No: 12-7747 _______________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ____________________

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ET AL, - PETITIONERS vs. THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS ________________________

PETITIONER’S RULE 12.6 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT RE: PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ____________________ Submitted January 22, 2013 by Neil J. Gillespie, the petitioner appearing pro se, a nonlawyer, adult man disabled with physical and mental impairments. 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net

LIST OF PARTIES All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: ___________________ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11213 District Court no: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Civil rights and disability law. Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law. Plaintiff: (1) Neil J. Gillespie Defendants: (10 + 5 individually) Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 200042) James M. Barton, II, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239) Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 242640) David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 861987) Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, and individually Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 947652) The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A. Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058) ___________________ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11028 District Court no: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Civil rights and disability law, civil RICO, antitrust, commerce, estate claims. Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law. Plaintiffs: (2) Neil J. Gillespie Estate of Penelope Gillespie (deceased) Defendants: (4 + 1 individually) Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida James M. Barton, II, Circuit Court Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239) The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A. Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058) _______________________

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PARTIES ......................................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................iii RULE 12.6 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ..........................................................1 INDEX TO APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................3

iii

No. 12-7747 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___________________________ RULE 12.6 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT _____________________________ Petitioner Neil J. Gillespie appearing pro se (“Gillespie”) gives notice under Rule 12.6 to the Clerk of the Court in Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, notice of the party interests of Respondents Ryan Christopher Rodems (Rodems) and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (BRC). Petition No. 12-7747 reviews judgments in the two cases below, identified as 1 and 2. 1. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11213 District Court no: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS (DAB) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11028 District Court no: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS No Legal Interest of Respondents in Case 1 Gillespie believes Respondents Rodems and BRC have no legal interest in Case 1. Gillespie gave notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) to Mr. Rodems and BRC October 29, 2010 in Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB (Doc. 22). (Appendix A). By Order (Doc. 25), the Court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing all claims against Rodems and BRC without prejudice, and terminate as moot their pending motion to dismiss. (Appendix B). The Court entered Judgment (Doc. 26) November 23, 2010. (Appendix C). Mr. Rodems did not appeal the Court’s Order entered November 22, 2010, or Judgment entered November 23, 2010. On June 21, 2011 Respondents Rodems and BRC improperly, and unsuccessfully, attempted to reenter the case. The Court henceforth did not respond to any of Respondents Rodems/BRC’s pleadings. Respondents Rodems and BRC took no other action at that time and

2.

1

abandoned any alleged interest. The case was dismissed by the Court February 27, 2012. Neither Respondent Rodems or BRC filed an appeal for any alleged interest in the Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) entered February 27, 2012, or in the Judgment (Doc. 65) entered February 28, 2012. Respondents Not a Party in Case 2 Respondents Rodems and BRC were not a party in case 2 at any time. As such Gillespie believes they have no legal interest in the outcome of the Petition, which appears on the Supreme Court docket page as the main case for Petition No. 12-7747. Respondents Rodems and BRC - No Legal Interest in the Outcome of the Petition Respondents Rodems and BRC appear in the Petition nominally, as voluntarily dismissed Defendants in Case 1 only, but now have no legal interest in the Petition because Mr. Rodems failed to appeal any of the final orders or judgments required to preserve any alleged interest. Respondents Rodems and BRC were not a party in Case 2 at any time, which is designated as the main case for the Petition. Therefore Gillespie believes Respondents Rodems and BRC and do not have a legal interest in the outcome of Petition No. 12-7747. Suspension of Service Under Rule 29 - As to Nominal Respondents Rodems and BRC On advice of the Clerk of the Court, Gillespie will suspend service under Rule 29 of documents in this matter to nominal Respondents Rodems and BRC. No Other Respondents Filed A Waiver or Response No other Respondents filed a response or waiver by the time set by the Court to do so, January 14, 2013. A list of the Respondents appears on page ii of this Rule 12.6 Notice. Respectfully submitted, January 22, 2013.

2

INDEX TO APPENDICES APPENDIX A Plaintiff’s Rule 41 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB (Doc. 22), Oct-29-2010 Plaintiff gives notice of voluntary dismissal against Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems (Rodems) and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (BRC) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) in lieu of an amended Complaint and states.... APPENDIX B Order, on voluntary dismissal, Hon. Wm Terrell Hodges, U.S. District Judge (Senior) 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB (Doc. 25), Nov-22-2010 This case is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Defendants Rodems & BRC in Lieu of Amended Complaint (Doc. 22). Neither Defendant Ryan Christopher Rodems or Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. have filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this case, and it does not appear that they have been served with the Complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s Notice, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing all claims against Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems, & Cook, P.A. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, each party to bear its own fees and costs. The Clerk is further directed to terminate as moot the Defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 3). DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 22nd day of November, 2010. Wm. Terrell Hodges (signed) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPENDIX C Judgment In A Civil Case, 5: 10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB (Doc. 26), Nov-23-2010 Decision by Court. This action came before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Pursuant to the Court's order entered on November 22,2010 judgment is entered dismissing all claims against Defendant's Ryan Christopher Rodems and Baker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. without prejudice, each party to bear its own fees and costs. Date: November 23, 2010 SHERYL L. LOESCH, CLERK

