
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP299627016
December 11, 2015
Antonio J. Ortiz-Carballo
1748 NE 60th Street
Ocala, FL 34479
Dear Mr. Ortiz-Carballo,
Congratulations on your lawsuit against David R. Ellspermann, Clerk and Comptroller of Marion
County, and $125,000 settlement against Clerk Ellspermann for employment discrimination.
My name is Neil Gillespie. I am a volunteer civil rights advocate. I am not a lawyer. But I know
it is not illegal to speak Spanish. Under Fla. Stat. sec. 90.606 Interpreters and translators.
(1)(a) When a judge determines that a witness cannot hear or understand the English
language, or cannot express himself or herself in English sufficiently to be understood, an
interpreter who is duly qualified to interpret for the witness shall be sworn to do so.
Also see enclosed a news story in the Orlando Weekly, by Monivette Cordeiro, July 22, 2015,
How Floridas judicial system violates the federal Civil Rights Act and leaves non-English
speakers out in the cold. http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/how-floridas-judicial-system-violates-the-federal-civil-rights-actand-leaves-non-english-speakers-out-in-the-cold/Content?oid=2415259
The court records in your case show, in my personal opinion, denial of your civil rights under
color of law. You established a cause of action against Clerk Ellspermann for employment
discrimination. The settlement amount of $125,000 shows the violation of your employment
civil rights was substantial. On that basis, several things look wrong:
1.
I believe the U.S. Attorney had a duty to bring a civil rights case against Clerk David
Ellspermann. I believe the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Ocala then was Philip R. Lammens.
2.
I do not understand why you had to pay a lawyer in a successful employment civil rights
case on any basis other than a contingent fee agreement. See Poindexter v. FBI discussed below.
3.
US Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones is not an Article III federal judge, he is a magistrate
judge, a lawyer hired by the court for a term of eight years. A magistrate judge is supposed to
issue a report and recommendation, which is ruled on by an Article III judge, William Terrell
Hodges in your case. There is a 14 day period before the Article III judge rules where you get to
file a response to the report and recommendation. But Magistrate Judge Jones ruled directly on
matters that required an Article III federal judge, who is appointed by President for life, and
confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Report and Recommendation (R&R) rules are complicated, and I
do not fully understand them. Here is a link to a R&R in the Tampa Division.
http://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/Prater_Magistrate_sRptandRecMSJ.pdf
Mr. Antonio J. Ortiz-Carballo

December 11, 2015
Page - 2
Also see the local rules for the Middle District of Florida, Chapter 6 US Magistrate Judges,
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/LocalRules.htm
Enclosed you will find local Rule 6.01 Duties of United States Magistrate Judges, 9 pages.
Also see 28 U.S. Code Chapter 43 - UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-III/chapter-43
4.
I believe Magistrate Judge Gary Jones was wrong to grant, without a hearing, a motion
by Cynthia Sass to withdrawal as your counsel, without replacement counsel to represent you. A
lawyer is bound by the rules of professional conduct to see a case to the end. See Rule 4-1.3
Diligence, https://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/7CAA33D4D0F911B585257170006DC334
Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel for Plaintiff by Cynthia N. Sass et al.
Order by US Magistrate Jones, GRANTED without a hearing, a motion to withdrawal as
counsel, filed by Cynthia N. Sass et al., thereby leaving the Plaintiff unrepresented
5.
I believe Magistrate Judge Gary Jones was wrong to deny your pro se Motion For A
Federal Public Defender. I believe you were entitled to counsel appointment in an employment
civil rights case if you could not obtain adequate counsel.
Plaintiffs PRO SE Motion For A Federal Public Defender, Doc. 24, March 20, 2009
Order, DENIED counsel appointment, by US Magistrate Gary R. Jones
Rick Carey is the Assistant Federal Public Defender in Ocala. Donna Lee Elm is the Federal
Defender, appointed by the US Eleventh Circuit COA for a term of 4 years. Ms. Elms term
expires September 8, 2016, see enclosed. The public can comment through December 21, 2015.
The Ocala Division, Middle District of Florida, is under the US Eleventh Circuit COA.
Addendum Five, US Eleventh Circuit, Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel Appointment:

December 11, 2015
Page - 3
1982, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, 42 U.S.C. 1986, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, 42
Enclosed is my letter to James Gerstenlauer, Circuit Executive, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit, asking about Addendum Five. Mr. Gerstenlauer has not responded.
The American Bar Association (ABA), in its Florida Directory of Law Governing Appointment
of Counsel in State Civil Proceedings, 2. Sustenance, states,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination. While
nearly all Title VII claims are brought in federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court has
specified that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts for Title VII
claims. Yellow Freight System Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 826 (1990).
Title VII provides that [u]pon application by the complainant and in such circumstances
as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant.
42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). In Poindexter v. FBI, the D.C. Court of Appeals observed:
Title VII's provision for attorney appointment was not included simply as an
aforethought; it is an important part of Title VII's remedial scheme, and therefore courts
have an obligation to consider requests for appointment with care. In acting on such
requests, courts must remain mindful that appointment of an attorney may be essential
for a plaintiff to fulfill the role of a private attorney general, vindicating a policy of
the highest priority. Once the plaintiff has triggered the attorney appointment
provision, courts must give serious consideration to the plaintiffs request such
discretionary choices are not left to a court's inclination, but to its judgment; and its
judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles. Furthermore, in exercising this
discretion, the court should clearly indicate its disposition of the request for appointment
and its basis for that disposition. 737 F.2d 1173, 1183-85 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Magistrate Judge Gary Jones should have followed Poindexter v. FBI, Addendum Five, and the
Report and Recommendation rules. Article III Judge William Terrell Hodges had a duty to
follow Poindexter v. FBI, Addendum Five, and Report and Recommendation. See Judicial
Conduct & Disability http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct-disability
Conclusion
You are a remarkable individual for bringing a successful case against David R. Ellspermann,
Clerk and Comptroller of Marion County, for employment discrimination violating your civil
rights. Unfortunately Clerk Ellspermann was protected from the full consequences of the law by
the corrupt federal court system, and corrupt cronies in the U.S. Department of Justice.

December 11, 2015
Page - 4
Unfortunately Marion County Florida is home to Neo-Confederates, white supremacy racism,

Lost Cause of the Confederacy racist ideology, and has a history of racial terror lynching.
See Civil Rights, Marion County FL http://www.nosue.org/civil-rights/marion-county-florida/
Also see, The End of Lynching in Marion County Florida, Chapter 5 Lethal Punishment,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/284372795/The-End-of-Lynching-in-Marion-County-Florida
Excerpts below from page 70 and page 72 respectively:
"Between 1885 and 1930, nineteen black men were lynched in Marion County, nine of
them for sexual offenses. Marion County lynchings were public affairs, often carried out
before hundreds of witnesses, but none of the perpetrators was prosecuted."
"Marion County mobs sometimes left a placard or a sign attached to the body of the
victim; when Robert Larkin was lynched in 1893, the mob left a placard reading, "Done
by 300 of the best citizens of this county."
Page 72, last paragraph, "White supremacy was deeply established in Marion County. In
1924, the Ocala Banner gave front-page space to an announcement that the Ku Klux Klan
would be organizing a chapter in Marion County. Interested parties were instructed to
send their name, church and lodge affiliations, and their place of birth, "only 100 per cent
Americans wanted." The initiation fee was ten dollars and robes cost another five
dollars."[fn 14, Ocala Banner, May 30, 1924, 1.]
Pages 71-72, "A striking aspect of lynching in Marion County is the frequency with
which mobs took their victims from the custody of law enforcement, apparently meeting
little or no resistance. Of the fifteen cases in which I have been able to determine the
circumstances of the suspect's capture by the mob, all but two involved suspects already
in the custody of law enforcement officers."
Feel free to contact me by email. I will provide you with links to justice. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/user/32458790/Neil-Gillespie
Website: http://www.nosue.org/
Blog: http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Justice-Network/150432974991704

December 11, 2015
Page - 5
Cc. Steven D. Merryday

Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse
801 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel. 813-301-5400
Chambers 1530, Courtroom 15A
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/home.htm
Cc: James Gerstenlauer, Circuit Executive, james_gerstenlauer@ca11.uscourts.gov
http://www.scribd.com/doc/284367285/Letter-to-James-Gerstenlauer-Circuit-Executive-US-Eleventh-Circuit-COA
Cc: Donna Lee Elm, Federal Defender, Donna_Elm@fd.org

Website, http://flm.fd.org/ Appointed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cc: John M. Fitzgibbons, Statewide Chair, Email: fitzgibbons.law@verizon.net
Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission. Email: b.kayklein@verizon.net
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBComm.nsf/6b07501281c8e567852570000072a0b9/04c1fedbfa11cdcb852571b6005b9bf4
NPR: Report: Judges Have Too Much Control In Public Defense System
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Report: Federal Indigent Defense 2015
28 U.S. Code Chapter 23 - CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLANS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-23
28 U.S. Code 471 - Requirement for a district court civil justice expense and delay reduction plan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/471
There shall be implemented by each United States district court, in accordance with this chapter, a
civil justice expense and delay reduction plan. The plan may be a plan developed by such district
court or a model plan developed by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The purposes of
each plan are to facilitate deliberate adjudication of civil cases on the merits, monitor discovery,
improve litigation management, and ensure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions of civil disputes.
Ortiz-Carballo v Ellspermann, $125,000 Settlement Case No. 5.08-cv-00165 Marion Co. FL
http://www.scribd.com/doc/271966970/Ortiz-Carballo-v-Ellspermann-125-000-SETTLEMENT-Marion-Co-Florida
American Bar Association, Civil Right to Counsel

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/resource_center_for_access_to_justic
e/resources---information-on-key-atj-issues/civil_right_to_counsel1.html

December 11, 2015
Page - 6
ABA, Florida Directory of Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in State Civil Proceedings
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_judges_manu
al_fl.authcheckdam.pdf
Justice Network, Civil Right to Counsel

http://www.nosue.org/home/civil-right-to-counsel/
Justice Network, Civil Rights
http://www.nosue.org/civil-rights/
Justice Network, Marion County Florida
http://www.nosue.org/civil-rights/marion-county-florida/
Justice Network, Wesley Snipes Trial
http://www.nosue.org/wesley-snipes-trial/
Justice Network, US Judge Hodges: Bus Stop Shelter Destroyed
Judicial Conduct & Disability (For complaints against federal judges)
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct-disability
https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?Requester=&tracknum=1Z64589FP299627016&refNumbers=&loc=en_US
Proof of Delivery
Close Window
Dear Customer,
Tracking Number:
Service:
Weight:
Shipped/Billed On:
Delivered On:
Delivered To:
Left At:
1Z64589FP299627016
UPS Ground
1.00 lb
12/11/2015
12/14/2015 2:42 P.M.
1748 NE 60TH ST
OCALA, FL, US 34479
Front Door

Sincerely,
UPS
Print This Page
Close Window
12/14/2015 9:17 PM
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/how-floridas-judicial-system-violates-the-federal-civil-rights-act-and-leaves-non-english-speakers-out-in-the...
NEWS & FEATURES NEWS
July 22, 2015
By Monivette Cordeiro
Maria Machin had a test for the Duval County Courthouse when she walked in
on the morning of June 29. She would walk to every single floor of the
courthouse and ask for directions to the domestic-violence office. She wouldn't
ask for help in English only in Spanish.
As Machin ambled from floor to floor, she went to each help desk asking for
employees to show her the way, but instead of assisting her, she says they
looked at her like she was "an alien." Finally, she found her way to the office,
where again she asked for help, this time about filing domestic-violence forms.
After some more strange looks, the employees finally rustled up from the back
a woman who spoke Spanish.
"She told me that there are no forms or anything to give someone that speaks
Spanish," says Machin, president of the League of United Latin American
Citizens in Jacksonville. "The clerk of the court has told his people that anyone
coming in that doesn't speak English has to bring their own translator ... it's
like Mayberry on acid here. We are invisible to them."
The experience Machin had last month is the reality many people who are
limited English proficient, also known as LEP, experience as they go through
Florida's judicial system. And it isn't limited to asking for directions at a help
desk. In most Florida courts, interpreters are not provided by the state in civil
cases, only in criminal proceedings, Machin says, and in some courts, LEP
individuals are asked to bring and pay for their own interpreters, unless they
are indigent. LEP services also vary by location and the population of speakers
of other languages, she says.
12/11/2015 10:54 AM
Machin is a member of the Florida Language Access Coalition. Last week the
organization filed an administrative complaint to the Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division that alleges that Florida courts are routinely violating the
federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to provide free, qualified
interpretation services in all programs and activities of the courts.
Under the Civil Rights Act, state courts that receive indirect or direct federal
funding must comply with Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis
of race, color and national origin in programs that receive federal financial
assistance, according to the federal LEP website. In a 2010 letter from Thomas
Perez, then the Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division,
to state court administrators and chief justices across the country, Perez wrote,
"The Supreme Court has held that failing to take reasonable steps to ensure
meaningful access for LEP persons is a form of national origin discrimination.
... Despite efforts to bring courts into compliance, some state court system
policies and practices significantly and unreasonably impede, hinder or restrict
participation in court proceedings and access to court operations based upon a
person's English language ability."
Perez also reiterated in his letter that state courts must provide interpreters in
all court proceedings, cannot charge interpreter costs to one or more parties,
cannot restrict language services to only courtrooms and must ensure
communication with court appointed or supervised personnel.
In a memorandum of understanding between the State of Maine Judicial
Branch and the federal government, the DOJ makes it clear that in an extreme
case of noncompliance from a state, the department is authorized to terminate
its financial assistance or file a civil suit.
Florida State Statutes 90.606 and 90.6063 address interpreters and
translators, but don't specifically provide instructions for people who are not
deaf. Florida Supreme Court public information officer Craig Waters said in a
statement on July 15 that "The Florida Supreme Court and the state courts
have a policy of not commenting publicly about pending complaints against
us."
In the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which covers Orange and Osceola counties,
interpreters are provided in any situation where you could lose due process
rights, which includes the criminal division and juvenile courts, as well as
domestic violence and mental health hearings, says chief deputy court
administrator Karen Levey. The circuit court employs seven Spanish-speaking
interpreters and one Spanish/Haitian Creole interpreter, who provide services
for almost 25,000 court hearings.
"It's quite a few events for just eight people," she said. "We would like to hire
more, but we can't until we have funding sources from the state."
Kathy Card, state coordinator for the Florida Language Access Coalition and
one of the complainants, says she was the chair of the National LEP Advocacy
Task Force when it filed a successful complaint against Maine's judicial system
over a decade ago for not complying with the federal law. After the DOJ's
ruling, Card says information was sent to all state judicial systems about LEP
rules, including Florida's program manager for the Court Interpreter
Certification and Regulation Program..
Later, she retired and moved to Florida, where she says she found Florida was
about 20 years behind when it came to interpretation services in courts,
12/11/2015 10:54 AM
hospitals, schools, housing, voter polls and social services. In June, she called
Florida's program manager to see what the situation was a decade later.
"She just told me they look toward Florida State Statutes, and when I asked
about the federal law, she said, 'I'm not going to comment on that, you will
have to ask general counsel,'" Card says. "It's frustrating because if you're not
monitoring the states' compliance, they stop. ... There is a huge amount of
work ahead of us, and this state is the most challenging in the entire country."
How other states are dealing with languageaccess laws

