petitioner's motion to extend time petitioner's request to toll time, sc14-1637

8/11/2019 Petitioner's Motion to Extend Time Petitioner's Request to Toll Time, SC14-1637

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petitioners-motion-to-extend-time-petitioners-request-to-toll-time 1/19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDASTATE OF FLORIDA

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Petitioner pro se (nonlawyer),CASE NO.: SC14-1637

VS.

THE FLORIDA BAR,

Respondent. _________________________________ /

Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time

1. The Petitioner, Neil J. Gillespie, a disabled nonlawyer reluctantly appearing pro se,

henceforth in the first person, moves to extend time under Fla. R. App. P. 9.300(a), and Fla. R.

Jud. Admin. 2.514, and states:

2. This Court’s ORDER entered August 22, 2014 (Exhibit A) held inter alia,

Petitioner's letter, filed in this Court on August 20, has been treated as a petition for writof mandamus. Petitioner is allowed to and including September 11, 2014, in which to file

a proper petition for writ of mandamus; that complies with Florida Rule of AppellateProcedure 9.100.

3. A separate ORDER entered by this Court August 22, 2014 (Exhibit B) held inter alia,

The jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the filing of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus; however, said petition was not accompanied by the $300.00 filing fee or a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as required by Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.100(b). The filing fee is due and payable at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner is allowed to and including September 22, 2014, in which to submitthe filing fee or a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis....

4. Under Fla. R. App. P. 9.300(a), Motions, and Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514, Computing and

Extending Time, I respectfully request the Supreme Court extend time for 33 days to and

including October 14, 2014 (Exhibit C) to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus, and

proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis, so that I may obtain counsel of my choice.



2

5. In support of this motion to extend time, I have been reluctantly appearing pro se in the

following legal matters which have taken considerable time, in addition to SC14-1637:

• Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie, et al., Marion County Florida, Fifth

Judicial Circuit, No. 42-2013CA-000115-AXXX-XX, a.k.a. case no. 2013-CA-000115.Wrongful home foreclosure on a HECM reverse mortgage.

• The Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No.20133090(5), initiated on the complaint of Ryan Christopher Rodems.

• Complaint of Neil J. Gillespie against Danielle Nicole Parsons, File No. 2014-30,525 (09A). Notice of Assignment of Investigating Member and/or Panel, September 2, 2014. (Exhibit D)

• My request to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing for the Nomination of Arthur Lee Bentley III for United States Attorney, and request to present testimony (enclosed)

• My request to the U.S. Post Office for the Postal Inspection Service to prosecute mail fraud in the fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate government activity, 18U.S.C. § 371, a conspiracy against my rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241, and a deprivation of my rightsunder color of law, 18 U.S.C. § 242, by Pam Bondi, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

• Fraud or impairment of SCOTUS Petition No. 12-7747 by Florida Chief Justice RickyPolston, Judge Claudia Rickert Isom, and Florida Bar President Gwynne Alice Young, seemy letter August 28, 2014 to Mr. Pimentel Storbeck/Pimentel & Associates, Inc. (enclosed)

6. In compliance with Rule 9.300(d)(10), I request the Supreme Court toll time. A separate

request to toll time accompanies this motion.

7. Clerk John Tomasino emailed me August 26, 2014 9:15 AM (Exhibit E):

Mr. Gillespie,In the sixth paragraph of your August 25, 2014 letter, you ask for my advice on whether “Rule 1-14.1(a) Access To Records might be useful in this instance as an “add on” to theRule 1-14.1(a) request submitted to you.” I am unable to offer any advice, as the Clerk’srole is simply ministerial. I regret I am unable to assist you further.Sincerely,John Tomasino

8. The August 25, 2014 letter referred to by Mr. Tomasino is with Exhibit E.

9. Clerk John Tomasino emailed me August 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM (Exhibit F):

Mr. Gillespie,



3

In the second to last paragraph of your first attachment, you make references to SC14-1637, and appear to be making requests regarding that case. I’m unsure if you intend your email to serve as an official request, so I wanted to explain that any requests related toSC14-1637 must be made through a proper filing. There are three ways to file on a case:1) By carrier delivery; 2) by hand delivery; and/or 3) by filing through the E-Filing

Portal. Our office cannot accept case related filings via email. You may register for anaccount at this website:

https://www.myflcourtaccess.com/default.aspx

Your email received on Tuesday, September 26, 2014 (sic), and four attachments will be placed in our miscellaneous file and no action will be taken on those items.

