Defendant's Motion To Disolve Temporary Injunction 2016-CA-00712

Filing # 48204062 E-Filed 10/27/2016 05:42:58 PM
SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,

a Florida not for profit corporation,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2016-CA-000712
Plaintiff,
Rule 1.430. Demand for Jury Trial
By Defendant Neil J. Gillespie
Trial By Jury, Art. I, Sec. 22, Fla. Const.
vs.
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
This is a Contested Lawsuit. Defendant

Neil J. Gillespie contests this lawsuit.
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISOLVE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.610(d) Motion to Dissolve
Defendant Neil J. Gillespie, an indigent non-lawyer, unable to obtain adequate counsel, a
consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce, a consumer of personal,
family and household goods and services, consumer transactions in interstate commerce, a
person with disabilities, and a vulnerable adult, henceforth in the first person, reluctantly appears
pro se, and files Defendants Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction, and states:
1.
Pursuant to Rule 1.610(d) Motion to Dissolve, a party against whom a temporary
injunction has been granted may move to dissolve or modify it at any time:
(d) Motion to Dissolve. A party against whom a temporary injunction has been granted
may move to dissolve or modify it at any time. If a party moves to dissolve or modify, the
motion shall be heard within 5 days after the movant applies for a hearing on the motion.
2.
A copy the Fla. R. Civ. Pro., RULE 1.610 INJUNCTIONS, appears at Exhibit 1.
3.
I am not, at this time, applying for a hearing on the motion.
4.
Circuit Judge Edward L. Scott (Judge Scott) unlawfully entered EMERGENCY
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Temporary Injunction) at 1:29 PM on April 18, 2016

against me during or after an ex parte hearing where I was not present, and where I was not
represented by counsel, in violation of the Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.610(a) Temporary Injunction.

5.
Judge Scotts Temporary Injunction appears at Exhibit 2. The Temporary Injunction was
wrongly granted without written or oral notice to me, the adverse party, because Rule 1.610(a),
subpart (1)(A) requires specific facts shown by affidavit or verified pleading of immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage...
(A) it appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or verified pleading that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
6.
The movant, Kevin M. Stone, of Stone & Gerken, P.A., General Counsel for the Plaintiff
Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc., failed to provide specific facts shown by affidavit or verified
pleading of immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage... The pleadings were not
verified, and the affidavits were bogus, each affidavit in violation of F.S. 117.05(4).
7.
The Temporary Injunction was wrongly granted without written or oral notice to me, the
adverse party, because Rule 1.610(a), subpart (1)(B) requires,

(B) the movants attorney certifies in writing any efforts that have been made to give
notice and the reasons why notice should not be required.
and the movants attorney, Kevin M. Stone, of Stone & Gerken, P.A. did not certify in writing
any efforts that were made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required.
8.
The Temporary Injunction was wrongly granted without my appearance, or written or
oral notice to me, the adverse party, because Rule 1.610(a), subpart (2) states,
(2) No evidence other than the affidavit or verified pleading shall be used to support the
application for a temporary injunction unless the adverse party appears at the hearing or
has received reasonable notice of the hearing.
and the movants attorney, Kevin M. Stone, of Stone & Gerken, P.A., used a Complaint to
support the application for a temporary injunction and I was not present or given notice. On
information and belief, a Complaint wrongly used to support a defective application for a
temporary injunction under Rule 1.610(a) is void and does not require a further response.
2

9.
The Temporary Injunction was wrongly granted without my appearance, or written or
oral notice to me, the adverse party, because Rule 1.610(b) requires a bond,
(b) Bond. No temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant
in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages
sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined...
and today Clerk David R. Ellspermann, by and through counsel Gregory C. Harrell, responded to
my public records request (PRR) for a copy of the bond, stating, The Plaintiff has not filed a
bond in the above referenced action. My PRR to the Clerk, and response, appear at Exhibit 3.
10.
I am law-abiding, college educated, with no criminal record. (Exhibit 4)
11.
This case filed by Stone & Gerken P.A. is without merit, a criminal and civil deprivation
of rights under color of law, and a criminal and civil conspiracy against rights1, wrongly
diverting my time, energy and resources from defending foreclosure of a reverse mortgage called
a HECM, a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, in Marion County court, see Reverse Mortgage
Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie, et al., 2013-CA-00115.
12.
The three year-old HECM reverse mortgage foreclosure case has become an
embarrassment to the court and the legal profession. On September 20, 2016 The Florida Bar
opened, on my complaint, a UPL investigation of Michael Allgood. (Exhibit 5).
Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation (UPL) of
Stephen Michael Allgood, UPL File No. 20171020(17C)
18 U.S.C. 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law (criminal)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
18 U.S.C. 241 - Conspiracy against rights (criminal)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
42 U.S.C. 1981 - Equal rights under the law (civil)
42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights (civil)
42 U.S.C. 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (civil)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-I

Mr. Allgood is not a member of The Florida Bar, and not licensed to practice law in Florida, but
nonetheless is the Director of the Florida Foreclosure Group since 2013 for McCalla Raymer
Pierce, LLC, the Plaintiffs lawyers who have sued me since January 2013 in 2013-CA-00115.
WHEREFORE, I hereby move to dissolve the temporary injunction under Rule 1.610(d)
Motion to Dissolve, but I am not, at this time, applying for a hearing on the motion.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED October 27, 2016
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Phone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Service List October 27, 2016

I hereby certify the following names were served by email today October 27, 2016 through the
Florida Portal, unless otherwise expressly stated.
The Honorable Don F. Briggs
Chief Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
Lake County Judicial Center
550 W. Main Street
Tavares, FL 32778-7800
Tel. 352-742-4224
Email: dbriggs@circuit5.org
The Honorable Edward L. Scott

Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
Marion County Judicial Center
110 N.W. 1st Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475
Tel. 352-401-7810
Email: escott@circuit5.org
Becky Knipe, JA, bknipe@circuit5.org
Lewis W. Stone
Florida Bar No. 0281174
Email: Lewis@StoneandGerken.com
Stone & Gerken, P.A.

4850 North Highway 19A
Mount Dora, FL 32757
Email: SGService@StoneandGerken.com
Kevin M. Stone
Email: Kevin@ StoneandGerken.com
William Grant Watson

Email: Grant@StoneandGerken.com
Matthew G. Minter, County Attorney

601 SE 25th Avenue, Ocala, FL 34471
Email: Matthew.Minter@marioncountyfl.org
Karl Oltz, Director of Communications
Marion County Public Safety
Email: Karl.Oltz@marioncountyfl.org
Wendy Spillman, Injunction Clerk

Marion County Public Safety Communications
Email: wendy.spillman@marioncountyfl.org
Filing # 48207091 E-Filed 10/27/2016 11:41:27 PM


JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2016-CA-000712
Plaintiff,
Rule 1.430. Demand for Jury Trial
By Defendant Neil J. Gillespie
Trial By Jury, Art. I, Sec. 22, Fla. Const.
vs.
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
This is a Contested Lawsuit. Defendant

Neil J. Gillespie contests this lawsuit.
DEFENDANTS AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION TO FILING # 48204062

Defendant Neil J. Gillespie, an indigent non-lawyer, unable to obtain adequate counsel, a
consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce, a consumer of personal,
family and household goods and services, consumer transactions in interstate commerce, a
person with disabilities, and a vulnerable adult, henceforth in the first person, reluctantly appears
pro se, and files Defendants Amendment And Correction to Filing # 48204062, and states:
1.
This is an Addendum/Correction to a pleading I filed earlier today:

Filing # 48204062 E-Filed 10/27/2016 05:42:58 PM
2.
Paragraph 4 of Defendants Motion To Dissolve Temporary Injunction has an error,

4. Circuit Judge Edward L. Scott (Judge Scott) unlawfully entered EMERGENCY
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Temporary Injunction) at 1:29 PM on April 18,
2016 against me during or after an ex parte hearing where I was not present, and where I
was not represented by counsel, in violation of the Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.610(a) Temporary
Injunction.
relative to Circuit Judge Edward L. Scott (Judge Scott). My contention that Judge Scott held
an ex parte hearing on April 18, 2016 is wrong. It appears from the record that Judge Scott
granted an EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Temporary Injunction) at 1:29

PM on April 18, 2016 WITHOUT A HEARING OF ANY KIND.
3.
The Clerks public online docket or case information for 2016-CA-000712, printed today,
October 27, 2016 at 9:43 PM appears at Exhibit 6, and does not show a hearing of any kind on
April 18, 2016, the day Judge Scott granted a Temporary Injunction at 1:29 PM.
4.
Somehow the Plaintiffs pleadings for, inter alia, a Temporary Injunction, came to the
attention of Judge Scott, whereupon Scott granted the Temporary Injunction sua sponte, on his
own motion (Exhibit 2), without a hearing, without counsel for the Plaintiff present, and without
notice to me of a sua sponte action, without my appearance, and no representation for me.
5.
Judge Scotts Temporary Injunction (Exhibit 2) shows a Certificate of Service signed by
M. Tucker whom I believe is deputy clerk Melissa Tucker. The Certificate of Service shows,
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to
this 18th day of April, 2016.
6.
The Temporary Injunction shows another Certificate of Service signed by M. Tucker:

