Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FIFTH DISTRICT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ETC.,
Petitioner,
v.
REVERSE MORTGAGE
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Respondent.
________________________/
DATE: February 25, 2015
cc:
Neil J. Gillespie
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
<eFile5DCA@FLCourts.org>
<neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:01 AM
Pleading Accepted On Case: 15-0341
Your Miscellaneous Docket Entry on case 15-0341 has been accepted and is now on the docket.
DCA Case No: 15-0341
Case Name : NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ETC. v REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.
LT Case No : 2013-CA-115
2/25/2015
RECEIVED, 2/24/2015 2:39 AM, Pamela R. Masters, Fifth District Court of Appeal
Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustees of the Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement dated February 10, 1997
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Email: mark.gillespie@att.net
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Mark Gillespie
7504 Summer Meadows Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76123
Email: mark.gillespie@att.net
Petitioner,
RECEIVED, 2/23/2015 8:07 AM, Pamela R. Masters, Fifth District Court of Appeal
v.
~e ~'d 1J(2:;~~
oF
Respondent(s) .
r/'u,4..G'l1'f iJJcI,~
Separated D
Divorced [Z]Single
INCOME
Affiant's Take Home Pay: Weekly $ 0.00
Bi-weekly $ 0.00
Monthly $ 0.00
Value of Real Estate Own~(Homes, Lots, etc. NOT including homestead) $25,351
Value of Personal Property Owned (Boats, Jewelry, Stocks, Household Furnishing, etc.) $ >4,000
, 20
Signature of Affiant
Ocala, Florida 34481
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME this _ _ day of
My Commission Expires:
, 20
_
_
(Signature of Affiant)
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner/Appellant,
vs.
5D15-0341 (petition)
L.T. 2013-CA-000115
Financial Condition
Social Security disability income: $1,894. (monthly)
Amount of cash on hand: $1.801.
My residential Florida homestead property is currently in foreclosure.
My home is valued at $78,839 per the Marion County Property Appraiser
The disputed mortgage balance is approximately $ $115,000.
My vehicle is a 1990 Dodge minivan, value $300. No payments owed.
Note: I do not have a checking/bank account because I cannot successfully manage one
due to disability. In lieu of a bank account, I have a Direct Express debit card provided through
Social Security (Comerica Bank); I also use prepaid Walmart debit cards. These accounts cannot
be overdrawn, and do not have any statements or paperwork associated with them.
III.
IV.
Value of Personal Property Owned. On information and belief, the value of my personal
property is exempt from legal process under section 222.061(1), Florida Statutes.
Interest in personal property, not to exceed $4,000. F.S. 222.25(4); in the
alternative, benefits of a homestead exemption under s. 4, Art. X, Fla. Const.
Interest in a single motor vehicle, not to exceed $1,000 in value F.S. 222.25(1)
Interest in professionally prescribed health aids for myself. F.S. 222.25(2)
Interest in Social Security disability income benefits, F.S. 222.18
V.
Personal debts (Part V): $25,100; Mortgage in dispute (Part II): $115,000
Total amount of liabilities and debt: $140,100
VI.
VII.
Extraordinary expenses after majority, for and related to ongoing treatment of congenital
disorder(s), sometimes called wrongful life expenses, for habilitation and/or rehabilitation.
Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General2 reports for example on page 4, the
$100,000 minimum individual lifetime costs of treating craniofacial birth defects such as cleft lip
and palate; and on page 228, In California, the lifetime cost per case for cleft lip/palate repair
is estimated at $101,000 (Waitzman et al. 1996). These numbers are about 18 years old. On
information and belief, the amount in 2015 adjusted for inflation is about $153,341.68.
VIII. Costs and expenses related to civil rights violations, deprivation of rights under color of
law, including failure to provided disability accommodation under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended, and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
including sections 504 and section 508, in my opinion are substantial.
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; through Pub. L. 113-185
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq.
