Petitioner-Appellant Response 5D15-0340

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT, FLORIDA

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ETC.,
APPEAL NO. 5D15-0340

PETITION NO. 5D15-0341
Petitioner/Appellant,
L.T. 2013-CA-000115
42-2013-CA-000115-AXXX-XX
MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
VS.
REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Residential Home Foreclosure Case

Florida Homestead of Neil J. Gillespie
Respondent/Appellees.
_______________________________________ /
PETITIONER/APPELLANT RESPONSE TO
Notice of New Requirement When Filing Notice of Appeal
Petitioner/Appellant pro se Neil J. Gillespie, an indigent/insolvent nonlawyer, a person
with disabilities, and consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce,
henceforth in the first person, states as follows:
1.
On Friday April 24, 2015 at 4.36pm I received by email (Exhibit 1) from the Clerk,
NOTICE Informing the Appellate Court of Pending Motions Postponing Rendition at
time of Filing the Notice of Appeal, April 10, 2015
2.
I thank the Clerk for brining this Notice to my attention, as it may affect,
APPEAL NO. 5D15-0340; PETITION NO. 5D15-0341
I plan additional filings today in Appeal No. 5D15-0340, and Petition No. 5D15-0341.
Table of Contents
P.2
P.2
P.2
P.2
P.3
P.4
P.11
P.11
P.12
P.12
Previous information notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email April 8, 2015

Appendix 13 RE: Judge Stancils Drivers License Competence Test for Title II ADA
Appendix 14, WRAT-R2 test (Wide Range Achievement Test-R2)
Appendix 11, Constitutional Access to Courts, Justice, and Redress; Rule 4-1.1
Competence; Rule 4-1.3 Diligence; Fla. Stat. 413.30(2) disability determinations
Appendix 15, Vol. 31, Insurance (Disability), Florida Jurisprudence 2d (2007)
Appendix 28, Audio Files (.wav) on CD-ROM 14
Appendix 21, AmeriFace refused to provide name of counsel 63p
Appendix 22, Citibank, N.A. Best Buy Account; Amazon.com, Synchrony Bank
Appendix 24, SCOTUS No. 13-7280 159p; C.A.11 failed 13-11585-B & 28 USC 1651
Previous information notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email April 8, 2015

3.
Previously I gave informal notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email (Exhibit 2) on
April 8, 2015 to the Clerk, et al,

I am still working on the petition, it is taking longer than planned due to disability, and
the amount of work involved, such as twenty or so appendices. Please find attached
Appendix Volume No. 13 to refute the same wrong Drivers License Competence Test
for Title II ADA advanced by you and Judge Stancil.
Appendix Volume No. 13 (Rule 9.220), Amended Petition For Writ of Prohibition
RE: Judge Stancils Drivers License Competence Test for Title II ADA
The final edit of Appendix No. 13 accompanies this pleading for filing.
4.

Appendix Volume No. 14 (Rule 9.220), Amended Petition For Writ of Prohibition, will
show significant loss of brain function following traumatic brain injury in 1988, shown
by the results a WRAT-R2 test (Wide Range Achievement Test-R2), part of my
vocational screening by the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in 1993/1994.
I expect to finish Appendix Volume No. 14 soon, perhaps as early as today.
5.

Appendix 11, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - Directory of Law Governing
Appointment of Counsel in FLORIDA Civil Proceedings
The final edit of Appendix No. 11 accompanies this pleading for filing. It has significant changes
from the earlier version, and is renamed Constitutional Access to Courts, Justice, and Redress.
Among other things, I am not competent, and not diligent, as defined by the Rules Regulating
The Florida Bar. I am also a person with disabilities.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.1 Competence. (Exhibit 3)
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation

requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary
for the representation.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence. (Exhibit 4)
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Social Security Disability determination (Exhibit 5)
The Social Security Administration, Office of Disability, Notice of Award letter dated
August 23, 1993 said I met the medical requirements to receive Social Security benefits,
and found that I became disabled under its rules on January 17, 1992.
Fla. Stat. 413.30(2) disability determinations by other state or federal agencies
413.30(2) Determinations...pursuant to Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act

shall be considered to have a physical or mental impairment that constitutes or results in
a substantial impediment to employment and a significant disability.
Disability and Health Update
6.

My health continues to decline. Due to indigence I was not able to purchase a
prescription costing $422.95 for Lantus Solostar insulin (100 units) see attached. On
Monday April 6, 2015 my doctor interpreted the results of the attached CT scan of me
from March 16, 2015: C5-6, moderate to severe left neural foramina stenosis due to
uncovertebral joint hypertrophy. This condition may explain neuropathy in both my
hands that makes typing difficult and painful.
Lantus Solostar insulin (100 units) cash cost $422.95 for Neil Gillespie. Exhibit 6.
CT scan March 16, 2015 for Neil Gillespie. Exhibit 7.
7.
I am currently being treated for type 2 adult onset diabetes with medication, treatment
that is no longer effective. The attached Accu-Chek Compass One Page Summary Report for the
period ending April 20, 2015 (Exhibit 8) shows my treatment for diabetes is not effective. The
trend graph shows blood glucose levels approaching 500 on April 17, 2015. This level of blood
glucose is disabling. Disability is a barrier to competent (Rule 4-1.1) and diligent (Rule 4-1.3)
3
functioning in this legal matter. Recently my doctor prescribed a lower cost insulin, isophane
(NPH)100 units/ml human recombinant subcutaneous suspension. Exhibit 9. The cost, $122.95 is
still prohibitive. I am not able to purchase this medication at this time due to indigence. In other
words, I do not have $122.95 available in cash or credit.
8.
Appendix Volume No. 15 (Rule 9.220, Fla. R. App. P.)

Volume 31, Insurance (Disability), Florida Jurisprudence 2d (2007)
31 Fla. Jur. 2d 2195 (2007), Generally; what constitutes "total disability"
Disability or accident insurance policies, or disability clauses in life insurance policies,
may properly restrict their coverage to disability that is "total."[fn1]
"Total disability" is a relative term, depending upon the character of insured's occupation.
the capabilities of the insured, and the circumstances of the particular case, [fn2] and
which must be determined in the context of a liberal construction of the disability
provision in order to protect the policyholder. [fn3] However, that term does not require
that the insured be bedridden or reduced to complete helplessness.[fn4] Whether one is
totally disabled is ordinarily a question of fact.[fn5]
Disability provisions are generally of two types: an "occupational disability" clause,
which requires only that the insured be unable to perform the duties of his or her
particular occupation in order to recover, and a "general disability" clause, which
conditions the payment of benefits thereunder on the insured's inability to perform the
duties of any occupation.[fn6]
[fn1] Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance 1474
[fn2] Groff v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 887 F. Supp. 1515 (S.D. Fla. 1993), related
reference, 887 F. Supp. 1519 (S.D. Fla. 1994), related reference, 85 F.3d 642 (11th Cir.
1996) and related reference, 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996); Hazouri v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
192 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1966).
[fn3] New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Huckins, 127 Fla. 540, 173 So. 696 (1937);
Lorber v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1968).
[fn4] Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Neill, 243 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1957); Groff
v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 887 F. Supp. 1515 (S.D. Fla. 1993), related reference, 887
F. Supp. 1519 (S.D. Fla. 1994), related reference, 85 F.3d 642 (11th Cir. 1996) and
related reference, 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla.
532, 12 So. 2d 454 (1943); Grauer v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California, 363 So. 2d
583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1978).
[fn5] New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla. 532, 12 So. 2d 454 (1943).
[fn6] For general discussion of such clauses, see 19566, 2197.
31 Fla. Jur. 2d 2196 (2007), Occupational disability

A typical occupational disability provision requires that the insured be unable to perform
the duties pertaining to his or her regular occupation.[fn1] In applying such a clause, the
court must look at the insured's occupation as a whole.[fn2] The insured's disability will
be considered total if it is such that he or she is unable to do "substantially" all the
"material" acts which are usually required to be performed in the occupation or
profession or work in which he or she is engaged,[fn3] in a customary and usual
manner.[fn4] Thus, the "total disability" provisions were applicable to a physician who
continued his office practice by examining patients, supervising office staff and making
post-operative visits, but was unable to perform unassisted major head and neck cancer
surgery, which previously constituted a major portion of his practice.[fn5]
Total disability does not mean a state of helplessness [fn6] or inability to do any part
whatever of the occupation, or to perform any work whatever for compensation, [fn7]
and the fact that the insured performs, or is able to perform, some inconsequential, trivial,
or incidental duties connected with his or her usual employment or occupation will not
preclude recovery. [fn8] On the other hand, the mere inability to perform one duty or
operation required in the particular occupation does not constitute total disability, [fn9]
unless the insured obtained a modification of the policy entitling him to benefits if he
could not perform a specific aspect of his practice. [fn10]
Under an occupational disability policy defining total disability as "your inability to
engage in your occupation," the term "your occupation" referred to specific work done by
insured at the time of injury, not to work requiring similar skills and producing
comparable income. [fn11] So, under such a provision, insured who, before suffering a
disabling knee injury, had been working as a yacht salesman, was engaged in the activity
or business of selling yachts, notwithstanding that he had worked at other sales jobs
during the life of the policy and had obtained employment as a freight-space salesman for
a trucking company after he began receiving benefits under the policy. [fn12]
Observation: An occupational disability clause may provide further that recovery

