Sen Bill Nelson-Sen Marco Rubio-US Attorney-MD-Fla-Request Investigation

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
United States Senate, Florida United States Senate, Florida
A. Lee Bentley, III, Acting U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg, III, Asst. U.S. Attorney
Office of U.S. Attorney, Middle District, FL Office of U.S. Attorney, Middle District, FL
U.S. Marshal William B. Berger, Sr. Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director
Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse Florida Commission on Ethics
Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on
Independence of J udges and Lawyers Disability, United Nations Enable
J anuary 10, 2014 RE: Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari, SCOTUS
Fraud or Impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, SCOTUS
Request for investigation and prosecution
Dear Ladies and Gentleman:
This is a request for an investigation of fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Petition No. 12-7747 was denied February 19, 2013.
Rehearing was denied April 15, 2013. Public records later showed a criminal conspiracy
between Respondent David Rowland and the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, and the
Attorney General of Florida. The parties concocted a fraud to falsely show that I did not serve
Petition No. 12-7747 to Mr. Rowland as I certified under Rule 29, when in fact he was served.
That fraud was used as a basis not to submit a brief in opposition, which I contend denied me
due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Florida Commission on Ethics gave notice December 17, 2013 to the public officers and
employees below for Misuse of Public Position, F.S. § 112.313(6) in the fraud or impairment of
Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate government activity, 18 U.S.C. § 371, a conspiracy against my
rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241, and a deprivation of my rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. § 242:
Ethics Complaint No. Public Officer or Public Employee Branch of Govt.
Complaint No. 13-201 Pamela J o Bondi, Attorney General of Florida Executive
Complaint No. 13-202 Diana R. Esposito, Chief Asst. Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-203 Kenneth V. Wilson, Asst. Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-204 Valerie Williford, Employee of Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-205 Laura Martin, Employee of Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-206 David Rowland, G.Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit J udicial
Complaint No. 13-207 Sandra Burge, paralegal, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit J udicial
My Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari was distributed December 26, 2013 for conference
today J anuary 10, 2014. I plan to petition for rehearing if the petition is denied.
In 2001 the Florida Attorney General intervened in Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc.
citing Florida RICO jurisdiction. Roger B. Handberg, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Economic Crimes Division, appeared for the AG and got a $500,000 settlement for Florida.
Mr. Handberg was present J une 12, 2002 at a mediation in Tampa and knew I was not satisfied
with Barker, Rodems & Cook (BRC) who represented me. On or about May 22, 2002 I called
Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari, SCOTUS J anuary 10, 2014
Fraud or Impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, SCOTUS Page - 2
the opposing counsel for ACE, Paul Watson, and told him I wanted to settle. That was after BRC
defrauded me of $7,143 in the AMSCOT case November 1, 2001.
I wrote Mr. Handberg in 2007 about BRC’s fraud no avail. Since 2007 I also made written
complaints to the Florida Attorney General about The Florida Bar and Barker, Rodems & Cook,
first to AG Bill McCollum, and later to AG Bondi. Enclosed you will find the $500,000
settlement agreement, and my correspondence with Mr. Handberg, and AG Bill McCollum.
The Attorney General of Florida is not able to fulfill his or her duties proscribed by the Florida
Constitution, Art. IV § 4(b) and F.S. § 16.01 et seq., due to The Florida Bar’s corrupting power
and influence, initially pled in Petition No. 12-7747. The design of The Florida Bar relative to
the Government of Florida is unconstitutional. The Florida Bar, part of the J udicial Branch,
prohibits the Attorney General of Florida, part of the Executive Branch, from adequately
representing the People and state of Florida in criminal matters by lawyers and law firms.
Separately and in addition to,
• The Florida Bar’s Hawkins Commission Report (2012) shows The Florida Bar is
catastrophically broken.
• The Interim and Final Reports of the Nineteenth Statewide Grand J ury show Florida leads
the nation in corruption.
• Reports by Integrity Florida show Florida has become the corruption capital of America.
• The New York Times reported September 1, 2013 by Nick Madigan: Arrests of 3 Mayors
Reinforce Florida’s Notoriety as a Hothouse for Corruption:
“...Florida....led the country in convictions of public officials - 781 - between 2000 and
2010, according to Department of J ustice figures.”
“Florida has become the corruption capital of America," said Dan Krassner, the executive
director of a watchdog group, Integrity Florida, citing statistics going back to 1976 and
the "significant number of public officials arrested this year and last.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/arrests-of-3-mayors-reinforce
• David J . Stern was finally disbarred yesterday, but not until he abandoned 100,000
foreclosure cases, and perhaps thousands of people wrongly lost their homes in the process.
Stern paid a $49,125 Bar fine, and walked away with millions in profits.
Enclosed you will find documents for the Florida Commission on Ethics, the Florida
Commission on Human Relations. Thank you. Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807, Email: [email protected]
Service List - J anuary 10, 2014
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
United States Senate, Florida United States Senate, Florida
716 Senate Hart Office Building 284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 Washington DC, 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274 Phone: 202-224-3041
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
Landmark Two 8669 NW 36th Street
225 East Robinson Street, Ste 410 Suite 110
Orlando, Florida 32801 Doral, FL 33166
Phone: 407-872-7161 Phone: 305-418-8553
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291905837 VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291646644
A. Lee Bentley, III, Acting U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg, III, Asst. U.S. Attorney
Office of U.S. Attorney, M.D. FL, Tampa Office of U.S. Attorney, M.D. FL, Orlando
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200 400 W Washington St. Ste 300
Tampa, Florida 33602 Orlando, Florida 32801-2217
Telephone: 813-274-6000 Telephone: 407-648-7500
Email: None Available Email: None Available
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290505851 VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294259469
U.S. Marshal William B. Berger, Sr. Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director
Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse Florida Commission on Ethics
801 N. Florida Avenue, 4th Floor 325 J ohn Knox Road, Building E, Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33602-4519 Telephone: 850-4887864
Telephone: 813-483-4200 Tallahassee, FL 32303
Email: None Available Email: [email protected]
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290323477 VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP292353888
Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on
Independence of J udges and Lawyers Disability, United Nations Enable
Office of the United Nations High Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights
Commissioner for Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities @ Department
United Nations Office at Geneva of Economic and Social Affairs
8-14 Avenue de la Paix 405 E. 42nd Street
1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland New York, NY 10017
VIA Email Only: SRindependenceJ [email protected] VIA Email Only: [email protected]
Main  Office 
400 Nonh  Tampa  Street,  Suite 3200  300 Nonh  Hogan  Street,  Suite  700
o
o
Tampa,  Florida  33602  Jacksonville,  Florida  32202-4270 
813/274-6000 
904/301-6300 
813/274-6200 (Fax)  904/301-6310 (Fax) 
2110 First Street,  Suite 3-137  
u.s. Department of Justice
501  West Church  Street,  Suite 300 
Fon Myers,  Florida  33901  Orlando,  Florida  32805 
239/461-2200  United  States Attorney  407/648-7500 
239/461-2219 (Fax)  407/648-7643 (Fax) 
Middle District of Florida 
Reply to:  Orlando,  Florida 
August 1,2007 
VIA UNITED STATES MAIL 
Neil  J.  Gillespie 
8092  SW  115
th 
Loop 
Ocala,  Florida 34481 
Re:   Your July 6,  2007 letter 
Dear Mr.  Gillespie: 
This is  in  response to your July 6,  2007 letter.  As you  know,  I am  no longer with 
the  Florida Attorney General's Office.  I left that office at the end  of 2002,  and  I have 
had  no  professional dealings with Ace Cash  or any of the  payday loan cases since my 
departure.  For that reason  and  others,  I do not believe that I am the appropriate person 
to whom your letter should  be  directed.  As a federal  prosecutor,  I am  primarily 
responsible for prosecuting violations of federal  law that are investigated  by law 
enforcement.  Your request for an  investigation needs to  be directed to an  investigating 
agency. 
I have enclosed the materials that you  sent me. 
Sincerely, 
JAMES  R. KLINDT 

By:    
Assistant United  States Attorney 
o
o  
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th 
Loop 
Ocala, FL  34481 
Telephone: (352) 854-7807 
email: [email protected]  RECEIVED
U.S. ATTORNFY'S OFFlCE
llUL  09 Z007
July 6,  2007 
MIDDLE DISTRICT at=: FLORIDA
ORLANDO
Roger B. Handberg, Assista
US  Attorney Office 
501  W.  Church Street,  Suite 
Orlando, FL 32805-2281 
nt US  Attorney 
300 
Dear Mr.  Handberg, 
Some time ago, in your position with the Florida Attorney General, your office 
intervened in a lawsuit where I was a plaintiff in a "payday loan" lawsuit, Neil Gillespie
v.  ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no.  8:00-CV-723-T-23B, in United States District Court, 
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.  I met you during a mediation June  12,2002, 
at the office of Gasper J.  Ficarrotta.  Just prior to the mediation I called ACE's counsel, 
Paul Watson, to complain about my own lawyers'  behavior and to try to settle my 
involvement in the lawsuit.  I am writing you about the crimes of my former lawyers. 
My lawyer was William J.  Cook of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.  Mr.  Cook 
began representing me while he was with the firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino &
Cook, P.A.  Mr.  Cook also represented me in another payday loan case against Amscot 
Corporation.  That case settled October 30, 2001, and I suspected that my lawyers 
defrauded me during the settlement, but I could not prove it at the time.  For example, 
Amscot's lawyer, John Anthony, initially offered Mr.  Cook a $5,000.00 "improper payoff 
attempt" to settle the case.  Shortly thereafter Mr.  Cook told me that he had received a 
$50,000.00 court-award for costs and attorneys' fees,  and that this award took precedent 
over our contingent fee agreement, thereby limiting my recovery. 
In 2003  I learned that Mr.  Cook did not receive $50,000.00 in court-awarded costs 
and attorneys'  fees,  and that Mr.  Cook defrauded me.  I contacted The Florida Bar, but 
my former lawyers accused me of extortion for utilizing Bar's Attorney Consumer
Assistance Program (ACAP) in a good-faith effort to resolve my dispute without 
litigation.  In 2005  I sued my former lawyers for fraud and breach of contract, and they 
countersued me for libel over a letter about the bar complaint. 
Initially I proceeded pro se because I could not find a lawyer willing to litigate 
against my former lawyers, in part because of their reputation, which I later learned 
Roger B. Handberg, s ~   n t US Attorney
o
Page - 2
July 6,2007
includes Mr. Alpert throwing coffee in the face of opposing counsel during a mediation.
Nonetheless I prevailed on Mr. Cook's motion to dismiss and Judge Nielsen found I
stated a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract. Ryan Rodems is representing
Mr. Cook and the firm, and shortly thereafter he filed a false affidavit about a threat of
violence. A voice recording of the conversation later proved Mr. Rodems lied,
committed perjury, and Judge Nielsen recused himself. The antics continued with Judge
Isom, and she recused herself. Now Judge Barton has the case. In April, 2007 I found a
lawyer in Gainesville willing to take the case, Robert W. Bauer, but the case has been
damaged due to Mr. Rodems perjury and obstruction ofjustice.
My former lawyers are incompetent, not just because they failed to prevail in any
of the payday loan claims, but because of the coffee-throwing and other antics. In my
view these lawyers are little more than criminals with law degrees. Their behavior is
outrageous, and certainly more grievous than that of the payday lenders they sued.
I am writing you today about the criminal fraud by my former lawyers. Also, I am
complaining about Mr. Rodems' perjury, obstruction ofjustice, and his threats of
criminal prosecution issued to me during the course of litigation. The local state attorney,
Mark Ober, has not responded to my correspondence.
Enclosed you will find Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to
Section 768.72 Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits 1 through 50. I believe this
document sets forth the facts needed to assist with your evaluation of my request. Also
enclosed is an amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v. Leiter. Amicus HALT
argued that over-billing a client is not part of the practice oflaw, and that lawyers are
subject to statutory consumer protection law in dealing with their clients.
Thank you for your consideration.
enclosures
c  o  
Neil J. Gillespie
8092  SW  115
1h 
Loop 
Ocala, FL 34481 
VIA UNITED STATES CERTIFIED MAIL  
Article no.:  7006010000073366 1075  
October 2,  2007 
Roger B.  Handberg, Assistant US  Attorney 
US  Attorney Office 
501  W.  Church Street, Suite 300 
Orlando, FL 32805-2281 
Dear Mr.  Handberg, 
Thank you for your letter of August  1,  2007.  After reading your response, I am 
confused when you directed me to an investigating agency for an investigation of my 
former  lawyers' criminal conduct.  In my  letter to you of July 6,  2007, I wrote that I 
contacted the local  State Attorney, Mark Ober, but that he did not respond to my 
correspondence.  I also provided you copies of my letters to Mr.  Ober as exhibits to 
Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72 Florida Statues, 
specifically three letters grouped as exhibit number 47, letters dated March 7
th
,  16
1h 
and 
24
Ih
,2006.  In addition, I wrote Mr.  Ober on July  15,2006 requesting a reply to my 
correspondence, but he did not respond.  Isn't Mr.  Ober, the State Attorney for the 
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, the proper investigating agency?  If not, who is? 
I take Mr.  Ober's failure to  reply or acknowledge my correspondence as evidence 
of his tacit approval of my former lawyers'  wrongdoing.  The State Attorney's failure 
denied my civil rights to equal protection under law, the right to  due process, protection 
from witness intimidation and/or tampering, and obstruction ofjustice. 
I contacted you because as a federal  prosecutor, you are responsible for 
prosecuting violations of federal  law.  In this instance the State Attorney has denied my 
civil rights.  Citizens have federal  civil rights that parallel their state civil rights, and 
historically when the state fails to  uphold a citizen's civil rights, the U.S Department of 
Justice acts.  That is why I believe you have both the authority and duty to act. 
~ y ,
a ~ ~ -  
. ~ ~
c
o  
U.S. Postal Service c' 
U') 
r'-
CERTIFIED MAILr.1 RECEIPT
CJ (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
M
.JJ 
.JJ 
IT! 
r'- CertJfled Fee S2.65  O?_.... , ...
CJ  
CJ Return Receipt Fee 1-------1/,7   '1.

CJ (Endorsement Required) S2.15.  • 
'(: (
CJ Restricted Delivery Fee  I------ - - ... ,-.
SOOO
(Endorsement Required) $ .5·.21'  I  t no?
CJ Total Postage &Fees"
.JJ  L..:.  --1  U;.; r S 
CJ ntop_ntt:> .

/$
,
,..)
../v

__·  



II)
'"
N

U1
r'-
CJ
M
.JJ 
.JJ 
IT! 
IT! 
r'-
CJ
CJ
a.
'a;
CJ

a: 
CJ
E
CJ :>
M
m
a:
CJ
0 
II
CD
..ll
E
0
8
0 
r'-
g
0
I
C\l
2 

as 
.lJ

Ql
u-
ll:
T'""
.8  EO
T'""
§,g
GO 
C') 

.2 
E
0 
U-

en
N a.. 
"PADDOCK  BRANCH  POST  OFFICE"  
OCALA,  Florida 
344749998 
1143840606  -0093 
10/02/2007 (352)861-8188  03:28:24  PM 
Product 
Receipt
Sale  Unit  Fi nal 
Description  Oty  Pri ce  Price 
ORLANDO  FL  32805  Zone-2 
First-Class  Letter 
0.50  oz.  
Return  Rcpt  (Green  Card)
Certified  
$0.41 
$2.15 
$2.65 
Label  #: 
70060100000733661075 
Issue  PVI: 
$5.21 
Total: 
$5.21 
Paid  by: 
Cash 
$5.25 
Change  Due: 
-$0.04 
Order  stamps  at  USPS. com/shop  or  call 
1-800-Stamp24.  Go  to  USPS.com/clicknship 
to  print  shipping  labels  with  postage. 
For  other  information  call  1-800-ASK-USPS. 
Bill#:  1000701736984 
Clerk:  02 
All  sales  final  on  stamps  and  postage.  
Refunds  for  guaranteed  services  only.  
Thank  you  for  your  business.
****************************************
****************************************
HELP  US  SERVE  YOU  BETTER 
Go  to:  http://gx.gallup.com/pos 
TELL  US  ABOUT  YOUR  RECENT 
POSTAL  EXPERIENCE 
YOUR  OPINION  COUNTS 
****************************************
****************************************
Customer  Copy 
STATE OF FLORIDA  
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND  FINANCE  
AND  
OFFICE OF THE AnORNEY GENERAL  
IN RE: 
ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a 
ACE AMERICA'S CASH EXPRESS,  DBF CASE NO.: 9177-F-9/02 
----------------
I
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT 
The Florida Department of Banking and  Finance,  Division  of Securities and Finance 
("DBF"), the Office of the Attorney General  (UAttorney General") and  ACE Cash  Express,  Inc. 
d/b/a ACE America's Cash Express ("Respondent" or "ACE") agree as  follows: 
1.  JURISDICTION.  OBF is  charged \vith  the  administration of Chapter 516,  560, 
and  687, Florida  and the Attorney General  is charged \vith the administration of 