I CERTIFY THAT AN ORIGINAL/COPY
HEREOF HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY U.S.P.S.
MAIL TO: Stone & Gerkin PA
4850 North Hwy 19A
Mt. Dora, FL 32757
THIS 18th DAY OF April, 2016
(signed) M Tucker D.C.
7.
Deputy clerk Melissa Tucker knows, or should know, that a hearing is required before a
judge may grant a Temporary Injunction where, at a minimum, the movant appears ex parte.
8.
Clerk David R. Ellspermann knows, or should know, that a hearing is required before a
judge may grant a Temporary Injunction where, at a minimum, the movant appears ex parte.
9.
Counsel Gregory Harrell knows, or should know, that a hearing is required before a judge
may grant a Temporary Injunction where, at a minimum, the movant appears ex parte.
2
10.
A letter April 19, 2016, from attorney Kevin Stone, of Stone & Gerken, PA, to Clerk
David R. Ellspermann, appears on the record, and at Exhibit 7 and states,

Re: Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie
Case No. 2016-CA-000712
Our File #SECO-16009
Dear Mr. Ellspermann:
Please provide three (3) certified copies of the Emergency Preliminary Injunction,
entered in the above-referenced case on April 18. 2016. A firm check for $15.00 is
enclosed for the costs of the copies ($9.00) and certification ($6.00).
Please return the certified Injunctions in the enclosed Federal Express prepaid envelope
at your earliest opportunity.
Thank you for your assistance and if you have any questions. please do not hesitate to
give me a call.
Very truly yours,
(signed)
Kevin M. Stone
11.
On information and belief, the foregoing shows Judge Edward Scott, attorney Kevin
Stone, Stone & Gerken PA, the Plaintiff, Clerk David Ellspermann, Counsel Gregory Harrell,
and deputy clerk Melissa Tucker, injunction clerk Wendy Spillman, Karl Oltz, Director of
Communications, and others, are engaged in a criminal enterprise operated under the pretense of
the Marion County Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida, and is a refutable presumption.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED October 27, 2016
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop
Phone: 352-854-7807
Service List October 27, 2016 (2)

I hereby certify the following names were served by email today October 27, 2016 through the
Florida Portal, unless otherwise expressly stated.
The Honorable Don F. Briggs
Chief Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
Lake County Judicial Center
550 W. Main Street
Tavares, FL 32778-7800
Tel. 352-742-4224
Email: dbriggs@circuit5.org
The Honorable Edward L. Scott

Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
Marion County Judicial Center
110 N.W. 1st Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475
Tel. 352-401-7810
Email: escott@circuit5.org
Becky Knipe, JA, bknipe@circuit5.org
Lewis W. Stone
Email: Lewis@StoneandGerken.com
Stone & Gerken, P.A.

4850 North Highway 19A
Mount Dora, FL 32757
Email: SGService@StoneandGerken.com
Kevin M. Stone
Email: Kevin@ StoneandGerken.com
William Grant Watson

Email: Grant@StoneandGerken.com
Matthew G. Minter, County Attorney

601 SE 25th Avenue, Ocala, FL 34471
Email: Matthew.Minter@marioncountyfl.org
Melissa Tucker, Deputy Clerk

Marion County Clerk of Court
mtucker@marioncountyclerk.org
Karl Oltz, Director of Communications

Marion County Public Safety
Email: Karl.Oltz@marioncountyfl.org
Wendy Spillman, Injunction Clerk

Marion County Public Safety Communications
Email: wendy.spillman@marioncountyfl.org
RULE 1.610.
(a)
INJUNCTIONS
Temporary Injunction.
(1) A temporary injunction may be granted without written or oral

notice to the adverse party only if:
(A) it appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or
verified pleading that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result
to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movants attorney certifies in writing any efforts that
have been made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required.
(2) No evidence other than the affidavit or verified pleading shall
be used to support the application for a temporary injunction unless the adverse
party appears at the hearing or has received reasonable notice of the hearing. Every
temporary injunction granted without notice shall be endorsed with the date and
hour of entry and shall be filed forthwith in the clerks office and shall define the
injury, state findings by the court why the injury may be irreparable, and give the
reasons why the order was granted without notice if notice was not given. The
temporary injunction shall remain in effect until the further order of the court.
(b) Bond. No temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given
by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment
of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is
wrongfully enjoined. When any injunction is issued on the pleading of a
municipality or the state or any officer, agency, or political subdivision thereof, the
court may require or dispense with a bond, with or without surety, and conditioned
in the same manner, having due regard for the public interest. No bond shall be
required for issuance of a temporary injunction issued solely to prevent physical
injury or abuse of a natural person.
(c) Form and Scope. Every injunction shall specify the reasons for entry,
shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a
pleading or another document, and shall be binding on the parties to the action,
their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and on those persons in
active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the
injunction.
1
February 23, 2016
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

Work Product of The Florida Bar
Page 176
(d) Motion to Dissolve. A party against whom a temporary injunction has

been granted may move to dissolve or modify it at any time. If a party moves to
dissolve or modify, the motion shall be heard within 5 days after the movant
applies for a hearing on the motion.
Committee Notes
1980 Amendment. This rule has been extensively amended so that it is
similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The requirement that an injunction
not be issued until a complaint was filed has been deleted as unnecessary. A
pleading seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order must still be filed
before either can be entered. The rule now provides for a temporary restraining
order without notice that will expire automatically unless a hearing on a
preliminary injunction is held and a preliminary injunction granted. The contents
of an injunctive order are specified. The binding effect of an injunctive order is
specified, but does not change existing law. Motions to dissolve may be made and
heard at any time. The trial on the merits can be consolidated with a hearing on
issuance of a preliminary injunction, and the trial can be advanced to accommodate
this.
Court Commentary
1984 Amendment. Considerable dissatisfaction arose on the adoption of the
1980 rule, particularly because of the creation of the temporary restraining order
with its inflexible time limits. See Sun Tech Inc. of South Florida v. Fortune
Personnel Agency of Fort Lauderdale, 412 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The
attempt to balance the rights of the parties in 1980 failed because of court
congestion and the inability in the existing circumstances to accommodate the
inflexible time limits. These changes will restore injunction procedure to
substantially the same as that existing before the 1980 change. The temporary
restraining order terminology and procedure is abolished. The former procedure of
temporary and permanent injunctions is restored. The requirement of findings and
reasons and other details in an injunctive order are retained.
Subdivision (b) eliminates the need for a bond on a temporary injunction
issued to prevent physical injury or abuse of a natural person.
Subdivision (e) institutes a requirement that a motion to dissolve an
injunction shall be heard within 5 days after the movant applies for it. This
provision emphasizes the importance of a prompt determination of the propriety of
injunctive relief granted without notice or, if the circumstances have changed since
February 23, 2016

Page 177
the issuance of the injunctive order, the need for speedy relief as a result of the
changes. Former subdivisions (a), (b)(3), and (b)(4) have been repealed because
the new procedure makes them superfluous. The right of the court to consolidate
the hearing on a temporary injunction with the trial of the action is not affected
because that can still be accomplished under rule 1.270(a).
February 23, 2016

Page 178
. -, '
~.
,,'

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2016-CA-000712

Plaintiff,
t=-r,
or
vs.
MTNP
Name: -J.U-J...f,&,t.~~~~"""IiI!!::=::::=
Date: ----:---~~~~~--
Time: _ _~.J-,;.~~~""""--
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
#:
<rrJ
,n G
o
~r
, .. ".
_....!J:.'---L~~..-:...J...:----
Defendant.
-----------
~I
EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
THIS CAUSE came on before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Emergency Motion
for Entry of Preliminary Injunction ("the Motion"). With the Court having reviewed the
Motion and the affidavits and other attachments to the Emergency Motion, and with the
Cqurt 1erwise ~ duly ad,iid in the premises, the Court finds and orders at
__
,:
AM/&n this
day of April, 2016:
A.
The Plaintiff, Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc., ("SECO") owns a
possessory interest in facilities where it carries out business pperations (the "Facilities")
at the addresses set forth in the Notice of Trespass (the "Notice") attached to Plaintiff's
Motion.
B.
As a matter of law, SECO has the right to exclude any person from the
Facilities.
C.
Defendant has announced, in writing, his intention to act with incivility and
declared "war" on the Plaintiff. The affidavits of SECO employees establish that
Gillespie's statements and behavior have created a reasonable fear that Gillespie is a
danger to the safety and wellbeing of SECO employees, customers and property as well
as to SECD's ability to orderly conduct its business at the Facilities. Defendant's openly
hostile and threatening conduct at the SECO Facility is detrimental to public safety, as
well as to the safety and security of SECO employees and property. Under these
circumstances, the requested injunction is in the public interest.
D.
SECO has issued the Notice to Defendant, which constitutes a valid
warning against trespass.