According to a Brennan Center for Justice report in 2009, 46 percent of state
courts fail to require that interpreters be provided in all civil cases, 80 percent
fail to guarantee that people needing interpretation are not unlawfully charged
and 37 percent fail to require that interpreters be credentialed.
A decade after an administrative complaint was filed against Maines judicial
system for not following federal law, communication access specialist Taylor
Kilgore says the state will provide an interpreter to anyone who identifies as
LEP, no questions asked.
We have had to make cuts from other places, but this is one of our big
priorities, she says.
Maine doesnt really have large populations that speak one language, but
rather smaller community pockets that each speak their own language, and
Kilgore says that at times it can be hard to find speakers of less-common
languages.
In California, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles filed a complaint
against the state judicial system in 2010 after two Korean-speaking people
involved in civil suits were denied interpreters in Los Angeles County, says
Joann Lee, directing attorney for the foundation.
The California courts decided to comply voluntarily with the Department of
Justice in 2011, and in January of this year created a strategic plan to expand
the provision of spoken language interpreters by 2020 to include all civil
proceedings and all court-ordered, court-operated programs, services or
events, according to the California Language Access Plan.
I think people are very appreciative, Lee says. Theres still some bumps in
the road but for the most part, they are happy with the new policy.
Editor's note: In the original version of this story, we reported that the
National LEP Advocacy Task Force sent information to state courts
explaining LEP rules; that information was sent by the U.S. Department of
Justice, not the task force. We regret the error.
Jump to comments
Tags: News
12/11/2015 10:54 AM

Via email: james_gerstenlauer@ca11.uscourts.gov
December 18, 2015

James Gerstenlauer, Circuit Executive

56 Forsyth St. N.W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30303
REAPPOINTMENT OF INCUMBENT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER DONNA LEE ELM
Dear Mr. Gerstenlauer:
This is my comment to the reappointment of Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender for the
Middle District of Florida at Tampa.
Donna Lee Elm is not committed to equal justice under law. Ms. Elm is not committed to
represent persons unable to afford counsel. Therefore I object to her reappointment as Federal
Public Defender for the Middle District of Florida at Tampa.
Unfortunately US Circuit Chief Judge Ed Carnes is not committed to equal justice under law
either. You know that first-hand Mr. Gerstenlauer. Enclosed is my unanswered letter to you
October 6, 2015 asking about Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel Appointment as described in
Addendum Five. Also enclosed is my letter January 12, 2015 to Judge Carnes on civil counsel
appointment and the Order June 25, 2013 authorizing me to file a petition under 28 USC 1651,
the all writs act, in Case 13-11585-B, Reverse Mortgage Solutions v Neil J. Gillespie et al.
Judge Carnes replied by and through former clerk John Ley:
In the absence of a pending appeal, as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, this court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. This
appeal was dismissed on 6/12/2013, and reconsideration on 7/25/2013. No further action
will be taken.
The foregoing is nonsense. The all writs act, 28 USC 1651, Fed.R.App.P 21, is precisely the kind
of relief in my matter for which 28 USC 1651 was intended.
Unfortunately US District Chief Judge Steven D. Merryday is not committed to equal justice
under law either. Enclosed you will find my letter to him December 11, 2015, RE: CIVIL
COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS, and supporting documents. No response yet. A report by the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Federal Indigent Defense 2015: Judges
Have Too Much Control In Public Defense System, shows the problem is federal judges.
Ms. Elm emailed (enclosed) me December 17, 2015 Kindly stop sending it to me that the U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Florida, is in violation of laws requiring civil counsel appointment.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
Neil J Gillespie
Digitally signed by Neil J Gillespie

DN: cn=Neil J Gillespie, o, ou,
email=neilgillespie@mfi.net, c=US
Date: 2015.12.18 18:27:27 -05'00'
Proof of Delivery
Close Window
Dear Customer,
Tracking Number:
Service:
Weight:
Shipped/Billed On:
Delivered On:
Delivered To:
Signed By:
1Z64589FNW95123039
5.00 lbs
12/18/2015
12/21/2015 9:43 A.M.
56 FORSYTH ST NW
ATLANTA, GA, US 30303
GREENE
Left At:
Mail Room

Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 12/21/2015 10:27 A.M. ET
Print This Page
Close Window
follow the money
Updated September 9, 2015 2:31 PM ET

CARRIE JOHNSON
Listen to the Story

Morning Edition
1:58
Embed
Transcript
11/30/2015 5:33 PM
A new report finds serious concerns about the federal defense system's ability to "ensure constitutionally required
representation for litigants while preserving the independence essential to the defense function."
Patrick Semansky/AP
A tough new report has concluded that the federal government's system for
defending poor people needs to change. The nearly two-year study by the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said judges who are supposed to be neutral
arbiters too often put their fingers on the scales.
The report said defense lawyers for the poor who work in the federal court system
need more resources to do their jobs. That means money, not just for themselves,
but to pay for experts and investigators.
"Having good, fully resourced defense counsel with access to ancillary services is an
absolute must in a society that is arresting 14 million people a year," said Norman
Reimer, executive director of the NACDL.
In an adversary system, lawyers for poor defendants say, they need to operate on
equal footing with prosecutors. But the study, the first of its kind in more than 20
years, found the source of most concern rests with judges who exercise too much
control over the process.
Bonnie Hoffman, a deputy public defender in Virginia, led the task force.
"There's some significant ways we feel the federal system is not measuring up most
importantly, in the area of independence," Hoffman said.
That's because judges are in charge. They have a role in selecting the defense lawyers
for the poor clients who appear in court. They act as umpires during a plea hearing
or a trial. And then those same judges approve or reject the defense lawyers' fee
requests.
"It's a shame to think that somebody agrees to do this work, they do the work that
they're asked to do ... to be a zealous advocate for somebody who's accused of a
crime," Hoffman said, "and then when they finish that somebody can come back and
11/30/2015 5:33 PM
say, 'I know you did good work ... but we don't feel like we should pay you for all the
work that you did.' "
That concern extended to dozens of people who spoke to Hoffman and others only on
the condition of anonymity, for fear that their livelihoods would be hurt if they
shared their experiences too openly.
One unnamed lawyer said he can drive five or six hours to visit a prisoner to help
prepare a defense, but judges in his area are "reluctant" to pay for those hours on the
road. In another case, a lawyer reported a magistrate, or lower-level judge, had called
him and asked him to slash 10 percent from his fees. The payment paperwork had
been "misplaced" for over a year, the report said.
In many cases, judges cut fees without explanation. And there's no way to appeal.
"It's just not a good situation to have the judge that you're appearing before have that
much control over your practice, over ultimately how you represent your client," said
Gerry Morris, a longtime defense attorney in Texas and the president of NACDL.
The new report doesn't offer a clear solution to the independence problem. But
Morris pointed out that the chief administrative body of the U.S. courts has launched
its own study of the system for representing poor defendants.
Morris said he hopes that panel will take defense lawyers into account. The report
said the committee includes three defense lawyers and six judges.
OLDE R
An Authority On Public Opinion Polling, Born Of His Respect For People
N E WE R
Conservative Latino Group Pens Letter Opposing GOP Immigration Rhetoric

About
Subscribe
2015 npr
11/30/2015 5:33 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=438581667
follow the money
Updated September 9, 2015 2:31 PM ET
RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