Additionally, related private civil rights violations, and deprivation of rights under color of law
by the government, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of justice, pursuant too:
42 U.S. Code 1981 - Equal rights under the law
42 U.S. Code 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S. Code 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
42 U.S. Code 1986 - Action for neglect to prevent
42 U.S. Code 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
U.S. District Court Judge Myron H. Thompson, who battled polio and childhood paralysis. He
says that discrimination over his disabilities was even more severe than for his race. Its not the
good things that happen to you that make you strong, he says. Its when you confront
something that you initially perceive as a disadvantage, thats what builds character.
See U.S. Courts website,
http://news.uscourts.gov/african-american-history-month-six-judges-journeys-recall-civil-rights-era
IX.
$100,000 Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. (as of 2009). I contend the and deprivation
of rights under color of law by the government, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of
justice in this case is directly related to other cases of mine, see SCOTUS Petition No. 12-7747.
2
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Oral Health in America: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 2000. 332 page PDF
http://silk.nih.gov/public/hck1ocv.@www.surgeon.fullrpt.pdf
3
A report prepared September 17, 2009, one of three by Florida attorney Jeff Childers3 reported in
the Economic Analysis Spreadsheet on the Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. (attached)
Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and
emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome,
the book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the
non-pecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate
the physical and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both
short and long-term effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time
invested in the case but also by loss of energy related to physical and emotional sideeffects. My estimate was $100,000, but this figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may
wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards. There is 100% probability these costs
will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
X.
$2,442.02 extraordinary expenses in Petition for Rehearing Order Denying Petition No.
13-7280, U.S. Supreme Court, Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis - Attached sheet.
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. vs. Neil J. Gillespie, et al.
Petition for Rehearing Order Denying Petition No. 13-7280, U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Eleventh Circuit No. 13-11585-B
District Court Docket No: 5:13-cv-00058-oc-WTH-PRL
This petition and rehearing is extraordinarily expensive because of fraud or impairment
of Petition No. 12-7747 by the Florida Attorney General et al who conspired with the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit to falsely show that I did not serve my petition as show on the
Rule 29 proof of service. This required shipping to a broader audience in an effort to
deter the AG and coconspirators from further obstruction of justice. The increased cots
shown below amount to $2,442.02, and include $100 for process serving to the AG who
refused to provide basic service of process information, some of which I later found on
the AGs website.
Litigation expenses (incomplete)
Nov-01-2013, UPS shipping $543.41
Dec-03-2013, UPS shipping $833.19
Jan-03-2014, UPS shipping $514.62
Nov-Dec-Jan Subtotal: $1,891.22
Barry Schoenfeld process server $50
Return of Service December 11, 2013
Florida Attorney General
Mr. Childers was paid in advance to draft the complaint in what became Gillespie v Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit Florida et al, U.S. District Court 5:10-cv-503 M.D. Fla., but instead he produced
three reports after speaking unsuccessfully with Mr. Rodems about a settlement.
4
I have been determined indigent and/or insolvent or fees waived in the following cases:
1. Marion County Florida, February 20, 2015, Appeal 5D15-0340/L.T. 2013-CA-000115
See attached the Marion County Application for Determination of Civil Indigent Status
found indigent February 20, 2015 by the Marion County Clerk.
2. Marion County Florida, February 18, 2015, Petition 5D15-0341/L.T. 2013-CA-000115
See attached the Marion County Application for Determination of Civil Indigent Status
found indigent February 18, 2015 by the Marion County Clerk.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
US Supreme Court, February 7, 2014, Petition for rehearing Petition No. 13-7280
US Supreme Court, October 23, 2013, Petition No. 13-7280 for writ of certiorari
US Supreme Court, March 18, 2013, Petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747
US Supreme Court, December 10, 2012, Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari
Florida Supreme Court, November 26, 2014, Case No. SC14-1637
Florida Supreme Court, August 22, 2011, Case No. SC11-1622
5
5D15-0341 (petition)
On information and belief, the Court's Order in 5015-0341 (petition) issued January 29, 2015
regarding the statutory filing fee, served by email, is subject to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. Rule 2.514
Computing and Extending Time, (b) Additional Time after Service by Mail or E-mail. When a
party mayor must act within a specified time after service and service is made by mail or e-mail,
5 days are added after the period that would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).
Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustees of the Gillespie Family Living Trust
Agreement dated February 10, 1997
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Email: mark.gillespie@att.net
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Mark Gillespie
7504 Summer Meadows Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76123
Email: mark.gillespie@att.net
:,;, ;~)..
%~~?
A Report of the
Surgeon General
Suggested Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Oral Health in America: A Rt1Jort of the Surgeon GeneraL
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial
Research, National Institutes of Health, 2000.
ii
The inlent of this first-ever Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health is to alert Americans to the
full meaning of oral h.ealth and its importance to general health and \vell-being. Great progress has
been made in reducing the extent and severity of comlllon oral diseases. Successful prevention
lneasures adopted by communities, individuals, and oral health professionals have resulted in
lnarked ilnprovenlents in t.he nation's oral and dental health.
The terms oral health and general health should not be interpreted as separate entities. Oral
health is integral t.o general health; this report provides important reminders that oral health means
more than healthy teeth and that you cannot be healthy without oral health. Further, the report
out.lines existing safe and effective disease prevention measures that everyone can adopt to improve
oral health and prevent disease.
However, not everyone is experiencing the same degree of improvenlent. This Surgeon
General's report addresses the inequities and disparities that affect those least able to muster the
resources to achieve optimal oral health. For whatever the reason, ignoring oral health problems
can lead to needless pain and suffering, causing devastating complications to an individual's well
being, witll fillancial and social costs that Significantly diminish quality of life and burden
American society.
For a tllird decade, the nation has developed a plan for the prevention of disease alld tIle pro
motion of health, incltlding oral health, embodied in the U.S. Departlnent of Health and Human
Services document, Healthy People 2010. This Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health empha
sizes the importance of achieving tIle Healthy People goals to increase quality of life and elilninate
dispalities. As a nation, we hope to address the detemlinants of health-individual and environ
mental factors-in order to improve access to quality care, and to support policies and prograllls
that lllake a difference for our health. We hope to prevent oral diseases and disorders, cancer, birth
defects, Lt\IDS and other devastating infections, lllental illness and suicide, and tIle chronic diseases
of aging.
We trust that this Surgeon Gelleral's report will ellsure that health promotioll and disease pre
vention prograll1s are ellhanced for all Anlericans. This report proposes solutions that entail part
nerships-governlnent agencies alld offIcials, private industry, foundations, conSUll1er groups,
health professiollals, educators, and researchers-to coordinate and facilitate actions based on a
National Oral Healtll Plall. Together, we can effect the changes we need to maintain and improve
oral health for all Americalls.
r~xeclltive
SUlnnlary
THE CHALLENGE
This Surgeon Generals report has nluch to say about
the inequities and disparities that affect those least
able to muster the resources to achieve optilnal oral
health. The barriers to oral health include lack of
access to care, whether because of limited income or
lack of insurance, transportation, or the flexibility to
take time off from work to attend to personal or fall1
ily needs for care. Individuals \vith disabilities and
those \vith complex health problenls nlay face addi
tional barriers to care. Somethnes, too, the public,
policymakers, and providers may consider oral
health and the need for care to be less important than
other health needs, pointing to the need to raise
awareness and improve health literacy
Even more costly to the individual and to socic
ty are the expenses associated with oral health prob
lems that go beyond dental diseases. The nation's
yearly dental bill is expected to exceed 560 billion in
2000 (Health Care Financing Administration 2000).
However, add to that expense the tens of billions of
dollars in direct medical care and indirect costs of
chronic craniofacial pain conditions such as ten1
porolnandibular disorders, trigeminal neuralgi.a,
shingles, or burning mouth syndrome~ the $100,000
nlinimum individual lifetime costs of treating cranio
facial birth defects such as cleft lip and palate; the
costs of oral and phal)7ngeal cancers~ the costs of
autoimmune diseases; and the costs associated \vith
the unintentional and intentional injuries that so
often affect the head and face. Then add the social
and psychological consequences and costs. Damage
to the craniofacial complex, whether from disease,
disorder, or injury, strikes at our very identity. We see
ourselves, and others see us, in terlns of the face \ve
present to the world. Diminish that in1age in any \vay
and we risk the loss of self-esteenl and well-being.
Many unanswered questions renlain for scien
tists, practitioners, educators, policymakers, and the
public. This report highlights the research challenges
as well as pointing to emerging technologies that may
facilitate finding solutions. Along with the quest for
answers COlnes the challenge of applying what is
already known in a society \'vhere there are sociaL
political, economic, behavioral, and environlnental
barriers to health and well-being.
THE CHARGE
The realization that oral health can have a significant
impact on the overall health and well-being of the
nation's population led the Office of the Surgeon
General, with the approval of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, to comlnission this repoft.
(~are
'rl\B l E 9 . .3
U.S. national health expenditures by source of funds and type of expenditure, 1998 ($ billions)
Government
Private
Consumer
Other
Total
Federal
State and
Local
375.0
375.0
337.0
118.0
116.0
25.5
20.2
4.0
47.8
0.8
4.7
51.8
38.8
37.9
19.1
4.5
0.2
5.0
3.7
522.7
500.4
444.9
232.9
73.3
2.3
14.2
15.5
18.8
6.5
53.0
28.3
376.9
360.4
343.6
187.4
60.8
1.3
11.2
13.1
10.7
6.4
35.4
17.1
145.8
140.0
101.3
45.5
12.4
1.0
3.0
2.4
8.1
0.1
17.7
11.2
38.0
0.9
18.8
36.6
22.3
18.3
4.0
12.6
4.2
16.5
15.5
1.0
6.2
32.4
5.8
2.8
3.0
Total
Out of Private
Pocket Insurance
626.4
613.4
574.5
149.9
156.2
51.5
52.4
13.7
103.1
9.0
34.8
3.8
574.6
574.6
536.5
130.9
151.7
51.3
47.4
10.0
103.1
9.0
33.2
199.5
199.5
199.5
12.8
35.7
25.8
27.2
6.0
55.4
8.2
28.5
38.9
38.0
Total
All Private
Funds
1,149.1
1,113.7
1,019.3
382.8
229.5
53.8
66.6
29.3
121.9
15.5
87.8
32.1
57.7
36.6
35.3
19.9
15.5
13.0
1.6
11.5
1.6
3.8
13.0
1.6
11.5
Note: Research and development expenditures of drug companies and other manufacturers and providers of medical equipment and supplies are exduded from research expenditures, but
are included in the expenditure class in which the product falls. Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.
228
TEL 866.996.6104
Jeff Childers
Attorney at Law
FAX 407.209.3870
URL www.smartbizlaw.com
jchilders@smartbizlaw.com
The Complaint calculates actual damages a little differently. I went with my figures because they are more
favorable (and I believe, correct).
Sixth Street Executive Center
1330 NW 6th Street, Suite C
Gainesville, FL 32601
Page 2 of 5
divided by three to obtain the amount that should have been paid to the Plaintiff, and further
reduced by the $2,000 that was already paid to Plaintiff. I.e.:
Actual Award
$56,000
$56,000
-Costs
-$6,125.46
$49,874
-$22,443
$27,431
-$18,286
$9,143
-$2,000
$7,143
==============
Total Actual Damages
$7,143.002
Thus, as you can see, the maximum recoverable actual damages in this case are likely to
be $7,143. Next, the spreadsheet adjusts the maximum actual damage figure by the probability
of prevailing, which I calculated as 51%, or just more likely than not. Of course, these estimates
are largely subjective. I would have calculated the chance of prevailing on the merits as 75% at
the outset of the case, but given the cases history and the events which have transpired since
inception, I am forced to reduce the probability of succeeding on the merits to 51%. Thus, the
economic value of the actual damages in this case is $3,643.00.
Punitive Damages. As you know, punitive damages are more difficult to obtain. There
are both legal and factual barriers to pleading and proving punitive damages.3 The Defendants
may convince the court that punitive damages were not plead properly or are not available in
this case, in which event the jury is not permitted to consider punitive damages. Also, punitive
damages are granted up to three times actual damages, and there is no guarantee that a jury
would award the full treble damage amount. Still, I used treble damages, which is a maximum
recoverable amount of $21,431. Furthermore, any punitive damages award can be overruled by
the judge, and appealed separately. Therefore, the probability of succeeding with punitive
damages is accounted for as half of the probability of succeeding with actual damages, or 25%.
Therefore, the economic value of the punitive damages at this point in the case is only $5,357.00.
2
As you can see, I did an independent calculation of damages, which amount was very close to your own figures.
In fact, on January 13, 2006, the court ordered the demands for punitive damages to be stricken from the
Complaint, so, actually, no current demand for punitive damages exists (presumably it might be re-plead in an
amended complaint). Also, to the extent that the suit succeeds on a breach of contract and not tort claim, punitive
damages are excluded. Farnsworth, Contracts, 12.3, at 157 (3d ed. 1999) ("Punitive damages should not be
awarded for breach of contract because they will encourage performance when breach would be socially more
desirable.").
Page 3 of 5
Award of Attorneys Fees. Under the American Rule, each party must pay its own
attorneys fees and costs. Unless an exception is granted by agreement between the parties or by
statute, there is no provision for the prevailing party to recover its fees and costs. The unexecuted representation contract attached to the Complaint contains no provision for attorneys
fees. I am aware of no other such agreement or statute that would apply in this case, beyond a
bare equitable appeal to the court. The spreadsheet therefore allows for no recovery from the
Defendants of fees and costs.
Subtotal, Forecast Recovery. Thus, the maximum recovery at 100%, i.e. full certainty of
succeeding in the litigation as to both actual and punitive damages, is $28,574. However,
adjusted for the probability of succeeding on the merits at this point in the case, the maximum
economic recovery is only $9,001.
Bauers Outstanding Fees. Mr. Bauer has a claim to his fees of $12,517.41, at least as of
the most current invoice that I was provided. On the one hand, he may have difficulty proving
his entitlement to the fees, due to some evidence that an attempt was made to renegotiate the
contract to a contingency basis. However, since that evidence is not conclusive and represents a
triable issue of fact, the probability of incurring additional costs to litigate the fees issues offsets
the reduction in probability that Mr. Bauer can recover them. Furthermore, generally speaking,
most ethical attorneys would require the Plaintiff to resolve the fees issue with predecessor
counsel before agreeing to take the case (as I would). Thus, there will be pressure to pay the fees
or come to an amicable settlement. Accepting Bauers figures, the economic cost of the
outstanding fees to Mr. Bauer at this point in the case is $12,517.41.
New Attorneys Fees. A new attorney would be required to litigate the case through
trial. Given the extensive history of the case, some non-trivial cost would be incurred in
reviewing and understanding the almost four-year history of this litigation (8 hrs). Then,
amendment of the complaint (4 hrs), response to various outstanding motions and issues
including the garnishment and counter-claims (26 hrs), preparation for trial on the substantive
issues and defenses (30 hrs), and the trial itself (30 hrs) will require substantial attorney time. At
an estimated $250 per hour, for 98 estimated attorney hours (loosely including paralegal time,
costs etc as part of the hours estimate), the fee for completing the case would be $24,500. Note
that any new attorney would have to consider the highly aggressive and acrimonious nature of
this particular litigation. This cost to complete the case is certain to be incurred, accounted
therefore at 100% probability. The economic value of this cost is $24,500.4
It is unlikely a new attorney will offer a discounted, flat-rate, or contingency fee to take this case. The Defendants
have shown there is NO likelihood of a positive-cash settlement. Thus, there is no possible reward offsetting the
risks posed by this case. The only conceivable basis for a new attorney to proceed would be on a strict time and
materials basis with a substantial up-front retainer.