7'
'
..
"
.,
'"
E.
A violation of the Notice would result in further interruption to SECD's
orderly business operations, and a security guard has been obtained by SECO to
intercept Defendant, should he return. There is no remedy for an interruption to SECD's
orderly business operation.
F.
SEeD is without an adequate remedy at law to protect SECO's
employees, customers and properties from Defendant without the issuance of an
injunction preventing Gillespie from entering the Facilities.
G.
The underlying claim in this matter seeks an injunction against trespass.
SEeQ's right to exclude others from property in which it holds an exclusive possessory
interest is fundamental. Therefore, it appears likely that SEeO will prevail on the merits
of the underlying claim. Furthermore, Gillespie is presently without the right to enter the
Facilities, so the potential injury to SEeO outweighs any possible harm to Gillespie. This
injunction is designed to maintain the status quo.
H.
SEeD has offered sufficient reasons that this order should be granted on
an emergency basis and without formal notice to the Defendant. SECD requires
immediate relief to protect the safety of persons and property as alleged in its motion,
and because there is no harm to Defendant presuming that he does not violate SECD's
right to exclude him from the Facilities. He may conduct any and all necessary business
with SECO telephonically, electronically, and through the mail. Having been furnished
with the Notice of trespass, the entry of the requested injunction does not alter
Defendant's right of entry to the Facilities, because he is already without such a right.
Where the acts to be enjoined are detrimental to public safety, as they are here, they
may be enjoined.
I.
Pursuant to Rule 1.610(b), no bond is required for issuance of a
temporary injunction issued for preventing physical injury or abuse of a natural person.
SECD has alleged a threat to the safety of natural persons, and this threat is a factor in
the court's issuance of this injunction.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
Absent the entry of an injunction, it appears from the specific facts shown
by affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to SEeD
before Defendant can be heard in opposition.
2.
The Defendant shall not, at any time prior to the dissolution of this
Temporary Injunction, enter into any structure, or upon the curtilage thereof, at the
facilities possessed by SEeO at the following addresses:
Ocala, Florida:
th
4872 Southwest 60 Avenue

Ocala, FL 34474
Sumterville, Florida:
330 U.S. 301
Sumterville, FL 33585
Sumterville, Florida:
293 U.S. 301
Sumterville, FL 33585
Eustis, Florida:
Groveland, Florida:
850 Howey Road
Groveland, FL 34736
Inverness, Florida:
610 U.S. Highway 41 South
Inverness, FL 34450
50 West Ardice Avenue

Eustis, FL 32726
3.
No bond is required. The petitioners shall cause this Emergency
Temporary Injunction to be served on the defendants in accordance with Florida law.
' ........~
.. ,f'; ..:
)
e.
&
r:
4.
The Court retains jurisdiction of this cause.
. _ /;
DONE AND ORDERED in Ocala, Marion County, Florida, this..f.K.!{ day of April,
2016.
d~rf;;r;
Circuit Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S.
Mail to this ~day of April, 2016.
iHS
1. \'Y'
~ .\b~a:
~
.
,20 .lle
c.
,M
e
D...
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Greg Harrell" <gharrell@marioncountyclerk.org>

<neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:12 PM
PRR for complete copy of the bond provided by Plaintiff under Rule 1.610. Injunctions (b) Bond, in
Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. v Neil J. Gillespie, 2016-CA-00712
The Plaintiff has not filed a bond in the above referenced action.
Gregory C. Harrell
General Counsel to David R. Ellspermann, Marion County Clerk of Court & Comptroller
P.O. Box 1030
Ocala, Florida 34478-1030
(352) 671-5603
gharrell@marioncountyclerk.org
3
10/27/2016
VIA Email: Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org
October 27, 2016
David R. Ellspermann
Marion County Clerk of Court & Comptroller
Marion County Courthouse
110 NW 1st Ave., Ocala, FL 34475
RE: Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. v Neil J. Gillespie, 2016-CA-00712
RE: Records request, Art. I, Sec. 24, Fla. Const. All public records requests shall be
acknowledged promptly and in good faith, F.S. 119.07(1)(c)
Dear Mr. Ellspermann:
This is a public records request a complete copy of the bond provided by the Plaintiff under the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.610. Injunctions (b) Bond, in Sumter Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v Neil J. Gillespie, 2016-CA-00712.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
Attachments
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

"David Ellspermann" <Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org>
Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:46 PM
PRR to David R. Ellspermann, Clerk.pdf
PRR for complete copy of the bond provided by Plaintiff under Rule 1.610. Injunctions (b) Bond, in
Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. v Neil J. Gillespie, 2016-CA-00712
10/27/2016
https://web.fdle.state.fl.us/search/app/wicket/page?9
Time:
3300ms
Print page
Payment receipt has been emailed to neilgillespie@mfi.net
These are the results of your search. Read the instructions below to complete the search.
First
Name
Middle
NEIL JOSEPH
Last
Date of Birth
GILLESPIE
03/19/1956
Maiden/Alias
Transaction 8033788
Age
Race
Sex
SSN
160525117
5/12/2016 1:40:32 PM
FDLE found NO Florida criminal history based on the information provided. No criminal record check was conducted for other states
or for the FBI. This record (or statement that there is not a record) is based on a request from a member of the public. This
customer used the FDLE Internet system to search for the Florida record. FDLE is providing this to respond to the customer's
request.
Click the "Continue" button below for a printable record of these results.
Help understanding these results
Continue
5/12/2016 1:40 PM
The Florida Bar

John F. Harkness, Jr.
Executive Director
Lakeshore Plaza II
1300 Concord Terrace, Suite 130
Sunrise, Florida 33323
(954) 835-0233
www.FLORIDABAR.org
September 20,2016
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Stephel1 Michael Allgood
UPL File No. 20171020(17C)
Re:
Dear Mr. Gillespie:

