Motion To Extend Time SC14-1637, Gillespie V The Florida Bar
Motion To Extend Time SC14-1637, Gillespie V The Florida Bar
Motion To Extend Time SC14-1637, Gillespie V The Florida Bar
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner pro se (nonlawyer),
CASE NO.: SC14-1637
VS.
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Respondent.
_________________________________ /
Petitioners Motion to Extend Time
1.
appearing pro se, henceforth in the first person, moves to extend time under Fla. R. App. P.
9.300(a), and Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514, and states:
2.
3.
Under Fla. R. App. P. 9.300(a), Motions, and Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514, Computing and
Extending Time, I respectfully request the Supreme Court extend time to file a proper petition
for writ of mandamus.
4.
In support of this motion to extend time, I have been reluctantly appearing pro se in the
wrongful foreclosure of my home in Marion County, Florida which has taken considerable time.
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie, et al., Marion County Florida, Fifth
Judicial Circuit, No. 42-2013CA-000115-AXXX-XX, a.k.a. case no. 2013-CA-000115.
Wrongful home foreclosure on a HECM reverse mortgage.
5.
As a practical matter, I have been overwhelmed with work in my foreclosure case and
would not be able to submit anything today. Case SC14-1637 was opened on my inquery
letter about Florida Bar records. During the course of working on that issue, I found a
number of systemic problems with TFB. Separately the ADA Amendments Act 2008
issue came to my attention, along with Marion County/Fifth Judicial Circuit's refusal to
comply with the old ADA 1990, let alone the current ADA. The response of Mr. David
for OSCA, who I understand represents the interest of the Supreme Court, shows no
intention of willing compliance with the ADA as amended.
Notwithstanding the records I initially sought in SC14-1637, TFB has fatal systemic
issues, and the state of Florida does not acknowledge the ADA Amendments Act, or
comply with the ADAAA. So there are essentially two cases now, TFB and the ADAAA.
If SC14-1637 is still open Tuesday Feb-17-2015, I will submit a petition consolidating
the issues. Attached are two close-out letters I got from TFB yesterday for my complaint
against Ms. Parsons. Given the limited jurisdiction, inter alia, of the grievance system,
TFB does not provide any useful relief to a complainant. I do not see any benefit to
making a Florida Bar complaint. It takes considerable time that would be better spent on
my case.
Note: Mr. Paul Hill, General Counsel for The Florida Bar, provided the two close-out letters by
email February 10, 2015. (Exhibit C). I did not receive the letter by USPS purportedly sent by
Bar Counsel Patricia Savitz dated January 30, 2015.
Mr. Gillespie:
My apologies for overlooking your separate accommodation request relating to your
complaint against attorney Danielle Nicole Parsons.
Prior to finalizing my response to your accommodation request in this case, I checked its
status with the Bar's disciplinary staff.
Those personnel confirm that Case No. 2014-30,525 (9A) was closed on January 28,
2015, on a finding of no probable cause.
2
I enclose a pdf copy of correspondence advising of that outcome -- from Patricia Savitz,
two days later -- which, I am told, was directed to you via USPS to the address shown.
I do not know any other details regarding the postal history of this letter or envelope.
Nonetheless, based on the current status of Case No. 2014-30,525 (9A), I would consider
your December 15, 2014 accommodation request as moot.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
C.
Mr. Tomasino:
This is a letter motion to extend the time to file in Petition SC14-1637. I would have
preferred to file a formal motion, but time is of the essence in matters in my foreclosure.
Attached you will find Chapter 5 of the book Lethal Punishment, The End of Lynching In
Marion County, with front book material, 34 pages. Chapter 5 shows the prevalence of
white supremacy in Marion County, which I contend is prejudice against me for
disability.
Marion County leads Florida in the number of lynchings, according to UF Professor Jack
Davis.
Also attached are portions of 31 FlaJur2d on disability, which is related to my ADA Title
II requests, and Judge Stancils "drivers licensee" disability test. I testified that I
curtailed driving due to accidents, and will provide photographic evidence of the cars I
crashed, along with other supporting evidence, including a federal tax return, in a motion
being prepared. All of this is taking time that I could have used on Petition 14-1637. Also
attached is an Appendix from SC11-1622 related to vocational rehabilitation, which was
denied. Florida claimed I was too disabled to benefit from VR services.
Also, see this "Speech by Judge Hale Stancil on Sept. 1, 2008" given as keynote speaker
at the annual National Association of Forensic Counselors held in Las Vegas in
September 2008. http://www.stancilreunion.com/hale.html
D.
Mr. Tomasino:
Thank you for your email message. I'll get a motion filed before 9:00 AM tomorrow.
I neglected to provide a news story about Judge Stancil in the Debra Lafave case, and the
Order entered in State v. LaFave 04.CF.2454 3.21.06.
The State of Florida dropped the case after Judge Stancil refused to believe a
psychological assessment that indicated there would be damage to a minor witness
should he be forced to testify, so the prosecutor dropped the charges. Judge Stancil also
refused a plea deal sought by all parties, and the prosecutor. The same plea was accepted
in Hillsborough County.