A tough new report concludes that the federal government's system for defending
poor people in court needs to change. The study says judges who are supposed to be
neutral arbiters too often are not. NPR's Carrie Johnson has this story.
CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: The report says defense lawyers for the poor who
work in the federal court system need more resources to do their jobs. That means
money, not just for themselves, but to pay for experts and investigators. Norman
Reimer directs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which
conducted the study.
NORMAN REIMER: Having good, fully-resourced defense counsel with access to
ancillary services is an absolute must in a society that is arresting 14 million people a
year.
JOHNSON: In an adversary system, lawyers for poor defendants say they need to
operate on equal footing with prosecutors. But the study, the first of its kind in more
than 20 years, says it's judges who exercise too much control over the process.
Bonnie Hoffman, a deputy public defender in Virginia, led the task force.
BONNIE HOFFMAN: There's some significant ways that we feel that the federal
system is not measuring up, most importantly in the area of independence.
11/30/2015 5:34 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=438581667
JOHNSON: That's because judges are in charge. They have a role in selecting the
defense lawyers for the poor clients who appear in court. They act as umpires during
a plea hearing or trial, and then those same judges approve or reject the defense
lawyers' fee requests. In many cases, the report says, judges cut fees without
explanation, and there's no way to appeal. Gerry Morris is a longtime defense
attorney in Texas.
GERRY MORRIS: It's just not a good situation to have the judge that you're
appearing before have that much control over, ultimately, how you represent your
client.
JOHNSON: The report says there's no clear solution to that independence problem,
but Morris says the courts have launched their own study of the system for
representing poor defendants, and he says he hopes judges will take defense lawyers
into account. Carrie Johnson, NPR News, Washington.
Copyright 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for
further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text
may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of
NPRs programming is the audio.
2015 npr
11/30/2015 5:34 PM
NACDL
Home > Criminal Defense Issues > Indigent Defense
Federal Indigent Defense 2015: The Independence Imperative

In the wake of the severe cuts to the provision of indigent defense services during sequestration in 2013, the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) created a Federal Indigent Defense Task Force to
examine the federal indigent defense system. The mission included an assessment of the level of independence
afforded to the Defender Services Office and consideration of whether reforms are necessary to ensure adherence
to the ABAs Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System. After extensive research and more than 130
interviews with key stakeholders, the Task Force identified several significant, persistent deficiencies in the system.
This report explores those concerns and offers seven recommendations to assure a robust federal indigent defense system.
Reports
United States Courts, Criminal Justice Act: At 50 Years, A Landmark in the Right to Counsel (CJA at 50) [n.4]
Report of the Committee to Review the Criminal Justice Act (1993) (Prado Report) [n.9]
Report of the Judicial Conference of the United States on the Federal Defender Program (Judicial Conference Report of 1993) [n.14]
Subcommittee on Long-Range Planning and Budgeting, Should the Structure of the Defender Services Program be Changed? Report to the
Committee on Defender Services of the Judicial Conference of the United States (2005) (Gleeson Report) [n.19]
Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts, 2012 Annual Report [n.24]
Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts, 2014 Annual Report [n.24]
AOs 2013 Annual Report [n.25]
Judicial Conference of the United States, Jurisdiction of Committees (2009) [n.28]
US Courts, Judiciarys Cost-Containment EffortsAnnual Report 2013 [n.50]
Fiscal Year 2014: No Budget and a Government Shutdown Annual Report 2013 [n.56]
Vera Institute of Justice, Improving Public Defense Systems: Good Practices for Federal Panel Attorney Programs (2003) [n.76]
New York County Lawyers Association, Courts in Crisis (Jan. 2014) [n.102]
The CJA Supervising Attorney: A Possible Tool in Criminal Justice Act Administration (Report to the Judicial Conference Committees on
Defender Services, Judicial Resources, and Court Administration and Case Management) [n.138]
Communications: Memoranda, Letters, and Emails
Email from Pamela Hamrin to Joel Schumm, Oct. 17, 2014 [n.28]
Email from Cait Clarke to Bonnie Hoffman (Nov. 12, 2014) (attachment) [n.29]
Letter from Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska et al. to Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Aug. 13, 2013) [n.40]
Memorandum to chief judges from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, July 1, 2004 [n.48]
Memo to Judge John D. Bates, director, from Robert K. Loesche, general counsel, July 30, 2014 [n.58]
Letter from Sen. Christopher A. Coons, chairman, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking member, of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Bankruptcy
and the Courts, to the Honorable William B. Traxler, Jr. (Aug. 5, 2013) [n.69]
Email from Judge Julia Gibbons, chair of the Budget Committee, to members of the Judicial Conference (Sept. 8, 2014) [n.92]
Email from Andy Archuleta, Defender Services Office (Feb. 2, 2015) [n.99]
Letter to Members of the Southern District of Georgia Bar from Chief Judge Lisa Godbey Wood, Apr. 21, 2011 [n.106]
Press Release: Criminal Justice Act Mentoring Program Approved for the Southern District of New York (Oct. 23, 2008) [n.111]
Email from Bob Burke to Schumm (Jan. 5, 2015)(attachment) [n.113]
Jan. 6, 2015, response from DSO to Task Force inquiries [n.118]
Memo from AO Director Judge Bates and DSC Chair Judge Blake, to all judges, Dec. 23, 2014 [n.127]
11/30/2015 5:34 PM
Letter from Yolanda Barrera et al. to Hon. Dale Fischer et al. (March 28, 2014) [n.135]
NACDL Materials
Rationing Justice: The Underfunding of Assigned Counsel Systems (2013) [n.41]
Problem-Solving Courts: The Criminal Costs of Treatment and the Case for Reform [n.41]
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of Americas Broken Misdemeanor Courts [n.41]
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mar. 7, 1992 [n.88]
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Urging Congress to Fully Fund the Criminal Justice
Act, April 25, 1998 [n.95]
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Jan. 7, 2009 [n.101]
Other
Compilation of Background History and Information, U.S. Defender Program [n.16]
ABA Ten Principles of A Public Defense Delivery System [n.26]
What Judges Think of the Quality of Legal Representation [n.38]

Securing Reasonable Caseloads: Ethics and Law in Public Defense [n.39]
Solicitation for Grant Proposals [n.44]
Grant award [n.44]
Sequestrations Biggest Victim, The Public Defender System, Aug. 9, 2013 [n.53]
Defendants Legal Rights Undermined by Budget Cuts, Aug. 22, 2013 [n.55]
U.S. Courts, Mission Defender Services [n.60]
Assistant Director, Office of Defender Services, Position Description [n.61]
Position Description for Laura Minor [n.64]
Standard Order Adopting CJA Plan, Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa and Pecos Divisions, May 3, 2010 [n.78]
Criminal Justice Act Plan, United States District Court For the Northern District of Alabama [n.79]
Order Adopting Amended CJA Plan, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas El Paso Division, July 22, 2013 [n.80]
Federal Defender Fact Sheet [n.89]
Sequestering Justice How the Budget Crisis is Undermining Our Courts: Hearing Before the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on
Bankruptcy and the Courts (July 23, 2013) (statement of Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia, on
Behalf of the Federal Public and Community Defenders.) [n.89]
Defending the Indigent [n.90]
Guide to Judiciary Policy [n.100]
Southern District of Texas, Address, Hours, Phone Information [n.104]
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division, Criminal Justice Act Plan 2011 [n.105]
U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Training [n.116]
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, U.S. Treasury Department, Prompt Payment [n.130]
ABA Criminal Justice Section Standards, Defense Function [n.131]
Questionnaire for CJA Panel Reps regarding current system in place in their jurisdiction (non-capital, non-appellate cases)
Questionnaire for Chief Defenders
Media inquiries should be directed to NACDLs Director of Public Affairs & Communications, Ivan J. Dominguez, at 202-465-7662 or
idominguez@nacdl.org.
1660 L St. NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 872-8600 / Fax: (202) 872-8690
2015, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), All Rights Reserved.
11/30/2015 5:34 PM
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/959ac272ec61276385257ef50054bc88!OpenDocument
ABOUT THE BAR
NEWS & EVENTS
FOR THE PUBLIC
MEMBER SERVICES
LOG IN
FIND A LAWYER
Search The Florida Bar
THE FLORIDA BAR / News & Events
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
Search:
Advertising Rates Classifieds Attorneys Exchange Archives Subscribe Journal