Your emailed correspondence to John F. Harkness, Jr. regarding Michael Allgood was forwarded
to nlY office in the Unlicensed Practice of Law Department because Mr. Allgood is not a
member of The Florida Bar. I have opened the above-referenced file at staff level to review your
complaint for possible unlicensed practice of law.
Thnak you for bringing this matter to the attention of The Florida Bar. You will be notified of
the final disposition.
Sincerely,
.r-;:::::>
r---J
~~~-;;;._._
..- -.
Algeisa Vazquez, Esq.

Branch UPL Counsel
AV/drk
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP293085765

Email: jharkness@flabar.org
September 16, 2016
John F. Harkness, Jr.

Executive Director
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
RE: Bar Complaint, and UPL complaint, against Michael Allgood, not a member of The
Florida Bar, Rule 4-5.1 Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers
Dear Mr. Harkness:
This is a complaint against Michael Allgood who is not a member of The Florida Bar, and
not licensed to practice law in Florida, but nonetheless is the Director of the Florida Foreclosure
Group since 2013 for McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC, according to his webpage, found online at
this URL, and enclosed as a paper copy. http://www.mrpllc.com/attorneys/allgood-michael.html
Michael Allgood, Director of the Florida Foreclosure Group
McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC
110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-332-9395
Email: Michael.Allgood@mrpllc.com
Email: mka@mccallaraymer.com
Mr. Allgood claims he is a graduate of the Georgia State University College of Law 2005
It appears Mr. Allgood would be governed, if he was licensed, by Rule 4-5.1 Responsibilities of
Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers, because as Director of the Florida Foreclosure
Group for McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC, he directs, manages, and supervises Florida licensed
lawyers including Curtis Allen Wilson, FL Bar ID 77669, a lawyer who represents Reverse
Mortgage Solutions, Inc., in a foreclosure against me of a federal Home Equity Conversion
Mortgage, called a HECM, or reverse mortgage, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. vs. Neil J.
Gillespie, et al, Case 2013-CA-00115, Marion County Florida, Fifth Judicial Circuit.
His webpage says Mr. Allgood has been the Director of the Florida Foreclosure Group since
2013, which coincides with the foreclose against me that commenced in January 2013.
Unfortunately McCalla Raymer lawyers representing RMS have engaged in misconduct.
Therefore, Allgood would have responsibility under Rule 4-5.1, if he were licensed in Florida.
Mr. Allgood did not respond to my email inquiry sent Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:39 AM
asking if he is a member of The Florida Bar. My email and attachments to Allgood is enclosed.
The Florida Bar

Complaint - Michael Allgood
September 16, 2016

Page - 2
RULE 4-5.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, MANAGERS, AND

SUPERVISORY LAWYERS
(a) Duties Concerning Adherence to Rules of Professional Conduct. A partner in a law
firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable
managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm
has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
(b) Supervisory Lawyer's Duties. Any lawyer having direct supervisory authority over
another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to
the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) Responsibility for Rules Violations. A lawyer shall be responsible for another
lawyer's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if:
(1) the lawyer orders the specific conduct or, with knowledge thereof, ratifies the conduct
involved; or
(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in
which the other lawyer practices or has direct supervisory authority over the other
lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or
mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
Enclosed is my letter to Gary G. Lynch, Vice Chairman, Bank of America, September 15, 2016,
with and enclosures, limited by TFBs 25 page limit. The full 46 page letter is posted on Scribd.
https://www.scribd.com/document/324263671/Letter-to-Gary-G-Lynch-Vice-Chairman-Bank-of-America
As shown in my letter to Mr. Lynch, The Florida Bar opened complaints against Danielle Nicole
Parsons, FL Bar ID 29364, and her paralegal Yolanda Martinez, see,
The Florida Bar File No. 2014-30,525 (9A), Neil Gillespie v. Danielle Nicole Parsons
The Florida Bar UPL Investigation 20143031(9A) of paralegal Yolanda Martinez
My complaints alleged, inter alia, that Parsons engaged in ex parte communication with US
Judge William Terrell Hodges and/or US Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens and concocted
through paralegal Martinez a plan to deprive me of a Rule 55 Default Judgment.
The UPL committee determined paralegal Martinez acted at the direction of Parsons, and closed
my complaint against Martinez. Patricia Ann Toro Savitz prosecuted Parsons, but over a year
into the investigation, closed the case stating the trial judge (Judge Hale Stancil) should decide
the matter. This is contrary to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and Article V, Section 15 of
the Florida Constitution, which states,
The Florida Bar

Complaint - Michael Allgood
September 16, 2016

Page - 3
SECTION 15. Attorneys; admission and discipline.The supreme court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the
discipline of persons admitted.
Judge Hale Stancil is not a justice of the Florida Supreme Court. So I take that to mean Article
V, Section 15 is a bunch of nonsense. Regulatory capture means any Tom, Dick or Harry with
sufficient political clout puts the Supreme Court of Florida in the position of a marionette.
I also made a complaint against Curtis Allen Wilson, FL Bar ID 77669 to The Florida Bar, see
Request For Assistance (RFA) No. 15-13443, Gillespie v. Wilson. That was wrongly dismissed
too. I plan to submit too more complaints against Mr. Wilson. There is also my outstanding
criminal complaint against Wilson and Parsons with Brad King, State Attorney, Fifth Circuit. I
plan a response to ASA Mark Simpson who wrongly dismissed the complaint on SOL.
So it appears that Michael Allgood, Director of the Florida Foreclosure Group for McCalla
Raymer Pierce, LLC since 2013 has directed if not orchestrated the misconduct of Wilson and
Parsons in the foreclosure case against me.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Enclosures
https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?Requester=&tracknum=1Z64589FP293085765&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:
Received By:
1Z64589FP293085765
UPS Ground
1.00 lb
09/16/2016
09/20/2016 1:49 P.M.
651 E JEFFERSON ST
TALLAHASSEE, FL, US 32399
CHRISS
Left At:
Front Desk
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 09/20/2016 1:56 P.M. ET
Print This Page
Close Window
https://www.ups.com/uis/create?ActionOriginPair=default___PrintWindowPage&key=labelWindow&type=html&loc=en_US&instr=A&doc=shipment...
UPS Internet Shipping: View/Print Label

1. Ensure there are no other shipping or tracking labels attached to your package. Select the
Print button on the print dialog box that appears. Note: If your browser does not support this function
select Print from the File menu to print the label.
2. Fold the printed label at the solid line below. Place the label in a UPS Shipping Pouch. If you do
not have a pouch, affix the folded label using clear plastic shipping tape over the entire label.
3. GETTING YOUR SHIPMENT TO UPS
Customers with a Daily Pickup
Your driver will pickup your shipment(s) as usual.
Customers without a Daily Pickup
Take your package to any location of The UPS Store, UPS Access Point(TM) location, UPS Drop Box,
UPS Customer Center, UPS Alliances (Office Depot or Staples) or Authorized Shipping Outlet near
you. Items sent via UPS Return Services(SM) (including via Ground) are also accepted at Drop Boxes.
To find the location nearest you, please visit the 'Find Locations' Quick link at ups.com.
Schedule a same day or future day Pickup to have a UPS driver pickup all of your Internet Shipping
packages.
Hand the package to any UPS driver in your area.
UPS Access PointTM
UPS Access PointTM
THE UPS STORE
THE UPS STORE
11100 SW 93RD COURT RD
3101 SW 34TH AVE
OCALA ,FL 34481
OCALA ,FL 34474
FOLD HERE
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

<Michael.Allgood@mrpllc.com>
"Harkness, John F" <jharkness@floridabar.org>; <Jane.Bond@mrpllc.com>; "Neil Gillespie"
<neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Thursday, September 15, 2016 2:39 AM
Curtis Alan Wilson (Bar# 77669).pdf; Michael Allgood, Director of the Florida Foreclosure Group,
McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC.pdf
Mr. Allgood, are you a member of The Florida Bar? If so, provide your FL Bar ID number so I can
review your profile on The Florida Bar directory
9/16/2016
Michael Allgood, Director of the Florida Foreclosure Group

Email: Michael.Allgood@mrpllc.com
Office: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Tel: 954-332-9395
Dear Mr. Allgood:
Are you a member of The Florida Bar? If so, provide your FL Bar ID number so I can review
your profile on The Florida Bar directory.
McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC changed its name 06/29/2016. However TFB profile for Curtis
Allen Wilson, FL Bar ID 77669 shows McCalla Raymer, LLC, see attached. Is that correct?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
http://www.mrpllc.com/attorneys/allgood-michael.html
Mr. Allgood is the Director of Operations for McCalla Raymers Florida Foreclosure Group. He
has a strong background in real estate title matters and both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure.
Mr. Allgoods practice also includes extensive experience related to both title examination and
title curative work.
Mr. Allgood graduated cum laude from Georgia State University College of Law in 2005 where
he was an intern at the Georgia State Tax Clinic and he received the Paul D. Coverdell Clinic
Service Award as well as CALI awards for Basic Federal Taxation II and Tax Clinic. Upon
graduating, Mr. Allgood joined the law firm of Morris, Schneider and Prior as a title examiner
from 2006-2007. In 2007, Mr. Allgood joined McCalla Raymer in their Georgia office focusing
on Georgia Foreclosure and Title Clearance. He was named the Director of the Florida
Foreclosure Group in 2013.
Georgia, 2005
Cc: Mr. John F. Harkness, Executive Director, The Florida Bar
Email: jharkness@flabar.org
Cc: Jane E. Bond, FL Bar ID 817244
Email: Jane.Bond@mrpllc.com
(http://www.mccallaraymer.com)
(/./)
(/media/k2/items/cache
/62fb5f1024529266c6e71c0c0c9ddb3c_XL.jpg)
Practice Areas
Foreclosure & Title Clearance
Education
Georgia State College of Law (J.D.
cum laude, 2005) University of
Florida
(B.S.
in
Business
Administration, 1995)
Tel #:(954) 332-9395
FAX #: (770) 643-3521
Download
(/index.php?option=com_k2&
id=123_a03ab4eb751a8df3
lang=en&task=download&vi
Michael.Allgood@mrpllc
(mailto:Michael.Allgood@mr
Mr. Allgood is the Director of Operations for McCalla Raymers Florida Foreclosure Group. H
background in real estate title matters and both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure. Mr. All
also includes extensive experience related to both title examination and title curative work.
Company
Resources
Buyer/Seller Resources (/buyer-seller/buyerinformation.html)

Firm Profile (/about-us.html)
Practice Areas (/practice-areas/residentialdefault-lender.html)
Contact Us (/storelocator.html?lang=en&
view=map)
Locations (/storelocator.html?view=map)
Privacy Policy (/our-privacy-policy.html)

Careers (/Table/Careers/)
Disclamer (/disclamer.html)
Site Map (/site-map.html)
Professionals List
(/search.html?categories=1&first_name=&
last_name=&office=&practice=)
Foreclosure Sales
Alabama (http://www.foreclosurehotline.net)
Georgia (http://www.foreclosurehotline.net)
Illinois (http://ilforeclosuresales.mrpllc.com)
Mississippi (http://www.foreclosurehotline.net)
Copyright McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC. | Atlanta, GA
(http://www.joomlaman.com)
Developed by Blue Light Labs (http://www.bluelightlabs.com)
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/AD1B3AE318918BEA85257171007334D8
ABOUT THE BAR
NEWS & EVENTS
FOR THE PUBLIC