Thank you for your consideration.
6.
Letter of Barry Davidson March 10, 2014 for Respondent Ms. Parsons to Bar Counsel
Mr. Littlewood in The Florida Bar File No. 2014-30,525(9A), this part,
With respect to any other claims Mr. Gillespie may allege in the future, I note that Ms.
Parsons is protected from liability by the litigation privilege, which extends to all causes
of action, including both common-law torts and statutory causes of action. Levin,
Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d
606, 608 (Fla. 1994) (holding that any act occurring during the course of a judicial
proceeding enjoys "absolute immunity"); see also Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett
& Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the litigation privilege
extends to all causes of action, including statutory causes of action).
It appears Mr. Davidson is correct about the litigation privilege. This litigation privilege
essentially negates the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct within litigation, as well as the
Florida Supreme Court Verification Rule, SC09-1460, that amended Rule 1.110(b) to require
verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. See In re
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 44 So.3d 555, 556 (Fla. 2010). In my
residential homestead foreclosure, Ms. Parsons filed the case as a Commercial Foreclosure
which falsehood is supported by Judge Hale Stancil, and Curtis Wilson, a colleague of Ms.
Bar Counsel Ms. Savitz wrote in her amended letter February 10, 2015 in the matter of
Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Danielle Nicole Parsons
The Florida Bar File No. 2014-30,525 (9A)
...The allegations in your complaint involve the civil and federal cases regarding the
efforts to pursue a foreclosure on your home. The underlying litigation is ongoing and
vigorously contested. It is clear from your materials that it remains your position that Ms.
Parsons engaged in unethical conduct during her representation of foreclosure plaintiff,
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. However, the grievance committee has determined that
there insufficient basis for further disciplinary proceedings regarding the actions taken by
Ms. Parsons in the foreclosure case. Moreover, it would appear that the issues raised in
this matter are appropriate for review and determination by a court of competent
jurisdiction assigned to handle such cases. Accordingly, this case is now closed...
9.
matters of shelter, sustenance and safety and/or health. The American Bar Association (ABA)
recently added a "Civil Right to Counsel" page, "Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in
State Civil Proceedings", with 50 research reports, one for each state detailing existing authority
for appointment of counsel in various types of civil proceedings. The ABA contends there is a
right to civil counsel, inter alia, under Fla. Stat. 29.007 Court-appointed counsel, ...in any
situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigants due process rights.
10.
11.
In compliance with Rule 9.300(d)(10), I request the Supreme Court toll time. A separate
~uprtmt
((ourt of jflortba
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Petitioner(s)
vs.
In reviewing our records, we note that YOllr case is subject to dismissal for
failure to comply with this Court's direction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.
We have not received the proper petition for writ of mandamus in accordance
with this Court's order dated December 12,2014. Failllre to file the above
referenced documents with this Court within fifteen days from the date of this order
could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the petition.
Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to
reinstatement.
A True Copy
Test:
JohnA. Tomasino
Clerk, Supreme Court
ab
Served:
ADRIA E. QUINTELA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Page 1 of 1
Subject:
D
2/19/2015
Page 1 of 1
Subject:
D
2/19/2015
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20050903/DAYBREAK/50903003?template=printpicart
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for
distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears above
any article. Order a reprint of this article now.
In June, a Mississippi jury convicted former Klansman Edgar Ray Killen of three
counts of manslaughter for the 1964 deaths of civil-rights activists James Chaney,
Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. Also in June, the U.S. Senate officially
apologized for all lynchings that took place between 1882 and 1968 in this country.
Numerous attempts to pass anti-lynching legislation in the Senate had been
filibustered or blocked decades earlier.
For Davis, studying lynchings has meant interviewing hundreds of people living in
states like Mississippi and Georgia. And Florida.
"A black man had more risk of being lynched in Florida than any other place in the
country," Davis contends.
The NAACP defines lynchings as any murder that was/is conducted extra-legally or
beyond the rule of the court, under the pretense of upholding justice, Davis says.
The NAACP and other sources show that, per number of black people, Florida had
the highest lynching rate among any Southern state. Davis says about 36 percent of
these lynchings occured in what historians call Florida's Old Plantation Belt,
stretching from the Panhandle to the central part of the state. Between the 1880s to
the 1940s, there were more than 200 lynching deaths in the state, and 20 confirmed
deaths occured in Alachua County alone, according to University of Florida research.
Alachua County was the second most lynch-prone county behind Marion County.
NAACP numbers show 21 lynching deaths there.
Davis began serious research into Florida's lynching past about 15 years ago in
Madison County for his master's thesis at the University of South Florida. He
investigated the 1945 death of Jesse James Payne, a sharecropper who Davis says
had threatened to expose his employer, Levy Goodman, a local tobacco farmer,
because the farmer hadn't paid federal taxes on his crop.
Goodman, angered by the potential exposure, accused Payne of molesting the
farmer's 5-year-old daughter, historical accounts say. According to these accounts, a
lynch mob of 50 white men went after Payne. Davis says the mob was legally
organized. The tobacco farmer's brother-in-law, Lonnie T. Davis, was the Madison
County sheriff. Payne survived, with a single gunshot wound in an arm. State
D.2
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20050903/DAYBREAK/50903003?template=printpicart
Trooper Simeon Moore intervened and sent Payne to the state prison hospital.