Page 4 of 5
Cost to Litigate Appeal. Based on their litigious behavior to date, the Defendants in this
case are almost certain to appeal any favorable ruling. Thus the spreadsheet reflects a
probability of 99% that any favorable verdict would be appealed. An average state-court appeal
is typically valued at $25,000, making the economic cost of this item $24,750.
Unpaid Judgment to Rodeems. Defendants are entitled to collect on their judgment for
sanctions in the amount of $11,550. As I understand the present status, some $400-$600 were
garnished by the bank and are awaiting an order of the court for release. If Plaintiff prevails at
trial, it is likely any award will be setoff by this amount if it is not already paid. Thus, 100%
probability the entire cost will be incurred, economic value $11,550.
Subtotal, Projected Costs. The total projected costs, which will likely be incurred
whether or not Plaintiff prevails, are $73,317.41. This amount should be considered the direct costs
avoided by ceasing litigation at this point. I note that the smallest cost in this category, the Unpaid
Judgment, eliminates almost entirely the projected recovery.
Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and
emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome, the
book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the nonpecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate the physical
and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both short and long-term
effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time invested in the case but also by
loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this
figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards.
There is 100% probability these costs will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
Net Value of Case. The net value of the case is calculated on the spreadsheet by netting
all the projected costs of litigation from the projected economic recovery. In this case, the
spreadsheet calculates that the net value of the case is negative $164,316.
In summary, even if the figures are manipulated in the most favorable way, such as by
raising the probability of succeeding with actual and punitive damages to 100%, erasing Mr.
Bauers attorneys fees, forecasting that no appeal would be filed, and waiving the emotional
and physical costs to Plaintiff, the case still would still be in the red by over $7,000
((7,143+21,431)-24,500-11,550). The assumptions that the costs would be limited in this way are,
obviously, unrealistically optimistic.
Page 5 of 5
The issue to my mind, therefore, is how to exit the case with the lowest possible cost.
Please see my letter regarding a recommended course of action for my suggestions in this
regard.
Respectfully,
Jeff Childers
9. Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or
liabilities during the next 12 months?
Answer: Yes, I expect to loose my home in wrongful foreclosure.
12. Other information to explain why I cannot pay the costs of this case.
Answer: I am indigent and live from one disability check to the next. I am fifty-seven
(57) year-old, single, male, no children, disabled with physical and mental impairments. Monthly
Social Security disability income paid via a Direct Express debit card issued by Comerica Bank.
I was homeless from approximately September 2002 through February 2005. In February 2004 I
bought a used 1990 Dodge minivan for $600 where I lived until moving to Ocala a year later. In
February 2005 I moved to 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, Marion County, to care
for my elderly Mother, an unremarried widow with Alzheimers dementia who died in 2009.
I have foregone dental care of $2,088 (copy attached). I do not have a bank account because I
cannot manage an account of a rapacious nature. I do not have a retirement account. My inability
to manage funds resulted in two bankruptcies:
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, discharged January 7, 1993, case 92-20222, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, discharged March 5, 2003, case 02-14021-8B7, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida.
Prior to being a victim of a serious robbery assault and head injury, I owned and successfully
operated a car business in Pennsylvania doing $2 million in sales annually.
My home is valued at $74,730. The mortgage balance payoff is $ $114,889+. The home is
underwater with negative equity of - ($40,159); unpaid HOA fees are currently $13,604.
The home is owned by The Gillespie Family Living Trust. The trust has no assets other than the
home. A copy of the trust was filed September 20, 2011 with the District Court along with my
Affidavit of Indigency, Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Document 3 Filed 09/20/11 Page
1 of 37 PageID 76. The District Court did not make a determination of indigency.
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (RMS) filed a Verified Complaint to Foreclose Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage Jan-09-13. RMS is a debt collector for Bank of America, N.A. who owns
the mortgage. I removed the case to federal court in Ocala. U.S. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges
failed to recuse under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4), see Interest List, Bank of America. Judge Hodges
also failed to recuse upon receipt of my affidavit made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144. (Doc. 22).
REVERSE MORTGAGE
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Respondent.
________________________/
DATE: January 29, 2015
cc:
Neil J. Gillespie