may be had only if the insured is not engaged in any other gainful occupation or
employment. [fn13]
[fn1] See, for example, Groff v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 887 F. Supp. 1515 (S.D. Fla.
1993), related reference, 887 F. Supp. 1519 (S.D. Fla. 1994), related reference, 85 F.3d
642 (11th Cir. 1996) and related reference, 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996).
[fn2] Sun Life Ins. Co. of America v. Evans, 340 So. 2d 957 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist.
1976); Lorber v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1968).
Annotation References: What constitutes total disability within coverage of disability
insurance policy issued to lawyer, 6 A.L.R. 4th 422.
What constitutes permanent or total disability within coverage of insurance policy
issued to physical laborer or workman, 32 A.L.R. 3d 922.
What constitutes total or permanent disability within the coverage of disability

insurance coverage issued to farmer or agricultural worker, 26 A.L.R. 3d 714.
What constitutes permanent or total disability within coverage of disability insurance
policy issued to one engaged in retail merchandising, 23 A.L.R. 3d 773.
What constitutes total or permanent disability within the meaning of insurance policy
issued to physician or dentist, 21 A.L.R. 3d 677.
1996) and related reference, 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996); Franklin Life Ins. Co. v.
Tharpe, 130 Fla. 546, 178 So. 300 (1938), reh'g denied, 131 Fla. 213, 179 So. 406 (1938);
Grauer v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California, 363 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st
Dist. 1978); Lorber v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist.
1968).
1996) and related reference, 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996); Grauer v. Occidental Life Ins.
Co. of California, 363 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1978); SLife Ins. Co. of
America v. Evans, 340 So. 2d 957 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1976).
1996) and related reference, 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996).
[fn6] 2195.
[fn7] New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Huckins, 127 Fla. 540, 173 So. 696 (1937).
[fn8] Lorber v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1968).
[fn9] Danzig v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 668 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1987)
(postal worker).
[fn10] Rosenberg v. Guardian Life fns. Co., 510 So. 2d 610, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1541 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1987) (ophthalmologist unable to perform surgery).
[fn11] Berkshire Life Ins. Co. v. Adelberg, 698 So. 2d 828, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S513 (Fla.
1997); Strama v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 793 So. 2d 1129, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2210
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2001).
[fn12] Berkshire Life Ins. Co. v. Adelberg, 698 So. 2d 828, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S513 (Fla.
1997).
[fn13] Grauer v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California, 363 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1st Dist. 1978).
Forms References: Defense that plaintiff earned money during period of alleged
disability. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Insurance 1032.
31 Fla. Jur. 2d 2197 (2007), General Disability
A typical general disability clause requires that the insured be unable to perform the
material or substantial duties of any occupation in which insured reasonably could [fn1]
be expected to engage, or prevented from engaging in any occupation or performing any
6
work for compensation of financial value, [fn2] or from performing any work, following
any occupation, or engaging in any business for remuneration or profit, [fn3] or that the
insured suffer any impairment of mind or body that continuously renders it impossible for
insured to follow a gainful occupation.[fn4] Under such a clause, the insured is totally
disabled when his or her condition is such that he or she is not able to perform the duties
of any occupation for which he or she is fitted or qualified by education, training, or
experience.[fn5] Thus, a travel and market consultant was not totally disabled from an
injury to his foot and back while running, even though the injuries allegedly restricted his
travel and reduced his firm's income, where the consultant continued to perform the
duties of employment as owner of the firm, continued to travel, and failed to show that
his business lost money due to his alleged disability, and the policy defined "total
disability" as an inability to perform material and substantial duties of any occupation
which insured reasonably could be expected to engage in.[fn6]
Generally, an insured who continues or resumes working subsequent to the
commencement of the disability is precluded from receiving total or permanent disability
benefits whenever he or she substantially performs the important and material duties of
his or her occupation. [fn7] However this rule is subject to many important exceptions.
Thus, recovery will not be precluded where the insured makes an unsuccessful attempt to
work [fn8] or returns to a reduced or relaxed workload, or where he or she participates in
merely trivial or minor activities. [fn9] Thus, an elderly dentist did not terminate his
period of total disability because of his activities as a partner in a firm dealing in
automatic laundry equipment where the insured came to the office frequently when he
felt like it and performed a variety of odd jobs, but two business trips attempted by him
had terminated en route because of his physical condition, he signed many checks while
at home in bed, he drew no salary or other compensation, and had no specific duties to
perform. [fn10]
Even though a person who becomes wholly disabled from engaging in his or her
occupation may nevertheless follow some gainful occupation after years of preparatory
study and mental training, until that end is accomplished and the insured is receiving
profits or remuneration from his or her new vocation, the insurer is not justified in
refusing monthly benefit payments. [fn11]
[fn1] McCluney v. General American Life Ins. Co., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 1998),
aff'd, 162 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 1998).
[fn2] See, for example, Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Neill, 243 F.2d 193 (5th
Cir. 1957).
[fn3] See, for example, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla. 532, 12 So. 2d 454 (1943).
[fn4] See, for example, Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Knight, 130 Fla. 733, 178
So. 898 (1937).
[fn5] Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Neill, 243 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1957);
McCluney V. General American Life Ins. Co., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 1998),
aff'd, 162 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 1998); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla. 532, 12
So. 2d 454 (1943); Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. McKeithan, 119 Fla. 486, 160
So. 883 (1935).
7
Annotation References: What constitutes total disability within coverage of disability

insurance policy issued to lawyer, 6 A.L.R. 4th 422.
What constitutes permanent or total disability within coverage of insurance policy
issued to physical laborer or workman, 32 A.L.R. 3d 922.
What constitutes total or permanent disability within the coverage of disability
insurance coverage issued to farmer or agricultural worker, 26 A.L.R. 3d 714.
What constitutes permanent or total disability within coverage of disability insurance
policy issued to one engaged in retail merchandising, 23 A.L.R. 3d 773.
What constitutes total or permanent disability within the meaning of insurance policy
issued to physician or dentist, 21 A.L.R. 3d 677
Insurance: "total disability" or the like as referring to inability to work in usual
occupation or in other occupations, 21 A.L.R. 3d 1155.
Trial Strategy References: Unemployability as total disability. Unemployability Of
Insured Under Disability Policy, 18 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 407.
[fn6] McCluney v. General American Life Ins. Co., 1 F. Suppa 2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 1998),
aff'd, 162 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 1998).
[fn7] See Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance 1479.
Annotation References: Continuance or resumption of work as affecting finding of total
or permanent disability within insurance coverage, 24 A.L.R. 3d 8.
[fn8] INA Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Davis, 404 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th
Dist. 1981)
[fn9] Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Neill, 243 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1957), stating
that the insured is not required to remain completely idle by confining his activities to his
home or the recreational pursuits of elderly retired persons.
[fn10] Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Neill, 243 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1957).
[fn11] New York Life Ins. Co. v. Leeks, 122 Fla. 127, 165 So. 50 (1935).
31 Fla. Jur. 2d 2198 (2007), Specific injuries, loss, or afflictions as total disability
Generally, when the term "total disability" is used in a contract of insurance without any
limitation whatever, either as to the duration of the disability or as to the cause from
which it should arise, it may refer to temporary or permanent total disability arising from
various causes, including mental incapacity (which mayor may not render the insured
wholly or totally disabled) or disease, [fn1] or physical sickness or disorder [fn2] such as
arthritis or diabetes, [fn3] loss or impairment of vision [fn4] or hearing, [fn5] or a
circulatory disorders such as clotting of veins in the legs, diminished blood supply in the
lower extremities, phlebitis with production of emboli, and blood clots, with danger of
occlusions in the heart, lungs, or extremities. [fn6]
[fn1] Clarkson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 4 F. Supp. 791 (S.D. Fla. 1933).
Annotation References: Mental incapacity or disease as constituting total or permanent

disability within insurance coverage, 22 A.L.R. 3d 1000.
[fn2] Annotation References: Back injury or condition as constituting total or permanent
[fn3] Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. McCaskill, 126 Fla. 82, 170 So. 579 (1936).
[fn4] New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla. 532, 12 So. 2d 454 (1943) (insured who
suffered from cataracts in both eyes was totally disabled even though he was able to use
his vision to walk and to recognize members of his family and friends, and to look at the
headlines in the newspaper and to use a typewriter for a few minutes).
[fn5] Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance 1483
[fn6] Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Neill, 243 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1957).
Annotation References: Heart or vascular condition as constituting total or permanent
31 Fla. Jur. 2d 2199 (2007), Continuity and permanence
A policy may include the element of continuity, and undertake to insure only for loss
resulting from bodily injuries that wholly and "continuously" disable the insured. In this
context, the word "continuously" means regularly, protracted, enduring, and without any
substantial interruption of sequence. [fn1] Where the policy language is unambiguous, a
finding that there was a period following an employee's injury during which he was not
disabled precludes recovery under a policy requiring continuity of injury. [fn2]
Where a policy provides for the payment of the compensation for permanent disability,
and then stipulates that such payments will be made only during the continuance of the
disability, the insured is entitled to recover if the nature of the injury renders it reasonable
to suppose that he will be permanently disabled. [fn3] If it turns out that, contrary to
expectation, the disablement was not permanent, then payments cease. [fn4]
Under a policy requiring that total disability must have existed continuously for at least a
specified period, the presumption of permanency attaches to a proved total disability after
it has existed continuously for such time, [fn5] even if the cause of the disability is no
longer the same as what it was when first incurred. [fn6] But if the insured is totally
disabled for a time but not totally disabled within the policy definition following the
lapse of the prescribed period, his recovery is limited to whatever the contracts provides
for in the case of temporary total disability. [fn7]
[fn1] Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance 1487.
[fn2] Skinner v. Continental Cas. Co., 268 So. 2d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1972).
[fn3] Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Wiggins, 115 Fla. 136, 155 So. 327 (1934);
Cassens v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 114 Fla. 659, 154 So. 522 (1934).
Where total disability was not of such nature as to indicate or suggest that it was or
would be permanent, insured was not entitled to recover. Berry v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of
New York, 163 So. 2d 339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1964).
Forms References: Answer-Defense that plaintiff is no longer totally disabled. Am. Jur.
Pleading and Practice Forms, Insurance 1031.
[fn4] Cassens v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 114 Fla. 659, 154 So. 522 (1934).
[fn5] Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. McKeithan, 119 Fla. 486 160 So. 883 (1935).
[fn6] Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Knight, 130 Fla. 733, 178 So. 898 (1937).
[fn7] Suggs v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of N. C., 256 So. 2d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d
Dist. 1972) (insured received indemnity for designated 24-month period).
Cumulative Supplement to Volume 31
2007 Supplement (Pocket Part)
Issued in February 2007
2195 Generally; what constitutes "total disability"
cases
Under Florida law, letter from disability insurer's chief underwriting officer to insured
physician clarifying, at insured's request, that insured's "regular occupation" was invasive
and interventional cardiology, not cardiology as insurer originally had stated, was
bargained-for modification of total disability insurance policy, and thus was controlling,
for for purposes of policy's definition of disability as "[inability] . . . to engage in
[insured's] regular occupation or profession." Kraft v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 320 F.
Supp. 2d 1234 (N.D. Fla. 2004).
2196 Occupational disability
cases
Insured under a disability insurance policy was regularly engaged in an occupation at the
time of his disability and, thus, could fit the policy's definition of total disability, even
though insured was not actively employed at time of his disability, and had not worked in
over 18 months due to the injury; policy language did not require insured to be actively
employed. McPhee v. The Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 883 So. 2d 364 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
4th Dist. 2004).
31 Fla. Jur. 2d 2191, Duty of insured to remove disability
An insured who is suffering from a disability is under a duty to avail himself or herself of
all reasonable means and remedies to remove such disability. [fn1] Thus, an osteopath
with a skin condition on his hands, diagnosed as infectious eczematoid dermatitis, was
denied benefits for total disability where he made no effort to have his condition treated
by a dermatologist until after filing his claim of disability, which was several years after
the onset of the condition, having previously prescribed and administered his own
10
treatment, which consisted mostly of trying out free samples sent to him by
pharmaceutical companies; and where there was no evidence that with a proper diagnosis
and regimen the condition would not yield to treatment. [fn2]
If, however, there is a difference of opinion among doctors about the cause of the
disability, benefits may not be withheld because of the party's failure to follow the
medical advice of the insurer's doctor. [fn3]
[fn1] Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Ellison, 223 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1955); Mutual Life
Ins. Co. of New York v. Knight, 130 Fla. 733, 178 So. 898 (1937).
[fn2] Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Ellison, 223 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1955)
[fn3] Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Knight, 130 Fla. 733, 178 So. 898 (1937).
9.
Appendix 28, Audio Files (.wav) on CD-ROM 14.

Today I am providing the .wav audio files shown below to the Clerk on a CD-ROM
delivered by United Parcel Service (UPS). I will email the .wav files to parties with working
email, as part of the ordinary service of court documents.
Audio file (.wav) of telephonic hearing before Judge Stancil December 18, 2014,
Case 2013-CA-000115, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie et al.
Judge Stancil called me at home December 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM and consented
[fn1] to the recording [fn2].
Audio file (.wav) of the March 19, 2015 telephone call of Grace A. Fagan,
General Counsel, Fifth Judicial Circuit Florida. Ms. Fagan called me at home
March 19, 2015 at 1:54 PM and consented [fn1] to the recording. [fn2]
Email December 30, 2014 from Daniel Hendrix (Support Specialist, CiviTek),
Audio or video files need to be copied to a CD or flash drive and delivered to the
clerk's office. You will need to contact your local clerk's office to get specifics on
proper labling, whether they prefer you to mail or hand deliver, etc... If you have
any further questions please contact support@myflcourtaccess.com for assistance.
10.
Appendix 21, AmeriFace refused to provide name of counsel that might represent me,
AmeriFace is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity (#32-0085490). It was founded in 1991 to

provide educational and emotional support to persons born with craniofacial anomalies and their
families. Debbie Oliver is the Executive Director, and claims AmeriFace is a premier support
organization but refused to provide to me and the name of an attorney who might assist me.
11
On March 13, 2015 at 12.00 PM Ms. Oliver posted on Facebook about being contacted by
attorneys, "For more than five years, our organization has been contacted by attorneys...
On March 13, 2015 at 12:19 PM Ms. Oliver posted on Facebook,
...the inquiry this morning came from a law firm run by an attorney ****who sits
on the board of directors of a so-called cleft support organization!!**** Are you kidding
me? This is NOT right. I am just about beside myself right now...this is a law firm we
turned down years ago, one that found an opening somewhere else in the cleft community
- and now that person is on the legal website endorsing the attorney, saying he has been
"fundamentally helpful in the growth of our organization." Folks, when you need support,
stick with the premier support organization for the cleft/craniofacial community! Invite
your friends and acquaintances to join us at...where there is no underlying agenda!
Unfortunately, there is an underlying agenda with AmeriFace that results in discrimination
against a protected class of adult persons with craniofacial anomaly-related disabilities.
Unfortunately parents of the afflicted are some of the worst offenders. The problem is
compounded exponentially when they are in positions of authority in AmeriFace and
other groups purporting to serve the cleft/craniofacial community.
In fact they only serve the parent agenda within the cleft/craniofacial community.
Attached is a paper published by the Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, July 2011, Vol. 48
No. 4, Impact of a Cleft Lip and/or Palate on Maternal Stress and Attachment
Representations that explains the parent phenomenon to some extent. Also attached is
an abstract of the paper.
There are two separate cleft/craniofacial communities. AmeriFace and Cleft Advocate is a
community of parents of children born with facial birth defects. There is some crossover
with parents of children who acquire facial disfigurement through illness or accidents.
Parent groups may minimize the consequence of facial birth defects as an ego defense,
and as a coping mechanism regarding their children with facial disfigurement.
Adult survivors of facial birth defects are a reminder to some parents of the limitations of
craniofacial surgery to create normalcy from what is missing or deformed. Bigotry and
prejudice of certain parents toward afflicted adults may fall along the same lines as racial
hatred, and discrimination based on social class, ethnicity, religion, disability and sexual
orientation.
12
11.
Appendix 22, Citibank, N.A. Best Buy Account; Amazon.com, Synchrony Bank
For some reason Citibank, N.A. and Synchrony Bank did not properly credit payments I timely
made to credit card accounts with Best Buy and Amazon.com. It has taken an enormous amount
of time to rectify this situation, which I have done. The accounts are now closed with no balance.
12.
Appendix 24, SCOTUS No. 13-7280 159p.

SCOTUS No. 13-7280 was compromised as shown on the Justice Network blog. There is
too much to separately show here. Information appears on the Justice Network,
See, No response from Chief Justice John Roberts; corrupted Supreme Court Petitions No.
12-7747 and No. 13-7280, posted Sunday, August 17, 2014.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2014/08/no-response-from-chief-justice-john.html
Also see, Mississippi Goddam (Florida Goddam) posted Saturday, September 13, 2014
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2014/09/mississippi-goddam-florida-goddam.html
Also see, Please support SCOTUS Petition for Rehearing 13-7280; Stop a wrongful HECM
foreclosure of my home, posted Monday January 6, 2014.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2014/01/please-support-scotus-petition-for.html
Also see, Complaint against McCalla Raymer lawyer Danielle Nicole Parsons sent to
grievance committee, Posted Sunday, August 10, 2014.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2014/08/complaint-against-mccalla-raymer-lawyer.html
Also see, Defendants Rule 1.150 Motion To Strike Sham Pleadings, August 6, 2014.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2014/08/defendants-rule-1150-motion-to-strike.html
See Appendix Volume No. 19 (Rule 9.220, Fla. R. App. P.), The Florida Bar (all dismissed)
Complaint against Danielle Nicole Parsons, TFB File No. 2014-30,525 (9A).
Complaint against Curtis Alan Wilson; RFA No. 15-13443
Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Yolanda I. Martinez, 20143031(9A)
13
13.
The U.S. Eleventh Circuit failed to honor its Order entered in 13-11585-B July 25, 2013,
before HULL, WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: (Exhibit 10).
...Should Gillespie wish to petition for mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition
for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1651,
Fed.R.App.P.21.
My letter January 12, 2015 to The Honorable Ed Carnes, Chief Judge began, This letter
concerns an Order June 25, 2013 authorizing me to file a petition under 28 USC 1651, the all writs
act, in Case 13-11585-B, Reverse Mortgage Solutions v Neil J. Gillespie et al. (Exhibit 11)
Former Clerk John Ley responded by letter dated January 20, 2015. (Exhibit 12).
Appeal Number: 13-11585-B
Case Style: Reverse Mortgage Solutions, In v. Neil Gillespie, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL
I am returning to you unfiled the papers which you have submitted.
In the absence of a pending appeal, as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, this court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.
This appeal was dismissed on 6/12/2013, and reconsideration on 7/25/2013.
No further action will be taken.
Former Clerk Ley is mistaken. The all writs act (28 USC 1651) is proper here, and
serves to negate the excuses Ley cited. Those reasons existed on June 25, 2013, which is why the
Courts Order July 25, 2013 authorized me to file a petition under 28 USC 1651 (all writs act) in
Case 13-11585-B, Reverse Mortgage Solutions v Neil J. Gillespie et al.
WHEREFORE, I responded to the Clerks email, Notice of New Requirement When
Filing Notice of Appeal. Later today I plan to file a motion for rehearing and clarification, in
PETITION NO. 5D15-0341.
PETITIONERS RULE 9.330 MOTION FOR