Moore hoped Payne's injury and his brief hospital stay would calm the mob,
accounts say.
But Payne never made it into court after being transferred from the hospital to the
Madison County Jail. He was sprung from the jail and shot, his body riddled with
bullets, and found on a dirt road, according to Davis' research.
The Payne lynching was the only one on record in the U.S. in 1945, and it became a
national story. The lynching took place just after the Allied victory in World War II,
when optimism about the country's future reigned.
Florida Gov. Millard F. Caldwell condemned the Payne lynching, but Davis says that
was primarily because Caldwell worried the news would hurt Florida's lucrative
tourism industry.
"After the 1920s, state leadership generally condemned lynchings," he says, "mainly
because Florida was becoming a tourist state."
The nation's focus on Payne's lynching didn't help solve the murder, although Davis,
through his research decades later, gathered new evidence. Davis' thesis is part of
the UF libraries' collection.
The Payne lynching was only one of several that exposed Florida to nationwide
scrutiny. In 1934, Claude Neil was accused of raping a white woman, and many in
the town of Marianna were complicit in his lynching, Davis says. A majority of
victims were lynched on accusations of murder or theft, not rape, Davis says.
"(The Claude Neil case) really represented a turning point," he says. "It was a
lynching that outraged much of the American public outside the South."
The NAACP tried to use the Claude Neil incident to push the federal government
into passing anti-lynching legislation - legislation that was never passed.
Despite these high-profile cases, lynchings in Florida for decades received little
scholarly attention, Davis says.
"(Florida) doesn't tend to be studied as part of the South as a whole," says W.
Fitzhugh Brundage, a history professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill.
Brundage, a noted scholar of the South who has written several books about
lynchings, says there's no definitive book written about Florida lynchings, and many
historians fail to include Florida in their analysis of lynchings. As the former chair of
the UF history department, Brundage is keenly aware of Florida's unflattering
history, especially in Alachua County.
In 1998, Brundage encouraged a student of his, Susan Jean, to explore her interest
in Florida lynchings and especially those that took place around Gainesville. The 18
lynchings Jean verified in Alachua County is a significant number, as few counties in
Georgia had that high a figure, Brundage says.
"That is extremely high by any standards in the South," Brundage says.
A surge in interest Scholars didn't begin in-depth lynching studies until the 1990s.
That's because, after the civil-rights movement, scholarly concentration moved to
affirmative action and more forward-looking issues surrounding race, says
Brundage. Lynching, scholars reasoned, was part of the past.
That began to change earlier this summer when U.S. senators pushed a resolution
through the Senate apologizing for the long string of lynchings in U.S. history. The
vote was oral, so no record was kept of who agreed or disagreed with the resolution.
Many of the senators who initiated the legislation were inspired by a book of
lynching photographs. The material from "Without Sanctuary: Photographs and
Postcards of Lynching in America" was first on display in Atlanta in 2002, and has
toured the country since. The exhibit is currently on display at the Chicago Historical
Society.
Brundage says the resolution was also inspired by the political motives of a few.
Despite lawmakers' ambiguous motivations, Brundage says he's excited about the
recent attention placed on this country's lynchings. Renewed scholarship may shed
light on the darkest elements of human behavior. But, Brundage also hopes there's
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20050903/DAYBREAK/50903003?template=printpicart
2195
INSURANCE
Research References
West's Key Number Digest, Insurance CS=>2557 to 2562
[Section 2195]
1Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance 1474.
2Groff v. Paul Revere Life Ins.
Co., 887 F. Supp. 1515 (S.D. Fla.
1993), related reference, 887 F.
Supp. 1519 (S.D. Fla. 1994), related
reference, 85 F.3d 642 (11th Cir.
1996) and related reference, 85
F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996); Hazouri
v. Travelers Ins. Co., 192 So. 2d
296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist.
1966).
D.3
2195
FLORIDA
JUR 2d
Occupational disability
Research References
West's Key Number Digest, Insurance
~2543,
2561
356
INSURANCE
2196
2196
FLORIDA
J UR 2d
employment. 13
2197
General disability
Research References
~2561(5)
Insurance 1032.
[Section 2197]
1McCluney v. General American
Life Ins. Co., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1347
(M.D. Fla. 1998), aff'd, 162 F.3d
1178 (11th eire 1998).
2See, for example, Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Neill,
243 F.2d 193 (5th eire 1957).
INSURANCE
2197
2197
FLORIDA
J UR 2d
disability
Research References
West's Key Number Digest, Insurance
7S ee Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance
1479.
Annotation References: Con
tinuance or resumption of work as
affecting finding of total or perma
nent disability within insurance
coverage, 24 A.L.R. 3d 8.
sINA Life Ins. Co. of New York
v. Davis, 404 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1981).
9Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of
360
~2561
2199
INSURANCE
Research References
West's Key Number Digest, Insurance
~2560
to 2562
2Annotation
References:
Annotation
References:
2199
FLORIDA
J UR 2d
362
2290
INSURANCE
5.
constitutes "total
disability"
c.
Cases
Under Florida law, letter from disabil
ity insurer's chief underwriting officer
to insure<;l physician clarifying, at in
sured's request, that insured's "regular
occupation" was invasive and interven
tional cardiology, not cardiolog.y as
insurer originally had stated, was
bargained-for modification of total dis
ability insurance policy, and thus was
controlling, for for purposes of policy's
definition of disability as "[inability] . . .
to engage in [insured's] regular occupa
tion or profession." Kraft v. Massachu
setts Cas. Ins. Co., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1234
(N.D. Fla. 2004).
I
C.
COVERAGE AND
EXCLUSIONS REQUIRED,
2.
a.
Health Insurance
provisions governing
health insurance, in
general
Laws and Rules
Fla. Stat. 627.4302, as added in
2002, provides that any health insurer
or health maintenance organization and
all state and local government entities
entering into an agreement to provide
coverage for prescription drugs on an
outpatient basis shall provide a benefits
identification card containing specified
information.
nervous disorders
Laws and Rules
627.6685, Fla. Stat. was repealed in
2005.
D.4
2190
FLORIDA
J UR 2d
2191
Research References
West's Key Number Digest, Insurance
~2564,
2565
352
D.5
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/debra_lafave/11.html
Like
11k
Follow
SEARCH
Front Page
BY Katherine Ramsland
Recommend
Share
21
Tweet
Serial Killers
Follow
Gangsters
Due Consideration
In Judge Hale Stancil's court, no plea would be accepted. In December 2005, he set a court date,
but three months later the prosecutor dropped the charges, based on a psychological assessment
that indicated there would be damage to the boy should he be forced to testify. In addition, there
were ramifications for other children who considered telling on their wayward teachers. If they saw
a boy paraded through the court system and the press, they might choose instead to suffer in
silence.
Judge Stancil was not pleased. In March, he handed down a
six-page decision in which he stated that, while no one of any
Notorious Murders
Criminal Mind
Criminal Psychology
Criminal Profiling
Forensics & Investigation
Sexual Assault
Scams & Hoaxes
All Criminal Mind
Photos
ADVERTISEMENT
Lafave with only the house arrest imposed in Hillsborough. Many people believed that the court
should have forced this case to trial, to teach her and other women like her a lesson, but there was
no going back now. She'd gotten off with a very light punishment.
By this time, Lafave had come to accept that she'd been influenced by a condition that had caused
1. The Seduction
mental instability. She called a press conference to reiterate this, in effect shucking her
2. The Sting
responsibility in the matter. By this time, she was also engaged to another man, and he stood by
her. She said, "I know that I'm a good woman," and affirmed her newfound Christian faith. She
offered no reason as to why she had done what she did and did not show remorse. But it wasn't
long before she was ready with an answer. With aspirations herself to become a journalist, she
5. The Teacher
agreed to do an interview with Matt Lauer for Dateline on NBC television, which aired on
6. The Boy
September 13, 2006. It was time, she thought, to tell her side.
7. Illegal Acts
PREVIOUS CHAPTER
3 ... 10 11 12
13
14
15
NEXT CHAPTER
8. Truth or Consequences
9. Legal Actions
10. Deal or No Deal?
WE RECOMMEND
Aft 50 AARP
TM & 2015 Turner Entertainment Networks, Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Privacy Policy AdChoices
E.1
vs.
DEBRA BEASLEY LAFAVE,
Defendant.
------------------------~'
ORDER REJECTING PROPOSED BELOW GUIDELINES PLEA AGREEMENT
The Defendant in this case is charged with two counts oflewd and lascivious battery on a
child, in violation of section 800.04(4)(a) of Florida Statutes, and one count of lewd and
lascivious exhibition, in violation of section 800.04(7)(a) of Florida Statutes. Consent is not an
issue, because both alleged victims were less than 16 years old at the time of the alleged
offenses.
The Hillsborough County plea agreement was apparently conditioned upon this Court's
acceptance of a similar plea agreement. In other words, if the proposed plea agreement were
rejected by this Court, the Defendant would have the right to withdraw her plea to the charges in
Hillsborough County and proceed to trial. However, this Court was not a party to plea
negotiations in Hillsborough County and was not apprised of the plea agreement in Hillsborough
County until the December 9, 2005 pre-triaVstatus conference.
computer 9
Page 1 of6
E.2
04-2454-CF-A-Z
The Defendant would be sentenced to three years of
community control followed by seven years of probation (with a myriad of special conditions),
to run concurrently with her Hillsborough County sentence. For the reasons that follow, this
Court finds that the parties have failed to present sufficient justification to accept the below
guidelines plea agreement.
The charges in this case stem from allegations of sexual relations between a 23-year-old
female teacher (who is now 25 years old) and a 14-year-old boy (who is now 16 years old), one
instance of which was witnessed by the boy's 15-year-old cousin (who is now 17 years old). The
factual basis for the plea, as proffered by the State, is as follows:
On or about June 15, 2004, the Defendant transported the then-14-year-old victim M.M.
m her vehicle from Hillsborough County, Florida to Ocala, Marion County, Florida.
