You are on page 1of 49

Page 1 of 9

Neil Gillespie
From:
To:

Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>


"Tad David" <davidt@flcourts.org>; "Ramon A. Abadin" <ramon.abadin@sedgwicklaw.com>; "Adria E Quintela" <aquintel@flabar.org>; "Gregory William
Coleman" <gcoleman@bclclaw.com>; "John F Harkness" <jharkness@flabar.org>; "John Thomas Berry" <jberry@flabar.org>; "Paul F Hill"
<phill@flabar.org>; "Public Information Office" <publicinformation@flcourts.org>; "Adam Putnam, Comm." <Adam.Putnam@freshfromflorida.com>; "Gov.
Rick Scott" <Rick.Scott@eog.myflorida.com>; "Jeff Atwater, CFO" <Jeff.Atwater@myfloridacfo.com>; "Pam Bondi, AG"
<pam.bondi@myfloridalegal.com>; "Robert J. Stovash" <rstovash@sctlaw.com>; "Jon Marshall Oden" <joden@balljanik.com>; "Barry Rodney
Davidson" <bdavidson@hunton.com>; "Frank Harlan Killgore Jr." <FHKILLGORE@KPSOS.COM>; "Patricia Ann Toro Savitz" <psavitz@flabar.org>;
"John Anthony Tomasino" <tomasino@flcourts.org>; "ADA OSCA" <ADA@flcourts.org>; "OSCA email" <osca@flcourts.org>; "ComplaintAdmin, ADA
(CRT)" <ADA.ComplaintAdmin@usdoj.gov>; "DOJ ADA" <ADA.complaint@usdoj.gov>; "Lee Bentley" <Lee.Bentley@usdoj.gov>
"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Tuesday, February 10, 2015 1:40 PM
Letter to Thomas A. David, General Counsel-Feb-09-2015.pdf
Re: Your response does not address the ADA disability issues

Mr. David, see below my response to your diatribe.


----- Original Message ----From: Tad David
To: Neil Gillespie
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: Your response does not address the ADA disability issues

Mr. Gillespie:

I want to first address the fact that you commonly copy individuals and attach documents on your correspondence that are not related
or fully relevant to the particular correspondence.

My correspondence was copied to OSCA, Florida Bar officials, and the grievance committee investigating an attorney in the
foreclosure case, which investigation was hastily closed this morning. Those are appropriate persons to copy. If not, show why not.
I am providing this response to the original recipients, and in addition, to the Florida Cabinet, Mr. Tomasino, and Mr. Bentley
USAFLM to bear witness to your failure to address the ADA disability issues.
This often obscures the issue(s) that you are asking to be addressed. I would suggest that you keep correspondence brief and
address correspondence only to individuals and organizations directly involved in the specific issue being addressed by each
correspondence.

It appears you did not read my 6 page PDF letter to you, which is very specific, and you still did not respond to the narrow issues in
the letter dated February 9, 2015, which is attached and requires your response.
It is especially important to keep correspondence requesting judicial branch public records separate from correspondence requesting
accommodations under the ADA and keep each of these separate from correspondence regarding the substantive issues of the facts
of your case.
My records request to Ms. Fagan was for my ADA records, and ADA accommodation, which are related. A competent attorney would
understand and provide the records.Any confusion comes from Ms. Fagan and her THREE positions: General Counsel, Public Records
Custodian,and ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.
Second, Rule 2.420(m), Fla. R. Jud. Admin. requires all requests for judicial branch public records to be in writing and made in a
reasonable manner. (Please, note: The provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, do not apply to the judicial branch, except where
expressly adopted by the Supreme Court.)

Are you claiming my ADA records are "public records" or "judicial branch records"? If so, the court may be in violation of HIPAA,
the privacy rule which protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information. Please provide the HIPAA policy of
OSCA for ADA Title II accommodations.
It is my understanding, because several requests submitted by you in email were duplicitous and/or adversarial and/or insulting and
therefore unreasonable,

Your understanding is not accurate. Also, my attached letter to you specificallyasked if the ADA Title II
accommodation process was an adversarial process, and you did not respond. Please respond.

the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit now requires any request by you for records to be submitted by U.S. Mail. This requirement is
reasonable under the circumstances and is not prohibited by the rules.
Nonsense Mr. David, the court wrongly requires EVERYONE to submit record requests by U.S. Mail. See the link below to the Fifth
Judicial Circuit website showing this UNLAWFUL POLICY,

"All public records requests must be made in writing and should be directed

2/14/2015

Page 2 of 9

to the Office of the General Counsel".


Unfortunately Ms. Fagan is a law unto herself as General Counsel, Public Records Custodian and ADA Coordinator for the entire
Fifth Judicial Circuit. http://www.circuit5.org/c5/news-events/information/public-records-requests/

Lastly, as directed in the State Courts System's ADA Grievance Procedure, your ADA grievance must be directed and transmitted to the
appropriate ADA Coordinator within the Fifth Judicial Circuit for resolution in accordance with the Fifth Circuit's ADA Grievance
Procedure. The Fifth Circuit has divided the ADA Coordinator responsibilities by county. Let me know in what county your case is
pending, and I will forward the ADA contact information to you, if necessary.
Nonsense Mr. David. Again, It appears you did not read my 6 page PDF letter to you, which is attached, see paragraphs 4 and 5 for this
specific information to which you did not respond. Unfortunately Ms. Fagan is a law unto herself as General Counsel, Public

Records Custodian and ADA Coordinator for the entire Fifth Judicial Circuit.

Please, understand OSCA is available to provide technical assistance to judicial officers and court employees regarding court
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. We cannot intervene in a court case or overturn a judge's rulings.
Nonsense Mr. David. I did not request, or suggest, that you or OSCA "intervene in a court case or overturn a judge's rulings". Your
dishonest statements call into question your lack of ethics and credibility.
We cannot investigate complaints about judges or attorneys,
Mr. David. I did not request, or suggest, that you or OSCA "investigate complaints about judges or attorneys"
and cannot advocate on behalf of individuals with disabilities.
Mr. David. I did not request you or OSCA "advocate on behalf of individuals with disabilities."
Stop making things up, and answer my attached letter addressed to you.

Respectfully,

Thomas A. "Tad" David


General Counsel
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Phone: (850) 488-1824
Fax: (850) 410-5301
davidt@flcourts.org

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]


Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:26 AM
To: Tad David; Ramon A. Abadin; Adria E Quintela; Gregory W. Coleman; Jack Harkness; John Thomas Berry; Paul Hill; Robert J. Stovash;
Jon Marshall Oden; Barry Rodney Davidson; Frank Harlan Killgore Jr.; Patricia Ann Toro Savitz; ADA; osca; Public Information; DOJ ADA
Cc: Neil Gillespie
Subject: Your response does not address the ADA disability issues

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel


Office of the State Courts Administrator
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Phone: (850) 488-1824
Fax: (850) 410-5301
davidt@flcourts.org
Mr. David:
Your response below does not address the issues. Attached you will find a comprehensive complaint, with exhibits, and a transcript of the hearing
before Judge Stancil December 18, 2014.