Chapters 501,  559, 687,  895"  and  896,  Florida Statutes.  This agreement applies  to Florida 
transactions only. 
2. BACKGROUND.
Attorney General 
a.  The Attorney General  moved to intervene as  plaintiff in two  civil  cases 
that were pending against  contending that ACE had  violated  Chapters· 501, 
516,  559,  687,  895,  and  896,  Florida Statutes,  in  connection  with deferred 
.
deposit check cashing services.provided by  ACE  in  Florida prior to  ApriL.2000.
Those cases are:  Eugene   aJld Neil Gille.. \pie alld .. ofFlorida,
Office qfthe Atlorlley Gellert,l, Depllrtnlent ofLegal Affairs liS. ACE Cash
Express. IIIC., Allerilative FinclJlcia/, IIIC•• ofthe Treas11re   Il1e., Raymond
c. Henln1ig, DOllold H. Neusll1dl. Kll)' I).  Zilliox,   J. Schmitt, and unknowl1
FINAL 
entities Gnd individuals,   No. 99 09730, in the Circuit Court for
the Thirteenth Judicial District of Florida (the "Clement" case); and Betls v. Ace
Cash 927 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 2002), (the "Betts" case). DBF was
not a named party in either case.
b. ACE and the other defendants disagreed with the claims made by the
Plaintiffs and the Attorney General in each of those cases.
c. The Attorney General's Inotion to intervene in the Betts case was denied.
d. In the Clement case, the individual Plaintiffs' clailns were dismissed with
prejudice, leaving the Attorney General as the sole Plaintiff. The Attorney
General's RICO claims were dislnissed with prejudice and are subject ofa
pending appeal before the Second District Coul1 of AppeaJ ofFlorida styled ..')tate
ofFlorida, Qffice ofthe AI/oriley General v. Zilliox, Case No. 2002-2340
(consolidated with Case No. 2002-3] 13). All of the claims asserted by the
Attorney General in' the Clement case are to be settled pursuant to this
Agreement, with the Attorney General voluntarily dismissing their claims.
e. ACE 'and the individual defendants have denied and continue to deny that
they engaged in any wrongdoing., and this Agreement shall not constitute any
adlnission of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of ACE or any of the
individual defendants.
f. The, Attorney General and ACE wish to avoid the time and expense·
involved, in further litigation.
FINAL 2  
Department of Banking and Finance
g. Goleta National Bank, a national bank located in Goleta, California
("Goleta"), has offered loans to residents of Florida since April 2000. ACE has
provided agency ·services to Goleta related to those loans in Florida. On October
25 and 28, 2002. ACE and Goleta entered into separate consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States ("OCC"), pursuant
to which Goleta agreed, among other things, to generally cease the origination,
renewal and rollover of its loans in Florida and ACE agreed, among other things,
to generally cease providing services to Goleta related to the origination, renewal
and rollover of such Goleta loans, both by no later than December 31, 2002.
Goleta, ACE and the OC..c agreed that the loans provided by Goleta and serviced
by ACE were made pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §85 and that the interest rate charged
by Goleta was permissible under the laws of the United States for national banks
located in the State of California. DBF was not a party to the agreement between
Goleta, ACE, and the OCC..
h. ACE also offers a bill paying service through which it offers to accept or
receive voluntary utility payments from its Florida customers and, for a fee,
electronically transmit the payment to the utility. The DBF has informed ACE
that to offer this service, ACE should be licensed as a Funds Transmitter under
Part II, Chapter 560, Florida Statutes. ACE disagrees with the position taken by
the DBF, but, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation. ACE agreed to
file, and has pending with OBF. an application to act as a Funds Transmitter
FINAL J
..,
under Part II.. Chapter 560, Florida Statutes.  The DBF will  issue that license,  as 
well  as the license authorizing ACE  to act as a Deferred Presentment Provider 
under Part IV,  Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, on or before the  effective date ofthis 
Agreement.  Ace agrees that future transactions  involving the transmission of 
funds  will  be governed by the provisions of Part  II,  Chapter 560,  Florida Statutes, 
and  ACE  will  comply with those provisions  in  all  future transactions. 
i. ACE  is  licensed with  DBF as  a Check  Casher under  Part III,  Chapter 560,  
Florida Statutes.  
Pu roose and Intent  
J.  The parties wish to resolve and  to  release any clailns that were  asserted, or  
could  have been asserted, or could be asserted,  because of or arising  from  the  
investigation, litigation, pr regulatory review· conducted by the  DBV  or the  
Attorney General.  
k.  The DBF agrees that ACE has  fully cooperated with  it in  this  matter. 
I. It is  the intent of the parties that this agreement be implemented promptly, 
and  without injury or inconvenience to  ACE customers. 
m.  It is. the intent of the parties that OBF  issue or renew any authorization or 
license necessary for ACE to  to offer services in  Florida,  including 
deferred presentment transactions.. check cashing,  bill  paying
9 
debit card 
transactions,  money    wire transfers and  other products that are authorized 
under Florida law. 
n.  It 'is the intent of the parties that this agreement be implemented without 
causing competitive disadvantage to  ACE.. 
FINAL  4 
3. CONSIDERATION.· ACE, the DSF, and the Attorney General agree as follows:
8. ACE will cease providing agent services to Goleta in connection with the
origination,:'-enewal, or rollover of any Goleta loans in the State of Florida by
December 31, 2002. ACE may, howevef, continue to provide services to Goleta
related to the servicing and collection of Goleta loans originated, renewed, or
rolled overin the State of Florida before January 1,   subject to paragraph
3(g) below.
b. ACE has applied fOf.. and DBF agrees to issue upon the issuance of the
final order contelnplated by this agreelnent, a license with an effective date of
December 30, 2002, authorizing ACE to act as a Deferred Presentment Provider
under Part IV, Chapter   Florida Statutes. ACE agr,ees not to enter into any
deferred presentment trapsactions in Florida unless such deferred presentment
transactions are completed in accordance with Part IV-, Chapter 560, Florida
Statutes. DBF agrees that ACE may act as a Deferred Presentment Provider under
Part IV, Chapter 560.. Florida Statutes, and as a Funds Transmitter under Part II,
Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, between December 30, 2002 and the issuance of
the final' order, provided that all such funds transmission .and .deferred presentment
transactions engaged in during this tilne period are otherwise completed in
accordance with Part II, Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and Part IV, Chapter 560,
Florida Statutes. OBF agrees that this is consistent with the public interest and
will not constitute a violation of this Agreement or any applicable law, including
but not limited t0
9
501 .. 516,559,560,687,895 and 896, Florida
Statutes, or an Rules related to those statutes.
FINAL 5
c. ACE represents and warrants that it has obtained the consent of Goleta so
that no Goleta loans entered into before 'the effective date of this Agreement will
be extendect (except for the custolners' five-day extension options that are part of
the terms ofoutstanding loans) or converted, without full payment by the Goleta
loan customers, to any other type of transaction. Where applicable., ACE agrees
that it will not otler deferred presentlnent services to a Goleta loan customer
unless that customer's Goleta loan is or cancelled in accordance with
paragraph 3(g)-below. DBF agrees that the continued services provided under
the Goleta loan prograln authorized by this   and by paragraph 3(a)
above are consistent with the public interest and will not constitute a violation of
this Agreement or any applicable including but not lilnited to, Chapters 501,
516.. 559, 560, 687, 8951lnd 896, Florida Statutes., or any Rules related to those
statutes.
d. DBF agrees to issue to ACE licenses pursuant to Part II, Chapter 560,
Florida Statutes, and Part IV, Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, with an effective date
of December 30, 2002 upon the issuance of the final order contemplated in this
Agreement. ACE and the DSF agree that, until the issuance of the final
contemplated in this. agreement.. ACE will continue to offer its bill paying service
in order to avoid injury to those customers who rely on that service. DBF and the
Attorney General agree that continuing to offer that service is consistent with the
public interest and will not constitute a violation of this Agreement or any
applicable law, including but not limited to, Chapters 501 .. 516, 559, 560, 687,
895, and 896.. Florida Statutes, or any Rules related to those statutes.
FINAL 6
e. DBF acknowledges that no additional in.formation is needed from ACE for
it to issue the Ijcenses contemplated by this Agreement..
f:  ACe agrees to pay a total of $500,000 in settlement and for issuance by
DBF of authorizations, licenses, or other approvals necessary for ACE to continue
in business in Florida, and for the releases in paragraphs 7 and 8 below. Of the
$500.000 total settlelnent, ACE has agreed to pay $250,000 to the DBF
Regulatory Trust Fund in full satisfaction of all attorney's fees, costs, and other
expenses incurred by the DBF in connection with this matter and, ACE has agreed
to deliver to the Attorney General, a contribution of$250,000 to the Florida State
University College of Law in full satisfaction of all· attorney's fees, costs and
other expenses incurred by the Attorney General in connection with this matter.
These amounts will be p ~   by check, and will be delivered to the DBF or the
Attorney General upon entry of the Final Order as provided for herein.
g. ACE represents and warrants that it has obtained the consent of Goleta so 
that loans that are delinquent as of October I, 2002. and remain unpaid as of the
effective date of this agreement, from customers who engaged in Goleta loan
transactions commenced or originated before October I, 2002 in Florida
(collectively" the "Goleta Loan Custonlers") need not be repaid,. and the debt
owed to Goleta from Goleta Loan Customers will be cancelled.
h. If Goleta, either directly or through ACE, its agent,. .has notified a credit-
reporting agency ofa Goleta Loan Customer's delinquent debt to Goleta, then
ACE represents and warrants that it has obtained the consent of Goleta for ACE to
notify the credit agency that the delinquent amount has been cancelled. .
FINAL 7  
I. In addition to the amount specified in paragraph 3(f) above, ACE will pay
up to $15,000 for an independent audit of the loan cancellations provided in
paragraph above, the credit reporting notifications provided in paragraph 3
(h) above, and verification of compliance with the transition from the Goleta loan
product to the state licensed product contemplated in paragraph 3(b) and 3(c)
above. DBF will select the independent auditor, after consultation with ACE.
The independent auditor selected will be required to report to the DBF within 90
days of the selection.
j. The entry ofa Final Order by OBF in the form of the Attachment to this
agreement.
k. Within 10 days after the entry of the final order contemplated herein, the
Attorney General will with prejudice its lawsuit, Eugene R. Clement alld
Neil Gillespie and State ofFlorida. qffice ofthe Attorney General, Department of