The
Defendant and the victim were previously acquainted, as the Defendant was a teacher at the
middle school M.M. had attended. Upon arriving in Ocala, the Defendant and M.M. picked up
M.M.'s then-15-year-old cousin B.B. With the Defendant's consent, B.B. drove her vehicle on
State Road 200 in Ocala, while the Defendant and M.M. engaged in sexual activity in the back of
the vehicle. B.B. was aware of the sexual activity taking place in the vehicle, and saw the sexual
activity in the rear-view mirror of the Defendant's vehicle. On or about June 17, 2004, the
Defendant again transported M.M. in her vehicle from Hillsborough County, Florida to Ocala,
Marion County, Florida. The Defendant and M.M. again picked up B.B., whereupon they drove
to Brick City Park in Ocala and parked the Defendant's vehicle. After B.B. exited the vehicle,
the Defendant and M.M. again engaged in sexual activity in the back of the vehicle. Shortly
thereafter, M.M. and B.B. disclosed these events to their mothers, who notified law enforcement.
On June 28, 2004, the Defendant was arrested and charged in Marion County with two counts of
lewd and lascivious battery on a child and one count of lewd and lascivious exhibition.
The parties have set forth several arguments for this Court to consider in determining
whether to accept the proposed plea agreement. The State has made it clear that the victim's
family wishes the case to be concluded without a trial, 2 and the Defendant has made it clear that
she will not agree to any sentence of imprisonment. The parties assert, as their main justification
for the proposed plea agreement, that the victim does not wish to testify at trial and that it would
2
The Court recognizes that there are actually two minor victims in this case, M.M. and
B.B. However, the majority of the testimony and argument relates only to victim M.M.
Page 2 of6
04-2454-CF-A-Z
be detrimental to the victim to do so. The victim's family believes that he would be traumatized
by testifying at trial and receiving increased media attention. The family is also concerned that if
this case proceeds to trial their privacy will be compromised by the intense media attention this
case continues to receive.
The State called two witnesses at the March 8, 2006 hearing: Assistant State Attorney
Michael Sinacore, of the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office, and Dr. Martin Lazoritz,
a licensed psychiatrist and associate chairman of the University of Florida Department of
Psychiatry.
Mr. Sinacore testified that he only agreed to a plea without any term of
imprisonment at the insistence of the victim's mother, who felt that her family's privacy was
being compromised by the media and that a trial would further traumatize her son. Mr. Sinacore
further testified about his negotiations with Court TV, which intended to broadcast the
Defendant's trial. The attorneys for Court TV would agree not to show the victim's face when
he testified, but would not agree not to show the victims' mothers when they testified and would
not agree to delay the broadcast in case the victims' names were inadvertently mentioned by one
of the 40-50 potential witnesses. Mr. Sinacore did not indicate whether he had interviewed the
victim M.M. regarding the incidents in question or his impressions of M.M's ability to testify
and withstand the rigors of cross-examination.
Dr. Lazoritz testified that he met with victim M.M. and his mother for approximately 90
minutes. Dr. Lazoritz testified that the victim is suffering from anxiety about his relationship
with the Defendant, which has been compounded by the media coverage the case has received,
and has an adjustment disorder, meaning simply that he is responding to a stressor. Dr. Lazoritz
also testified that the victim "had a very difficult time talking about things." He stated that the
victim wishes to go to the University ofF lorida, play basketball, and live in anonymity. He
further explained that the victim is afraid that if the case proceeded to trial he would always be
plagued by it. Dr. Lazoritz expressed his opinion that it would be detrimental to the victim's
emotional well-being to testify at trial. Dr. Lazoritz believes that if this case were concluded
without the victim having to testify at trial, he would continue to improve, but would likely
deteriorate if the case proceeded to trial.
The Court recognizes that it very well may be impossible for the State to proceed to trial
without presenting the testimony of the victim M.M. In order to establish the essential elements
of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, the State would be required to delve into the details of
Page 3 of6
\_/
04-2454-CF-A-Z
the sexual relations between the Defendant and the alleged victim. Furthermore, the nature of
the defense raised by the Defendant would require the victim's actions to be put at issue before
the jury.
The Court also understands that the victim may be reluctant to testify at trial. Certainly,
no 16-year-old male wants to be examined and cross-examined in a public forum regarding every
minute detail of a sexual encounter, which very well may be viewed by some as entertainment.
He would not want to discuss it with his parents, doctor, counselor, victim/witness advocate, or
an attorney. In fact, this Court cannot comprehend any individual- whether he is 15, 45, or 75
years old - looking forward to discussing such an experience in public. Most likely no one who
reads this order would voluntarily discuss a sexual experience that took place when he or she was
14 years old, especially if his or her partner was a former teacher. Indeed it would be strange if
one were eager to discuss such an experience. Sex may sell books, movies, and magazines, but
no one looks forward to discussing private sexual encounters in public.