MEMBER SERVICES
LOG IN
FIND A LAWYER
Search The Florida Bar

THE FLORIDA BAR / Rules
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
RULE 4-5.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, MANAGERS, AND SUPERVISORY LAWYERS

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-5 LAW FIRMS AND ASSOCIATIONS
RULE 4-5.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, MANAGERS, AND SUPERVISORY LAWYERS

(a) Duties Concerning Adherence to Rules of Professional Conduct. A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or
together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that
the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(b) Supervisory Lawyer's Duties. Any lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable
efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) Responsibility for Rules Violations. A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct if:
(1) the lawyer orders the specific conduct or, with knowledge thereof, ratifies the conduct involved; or
(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices or has
direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or
mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
Comment
Subdivision (a) applies to lawyers who have managerial authority over the professional work of a firm. See terminology. This
includes members of a partnership, the shareholders in a law firm organized as a professional corporation, and members of other
associations authorized to practice law; lawyers having comparable managerial authority in a legal services organization or a law
department of an enterprise or government agency, and lawyers who have intermediate managerial responsibilities in a firm.
Subdivision (b) applies to lawyers who have supervisory authority over the work of other lawyers in a firm.
Subdivision (a) requires lawyers with managerial authority within a firm to make reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and
procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm will conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Such policies and procedures include those designed to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, identify dates by which actions must
be taken in pending matters, account for client funds and property, and ensure that inexperienced lawyers are properly supervised.
Other measures that may be required to fulfill the responsibility prescribed in subdivision (a) can depend on the firm's structure and
the nature of its practice. In a small firm of experienced lawyers, informal supervision and periodic review of compliance with the
required systems ordinarily will suffice. In a large firm, or in practice situations in which difficult ethical problems frequently arise,
more elaborate measures may be necessary. Some firms, for example, have a procedure whereby junior lawyers can make
confidential referral of ethical problems directly to a designated supervising lawyer or special committee. See rule 4-5.2. Firms,
whether large or small, may also rely on continuing legal education in professional ethics. In any event the ethical atmosphere of a
firm can influence the conduct of all its members and the partners may not assume that all lawyers associated with the firm will
inevitably conform to the rules.
Subdivision (c) expresses a general principle of personal responsibility for acts of another. See also rule 4-8.4(a).
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/AD1B3AE318918BEA85257171007334D8
Subdivision (c)(2) defines the duty of a partner or other lawyer having comparable managerial authority in a law firm, as well as a
lawyer having supervisory authority over performance of specific legal work by another lawyer. Whether a lawyer has such
supervisory authority in particular circumstances is a question of fact. Partners and lawyers with comparable authority have at least
indirect responsibility for all work being done by the firm, while a partner or manager in charge of a particular matter ordinarily also
has supervisory responsibility for the work of other firm lawyers engaged in the matter. Appropriate remedial action by a partner or
managing lawyer would depend on the immediacy of that lawyer's involvement and the seriousness of the misconduct. A supervisor
is required to intervene to prevent avoidable consequences of misconduct if the supervisor knows that the misconduct occurred.
Thus, if a supervising lawyer knows that a subordinate misrepresented a matter to an opposing party in negotiation, the supervisor as
well as the subordinate has a duty to correct the resulting misapprehension.
Professional misconduct by a lawyer under supervision could reveal a violation of subdivision (b) on the part of the supervisory
lawyer even though it does not entail a violation of subdivision (c) because there was no direction, ratification, or knowledge of the
violation.
Apart from this rule and rule 4-8.4(a), a lawyer does not have disciplinary liability for the conduct of a partner, shareholder,
member of a limited liability company, officer, director, manager, associate, or subordinate. Whether a lawyer may be liable civilly
or criminally for another lawyer's conduct is a question of law beyond the scope of these rules.
The duties imposed by this rule on managing and supervising lawyers do not alter the personal duty of each lawyer in a firm to
abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct. See rule 4-5.2(a).
[Revised: 05/22/2006]
About the Bar

President's Page
Board of Governors
Committees
Sections & Divisions
What We Do
Past Presidents
Frequently Asked Questions
History
Strategic Plan & Research
Working at the Bar
Contact Us
News, Events &

Publications
Daily News Summary
The Florida Bar News
The Florida Bar Journal
News Releases
Calendars
Meetings
Media Resources
Reporter's Handbook
Issue Papers
Publications
For the Public
Member Services
Directories
Attorney Discipline
Continuing Legal Education
Lawyers
Consumer Information
Board Certification
Authorized House Counsel
Speakers Bureau
Benefits and Discounts
Certified Foreign Legal
Courts
The Vote's in Your Court
Clients' Security Fund
E-filing Resources
Prepaid Legal Services
Practice Resource Institute
Pro Bono/Legal Aid
Pro Bono Information
Unlicensed Practice of Law
Legislative Activity
Lawyer Referral Service
Lawyer Referral Service
PRI - Practice Resource Institute
Florida Registered Paralegals
Henry Latimer Center for
Section Membership
Board Certified Lawyers
Florida Bar Staff
Courts and Judges
Legal Groups and Law Schools
Leadership Academy
Voluntary Bar Center
Rules Regulating the Bar

Fastcase Legal Research
Judicial Nominating Commission

Diversity
Ethics Opinions
Law Faculty Affiliates

Lawyers Advising Lawyers
Florida Lawyers Assistance
Professionalism
Consultants
Employment Opportunities
Fair & Impartial Courts
Research &
Professionalism
September 15, 2016

Gary G. Lynch, Vice Chairman
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28255
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNW92116132
CORRECTED
Gary G. Lynch, Vice Chairman
Bank of America Corporation
One Bryant Park
115 West 42nd Street
New York, New York 10036
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNW91448946
Dear Mr. Lynch:

This letter concerns a number of legal matters with Bank of America, and its regulatory capture
of the public and private sectors, that prevent me from getting a fair resolution in the American
legal system. This letter is a notice. I plan to provide additional information as soon as possible.
This is a request to communicate by email as a reasonable disability accommodation.
The enclosed List of Financial Interests shows Bank of America for Senior United States District
Judge William Terrell Hodges, as emailed to Bank of America Investor Relations. Judge Hodges
refused to recuse in Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., v. Neil J. Gillespie, et al, U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No: 5:13-cv-00058-oc-WTH-PRL, for a HECM reverse
mortgage, BofA Account No.: 68011002615899, FHA Case Number: 091-4405741.
Judge Hodges is the epitome of regulatory capture, and criminality on the federal bench. His IFP
rulings in my case were overturned by default by the U.S. Supreme Court, Petition No. 13-7280.
Regulatory capture is an important campaign issue. My Statement Of Candidacy (for president)
appears on the Federal Elections Commission website. It was accepted by the FEC on September
11, 2016, FEC-1098470, Candidate ID P60022993. A paper copy is enclosed.
Legal matters involving Neil J. Gillespie and Bank of America
1.
Ongoing litigation with Bank of America over a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage
(HECM), a reverse mortgage, see Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. vs. Neil J. Gillespie, et. al,
Case No. 2013-CA-115, Marion County, Florida, Fifth Judicial Circuit. More cases below.
Florida Supreme Court Case No.: SC15-1145; Florida Fifth DCA Case No. 5D15-340.
Bank of America, N.A.
Account No.: 68011002615899
Federal Housing Authority (FHA)

FHA Case Number: 091-4405741
HUD Complaint, HUD Reverse Mortgage Handbook 7610.01, Section 4-19

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB Complaint No. 120914-000082
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB Complaint No. 140304-000750
Federal Reserve BOG OIG Hotline Complaint against CFPB attorney Gregory Evans
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No: 5:13-cv-00058-oc-WTH-PRL
U.S. Eleventh Circuit, Appeal No. 13-11585-B, granted leave under 28 U.S.C. 1651
U.S. Supreme Court, Petition No. 13-7280, writ of certiorari (denied/prevailed on IFP)
Gary G. Lynch, Vice Chairman, Bank of America

Re: BofA Account No.: 68011002615899
September 15, 2016

Page - 2
2.
Misconduct by Bank of America shareholder Judge William Terrell Hodges, refused to
recuse himself as trial judge in U.S. District Court, M.D. FL, No: 5:13-cv-00058-oc-WTH-PRL.
Misconduct by Plaintiffs Counsel McCalla Raymer n.k.a. McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC a
Foreign Limited Liability Company (Roswell, Georgia)
Danielle Nicole Parsons, FL Bar ID 29364, and her paralegal Yolanda Martinez
The Florida Bar File No. 2014-30,525 (9A), Neil Gillespie v. Danielle Nicole Parsons
The Florida Bar UPL Investigation 20143031(9A) of paralegal Yolanda Martinez
Note: Danielle Nicole Parsons, FL Bar ID 29364 is no longer employed by Plaintiffs
Counsel McCalla Raymer n.k.a. McCalla Raymer Pierce, LLC.
Curtis Allen Wilson, FL Bar ID 77669 (at least 2 more bar complaints pending)
The Florida Bar, Request For Assistance (RFA) No. 15-13443, Gillespie v. Wilson
Misconduct by Marion County Circuit Judge Hale Ralph Stancil, JQC Docket No. 15-075
Misconduct by David R. Ellspermann, Marion County Clerk of Court & Comptroller
Misconduct by the Marion County Sheriffs Office, inter alia, Detective Erik Dice.
Misconduct by Brad King, State Attorney, Fifth Circuit, and ASA Mark Simpson.
Misconduct by Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General in Petition No. 13-7280.
Misconduct by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio re Congressional Inquiry.
Misconduct by CFPB attorney Gregory Evans, according to FOIA documents received. Evans
told CFPB investigators that they could not speak with me due to privacy rules. BofA consumer
advocate Chris Pickle aided Evans. Later I learned deceased persons do not have privacy. I made
a complaint about Evans to the Fed-BOG OIG Hotline which has oversight of CFPB employees.
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. Posner-Gerstenhaber,
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
Misconduct by Bank of America consumer advocates of Brian T. Moynihan, CEO and President.
All of the following invoked privacy for the decedent, Penelope M. Gillespie, to block my access
in the HECM reverse mortgage, that includes a Promissory Note bearing my signature. See BofA
Account No.: 68011002615899, FHA Case Number: 091-4405741, RMS No. 68011002615899.
Chris Pickle, Customer Advocate Office of the CEO and President
Jason Powell, Customer Advocate, Office of the CEO and President
Anthony Boney, Customer Advocate, Office of the CEO and President

September 15, 2016

Page - 3
Misconduct by Publix Supermarkets, by and though John Allen Attaway, Jr., Senior Vice
President, General Counsel, and Secretary; and a powerful Florida Bar operative. Attaway