10. My email, the four attached letters referenced by Mr. Tomasino, and my letter to Mr.Tomasino, are enclosed. The date was August 26, 2014. (Not September 26, 2014).

WHEREFORE, I respectfully move the Supreme Court to extend time for 33 days to and

including October 14, 2014 to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus, and proper motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, so that I may obtain counsel of my choice.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED September 11, 2014.

Neil J. Gillespie, petitioner pro se8092 SW 115

th Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481Telephone: (352) 854-7807



Certificate of Service

I HEREBY CERTIFY that Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time, and attachments, and

Petitioner’s Separate Request to Toll Time, were furnished VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP290364263

on September 11, 2014, and by Email: [email protected], to

Mr. John A. Tomasino, Clerk

Supreme Court of Florida

500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a PDF copy of Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time, and

attachments, and Petitioner’s Separate Request to Toll Time, has been furnished by email

September 11, 2014 to:

Adria E. Quintela, Director of Lawyer Regulation,

The Florida Bar, [email protected]

John F. Harkness, Executive Director,

The Florida Bar, [email protected]

Neil J. Gillespie, petitioner pro se

8092 SW 115th

Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 854-7807



~ u p r

<tourt of jflortba

FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 2014

CASE NO.:

SC14-1637

NEIL J GILLESPIE

vs. THE FLORIDA

B R

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

Petitioner s letter, filed in this Court on August 20, has been treated as a

petition for writ of mandamus.

Petitioner is allowed to and including Septenlber 11, 2014, in which to file a

proper petition for writ of nlandamus; that complies with Florida Rule

of

Appellate

Procedure

9 1

00.

The failure to file a proper petition with this Court within the time provided

could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case. See

Fla.

R

App.

P

9.410.

Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to

reinstatement.

A True Copy

Test:

tg

Served:

ADRIA E QUINTELA

NEIL J GILLESPIE

A



~ u p r ourt

o jflortba

FRIDAY,

AUGUST 22 2014

CASE NO.:

SC14-1637

NEIL J. GILLESPIE

vs. THE FLORIDA

BAR

Petitioner(s)

Respondent(s)

The jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the filing of a Petition for Writ

of Mandamus; however, said petition was not accompanied by the 300.00 filing

fee or a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as required

y

Florida

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1 OO b). The filing fee is due and payable at the time

of

filing the petition. Petitioner is allowed to and including September 22, 2014, in

which to submit the filing fee or a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The petition will not be submitted to the Court until receipt

of

the above.

Failure to submit the above referenced documents to this COllrt could result in the

imposition

of

sanctions, including dismissal of the petition.

Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it is not subject to

reinstatement.

A True Copy

Test:

~ o m s n o

Clerk., SupremeCourt

tg

Served:

ADRIA E. QUINTELA

NEIL

J.

GILLESPIE

B



This service enables you to add or subtract days, months and years to a date to calculate a past or future date.

Design changes: What is new and why?

From Thursday, September 11, 2014

Added 33 days

Result: Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Copyright © Time and Date AS 1995–2014. All rights reserved.

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?m1=9&d1=11&y1=2014&type=add&ay=&am=&aw

C



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

(Before a Grievance Con1mittee)

IN RE: Complaint by Neil

J

Gillespie against Danielle Nicole Parsons

The Florida Bar File No. 2014-30,525 (9A)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF INVESTIGATING MEMBER

AND/OR PANEL

TO:

Neil

J

Gillespie

Barry Rodney Davidson

8092 SW 115th Loop

Counsel for Respondent

Ocala, FL 34481

Barclays Financial Center

1111 Brickell Ave. Floor 25

Miami, FL 33131-3101

Tele: (305)810-2500

[email protected]

The complaint is hereby assigned to the following member(s)

of the committee for

investigation:

Jon Marshall Oden

Frank Harlan Killgore Jr.