2/14/2015

Page 3 of 9

Another problem, I am being harassed by Grace A Fagan, and I want it to stop. Each time Ms. Fagan gets an email service of court document, or an
email such as this one, she send the email back to me, for what purpose I do not understand. In my view the Florida Board of Bar Examiners does not
adequately screen applicants like Ms. Fagan. This negligence puts a burden on The Florida Bar in its role of regulating persons admitted to practice.
A paper copy of the attached complaint and documents has been prepared for you, and will ship by UPS No. 1Z64589FP290332627 for delivery to
your office on Wednesday February 11, 2015. The attached complaint is limited to my ADA Title II request, and the failure of Ms. Fagan to reply etc.
Separately I will respond to Judge Stancils "drivers license" test of disability, to answer that ridiculous standard. Thirdly is the constitutional basis,
see below.
The OSCA receives federal financial assistance and is therefore subject to compliance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and Section
504 and Section 508, in addition to the ADA. Section 504 states that "no qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall be excluded
from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" any program or activity that either receives Federal financial assistance or is
conducted by any Executive agency. http://www.flcourts.org/administration-funding/court-administration/accessibility-statement.stml
For demonstration purpose, a conformed copy of my 8 page Disability Accommodation Request to the Marion County Clerk of Court, without
exhibits, is attached. Gregory C. Harrell, General Counsel to David R. Ellspermann, Marion County Clerk of Court & Comptroller, provided an
accommodation, and did so in a professional manner, conducted efficiently by email.
Also for demonstration purpose, a conformed and redacted complaint against Judge Stancil is attached, without exhibits.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ACCESS, REDRESS AND JUSTICE
1. Article I, Section 21, of the Florida Constitution, guarantees every person access to justice for redress of any injury, where justice shall be
administered without sale, denial or delay.
SECTION 21. Access to courts.The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered
without sale, denial or delay.
The operative phrase is "justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay". This goes beyond simple access to a court building, the design of
toilet stalls, or provision for ramps, all of which are important, but different from the accommodation required for access to "justice" .
2. Article I, Section 2, of the Florida Constitution, guarantees every person Basic Rights:
SECTION 2. Basic rights.All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among
which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and
protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship
may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical
disability.
3. Article I, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution, guarantees every person due process:
SECTION 9. Due process.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in
jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
4. Therefore, Constitutionally protected access to justice has three components in Florida:
SECTION 2. Basic rights.All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal...
SECTION 9. Due process.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property...
SECTION 21. Access to courts.The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale,
denial or delay.
Finally (for now) the ADA 1990 underwent a major update 6 years ago. References limited to the ADA 1990, Public Law 101-336, do not reflect the
current ADA law, see the ADA Amendments Act 2008, Public Law 110-325, and the presentation by the Dept. of Labor.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ325/pdf/PLAW-110publ325.pdf
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2009-Natl-Forum-ADAAA-Workshop-Seasoned-EO-Officers-DMS-Revisions-Mar-2011.pdf
Pub. L. 110325, 2, Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3553, provided:
"(a) Findings.Congress finds that
"(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) [42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.], Congress intended that the Act provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and provide broad coverage;
"(2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical and mental disabilities in no way diminish a persons right to fully participate in all
aspects of society, but that people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated
attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and institutional barriers;
"(3) while Congress expected that the definition of disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently with how courts had applied the
definition of a handicapped individual under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.], that expectation has not been fulfilled;
"(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases have narrowed the broad

2/14/2015

Page 4 of 9

scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect;
"(5) the holding of the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) further narrowed the broad
scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA;
"(6) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with a range of substantially limiting
impairments are not people with disabilities;
"(7) in particular, the Supreme Court, in the case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), interpreted the
term substantially limits to require a greater degree of limitation than was intended by Congress; and
"(8) Congress finds that the current Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ADA regulations defining the term substantially limits as
significantly restricted are inconsistent with congressional intent, by expressing too high a standard.
"(b) Purposes.The purposes of this Act [see Short Title of 2008 Amendment note above] are
"(1) to carry out the ADAs objectives of providing a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination and clear,
strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA;
"(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases that
whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures;
"(3) to reject the Supreme Courts reasoning in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of
the definition of disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987)
which set forth a broad view of the third prong of the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
"(4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that
the terms substantially and major in the definition of disability under the ADA need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for
qualifying as disabled, and that to be substantially limited in performing a major life activity under the ADA an individual must have an impairment
that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most peoples daily lives;
"(5) to convey congressional intent that the standard created by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.
Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) for substantially limits, and applied by lower courts in numerous decisions, has created an inappropriately high level
of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA, to convey that it is the intent of Congress that the primary object of attention in cases
brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations, and to convey that the question of
whether an individuals impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis; and
"(6) to express Congress expectation that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will revise that portion of its current regulations that
defines the term substantially limits as significantly restricted to be consistent with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act."
The ADA, as amended, - [No] State immunity, 42 USC 12202.
A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the
United States from an action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a
violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements
of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for
such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in
an action against any public or private entity other than a State.
Caselaw. United States v. Georgia, 546 US 151 - Supreme Court 2006, "Thus, in so far as
[the Americans with Disabilities Act] creates a private cause of action for damages against the
states for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates
state sovereign immunity."81
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5079223862968251341&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), found valid Congress's enforcement powers under
section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Lane
TENNESSEE V. LANE (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004), 315 F.3d 680, affirmed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Phone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
----- Original Message ----From: Tad David

2/14/2015

Page 5 of 9

To: Neil Gillespie


Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Shame on the Hale Ralph Stancil kangaroo court - listen for yourself

Mr. Gillespie:

After reviewing your correspondence to me on December 18, 2014 (copied below), it does not appear that the correspondence
requests anything other than my view of the situation. This does not appear to be the type of correspondence to which I can
properly respond, since it seeks to elicit my opinion or advice. I cannot give you advice or my legal opinion since I am the general
counsel for OSCA. Otherwise, there are policies and procedure to follow when seeking ADA accommodations and when attempting
to file a complaint against the various individuals and entities that may be involved.

Thank you for understanding.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. "Tad" David


General Counsel
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Phone: (850) 488-1824
Fax: (850) 410-5301
davidt@flcourts.org

Dear Mr. David,


The so-called ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Circuit is refusing to provide records by email. I am not mailing these criminals anything. I
want the records, so I can bring them to justice. I would appreciate your view of this situation.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]


Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 2:39 PM
To: ADA; osca; Tad David; Grace Fagan; Ramon A. Abadin; Adria E Quintela; Gregory W. Coleman; Jack Harkness; John Thomas Berry;
Paul Hill; Public Information; Adam Putnam, Comm.; Gov. Rick Scott; Jeff Atwater, CFO; Pam Bondi, AG
Cc: Neil Gillespie
Subject: Fw: Shame on the Hale Ralph Stancil kangaroo court - listen for yourself

Tad David, General Counsel


OSCA
Mr. David:
As of today I do not show a response to my email to you December 18, 2014. The essence of my contact with you concerns the ADA request
submitted in Marion County. What will OSCA do to assure compliance with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008?
Neil J. Gillespie
Dear Mr. David,
No one has responded to my ADA request submitted in Marion County. What will OSCA do to assure compliance with the ADA Amendments Act
of 2008?
Civil counsel may be appointed "in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigants due process rights" 29.007 Courtappointed counsel.
----- Original Message -----

2/14/2015

Page 6 of 9

From: Neil Gillespie


To: A. Lee Bentley ; DOJ ADA ; John Anthony Tomasino ; Tad David ; Paul F Hill ; John Thomas Berry ; John F Harkness ; Gregory William Coleman ; Adria E
Quintela ; Ramon A. Abadin ; Gov. Rick Scott ; Pam Bondi, AG ; Adam Putnam, Comm. ; Jeff Atwater, CFO ; ADA OSCA ; Public Information Office ; Patricia Ann
Toro Savitz ; Jon Marshall Oden ; Robert J. Stovash ; Barry Rodney Davidson ; Frank Harlan Killgore Jr. ; Michael Schneider ; Neil Gillespie
Cc: Hon. Hale R Stancil ; Hon. Don F Briggs ; Grace Ann Fagan ; McCalla Raymer E-service ; Tameka Gordon, ADA Coordinator ; Jane Bond ; Robyn Katz ;
Greg Harrell
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:11 PM
Subject: Shame on the Hale Ralph Stancil kangaroo court - listen for yourself