November 15, 2015
News HOME
The current four-year term of Donna Lee Elm, federal public defender for the Middle District of Florida at Tampa, expires September 8,
2016.
A review committee has been established to evaluate Elms performance in consideration of her request to be reappointed to a new
four-year term. The committee is soliciting written comments from members of the bar and concerned citizens about the performance
of Elm and her staff. If requested, the identity of a respondent to this solicitation will not be divulged without prior consent. However,
Elm will be provided with a general description of the source and nature of any comments.
Comments should be submitted to James P. Gerstenlauer, Circuit Executive, United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, 56
Forsyth Street, NW, Atlanta, GA 30303, and must be received no later than December 21.
Although Elm does seek reappointment, there is no presumptive right to reappointment. Accordingly, the court is soliciting
applications for this position from qualified persons. All applications, including the application of the incumbent, will be subjected to
the same standard of review. The approximate salary range is $142,740 to $158,600, depending on experience and qualifications.
Federal public defenders may not engage in the private practice of law and are subject to judiciary financial disclosure requirements.
To qualify applicants must: Be members in good standing of at least one state bar or the District of Columbia or the Virgin Islands bar,
and members in good standing of every other bar of which they are members; Have been engaged in the active practice of criminal
law for a period of at least five years, preferably with significant federal criminal trial and appellate experience; not be related by
blood or marriage to a judge of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or to a judge of the district court to be served, within the degrees
specified in Title 28, United States Code, Section 458 at the time of the initial appointment.
Applications are available at www.ca11.uscourts.gov; from any federal clerk of court in the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia;
and from the circuit executive, James P. Gerstenlauer, 56 Forsyth Street, NW, Atlanta, GA 30303.
Applications must be received in the Circuit Executives Office no later than December 21. Email and fax copies of applications will not
be accepted.
[Revised: 11-06-2015]
News HOME
Page 1 of 6
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Donna Elm" <Donna_Elm@fd.org>

Thursday, December 17, 2015 12:58 PM
Re: Contact today by Donna Elm, Federal Defender and Philip R. Lammens Application for US
District Judge
Kindly stop sending it to me.

Donna Lee Elm, FPD
Federal Defender's Office
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 228-2715
donna_elm@fd.org
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information intended only

for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, or an authorized employee or agent responsible
for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and
delete this e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

To: "Donna Elm" <Donna_Elm@fd.org>, "Steven Merryday"
<steven_merryday@flmd.uscourts.gov>, "Lauren Rehm"
<lauren_rehm@flmd.uscourts.gov>, "John M Fitzgibbons"
<fitzgibbons.law@verizon.net>, "Rick Carey"
<Rick_Carey@fd.org>, "James Gerstenlauer"
<james_gerstenlauer@ca11.uscourts.gov>, "FBI Tampa Division"
<tampa.division@ic.fbi.gov>, "FBI Jacksonville Division"
<jacksonville@ic.fbi.gov>, "Jim Schneider"
<Jim.Schneider@myfloridalegal.com>, "Nick Cox"
<nick.cox@myfloridalegal.com>, "Julie Hogan"
<julie.hogan@myfloridalegal.com>, "Lisa Acharekar"
<lisa.acharekar@myfloridalegal.com>, "Neil Gillespie"
Date: 12/17/2015 12:12 PM
Subject: Contact today by Donna Elm, Federal Defender and Philip R.
Lammens Application for US District Judge
Donna Lee Elm, FPD

Federal Defender's Office
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700
12/18/2015
Page 2 of 6
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 228-2715
donna_elm@fd.org
Dear Ms. Elm:
My letter to Chief Judge Merryday concerned, inter alia, the case of
Antonio J. Ortiz-Carballo v. David R. Ellspermann, Clerk and Comptroller of
Marion County, US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala
Division, Case No. 5:08-cv-00165, and counsel appoitment under Poindexter
v. FBI, Addendum Five, and Florida Statutes, section 29.007,
Court-appointed counsel.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293332610/Hon-Steven-Merryday-Chief-US-District-Judge-Civil-CounselAppointment
My letter to Chief Judge Merryday concerns, inter alia, a systemic problem
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and
violation of laws requiring civil counsel appointment. The public record
version of Philip R. Lammens Application for US District Judge shows on
page 2 he was Assistant US Attorney in Ocala,
"Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office,
Middle District of Florida,
Ocala Division (April 2008-July 2012)"
The government (DOJ/US Attorney) failed to bring a civil rights case
against David R. Ellspermann, Clerk and Comptroller of Marion County, and
that failure occurred during the time Assistant US Attorney Philip R.
Lammens had the duty and opportunity to bring a civil rights case against
Ellspermann, in my personal opinion.
Eric Holder's parting shot: It's too hard to bring civil rights cases,
reported by politico.com
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/eric-holder-civil-rights-interview-mike-allen-115575
sounds absurd on its face because he was the Attorney General of the United
States. But when considered with the fact that many or most criminal civil
rights violations are perpetrated under color of law, Eric Holder's parting
shot begins to make sense, as in the failure of the government to bring a
civil rights case against David R. Ellspermann, Clerk and Comptroller of
Marion County. Its too hard to bring civil rights cases because the
government is so corrupt. Color of law cases are obstructed in many ways by
corrupt federal judges, corrupt federal magistrates, corrupt AUSAs and
corrupt law enforcement. Also, the criminal justice system lacks a safe
12/18/2015
Page 3 of 6
harbor to report obstruction of justice in color of law cases.

The American Bar Association and the NAACP issued a joint statement on
Racial Bias in the Criminal Justice System, July 2015. "The growing
skepticism about the integrity of the criminal justice system is driven by
real and perceived evidence of racial bias among some representatives of
that system." This is especially true in the Middle District of Florida,
home of active support by "representatives of that system" for white
supremacy racism, Lost Cause of the Confederacy, membership in the KKK, and
its history of racial terror lynching.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/aba-ldf_statement.pdf
For example, a story published November 13th, 2012 by Richard Goldstein on

FlaLawOnline would cause a reasonable person to conclude federal judges of
the Eleventh Circuit and Middle District Florida routinely violate the
civil rights of ordinary people, and fail to uphold their oath of office,
fail to administer justice without respect to persons, and fail to do equal
right to the poor and to the rich, and fail to faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them as a federal
judge, and routinely disregard the Constitution and laws of the United
States. See Judge Hodges honored at reception, by Richard Goldstein, at the
link, and PDF attached.
http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2012/11/judge-hodges-honored-at-reception/
"Still, one story of the way Hodges exercised power elicited knowing
laughter from the audience that included UF Law students.
Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
explained that Tampa maintained a bus stop immediately in front of
the courthouse steps while Hodges was chief judge of the middle
district during the 1980s.
"The city of Tampa had a bus system and they had a monstrous bus stop
at the base of the old federal courthouse in Tampa. All the buses
came there and the jurors would have trouble getting up there" to the
courthouse, Tjoflat said.
Hodges sent a letter to the mayor demanding that the bus stop be
moved. When no action ensued, Tjoflat said, federal marshals
dismantled the offending public transportation facility with blow
torches.
12/18/2015
Page 4 of 6
Sitting on a dais with Tjoflat, Hodges accepted laconically the