disrupted my access to prescription medication from Publix Pharmacy in retaliation over my
request for my mothers pharmacy records showing her use of Alzheimers drugs, to introduce as
evidence in the reverse mortgage foreclosure. Attaway had Publix Pharmacy drastically increase
the price it charged me for my medications. (except drugs that Publix provides free). Fortunately
I found another pharmacy with even lower prices that I was paying for years at Publix.
3.
Exploitation of an elderly person, Penelope M. Gillespie, my mother, by Bank of
America, N.A., et. al. Enclosed you will find my letter to (former) Sheriff Ed Dean, Marion
County Sheriff, February 15, 2006.The foregoing loans were in response to exploitation by Bank
of America, in one way or another, either covering the exploited funds, or for litigation expenses.
4.
Merits of the Reverse-Mortgage Foreclose Case (enclosed), as stated in my successful
Motion to Disqualify Judge Steven Rogers (Recused)
The Plaintiffs Affidavit of Indebtedness shows one borrower: Penelope Gillespie.

The Plaintiff did not sue the only borrower, Penelope Gillespie.
The Plaintiff did not sue the Estate of Penelope Gillespie.
The Plaintiffs Complaint, paragraph 4: Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Note and
Mortgage, pursuant to F.S. 673.3011, as the owner and holder of an instrument.
I filed Defenses and Claims in Recoupment - Section 673.3051(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. lack of legal
capacity of the borrower, that extinguished all equities of redemption. (more defenses exist)
Available: Defenses and Claims in Recoupment - Section 673.3051(1)(a)3, Fla. Stat. Fraud
that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable
opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms.
The Plaintiff does not have standing to sue anyone. The Plaintiff has not complied with F.S.
702.015(4), Elements of complaint; lost, destroyed, or stolen note affidavit.
The copy of the note that Mr. Harrell says is attached to the Complaint is defective and does
not have anything attached, no alonge, and nothing showing a chain of custody. That copy
was taken from my HUD complaint as an example of wrongdoing, not compliance with law.
A Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM, is a Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) reverse mortgage program administered by the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 12 U.S.C. 1715z20 et seq. and 24 C.F.R. Part 206.
Florida is a judicial foreclosure state. The citations to Floridas foreclosure statutes are:
Florida Statutes Sections 702.01 through 702.11, and
Florida Statutes Sections 45.031 through 45.0315.
Chapter 702, Foreclosure of Mortgages and Statutory Liens, is a forward foreclosure statute.
Florida does not have a judicial reverse mortgage foreclose statute. Therefore no jurisdiction.
The response January 26, 2016 of Leslie Jacobs for Attorney General Pam Bondi does not
show jurisdiction of the Florida Courts over a disputed HECM. (Exhibit 6).
RMS letter of September 26, 2013: Date of First Legal Filing: 01/02/2013. HECM
foreclosure must commence within 6 months. 24 C.F.R. 206.125(d)(1). The Plaintiffs First
Legal Filing is past the 6 month commencement 24 C.F.R. 206.125(d)(1). (Exhibit 7)

5.
September 15, 2016

Page - 4
State courts do not have jurisdiction over disputed or contested HECM
A Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM, is a Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

reverse mortgage program administered by the Secretary, United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (Secretary or HUD) to enable home owners over 62 years old
access the subject home's equity. 12 U.S.C. 1715z20 et seq. and 24 C.F.R. Part 206.
A HECM does not require a homeowner to make mortgage payments as a conventional
mortgage does. Instead, a HECM does not become due and payable until the last surviving
homeowner dies or no longer lives in the home. 12 U.S.C. 1715-z20(j) Safeguard to prevent
displacement of homeowner. The HECM becomes due and payable in full if a mortgagor dies
and the property is not the principal residence of at least one surviving mortgagor....and no other
mortgagor retains title to the property. 24 C.F.R. 206.27(c).
On information and belief, when a substantial disputed issue of federal HECM law is a
necessary element of the foreclosing Plaintiffs state law claim that a HECM is due and payable,
the U.S. district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and the U.S.
Constitution, Article III, Section 2 for all cases, in law and equity, arising under this
Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the
federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven
words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These
words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government
must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. (Cornell Law LII)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
A property right can be created only by state law. Once a property right is established, the
determination of what process is due before that right can be deprived is a question answered by
the federal Constitution. Kingsford v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist., 247 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2001).
U.S. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. in Thompson-El v. Bank of America, 1:12-CV-840TWT, District Court, N.D. GA held in an Order entered December 12, 2012:
Federal question cases are those arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States. 28 U.S.C. 1331 A case arises under federal law if federal law creates
the cause of action, or if a substantial disputed issue of federal law is a necessary element
of a state law claim. Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1373 (11th Cir.
1998) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S.
Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)).
6.
About a year ago Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (RMS), began sending monthly
statements to me addressed to Estate of PENELOPE M. GILLESPIE see enclosed. Previously

September 15, 2016

Page - 5
RMS sent the monthly statements addressed to Penelope M. Gillespie. RMS has refused to
discuss the case with me due to privacy rules.
There is a lot more to my defenses, but time has run out today. Once you provide an email
address for correspondence, I will provide additional information. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
Enclosures
This is a request to communicate by email as a reasonable disability accommodation.

The Social Security Administration determined me disabled since 1992. I am a qualified person
with a disability. I request disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et. seq, including the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, as
amended, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq, including
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as
amended. This disability accommodation request also seeks a prohibition against disability
discrimination. Thank you.
Cc: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.
Name and Address of Current Registered Agent:
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD
PLANTATION, FL 33324 US
Registered Agent Name & Address
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD
PLANTATION, FL 33324
Cc: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.
Jane E. Bond, Owner/Member
Email: Jane.Bond@mrpllc.com
225 E. Robinson St. Suite 155
Orlando, FL 32801
Senior United States District Judge William Terrell Hodges

List of Financial Interests
Bank of America
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.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
9/15/2016
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

Tuesday, April 22, 2014 6:45 PM
ATT00045.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
9/15/2016
https://webforms.fec.gov/webforms/form2/final.htm
HOME / ELECTRONIC FILING / ONLINE FILING / ONLINE WEBFORMS / FORM 2 / COMMITTEE
ACCEPTED FEC-1098470
The Candidate ID : P60022993
Thank you. Your filing has been successfully submitted to the

FEC.
Click here to view your filing details

Click here to return to Webforms
Commission regulations require Principal Campaign
Committees to register with the FEC by filing a
Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1) no later
than 10 days after designation by the candidate (11
CFR 102.1(a)).
Click here to complete your Form 1
09/11/2016 01 : 52
Image# 201609119030767061
PAGE 1 / 2
FEC FORM 2
STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY
1. (a) Name of Candidate (in full)
Neil J. Gillespie
(b) Address (number and street)
Check if address changed
2. Candidates FEC Identification Number
8092 SW 115th Loop
(c) City, State, and ZIP Code

Ocala
FL
4. Par ty Affiliation
5. Office Sought
P60022993
3. Is This
Statement
34481
New
(N)
OR
Amended
(A)
6. State & District of Candidate
Presidential
UN
DESIGNATION OF PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

7. I hereby designate the following named political committee as my Principal Campaign Committee for the
2016
election(s).
(year of election)
NOTE: This designation should be filed with the appropriate office listed in the instructions.
(a) Name of Committee (in full)
No registered Principal Campaign Committee yet; my home address:

8092 SW 115th Loop
FL
Ocala
34481
DESIGNATION OF OTHER AUTHORIZED COMMITTEES

(Including Joint Fundraising Representatives)
8. I hereby authorize the following named committee, which is NOT my principal campaign committee, to receive and expend funds on behalf of my
candidacy.
NOTE: This designation should be filed with the principal campaign committee.
(a) Name of Committee (in full)
I certify that I have examined this Statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.
Signature of Candidate
Neil J. Gillespie
Date
[Electronically Filed]
09/11/2016
NOTE: Submission of false, erroneous, or incomplete information may subject the person signing this Statement to penalties of 2 U.S.C. 437g.
FEC FORM 2 (REV. 02/2009)
PAGE 2 / 2
Image# 201609119030767062
)(&0,6&(//$1(2867(;75(/$7('72$5(32576&+('8/(25,7(0,=$7,21

Form/Schedule: F2N
Transaction ID :
Memo #1: I am a qualified person with a disability. I request disability accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et. seq, including the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, as
amended, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq, including Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, as amended, and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. This disability
accommodation request also seeks a prohibition against disability discrimination. Memo #2: I am filing a FEC Form 2:
Statement of Candidacy, but got this message at the end: "Are you sure you want to submit this report electronically?
Filing a Form 1 through this system constitutes an electronic filing. Committees are required to file electronically if total
contributions received or total expenditures made exceed, or are expected to exceed, $50,000 in any calendar year.
Committees who are not required to file electronically, but choose to do so, must continue to file electronically for that
calendar year. 11 C.F.R. 104.18"
Form/Schedule:
Transaction ID:
SHfRD'r-----
Marion County
February 20, 2006
Neil J. Gillespie
Dear Mr. Gillespie:

We received your letter of February 15, 2006 and will be looking into the matter you
described involving your mother, Penelope Gillespie. We will contact you in the near
future regarding our findings.
Sincerely,
ED DEAN, Sheriff
By:
Dan Kuhn, Chief of Staff

Kls
P.o. Box 1987, Ocala, FL 34478
Ph. (352) 732-8181
Civil (352) 620-3606 Emergency Management (352) 622-3205 Jail (352) 351-8077
"itt
-,~o:..o',..........""-",",,q;
~.
.'7"
eriN"
"~i
"",
';;\""ili
tfj'
d?
"'-~r'-'"~'
,#""5&7
t'
-,~r
SHERIFF
~.l'"
.
/ _.\ \ \..- ~-l... (
Il)"
"/
J.
A. 4
.
MARION COUNTY
. '.
POST OFFICE BOX 1987

OCALA, FLORIDA 34478
\ ....
'e,
tz
~.:..."J-":,~,,,--::>'.i~~""""""'-~
~~~:=::~::::
:-'.Ift~~
-J:i'.fJt:.-:.swt.L;
,---.
:1:>"
'. . iiW
.
.. ~;;4IS'SV~~,'
~ f!ttIiH'YbOWl.S
~ ~"'--
...........
..'~~. $ 00.390
1,A
000431 0952
FEB 21 2006
pr=:,IC1?::,,:;,s... MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 34475
Admin #1010
Neil J. Gillespie
:;':448"i -~:~::-;~:7
oj
, If
Ii i1I1,lulllllulI 11.,1111' i lIuI. II I.. i .1111 I,I