Ball Janik L.L.P.

Killgore, Pearlman, Stamp, Ornstein

201 E

Pine St. Ste .825 Squires

Orlando, FL 3280-12764

P.O. Box 1913

Tele: (407)902-2077

Orlando, FL 3280-21913

Tele: (407)425-1020

Notice is given that this case will be considered by the committee.

Respondent and complainant shall contact the investigating members within

10

days from the date

of

this notice to discuss the investigation of this matter.

DATED this 2day of September, 2014.

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz

D



Bar Counsel

The Florida Bar

1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625

Orlando, Florida 32801-1050

(407) 425-5424

[email protected]

Copies furnished to:

Frank H. Killgore Jr., Chair, Ninth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee A and

Investigating Member

Jon Marshall Oden, Investigating Member



••

iI I '

. . . .

.

i •

ii

• ' I r

I

.

1

~ \ G t S .

PUlis.

~ m )

THE FLORIDA

BAR

~ ~ € S s ~

~ f G

1000 LEGION

PLACE, SUITE

1625

..... /:

C:}

~

, • -

~ ... . .

i'

:;

ORLANDO, FL

32801-1050

~ - P I T N E Y B O

i

..

oJ:

~ : : ~ 2 1P 000.4

I.tG

P R O F ~ C » c ~

®

I:

0000838325 SEP 02

r c

. en

MAILED FROM

ZIP

CODE 3

isit

our

website www.FLORIDABAR.org

Mr. Neil

J.

Gillespie

8092 Sw 115th Loop

Ocala, FL 34481

3448i35E:792

I jJJ

JJ', If luijlJl..

J,

II II

JlJu

h '11', JI' II J

IJ.



Neil Gillespie

From: "John A. Tomasino" <[email protected]>To: "'Neil Gillespie'" <[email protected]>Cc: "Tad David" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AMSubject: RE: OSCA Records, Florida Commission on Human Relations FCHR; Florida Unborn Victims of

Violence Act

Page 1 of 1

9/11/2014

Mr. Gillespie,

In the sixth paragraph of your August 25, 2014 letter, you ask for my advice on whether “Rule

1-14.1(a) Access To Records might be useful in this instance as an “add on” to the Rule 1-

14.1(a) request

submitted to you.” I am unable to offer any advice, as the Clerk’s role is simply ministerial. I

regret I am unable to assist you further.

Sincerely,

ohn Tomasino

From Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent Monday, August 25, 2014 4:57 PM

To Tad David; John A. Tomasino; Jack Harkness; Gov. Rick Scott; Adam Putnam, Comm.; Jeff

Atwater, CFO; Pam Bondi, AG; FL Comm Human Relations; Michelle Wilson; Jodi Jones;

Gregory W. Coleman; John Thomas Berry; Paul Hill; Ramon A. Abadin; Public Information

c Neil Gillespie

Subject OSCA Records, Florida Commission on Human Relations FCHR; Florida Unborn

Victims of Violence Act

E



VIA Email: [email protected] August 25, 2014

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel cc: John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Florida

Office of the State Courts Administrator Supreme Court, [email protected]

Supreme Court Building

500 South Duval Street cc: John F. Harkness, Executive Director Tallahassee, FL 32399 The Florida Bar, [email protected]

RE: Florida Commission on Human Relations FCHR, Public Records, Loyalty oaths,

876.05 Public employees; oath; Oath of Office, Article II, Section 5(b), Fla. Const.

Dear Mr. David:

Attached you will find my records request July 16, 2014 to Michelle Wilson, Executive Director,

Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), and Jodi Jones, Regulatory Specialist, in the

Disability Discrimination Complaint of Neil J. Gillespie submitted December 10, 2013 to the

Commission, FCHR No. 201400117. I also requested the current status of my complaint.

I requested records of the loyalty oath, as a recipient of public funds from the state of Florida,

that he/she supports the Constitution of the United States, and Florida, for Ms. Wilson and Ms.

Jones. I requested records of the Oath of Office for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and each

Commissioner of the FCHR required by Article II, Section 5(b), Fla. Const.

As of today I do not have a response from Ms. Wilson, Ms. Jones or anyone on behalf of the FCHR.

Mr. David, insofar as complaint FCHR No. 201400117 named employees of the OSCA, the

Office of State Court Administrator may have responsive records. If so, this is a request for those

records, and any other records about complaint FCHR No. 201400117.

Mr. Harkness, insofar as complaint FCHR No. 201400117 named the Executive Director of The

Florida Bar et al., The Bar may have responsive records. If so, this is a request for those records,

and any other records about complaint FCHR No. 201400117.

Mr. Tomasino, insofar as complaint FCHR No. 201400117 rises from my use of the Florida

Courts to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, please advise if Rule 1-14.1(a)

Access To Records might be useful in this instance as an “add on” to the Rule 1-14.1(a) request

submitted to you. The right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is protected by

the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 21, Access to Courts, of the

Florida Constitution. Please note, I still have additional information to submit under Rule 1-14.1.

The Florida legislature recently passed the Florida Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Bodily

injury to an unborn child, CS/HB 59: Offenses Against Unborn Children, found at these links,

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0059

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0162/?Tab=RelatedBills

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0059/BillText/er/PDF



Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel August 25, 2014

Office of the State Courts Administrator Page - 2

In my view Florida does not have an adequate program of habilitation for persons born with

physical birth defects. Therefore, I believe a constitutional challenge is needed to amend the

Florida Unborn Victims of Violence Act to include all unborn children. Otherwise a law that

only protects certain unborn children in a few circumstances appears unconstitutional.

Nhu Nguyen, born in Vietnam, believes her birth defect was caused by Agent Orange, described in“Babbling about my birth defect” on YouTube. Nhu was born with a cleft lip and palate, a serious

physical birth defect that may affect speech, hearing, breathing, eating, socializing and appearance.

Congenital craniofacial deformity may stigmatize a person; effects of stigma can last a lifetime.

Nhu Nguyen: “Babbling about my birth defect” Birth Defect Research for Children (BDRC)

http://youtu.be/g368cugbWZQ http://youtu.be/-Tmbm9mIJwA

Ten million gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed during the Vietnam War. Eighteen different

birth defects have been service-connected in children of women veterans who served in Vietnam.

Attached you will find evidence of my physical disability, and evidence that Barker, Rodems &

Cook, PA investigated my claim of discrimination/negligence against the State of Florida and its

Vocational Rehabilitation Program (DVR). In turn Florida/DVR’s discrimination prevented anaccurate assessment and mandated services under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974.

Evidence shows Mr. Rodems later used my confidential client information against me, client

information learned from his firm’s prior representation of me. Mr. Rodems breached, inter alia,

his duty to avoid a limitation on independent professional judgment, violated Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9,

4-1.10; and the holding of, inter alia, McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029,

M.D.Fla., 1995; and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v K.A.W, 575 So. 2d 630

(Fla. 1991). Unfortunately The Florida Bar failed to protect me, a consumer of legal and court

services, from Mr. Rodems, et al. Article V, Section 15, Attorneys; admission and discipline.

Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response. Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie

8092 SW 115th Loop Telephone: (352) 854-7807

Ocala, Florida 34481 Email: [email protected] attachments



UF could not maintain Dr. Kusiak’s photo of my CPCF Journal, unoperated adult

my speech obturator oral-nasal fistula, 1985 July 1992, Vol. 29 No.4, page 371

Mr. Rodems’ breached his duty to avoid a limitation on independent professional judgment, violated

Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10; McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995

Transcript, March 3, 2006, page 6

4 MR. GILLESPIE: Now, you call here and just5 marched into a tirade of insults.6 MR. RODEMS: No, actually I haven't insulted7 you at all. I've never said anything about you. I8 just said that you don't really know the law9 because you don't know how to practice law.