Arthur Lee Bentley, U.S. Attorney


Middle District of Florida
Congratulations on your Senate voice vote confirmation December 16, 2014.
This is a request for assistance with the ADA Amendments Act 2008, and
disability discrimination in the Florida Fifth Judicial Circuit
John Anthony Tomasino
Supreme Court of Florida
tomasino@flcourts.org
Tad David, General Counsel
Office of State Courts Administration
davidt@flcourts.org
Dear Mr. Tomasino,
Please find attached a .wav recording of a hearing earlier today consented to by Judge Hale Stancil. What provision does the Supreme Court of
Florida have to receive this recording in a proceeding? I am planning a motion for appointment of counsel under the ADA and want to show the
Supreme Court the what passes as due process in certain rogue courts.
While there are many issues with the way Judge Stancil conducted the hearing this morning, the judge said I cannot represent my interest in a family
trust where I am the sole trustee. The only trust asset is the home in foreclosure. Because I am not able to obtain counsel, my only option is a
counsel appointment under the ADA. I raised this during the Stancils "hearing" to no avail.
Because of brain injury, I cannot participate in a hearing, which is obvious from the recording. There is a breakdown in my ability to put into spoken
words what I am thinking. Judge Stancil feigned ignorance of civil counsel appointment under Florida law. He is wrong, but I was not able to put
into spoken words what I was thinking, or knew from past research, set forth below in writing, after referring that earlier research:
The Supreme Court of Florida currently has a duty and the authority to administratively provide legal counsel to unrepresented persons under the
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and "in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to
protect a litigants due process rights" 29.007 Court-appointed counsel. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0029/Sections/0029.007.html
In addition, there is sufficient evidence to support universal counsel appointment under Powell vs. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45.
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court...."If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to
refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a
hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense..."
"...The right [p69] to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent
and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for
himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial
without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the
skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in
the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his
innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case,
civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may
not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense..."
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45
Argued: October 10, 1932
Decided: November 7, 1932
224 Ala. 524, 531, 540, reversed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/287/45
During the hearing Judge Stancil announced his test for legal competency: The ability to drive a car. This is nonsensical, as I drive a car and never
have to make a legal argument while driving. A person who cannot speak can drive a car, but could not represent themselves in court. Stancil also
relies on the drivers license test: If a person has a Florida drivers license, then they are competent to represent themselves. Under that nonsense,
my drivers license should be sufficient proof to be admitted to The Florida Bar, without law school, bar exam or character check.
Currently Florida administratively provides legal counsel in compliance with the Sixth Amendment by and through the Florida Statutes, Title V,
Judicial Branch, Chapter 27 State Attorneys; Public Defenders; Related Offices, Part III, Public Defenders and Other Court-Appointed Counsel.
Section 27.40(1) Counsel shall be appointed to represent any individual in a criminal or civil proceeding entitled to court-appointed counsel under
the Federal or State Constitution or as authorized by general law. The court shall appoint a public defender to represent indigent persons as

2/14/2015

Page 7 of 9

authorized in s. 27.51. The office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel shall be appointed to represent persons in those cases in which
provision is made for court-appointed counsel but the public defender is unable to provide representation due to a conflict of interest or is not
authorized to provide representation.
(2)(a) Private counsel shall be appointed to represent persons in those cases in which provision is made for court-appointed counsel but the office of
criminal conflict and civil regional counsel is unable to provide representation due to a conflict of interest.
(b) Private counsel appointed by the court to provide representation shall be selected from a registry of individual attorneys maintained under this
section.
(3) In using a registry:
(a) The chief judge of the circuit shall compile a list of attorneys in private practice, by county and by category of cases, and provide the list to the
clerk of court in each county. The chief judge of the circuit may restrict the number of attorneys on the general registry list. To be included on a
registry, an attorney must certify that he or she:
1. Meets any minimum requirements established by the chief judge and by general law for court appointment;
2. Is available to represent indigent defendants in cases requiring court appointment of private counsel; and
3. Is willing to abide by the terms of the contract for services.
As for showing disability, Stancil took testimony from opposing counsel on my disability. That is beyond outrageous.
Because I receive Social Security Disability benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, and was eligible for vocational rehabilitation
services, I am aware of a standard:
413.30 Eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services.
(2) Determinations by other state or federal agencies regarding whether an individual satisfies one or more factors relating to the determination that
an individual has a disability may be used. Individuals determined to have a disability 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.
Florida already administratively provides counsel, and could do so under the ADA upon "Determinations by other state or federal agencies
regarding whether an individual satisfies one or more factors relating to the determination that an individual has a disability"
Curtis Wilson for McCalla Raymer lied to the judge about pending motions. Wilson mentioned Defendants MOTION TO DISMISS filed, February
4, 2013, but did not tell the judge about Defendants' Rule 1.150 Motion to Strike Sham Pleadings, filed July 25, 2014.
Wilson also lied about my motion to quash service. Wilson told the judge the motion was based on lack of ADA language. Wilson failed to tell the
judge that the summons for me personally had the wrong date - by a year. Here are some paragraphs from my motion to quash summons:
4. Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions. Walker v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company, 2012 WL 5457220,
No. 5D12-3187 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2012) citing Shurman v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp. (Fla. 2001) (holding that "statutes governing
service of process are to be strictly construed and enforced") see also Re-Employment Services, Ltd v. National Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467
(Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that "courts require strict construction of, and compliance with, the provisions of statutes governing service
of process").
Strict compliance? Not in the Hale Ralph Stancil kangaroo court.
7. The party seeking to invoke the courts jurisdiction has the burden to prove the validity of service of process. Torres v. Arnco Constr., Inc., 867
So. 2d 583, 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Burden of proof? Not in the Hale Ralph Stancil kangaroo court
9. Because Plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. 48.031(5), service of process must be quashed. Vidal, 41 So. 3d
401; see also Gamboa v. Jones, 455 So. 2d 6] 3 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1984).
Service of process must be quashed. HA HA, Not in the Hale Ralph Stancil kangaroo court!
Dear Mr. David,
No one has responded to my ADA request submitted in Marion County. What will OSCA do to assure compliance with the ADA Amendments Act
of 2008?
Civil counsel may be appointed "in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigants due process rights" 29.007 Courtappointed counsel.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0029/Sections/0029.007.html
29.007 Court-appointed counsel.For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the elements of court-appointed counsel
to be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:
(1) Private attorneys appointed by the court to handle cases where the defendant is indigent and cannot be represented by the public defender or
the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel.
(2) When the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel has a conflict of interest, private attorneys appointed by the court to represent
indigents or other classes of litigants in civil proceedings requiring court-appointed counsel in accordance with state and federal constitutional
guarantees and federal and state statutes.
Subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) apply when court-appointed counsel is appointed; when the court determines that the litigant is indigent for
costs; or when the litigant is acting pro se and the court determines that the litigant is indigent for costs at the trial or appellate level. This section
applies in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigants due process rights.
Unfortunately Hale Ralph Stancil knowingly failed to protect my due process rights. I consider that a deprivation of rights under the color of law, in