For most witnesses, especially victims of sexual offenses, testifying is an experience they
would like to avoid. Rarely does one find a witness who enjoys testifying in a courtroom before
a jury and being cross-examined by attorneys. The Court does not believe that the witnesses in
this case are different from most witnesses in any other case. Moreover, the victim in this case is
not a young child; he is now 16 years old. The effect a trial of this nature might have on young
children (less than 12 years old) therefore is not a factor in this case.
The Court is not convinced that the parties have presented sufficient justification to
accept the proposed plea agreement. The Court might have been more inclined to accept the
proposed plea agreement if the Hillsborough County charges did not exist and the Defendant was
facing charges only in Marion County. As it stands, the Court is unable to comprehend what is
to be gained by a plea and concurrent sentence in Marion County. Likewise, the Court might
have been more inclined to accept the proposed plea agreement had the parties presented
additional evidence. First, it certainly would have been beneficial if the State or the defense had
presented additional experts.
victim/witness advocate. There are victim/witness advocates available in the State Attorney's
Office, the Ocala Police Department, and the Marion County Sheriffs Office. However, there
has been no indication to this Court that any victim/witness advocate has worked with the
victims or their families to prepare them for a trial in this case. Third, the investigating officers
Page 4 of6
04-2454-CF-A-Z
who interviewed the victim could have been called to testify regarding their impressions of his
ability to give testimony, as could have assistant state attorneys Mr. Ridgway or Ms. Youmans.
The Court has reviewed the probable cause affidavit and it does not appear that the victim had
any difficulty describing the incidents in question to the investigating officers. Fourth, either
party could have attempted to take the victim's deposition to demonstrate his difficulty in
testifying. It appears that no depositions of either victim have been taken. Finally, the parties
could have requested the Court meet with the victim in camera, as was done by the judge in
Eversole v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. Rptr. 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
Moreover, with the exception of Dr. L azoritz (whose testimony is somewhat less than
convincing), neither party has presented any testimony about the victim's need for professional
counseling. When asked by the Court whether the victim M.M. needed counseling, Dr. Lazoritz
stated, "[U]nfortunately, he is not the kind ofyoung man who is a good candidate for verbal
counseling. He is not a very verbal, talk-about-your-feelings kind of kid .... I don't know that he
needs counseling right now. He needs to be able to play basketball in anonymity, and that's
helpful for him." The Court might have been convinced to accept the proposed plea agreement if
the State had offered the victim and his family professional counseling, in an effort to prepare
them for trial, and such counseling was unsuccessful. However, that does not appear to be the
case.
Dr. Lazoritz's meeting with the victim for 90 minutes or less seems to this Court
inadequate if the victim has in fact suffered mental damage as a result of the incidents in
question.
Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that the State has fully investigated its options in
regards to protecting the privacy of the victim and his family if the case were to proceed to trial.
The Court recognizes that the press and the general public have a constitutional right of access to
criminal trials. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603-05 (1982);
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 ( 1980). However, that right is not
absolute, and it may be appropriate to restrict access in order to safeguard the well-being of a
minor victim. See Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 606-09; see also Waller v. Georgia, 467
U.S. 39, 45-48 (1984). Specifically, it very well may be appropriate to exclude the electronic
media during the victim's testimony. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.170(a); Chavez v. State, 832
So.2d 730, 758-59 (Fla. 2002); State v. Palm Beach Newspapers, 395 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1981); In
rePetition of Post-Newsweek Stations, 370 So.2d 764, 779 (Fla. 1979). Indeed it would be
Page 5 of6
04-2454-CF-A-Z
necessary for the Court to take certain precautions to ensure that the Defendant receives her
constitutional right to a fair trial. See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. 555; Nebraska
Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 563-65 (1976); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333,
357-62 (1966).
But the Court is aware that the victim does not have a constitutionally
recognized right of privacy in the context of a judicial proceeding, which is a public event that by
its very nature denies certain aspects of privacy. In rePetition of Post-Newsweek Stations, 370
So.2d at 779.
It is the opinion of this Court that accepting the proposed plea agreement would
undermine the credibility of this Court, and the criminal justice system as a whole, and would
erode public confidence in our schools. Accepting the proposed plea agreement would likewise
send the message that if enough publicity is generated, and the media's interest continues long
enough, and because of that interest the victim does not wish to testify, a defendant can avoid an
appropriate sentence. Quite frankly, if the allegations against the Defendant are true, the agreedupon sentence shocks the conscience of this Court. It is, therefore,
ORDERED: The proposed below guidelines plea agreement is hereby rejected.
ORDERED this 21st day ofMarch, 2006 at Ocala, Marion County, Florida.
~t?.~~r
iH:AiERSTANciL:
Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been provided
by U.S. Mail/Inter-Office Mail this 21st day ofMarch, 2006 to the following:
John M. Fitzgibbons, Esquire
Attorney for the Defendant
Tampa Theatre Building, Suite 700
707 North Franklin Street
Tampa, Florida 33602-4441
Page 6 of6
HuNToN
i"
l\.j'
........)li;...