24 MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a25 car so that you could get the cash rebate to get


1 some dental work done? We're going to get to the2 discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really3 happen?4 MR. GILLESPIE: What?5 MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that

6 you could get the cash rebate to get some dental7 work done?8 MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need9 to be disqualified.10 MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I11 know that? Because I know that to be a fact?12 MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from13 your previous representation of me.14 MR. RODEMS: Well, you know, see that's --15 MR. GILLESPIE: If it is -- if it's a fact,16 anyway.17 MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and18 regulations of the Florida Bar because when you19 make --20 MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a21 car so I would have something to drive. I don't22 know why you buy cars, but that's why I bought it.


MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well, I just want to be20 clear because I understand that in talking with you21 it's very important to be precise because you don't22 really have a good command of the language that,23 you know, lawyers speak.



•

• •

• •

415-13

Rev.

]-

MERIC N ONCOLOGIC

HOSPIT L

CHART COpy

ROGRESS REPORT

Notll prairllss of caslI. complications. chanilll n dlaposls

condition

on

dlscharill . Instructions

to

patlllnt

GILLESPIE, Neil

74123

7/22/85

The pa t i en t i s a 9 year old white male r e f e r r e d by Dr. Carver

who i s s t a t us

pos t

l e f t un i l a t e ra l 'Class IV l i p and pa la t e r e pa i r

a t approximate ly age two

years old .

e

i s unc lear

about the de ta i l s

o f the degree o f h i s de fec t s , the su rg ica l

procedures ,

who performed

th i s , or

exac t ly

where it was done.

Apparent ly ,

a f t e r

the

i n i t i a l

bout of su rge r i es to repa i r

the

l i p and hard and so f t

pa l a t e , he

had

no fu r the r su rg ica l

in tervent ion . e

had no

ongoing fol low-up

for

t h i s problem. At approximate ly age

13

to 14 years o ld ,

he

underwent

or thodont ic

t rea tment

a t Temple Univers i ty

Ho spi ta l s

Dental

School

and t h i s u l t ima te ly resu l t ed in the placement

of

a

r e t a i n e r with

a

pros the t ic

l e f t l a t e r a l inc i sor . e has worn t h i s s ince t ha t t ime.

e no t ices dra inage of food i n to the l e f t nasal

f loor .

His l e f t and

· r igh t

n o s t r i l s

are opened, although the l e f t i s

somewhat

s t u f fy

and

occluded.

His

main concerns upon presen ta t ion

are re la ted to

the

pe r s i s t e n t

c l e f t in the l e f t alveolus , the dra in ing f i s tu la ,

and

the

poss i b i l i t y

of

foregoing

the

need

fOD a

pros the t i c

device.

In

add i t ion ,

however,

it i s

obvious on

confront ing

the

pa t ien t t ha t

he has

a moderate

amount

o f

nasal

deformi ty , f l a t t e n ing

o f

the l e f t

s ide in the

premaxi l la ry

region,

and

l i p d i s t o r t i on , pa r t i c u l a r ly

a t

the vermi l ion .

In

addi t ion ,

the

pa t i e n t has

a s ign i f i c a n t ly hypernasal

speech pa t t e rn

with ~ v o u s

velopharyngeal

incompetence.

On phys ical examinat ion beginning ex te rna l ly , the p a t i e n t has

a s l igh t ly

l a rge

nose with a small

dorsa l

hump. The

s i z e of the nose

i s s l i gh t ly l a rge r

than

propor t ional t o h i s face , a l though not

exaggera ted ly so.

The

r i gh t

a l a r

dome i s fu l l .

The

l e f t a la r

ca r t i l age

i s pos t e r io r ly and l a t e r a l ly displaced and somewhat

hypoplas t ic compared to the l e f t s ide .

The

l e f t a la r base

i s

a l so

l a t e r a l l y

d isp laced .

The nos t r i l

sill

i s

f l a t t e ne d ,

and

there

i s

an obvious

f i s t u l a between the

d i s t a l nasa l

f loo r and the ora l

cavi ty . The l e f t columella , l ikewise,

i s somewhat hypop las t i c and

twis ted .