3

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 1 of 8

Appendix A

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 2 of 8

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 3 of 8

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 4 of 8

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 5 of 8

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 6 of 8

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 7 of 8

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 22

Filed 10/29/10 Page 8 of 8

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 25

Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, -vsTHIRTEENTH JUDICIAL FLORIDA, et al.,, CIRCUIT, Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10DAB

Defendant. _____________________________________/ ORDER This case is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Defendants Rodems & BRC in Lieu of Amended Complaint (Doc. 22). Neither Defendant Ryan Christopher Rodems or Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. have filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this case, and it does not appear that they have been served with the Complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s Notice, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing all claims against Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems, & Cook, P.A. W ITHOUT PREJUDICE, each party to bear its own fees and costs. The Clerk is further directed to terminate as moot the Defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 3). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Appendix B

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 25

Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 2

DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 22nd day of November, 2010.

Copies to:

Counsel of Record Neil J. Gillespie, pro se Maurya McSheehy

-2-

Case 5: 10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB

Document 26

Filed 11/23/2010

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, -vsTHIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. Case No. 5:10-cv-503-0c-lODAB

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Decision by Court. This action came before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Pursuant to the Court's order entered on November 22,2010 judgment is entered dismissing all claims against Defendant's Ryan Christopher Rodems and Baker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. without prejudice, each party to bear its own fees and costs.

Date: November 23, 2010
SHERYL L. LOESCH, CLERK

By: Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

L. Fannin L. Fannin, Deputy Clerk

Appendix C

Case 5: 1O-cv-00503-WTH-DAB

Document 26

Filed 11/23/201 0

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST
1.

Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute: (a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291: Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U .S.C. Section 158, generally arc appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Pitney Bowes, Inc. V. Mestre, 70 I F.2d 1365, 1368 (lIth Cir. 1983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U .S.C. Section 636(c). In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, ajudgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 885-86 (lIth Cir. 1984). A judgment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196,201,108 S. Ct. 1717, 1721-22,100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (lIth Cir. 1998). Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a): Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions ..." and from "[i]nterlocutory decrees ...determining the rights and liabilities ofparties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P.S: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable. Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: Cohen V. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,546,69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26,93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F. 2d 371, 376 (lIth Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157.85 S. Ct. 308, 312,13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964).

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

2.

Time for Filing: The timely filing ofa notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (lIth Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P.4(a) and (c) set the following time limits: (a) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(I): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD - no additional days are provided for mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): "!fone party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later." Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of thc order disposing of the last sueh timely filed motion. Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(S) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a show ing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension. Fed.R.App.P.4(c): If an inmatc confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U .S.C. Section 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

3.

Format of the notice of appeal: Form I, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. See also Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). A ill:Q. ~ notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

4.

-2-

No: 12-7747 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ET AL, - PETITIONERS VS. THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL. - RESPONDENTS

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Neil J Gillespie, do swear or declare that on this date, January 22, 2013, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed RULE 12.6 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT on each party to the above proceeding or that party's counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days. The names and addresses of those served are as follows: David A. Rowland, Court Counsel Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida Legal Department 800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 272-6843 Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd, suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 489-1001 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 22, 2013. Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A. 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E Gainesville, Florida 32609 Telephone: (352) 375-5960

Page 1 of 1

Neil Gillespie
From: To: Sent: Subject: "UPS Quantum View" <auto-notify@ups.com> <neilgillespie@mfi.net> Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:44 PM UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FNW94832551

UPS My Choice® can help you avoid missed home deliveries. Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J. Gillespie will not reply. At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice is to confirm following shipment has been delivered. Important Delivery Information

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW94832551 Delivery Date / Time: 23-January-2013 / 12:22 PM Delivery Location: RECEIVER Signed by: KOUROS

Shipment Detail
Ship To: Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 3035 V ST NE WASHINGTON DC 20018 US Number of Packages: 1 UPS Service: NEXT DAY AIR SAVER Weight: 5.0 LBS

____2@@2@@2loiZ4Qj____
© 2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Servic rights reserved. For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy. Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message. For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS. This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copy use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. Privacy Notice Contact UPS

1/23/2013

UPS: Tracking Information

http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Landove...

Proof of Delivery

Close Window

Dear Customer, This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below. Tracking Number: Service: Weight: Shipped/Billed On: Delivered On: Delivered To: Signed By: Left At: 1Z64589FNW94832551 UPS Next Day Air Saver® 5.00 lbs 01/22/2013 01/23/2013 12:22 P.M. WASHINGTON, DC, US KOUROS Receiver

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, UPS Tracking results provided by UPS: 01/23/2013 1:30 P.M. ET Print This Page Close Window

1 of 1

1/23/2013 1:30 PM

January 22, 2013 Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 RE: Petition No. 12-7747, G-illespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al. Dear Clerk of the Court: Please find enclosed for filing in Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari: 1. 2. Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court, party interest; and Rule 29 Proof of Service Rule 8 Notice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, verified, with separate volume appendix; and Rule 29 Proof of Service. Separate volume appendix for Petition No. 12-7747; and Rule 29 Proof of Service. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved United States; State of Florida; Constitutionally questioned of certain Florida Statutes Thank you.

3.

Enclosures cc: Jeffrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases cc: Counsel for the Respondents

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful