VIA U.P.S. No.

1Z64589FNW94595077 Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543

November 5, 2013

RE: Corrected petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States Neil J. Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., et al., C.A.11 No. 13-11585-B Dear Clerk: Please find enclosed and file the following on my behalf: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Corrected petition, Neil J Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., et al. Ten (10) copies of the corrected petition for writ of certiorari Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Rule 29 proof of service, November 5, 2013 Separate volume appendices This cover letter to the Clerk Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, I have a well-founded fear of political persecution Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, depravation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242, and conspiracy against rights, 18 U.S.C. 241.

Unfortunately President Carter declined my invitation to refer an observer as previously requested. Enclosed is our correspondence, with a copy served to all under Rule 29. Enclosed is a copy of my urgent appeal to the Special Rapporteur, Independence of Judges and Lawyers, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to the Special Rapporteur on Disability, United Nations Enable, Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for an observer, and for protection from political persecution, because I have a wellfounded fear of political persecution. As of today I do not have a response. I am in fear of death, wrongful incarceration or great bodily harm by the Florida Attorney General and/or The Florida Bar Yesterday, November 4, 2013, as shown on the enclosed records request to Florida AG Bondi, Leslie Jacobs, Public Records Coordinator, wrote me October 28, 2013: (letter enclosed) "There is also one listing in the General Legal database in a case before the Supreme Court where this office represented a State Attorney." Ms. Jacobs emailed me November 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM: The case I was referring to in our database is listed as 12-11213-C and it appears the case was dismissed.

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Corrected petition for writ of certiorari enclosed

November 5, 2013 Page - 2

For almost a year AG Bondis office has worked very hard to conceal records and information about Eugene P. Castagliuolo. My request of December 26, 2012 sought records showing: ...records showing Mr. Castagliuolo's...job performance reviews, reason for termination, and threatening behavior or mental illness... Leslie Jacobs wrote me January 10, 2013: The Attorney General's office of Human Resources has been unable to locate the personnel file of Mr. Castagliuolo. His name is on an employee spreadsheet kept by the office and he is listed as being an employee of the Attorney General's Tampa Economic Crimes division from September 19, 1995 through October 3, 1996. This is the only information we are able to locate at this time. Therefore Mr. Castagliuolo tenure amounts to 381 days, or one year and 15 days. After sending this request yesterday, it occurred to me that the AG Bondi likely played a secret role in obtaining a wrongful settlement of my federal section 1983 civil rights and ADA disability federal lawsuit, case 5:10-cv-503, June 21, 2011 during a coercive custody deposition on a civil bodily attachment arrest order corruptly obtained by Ryan Christopher Rodems. Based upon the disclosures of Leslie Jacobs, AG Bondi may have authorized: Former Assistant AG Castagliuolo, who represented me June 21, 2011, to engage in fraud or impairment of 5:10-cv-503, a legitimate government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, deprivation of my rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242, and conspiracy against rights my, 18 U.S.C. 241, and misprision of felony for not reporting the fraud or impairment, 18 U.S.C. 4 http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01739.htm Ryan C. Rodems deputized as a secret Assistant AG June 21, 2011, to engage in fraud or impairment of 5:10-cv-503, a legitimate government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, etc. Some other Assistant AG on location June 21, 2011, to engage in fraud or impairment of 5:10-cv-503, a legitimate government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, etc.

This morning, November 5, 2013, I got a phone message and email from Manjula Keni, Legal Assistant to Gregory Jones, stating: Hello Mr. Gillespie, this is Manjula from Greg Jones office in Tampa. Wanted to see if I can set up an appointment for you for today at 4 p.m. to meet with Mr. Jones in Ocala. Mr. Jones will be in Ocala today. Please advise. If so I can give you the address you can go meet with him. I replied to Ms. Manjula that I could not meet today, and do not have a response from Mr. Jones regarding my request for disability accommodation. Paper copies of the emails are enclosed.

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Corrected petition for writ of certiorari enclosed

November 5, 2013 Page - 3

Given the history of this matter, a reasonable person might conclude that Ms. Manjulas email to meet Mr. Jones was not for the purpose of a legitimate consultation, but to drawl me out to a place of choice of AG Bondi and/or The Florida Bar to arrest me on some concocted charge, or assassinate me on a pretext of self-defense by corrupt law enforcement, i.e., Gillespie made a sudden move, we feared for our life, and therefore shot him in self-defense. Yesterday I made several calls to the Office of the Attorney General to speak with Leselie Jacobs about getting public records, and was told each time that Jacobs and others were on a conference call and could not respond. Given the history of this matter, a reasonable person might conclude that the conference call included AG Bondi, officials of The Florida Bar, the mystery State Attorney represented in 12-11213-C, and Mr. Jones. However this is just speculation at this time. Clerks letter dated October 28, 2013 stated: The above-entitled petition for writ of certiorari was postmarked October 23, 2013 and received October 25, 2013. The papers are returned for the following reason(s): Page 34 is missing from the petition for writ of certiorari. Please correct and resubmit as soon as possible. Unless the petition is submitted to this Office in corrected form within 60 days of the date of this letter, the petition will not be filed. Rule 14.5. A copy of the corrected petition must be served on opposing counsel. When making the required corrections to a petition, no change to the substance of the petition may be made. In compliance with the Clerks letter, I served a corrected petition as shown on the Rule 29 Proof of Service November 5, 2013. I did not server another Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because that document is unchanged. I did not serve another CD-ROM with Separate Volume Appendices because those are unchanged. I newly served the Solicitor General of the United States for Defendant United States HUD, and for a Constitutional Challenge 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) (not certified) 12 U.S.C. 1715z20. The enclosed Rule 29 Proof of Services notes service to AG Bondi for Florida, and for a Constitutional Challenge, 28 U.S.C. 2403(b) may apply (not certified) Fla. Stat., sec. 454.021 Attorneys; admission to practice law; Supreme Court to govern and regulate, etc., etc. Request for Disability Accommodation This is an initial request for disability accommodations. A formal motion will follow. I. Accommodation requested

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Corrected petition for writ of certiorari enclosed

November 5, 2013 Page - 4

I am a disabled consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce. I require disability accommodation in order to participate in The Florida Bars services, programs, activities, or proceedings in an effective and expeditious manner wherever those services, programs, activities, or proceedings take place. As a reasonable accommodation, I demand strict compliance with existing law, the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, and the Standards of Professional found in Florida Supreme Court Order SC13-688: 1. Terminology 1.1 Standards of Professionalism: The Standards of Professionalism are set forth in the Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar, The Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism, The Florida Bar Ideals and Goals of Professionalism, The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and the decisions of The Florida Supreme Court. In particular I demand strict compliance with The Rules of Professional Conduct, including and especially the Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL), Rule 10-2.1(a), by Florida licensed attorneys (such as Ryan Christopher Rodems), and strict compliance the Ethics Department Informational Packet Candor Toward the Tribunal, and all disability statutes or regulatory provision that either are designed to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves or establishes a duty to take precautions to guard a certain class of persons from a specific type of injury. Failure to do so establishes negligence per se. Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 3d Dist. 1978). Under the Eggshell Skull Rule or Doctrine, a defendant is liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. If the defendant commits a tort against the plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury that is magnified by the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule This is a reasonable modification in policies, practices, or procedures where The Florida Bar may routinely disregard its duties and the rule of law for the sake of expediency, or bias, favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest. This reasonable modification requires compliance with all laws. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Chapter 825 et seq., Fla. Stat., Abuse and Exploitation of Disabled Adults Federal Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801 Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4(d) should protect a disabled adult from disparagement based on disability: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Corrected petition for writ of certiorari enclosed

November 5, 2013 Page - 5

indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigantson any basis, including, but not limited to disability. Florida Bar Rule 4-1.14 Client Under A Disability - Comment - Rules of procedure in litigation generally provide that minors or persons suffering mental disability shall be represented by a guardian or next friend if they do not have a general guardian. (I do not have a general guardian) I seek as a disability accommodation at all times: Protection from attorney misconduct, including opposing counsel, for violation of the rules of professional conduct. As an officer of the court, attorney conduct is subject to judicial supervision and scrutiny: Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component of the administration of justice, and, as such, his conduct is subject to judicial supervision and scrutiny. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Evans, 94 So.2d 730 (1957). Protection from counsel who make false declarations, false verifications, and false affidavits under penalty of perjury, in violation of F.S. 837.01 et seq., Perjury. Protection from counsel who engage in a course of conduct directed to a pro se or unrepresented person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose, in violation of F.S. 784.048(2) and (4). Section 784.048, Florida Statutes (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) Harass means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. (b) Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests. (2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that persons property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Corrected petition for writ of certiorari enclosed

November 5, 2013 Page - 6

offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For court hearings, depositions, or other court-related functions that require real-time communication, Gillespie moves for disability accommodation for speaking, hearing, thinking, writing and memory in real-time communication. Gillespies speech impairment since birth, and a traumatic brain injury from 1988, make it impossible for Gillespie to effectively represent himself in court or anyplace that requires real-time communication. Appointment of counsel and/or a guardian ad litem. Case law decisions for pro se representation. Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam) Opinion by Circuit Judge Richard Posner in Prude v. Clarke, No. 11-2811, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, decided March 27, 2012, the Court reaffirmed U.S. Supreme Court rulings that complaints filed by unrepresented persons are supposed to be construed liberally. E.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2010). Case law decisions for appointment of counsel when a litigants health is at risk. When a litigants health is at risk, appointment of counsel is appropriate. In an opinion decided March 27, 2012 by Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Court suggested appointment of counsel because withholding nutritious food would violate the Eighth Amendment. (Prude v. Clarke, No. 11-2811; Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:10-cv-00167-JPSJ.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.). My right to obtain counsel is meaningless, or of little or no consequence, if I am financially unable to pay the costs associated with obtaining adequate representation. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69 (1932): The right 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. . . .He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he had a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Attorney Jeff Childers stated in the Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation in his Economic Analysis of this matter that Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome,...In attempting to evaluate the physical and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both short and

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Corrected petition for writ of certiorari enclosed

November 5, 2013 Page - 7

long-term effects, and the opportunity cost [and the] loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000.... The U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) held As it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, Title II constitutes a valid exercise of Congress authority under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce that Amendments substantive guarantees. Pp. 423. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 337, 42 U. S. C. 1213112165, provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 12132. The question presented in this case is whether Title II exceeds Congress power under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment... The ADA was passed by large majorities in both Houses of Congress after decades of deliberation and investigation into the need for comprehensive legislation to address discrimination against persons with disabilities. In the years immediately preceding the ADAs enactment, Congress held 13 hearings and created a special task force that gathered evidence from every State in the Union. The conclusions Congress drew from this evidence are set forth in the task force and Committee Reports, described in lengthy legislative hearings, and summarized in the preamble to the statute. 2 Central among these conclusions was Congress finding that individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society. 42 U. S. C. 12101(a)(7). The Eleventh Amendment renders the States immune from any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Even though the Amendment by its terms applies only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, our cases have repeatedly held that this immunity also applies to unconsented suits brought by a States own citizens. Garrett , 531 U. S., at 363; Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 7273 (2000) . Our cases have also held that Congress may abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. To determine whether it has done so in any given case, we must resolve two predicate questions: first, whether Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate that immunity; and second, if it did, whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Id ., at 73. Tennessee v. Lane supports a right to counsel for mental impairment disabilities when considered with Powell v. Alabama and my right to fundamental access to courts.

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Corrected petition for writ of certiorari enclosed

November 5, 2013 Page - 8

My ability to function in real-time is severely impaired, making court appearances without counsel impossible. In the past Florida and federal courts, judges, judicial officers and court employees have abused their power by using a position of dominance for advantage over me knowing I am especially vulnerable because I am disabled with mental and physical impairments. It has taken me a long time to unravel the confusion caused by this abuse of power.

The case number on the petition cover is wrong. 13-11858-B should be 13-11585-B Page 10, On September 13, ~ 2012 Justice Thomas granted Application 12A215 Page 27, value of the home should be $74,730; current equity deficit should be $40,159; gross equity deficit should be $85,389 Thank you.

,I

earing pro se, in forma pauperis, and a non-lawyer

Enclosures cc: All parties, persons and entities shown on the Rule 29 Proof of Service, copy attached.