stories and praise offered during the "Toast to Judge Hodges" event.
"That was the result of deputies who volunteered; no order was given
so it was unappealable," Hodges deadpanned."
The foregoing exchange is remarkable in how freely Hodges and his
confederates boast about destroying "a monstrous bus stop", and that
Richard Goldstein reported the exchange.
Riders of the Tampa bus system, called HART, are over represented by black
folks and other minority groups. When Hodges destroyed the bus stop
shelter, by and through the use of federal marshals with blow torches,
Hodges gleefully struck a figurative blow to Rosa Parks and the civil
rights movement, which began when Ms. Parks failed to give up her bus seat
to a white person and was arrested. "That was the result of deputies who
volunteered; no order was given so it was unappealable," Hodges
deadpanned." The bus is an important part of the American Civil Rights
movement, for both city & interstate bus riders.
You wrote "Oh good. I am not involved in that at this time. I don't need
further information re your case then unless we are appointed. Thank you."
Ms. Elm, this is not about my case. My letter to Chief Judge Merryday did
not mention my case. And I understand your motivation to defend, or look
away, from a corrupt federal court system in the Middle District of
Florida. Your livelihood is tied to that corrupt system. You like getting
the big federal salary that goes along with being the Federal Defender. I
get that. Unfortunately, no matter how well intentioned, the US magistrate
judge scheme, and the federal defender scheme, have become bootlicks to
injustice.
I am sharing the forgoing in the interest of justice. Thank you.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
----- Original Message ----From: "Donna Elm" <Donna_Elm@fd.org>
12/18/2015
Page 5 of 6
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Philip R. Lammens Application for US District Judge
Jul-23-2015.
> Oh good. I am not involved in that at this time. I don't need further
> information re your case then unless we are appointed. Thank you.
>
>
> Donna Lee Elm, FPD
> Federal Defender's Office
> 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700
> Tampa, FL 33602
> (813) 228-2715
> donna_elm@fd.org
>
>
>
> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information intended
only
> for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this e-mail, or an authorized employee or agent responsible
> for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If
you
> have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and
> delete this e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
> From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
> To: "Donna Elm" <Donna_Elm@fd.org>
> Date: 12/17/2015 10:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Philip R. Lammens Application for US District Judge
>
Jul-23-2015.
>
>
>
> Nothing nefarious. No request from your office on letterhead. Public
record
>
> evidence in support of letter my to the Honorable Steven D. Merryday, Re
> Civil Counsel Appointment.
>
> ----- Original Message ----> From: "Donna Elm" <Donna_Elm@fd.org>
> To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 9:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Philip R. Lammens Application for US District Judge
> Jul-23-2015.
>
12/18/2015
Page 6 of 6
>
>> Neil this is an interesting thing. I never requested this. Or any
>> judicial application for that matter. Perhaps someone else did? Or
>> someone did from my office using my letterhead? If there's anything
>> nefarious going on though, I would want to know.
>>
>>
>> Donna Lee Elm, FPD
>> Federal Defender's Office
>> 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700
>> Tampa, FL 33602
>> (813) 228-2715
>> donna_elm@fd.org
>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information intended
> only
>> for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended
>> recipient of this e-mail, or an authorized employee or agent responsible
>> for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that
>> any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If
> you
>> have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and
>> delete this e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
>> To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
>> Date: 12/16/2015 07:19 PM
>> Subject: Philip R. Lammens Application for US District Judge
>>
Jul-23-2015.
>>
>>
>>
>> [attachment "Philip R. Lammens Application for US District Judge
>> Jul-23-2015..pdf" deleted by Donna Elm/FLMF/11/FDO]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>[attachment "Judge Hodges honored at reception.pdf" deleted by Donna
Elm/FLMF/11/FDO] [attachment "aba-ldf_statement.pdf" deleted by Donna
Elm/FLMF/11/FDO]
12/18/2015
JOINT STATEMENT ON ELIMINATING BIAS

IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
July 2015
The American Bar Association and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
Inc., have long and proud traditions of fighting for civil rights, human rights and equal
justice. Although, over the years, we have celebrated much progress in these arenas, we
are now confronted by a troubling and destabilizing loss of public confidence in the
American criminal justice system. The growing skepticism about the integrity of the
criminal justice system is driven by real and perceived evidence of racial bias among some
representatives of that system. This crisis of confidence must be addressed, and the time to
act is now.
While we believe that the overwhelming percentage of law enforcement officers,
prosecutors and judges are not racist, explicit bias remains a real factor in our country
and criminal justice system and implicit or unconscious bias affects even those who may
believe themselves to be fair. Indeed, as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once
observed (in the 2001 case of Board of Trustees v. Garrett), prejudice may arise from not
just overt malice or hostile animus alone, but also insensitivity caused by simple want of
careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people
who appear to be different in respects from ourselves.
One would have to have been outside of the United States and cut off from media to
be unaware of the recent spate of killings of unarmed African American men and women at
the hands of white law enforcement officers. Several of these killings, like those of Walter
Scott in South Carolina, 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Ohio and Eric Garner in New York, have
been captured by citizen video and viewed nationwide. More recently, the in-custody
death of Freddie Gray sparked days of unrest in Baltimore, which ended only when the
officers (who were of multiple races) were charged by the local prosecutor.
Given the history of implicit and explicit racial bias and discrimination in this
country, there has long been a strained relationship between the African-American
community and law enforcement. But with video cameras and extensive news coverage
bringing images and stories of violent encounters between (mostly white) law enforcement
officers and (almost exclusively African-American and Latino) unarmed individuals into
American homes, it is not surprising that the absence of criminal charges in many of these
cases has caused so many people to doubt the ability of the criminal justice system to treat
individuals fairly, impartially and without regard to their race.
ABA-LDF Joint Statement on Eliminating

Bias in the Criminal Justice System
That impression is reinforced by the statistics on race in our criminal justice system.
With approximately 5 percent of the worlds population, the United States has
approximately 25 percent of the worlds jail and prison population. Some two-thirds of
those incarcerated are persons of color. While crime rates may vary by neighborhood and
class, it is difficult to believe that racial disparities in arrest, prosecution, conviction and
incarceration rates are unaffected by attitudes and biases regarding race.
And, to the extent that doubts remain, the U.S. Department of Justices recent
investigation of law enforcement practices in Ferguson, Missouri, should put them to rest.
In Ferguson, the Justice Department found that the dramatically different rates at which
African-American and white individuals in Ferguson were stopped, searched, cited,
arrested and subjected to the use of force could not be explained by chance or differences
in the rates at which African-American and white individuals violated the law. These
disparities can be explained at least in part by taking into account racial bias.
Given these realities, it is not only time for a careful look at what caused the current
crisis, but also time to initiate an affirmative effort to eradicate implied or perceived racial
bias in all of its forms from the criminal justice system.
As lawyers, we have a very special role to play. As the Preamble to the American
Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct states,
As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access
to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service
rendered by the legal profession. . . . In addition, a lawyer should further
the publics understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the
justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy
depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.
What must we do? The answer lies in making both macro and micro changes in our
criminal justice system.
At the macro level, Congress and state legislatures must look at the vast array of
laws that criminalize behaviors that pose little, if any, danger to society. We have overcriminalized conduct throughout the United States and have come inappropriately to rely
on the criminal justice system to address problems of mental health and poverty. We have
adopted unnecessary zero-tolerance policies in schools that inappropriately require police
officers to take the place of teachers and principals and become behavioral judges. We
need fewer criminal laws, and fewer circumstances in which police, prosecutors and judges
are called upon to deal with social, as opposed to criminal, issues.
Overcriminalization is such a significant problem that virtually every careful

observer of criminal justice in America, conservative or liberal, recognizes it. This
consensus presents a unique opportunity to unflinchingly confront the need to improve our
justice system.
2
July 2015