The

upper

l i p

sca r

i s well

healed

and appears to be a

LeMesurier o r Tennison-Randal l

type

repa i r .

The upper

l i p

tuberc le

i s preserved, but the vermil ion border i s

somewhat

i r r egu la r .

Length appears , however, to

be

sa t i s fac tory .

There i s

a - l a t e r a l

orb i c u l a r i s

bulge o f the

l e f t upper l ip . In t e rna l ly , t he re

i s

a

wide

c l e f t of the l e f t a lveo la r r idge

a t

the l evel of the l a t e r a l i nc i so r

with

a f i s t u l a i n to the nasa l f loor . This runs

pos t e r i o r l y

and nearly

to

the end o f the secondary pa la te . The so f t

pa la te has

a l i nea r

scar

it

i s

very

shor t , and there

i s l a t e r a l

movement

but no

cen t ra l movemen

of note .

cont inued •



GILLESPIE Nei l

Page

Two

7/22/85

y

impress ion

and recommendation to

the pa t i en t

genera ted

th ree

s pec i f i c areas of i n t e r e s t . One r e l a t e s to the s c a r r ev i s ion

of

h is

upper nose and

the

r e l a t i ons h i ps

of hi s

nasa l

t i p ,

nose

and

secondary

defo rmi t i e s

in

t h i s

area .

The

second

a rea o f

i n t e re s t

in importance i s the

a lveo la r

c l e f t with the

naso -o ra l f i s t u l a .

The t h i r d a rea i s

the

pa la t e with obvious ve lopharyngea l incompetence

and

a

foreshor t

and sca r red pa l a t e .

y i n i t i a l recommendations wi l l

be

t ha t the

pa t i en t undergo

or thodont ic evalua t ion .

I w i l l

ar range

for

him to

see

Dr. Rosario

Mayro fo r eva lua t ion

as

wel l as

x-rays

to assess

his occ lusa l

r e la t ionsh ips . t a l so

should

be

noted

t ha t he, i n gene ra l ,

had

a f a i r ly s a t i s f ac to ry

occ lusa l re l a t ionsh ip .wi th

some

l a t e r a l

col lapse

and

c ros s b i t e on

the minor segment

on

the l e f t

and eva lua te h i s

adequacy

as a

candida te for bone g r f t i n ~ w h i h

I

th ink he would

qua l i fy . Subsequent to

t h i s ,

I w i l l

have him see Dr. Harvey Rosen

concerning

the

ac tua l surg i ca l

procedure

and

a l s o

he

w i l l

be

seen

by

Miss Mari lyn Cohen

a speech pa tho log i s t

with

s pec i a l

i n t e r e s t

in

pa t i e n t s having c l e f t l i p and pa la t e for

an

eva lua t ion concerning

f ea s ib i l i t y of pos te ropharyngea l f l ap in

a pa t i en t

o f

t h i s age group.

Concerning the

ex te rna l

rev i s ions , t h i s can be accomplished concerning

the

upper l i p , possib ly a t the same t ime

as

the f i s t u l a c losu re with

orll lcularis

r ed i rec t ion , a rev i s ion

of

the

n o s t r i l

sill

and

the

l a t e r a l

a l a r base , and a l so poss ib ly t i p rh inop las ty o r t h i s can

be accomplished a t

a

l a t e r

da te with

a

formal rh inoplas ty

in concer t

with other procedures . In addi t i on , the

vermi l ion border

should be

repai red . This can be

done by

Z-plas ty

technique.

The pa t i en t , t he re fore , wi l l be seen by the consul t an t s and

a

genera l p lan

with

t im i ng fo r

surgery ,

e t c . ,

w i l l

be

made.

We

wi l l

arrange to make

these

arrangements and fo l low-up with the pa t i en t .

No l e t t e r .