Sf
f If
If
fI
1$
'..'r"""I""""""""""'""'~'~"""''',~~
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ARTICLE NO. 7005 2570 0000 4274 0515
February 15, 2006
Sheriff Ed Dean
Marion County Sheriff
692 NW 3Oth Avenue
Dear Sheriff Dean,
This is a request for an investigation into the exploitation of an elderly person,
Penelope M. Gillespie, my mother. With your background as an attorney, and with your
law enforcement and FBI training, I trust you can competently evaluate this complaint.
Victim: Penelope M. Gillespie, age 75, date of birth, October 29, 1930.
Perpetrators:
1. Bank of America, 7975 SW SR 200, Ocala, FL 34476, telephone: (352) 861-2807,
Penelope D. Kinsey, Branch Manager, and Candice Methvin, Loan Specialist.
2. Elizabeth Bauerle, 6356 SW 106th PI., Ocala, FL 34476-4893, (352) 216-3934.
Synopsis of Exploitation:
Bank of America (BOA) breached its fiduciary duty to Penelope M. Gillespie, a depositor
and customer, when it failed to adequately secure Ms. Gillespie's interest in three
mortgage transactions. Then BOA created false loan documents to facilitate business
financing to Elizabeth Bauerle, Ms. Gillespie's daughter and co-applicant. BOA falsely
labeled the business loan as a home improvement loan in order to avoid the required
business loan documentation. As a result, BOA granted the loan, and Elizabeth Bauerle
promptly lost the $40,000.00 proceeds when the business failed. When she was not able
to make the loan payments, Elizabeth Bauerle sold her house securing the loan and took
$15,559.83 from the settlement rightfully belonging to Penelope Gillespie.
Sheriff Ed Dean
Page -2
February 15, 2006
Chronology of Events:
1.
On February 7,2000, Cornelius and Penelope Gillespie borrowed $42,800.00
from Bank of America, secured by a mortgage on their home at 8092 SW 115 th Loop,
Ocala. (loan #1, mortgage no. 6167244307). This money was used to purchase a home
for their daughter, Elizabeth Bauerle (nee Gillespie), at 10836 SW 85 th Terrace, Ocala,
because Ms. Bauerle could not get a loan herself. Ms. Bauerle agreed make the monthly
mortgage payments of $325.32 for 30 years. This loan was refinanced on November 19,
2001, and Ms. Bauerle agreed to make the montWy mortgage a payments of $379.57 for
15 years. (loan #2, mortgage no. ?Q.11579906).
2.
Regarding loans #1 and #2 above, Cornelius and Penelope Gillespie failed to
require Ms. Bauerle to sign a note, or encumber the property at 10836 SW 85 th Terrace to
secure their interest. This was due to their lack of financial sophistication, and by a
failure of the Bank of America to perform its fiduciary duty. This situation allowed
Ms. Bauerle to subsequently borrow on the property, and jeopardize my parents security.
3.
On or about May 20, 2004, Elizabeth Bauerle convinced Penelope Gillespie l to
jointly obtain a mortgage on her house at 10836 SW 85 th Terrace for $40,883.92. (loan
#3, mortgage no. 7022788272). The stated purpose of this loan was honle improvement,
roof, siding, etc. The actual purpose of this loan was to purchase a share of the
Crossroads Restaurant and Lounge, 9900 SW State Road 200. This investment was for a
partial share of the business only, and not real estate. It was a highly speculative business
venture with Jinuny O'Neil Francis and Vicki S. Francis. However the Bank of America
disbursement document falsely states that the primary purpose of the loan was for home
improvement, roof, siding, etc. (Exhibit 1). The document falsely states that the specific
purpose of this loan is H/I (home improvement) roof, siding, etc.
4.
The payment for this mortgage was $490.13. (Exhibit 2). When added to the
$379.57 mortgage payment that Elizabeth Bauerle owed on Penelope Gillespie's house,
the combined payment was $869.70. When I asked Ms. Bauerle how she expected to pay
$869.70 a month, she said the money would come from the profits of the restaurant.
Ms. Bauerle's salary in her usual occupations, call center worker, lawn care, and pizza
delivery, could not support this payment. As such, how could the bank justify this loan?
5.
Elizabeth Bauerle recklessly involved Penelope Gillespie in a scam to finance a
restaurant with a loan falsely designated for home improvement. This scam allowed
Elizabeth Bauerle to invest in a business without the usual documentation such as a
business plan, balance sheet, income statement, tax returns, etc. Because the business
could not justify this loan, the loan would have ordinarily been rightfully denied.
The Bank of America breached its fiduciary duty to Penelope Gillespie, because the
bankers knew that this loan was not, in fact, for the purpose of home improvement, but
1
Cornelius Gillespie died on September 17, 2002, age 73
Sheriff Ed Dean
Page -3
February 15, 2006
was for the purpose of investing in a higWy speculative business. Bank of America
participated in this sham solely to collect the associated fees, and with no regard for
Penelope Gillespie.
6.
Elizabeth Bauerle neglected to conduct due diligence regarding this highly
speculative investment and soon lost all the money. She filed a lawsuit against her
former business partners, Jimmy O'Neil Francis and Vicki S. Francis. (Exhibit 3).
7.
When the business failed and the money was gone, Ms. Bauerle could not make
the monthly payments of $869.70, and was forced to sell her home at 10836 SW 85 th
Terrace. The house sold on December 8, 2004 for $63,000.00, leaving $15,559.83 at
settlement, after loan #3 was paid. (Exhibit 4). This money rightfully belongs to
Penelope Gillespie, and should have been applied to the mortgage on her home at 8092
SW 115 th Loop, loan #2. But Ms. Bauerle kept the $15,559.83 for herself, and deposited
the money in her bank account. (Exhibit 5). Currently Penelope Gillespie has a mortgage
on her home in the amount of$35,325.55, loan #2. Ms. Bauerle should have paid
Penelope Gillespie $15,559.83, reducing the balance of loan #2 to $19,765.72.
My brother Mark Gillespie (Penelope Gillespie's other son) can collaborate the
information that I have provided. This is his contact information:
Mark J. Gillespie
7504 Summer Meadows Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76123-1979
Telephone: (817) 361-6721
Thank you for considering this complaint.
cc: Mark J. Gillespie