2/14/2015

Page 8 of 9

violation of 18 USC 242. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php


THE BANKS DESTROYING AMERICA, Florida attorney Matt Weidner, http://youtu.be/BsLoG4Q8k58
An Occupy.com Profile: Captain Ray Lewis, http://youtu.be/jv_CcmRZ7zc
The American Bar Association (ABA) recently added a "Civil Right to Counsel" page, "Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in State Civil
Proceedings", http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/civil_right_to_counsel.html with 50 research reports,
one for each state detailing existing authority for appointment of counsel in various types of civil proceedings. There is an Appendix: International
Law Relating to Appointment of Counsel in Civil Proceedings.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_judges_manual_appendix.authcheckdam.pdf
Florida law for civil counsel appointment.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_judges_manual_fl.authcheckdam.pdf
Law Addressing Authorization or Requirement to Appoint Counsel in Civil Proceedings Generally
State Statutes and Court Decisions Interpreting Statutes
Fla. Stat. 29.007 (2011) ("Court-appointed counsel") provides:
For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution [relating to funding
of the judiciary], the elements of court-appointed counsel to be provided from state
revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:
(1) Private attorneys appointed by the court to handle cases where the defendant is
indigent and cannot be represented by the public defender or the office of criminal
conflict and civil regional counsel.
(2) When the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel has a conflict of interest, private attorneys appointed by the court to represent
indigents or other classes of litigants in civil proceedings requiring court-appointed counsel in accordance with state and federal constitutional
guarantees and federal and state statutes.
...
This section applies in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a
litigants due process rights.
A private attorney appointed by a court pursuant to 29.007 (2011) "shall be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses" incurred during
representation. Fla. Stat. 27.5304 (2011). Fla. Stat. 27.5304 lists the fat fees to be awarded to private attorneys. Counsel may seek compensation
in excess of the fat fees listed in 27.5304 only if "compensation on an hourly basis at a rate of $75.00 would be at least double the fat fee." Justice
Admin. Comm'n v. Shaman, 59 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. App. 2011).
The ABA report shows Florida is authorized to appoint counsel in Specific Types of Civil Proceedings, page 2,
Law Addressing Authorization or Requirement to Appoint Counsel in Specific Types of Civil Proceedings
1. Shelter
Federal Statutes and Court Decisions Interpreting Statutes
The federal Fair Housing Act, contained within Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, provides that "[a]n aggrieved person may commence a
civil action in an appropriate United States district court or State court." 42 U.S.C. 3613 (a)(1)(A). Further, "[u]pon application by a person
alleging a discriminatory housing practice or a person against whom such a practice is alleged, the court may-- (1) appoint an attorney for such
person." 42 U.S.C. 3613(b).
On December 10, 2013 I filed a civil rights complaint against McCalla Raymer LLC, et al. and others with the Florida Commission on Human
Relations (FCHR) the complaint was ignored and dismissed. However my HUD complaint also claimed under civil rights.
Forward
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_judges_manual_foreword.authcheckdam.pdf
"It is a commonplace for courts throughout the United States to announce, "there is no right to counsel in civil cases in this state." Yet, in truth, in
every state there are at least a few categories of civil cases in which indigent litigants have a right to counsel. Indeed in some jurisdictions there are
many such rights. It also is not unusual for state law to grant judges a discretionary power to appoint counsel for such litigants in still other kinds of
cases, or even for all civil cases."
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
352-854-7807
neilgillespie@mfi.net

----- Original Message ----From: Neil Gillespie


To: Hon. Hale R Stancil ; DOJ ADA ; Hon. Don F Briggs ; Grace Ann Fagan ; McCalla Raymer E-service ; Tameka Gordon, ADA Coordinator ; Jane Bond ;
Robyn Katz ; Patricia Ann Toro Savitz ; Barry Rodney Davidson ; Frank Harlan Killgore Jr. ; Robert J. Stovash ; Jon Marshall Oden
Cc: Hon. Don F Briggs ; Grace Ann Fagan ; McCalla Raymer E-service ; Neil Gillespie
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:03 AM
Subject: Motion-Disqualif-JUDGE-Stancil-Filing 21743681 Filed 12-18-2014 05.23.27 AM

2/14/2015

Page 9 of 9

Judge Stancil,
This email is to confirm that Sue Starling received my faxed motion to disqualify you, that was served on you at 5.23 AM today by the Florida
Courts E-filing portal. Sue said you were going ahead with the hearing anyway. That is contrary to law. I left a message that I can attend
telephonically. A copy of the motion to disqualify you is attached.
Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481

2/14/2015

PUBLIC LAW 110325SEPT. 25, 2008

122 STAT. 3553

Public Law 110325


110th Congress
An Act
To restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.

Sept. 25, 2008


[S. 3406]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of


the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.Congress finds that


(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), Congress intended that the Act provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and provide broad
coverage;
(2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical
and mental disabilities in no way diminish a persons right
to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that people
with physical or mental disabilities are frequently precluded
from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or
the failure to remove societal and institutional barriers;
(3) while Congress expected that the definition of disability
under the ADA would be interpreted consistently with how
courts had applied the definition of a handicapped individual
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has
not been fulfilled;
(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United
Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases
have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be
afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many
individuals whom Congress intended to protect;
(5) the holding of the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)
further narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to
be afforded by the ADA;
(6) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts
have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with
a range of substantially limiting impairments are not people
with disabilities;
(7) in particular, the Supreme Court, in the case of Toyota
Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S.
184 (2002), interpreted the term substantially limits to
require a greater degree of limitation than was intended by
Congress; and

VerDate Aug 31 2005

08:10 Oct 01, 2008

Jkt 069139

PO 00325

Frm 00001

Fmt 6580

Sfmt 6581

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL325.110

ADA
Amendments Act
of 2008.
42 USC 12101
note.
42 USC 12101
note.

APPS10

PsN: PUBL325

122 STAT. 3554

PUBLIC LAW 110325SEPT. 25, 2008


(8) Congress finds that the current Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ADA regulations defining the term
substantially limits as significantly restricted are inconsistent with congressional intent, by expressing too high a
standard.
(b) PURPOSES.The purposes of this Act are
(1) to carry out the ADAs objectives of providing a clear
and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination and clear, strong, consistent, enforceable
standards addressing discrimination by reinstating a broad
scope of protection to be available under the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme
Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999)
and its companion cases that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with
reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Courts reasoning in Sutton v.
United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to
coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability
and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme Court in School
Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987) which
set forth a broad view of the third prong of the definition
of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme
Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms substantially and
major in the definition of disability under the ADA need
to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for
qualifying as disabled, and that to be substantially limited
in performing a major life activity under the ADA an individual
must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts
the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most peoples daily lives;
(5) to convey congressional intent that the standard created
by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) for
substantially limits, and applied by lower courts in numerous
decisions, has created an inappropriately high level of limitation
necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA, to convey that
it is the intent of Congress that the primary object of attention
in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities
covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,
and to convey that the question of whether an individuals
impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand
extensive analysis; and
(6) to express Congress expectation that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will revise that portion of its
current regulations that defines the term substantially limits
as significantly restricted to be consistent with this Act,
including the amendments made by this Act.

dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS

SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990


(42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish
a persons right to fully participate in all aspects of society,

VerDate Aug 31 2005

08:10 Oct 01, 2008

Jkt 069139

PO 00325

Frm 00002

Fmt 6580

Sfmt 6581

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL325.110

APPS10

PsN: PUBL325

PUBLIC LAW 110325SEPT. 25, 2008

122 STAT. 3555

yet many people with physical or mental disabilities have been


precluded from doing so because of discrimination; others who
have a record of a disability or are regarded as having a
disability also have been subjected to discrimination;;
(2) by striking paragraph (7); and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively.
SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.Section 3 of the Americans


with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended to
read as follows:

dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.

As used in this Act:


(1) DISABILITY.The term disability means, with respect
to an individual
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment
(as described in paragraph (3)).
(2) MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES.
(A) IN GENERAL.For purposes of paragraph (1), major
life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for
oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating,
sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking,
breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking,
communicating, and working.
(B) MAJOR BODILY FUNCTIONS.For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation
of a major bodily function, including but not limited to,
functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
(3) REGARDED AS HAVING SUCH AN IMPAIRMENT.For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):
(A) An individual meets the requirement of being
regarded as having such an impairment if the individual
establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action
prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived
physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments
that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment
is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of
6 months or less.
(4) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING THE DEFINITION
OF DISABILITY.The definition of disability in paragraph (1)
shall be construed in accordance with the following:
(A) The definition of disability in this Act shall be
construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under
this Act, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms
of this Act.
(B) The term substantially limits shall be interpreted
consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

08:10 Oct 01, 2008

Jkt 069139

PO 00325

Frm 00003

Fmt 6580

Sfmt 6581

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL325.110

APPS10

PsN: PUBL325

122 STAT. 3556

PUBLIC LAW 110325SEPT. 25, 2008

(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major


life activity need not limit other major life activities in
order to be considered a disability.
(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission
is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life
activity when active.
(E)(i) The determination of whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity shall be made
without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating
measures such as
(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or
appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include
ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics
including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear
implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility
devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;
(II) use of assistive technology;
(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids
or services; or
(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological
modifications.
(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures
of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered
in determining whether an impairment substantially limits
a major life activity.
(iii) As used in this subparagraph
(I) the term ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses
means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual
acuity or eliminate refractive error; and
(II) the term low-vision devices means devices
that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual
image..
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) is further amended
by adding after section 3 the following:

dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS

42 USC 12103.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:


(1) AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES.The term auxiliary
aids and services includes
(A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods
of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments;
(B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective
methods of making visually delivered materials available
to individuals with visual impairments;
(C) acquisition or modification of equipment or
devices; and
(D) other similar services and actions.
(2) STATE.The term State means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands..
(c) AMENDMENT TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS.The table of
contents contained in section 1(b) of the Americans with Disabilities