Decriminalization is, however, not a short-term solution to the current crisis of

confidence. Every day, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges are making
discretionary decisions in a country where, literally, any person could be arrested for
something if government officials focused sufficient time and energy on him or her.
We must therefore take immediate action at the micro level to begin the process of
rebuilding trust and confidence in the criminal justice system and fulfilling the promise of
equal justice.
Prosecutors play an important and vital role within the criminal justice system and
should be leaders in this effort. We have begun what we anticipate will be a series of
conversations focused on identifying ways in which prosecutors can play a more powerful
role in addressing the problem of racial bias our justice system. Our organizations arranged
an off-the-record discussion that included prosecutors and other participants in the
criminal justice system committed to equal justice. We emerged from our discussion with a
commitment to advancing the reforms listed below. We regard these reforms as necessary
investments that are essential to strengthening public confidence in the rule of law and the
legitimacy of our justice system.
1.
We need better data on the variety of interactions between law enforcement
and citizens. Earlier this year FBI Director James Comey himself a former federal
prosecutor acknowledged that gathering better and more reliable data about encounters
between the police and citizens is the first step to understanding what is really going on in
our communities and our country. Data related to violent encounters is particularly
important. As Director Comey remarked, Its ridiculous that I cant know how many
people were shot by police. Police departments should be encouraged to make and keep
reports on the racial identities of individuals stopped and frisked, arrested, ticketed or
warned for automobile and other infractions. Police departments should report incidents
in which serious or deadly force is used by officers and include the race of the officer(s) and
that of the civilian(s). This will certainly require investment of funds, but that investment
is key to a better future. We cannot understand what we cannot measure, and we cannot
change what we cannot understand.
2. Prosecutors should collect and publicly disclose more data about their work that
can enable the public to obtain a better understanding of the extent to which racial
disparities arise from the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. While this data collection
will also require investment of funds, it is essential to achieving the goal of eliminating
racial bias in the criminal justice system.
3. Prosecutors and police should seek assistance from organizations with expertise
in conducting objective analyses to identify and localize unexplained racial disparities.
These and similar organizations can provide evidence-based analyses and propose
protocols to address any identified racial disparities.
3
July 2015

4. Prosecutors offices, defense counsel and judges should seek expert assistance to
implement training on implicit bias for their employees. An understanding of the science of
implicit bias will pave the way for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to
address it in their individual work. There should also be post-training evaluations to
determine the effectiveness of the training.
5. Prosecutors offices must move quickly, aggressively, unequivocally and yet
deliberately to address misconduct that reflects explicit racial bias. We must make clear
that such conduct is fundamentally incompatible with our shared values and that it has an
outsized impact on the publics perception of the fairness of the system.
6. Prosecutors offices and law enforcement agencies should make efforts to hire and
retain lawyers and officers who live in and reflect the communities they serve. Prosecutors
and police should be encouraged to engage with the community by participating in
community forums, civic group meetings and neighborhood events. Prosecutors offices
should build relationships with African-American and minority communities to improve
their understanding about how and why these communities may view events differently
from prosecutors.
7. There should be a dialogue among all the stakeholders in each jurisdiction about
race and how it affects criminal justice decision-making. In 2004, the ABA Justice Kennedy
Commission recommended the formation of Racial Justice Task Forces which would
consist of representatives of the judiciary, law enforcement and prosecutors, defenders and
defense counsel, probation and parole officers and community organizations to examine
the racial impact that policing priorities and prosecutorial and judicial decisions might
produce and whether alternative approaches that do not produce racial disparities might
be implemented without compromising public safety. There is little cost associated with
the assembly of such task forces, and they can develop solutions that could be applicable to
a variety of jurisdictions provided that the various stakeholders are willing to do the hard
work of talking honestly and candidly about race.
8. As surprising as it might seem, many people do not understand what prosecutors
do. Hence, prosecutors offices, with the help of local and state bar associations, should
seek out opportunities to explain their function and the kinds of decisions they are
routinely called upon to make. Local and state bar associations and other community
organizations should help to educate the public that the decision not to prosecute is often
as important as the decision to prosecute; that prosecutors today should not to be judged
solely by conviction rates but, instead, by the fairness and judgment reflected in their
decisions and by their success in making communities safer for all their members; and that
some of the most innovative alternatives to traditional prosecution and punishment like
diversion and re-entry programs, drug and veteran courts and drug treatment have been
instigated, developed and supported by prosecutors.
9. To ensure accountability, the public should have access to evidence explaining
why grand juries issued no true bills and why prosecutors declined to prosecute police
4
July 2015

officers involved in fatal shootings of unarmed civilians. The release of grand jury
evidence, as in Ferguson, is one way to promote the needed accountability.
10. Accountability can also be promoted by greater use of body and vehicle cameras
to create an actual record of police-citizen encounters. With the proliferation of powerful
firearms in our communities, law enforcement departments reasonably seek equipment
that enable them to protect themselves and their communities when called upon to
confront armed and dangerous individuals seeking to engage in criminal or terrorist acts.
However, while it is appropriate to arm our police and train them in the use of ever-more
powerful weapons, it is equally important to train our law enforcement officers in
techniques designed to de-escalate tense situations, make accurate judgments about when
use of force is essential and properly determine the appropriate amount of force required
in each situation.
11. We must recognize that not every lawyer has the judgment and personal
qualities to be a successful prosecutor, administer justice and be willing to acknowledge
the possibility of implicit bias. Prosecutors who routinely engage in conduct or make
decisions that call into question the fairness or integrity of their offices should be removed
from office if they cannot be trained to meet the high standards expected of public officers.
At the same time, the terms prosecutorial misconduct and police misconduct should be
used with greater care. Even the best prosecutors will make mistakes, much like the best
defense lawyers and judges do. There is good reason to limit the characterization of
misconduct to intentional acts that violate legal or ethical rules.
12. Prosecutors, judges and defense counsel must pay more attention to the
collateral consequences of convictions. In many jurisdictions, after an individual is
convicted of an offense and completes his or her sentence (by serving time, paying a fine or
completing probation or parole), the individual nevertheless faces a life sentence of
disqualification and deprivation of educational, employment, housing and other
opportunities. This runs counter to the interests we all share in rehabilitation of the
offender and positive re-integration into and engagement with the communities in which
they live. In many cases, prosecutions can be structured to limit some of the most
pernicious of these consequences, provided that the lawyers and the courts take the time
and care to examine alternative disposition options. Prosecutors, judges and defense
counsel should join together to urge legislatures and administrative agencies to reconsider
the laws and regulations that impose these collateral consequences and determine whether
they can be modified to provide more opportunities for former offenders without
compromising public safety.
The American criminal justice is unquestionably at a moment of crisis. But there
are many steps we, as members of the bar, can and should take quickly to begin to turn the
ship of justice around and ensure that the system delivers the blind justice that it promises.
If we commit ourselves to confronting and eliminating the racial biases that now exist, we
can restore the much-needed public confidence in our criminal justice system. As Supreme
Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once exhorted in accepting the Liberty Medal Award in
5
July 2015

1992, America can do better. Indeed, America has no choice but to do better.
Both the American Bar Association and the Legal Defense Fund will continue to
convene meetings with prosecutors and other law enforcement groups to support the
reforms we have identified. We also will work to support and advance a robust dialogue
among prosecutors and leaders in the profession about how best to eliminate racial bias
from our justice system.
William C. Hubbard,
President, American Bar Association
Sherrilyn Ifill
President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
The following individuals participated in the discussion that led to this joint statement:
Sidney Butcher
Assistant States Attorney, Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office
John Chisholm
District Attorney, Milwaukee County
Kay Chopard Cohen
Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association
Angela Davis
Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Mathias H. Heck
Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County, OH
Belinda Hill
First Assistant District Attorney, Harris County, TX
David F. Levi
Dean, Duke University School of Law
Myles Lynk
Professor of Law, Arizona State University College of Law
Wayne McKenzie
General Counsel, New York City Department of Probation
John Pfaff
Professor of Law, Fordham University
6
July 2015

Matthew Frank Redle

County and Prosecuting Attorney, Sheridan, WY
Stephen A. Saltzburg
Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Cyrus Vance, Jr.
District Attorney of New York County
July 2015
University
of
Florida
Levin
College
of
Law
Published: November 13th, 2012

Category: Feature (http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/category/feature/)
By Richard Goldstein
When U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges (JD 58) was nominated to the federal bench in
1971, he assumed his robes in the middle district of Florida before the age of 40, and 41 years later
he holds the same job, now as a federal judge on senior status in Ocala.
A remarkably stable career one might conclude.
But it was clear during a Nov. 2 reception at the Thomas Center in Gainesville sponsored by the
North Central Chapter of the Federal Bar Association that Hodges did not stand still during his long
tenure.
(http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/wp-content/uploads
/2012/11/IMG_5403_low_res.jpg)
Judge William Terrell Hodges (JD 58) was honored Nov. 2 at the
Thomas Center in Gainesville. (Photos by Haley Stracher)
As protg of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Hodges rose to lead policymaking body for the
administration of justice in the federal courts, becoming chair of the Judicial Conference of the United
States. Hodges and District Judge Anthony Alaimo lodged the complaint that would result in the
impeachment and removal from office of U.S. District Judge Alcee Hastings, who had been acquitted
by a jury of soliciting a bribe in a mob case. And he mentored decades worth of law clerks.
Those clerks were present in force at the Thomas Center to praise their former boss.
Scott L. Whitaker (JD 76), who clerked for Hodges from 1976 to 1978, said Hodges took seriously his duty to dispense justice and to guard against abuse of
power.
I watched him struggle every time he had to pass sentence, Whitaker said. His humility in all things is beyond anything Ive ever seen. He always used to
say, every time you use a little power, you lose a little power. Ive never seen him abuse it once.
Still, one story of the way Hodges exercised power elicited knowing laughter from the audience that
included UF Law students.
Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained that Tampa maintained
a bus stop immediately in front of the courthouse steps while Hodges was chief judge of the middle
district during the 1980s.
The city of Tampa had a bus system and they had a monstrous bus stop at the base of the old
federal courthouse in Tampa. All the buses came there and the jurors would have trouble getting up
there to the courthouse, Tjoflat said.
Hodges sent a letter to the mayor demanding that the bus stop be moved. When no action ensued,
Tjoflat said, federal marshals dismantled the offending public transportation facility with blow torches.
Sitting on a dais with Tjoflat, Hodges accepted laconically the stories and praise offered during the
Toast to Judge Hodges event.
(http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/wp-content/uploads
/2012/11/IMG_5293_low_res.jpg)
Judge William Terrell Hodges (JD 58) was honored Nov. 2 at the
Thomas Center in Gainesville. (Photos by Haley Stracher)
That was the result of deputies who volunteered; no order was given so it was unappealable,
Hodges deadpanned.
Last year Hodges served as the Peter T. Fay Jurist-in-Residence at UF Law speaking with students and faculty about judicial clerkships, trial advocacy and
legal careers.
Hodges was appointed by President Richard Nixon in 1971. He served as chief judge from 1982 to 1989 and has maintained senior status since 1999.
Tagged as: William Terrell Hodges (http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/tag/william-terrell-hodges/), judge hodges (http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/tag/judge-hodges/)
Faculty Scholarship & Activities: Nov. 13, 2012 (http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2012/11/faculty-scholarship-activities-nov-13-2012/)
Federal Trade Commissions Bureau of Economics director to discuss antitrust law (http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2012/11/federal-trade-commissionsbureau-of-economics-director-to-discuss-antitrust-law/)
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

<i_r@bankofamerica.com>
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 6:44 PM
HodgesInterestList.pdf
conflict of interest inquiry
Bank of America Corporation

Investor Relations
Dear Bank of America,
This is a conflict of interest inquiry to confirm the shareholder status of U.S. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges
and his List of Financial Interests showing Bank of America. A PDF of Judge Hodges List of Financial
Interests is attached, and may also be found at the link below.
Financial Interests for U.S. Judge Hodges - Bank of America
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judicialInfo/Ocala/HodgesInterestList.pdf
The Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges
Senior United States District Judge, Ocala Division
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Golden-Collum Memorial Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse
207 N.W. Second Street
Telephone: 352-369-4860
Judicial information for U.S. Judge Hodges
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judicialInfo/Ocala/JgHodges.htm
Judge Hodges resides in Gainesville, Florida.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
5/26/2014
Senior United States District Judge William Terrell Hodges

List of Financial Interests
Bank of America
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

Tuesday, April 22, 2014 6:45 PM
ATT00024.txt
Read: conflict of interest inquiry
This is a receipt for the mail you sent to

<i_r@bankofamerica.com> at 4/22/2014 6:44 PM
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 4/22/2014 6:45
PM
5/26/2014

Stefanie Goldblatt, CFPB Senior Litigation Counsel Re Case 140304-000750

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stefanie Goldblatt, CFPB Senior Litigation Counsel Re Case 140304-000750

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stefanie Isser Goldblatt, Senior Litigation Counsel

Enforcement at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

December 27, 2015

Re: CFPB Case Number: 140304-000750, Status: File 03/04/2014

Comment by Neil Gillespie

Stefanie Isser Goldblatt, Senior Litigation Counsel

December 27, 2015

The Honorable Richard Cordray, Director, c/o

Stefanie Isser Goldblatt, Senior Litigation Counsel

December 27, 2015

You may view documents in this matter online at:

NEW YORK, NY 10017-7123

Year Admitted in NY:

No record of public discipline

March 19, 2013

Comment by Neil Gillespie

857 So.2d 953 (2003)

Brenda NESTOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Victor Posner, and

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179

Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 31 PageID 6037

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PEOPLE for the ETHICAL TREATMENT of

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant filed its Dispositive

Both parties filed their respective responses

(Docs. ##145, 146) on July 5, 2011.

The Court heard oral argument

on some of the issues at the final pretrial conference on October

Summary Judgment Standard

satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

An issue is genuine if there is

sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a

Case 2:09-cv-00537-JES-SPC Document 179

Filed 11/04/11 Page 14 of 31 PageID 6050

confidential. Fla. Stat. 39.201(b), 39.205(3) (reports of child

complaint regarding financial investigations).

relate to animal abuse, and in any case, the confidentiality

even where a private confidentiality agreement is otherwise proper,

See, e.g., Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber,

The agreement only precluded the disclosure of

the identity of PETAs source.

While it seems clear that the

confidentiality agreement did not and could not create an absolute

At the time of the disclosure in this

Given the extreme caution the Court must use before

DEFAMATION AND PRIVACY

The entire 2 absence of any malice3 or wrongful motive on

Personal Nature of Right; Right of Relatives

West's Key Number Digest

C.J.S., Right of Privacy 4

The right of privacy has generally been considered

munications, Inc., 575 So. 2d 280

4Agency for Health Care

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1991).

1Williams v. City of Minneola,

privacy is invaded. 2 Accordingly, the cause of action is not

in false-light case, see 223.

DEFAMATION AND PRIVACY

declined to foreclose all invasion of privacy actions brought

Necessity of egregious conduct

The relational right of privacy is not crafted to provide a

575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.