REHEARING;CLARIFICATION;CERTIFICATION
Of this Courts Order entered April 6, 2015 that denied
Petitioners Motion to Reinstate, filed March 18, 2015
14
Later today I also plan to file a motion to enlarge time in APPEAL NO. 5D15-0340.
I respectfully move the Court to grant such other and further relief as it deems just and
equitable, including an order reinstating PETITION NO. 5D15-0341, and enlarging time to file
the initial brief in APPEAL NO. 5D15-0340.
In the alternative, I move for appointment of counsel under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and hereby
give notice of appeal of the order dismissing the petition to the Supreme Court of Florida.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED April 27, 2015.
Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Appendices enclosed, Rule 9.220, Fla. R. App. P.
Appendix Volume No. 11, Constitutional Access to Courts 113p
Appendix Volume No. 13, Judge Stancils Drivers License Competence Test-Title II ADA 49p
Appendix Volume No. 15, 31 FlaJur2d Insurance-Disability 11p
Appendix Volume No. 21, AmeriFace refused to provide name of counsel 63p
Appendix Volume No. 22, Citibank NA Best Buy 109p
Appendix Volume No. 24, SCOTUS Petition No. 13-7280 159p
Appendix Volume No. 19 The Florida Bar, 91p
15
Certificate of Service - April 27, 2015

Fifth District Court of Appeal, Florida
PETITIONER-APPELLANT RESPONSE
Appeal No. 5D15-0340; and Petition No. 5D15-0341
I certify that today April 27, 2015, the foregoing PETITIONER-APPELLANT RESPONSE was
E-filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, and furnished to the names below by E-mail, except
for The Honorable Hale Ralph Stancil, his email is blocked, and was served by UPS instead.
Appendix Vol. 28, Audio Files on CD-ROM, was provided to the Clerk on CD-ROM via UPS.
The Honorable Hale Ralph Stancil
Florida Circuit Court Judge
Marion County Judicial Center
110 N.W. 1st Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475
Blocked email: hstancil@circuit5.org
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589F0395066465
Mr. Curtis Alan Wilson, FL Bar No. 77669

Ms. Danielle Nicole Parsons, FL Bar No. 29364
McCalla Raymer, LLC
225 E. Robinson Street, Ste. 660
Orlando, FL 32801
Email: MRService@mccallaraymer.com
The Honorable Joanne P. Simmons

Clerk of Court, Clerks Office
Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Email: simmonsj@flcourts.org
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297794492
The Honorable David R. Ellspermann

Marion County Clerk of Court & Comptroller
110 N.W. 1st Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475
Email: Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org
Mr. Gregory C. Harrell, General Counsel
Email: GHarrell@marioncountyclerk.org
Ms. Colleen Murphy Davis, AUSA

400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 33602
USAFLM.State.Foreclosures@usdoj.gov
USAFLM.HUD.Disclaimers@usdoj.gov
Email: Michalene.Y.Rowells@hud.gov
Ms. Michalene Y. Rowells, Paralegal Specialist

U.S. Department of HUD
909 SE 1st Ave., Suite 500
Miami, FL 33131
Tel. 305-520-5104; Fax: 305-536-5129
Email: Michalene.Y.Rowells@hud.gov
Marion County Florida

Sheriff Chris Blair, Marion County
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Email: cblair@marionso.com
Comm. Stan McClain, Chairman, District 3 Marion County Sheriffs Office (MCSO)
Comm. Kathy Bryant, Vice Chair, Dist. 2 692 NW 30th Ave., Ocala, FL 34475
Comm. Carl Zalak, III, District 4
Tel. (352)732-8181, http://marionso.com/
Comm. David Moore, District 1
ATTN: Lt. Bill Sowder, Civil Division
Comm. Earl Arnett, District 5
Bailiff and Civil Process Services
Bill Kauffman, Interim Co. Administrator Email: bsowder@marionso.com
Matthew Guy Minter, County Attorney
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP296426471
Email: matthew.minter@marioncountyfl.org UPS initial courtesy service to MCSO
Oak Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
c/o ORHA Board of Directors
7480 SW Highway 200
Ocala, FL 34476
Email: orhaboard@yahoo.com
Development & Construction Corporation of America,

c/o Carol Olson, Vice President of Administration,
and Secretary-Treasurer, for RA Priya Ghumman
10983 SW 89 Avenue, Ocala, FL 34481
Email: colson@deccahomes.com
Certificate of Service, April 27, 2015 (5thDCA)

PETITIONER-APPELLANT RESPONSE - Appeal No. 5D15-0341; and Petition No. 5D15-0341
Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as
Co-Trustees Of The Gillespie Family
Living Trust Agreement Dated
February 10, 1997
(The Trust was Terminated Feb-02-2015)
(Mark Gillespie resigned as co-trustee)
8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, FL 34481
Unknown Settlers/Beneficiaries Of
The Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement Dated February 10, 1997
(The Trust was Terminated February 2, 2015)
c/o Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Mark Gillespie
7504 Summer Meadows Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76123
Email: mark.gillespie@att.net
Unknown Trustees, Settlers And Beneficiaries

Of Unknown Settlers/Beneficiaries Of The
Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement
Dated February 10, 1997.
(The Trust was Terminated February 2, 2015)
8092 SW 115th Loop
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Unknown spouse of Mark Gillespie
n/k/a Joetta Gillespie
c/o Mark Gillespie
7504 Summer Meadows Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76123
Unknown spouse of Elizabeth Bauerle

6356 SW 106th Place
Ocala, FL 34476
c/o Mark Gillespie
Elizabeth Bauerle
n/k/a Elizabeth Bidwood
c/o Mark Gillespie
Unknown Tenant in Possession 1 and

Unknown Tenant in Possession 2
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED April 27, 2015.
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, individually, and as former

Trustee, as provided by F.S. Ch. 736 Part III,
of the Terminated Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement Dated February 10, 1997.
8092 SW 115th Loop
Phone: 352-854-7807
The Gillespie Family Living Trust

Agreement Dated February 10, 1997
Was Terminated February 2, 2015.
A Certified Copy Of The Recorded
Instrument Terminating The Trust
Is Attached Hereto As Recorded By
The Marion County Clerk & Comptroller
Book6161/Page1844, CFN#2015009748
Termination of the Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10, 1997
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
)
) SS.:
)
DAVID R EllSPERMANN CLERK & COMPTROLLER MARION
AFFIDAVIT
BEFORE ME, this day personally appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, who upon being duly
sworn deposed upon oath as follows:
I.
My name is Neil J. Gillespie. I am over eighteen years of age. This affidavit is given on
personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.