VerDate Aug 31 2005

08:10 Oct 01, 2008

Jkt 069139

PO 00325

Frm 00004

Fmt 6580

Sfmt 6581

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL325.110

APPS10

PsN: PUBL325

PUBLIC LAW 110325SEPT. 25, 2008

122 STAT. 3557

Act of 1990 is amended by striking the item relating to section


3 and inserting the following items:
Sec. 3. Definition of disability.
Sec. 4. Additional definitions..
SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

(a) ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.Section 102 of the Americans


with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112) is amended
(1) in subsection (a), by striking with a disability because
of the disability of such individual and inserting on the basis
of disability; and
(2) in subsection (b) in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking discriminate and inserting discriminate
against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.
(b) QUALIFICATION STANDARDS AND TESTS RELATED TO UNCORRECTED VISION.Section 103 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113) is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and
inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
(c) QUALIFICATION STANDARDS AND TESTS RELATED TO UNCORRECTED VISION.Notwithstanding section 3(4)(E)(ii), a covered
entity shall not use qualification standards, employment tests, or
other selection criteria based on an individuals uncorrected vision
unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria, as used by
the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in
question and consistent with business necessity..
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(1) Section 101(8) of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(8)) is amended
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking WITH A
DISABILITY; and
(B) by striking with a disability after individual
both places it appears.
(2) Section 104(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12114(a)) is amended by striking the term
qualified individual with a disability shall and inserting a
qualified individual with a disability shall.

dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS

SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990


(42 U.S.C. 12201 et seq.) is amended
(1) by adding at the end of section 501 the following:
(e) BENEFITS UNDER STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS.
Nothing in this Act alters the standards for determining eligibility
for benefits under State workers compensation laws or under State
and Federal disability benefit programs.
(f) FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION.Nothing in this Act alters
the provision of section 302(b)(2)(A)(ii), specifying that reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures shall be required,
unless an entity can demonstrate that making such modifications
in policies, practices, or procedures, including academic requirements in postsecondary education, would fundamentally alter the
nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations involved.
(g) CLAIMS OF NO DISABILITY.Nothing in this Act shall provide the basis for a claim by an individual without a disability

VerDate Aug 31 2005

08:10 Oct 01, 2008

Jkt 069139

PO 00325

Frm 00005

Fmt 6580

Sfmt 6581

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL325.110

42 USC 12201.

APPS10

PsN: PUBL325

122 STAT. 3558

42 USC 12206
12211; 29 USC
706; 42 USC
12212, 12213.
42 USC 12205a.

42 USC 12210.

PUBLIC LAW 110325SEPT. 25, 2008

that the individual was subject to discrimination because of the


individuals lack of disability.
(h) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.A
covered entity under title I, a public entity under title II, and
any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place
of public accommodation under title III, need not provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an individual who meets the definition of
disability in section 3(1) solely under subparagraph (C) of such
section.;
(2) by redesignating section 506 through 514 as sections
507 through 515, respectively, and adding after section 505
the following:
SEC.

506.

RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORITY.

REGARDING

REGULATORY

The authority to issue regulations granted to the Equal


Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and
the Secretary of Transportation under this Act includes the
authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions of disability in section 3 (including rules of construction) and the definitions in section 4, consistent with the ADA Amendments Act of
2008.; and
(3) in section 511 (as redesignated by paragraph (2)) (42
U.S.C. 12211), in subsection (c), by striking 511(b)(3) and
inserting 512(b)(3).
(b) The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by redesignating
the items relating to sections 506 through 514 as the items relating
to sections 507 through 515, respectively, and by inserting after
the item relating to section 505 the following new item:
Sec. 506. Rule of construction regarding regulatory authority..
SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS

Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705)


is amended
(1) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking a physical and all
that follows through major life activities, and inserting the
meaning given it in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102); and
(2) in paragraph (20)(B), by striking any person who
and all that follows through the period at the end, and inserting
any person who has a disability as defined in section 3 of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)..

VerDate Aug 31 2005

08:10 Oct 01, 2008

Jkt 069139

PO 00325

Frm 00006

Fmt 6580

Sfmt 6581

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL325.110

APPS10

PsN: PUBL325

PUBLIC LAW 110325SEPT. 25, 2008

122 STAT. 3559

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

29 USC 705 note.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become
effective on January 1, 2009.
Approved September 25, 2008.

dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS

LEGISLATIVE HISTORYS. 3406:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
Sept. 11, considered and passed Senate.
Sept. 17, considered and passed House.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

08:10 Oct 01, 2008

Jkt 069139

PO 00325

Frm 00007

Fmt 6580

Sfmt 6580

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL325.110

APPS10

PsN: PUBL325

February 8, 2015

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil, Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit
Dear
Please find attached my signed
complaint form and supporting documents in my complaint
against Judge Hale Ralph Stancil. This complaint is limited to Judge Stancils failure to recuse
on a legally sufficient motion for disqualification.

Judge Stancil is presiding over the foreclosure of my home on a HECM reverse mortgage,
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.
I am indigent and unable to obtain adequate counsel, so I am reluctantly self-represented.
Table of Contents
PART I
PART II
PART III
PART IV
PART V

Question Presented
Statement Of The Facts
Defendants Motion To Disqualify Judge Hale Stancil
Legal Standard For Disqualification On motion To Disqualify
Conclusion
__________________________

PART I

QUESTION PRESENTED

Was Defendants Motion to Disqualify Judge Hale Stancil legally sufficient?


__________________________
PART II

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

I filed Defendants Motion to Disqualify Judge Hale Stancil through the Florida Court's
E-Filing Portal Filing # 21743681 Electronically Filed 12/18/2014 05:23:27 AM. The motion
accompanies this JQC complaint and was legally sufficient.

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit

February 8, 2015
Page - 2

However Judge Stancil failed to recuse himself, claiming the motion was not legally sufficient.
Three Orders I received in the mail from Judge Stancil dated December 18, 2014 accompany this
complaint. Each order looks the same but arrived in separate envelopes addressed differently.
The orders state:
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant, NEIL J. GELLESPIE's, Motion to
Disqualify Hall Stancil, filed with the Clerk on December 18, 2014. Defendant requests
that the undersigned be disqualified from presiding over the above-styled case. After a
review of the Motion, the Court finds Defendant, NEIL J. GELLESPIE's, Motion to be
legally insufficient. It is hereby,
ORDERED: Defendant, NEIL J. GELLESPIE's, Motion to Disqualify Hall Stancil is
DENIED.
ORDERED in Ocala, Florida, this day of December, 2014.
Take notice that Judge Stancil misspelled my surname GELLESPIE three different times.
Since there is no defendant named NEIL J. GELLESPIE one could argue this order is not
valid. Otherwise it appears to represent a response to my motion, a ridicule of me and my name.
Also take notice that Judge Stancil misspelled his own first name, Hall Stancil. If this was
intentional, it calls into question Judge Stancils fitness to serve on the bench.
Find enclosed:
1. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HALE STANCIL,
addressed to Neil J. Gillespie.
2. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HALE STANCIL,
addressed to Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustees of the Gillespie Family
Living Trust Agreement dated February 10, 1997.
3. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HALE STANCIL,
addressed to Unknown Settlors/Beneficiaries of The Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement dated February 10, 1997.
Find enclosed:
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE HALE STANCIL
Filing # 21743681 Electronically Filed 12/18/2014 05:23:27 AM
The motion is 4 pages, certificate of service 1 page, and 7 pages of exhibits, 12 pages total

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit

February 8, 2015
Page - 3

Text of the Complaint:


PART III

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE HALE STANCIL


Complaint to U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section,
ADA.complaint@usdoj.gov

Marion County and the Fifth Judicial Circuit openly refuse to obey The Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Public Law 110-325, as a
matter of policy; a deprivation of civil rights under color of law against 18 U.S.C. 242.
DECLARATION OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, and Fla. Stat. 92.525, I hereby declare as follows:
1.

My name is Neil J. Gillespie, an indigent, disabled nonlawyer reluctantly appearing pro

se for myself and my interests as SOLE TRUSTEE of THE GILLESPIE FAMILY LIVING TRUST
AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1997 (Trust).
2.

I move to disqualify Judge Hale Stancil under Fla. Stat. 38.10 (Exhibit 1) and Rule

2.330 Fla. R. Jud. Admin. (Exhibit 2) because I fear that I will not receive a fair trial in this
cause because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge. The specific grounds in
support of this motion and declaration are as follows:
3.

On December 11, 2014 at 5:46 PM I emailed Judge Stancil about telephonic hearings,

how to schedule hearings, court reporters etc. A read receipt shows Judge Stancil acknowledged
receiving the email Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:12 PM. Judge Stancil did not respond. No
one responded in his place as of this time. (Exhibit 3).
4.

Because Judge Stancil failed to inform me about telephonic hearings, how to schedule

hearings, court reporters etc., I take that to mean I am not able to appear telephonically, I am not
able to schedule motions, and that my court reporter may not be permitted in court.

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit
5.

February 8, 2015
Page - 4

I am an individual with a disability who needs an accommodation in order to participate

in a court proceeding before Judge Hale Stancil, Marion County Judicial Center, 110 N.W. 1st
Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475, Courtroom Number TBD, on December 18, 2014 at 10:00 AM.
6.

On December 10, 2014 I submitted my ADA TITLE II Accommodation Request to

ADA@circuit5.org, Judge Stancil, Tameka Gordon, ADA Coordinator, and,


Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Don Briggs
Fifth Circuit General Counsel and ADA Coordinator Grace Fagan
Marion County General Counsel for the Clerk and Comptroller Greg Harrell
John Sullivan, ADA Coordinator, Fifth Circuit, Citrus Co.
John Anthony Tomasino, Clerk, Florida Supreme Court
Silvester Dawson, ADA Coordinator, Florida Supreme Court
McCalla Raymer E-service
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Florida Bar Counsel
Barry Rodney Davidson, attorney
Jon Marshall Oden, attorney
Frank Harlan Killgore Jr., attorney
Robert J. Stovash, attorney
7.

No one responded to my ADA TITLE II Accommodation Request as of this time. No

accommodations were provided. Therefore I cannot attend the hearing today.


8.

Marion County and the Fifth Judicial Circuit openly refuse to obey The Americans With

Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Public Law 110-325, as a matter of
official policy, a deprivation of civil rights under color of law against 18 U.S.C. 242.
9.

The ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST means the,


Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Public Law 101-336
Signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush on July 26, 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
And Major Amendments to the ADA 1990,
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Public Law 110-325
Signed by President George W. Bush on September 25, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit
10.

February 8, 2015
Page - 5

It has recently come to my attention that Floridas judicial branch of government does not

accept or follow the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which was a major amendment to the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Tellingly Floridas judiciary, including the
Florida Supreme Court, pretend to support the civil rights of persons with disabilities by
proclaiming its support of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). But that law is
long outdated. The current state of the law is reflected by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
11.

In Marion County a Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A specifically referred

to the Americans With Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) as Public Law 101-336 and not to the
current ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Public Law 110-325. Fifth Circuit
Administrative Order A-2010-12-A was signed October 14, 2011 by Chief Judge Daniel B.
Merritt, Sr., long after the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was the law of the land.
12.

The nine page Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A is found online here,
http://www.circuit5.org/c5/wp-admin/ao/A2010-12-A.pdf

and is part of the internal grievance procedure that shall apply to all courts within the jurisdiction
of the Fifth Judicial Circuit. On information and belief, the purpose of this internal grievance
procedure is to deny the civil rights of persons with disabilities.
13.

Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A appoints Grace A. Fagan, General

Counsel of the Fifth Circuit, as the ADA Coordinator and requires all complaints shall be sent
directly to her at the Hernando County Courthouse, 20 N. Main Street, Brooksville, FL 34601.
14.

Ms. Fagan is not listed in the Directory of Florida Courts ADA Coordinators, revised

02/07/12 which is nine months after Chief Judge Merritt signed Fifth Circuit Administrative
Order A-2010-12-A into law. The Directory of Florida Courts ADA Coordinators is found linked
on the Office of State Courts Administrators (OSCA) website,

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit

February 8, 2015
Page - 6

http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/243/urlt/ADA_directory.pdf
15.

Ms. Fagan has obstructed my ADA Title II Accommodation Request submitted

December 10, 2014. Ms. Fagan has failed to answer ordinary questions about the court/circuits
civil procedures, how to schedule a hearing, or provide information on court reporters.
16.

The ADA Coordinator for Marion County is listed as Tameka Gordon in the Directory of

Florida Courts ADA Coordinators, but Ms. Gordon has not responded to my request for
accommodation. I emailed Ms. Fagan December 12, 2014 and got no response:
Today I attempted to contact Tameka Gordon by telephone at (352) 401-6701, but was
greeted by the voice mail of another person. Does Ms. Gordon have another ADA
telephone number? Has Ms. Gordon been replaced as ADA Coordinator by another
person? This paragraph is not a records request, but related to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, of which you are the ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.
FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NOT.
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 92.525, under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing
Declaration and that the facts stated in it are true, or to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on this 18th day of December, 2014.
_____________________________
Neil J. Gillespie (signature)
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
PART IV

LEGAL STANDARD FOR DISQUALIFICATION: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

Memorandum of Law
Note: The old Rule 2.160 Fla. R. Judicial Admin. has been replaced by Rule 2.330.
17.

Litigant's right to impartial judge. The importance of the duty of rendering a righteous

judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as would raise no suspicion of the fairness and
integrity of the judge. State ex rel. Arnold v. Revels, 113 So.2d 218, Fla.App. 1 Dist.,1959.
Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, (Mathew

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit

February 8, 2015
Page - 7

v. State, 837 So.2d 1167, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003.) and the law intends that no judge will preside
in a case in which he or she is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent. State v.
Steele, 348 So.2d 398, Fla.App. 1977. When a judge enters into the proceedings and becomes a
participant, a shadow is cast upon judicial neutrality so that his or her disqualification is
required. Evans v. State, 831 So.2d 808, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2002.
18.

The conditions requiring the disqualification of the judge to act in that particular case are

prescribed by statute. 38.02 Fla. Stat. The basic tenet for the disqualification of a judge is that a
judge must satisfy the appearance of justice. Hewitt v. State, 839 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,
2003. The question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may
reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his or her ability
to act fairly and impartially. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So.2d 1123, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1996.
19.

The term "recusal" is most often used to signify a voluntary action to remove oneself as a

judge; however, the term "disqualification" refers to the process by which a litigant may seek to
remove a judge from a particular case. Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600, Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2000.
Question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on those matters from which a
litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his
ability to act fairly and impartially. Wests F.S.A. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1), Stevens
v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006).
Question of disqualification of a trial judge focuses on those matters from which a litigant may
reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the court's own perception of its ability to
act fairly and impartially. Wests F.S.A. 38.10, Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So.2d 214,
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2005 reh'g denied, (Feb. 17, 2005).

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit
20.

February 8, 2015
Page - 8

Sufficiency of motion or affidavit of prejudice. A motion to disqualify must show that the

party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because: (1) of a specifically
described prejudice or bias of the judge; Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160 (d)(1). Generally, the
critical determination in deciding the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify has been
whether the facts alleged would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear he or she would not
receive a fair trial, Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836 Fla., 2002. If a motion to recuse is
technically sufficient and the facts alleged therein also would prompt a reasonably prudent
person to fear that he or she could not get a fair and impartial trial from the judge, the motion is
legally sufficient and should be granted. Coleman v. State, 866 So.2d 209, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2004.
The motion to disqualify a judge should contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias,
prejudice, or sympathy. Chamberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087, Fla.,2004.
21.

Whether a motion to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient requires a determination as to

whether the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not
receiving a fair and impartial trial. Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160 (f), Rodriguez v. State, 919
So.2d 1252, Fla.,2005, as revised on denial of reh'g, (Jan. 19, 2006). The primary consideration
in determining whether motion to disqualify trial judge should be granted is whether the facts
alleged, if true, would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and
impartial trial. Arbelaez v. State, 898 So.2d 25, Fla.,2005, reh'g denied, (Mar. 18, 2005). A
motion for disqualification must be granted if the alleged facts would cause a reasonably prudent
person to have a well-founded fear that he/she would not receive a fair and impartial trial. Jarp v.
Jarp, 919 So.2d 614, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2006. The test a trial court must use in determining
whether a motion to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient is whether the facts alleged would
place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Scott v. State,

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit

February 8, 2015
Page - 9

909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2005, reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005). The motion to disqualify a
judge must be well-founded and contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias, prejudice, or
sympathy. Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2005, reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005).
22.

Disqualification is required when litigants demonstrate reasonable, well-grounded fear

that they will not receive fair and impartial trial, or that judge has pre-judged case. Williams v.
Balch, 897 So.2d 498, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2005.
23.

Time for filing motion; waiver of objection. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a

reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the
motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling. Fla. R. Jud.
Admin., Rule 2.160(e). Although a petition to disqualify a judge is not timely filed,
extraordinary circumstances may warrant the grant of an untimely motion to recuse. KlapperBarrett v. Nurell, 742 So.2d 851, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,1999.
24.

Judicial determination of initial motion. The judge against whom an initial motion to

disqualify us directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall not pass on
the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.160(f). No other reason for denial shall
be stated, and an order of denial shall not tale issue with the motion. Fla. R. Judicial Admin.
2.160(f). Accordingly, a judge may not rule on the truth of the facts alleged or address the
substantive issues raised by the motion but may only determine the legal sufficiency of the
motion. Knarich v. State, 866 So.2d 165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). In determining
whether the allegations that movant will not receive a fair trial so as to disqualify a judge are
sufficient, the facts alleged must be taken as true (Frengel v. Frengel, 880 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 2
Dist.,2004), and must be viewed from the movant's perspective. Siegel v. State, 861 So.2d 90,
Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003.

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit
25.

February 8, 2015
Page - 10

Case law forbids trial judges to refute facts set forth in a motion to disqualify, and their

doing so will result in judicial disqualification irrespective of the facial sufficiency of the
underlying claim. Brinson v. State, 789 So.2d 1125, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2001. A trial judge's
attempt to refute charges of partiality thus exceeds the scope of inquiry on a motion to disqualify
and alone establishes grounds for disqualification. J & J Industries, Inc. v. Carpet Showcase of
Tampa Bay, Inc., 723 So.2d 281, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1998.
26.

Whether the motion is legally sufficient is a pure question of law; it follows that the

proper standard of review is the de novo standard (Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600 Fla.App. 1
Dist.,2000) and an order denying a motion to disqualify a trial judge is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. King v. State, 840 So.2d 1047, Fla.,2003.
27.

Once a motion for disqualification has been filed, no further action can be taken by the

trial court, even if the trial court is not aware of the pending motion. Brown v. State
863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2004. A judge presented with a motion to disqualify him- or
herself must rule upon the sufficiency of the motion immediately and may not consider other
matters before considering the disqualification motion. Brown v. State 863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App.
1 Dist.,2004. The court is required to rule immediately on the motion to disqualify the judge,
even though the movant does not request a hearing. Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d
1063, Fla.,2000. The rule places the burden on the judge to rule immediately, the movant is not
required to nudge the judge nor petition for a writ of mandamus. G.C. v. Department of Children
and Families, 804 So.2d 525 Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2002.

Complaint: Judge Hale Ralph Stancil


Marion County, Fifth Judicial Circuit
PART V

February 8, 2015
Page - 11

Conclusion

Defendants Motion To Disqualify Judge Hale Stancil was legally sufficient. His failure to
recuse is a violation of the public trust, reflects discredit upon the judiciary and the courts, and
suggests corruption in the adjudication of cases. Judge Stancil must be removed from office.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and understand this complaint and
to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and
submitted of my own free will.
Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP290332627


Via Email: davidt@flcourts.org

February 9, 2015

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel


Office of the State Courts Administrator
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Phone: (850) 488-1824
Fax: (850) 410-5301
RE: Grace A. Fagan, the apparent ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and my
ADA Title II Accommodation Request submitted December 10, 2014
Mr. David,
Your latest email (enclosed) is not responsive to the issues. Exhibit 1.
Let me restate my complaint for your response:
1.
I filed an ADA Title II accommodation request December 10, 2014 in Marion County, in
connection with the foreclosure case shown below. I did not get a disability accommodation. I
did not get a response to my an ADA Title II accommodation request.
Action needed: I want a response now. Otherwise I want the OSCA to take action to get a
response to which I am entitled.
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.
2.

Attached/enclosed are the documents I submitted December 10, 2014:

Exhibit 2

FLORIDA STATE COURTS SYSTEM ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION


REQUEST FORM June 28, 2010. I submitted the form by pushing a button on
page 6 of the form, December 10, 2014 @11.2X AM.

Exhibit 3

Email receipt from John Sullivan, jsullivan@circuit5.org Dec-10-2014 @11.54 AM

Exhibit 4

My email to Mr. Sullivan, jsullivan@circuit5.org Dec-10-2014 @12.49 PM:


Dear Mr. Sullivan,
Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my ADA request. I appreciate your
professionalism. As a courtesy, please find attached the following:

Exhibit 5

The ADA One Avenue to Appointed Counsel Before a Full Civil Gideon (law review)

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel


Office of the State Courts Administrator
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8

February 9, 2015
Page - 2

Brain injury leads to suspension for Maine lawyer; 'I couldn't stick to tasks,' he
says (American Bar Association, composite)
Notification from Social Security of full disability, 08-23-93, SSA to NJG-disabled.
Pages from disability motion, US 11th Circuit 12-11213-C and ER report

My full disability motion (251 pages) US 11th Circuit 12-11213-C is posted on Scribd,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11
My Scribd Disability "Collection" of documents is found here,
https://www.scribd.com/collections/3851318/Disability-and-the-Law
If you require anything else, please contact me. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
(352) 854-7807
3.

On December 10, 2014 I provided by email @11.37 AM (Exhibit 9) a second time


(Exhibit 10) the FLORIDA STATE COURTS SYSTEM ADA TITLE II
ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FORM June 28, 2010, to the names shown, with the
message below. Tellingly the link was broken to the ADA form on the 5th Judicial
Circuits website.
Thank you. I already submitted my ADA request on the attached form I just found from
last year. Neil J. Gillespie.
Judge Hale Ralph Stancil,
Tameka Gordon, ADA Coordinator
Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Don Briggs
Fifth Circuit General Counsel and ADA Coordinator Grace Fagan
Marion County General Counsel for the Clerk and Comptroller Greg Harrell
John Sullivan, ADA Coordinator, Fifth Circuit, Citrus Co.
John Anthony Tomasino, Clerk, Florida Supreme Court
Silvester Dawson, ADA Coordinator, Florida Supreme Court
McCalla Raymer E-service
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Florida Bar Counsel
Barry Rodney Davidson, attorney
Jon Marshall Oden, attorney
Frank Harlan Killgore Jr., attorney
Robert J. Stovash, attorney

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel


Office of the State Courts Administrator

February 9, 2015
Page - 3

4.
Grace A. Fagan is not shown as an ADA coordinator anywhere in the state of Florida on
the attached (Exhibit 11) Directory of Florida Courts ADA Coordinators published by OSCA
and found on the OSCA website at the link below. But she is acting as an ADA Coordinator.
Question: Under what authority is Grace A. Fagan acting as ADA Coordinator?
Question: When will OSCA correct the omission of Grace A. Fagan from its Directory of
Florida Courts ADA Coordinators?
http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/243/urlt/ADA_directory.pdf
5.
The attached Directory of Florida Courts ADA Coordinators (Exhibit 9) published by
OSCA and found on the OSCA website shows five other ADA Coordinators for the Fifth
Judicial Circuit for the respective counties of Marion, Citrus, Lake, Hernando and Bushnell. I
have not gotten a response from Tameka Gordon, the ADA coordinator for Marion County to my
ADA Title II accommodation request to her.
Question: Why has Tameka Gordon not responded to my ADA Title II request?
Ms. Tameka Gordon
110 N.W. 1st Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475
Phone: 352-401-6710 (ADA line)
Fax: 352-401-7883
ADA Duties: Marion County

Mr. John D. Sullivan


110 N. Apopka Street
Inverness, FL 34450-4231
Phone: 352-341-6700
Fax: 352-341-7008
ADA Duties: Citrus County

Ms. Nicole Berg


P. O. Box 7800
Tavares, FL 32778
Phone: 352-253-1604
Fax: 352-742-4370
ADA Duties: Lake County

Ms. Peggy Welch


20 N. Main Street, Room 350
Brooksville, FL 34601
Phone: 352-754-4402
Fax: 352-754-4267
ADA Duties: Hernando County

Ms. Lorna Barker


225 E. McCollum Avenue, Room 209
Bushnell, FL 33513
Phone: 352-569-6088
Fax: 352-569-6098

6.
Grace A. Fagan, the apparent ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Circuit, has refused to
accept my emailed request for a copy of my ADA Title II accommodation request showing it
was received with the date stamp. Contrary to her assertion, I am not required to "put [my]
public records requests in writing and addressed to [her] office. All public records are required to
be hard copied via US Mail not email."
There is no requirement that a records request be in writing or sent through the U.S. mail to her
office. You know that Mr. David from my prior records request to you, made by email, and
records provided by you or OSCA in PDF format by email to me. Also, Ms. Fagan has not
provided a street address (that I can recall) and my shipper United Parcel Service (U.P.S.) can
not legally deliver to a Post Office Box. So email is the efficient way to do a records request.

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel


Office of the State Courts Administrator

February 9, 2015
Page - 4

Action needed: Inform Ms. Fagan about Floridas public records law, and her
responsibility to provide records as a public employee of the Courts. The mission of the
judicial branch is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and provide
for the peaceful resolution of disputes. - OSCA website.
Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution guarantees Access to public records and
meetings. Public records are governed by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
All public records requests shall be acknowledged promptly and in good faith,
F.S. 119.07(1)(c)
Under F.S. 119.10(2) Ms. Fagan is a person subject to violation and penalties.
119.10 Violation of chapter; penalties.
(1) Any public officer who:
(a) Violates any provision of this chapter commits a noncriminal infraction, punishable
by fine not exceeding $500.
(b) Knowingly violates the provisions of s. 119.07(1) is subject to suspension and
removal or impeachment and, in addition, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) Any person who willfully and knowingly violates:
(a) Any of the provisions of this chapter commits a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Section 119.105 commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
7.
The ADA Title II accommodation request process is not supposed to be part of the
adversarial process, but it has been in this case. If you/OSCA believes the ADA Title II
accommodation request is subject to the adversarial process, state your opinion or belief thereto,
and provide citation(s) to law.
Marion County and the Fifth Judicial Circuit openly refuse to obey The Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Public Law 110-325, as a matter of
official policy, a deprivation of civil rights under color of law against 18 U.S.C. 242.
An accommodation under the ADA TITLE II means the,
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Public Law 101-336
Signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush on July 26, 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
and major amendments to the ADA 1990,

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel


Office of the State Courts Administrator

February 9, 2015
Page - 5

ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Public Law 110-325


Signed by President George W. Bush on September 25, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA_Amendments_Act_of_2008
It has come to my attention that Floridas judicial branch of government does not accept or
follow the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which was a major amendment to the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Tellingly Floridas judiciary, including the Florida
Supreme Court, pretend to support the civil rights of persons with disabilities by proclaiming its
support of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). But that law is long outdated.
The current state of the law is reflected by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
In Marion County a Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A specifically referred to the
Americans With Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) as Public Law 101-336 and not to the current
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Public Law 110-325. Fifth Circuit Administrative
Order A-2010-12-A was signed October 14, 2011 by Chief Judge Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., long
after the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was the law of the land.
The nine page Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A is found online here,
http://www.circuit5.org/c5/wp-admin/ao/A2010-12-A.pdf
and is part of the internal grievance procedure that shall apply to all courts within the jurisdiction
of the Fifth Judicial Circuit. On information and belief, the purpose of this internal grievance
procedure is to deny the civil rights of persons with disabilities.
Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A appoints Grace A. Fagan, General Counsel of
the Fifth Circuit, as the ADA Coordinator and requires all complaints shall be sent directly to her
at the Hernando County Courthouse, 20 N. Main Street, Brooksville, FL 34601.
Ms. Fagan is not listed in the Directory of Florida Courts ADA Coordinators, revised 02/07/12
which is nine months after Chief Judge Merritt signed Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A2010-12-A into law. The Directory of Florida Courts ADA Coordinators is found linked on the
Office of State Courts Administrators (OSCA) website,
http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/243/urlt/ADA_directory.pdf
Ms. Fagan has obstructed my ADA Title II Accommodation Request submitted December 10,
2014. Ms. Fagan has failed to answer ordinary questions about the court/circuits civil
procedures, how to schedule a hearing, or provide information on court reporters.
The ADA Coordinator for Marion County is listed as Tameka Gordon in the Directory of Florida
Courts ADA Coordinators, but Ms. Gordon has not responded to my request for accommodation.
I emailed Ms. Fagan December 12, 2014 and got no response:

Thomas A. "Tad" David, General Counsel


Office of the State Courts Administrator

February 9, 2015
Page - 6

Today I attempted to contact Tameka Gordon by telephone at (352) 401-6701, but was
greeted by the voice mail of another person. Does Ms. Gordon have another ADA
telephone number? Has Ms. Gordon been replaced as ADA Coordinator by another
person? This paragraph is not a records request, but related to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, of which you are the ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.
8.

Mission & Vision - from the OSCA website


http://www.flcourts.org/florida-courts/mission-and-vision.stml
The mission of the judicial branch is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret
the law, and provide for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Vision of the Florida Judicial Branch


Justice in Florida will be accessible, fair, effective, responsive, and accountable.

To be accessible, the Florida justice system will be convenient, understandable,


timely, and affordable to everyone.

To be fair, it will respect the dignity of every person, regardless of race, class, gender
or other characteristic, apply the law appropriately to the circumstances of individual
cases, and include judges and court staff that reflect the community's diversity.

To be effective, it will uphold the law and apply rules and procedures consistently
and in a timely manner, resolve cases with finality, and provide enforceable
decisions.

To be responsive, it will anticipate and respond to the needs of all members of


society, and provide a variety of dispute resolution methods.

To be accountable, the Florida justice system will use public resources efficiently,
and in a way that the public can understand.

Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.


Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida
Enclosures

Telephone: (352) 854-7807


Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net

https://www.ups.com/uis/create?ActionOriginPair=default___PrintWindowPage&key=labelWindow&type=html&loc=en_US&instr=A&doc=shipment...

UPS Internet Shipping: View/Print Label


1. Ensure there are no other shipping or tracking labels attached to your package. Select the
Print button on the print dialog box that appears. Note: If your browser does not support this function
select Print from the File menu to print the label.
2. Fold the printed label at the solid line below. Place the label in a UPS Shipping Pouch. If you do
not have a pouch, affix the folded label using clear plastic shipping tape over the entire label.
3. GETTING YOUR SHIPMENT TO UPS
UPS locations include the UPS Store, UPS drop boxes, UPS customer centers, authorized
retail outlets and UPS drivers.
Schedule a same day or future day Pickup to have a UPS driver pickup all of your Internet Shipping
packages.
Hand the package to any UPS driver in your area.
Take your package to any location of The UPS Store, UPS Drop Box, UPS Customer Center, UPS
Alliances (Office Depot or Staples) or Authorized Shipping Outlet near you. Items sent via UPS
Return Services(SM) (including via Ground) are also accepted at Drop Boxes. To find the location
nearest you, please visit the 'Find Locations' Quick link at ups.com.
Customers with a Daily Pickup
Your driver will pickup your shipment(s) as usual.

FOLD HERE