enclosures
https://www.civitekflorida.com/ocrs/app/caseinformation.xhtml?query=CyTsX_QZPFRdb9LlXAjF3Yb1pdji_IK7MhxhqjI3WY8&from=caseSearchTab
New Search Expand All
422016CA000712CAAXXX
[16CA000712AX]
04/15/2016
04/15/2016
Circuit Civil
3-D
MARION
OTHER CIVILBUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS
SCOTT, EDWARD L
JUDGE
SUMTER ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE IN
PLAINTIFF
GILLESPIE, NEIL J
DEFENDANT
YES
STONE, KEVIN
MCKINLEY
OPEN
No
NO
No
28516
73
10/26/2016
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND RESCISSION OF PRIOR

AGREEMENT CONT-SEE DOC FILED BY DEFT NEIL J.
GILLESPIE
74
10/26/2016
MOTION FOR ADVICE OF COUNSEL WITH INCORPORATED

MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
16
72
10/25/2016
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER TO

RESPOND AND DEFENDANT'S FIFTH MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY JUDGE EDWARD L SCOTT
71
10/20/2016
REQUEST TO THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FOR

INVESTIGATION FILED BY DEFT NEIL J. GILLESPIE
30
70
10/18/2016
MOTION-MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER TO RESPOND (RULE

2.516(B)(1)(E)) AND DEFENDANT'S FIFTH MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY JUDGE EDWARD L SCOTT - FILED BY DEFT
NEIL J GILLESPIE
69
10/17/2016
MOTION-MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME CONT-SEE DOC FILED BY DEFT
NEIL GILLESPIE
10/27/2016 9:43 PM
67
10/11/2016
NOTICE OF FILING JQC COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFT NEIL J.

GILLESPIE
29
68
10/11/2016
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO

FILE AMENDED ANSWER
66
10/10/2016
ORDER TO RESPOND
65
09/19/2016
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION TO

DISQUALIFY JUDGE EDWARD L SCOTT AND
DEFENDANT'S THIRD MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
EDWARD L SCOTT
64
09/12/2016
MOTION- MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

AMENDED ANSWER FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
10
63
09/09/2016
MOTION-MOTION TO STRIKE DEFT'S DEMAND FOR JURY

TRIAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED
BY PLTF SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC
55
08/26/2016
NOTICE-DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FILED BY DEFT NEIL J

GILLESPIE
56
08/26/2016
MOTION-MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE EDWARD L

SCOTT FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
12
57
08/26/2016
APPENDIX A - FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
33
58
08/26/2016
APPENDIX B - FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
59
08/26/2016
APPENDIX C - FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
106
60
08/26/2016
MEMORANDUM OF LAW : JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION

FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
29
61
08/26/2016
MOTION-MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE EDWARD L.

SCOTT FILED BY DEFT NEIL J. GILLESPIE
36
62
08/26/2016
MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED BY DEFT NEIL J. GILLESPIE
29
53
08/19/2016
ORDER
54
08/19/2016
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

EDWARD L. SCOTT
52
08/18/2016
NOTICE OF FILING-DEFENDANT GILLESPIE VERIFIED

NOTICE OF FILING MSCO INCIDENT REPORT APRIL 11,
2016 TRANSCRIPTS AND CD-ROM OF INCIDENT-PAPER
COPY MAILED TO CLERK OF PLEADING EFILED ON
08/17/16 WITH CD AND UPS ENVELOPE ATTACHED
51
51
08/17/2016
NOTICE OF FILING MCSO INCIDENT REPORT APRIL 11,

2016 TRANSCRIPTS AND CD-ROM OF INCIDENT FILED BY
DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
48
48
08/16/2016
MOTION-MOTION FOR RECUSAL/DISQUALIFICATION

JUDGE EDWARD L SCOTT FILED BY DEFT NEIL J
GILLESPIE
33
49
08/16/2016
AFFIDAVIT-AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J GILLESPIE TO DISQUALIFY

JUDGE EDWARD L SCOTT
50
08/16/2016
MOTION-EMERGENCY MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING SET

FOR TODAY AUGUST 16 2016 AT 1:30PM FILED BY DEFT
NEIL J GILLESPIE
10
10/27/2016 9:43 PM
44
08/11/2016
NOTICE OF FILING CD ROM AND TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE

CALL FILED BY DEFT NEIL GILLESPIE
45
08/11/2016
COPY OF: CD ROM FILED BY DEFT NEIL GILLESPIE
46
08/11/2016
TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL FILED BY DEFT NEIL

GILLESPIE
47
08/11/2016
NOTICE OF FILING CD- ROM AND TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE

CALL FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
12
43
07/26/2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON NOTICE OF HEARINGAMENDED FILED BY PLTF SUMTER LANDING
42
07/22/2016
NOTICE OF HEARING FILED BY PLTF SUMTER ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE INC
41
07/07/2016
APPLICATION FOR INDIGENCY APPROVED
40
07/06/2016
COURTS RESPONSE
35
07/01/2016
AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY FILED BY DEFT NEIL

GILLESPIE
07/01/2016
ANSWER/RESPONSE- RESPONSE TO MOTION TO

WITHDRAW ANSWER AND INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED BY PLTF SUMTER
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC
07/01/2016
ANSWER/RESPONSE- RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

AND STRIKE COMPLAINT AND INCORPORATED
28
38
07/01/2016
ANSWER/RESPONSE- RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

AND STRIKE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND INCORPORATED
28
39
07/01/2016
NOTICE-NOTICE TO COURT FROM CLERK
33
06/30/2016
AFFIDAVIT-AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY FILED BY DEFT NEIL

J. GILLESPIE
34
06/30/2016
APPLICATION FOR INDIGENCY DENIED
32
06/15/2016
ORDER TO RESPOND AND ORDER ESTABLISHING

MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE
31
05/25/2016
TRANSCRIPT FILED BY DEFT NEIL J. GILLESPIE
27
05/20/2016
MOTION- MOTION TO WITHDRAW ANSWER FILED BY

DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
28
05/20/2016
MOTION- MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE COMPLAINT

FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
30
29
05/20/2016
MOTION- MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED
BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
33
25
05/19/2016
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J GILLESPIE
45
26
05/19/2016
DESIGNATION OF EMAIL ADDRESS FILED BY DEFT NEIL J

GILLESPIE
36
37
10/27/2016 9:43 PM
24
05/17/2016
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT NEIL J GILLESPIE TO

COMPLAINT AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
30
05/16/2016
CORRESPONDENCE OR MEMORANDUM EMAILS

BETWEEN DEFT GILLESPIE AND THE CLERKS OFFICE
22
05/09/2016

BETWEEN CLERKS OFFICE AND DEFT GILLESPIE
23
05/09/2016

63
19
05/02/2016

20
05/02/2016
CORRESPONDENCE OR MEMORANDUM EMAIL BETWEEN

CLERKS OFFICE AND DEFT GILLESPIE
10
21
05/02/2016

16
16
04/29/2016
REQUEST TO THE CLERK FILED BY DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
17
04/28/2016
RETURN OF SERVICE ON EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION ON DEFT NEIL J GILLESPIE
18
04/28/2016
SUMMONS RETURNED SERVED ON DEFT NEIL J.

GILLESPIE
12
04/20/2016
Assessment 2 assessed at sum $6.00
13
04/20/2016
14
04/20/2016
Payment received: $15.00 Receipt Number XX 103771
15
04/20/2016
CORR/MEMO TO CLERKS OFFICE
11
04/18/2016
EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
04/15/2016
Case 422016CA000712CAAXXX Filed with Clerk on 4/15/2016
04/15/2016
Judge: Assigned
04/15/2016
04/15/2016
Payment received: $410.00 Receipt Number XX 102495
04/15/2016
CIVIL COVER SHEET
04/15/2016
PETITION/COMPLAINT
11
04/15/2016
EFILED SUMMONS
04/15/2016
SUMMONS ISSUED
04/15/2016
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION FILED BY PLTF SUMTER ELECTRIC
21
10/27/2016 9:43 PM
10/27/2016 9:43 PM

Defendant's Motion To Disolve Temporary Injunction 2016-CA-00712

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Defendant's Motion To Disolve Temporary Injunction 2016-CA-00712

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Filing # 48204062 E-Filed 10/27/2016 05:42:58 PM

SUMTER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH

This is a Contested Lawsuit. Defendant