Legal Affairs vs. ACE Cash Express, IIlC., Altemative Financial, Inc., JS ofthe .
Treasure Coast, blc.,.Raymond C. Hemmig, DOllald H. Neustadt, Kay D. Zil/iox,
RonaldJ. Schmitt, alld unknown emilies and   Consolidated Case No.
9909730, in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District of Florida, as to
all defendants.
1. Within 10 days after the entry of the final order contemplated in 30)
above, the Attorney General will dismiss with prejudice its appeal ofany orders in
the Clement case..litigation. including State ofFlorida, Office ofthe Attorney
General v. Zi//iox, Case No. 2002-2240 and Slale ofFlorida, Office ofthe
Attomey Gener,,1 1'. AItematil;e FiflCI/lc:i"t, /flC., Case No. 2002-3113.
FINAL 8
4. CONSENT. Without adlnitting or denying any wrongdoing, Respondent
consents to the issuance by the DBF ofa Final Order, in substantially the form of the attached
Final Order, which   the terms of this Agreelnent.
5. FINAL ORDER. The Final Order incorporating this Agreelnent is issued
pursuant to Subsection 120.57(4),. Florida Statutes, and upon its issuance shall be a final
administrative order.
6. WAIVERS. Respondent knowingly and voluntarily waives:
a. its right to an adlninistrative hearing provided for by Chapter 120, Florida
Statutes,. to contest the specific agreements included in this Agreement;
b. any requirelnent that the Final Order incorporating this Agreenlent contain
separately stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or Notice of Rights;
c. its right to the isslJance ofa Recommended Order by an administrative law
judge froln the Division of Adlninistrative Hearings or froln the DBF;
d. any and all rights to object to or challenge in any judicial proceeding,
including but not limited to, an appeal pursuant to Section 120.68.. Florida
Statutes, any aspect, provision or requirement concerning the content, issuance,
procedure or timeliness of the Final Order incorporating this Agreement; and
e. any causes of action in law or in equity, which Respondent may have
arising out of the specific matters addressed in this agreement. DBF for itself and
the DBF.Released Parties,   this release and waiver by Respondent without
in any way acknowledging or admitting that any such calise of action does or may
exist, and DBF, for and the DBF Released Parties, expressly denies that any
such right or cause of action does in .fact exist.
FINAL 9
7. ATIORNEY GENERAL The Attorney Genera]9 for himselfand
his predecessors. successors and assigns, hereby waives, releases and forever discharges ACE, its
predecessors, successors, aniliates, subsidiaries and parent corporations, shareholders, directors,
officers, attorneys, employees, agents.. franchisees and assigns, and Goleta, and its predecessors,
successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and parent corporations, shareholders, directors, officers,
attorneys, employees, agents, franchisees and assigns (collecti,vely, the "ACE Released Parties"),
from any and all claims, demands.. causes of action.. suits, debts, dues.. duties, sums of money,
accounts, fees, penalties, damages, judglnents'l 'Iiabi-tities and obligations, both contingent and
fixed, known and unknown.. foreseen and unforeseen. anticipated and unanticipated, expected
and unexpected, related to or arising out of Goleta's or ACE's operations in Florida prior to the
effective date of this agreement. This release includes.. but is not limited to, any claims related to
any loans renewed, or rolled over.bY Goleta in Florida and any services provided by ACE
or its franchisees related thereto.. any clainls related to any violation of Chapters 501,516,559,
560,687, 772, 895 and 896, Florida any clailns related to check cashing services
provided prior to the effective date of Part IV, Chapter 560, Florida and any claims
related to any licensing requirements for the services provided by ACE to its customers in
Florida prior to the effective date of this agreement. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, this release also includes all claims asserted or that could have been or could be
asserted against the parties named as defendants or that could have been named as defendants in
ElIgel1e R Clen1ell1 alld Neil Gi//eSlJie clIld (!f Flori,la, ofthe Att()rlley Gel/era!, .
Departn1£!11t ofLegal A.ffairs liS. Ex/Jress. IIIC., A/JerI/alive Financial, [IIC., ,)5' a/the
rreaS!,re (;oast. IIIC., Raynl011d !-!enlnlig, [Jollald H. Neustadt. Kay [J. Zilliox, ROl1ald J.
GIld l1111a,OlVII entities and iJ,divi,hlllls,   No. 99 09730. ACE, for itself
FINAL 10
and on behalf of the ACE Released Parties, accepts this release and waiver by the Attorney
General without in any way acknowledging or adlnitting that any such cause of action does or
may exist, and ACE, for and on behalf of the ACE Released Parties, expressly denies that
any such right or cause of action does in fact exist. Respondent hereby   releases and
forever discharges the Attorney General and his respective employees.. agents, and
representatives (collectively, the lL Attorney'General Released Parties") from any causes of action'
in law or in equity, which Respondent may have arising out of the specific matters   in
this agreement. The Attorney General, for themselves and the Attorney General Released
Parties, accept this release and waiver by Respondent without in any way acknowledging' or
admitting that any such cause of action does or may exist, the Attorney General, for himself and
the Attorney General Released Parties, expressly deny that any such right or cause of action does
in fact exist.
8. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE RELEASE. The DBF, for
itself and its predecessors, successors and assigns, hereby waives, releases and forever
discharges ACE and its predecessors, successors, subsidiaries and parent corporations,
shareholders, directors, officers, attorneys, elnployees, agents, franchisees andass-igns, and·
Goleta, and its predecessors.. successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and parent corporations,
shareholders, directors, officers, attorneys.. employees, agents, franchisees and assigns
(collectively, the "ACE Released Parties"), froln any and all claims, demands, causes ofaction,
suits, debts, dues, duties, sums of money, accounts, fees, penalties, damages.. judgments,
liabilities and obligations, both contingent and fixed, known and unknown, foreseen and
unforeseen, anticipated and un.anticipated, expected and related to or arising out of
the conduct of ACE and/or Goleta in connection with the offering of deferred presentment
FINAL 11
services or loans in   \vhere such conduct occurred prior to the effective date of this
Agreement.. This release includes.. but is not liJnited to, any claims related to any.loans made,
renewed, or rolled over by poleta in 'Florida and any services provided by ACE or its franchisees
related thereto, any claims related to any violation of Chapters 501, 516, 559, 560,687, 772, 895
and 896, Florida LS'tatllles.. any claims related to check cashing selVices provided prior to the
effective date of Part IV, Chapter 560, F/orid(J .."Illlllles, and any claims related to any licensing
requirements for the services provided by ACE to its custolners in Florida prior to the effective
date of this Agreelnent. ACE, for itself and on behalf of the ACE Released Parties, accept this
release and waiver by the Attorney General and the DBF without in any way acknowledging or
adtnitting that any such cause of action does or may and ACE
9
for itself and on behalf of
the ACE Released Parties, expressly denies that any such right or cause of action does in fact
exist.
9. EXCLUSION. This release does not include any claiIns under Chapter 560,
Florida Statutes, against franchisees of ACE related to deferred presentment transactions
engaged in after the effective date of Part IV.. Chapter 560" Florida Statutes, unless such
transactions were under the Goleta loan program.
10. ATTORNEYS' FEES. Each party to this Agreement shalJ be solely
for its separate costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the prosecution, defense or negotiation in
this matter up to entry of the Final Order incorporating this Agreelnent and the dismissals by the
Attorney General provided for in 3 (k) and 3 (I) above.
11. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this agreement is December 2002.
12. FAILURE TO COMPLY. Nothing in this Agreelnent limits Respondent's right
to contest any finding or determination made by DBF or the Attorney General concerning
FINAL 12
Respondent's alleged failure to comply with any of the terms and provisions ofthis Agreement
or of the Final Order incorporating this Agreement.
WHEREFORE. in of the foregoing. DBF. the Attorney General. and ACE
execute this Agreement on the dates indicated below.
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE
By: Date:
D N SAXON
Division Director
OFFICE 0t)TR  
By:
Date:
RICHARD DORAN. Attorney General
ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC., d/b/a •
ACE AMERICA'S CASH EXPRESS
By: Date:
ERIC C. NORRINGTON
Vice President
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF _
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority. personally appeared  
as of ACE CASH EXPRESS. TNC.. d/b/a ACE AMERICA'S CASH
EXPRESS, who is personally known to me or who has produced
______--'- as identification. and who. after being duly sworn. states that he
has read and understands the contents of this Agreement and voluntarily executed the same on
behalfof ACE CASH EXPRESS. INC.. d/b/a ACE AMERICA'S CASH EXPRESS.
FINAL 13  
Respondent's alleged failure to comp1y  any of the tenns arid provisions ofthis Agreement 
or of the Final Order incorporating this Agreement. 
WHEREFORE. in considiration of the foregoing,  DBF, the Attome}" General, and ACE 
1.
execute this Agreement on the dates indicated below. 
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE 
By:  Date: 
DON  SAXON 
Division Director 
Date: 
OFFICE OF   
By: 
RICHARD DORAN, Attorney General 
ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC., d/b/a 
ACE A  RICA'S CASH EXPRESS· 
By:  Date: 
STATE OF FLORlDA 
COUNTY OF
----
BEFORE ME\ the -undersigned authority, personally appeared  _ 
as  of ACE  CASH EXPRESS, INC., dIo/a ACE  AMERICA"S  CASH 
EXPRESS, who  is  personally known to me or \vho has produced 
___________ as  identification, and who,  after being duly sworn, states that he 
has read and understands th-e contents ofthis Agreement and voluntarily executed the same on 
behalf of ACE CASH EXPRE-SS. INC., d/b/a ACE  AMERICA'8 CASH EXPRESS. 
FINAL  13  
SWORN AND SUBSCRI.BED before me  this __ day of  , 2002. 
NOTARY  PUBLIC  
State of Florida  
Print  Nalne:  
My  COlnlnission  No.:  
My  C0111111ission  Expires:  
(SEAL)  
FINAL  14  
A 
ACE Cash Express, Inc.
1231 Greenway Drive #600
Irving, Texas 75038
A"C·E 
(972) 550-5000
AIoIf",.."iC<\JIr'",'Ue 
INVOICE 
COMMENT  GROSS  DEDUCTION  AMOUNT PAID 
NUMBER DATE 
12123/02  12123/02  Settlement 
• 
250,000.00  250.000.00 
PAYMENT ADVICE 
WELLS FARGO BANK 
A 
CHECK
ACE Cash Express, Inc. NUMBER  005132 
1231 Greenway Drive #600
Irving, Texas 75038
A·C· E 
(972) 550-5000
AMf'CA'S GuN UJlfUJe 
DATE  AMOUNT 
12/19/02  $**....   ·     ~ 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0
PAY  Two Hundred Fifty Thousand  00/1 00 dollars··**....·******·***********·..··*****·***********··*********'*******....*••****..*******'**'* 
TO THE ORDER OF 
Flordia State  University College of Law 
425 West Jefferson Street  
Tallahassee,  FL 32306  ..
.
liP
liP
II· 00 5  Ii  :I  211·  I: ~ ~ ~ 0  ~ ?a ?0 I: .. ? 5  b 300 118 11
8 
BILL MCCOLLUM
ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
o
~   OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Office of Citizen Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Telephone (850) 414-3990 , SunCom 994-3990
Fax (850) 410-1630, SunCom 210-1630
December 7, 2007
Mr. Neil 1. Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting Attorney General Bill McCollum regarding Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
and the allegation of perjury by Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems.
The Attorney General's Office does not have jurisdiction in this matter. By contacting The Florida Bar
you have contacted the appropriate agency to review your concerns. The Florida Supreme Court has
designated The Florida Bar as the agency responsible for reviewing grievances against lawyers
licensed to practice in this state. The Florida Bar's decisions are not subject to the Attorney General's
authority.
As the Governor's Office suggested, and as you wish to file a criminal complaint regarding alleged
perjury, please contact the local law enforcement agency and state attorney's office where the criminal
violation occurred. In Florida, the local police or sheriffs department and the elected state attorney in
each judicial circuit are responsible for investigating and prosecuting crime at the local level. Those
authorities operate independently and are not a part of the Attorney General's Office. If you have not
already done so, you may contact the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office and Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit State Attorney's Office at the following:
Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office
Post Office Box 3371
Tampa, Florida 33601
Phone: (813) 247-8000
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office
County Courthouse Annex, Fifth Floor
800 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33602
Phone: (813) 272-5400
Otherwise, please continue with your private attorney if you need any legal guidance. An attorney can
give you the legal advice which our office is not at liberty to provide to private individuals. We hope
this proves helpful to you. Thank you for contacting Attorney General McCollum's Office.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES
Florida Attorney General's Office
OCSlba
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
o  
Neil J. Gillespie 
8092  SW 115
th
Loop 
Ocala, Florida 34481 
VIA US  PRIORITY MAIL 
DELIVERY CONFIRMATION 
0306 2400 0000 7670  1444 
December 5, 2007 
Attorney General Bill McCollum 
Office of the Attorney General 
The Capitol 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 
Dear Attorney General McCollum: 
Governor Crist encouraged me to express my concerns to you concerning a fraud 
scheme perpetrated by my former lawyers at the Tampa law firm Barker, Rodems & 
Cook, P.A.  A copy of Governor Crist's letter is enclosed, along with my original letter 
and enclosllres to the Governor.  The following is a brief description of the fraud scheme 
and subsequent attempts by my former lawyers to obstruct justice when I sued them.  For 
more details about this matter, please see my letter to Governor Crist and enclosures. 
My former lawyers pressured me to intervene in their previously filed class-action 
lawsuit when their initial plaintiff proved unqualified to represent the class.  The lawsuit 
was captioned Eugene R.  Clement v.  AMSCOT Corporation, case no.  8:99-2795-CIV-T-
26C, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.  The 
action was commenced December 9,  1999, by the Tampa law firm Alpert, Barker, 
Rodems,  Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.  Mr.  Alpert's firm dissolved soon after his 
unsuccessful run for state attorney in 2000, and following his infamous coffee-throwing 
incident against attorney Arnold Levine.  Three lawyers fronl Mr.  Alpert's firm then 
formed a new law firm,  Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, who assumed the case. 
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.  failed to prevail and the lawsuit was dismissed. 
An appeal was filed,  and negotiations pursued, because the defendant wanted to settle so 
that a business deal could move forward.  The settlement negotiations were marked by a 
$5,000.00 "unlawful payoff attempt" by defense attorney John Anthony, followed by my 
own lawyers'  fraud,  breach of fiduciary duty,  and breach of contract, a scheme designed 
to take most of the settlement proceeds as attorneys'  fees.  Specifically, Barker, Rodems 
& Cook, P.A.  prepared, but did not sign, a contingent fee  agreement.  Then William Cook 
told me that the court awarded his firm $50,000.00 in attorney's fees  in an attempt to 
avoid the terms of the contingent fee  agreement.  I received a nominal settlement of 
o
Attorney General Bill .ollum Page - 2
Office of the Attorney General December 5,2007
$2,000.00, as did the other two co-plaintiffs. However, had Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. honored the terms of the contingent fee agreement, the three plaintiffs would have
received $8,224.78 each, and the law firm would have received $31,325.46. But because
my former lawyers failed their fiduciary duty to their clients, the law firm unlawfully took
an additional $18,675.54 by fraud and breach of contract.
My initial complaint to The Florida Bar was made June 7, 2004, TFB No. 2004-
11,734(13C), and was investigated by William L. Thompson, Assistant Staff Counsel.
Six months into the investigation Mr. Thompson was removed from the inquiry and left
the bar. At that point Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel, took
over and shut down the investigation on what appear to be inappropriate grounds. My
subsequent complaint about Mr. Cook's failure to report the $5,000.00 "improper payoff
attempt" from opposing counsel was dismissed (TFB No. 2006-11,194 (13D)). Likewise,
my complaint about Mr. Cook's failure to sign a contingent fee agreement and his failure
to account for the settlement proceeds in a Closing Statement, was dismissed contrary to
substantial evidence, bar rules, and supporting case law. (TFB No. 2007-10,004 (13D)).
When The Florida Bar failed to hold my former lawyers accountable for their
misconduct, I commenced a civil lawsuit, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and
William J. Cook, case no.: 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County Circuit Civil Court. (Exhibit
A). At that time I was unable to find counsel willing to take the case, and I proceeded pro
see Since then I found a lawyer in Gainesville to represent me and the case is active. As a
pro se litigant I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract. (Exhibit B).
In retaliation my former lawyers countersued me for libel. (Exhibit C).
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. is represented by attorney Ryan Christopher
Rodems of the firm. During tIle time I represented myself, Mr. Rodems made a false
affidavit to the Court abollt an argument we had, where Mr. Rodems swore under oath
that I intended to attack him in Judge Nielson's charrlbers. Mr. Rodems' false affidavit
prejudiced the Court against me. When a recording of the argument proved Mr. Rodems
lied to the Court, Judge Nielsen recused himself. The case then went to Judge Isom who
was also prejudiced by Mr. Rodems' perjury, and she recused herself. Judge Isom said in
open court that I could bring Mr. Rodems' perjury to the attention of law enforcement.
You may consider this letter as my first attempt to comply with Judge Isom's directive.
Currently Judge Barton has the case and I am represented by attorney Robert W.
Bauer of Gainesville. Mr. Rodems' aforementioned perjury was calculated to obstruct
justice, intimidate me as a witness, and deny me due process of law. This matter has
consumed a considerable amount of legal resources, including (so far) three circuit court
judges and two interlocutory appeals to the Second District Court of Appeals.
HALT, the legal reform organization, has reviewed my civil lawsuit and provided
background information and case law for a fraud and breach of contract lawsuit against an
attorney in HALT's amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v. Leiter. HALT
argued that over-billing a client is not part of the practice of law, and that lawyers are
AttorneyGeneralBill.onum
o
Page- 3
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral December5,2007
subjecttostatutoryconsumerprotectionlawindealingwiththeirclients. HALTalso
provideditsamicus brieffiled inthematterofMarkM. Hager,adisciplinarymatterin
tIle DistrictofColumbia. HALTarguedthatMr. Hagershouldbedisbarredforstealing
hisclientssettlementmoney. EnclosedyouwillfindcopiesofHALT'samicus briefs.
Inadditiontotheabovedescribedunlawfulbehavior,Barker,Rodems&  Cook,
P.A. hascountersuedmeforlibeloveraletteraboutmyinitialbarcomplaint. Thelibel
counterclaimiscontrarytotheholdingofFloridaSupremeCourtcase,Tobkinv. Jarboe,
710 So.2d975 (1998),whichrecognizesabsoluteimmunityforacomplainantwho
followsTheFloridaBar'sgrievanceprocedures. Barker,Rodems&  Cook,P.A.hasalso
accusedmeofcriminalextortionforutilizingTheFloridaBar'sAttorney Client
Assistance Program (ACAP),whichrequiresacomplainantmakeagood-faitheffortto
resolvethematterpriortomakingaformal complaint. Bothmattersaredescribedin
n10re detailintheaccompanyingexhibitsandletters.
ThusfarTheFloridaBarhasexcusedmyformerlawyers' misconduct,andhas
doneso inaparticularmanner. SusanBloemendaal,theChiefBranchDisciplinary
CounseloftheTampaoffice,haspersonallyintervenedonbehalfofmyformerlawyers.
OnseveraloccasionsMs. Bloemendaalhasreplacedtheindividualbarcounselwhowere
investigatingmycomplaints,andthenrenderedherowndecisionthatmerelyadoptedmy
former lawyers' defenses. OnotheroccasionsMs. Bloemendaalapparentlybypassed
assignmenttoindividualbarcounselaltogether,reviewedthecomplaintsherself,and
simplyreiteratedmyformerlawyers' positioninexcusingtheirmisconduct. Ineach
instanceMs. Bloemendaalplayedfastandloosewiththefacts, andreacheduntenable
conclusionsoflaw. Inotherwords,Ms. Bloemendaalwhitewashedmycomplaint.
Thelocalstateattorney,MarkOber,hasnottorespondtomycorrespondence. 
MyletterstoMr. OberareenclosedinExhibitE,tabnumber47. 
Thankyoufortheopportunitytobringthismattertoyourattention. Ihavedone
soattheencouragementof GovernorCharlieCrist. Shouldyouwanttopursuethis
matter,Icanprovideadditionalinformation. Forexample,Ihavetranscriptsofthecourt
proceedings,andtranscriptsofmyphonecallswithMr. Rodems. Ihavealso submitted
totheCourtPlaintiffsMotionWithAffidavitForAnOrderToShowCauseWhyRyan
ChristopherRodemsShouldNotBeHeldInCriminalContemptOfCourtAnd
IncorporatedMemorandllffiOfLaw. Themotionhasnotyetbeenheard. Themotionsets
forthMr. Rodems'perjurythatwascalculatedtoobstructjustice,intimidatemeasa
witness,anddenymedueprocessoflaw. JudgeIsomsaidIcouldbringthismattertothe
attentionoflawenforcement. PleaseinvestigatethisperjuryasJudgeIsomsuggested.
Sincerely,
<   ..  :.:/  L   ~ ,
eilJ. l l ~ i e . ~
Attorney General Bill .Ollum
o 
Page - 4 
Office of the Attorney General  December 5, 2007 
cc:  Governor Charlie Crist (letter only) 
Enclosures: 
Exhibit A:  Complaint For Fraud And Breach Of Contract  
Exhibit B:  Order On Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And Strike  
Exhibit C:  Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim  
Exhibit D:  Plaintiffs Motion For Punitive Damages Pursuant To Section 768.72 Florida Statutes  
Exhibit E:  List Of Exhibits (1  through 50) to the above motion  
HALT' s amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v.  Leiter  
HALT' s amicus curiae brief in the matter of Mark M.  Hager  
Letter from Governor Charlie Crist dated November 21, 2007  
Letter to Governor Charlie Crist, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Francisco R.  Angones, President, The Florida Bar, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Donald M.  Spangler, Director, ACAP, October 16, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, October 12, 2007  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, June 20, 2007  
a  
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Office of Citizen Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Telephone (850) 414-3990 SUNCOM 994-3990
FAX (850) 410-1630 SUNCOM 210-1630
December 14,2007
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Per your request, we are enclosing copies of the documents you previously forwarded to
this office.
We will retain your information in our consumer files to help this office organize its
priorities. Thank you for contacting the Attorney General's Office.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES
Florida Attorney General's Office
OCS/fb
Enclosures
AN AFFIRMAnVE ACnON/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 
Neil J. Gillespie 
8092 SW IIS
th 
Loop 
Ocala, Florida 34481 
Telephone:  (352) 854-7807 
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL 
December 11, 2007 
Attorney General Bill McCollum 
Office of the Attorney General 
The Capitol 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 
Dear Attorney General McCollum: 
Thank you for your letter dated December 7, 2007. (copy enclosed).  In order for 
me to comply with your referrals, I will need the return of the documents I provided you. 
A list of the enclosures is provided below.  I am willing to pay the cost of returning my 
documents.  You may call me at the above phone number for payment by credit card, or 
you may send a bill with the documents and I will send payment.  Please advise. 
Sincerely,  
Exhibit A:  Complaint For Fraud And Breach Of Contract  
Exhibit B:  Order On Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And Strike  
Exhibit C:  Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim  
Exhibit D:  Plaintiff's Motion For Punitive Damages Pursuant To Section 768.72 Florida Statutes  
Exhibit E:  List Of Exhibits (1  through 50) to the above motion  
HALT's amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v.  Leiter  
HALT' s amicus curiae brief in the matter of Mark M.  Hager  
Letter from Governor Charlie Crist dated November 21, 2007  
Letter to Governor Charlie Crist, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Francisco R.  Angones, President, The Florida Bar, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Donald M.  Spangler, Director, ACAP, October 16, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, October 12, 2007  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, June 20,2007  
Index to Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari U.S. Supreme Court
2012 Rule 13.5 Applications
2011 Rule 22 Applications
Petitioner pro se, in forma pauperis, Neil Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop,
Ocala Florida 34481, Telephone 352-854-7807, Email: [email protected]
2012
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court
Filed December 10, 2012; docketed December 14, 2012
Denied February 19, 2013; rehearing denied April 19, 2013
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3796666/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
Application No. 12-A215 to J ustice Thomas - Rule 13.5
Supreme Court of the United States - 2012
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and 12-11028 extended time, consolidate
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104557417/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
2011
Emergency Petition For Writ of Prohibition
Rule 22 Application to J ustice Thomas
Received J une 15, 2011, returned
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction
Rule 22 Application to J ustice Thomas
Received J une 2, 2011, returned
http://www.scribd.com/collections/4370587/
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari U.S. Supreme Court
• Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari filed...........................................December 10, 2012
Application 12-A215 extended time to file until Dec-10-12
• Re-submitted disability letter to Clerk.........................................................December 10, 2012
Initially submitted August 28, 2012; returned September 4, 2012
• Letter to the Solicitor General......................................................................December 13, 2012
• Waiver to respond filed, Ryan C. Rodems, Barker Rodems & Cook...........December 20, 2012
No other Respondent filed a waiver to respond to the petition
• Rule 8 Notice, conduct unbecoming member of SCOTUS Bar, Mr. Rodems............J an-22-13
• Rule 12.6 Notice of no party interest for Mr. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook......J an-22-13
• Filed Supplemental Volumes, Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved......J an-22-13
• Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie filed..................................February 13, 2013
• Petition DENIED............................................................................................February 19, 2013
• Petition for rehearing filed.................................................................................March 18, 2013
• Rule 21 Motion to correct and supplement petition for rehearing.......................April 10, 2013
• Letter to Clerk, “Firsthand Accounts” disability - 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392........April 12, 2013
• Rehearing DENIED.............................................................................................April 15, 2013
• Rule 21 Motion and “Firsthand Accounts” returned out-of-time........................April 16, 2013
• Voluminous papers returned by the Clerk...........................................................April 17, 2013
• Letter to Kathleen L. Arberg, Supreme Court Public Information Officer...........May 13, 2013
No response by Ms. Arberg or the Supreme Court
• Rule 13.5 Applications to J ustice Thomas, Granted..................................September 13, 2012
• Rule 22 Applications to J ustice Thomas....................................................................J une 2011
INDEX TO APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747
Appendix 2 Supreme Court Docket, Application No. 12A215
Appendix 3 Supreme Court Docket, Petition No. 12-7747
Appendix 4 Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al.,1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ
Florida state court alleged to operate as a RICO enterprise
1
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari
Supreme Court of the United States - 2012-2013
Appellate Case 1 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-11213
District Court, M.D. Fla., No. 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS
Appellate Case 2 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-11028
District Court, M.D. Fla., No. 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS
_________________________________
December 10, 2012 Petition for writ of certiorari filed, Neil J . Gillespie, pro se, in forma pauperis
• Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States
• Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
• Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
• Cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES: 12 categories, additional subparts.
• C.A.11 Gillespie’s Affidavit, J udge Isom’s Conflict, ADA Violations
• C.A.11 Disability, Mental Integrity as 14th Amend. Liberty Interest
• C.A.11 E-filing, Disability Accommodation, in support of IFP
• C.A.11 Civil RICO, Hobbs Act, Title 15 U.S.C. Trade Commerce
• Florida Supreme Court, documents in Case No. SC11-1622
• J udicial Qualif. Comm. J udge Martha Cook, J QC Docket 10495
• J udicial Qualif. Comm., J udge Clauda Isom, J QC Docket No. 12385
• The Florida Bar v. Robert W. Bauer, File No. RFA 13-7675
• The Florida Bar v. Eugene Castagliuolo, File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
• The Florida Bar v. Ryan C. Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
• U.S. Dist. Court pleadings, case 5.10-cv-503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS
• U.S. Dist. Court pleadings in case 5.11-cv-539-WTH-TBS
December 10, 2012 Re-submission of request for disability accommodation/guardian ad litem.
• Initially submitted August 28, 2012 to the Supreme Court Clerk, the
Honorable William K. Suter; returned September 4, 2012 with letter of
Mr. Clayton R. Higgins, J r., unable to assist you, Article III, U.S. Const.
December 14, 2012 Petition No. 12-7747 docketed. Response due J anuary 14, 2013.
2
December 20, 2012 Waiver to respond filed, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Barker Rodems & Cook.
• Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida: No waiver or response filed.
• Claudia Rickert Isom, Florida J udge: No waiver or response filed.
• J ames M. Barton, Florida J udge: No waiver or response filed.
• Martha J . Cook, Florida J udge: No waiver or response filed.
• David A. Rowland, Court Counsel: No waiver or response filed.
• Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator: No waiver or response filed.
• Robert W. Bauer/Law Office of RWB: No waiver or response filed.
J anuary 22, 2013 Rule 8 Notice, Conduct Unbecoming Member of SCOTUS Bar, Mr. Rodems.
• NOTE - Notice was received by the Court J anuary 23, 2013 at 12.22 PM, but
does not appear on SCOTUS Docket. UPS No. 1Z64589FNW94832551
• Called J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 17, 2013
• Letter to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 22, 2013
• Called Robert “I don’t see them in our system”, J anuary 31, 2013
• Message to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, February 8, 2013
• Letter to Hon. William K. Suter, February 11, 2013 - No response
J anuary 22, 2013 Rule 12.6 Notice of No Party Interest for Mr. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook.
• NOTE - Notice was received by the Court J anuary 23, 2013 at 12.22 PM, but
does not appear on SCOTUS Docket. UPS No. 1Z64589FNW94832551
• Called J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 17, 2013
• Letter to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, J anuary 22, 2013
• Called Robert “I don’t see them in our system”, J anuary 31, 2013
• Message to Mr. Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases, February 8, 2013
• Letter to Hon. William K. Suter, February 11, 2013 - No response
J anuary 22, 2013 Filed Supplemental Volumes, Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.
• United States Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.
• Florida State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.
J anuary 24, 2013 Petition No. 12-7747 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
February 13, 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie served.
Intervening matters and Florida Bar Complaints.
• Lawyer discipline in Florida: Catastrophically Broken - Hawkins Report
• Local Discipline Components are a Fatal Defect in Florida Bar Discipline
ABA McKay Report 1992, and the ABA Clark Report 1970
• Florida Bar’s Hawkins Report & Survey - May 2012 - J udges Dissatisfied
• The Lawyer-J udge Bias in the American Legal System - Prof. Ben Barton
3
• Antitrust - Legal Monopoly - Malice Aforethought, David W. Marston
• The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007), J udge J acobs