WILLIAMS
FAX
BARRY R. DA V1DSON
DIRECT DIAL. 305 810 2539
March 10,2014
FILE NO:
McLEAN MIAMI NEW YORK NORFOLK RALEIGH RICHMOND SAN FRANCISCO TOKYO WASHINGTON
www.hunton.com
"
March 10,2014
Page 2
that were not incurred, were unreasonable, excessive, were in excess of the amount incurred,
or were for services which were not performed. Stern CampI. at ~ 54.] The string of cases
cited by Mr. Gillespie are federal cases that analyze the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
are therefore inapplicable to the present case.
Ms. Parsons's submission to the U.S. Suprelne Court was not deceptive, unfair, unethical, or
impermissible. Indeed, she acted consistently with the rules of the Supreme Court which
required her to submit a waiver to indicate to the Court that she did not intend to file papers in
response to Mr. Gillespie's petition for a writ of certiorari. There is only one requirement for
an attorney to properly file a document in the Supreme Court - the attorney must be admitted
to practice before the Court. Sup. Ct. R. 9.1. An attorney is not required to be affiliated with
a law firm. Id. Should an attorney have an affiliation with a firm, the firm is not required to
be active or in good standing. Id. However, an attorney who is not admitted may submit a
waiver form provided that she indicate, by checking the appropriate box, that she is not
admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court. By indicating that she was "not presently a
member of the Bar," Ms. Parsons complied with all applicable rules and regulations for
submitting a waiver.
With respect to any other claims Mr. Gillespie may allege in the future, I note that Ms.
Parsons is protected from liability by the litigation privilege, which extends to all causes of
action, including both common-law torts and statutory causes of action. Levin, Middlebrooks,
Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994)
(holding that any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding enjoys "absolute
immunity"); see also Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d
380, 384 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the litigation privilege extends to all causes of action,
including statutory causes of action).
We continue to assert that Mr. Gillespie's complaints are without merit and should be
dismissed.
Cordially yours,
{l~~~".
Barry R. Davidson
Enclosure
I
D A N BURTON, INDIANA
J O H N L. M I C A , F L O R I D A
T O D D RUSSELL PLATTS, P E N N S Y L V A N I A
M I C H A E L R. T U R N E R , O H I O
PATRICK MCHENRY, NORTH CAROLINA
JIM JORDAN, OHIO
J A S O N CHAFFETZ, U T A H
C O N N I E MACK, FLORIDA
TIM WALBERG, MICHIGAN
J A M E S LANKFORD, O K L A H O M A
JUSTIN AMASH, MICHIGAN
A N N MARIE BUERKLE, N E W YORK
P A U L A. G O S A R , D.D.S., A R I Z O N A
Hcmae of
lUpretfentatfoe*
R A U L R, L A B R A D O R , I D A H O
PATRICK MEEHAN, PENNSYLVANIA
S C O T T DESJARLAIS, M.D., T E N N E S S E E
JOE WALSH, ILLINOIS
TREY GOWDY, SOUTH CAROLINA
D E N N I S A. R O S S , F L O R I D A
F R A N K C. G U I N T A , N E W H A M P S H I R E
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, TEXAS
M I K E KELLY, P E N N S Y L V A N I A
WASHINGTON, D C 2 0 5 1 5 - 6 1 4 3
MAJORITY
FACSIMILE
MINORITY
(202)225-5074
(202)225-3974
(202) 2 2 5 - 5 0 5 1
E L I J A H E. C U M M I N G S , M A R Y L A N D
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, N E W YORK
C A R O L Y N B. M A L O N E Y , N E W Y O R K
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DISTRICT OF C O L U M B I A
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, OHIO
J O H N F. T I E R N E Y , M A S S A C H U S E T T S
W M . LACY CLAY, MISSOURI
S T E P H E N F. L Y N C H , M A S S A C H U S E T T S
J I M COOPER, TENNESSEE
G E R A L D E. C O N N O L L Y , V I R G I N I A
MIKE QUIGLEY, ILLINOIS
D A N N Y K. D A V I S , I L L I N O I S
B R U C E L. B R A L E Y , I O W A
PETER W E L C H , V E R M O N T
J O H N A. Y A R M U T H , K E N T U C K Y
C H R I S T O P H E R S. M U R P H Y , C O N N E C T I C U T
J A C K I E SPEIER, C A L I F O R N I A
http://oversight.house.gov
LAWRENCE J. BRADY
STAFF DIRECTOR
Fannie Mae, New Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Attorney Network and Attorney's Fees
and Costs (Announcement 08-19) (Aug. 6, 2008) (online at https://www.efanniemae.com
/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2008/0819.pdf) (requiring also that "requests for approval of excess
fees by Fannie Mae must be submitted via email").
2
Former employees of the Stern law firm also reportedly alleged that the firm engaged in
"robo-signing," a practice in which employees signed hundreds of foreclosure affidavits each
day, falsely swearing to have personal knowledge of the underlying documents. One employee
testified that the firm's chief operating officer "signed as many as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a
day without reading a single word." The employees also reported that the firm backdated and
altered documents, and that it took steps to cover its misconduct by changing the dates on
hundreds of documents.