2.
I am sole Trustee of the Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10,
1997 (hereinafter "Trust").
oeZ=::)..
..
"
My Florida residential homestead property is the sole asset of the Trust, property address
~:.
8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, Marion County, Florida, (the "property") where I
have lived in the property continuously and uninterruptedly since February 9, 2005, Tax ID No.
7013-007-00 I, legal description:
Lot(s) ], Block G, OAK RUN WOODSIDE TRACT, according to the Plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page(s) 106 through I ]2, inclusive of the Public Records of
Marion County, Florida.
4.
Pursuant to my authority as Trustee of the Trust, and acting in that capacity, I transferred
the remaining trust property to the beneficiary, myself, on January 14, 2015.
5.
Pursuant to my authority as Trustee of the Trust, and acting in that capacity, I hereby
terminate the Trust as provided by Fla. Stat. 736.0414, and Article V, the Trust. The total fair
market value of the assets of the Trust is zero. The Trust served its intended purpose of
transferring the property to the beneficiary without going through probate.
6.
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 736.0414 Modification or tenn ination of uneconomic trust. (1)
After notice to the qualified beneficiaries, the trustee of a trust consisting of trust property
Book6161/Page1844
CFN#2015009748
co
DATE: 02/03/2015 11 :55:32 AM

FILE #: 2015009748 OR BK 6161 PGS 1844-1845
REC FEES: $18.50 INDEX FEES: $0.00
DDS: $0 MDS: $0 INT: $0
Page 1 of 2
having a total value less than $50,000 may terminate the trust if the trustee concludes that the
value of the trust. property is insufficient to justify the cost of administration.
FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, this 2nd day of February, 2015,
1=l--'bL
ti~u II~O SlD o;tl 0

by Neil J. Gillespie, who is personally known to me, or who has produced
.
as
. identification and states that he is. the person who made this affidavit and that its co~tents are
truthful to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
(SEAL)
Notary Public State of Florida
Angelica Cruz
NOTAR
My Commission EE067986
Expires 02127/2015
UBLIC
~(?JI(s2.
Lr0L
Print Na of Notary PublIc
My Commission Expires: --2J......;;J;_~-=.._'_)5
Book6161/Page1845
CFN#2015009748
Page 2 of 2
Index of Exhibits
APPEAL NO. 5D15-0340, and PETITION NO. 5D15-0341
PETITIONER/APPELLANT RESPONSE TO
Exhibit 1
Email Clerk re Notice of New Requirement Rule 9.020(i)(3)
Exhibit 2
Email Gillespie April 8, 2015 to the Clerk, et al, re reinstate petition
Exhibit 3
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.1 Competence
Exhibit 4
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence
Exhibit 5
Social Security letter to Gillespie, you met the medical requirements for disability
Exhibit 6
Publix Pharmacy cost of Lantus Solostar insulin $422.95
Exhibit 7
CT Cervical Spine for Gillespie, March 16, 2015
Exhibit 8
One Page Glucose Summary Report Apr-07-15 through Apr-20-15 for Gillespie
Exhibit 9
Prescription insulin isophane (NPH)100 units, cost $122.95 (3 page composite)
Exhibit 10
C.A.11 Order in 13-11585-B, July 25, 2013, Gillespie may file under all writs act
Exhibit 11
Gillespie letter to The Honorable Ed Carnes, Chief Judge, January 12, 2015
Exhibit 12
Clerk (former) John Ley letter January 20, 2015, denied all writs act (16 USC 1651)
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
<eFile5DCA@FLCourts.org>
<eFile5DCA@FLCourts.org>
Friday, April 24, 2015 4:36 PM
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA
NOTICE
Informing the Appellate Court of Pending Motions Postponing Rendition at time of Filing the Notice of
Appeal
April 10, 2015
Effective January 1, 2015, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i)(3) has been amended to
eliminate the abandonment of motions authorized pursuant to rule 9.020(l) by the filing of a notice of
appeal. Rendition of a final order will be delayed by the filing or service of a timely and authorized
motion and the filing of a notice of appeal will not result in the abandonment of such a motion but rather
the appeal shall be held in abeyance until the filing of a signed, written order disposing of the motion.
Attorneys and parties filing a notice of appeal should immediately inform the court by the filing of a
proper notice if a motion postponing rendition is pending so that the case may properly be held in
abeyance. Likewise, the attorneys or parties in the case should inform the court by notice upon the
lower tribunal disposition of such motions by filing a copy of the lower tribunals signed, written order
disposing of the motion.
Lower court clerks, lower tribunal clerks, and agency clerks are now required to complete a new section
of the electronic transmittal form submitted when efiling notices of appeal to this court which must
indicate whether or not a motion postponing rendition is pending in the case below. Clerks must mark
this section of the form or the notice of appeal may be rejected until such time as the transmittal form is
properly completed.
/s/
____________________________
Joanne P. Simmons, Clerk of Court
Fifth District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
1
4/27/2015
Page 1 of 7
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

"Minter, Matthew" <Matthew.Minter@marioncountyfl.org>; "Joanne P. Simmons"
<simmonsj@flcourts.org>; "John Anthony Tomasino" <tomasino@flcourts.org>; "Lee Bentley
USAFLM" <Lee.Bentley@usdoj.gov>; "David Ellspermann" <Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org>;
"Greg Harrell" <GHarrell@marioncountyclerk.org>; "Hon. Hale R Stancil" <hstancil@circuit5.org>;
"McCalla Raymer E-service" <MRService@mccallaraymer.com>;
<USAFLM.State.Foreclosures@usdoj.gov>; "Michalene Rowells" <Michalene.Y.Rowells@hud.gov>;
"USAFLM.HUD.Disclaimers" <USAFLM.HUD.Disclaimers@usdoj.gov>; "Oak Run Homeowners
Association, Inc." <orhaboard@yahoo.com>; "Carol Olson" <colson@deccahomes.com>; "Mark
Gillespie" <mark.gillespie@att.net>; "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
"Hernandez, Barbra" <Barbra.Hernandez@marioncountyfl.org>; "Doty, Danielle"
<Danielle.Doty@marioncountyfl.org>; "Mitchell, Yvonne" <Yvonne.Mitchell@marioncountyfl.org>
Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:04 PM
UN Resolution 64-292, the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.pdf; 29.007 Courtappointed counsel (2014).pdf; 2010, 07-07-10, Marion Co Hires Minter as county attorney.pdf; 2014,
06-18-14, Letter of Guy Minter to NJG.pdf; 2015, 03-16-15, CT Cervical Spine NJG.pdf; 2015, 03-1915, Publix Pharmacy $467.12..pdf; 2015, 03-30-15, email Craig Waters, Director, Public Information
Office.pdf; 2015, 04-01-15, ORDER SC14-1637 petition dismissed 2p.pdf; 2015, 04-06-15, Order
DENIED reinstate petition.pdf; Appendix 11 ABA Civil Right to Counsel 71p.pdf; Appendix 13, Judge
Stancil's Driver's License Competence Test for Title II ADA 46p.pdf; Petitioner's Motion to Reinstate
Dismissed Petition for Writ of Prohibition 10p.pdf; Records Request, Rule 2.420(m)(1), DOJ letter to
CJ Labarga.pdf; UN Disconnecting water from people who cannot pay - an affront to human rights.pdf
Re: Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition Case No. 5D15-0341; Sec. 19-179(1) POLICY DISPUTE
- Marion County Utilities (MCU)
Clerk of the Supreme Court John Anthony Tomasino

Clerk of Court Joanne P. Simmons
Fifth District Court of Appeal, Florida
Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition Case No. 5D15-0341
Guy Minter, Marion County Attorney
RE: Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition Case No. 5D15-0341
Appendix 13, Judge Stancils Drivers License Competence Test for Title II ADA
Appendix 11, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - Directory of Law Governing Appointment of
Counsel in FLORIDA Civil Proceedings
Florida Supreme Courts dismissed of petition SC14-1637
Response to Mr. Minter
Dear Mr. Tomasino, Mr. Minter and Clerk Simmons:
Mr. Minter, this is to acknowledge your email about public records below. I am unable to respond
further until I finish my Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition Case No. 5D15-0341. As you know,
you and Judge Stancil invoked the same wrong Drivers License Competence Test for Title II ADA,
which I attribute to the corrupting influence of David R. Ellspermann, Marion County Clerk of Court &
Comptroller.
My motion to reinstate the petition (attached) was denied April 6, 2015 (attached) without response to
my request for appointment of counsel under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended,
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or response to notice of appeal of the order dismissing
the petition to the Supreme Court of Florida.
I am still working on the petition, it is taking longer than planned due to disability, and the amount of
work involved, such as twenty or so appendices. Please find attached Appendix Volume No. 13 to refute
2
4/27/2015
Page 2 of 7
the same wrong Drivers License Competence Test for Title II ADA advanced by you and Judge Stancil.
Appendix Volume No. 13 (Rule 9.220), Amended Petition For Writ of Prohibition
RE: Judge Stancils Drivers License Competence Test for Title II ADA
Appendix Volume No. 14 (Rule 9.220), Amended Petition For Writ of Prohibition, will show significant
loss of brain function following traumatic brain injury in 1988, shown by the results a WRAT-R2 test
(Wide Range Achievement Test-R2), part of my vocational screening by the Florida Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation in 1993/1994.
My health continues to decline. Due to indigence I was not able to purchase a prescription costing
$422.95 for Lantus Solostar insulin (100 units) see attached. On Monday April 6, 2015 my doctor
interpreted the results of the attached CT scan of me from March 16, 2015: C5-6, moderate to severe left
neural foramina stenosis due to uncovertebral joint hypertrophy. This condition may explain neuropathy
in both my hands that makes typing difficult and painful.
Mr. Minter, I believe your incentive-based salary puts you in conflict with the citizens of Marion
County, as you strive to meet "certain performance benchmarks" instead of providing public service.
The Ocala Star Banner reported July 7, 2010, "Marion hires Seminole County's Minter as county
attorney". (attached)
"If Minter meets certain performance benchmarks to be set by the commission, his
salary would rise to $180,000 in the second year."
http://www.ocala.com/article/20100707/ARTICLES/100709777
This conflict likely explains why you failed to respond to my policy dispute submitted May 1, 2014 for
six weeks. Ultimately MCU returned my deposit in the amount of $150, which negates your position.
The county still owes me return of the $55 transfer fee wrongly charged.
I requested and was denied disability accommodation for access to information ultimately found here:
https://www.municode.com/library/fl/marion_county/codes/code_of_ordinances
The above link is to the Municode library for the Marion County Florida Code of Ordinances. This is
about getting information that Marion County did not want to provide. The above link does not appear
on the Marion County Utilities website that I know of. The utility application is not online. To make an
informed decision, I need to obtain and review this information in advance and in quiet, without a MCU
employee lying to me and presenting false choices, and demanding a decision prior to leaving its
dilapidated office, which I understand has moved.
Your claim that F.S. 282.601 - 282.606 does not apply to local governments is negated by MCUs
duty under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act which is a similar law, and one Marion County is
obligated to obey as a recipient of federal funds. MCU could resolve this by,
A. Placing access to its utilities application online.
B. Providing a link to the Municode library for the Marion County Florida Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/fl/marion_county/codes/code_of_ordinances
The Municode library is a usable form of the Code. The PDF version offered by the County is far less
accessable, or not accessable in some cases of disability.
This is not a question about being "an ambulatory individual with a driver's license, able to speak, hear,
4/27/2015
Page 3 of 7
read and write". This is not a question of being "physically capable of accessing the offices of Marion
County Utilities". That is compete and utter nonsense. Marion County Utility overcharged me by $205.
That shows without accommodation, Marion County defrauded me.
MCU employees misrepresented to me the requirements of Sec. 19-181, customer deposits, when I
appeared in person at the MCU office, on Tuesday, April 29, 2014.
1. MCU employees wrongly portrayed that a certain sequence applied to the establishment of credit
under Sec. 19-181(a). Specifically, MCU insisted that if a credit review under (a)(5) was denied, that
denial foreclosed all other options except (a)(2), the applicant pays a cash deposit. MCU lied, because
option (a)(4) was available to me to establish credit under 19-181(a). However I was unaware that MCU
was lying to me because I did not have access to the Code in a usable form.
2. MCU employees wrongly portrayed that under (a)(4), the account "must be in your name". Again,
MCU lied, and I was unaware that MCU was lying because I did not have access to a usable form of
Code. An applicant need only provide a letter from another public utility stating the applicant has two
(2) years of good account history as defined by (a)(4).
Mr. Minter, you wrote June 18, 2014 that Marion County Utilities does not have provisions for
"economic hardship", but you would be pleased to review any such provisions. On July 28, 2010 the
United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized, through Resolution 64/292, the human right to
safe drinking water and sanitation, and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are
essential to the realisation of all human rights. The United States is a member of the UN and subject to
Resolution 64/292. Under Resolution 64/292, everyone in Florida has a human right to water and
sanitation. (attached, and at the link) http://www.un.org/es/comun/docs/?
symbol=A/RES/64/292&lang=E
See the attached UN press release, also at the link
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14777&LangID=E
"GENEVA (25 June 2014) Three UN experts* on the human rights to water and sanitation, adequate
housing, and extreme poverty and human rights expressed concern Wednesday about reports of
widespread water disconnections in the US city of Detroit of households unable to pay water bills.
"Disconnection of water services because of failure to pay due to lack of means constitutes a violation of
the human right to water and other international human rights," the experts said. "Disconnections due to
non-payment are only permissible if it can be shown that the resident is able to pay but is not paying. In
other words, when there is genuine inability to pay, human rights simply forbids disconnections," said
Catarina de Albuquerque, the expert on the human right to water and sanitation."
The foregoing is only a fraction of my ultimate final response to your letter of June 18, 2014 (attached),
a response which may exceed 100 pages with supporting documents.
To the Court(s) and Clerk(s), the Florida legislature enacted Fla. Stat. 29.007 Court-appointed counsel,
see attached Appendix 11, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - Directory of Law Governing
Appointment of Counsel in FLORIDA Civil Proceedings
Fla. Stat. 29.007 Court-appointed counsel, "Subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) ... This section
applies in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigants due process rights." A
plain reading of "any situation" includes HECM reverse home mortgage foreclosure in either the trial
court or appellate court, and ultimately the supreme court.
4/27/2015
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Tomasino, I am in receipt of the Florida Supreme Courts dismissed of petition SC14-1637, see
attached. Craig Waters denied a records request for the DOJ record notifying Chief Justice Jorge
Labarga that it is investigating the mental-health screening imposed by the Florida Supreme Court on
bar applicants. The Supreme Court wrongly denied a counsel appointment in SC14-1637 required under
Fla. Stat. 29.007 Court-appointed counsel, which has delayed my petition, to which I would now add
the records denial of Mr. Waters, and the ongoing records violations of Grace Fagan and the Fifth
Judicial Circuit, and their added requirements not imposed by Fla. R. Jud. Admin. Rule 2.420(m)(1).
Would that be a motion for rehearing, with new matters? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
----- Original Message ----From: Minter, Matthew
To: Neil Gillespie
Cc: Hernandez, Barbra ; Doty, Danielle ; Mitchell, Yvonne
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:51 PM
Subject: RE: Sec. 19-179(1) POLICY DISPUTE - Marion County Utilities (MCU)
Mr. Gillespie:
With respect to your message below, and your public records request dated January 2,
2015, neither I nor the County Attorneys office have any records related to the
Proclamations of Confederate History Month referenced in your letter. My office did not
prepare those proclamations, and had no involvement in handling or processing those
documents. The same answer applies to any records for the fundraising to move Johnny
Reb, and any accounts related thereto. We have no records on those topics. The same
answer applies to any records related to the reported receipt by Marion County of $2.5
million in federal stimulus funding. We have no records on those topics.
I therefor defer to whatever Mr. Harrell has reported to you with respect to records in the
possession of the Clerk.
Sincerely, Guy Minter
From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:22 PM
To: Doty, Danielle; McClain, Stan; Bryant, Kathy; Minter, Matthew; Arnett, Earl; Moore, David;
Zalak, Carl; Kauffman, William; Turner, Lindsay; Zachary, Robert; Mellinger, Flip; Chaney,
Lourdes; Jarvis, Nancy; Hernandez, Barbra; Harvey, Jean; Taylor, Dana; Rickman, Jeannie
Cc: Neil Gillespie
4/27/2015
Page 5 of 7
Subject: Sec. 19-179(1) POLICY DISPUTE - Marion County Utilities (MCU)
Mr. Kauffman, see attached my Sec. 19-179(1) POLICY DISPUTE - Marion County Utilities (MCU).
The paper copy will ship tomorrow by UPS. The pickup deadline for today has passed. Please credit
my Account No: 010456-01 in the amount of $55.
Regarding Ms. Doty's public record comments below, I believe she is mistaken. Mr. Minter may have
records that Mr. Harrell does not have or even know about. Therefore, my records request to Mr.
Minter is still open. Records not provided. I also communicated with Mr. Harrell, and he was unaware
of the Proclamations until I requested records. The BOCC authorized the Proclamations, and with Mr.
Minter, may have more records. Thank you.
Sincerely, Neil J. Gillespie
----- Original Message ----From: Doty, Danielle
To: Neil Gillespie
Cc: Hernandez, Barbra ; Rickman, Jeannie
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 8:09 PM
Subject: RE: SECOND REQUEST: Records request to County Attorney Guy Minter-Jan-02-2015
Good evening Mr. Gillespie,
In researching your public records request to the County Attorney, I learned from the Clerk
of the Courts staff that they have already fulfilled the majority of the request. I spoke with
the Clerks General Counsel, Greg Harrell, and he has sent me all of his correspondence to
you which addresses the proclamations, the finance records of the fundraising for the
Johnny Reb statue, and the finance records of Marion Countys use of federal stimulus
funds.
In regard to the last portion of your request concerning your utility account, our Utilities
Director has confirmed that nothing has changed since last summer. As you stated, you
received a notification from Dr. Lee Niblock explaining that your account would be
credited $150, but the $55 transfer fee was still applicable. That action remains in place as
the final determination of your request for a refund.
This information fulfills your public records request.
Thank you,
DanielleDamatoDoty
BusinessandCommunicationsLiaison
PublicandAdministrativeServices
MarionCountyBoardofCountyCommissioners
601SE25thAve.,Ocala,FL34471
4/27/2015
Page 6 of 7
Office:3524382301
www.marioncountyfl.org
From: Hernandez, Barbra

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Neil Gillespie
Cc: Zachary, Robert; Mellinger, Flip; Jarvis, Nancy; Harvey, Jean; Taylor, Dana; Turner,
Lindsay; Doty, Danielle; Griffis, Nadja
Subject: RE: SECOND REQUEST: Records request to County Attorney Guy Minter-Jan-022015
Mr. Gillespie,
This confirms receipt of your public records request. We will research it and advise you of
any estimated labor and reproduction costs associated with fulfilling this request before
proceeding any further. If no labor costs are anticipated, we will proceed to email you the
requested records as available.
Thanks,
Barbra Hernndez, APR
Public Information Manager
Marion County Office of Public Information

601 SE 25th Ave., Ocala, FL 34471
Office: 352-438-2310
www.marioncountyfl.org
From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:04 PM
To: Minter, Matthew; McClain, Stan; Bryant, Kathy; Arnett, Earl; Moore, David; Zalak, Carl;
Zachary, Robert; Mellinger, Flip; Jarvis, Nancy; Hernandez, Barbra; Harvey, Jean; Taylor,
Dana; Turner, Lindsay
Cc: Neil Gillespie
Subject: SECOND REQUEST: Records request to County Attorney Guy Minter-Jan-02-2015
----- Original Message ----From: Neil Gillespie