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES, three (3):
• Florida Bar’s Hawkins Commission on Review of Discipline System
• Are Senior J udges Unconstitutional? 92 Cornell Law Review 453 (2007)
• Separate Volume Appendix: Appendix 1 through Appendix 13
Book provided, David W. Marston, Malice Aforethought: How Lawyers Use
Our Secret Rules to Get Rich, Get Sex, Get Even...and Get Away with It
Publisher: William Morrow & Co., book provided to the Supreme Court.
February 15, 2013 Supplemental brief arrived and was DISTRIBUTED for conference the same day.
February 19, 2013 Petition DENIED.
March 18, 2013 Petition for Rehearing filed.
• Petitioner’s Invitation to the American Bar Association to audit his
Florida Bar complaints, and disability accommodation. Review Legal
Abuse Syndrome, to complement the ABA’s first comprehensive review
of disciplinary enforcement rules in 20 years, by Myles V. Lynk, Chair of
the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline.
March 27, 2013 Petition for Rehearing DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
April 9, 2013 Letter to Clerk: Tomorrow, April 10, 2013, I will send by U.P.S. next day
delivery a Rule 21 motion to correct and supplement my petition for
rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.
April 10, 2013 Rule 21 Motion to Correct and Supplement Petition for Rehearing.
[returned out-of-time, case closed; the Rule 21 Motion appears on Scribd]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/
Part 1 - Matters Concerning The Florida Bar. Request for Investigation to
Florida Bar President Gwynne Alice Young March 28, 2013 for
witness tampering and obstruction of justice in the complaint against
Robert W. Bauer, TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit. Honest Services
Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Respondent Martha J . Cook, Florida J udge,
acted as Mr. Rodems’ “marionette” as described in U.S. v. Terry.
Part 3 - Disability. Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in
Reasonable Accommodations Law. 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)
4
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES:
• Request Investigation, Fla. Bar Pres. Gwynne Young March 28, 2013
witness tampering, obstruction of justice, re TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
• Transcript of phone call - Kim Pruett-Barry Oct-03, 2012, w/audio CD
• Opinion, U.S. V. Terry, 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
• Honest Services Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Respondent Martha J . Cook
• Transcript, September 28, 2010, Final Summary J udgment, Civil
Contempt Errata Sheet, Neil J . Gillespie
• Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, April 25, 2011
• Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable
Accommodations Law. 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)
April 12, 2013 Letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, “Firsthand Accounts” of disability
[returned, out-of- omitted in April 10th filing - Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement
time, case closed] in Reasonable Accommodations Law. 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)
Follow-up letter to my telephone call April 12, 2013 to J ames Bowden of the
Supreme Court, shipping delayed on a Rule 21 motion served April 10, 2013,
matters with The Florida Bar, and American Bar Association, additional
disability information and how it affected my case. [posted on Scribd]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/138292729/SCOTUS
April 15, 2013 Rehearing DENIED.
April 16, 2013 Supreme Court Clerk returned my Rule 21 Motion out-of-time.
April 16, 2013 Supreme Court Clerk returned my April 12, 2013 letter out-of-time.
April 17, 2013 Supreme Court Clerk returned voluminous pleadings from the petition.
• Petition No. 12-7747 will be sent to the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) at the end of the Court’s Term.
May 13, 2013 Letter to Kathleen L. Arberg, Supreme Court Public Information Officer.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144645896/
Ms. Arberg did not respond to my letter, and did not respond to follow-up email sent
J une 11, 2013. Some of the information I requested included:
• Public records in Application No. 12A215 showing why it was granted
• Public records for the cert. pool memo in Petition No. 12-7747, etc.
• Public records, Supreme Court does not e-file, use CM/ECF, or PACER
• Disability, law & complications; Rule 21 Motion untimely, no e-filing.
5
May 14, 2013 Notice from The Florida Bar of the Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation
of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5), for appearing pro se in case no.
5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS which forms the basis of Petition No. 12-7747.
• UPL complaint was made by Mr. Rodems against Neil J . Gillespie.
Documents in the UPL investigation are on the enclosed CD-ROM.
May 16, 2013 Letter to Kenneth Wilson, Fla. Assist AG, re David Rowland, General
Counsel, 13th Circuit misled you. Cc. to Gov. Scott, A.G. Bondi.
No response from Mr. Wilson, Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, or anyone else.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142305243/
May 24, 2013 Letter to Gov. Rick Scott and AG Pam Bondi, copy of Petition No. 12-7747,
Re: David Rowland mislead Kenneth Wilson, Assistant Attorney General,
that I did not serve him per Rule 29 a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. No
response from Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, or anyone else.
May 24, 2013 Letter to U.S. Marshal William B. Berger, Sr., Tampa, Florida. Response by
Deputy Roger Devall, telephone call J une 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, said the U.S.
Marshall will serve a federal complaint on judges as provided by law. An
Ocala Division deputy Clerk denied this September 28, 2010 when I filed the
Complaint in 5:10-cv-503. Deputy Devall also advised the Clerk may not
issue summons. From the transcript, Deputy Devall, J une 3, 2013, page 14:
11 ...You might have issues getting summons --
12 summons issued by the Clerks court for Judges.
I served the Complaint(s) in each case under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(d) Waiver
(all parties except Mr. Rodems and firm); later learned waiver provision does
not apply to state governments. PDF copies on enclosed CD-ROM.
Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al., 1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ . This case
also shows the District Clerk would not issue summons against Fla. judges.
Mullerin v Hayter alleges a Florida state court operated as a corrupt RICO
enterprise. The Plaintiff alleged a Florida court deprived her of rights under
42 U.S.C. 1983 through a pattern of racketeering activity to benefit a local
attorney and law firm that used the court for “asset stripping” - to obtain
fraudulent court orders requiring money or property to be transferred from
the true owners - persons targeted by the enterprise - to the law firm and its
clients. The suit alleges the Alachua County Florida court was not operated in
an effective and expeditious manner for which it was created by statute - but
as a corrupt RICO enterprise for the private benefit of the law firm & clients.
A composite of documents in Mullerin v Hayter is posted on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/163229364/
6
The Supreme Court’s allotment order effective September 28, 2010 shows for the Eleventh Circuit,
Clarence Thomas, Associate J ustice. For Rule 22 Applications to Individual J ustices.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/ALLOTMENTORDER9-28-10.pdf
Application No. 12-A215 to J ustice Thomas - Rule 13.5
Supreme Court of the United States - 2012
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and C.A.11 No. 12-11028 extended time, consolidate
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook. P.A.
Consolidate Florida Supreme Court No. SC11-1622 (only Aug-13-12 application)
September 13, 2012 Letter of Clayton R. Higgins, Application 12-A215 granted. The application
for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the above-entitled case has been presented to J ustice Thomas, who on
September 13, 2012 extended the time to and including December 10, 2012.
The letter does not show consolidation of the two federal appeals,
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and C.A.11 No. 12-11028.
August 29, 2012 Rule 13.5 Application to J ustice Thomas, extend time to file writ of certiorari
and consolidate two federal appellate orders for review on certiorari:
C.A.11 No. 12-11213 and C.A.11 No. 12-11028.
August 17, 2012 Letter, returned papers, response from Mr. Clayton R. Higgins:
The application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the above-entitled case was sent by commercial carrier August 13, 2012
and received August 15, 2012. The papers are returned for the following reason(s):
• The lower court opinion must be appended. Rule 13.5.
• The application does not specify the amount of additional time requested.
Rule 13.5.
• The application does not set forth with specificity the reasons why the
granting of an extension of time is thought justified. Rule 13.5.
• It is impossible to determine the timeliness of your application for an
extension of time without the lower court opinions.
• A copy of the corrected application must be served on opposing counsel.
If your are attempting to file the extension of time to file your petition for writ of
certiorari seeking review of both state and federal court orders, you must file
separate extension requests. You may not consolidate state and federal court orders.
7
August 13, 2012 Rule 13.5 Application to J ustice Thomas, extend time to file writ of certiorari
[returned, errors] and consolidate state and federal orders for review on certiorari:
• Supreme Court of Florida, Case No. SC11-1622
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, 12-11213-C
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Case No. 12-11028-B
Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem
Notice of Extraordinary Circumstances (home foreclosure, reverse mortgage)
__________________________________________
[Not docketed - Returned out-of-time]
Petition for Writ of Certiorari - FLSC No. SC11-1622
Supreme Court of the United States - 2012
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Florida Supreme Court No. SC11-1622
LT Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida
2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC
2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC
2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC
August 23, 2012 Letter response from Mr. Clayton R. Higgins:
The above-entitled petition for writ of certiorari was sent by commercial carrier
August 20, 2012 and received August 22, 2012. The papers are returned for the
following reason(s):
• The petition is out-of-time. The date of the lower court judgment or order
denying a timely petition for rehearing was March 12, 2012. Therefore, the
petition was due on or before J une 11, 2012. Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1. When the
time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in a civil case (habeas action
included) has expired, the Court no longer has the power to review the petition.
• The May 22, 2012 order from the Florida Supreme Court does not appear to be a
order denying a timely petition for rehearing.
August 20, 2012 Submitted petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for review
[returned out-of-time] of Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC11-1622. This was a five page petition
with six (6) Separate Volume Appendices, Appendix Volumes A through F.
Petition with all exhibits posted on Scribd 904 pages, http://www.scribd.com/doc/103699430/
Petition only posted on Scribd 16 pages, http://www.scribd.com/doc/103687638/
8
2011 Proceedings
[Not docketed - Returned, errors]
Emergency Petition For Writ of Prohibition
Rule 22 Application to J ustice Thomas
Supreme Court of the United States - 2011
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Florida Supreme Court No. SC11-858
J une 15, 2011 Letter response from Mr. Clayton R. Higgins:
The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ of prohibition was received on
J une 15, 2011. The papers are returned for the following reason(s):
• The petition does not show how the writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate
jurisdiction, what exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's
discretionary powers, and why adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other
form or from any other court. Rule 20.1.
• The petition does not follow the form prescribed by Rule 14 as required by Rule 20.2.

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

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

No. 12A215
Title:
Neil J . Gillespie, Applicant
v.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, et al.
Docketed: August 31, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-11028, 12-11213)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.
Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2012.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Peti ti oner:
Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807
Ocala, FL 34481
Party name: Neil J . Gillespie
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
Appendix B

No. 12-7747
Title:
Neil J . Gillespie, Petitioner
v.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit of Florida, et al.
Docketed: December 14, 2012
Linked with 12A215
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-11028-B)
Decision Date: J uly 13, 2012
Rule 12.4
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.
Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2012.
Dec 10 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis filed. (Response due J anuary 14, 2013)
Dec 20 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. to respond filed.
J an 24 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Feb 13 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie filed. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2013 Petition DENIED.
Mar 18 2013 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Mar 27 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
Apr 15 2013 Rehearing DENIED.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Peti ti oner:
Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807
Ocala, FL 34481
[email protected]
Party name: Neil J . Gillespie
Attorneys for Respondents:
Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (813)-489-1001
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
Appendix C
Counsel of Record 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
Tampa, FL 33602
Party name: Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
Mullerin v Hayter alleges a Florida state court operated as a corrupt RICO enterprise. The
Plaintiff alleged a Florida court deprived her of rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 through a pattern of
racketeering activity to benefit a local attorney and law firm that used the court for “asset
stripping” - to obtain fraudulent court orders requiring money or property to be transferred from
the true owners - persons targeted by the enterprise - to the law firm and its clients. The suit
alleges the Alachua County Florida court was not operated in an effective and expeditious
manner for which it was created by statute - but as a corrupt RICO enterprise for the private
benefit of the law firm and its clients. This case also shows the District Clerk would not issue
summons in a lawsuit against Florida judges. A composite of documents is posted on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/163229364/Sonja-Mullerin-v-J ohn-Hayter-1-12-Cv-190
Case: Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al.,1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ
U.S. District Court, Northern District, Florida - case filed August 20, 2012
Plaintiff - Sonja Mullerin, UF grad student in a landlord-tenant dispute. The Plaintiff was
previously an attorney licensed in Colorado but not licensed in Florida.
Defendants -J ohn Hayter, a Florida licensed attorney ID 275141.
J ohn F. Hayter, Attorney At Law, P.A., 704 NE 1st St., Gainesville, Florida 3260-15303
J udith Yesha Brill, individual, the landlord, and client of J ohn Hayter.
David Kreider is a judge of the Alachua County Court in his individual capacity.
[David Philip Kreider is a member of the judiciary and The Florida Bar, ID 961248]
Denise Ferrero is a judge of the Alachua County Court in her individual capacity.
[Denise Rae Ferrero is a member of the judiciary and of The Florida Bar, ID 971944]
Debbie Spivey, individual, and J udge Kreider's judicial assistant.
Doc. 16. First Amended Complaint, Civil RICO, 42 U.S.C. 1983, October 18, 2012.
Doc. 19. Motion for Order Directing Issuance of Summons, October 30, 2012.
Doc. 20. Letter to U.S. J udge Stephan P. Mickle, re summons, November 15, 2012.
Doc. 21. Order, Gary R. J ones, U.S. Magistrate J udge, in part below...J anuary 15, 2013.
“Plaintiff alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 and of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s
claims stem from state civil court proceedings involving a dispute with her landlord. She
contends that her landlord and her landlord’s attorney violated RICO by using the courts to strip
Plaintiff of her assets and that the attorney, three state court judges, and a judicial assistant
conspired to obstruct justice and violate Plaintiff’s civil rights. The state court proceedings were
pending at the time Plaintiff filed her complaint. Plaintiff requests damages, permanent
injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees....”
Doc. 23. Order, dismissed w/o prejudice, U.S. Magistrate J udge Gary R. J ones, March 4, 2013.
Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al.,1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ
Florida state court alleged to operate as a RICO enterprise
District Clerk would not issue summons for Florida judges
Appendix D