M.D.

econs t ruc t ive Surgery

JK:bsm

T--8/1 /85

D--7/23/85

ep

s1ak



BARKER,

RODEMS

COOK

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAl lON

A

lTORNEYS

AT LAW

CHRIS A BARKER

Telephone 813/489·1001

300 West Platt Street, Suite

150

RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS

Facsimile

813/489·1008

WILLIAM J COOK

Tampa, Florida 33606

March 27,2001

Neil 1 Gillespie

Apartment C-2

1121 Beach Drive

NE

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434

Re: Vocational Rehabilitation

Dear Neil:

I am enclosing the material you provided to us. We have reviewed them and, unfortunately,

we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have. Please understand that our

decision does not mean that your claims lack merit, and another attorney might wish to represent you.

If you wish to consult with another attorney, we recommend that you do so immediately as a statute

oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations is a legal

deadline for filing a lawsuit. Thank you for the opportunity to review your materials.

William 1

Cook

WJC mss

Enclosures



Neil

J

illespie

1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt. C-2

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434

Telephone and Fax: (727) 823-2390

March 22, 2001

William

1

Cook, Attorney at

Law

Barker, Rodems Cook, PA

300 West Platt Street, Suite 150

Tampa, Florida 33606

Dear Bill,

Thank you for agreeing

to

consider my claim

of

discrimination/negligence against

the State of Florida and its Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Enclosed please find the

following:

1 My

Second nd Third

(final)

Amended Petitions for Administrative Hearing

These documents set forth much of my claim.

2. My Motionfor Summary Final Order The Administrative Law Judge (Johnston)

failed

to

rule on my motion. The

state s

response was

to

try and expand the issues and

compel another psychiatric exam. Seeing this was going nowhere, I motioned to

withdrawal the request. (See my motion, the order and

final

order, enclosed).

3. October 5, 1998 letter from Douglas Ligibel, Fla. DVR. This addendum letter

sets forth the

state s

claim that I was

not

cooperative as a reason to deny services.

4. Binder with the Fla. Vocational Rehabilitation web site printed out. (not current)

5 Photo of me taken June 6, 1994 (at 150 pounds) before afilicted with depression

(current weight 290 pounds).

6. A briefmedical history relevant

to VR.

In essence, the state discriminated against me based on disability and refused

services as set forth in the petitions.

As

a result I became severely depressed. The state is

negligent because its own psychologist (Dr. Justice) warned of my depression risk, a

warning the state ignored. The state also misdiagnosed my condition(s). There may be a

breach ofprivacy relevant to my file. During the time referenced by Mr. Ligibel in his

October 5, 1998 letter (item 3, above) my contact with the state was monitored by a

private lawyer, Mark Kamleiter, who disputes the allegations contained therein.

N e ~ f : ~ ~

en

o s u r ~ i

t

Ps. Bill, these are mostly original documents, please copy and return needed. Thanks.



Neil Gillespie

From: "John A. Tomasino" <[email protected]>To: "'Neil Gillespie'" <[email protected]>Cc: "Tad David" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:50 AMSubject: RE: Supreme Court Case SC14-1637

Page 1 of 1

Mr. Gillespie,

In the second to last paragraph of your first attachment, you make references to SC14-1637,

and appear to be making requests regarding that case. I’m unsure if you intend your email

to serve as an official request, so I wanted to explain that any requests related to SC14-1637

must be made through a proper filing. There are three ways to file on a case: 1) By carrier

delivery; 2) by hand delivery; and/or 3) by filing through the E-Filing Portal.

Our office

cannot accept case related filings via email. You may register for an account at this website:

https://www.myflcourtaccess.com/default.aspx

Your email received on Tuesday, September 26, 2014, and four attachments will be placed in

our miscellaneous file and no action will be taken on those items.

From Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:04 PM

To John A. Tomasino; Jack Harkness; Tad David

c Paul Hill; John Thomas Berry; Jack Harkness; Gregory W. Coleman; Adria E Quintela;

Ramon A. Abadin; Neil Gillespie

Subject Supreme Court Case SC14-1637

F

petitioner's motion to extend time petitioner's request to toll time, sc14-1637

Documents