To: Matthew Minter
Cc: Neil Gillespie
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 1:33 PM
4/27/2015
Page 7 of 7
Subject: Records request to County Attorney Guy Minter-Jan-02-2015
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do
not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do
not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
4/27/2015
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/63890D65476BC14985257170006C3936
ABOUT THE BAR
NEWS & EVENTS
FOR THE PUBLIC
MEMBER SERVICES
LOG IN
FIND A LAWYER
Search The Florida Bar
THE FLORIDA BAR / Rules
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
RULE 4-1.1 COMPETENCE

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-1 CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
RULE 4-1.1 COMPETENCE

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill,
thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
Comment
Legal knowledge and skill
In determining whether a lawyer employs the requisite knowledge and skill in a particular matter, relevant factors include the
relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general experience, the lawyer's training and experience in the
field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the matter, and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or
associate or consult with, a lawyer of established competence in the field in question. In many instances the required proficiency is
that of a general practitioner. Expertise in a particular field of law may be required in some circumstances.
A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is
unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a practitioner with long experience. Some important legal skills, such
as the analysis of precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal drafting, are required in all legal problems. Perhaps the most
fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily
transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through
necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of a lawyer of established competence in
the field in question.
In an emergency a lawyer may give advice or assistance in a matter in which the lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required
where referral to or consultation or association with another lawyer would be impractical. Even in an emergency, however,
assistance should be limited to that reasonably necessary in the circumstances, for ill-considered action under emergency conditions
can jeopardize the client's interest.
A lawyer may accept representation where the requisite level of competence can be achieved by reasonable preparation. This
applies as well to a lawyer who is appointed as counsel for an unrepresented person. See also rule 4-6.2.
Thoroughness and preparation
Competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and
use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate preparation. The
required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily
require more extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence. The lawyer should consult with the client
about the degree of thoroughness and the level of preparation required as well as the estimated costs involved under the
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/63890D65476BC14985257170006C3936
circumstances.
Maintaining competence
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, engage in
continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.
[Revised: 05/22/2006]
About the Bar

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

Publications
Daily News Summary
The Florida Bar News
The Florida Bar Journal
News Releases
Calendars
Meetings
Media Resources
Reporter's Handbook
Issue Papers
Publications
For the Public
Member Services
Directories
Attorney Discipline
Continuing Legal Education
Search for a Lawyer
Consumer Information
Board Certification
Browse Lawyers by Location
Speakers Bureau
Benefits and Discounts
Browse Lawyers by Certification
Lawyer Referral Service
Employment Opportunities
Browse Lawyers by Section
The Vote's in Your Court
Lawyers Advising Lawyers
Browse Lawyers by Committee
Fair & Impartial Courts
Florida Lawyers Assistance
Authorized House Counsel
Clients' Security Fund
E-filing Resources
Certified Foreign Legal
Prepaid Legal Services
Practice Resource Institute
Pro Bono/Legal Aid
Pro Bono Information
Unlicensed Practice of Law
Legislative Activity
Research &
Professionalism
Ethics Opinions
Rules Regulating the Bar
Fastcase Legal Research
PRI - Practice Resource Institute
Henry Latimer Center for
Professionalism
Lawyer Referral
Voluntary Bar Center
Consultant
Florida Registered Paralegals
Law Faculty Affiliate Members
Courts & Judges
Florida Bar Staff
Legal Groups & Law Schools
Judicial Nominating
Commissions
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/7CAA33D4D0F911B585257170006DC334
ABOUT THE BAR
NEWS & EVENTS
FOR THE PUBLIC
MEMBER SERVICES
LOG IN
FIND A LAWYER
Search The Florida Bar
THE FLORIDA BAR / Rules
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
RULE 4-1.3 DILIGENCE

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-1 CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
RULE 4-1.3 DILIGENCE

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Comment
A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and
take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with
commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf. A lawyer is not bound,
however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client. For example, a lawyer may have authority to exercise
professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pursued. See rule 4-1.2. The lawyer's duty to act with
reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process
with courtesy and respect.
A lawyer's workload must be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently.
Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination. A client's interests often can be adversely
affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of
limitations, the client's legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client's interests are not affected in substance, however,
unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer. A lawyer's duty to act with
reasonable promptness, however, does not preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement that will
not prejudice the lawyer's client.
Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in rule 4-1.16, a lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken
for a client. If a lawyer's employment is limited to a specific matter, the relationship terminates when the matter has been resolved. If
a lawyer has served a client over a substantial period in a variety of matters, the client sometimes may assume that the lawyer will
continue to serve on a continuing basis unless the lawyer gives notice of withdrawal. Doubt about whether a client-lawyer
relationship still exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not mistakenly suppose the
lawyer is looking after the client's affairs when the lawyer has ceased to do so. For example, if a lawyer has handled a judicial or
administrative proceeding that produced a result adverse to the client and the lawyer and the client have not agreed that the lawyer
will handle the matter on appeal, the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal before relinquishing
responsibility for the matter. See rule 4-1.4(a)(2). Whether the lawyer is obligated to prosecute the appeal for the client depends on
the scope of the representation the lawyer has agreed to provide to the client. See rule 4-1.2.
[Revised: 05/22/2006]
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/7CAA33D4D0F911B585257170006DC334
About the Bar

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

Publications
Daily News Summary
The Florida Bar News
The Florida Bar Journal
News Releases
Calendars
Meetings
Media Resources
Reporter's Handbook
Issue Papers
Publications
For the Public
Member Services
Directories
Attorney Discipline
Continuing Legal Education
Search for a Lawyer
Consumer Information
Board Certification
Browse Lawyers by Location
Speakers Bureau
Benefits and Discounts
Browse Lawyers by Certification
Lawyer Referral Service
Employment Opportunities
Browse Lawyers by Section
The Vote's in Your Court
Lawyers Advising Lawyers
Browse Lawyers by Committee
Fair & Impartial Courts
Florida Lawyers Assistance
Authorized House Counsel
Clients' Security Fund
E-filing Resources
Certified Foreign Legal
Prepaid Legal Services
Practice Resource Institute
Pro Bono/Legal Aid
Pro Bono Information
Unlicensed Practice of Law
Legislative Activity
Research &
Professionalism
Ethics Opinions
Rules Regulating the Bar
Fastcase Legal Research
PRI - Practice Resource Institute
Henry Latimer Center for
Professionalism
Lawyer Referral
Voluntary Bar Center
Consultant
Florida Registered Paralegals
Law Faculty Affiliate Members
Courts & Judges
Florida Bar Staff
Legal Groups & Law Schools
Judicial Nominating
Commissions
Social Security Administration

Retirement, Survivors and Disability Insurance
Notice of Award
Office of Disability and
International Operations
1500 Woodlawn Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21241-0001
Date: August 23, 1993
Claim Number: 160-52-5117HA
NEIL J GILLESPIE
266 7 AVE NE APT 5
ST PETERSBURG, FL 33701-2651
1 11 11.1 11111 1.1.111.1 11.11 11 11 1
We recently told you that you met the medical requirements to receive Social
Security benefits. Now we are writing to tell you that you meet the other
requirements. Therefore you qualify for monthly disability benefits from Social
Security beginning July 1992.
However, we cannot pay you for July 1992 through July 1993.
The Date You Became Disabled
We found that you became disabled under our rules on January 17, 1992. This is
different from the date given on the application.
Also, you have to be disabled for 5 full calendar months in a row before you can
be entitled to benefits. For these reasons, your first month of entitlement to
benefits is July 1992.
What We Will Pay And When
You will receive $1,185.00 for August 1993 around September 3, 1993.
After that you will receive $1,185.00 each month.
Your Benefits
We raised your monthly benefit amount beginning December 1992 because the
cost of living increased.
Enclosure(s):
Pub 05-10072
Pub 05-10153
See Next Page
. 160-52-5117HA
Page 2 of 3
Other Government Payments Affect Benefits
Besides the money we are sending you now, you may be due some more Social
Security money for July 1992 through July 1993. We must first subtract the
amount of your Supplemental Security Income payments for some or all of these
months from the Social Security money you are due. When we figure the
amount we have to subtract, we will send another letter to show how it was
done. If you are still due some money after the subtraction, we will also send
you a check.
Other Social Security Benefits
The benefit described in this letter is the only one you can receive from Social
Security. If you think that you might qualify for another kind of Social Security
benefit in the future, you will have to file another application.
Do You Disagree With The Decision?
If you think we are wrong, you have the right to appeal. A person who did not
make the first decision will decide your case. We will correct any mistakes. We
will review those parts of the decision which you believe are wrong and will look
at any new facts you have. We may also review those parts which you believe
are correct and may make them unfavorable or less favorable to you.

You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.
The 60 days start the day after you receive this letter.
You must have a good reason if you wait more than 60 days to ask for an
appeal.
Things To Remember For The Future
The doctors and other trained personnel who decided that you are disabled expect
your health to improve. Therefore, we will review your case in July 1994. We
will send you a letter before we start the review. Based on that review, your
benefits will continue if you are still disabled, but will end if no longer disabled.
For you to be considered disabled under our rules, your health problems must
keep you from doing not only your usual work, but also any other kind of
substantial gainful work.
Also, you must meet this requirement at the same time when you have earned
enough credits for work under Social Security. The last date when you will have
earned enough credits is December 1994.
Please read the enclosed pamphlet, "How You Earn Social Security Credits,"
which explains how the credits are earned and how many a person needs to
receive benefits.
Page 3 of 3
160-52-5117HA
Your Responsibilities
The decisions we made on your claim are based on information you gave us. If
this information changes, it could affect your benefits. For this reason, it is
important that you report changes to us right away.
We have enclosed a pamphlet, "When You Get Social Security Disability
Benefits...What You Need To Know." It will tell you what must be reported and
how to report. Please be sure to read the parts of the pamphlet which explain
what to do if you go to work or if your health improves.
If You Want Help With Your Appeal
You can have a friend, lawyer or someone else help you. There are groups that
can help you find a lawyer or give you free legal services if you qualify. There
are also lawyers who do not charge unless you win your appeal. Your local Social
Security office has a list of groups that can help you with your appeal.
If you get someone to help you, you should let us know. If you hire someone, we
must approve the fee before he or she can collect it. And if you hire a lawyer, we
will withhold up to 25 percent of any past due benefits to pay toward the fee.
If You Have Any Questions
If you have any questions, call us toll free at 1-800-772-1213. We can answer
most questions over the phone. You can also write or visit any Social Security
office. The office that serves your area is located at:
DISTRICT OFFICE
898 30TH AVE NORTH
ST PETERSBURG, FL 33704
If you do call or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It will help us
answer your questions.
Cl . ~ ~
//~~q
Louis D. Enoff
Acting Commissioner
of Social Security
Page 1 of2
Timberridge Imaging Center

9521 SW HWY 200
Ocala, FL 34481
Phone #: (352)401-3200
Fax: (352)732-8010
RADIOLOGY
ASSOCIATES
(_)F ()Cl\Ll\, P.J~'
Name:
Neil J Gillespie
Secondary 10:
Exam Date:
03/16/2015 04:20 PM
Gender:
Male
DOB:
Referrer: CESAR R GAMERO, MD

Address: 9401 SW HWY 200 BLD 2000 SUITE 2004
OCALA, FL 34481
03/19/1956
Phone:
(352)854-7807
Acc#:
81311660
CC:Referrer 2:
HISTORY:
Cervical radiculopathy.
EXAM: CT CERVICAL SPINE WITH COMPUTERIZED MULTIPLANAR RECONSTRUCTION.

TECHNIQUE: A helical examination was performed through the cervical spine
without contrast. Computerized multiplanar reconstruction was performed.
FINDINGS:
Comparison: MRI of the cervical spine 8/28/2007.
No significant spondylolisthesis.
C2-3, no significant spinal canal or neural foramina narrowing.
C5-6, moderate to severe left neural foramina stenosis due to uncovertebral
joint hypertrophy. It is difficult to adequately evaluate the spinal canal due
to beam hardening artifact from the patient's shoulders.
C6-C7, no significant neural foramina narrowing. Difficult to adequately
evaluate the spinal canal due to large body habitus.
C7-T1, no significant neural foramina narrowing.
Impression:
1. Difficult to adequately evaluate the spinal canal from C5-6 through C7-T1 due
to beam hardening artifact secondary to large body habitus.
2. At C5-6, moderate to severe left neural foramina stenosis due to
uncovertebral joint hypertrophy.
Board Certified - Diagnostic Radiology, N.~W::9X~m9J9gy.

Specialty - N~vt9XS\sij,~t9.iY.
Signed by: RALF BARCKHAUSEN M.D.
http://l 72.20.3 .122/Reports/printReportCustom.aspx?acc=81311660
3/27/2015
Page 2 of2
Signed on: 03/16/2015 04:29 PM
http://l 72.20.3 .122/Reports/printReportCustom.aspx?acc=81311660
3/27/2015
Neil J. Gillespie
Birth Date: 3/19/1956
Accu-Chek Compass
One Page Summary Report
4/7/2015 - 4/20/2015
Trend Graph
600
550
500
450
bG (mg/dL)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
4/7
2015
4/8
4/9
4/10
4/11
4/12
4/13
4/14
4/15
4/16
4/17
4/18
4/19
4/20
Average Day
600
550
500
450
bG (mg/dL)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Night
Before
Breakfast
After
Breakfast
Before
Lunch
After
Lunch
Before
Dinner
After
Dinner
Evening
Target Range
Overall
8
Above 100.0% (14 tests)
Before Meals
After Meals
Range
Above Target
Within Target
Below Target
Hypo
( > 140 mg/dL ):

( 70 - 140 mg/dL ):
( 50 - 69 mg/dL ):
( < 50 mg/dL ):
Printed: 4/20/2015
Tests Percent
14 100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
485
Highest bG (mg/dL):
242
Lowest bG (mg/dL):
Average bG (mg/dL): 328.9
Number of HIs:
0
Number of LOs:
0
Page 1 of 1
14
Total # of Tests:
Avg. # Tests per Day: 1.0
Standard Deviation: 73.0
Roche Diagnostics
Case: 13-11585
Date Filed: 07/25/2013
Page: 1 of 1
10
Case: 13-11585
Page: 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John Ley
Clerk of Court
For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov
July 25, 2013

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
This Court requires all counsel to file documents electronically using the Electronic Case
Files ("ECF") system, unless exempted for good cause.
The enclosed order has been ENTERED.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Melanie Gaddis, B/rvg
Phone #: (404) 335-6187
MOT-2 Notice of Court Action
Case: 13-11585
Page: 1 of 1
11
Case: 13-11585
Page: 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John Ley
Clerk of Court
For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov
January 20, 2015

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
I am returning to you unfiled the papers which you have submitted.
In the absence of a pending appeal, as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, this court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.
This appeal was dismissed on 6/12/2013, and reconsideration on 7/25/2013.
No further action will be taken.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Melanie Gaddis, B
Phone #: (404) 335-6187
Enclosure(s)
PRO-3 Letter Returning Papers Unfiled
12

Petitioner-Appellant Response 5D15-0340

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner-Appellant Response 5D15-0340

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT, FLORIDA

APPEAL NO. 5D15-0340

Residential Home Foreclosure Case

Previous information notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email April 8, 2015

Previous information notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email April 8, 2015

Previously I gave informal notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email (Exhibit 2) on

April 8, 2015 to the Clerk, et al,

Previously I gave informal notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email (Exhibit 2) on

April 8, 2015 to the Clerk, et al,

Previously I gave informal notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email (Exhibit 2) on

April 8, 2015 to the Clerk, et al,

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.1 Competence. (Exhibit 3)

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence. (Exhibit 4)

Social Security Disability determination (Exhibit 5)

Fla. Stat. 413.30(2) disability determinations by other state or federal agencies

413.30(2) Determinations...pursuant to Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act

Previously I gave informal notice in Petition No. 5D15-0341 by email (Exhibit 2) on

April 8, 2015 to the Clerk, et al,

Appendix Volume No. 15 (Rule 9.220, Fla. R. App. P.)

31 Fla. Jur. 2d 2196 (2007), Occupational disability

Observation: An occupational disability clause may provide further that recovery

What constitutes total or permanent disability within the coverage of disability

Annotation References: What constitutes total disability within coverage of disability

Annotation References: Mental incapacity or disease as constituting total or permanent

Appendix 28, Audio Files (.wav) on CD-ROM 14.

AmeriFace is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity (#32-0085490). It was founded in 1991 to

Appendix 24, SCOTUS No. 13-7280 159p.

PETITIONERS RULE 9.330 MOTION FOR

Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner pro se

Certificate of Service - April 27, 2015

Mr. Curtis Alan Wilson, FL Bar No. 77669

The Honorable Joanne P. Simmons

The Honorable David R. Ellspermann

Ms. Colleen Murphy Davis, AUSA

Ms. Michalene Y. Rowells, Paralegal Specialist

Marion County Florida

Development & Construction Corporation of America,

Certificate of Service, April 27, 2015 (5thDCA)

Unknown Trustees, Settlers And Beneficiaries

Unknown spouse of Elizabeth Bauerle

Unknown Tenant in Possession 1 and

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED April 27, 2015.

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, individually, and as former

The Gillespie Family Living Trust

DAVID R EllSPERMANN CLERK & COMPTROLLER MARION

personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.

1997 (hereinafter "Trust").

DATE: 02/03/2015 11 :55:32 AM

ti~u II~O SlD o;tl 0

Notary Public State of Florida

My Commission Expires: --2J......;;J;_~-=.._'_)5

Email Clerk re Notice of New Requirement Rule 9.020(i)(3)

Email Gillespie April 8, 2015 to the Clerk, et al, re reinstate petition

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.1 Competence

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3 Diligence

Publix Pharmacy cost of Lantus Solostar insulin $422.95

CT Cervical Spine for Gillespie, March 16, 2015

Prescription insulin isophane (NPH)100 units, cost $122.95 (3 page composite)

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT

"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

Clerk of the Supreme Court John Anthony Tomasino

Sincerely, Guy Minter