5
Last November, Fannie Mae issued a public notice stating that it had "terminated its
relationship with the Law Offices of David J. Stern" and informing servicers that they "may not
refer any future Fannie Mae matters to the Stern firm."
7
Attorney General of Florida, Press Release: Florida Law Firms Subpoenaed Over
Foreclosure Filing Practices (Aug. 10, 2010) (online at www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/
newsreleases/2BAClAF2A61BBA398525777B0051BB30).
"id.
5
The Rise and Fall of a Foreclosure King, Associated Press (Feb. 6, 2011).
Questions Rising Over Fannie and Freddie's Oversight of Foreclosures, New York
Times (Oct. 19, 2010); The Foreclosure Machine, New York Times (Mar. 20, 2008).
Fannie Mae, Servicing Notice: Termination of Relationship with the Stern Law Firm
(Nov. 10, 2010) (online atwww.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/
pdf/2010/ntcel 11010.pdf).
Another firm in the Retained Attorney Network, McCalla Raymer, L.L.C., is a defendant
in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintiffs allege that it engaged in fraud, racketeering, and the
manufacture of fraudulent foreclosure documents. Reportedly, this firm established operations
in Florida under the name Stone, McGehee & Silver and hired ten former Stern law firm
employees. The firm Stone, McGehee and Silver, LLC, dba McCalla Raymer currently appears
as a "Designated Counsel/Trustee" in Florida for Freddie Mac.
9
10
12
A special investigation by Reuters last December reported that LPS and its affiliated
companies also allegedly deployed low-skilled, non-lawyers to prepare foreclosure documents,
created invalid mortgage assignments to facilitate foreclosures, and rewarded attorneys for speed
rather than accuracy in filing court pleadings. Reuters reported:
* See Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Raia, SP 002253/10, District Court of
Nassau County, New York (Hempstead); Campbell v. Baum, 10-cv-3800, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn); Menashe v. Steven J. Baum P.C, 10-cv-5155, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York (Central Islip); and Baum v. Lask, 2010- 012048,
New York Supreme Court, Erie County (Buffalo).
9
Novice Florida Lawyers Draw Suspicion in Foreclosure Mess, Palm Beach Post (Jan.
13, 2011) (online at www.palmbeachpost.com/money/real-estate/novice-florida-lawyers-drawsuspicion-in-foreclosure-mess-1146402.html).
10
Freddie Mac, Guide Exhibit 79: Designated Counsel/Trustee (Florida) (revised 2/8/11)
(online at www.freddiemac.com/service/msp/exh79_fl.html).
11
Thorne v. Prommis Solutions Holding Corp. et al.. Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, 10-01172 (BRN.D.M.S., Oct. 10, 2010).
The law firms are on a stopwatch. [An LPS spokesman] confirmed that the LPS Desktop
system automatically times how long each firm takes to complete a task. It assigns firms
that turn out work the fastest a "green" rating; slower ones "yellow" and "red" for those
that take the longest. Court records show that green ratings go to firms that jump on
offered assignments from their LPS computer screens and almost instantly turn out readyto-file court pleadings, often using teams of low-skilled clerical workers with little
oversight from the lawyers.
13
Although Fannie Mae terminated its relationship with the Stern law firm last November,
it does not appear to have terminated its relationships with any of the other firms described
above.
14
15
16
With this background, I request that you address the following issues with respect to
attorneys and law firms participating in the Retained Attorney Network program and with
respect to other entities engaged by both mortgage servicers managing Fannie Mae-backed loans
and attorneys and firms that are part of the Retained Attorney Network:
1.
To what extent have homeowners lost their homes to improper, illegal, or otherwise
invalid foreclosures as a result of the types of abuses described above?
13
Id.
14
Fannie Mae, Retained Attorney List (effective February 10, 2011) (online at
https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/technology/servinvreport/amn7pdf/retainedattorneylist.pdf).
15
289).
Section 1313(a)(l)(A)-(B), Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-
2.
To what extent have homeowners been charged improper, illegal, or otherwise invalid
fees during the foreclosure process?
3.
To what extent are attorneys, law firms, and other entities engaged in fee-splitting,
kickbacks, or other similar schemes?
4.
What is the total amount in "excess fees" that has been requested from Fannie Mae by
attorneys and law firms? Of this amount, how much has been reimbursed, and how much
has been determined to be inappropriate or unwarranted?
5.
6.
What specific information has been collected regarding allegations against the following
firms and their affiliates?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
gh.
7.
Have there been claims alleging that other attorneys or law firms participating in the
Retained Attorney Network program or any default management firms managing the
foreclosure of Fannie Mae-backed loans have engaged in similar conduct that violates the
rights of borrowers or investors, federal or state foreclosure mitigation program
guidelines, federal or state law, federal or state judicial requirements, state bar ethics
requirements, or other regulations, rules, guidelines, or laws?
8.
To what extent have the alleged abuses described above undermined loss and foreclosure
mitigation efforts and outcomes? What responsibilities do loan servicers have in
monitoring and overseeing the activities of attorneys and other third party companies?
What are the levels of cure rate and loss mitigation activities among retained attorneys?
cc: