Rebuttal To Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)

Via Email: tlittlew@flabar.
org, and October 16, 2012

U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291776281
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
ACAP, The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
REBUTTAL: Ryan Christopher Rodems; TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Littlewood:
This is my rebuttal to the forty-six (46) page response submitted by Mr. Rodems dated
September 17, 2012. In your letter to me dated October 2, 2012 you granted me permission,
pursuant to my letter to you dated September 21, 2012, to file a rebuttal of up to 46 pages, that
may refer to additional documents or exhibits, made in writing by October 16, 2012, with a copy
to Mr. Rodems. Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2012. Below is my rebuttal.
Opening Statement
Susan Bloemendaal improperly closed my complaint against Mr. Rodems by letter November
19, 2007. Ms. Bloemendaal was then, and is today, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for the
Tampa Branch Office of The Florida Bar. My complaint was not processed by the central
ACAP
1
complaint intake office in Tallahassee, even though I provided the complaint directly to
Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation in Tallahassee. Mr. Marvin sent my complaint
to Tampa, which was procedurally incorrect. There is a mandatory complaint intake process, set
forth in the Bar Counsel Manual. The mandatory complaint intake process begins at ACAP in
Tallahassee. My complaint was not processed by central ACAP. Therefore Ms. Bloemendaal
lacked proper authority to consider my complaint at that point in the process. Ms. Bloemendaal
and Mr. Lovell improperly dismissed my complaints as shown in this rebuttal.
My complaints made during the years 2004 through 2007 were inarticulate due to inexperience
with the complaint process. My complaints alleged closing statement fraud (Rule 4-1.5(f)(5)), no
signed contingent fee agreement (Rule 4-1.5(f)(2)), and representation against a former client on
the same or substantially related matter. (Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10). Other things I complained
about were subordinate, and also inartfully alleged. Ms. Bloemendaal authored four letters to me
dated November 19, 2007 that ignored the essence of my former lawyers misconduct.
The Complaint Intake Process was considered by the Special Commission on Lawyer Regulation
chaired by Henry Cox, and is the first issue in the Report and Recommendation. (Cox Report).
The Report was drafted by the Commission in a series of conferences ending April 18, 2006.
The Cox Report states that the Commission recommended ACAP style screening of all written
inquiries and complaints so that all questions concerning the conduct of members of the bar are

1
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Florida Bar Counsel
RE: Ryan C. Rodems TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) October 16, 2012
Page 2
addressed in a similar fashion. The Commission also recommended a central intake system
utilizing ACAP resources in Tallahassee.
The Reports implementation status said the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-2007 included
funding to implement the recommendation for central intake for ACAP style screening of all
written complaints, and if approved in the final budget, provided funding effective July 1, 2006.
In a letter dated October 3, 2012, I asked Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation for the
Florida Bar, the following questions:
Mr. Marvin, was a central ACAP style Complaint Intake Process implemented in
Tallahassee in 2006 as suggested by the Report? If not, when did the Florida Bar
implement a central ACAP style Complaint Intake Process?
As of today I do not have a response from Mr. Marvin. A copy of my letter appears at Exhibit 1.
Mr. Rodems response shows at Exhibit 1 a letter from Ms. Bloemendaal dated November 19,
2007. It appears from the Cox Report that my complaints in 2007 should have gone to a central
ACAP style complaint intake process in Tallahassee. The reason for central intake is clear: the
Commission recommended ACAP style screening of all written inquiries and complaints so that
all questions concerning the conduct of members of the bar are addressed in a similar fashion. In
other words, the Commission knew that some complaints, like my complaints against Rodems
and his partners, would not be addressed in a similar fashion by the Branch Office in certain
instances where the attorney was favored and politically connected.
On October 2, 2012 I made a records request to Jenny R. Jolinski, Records Manager for the
Florida Bar, for a copy of the bar counsel manual described in the Cox Report. Yesterday,
October 15, 2012, Ms. Jolinski provided me a copy of the bar counsel manual by email at 1:10
p.m. The manual consists of 440 pages. Given the size of the manual, I have not had time to
study it in detail to see if the Florida Bar complied with its own procedure in my earlier
complaints against Mr. Rodems and his partners. Therefore I may need to amend this rebuttal or
make a subsequent rebuttal once I have studied the bar counsel manual.
Martha Cook Is Ethically Challenged - Henry P. Trawick
Mr. Rodems response shows at Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, various orders from Martha Cook, a judge
of questionable ethics, according to a story published in the Tampa Tribune by Shannon
Behnken on July 21, 2011: Critics: Judge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures.
A number of Florida legal authorities have publicly criticized Martha Cook, including Henry P.
Trawick Jr., a Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice and Procedure. The Tampa
Tribune story was also profiled on The Florida Bars Daily News Summary July 22, 2011.
Martha Cooks Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se was entered November 15,
2010 to silence legitimate inquiry into her murky fiancees with a Brazilian billionaire who
invested millions to bailout Martha Cooks bank. Martha Cook recused herself sua sponte
Page 3
November 18, 2010 the same day I filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Motion
For Order of Protection in the Second District Court of Appeal, case no. 2D10-5529.
Martha Cook is ethically compromised due to past insolvency and violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, Canons 2, 3, 5 and 6 as set forth in Plaintiffs 4th Motion To Disqualify Judge
Martha J. Cook, filed November 10, 2010.
My inquiry into Martha Cooks eminent financial collapse served as a basis for the Tampa
Tribune story and attorney scrutiny in this matter. My efforts uncovered Martha Cooks troubled
finances and alerted attorneys who practice mortgage foreclosure defense about her conflict.
Martha Cook is ethically compromised, which is described further at Exhibit 2 to this rebuttal.
Martha Cook is profoundly dishonest as shown in this rebuttal. Her rulings are not reliable.
Rebuttal to Rodems Exhibit 1: Complaint Against Rodems TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D)
Improper Closure By Susan Bloemendaal November 19, 2007
As set forth above, my complaint against Mr. Rodems submitted June 20, 2007 was not
processed by the central ACAP complaint intake office in Tallahassee, even though I provided
the complaint directly to Mr. Marvin in Tallahassee. Therefore any action by Ms. Bloemendaal
was premature since she did not have authority over the complaint on November 19, 2007.
Mr. Rodems response at Exhibit 1 shows he may be confused about my two complaints against
him in 2007. While similar, my first complaint submitted February 20, 2007
2
alleged disability
discrimination and the second complaint submitted June 20, 2007 did not. Each complaint
informed the Bar that on January 13, 2006, Judge Nielsen found a cause of action for fraud and
breach of contract against William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. Judge Nielsen
rejected Mr. Rodems claim to $50,000 in court-awarded costs and fees. Each Bar complaint
included a copy of Judge Nielsens Order. Mr. Rodems claim to $50,000 in court-awarded
costs and fees was denied, decided res judicata, precluding him from again raising this claim.
First complaint: February 20, 2007, TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D) submitted to the Tampa
branch office and improperly closed by Assistant Staff Counsel Troy Matthew Lovell. A public
record copy of this complaint appears at Exhibit 3 to this rebuttal. Accompanying the complaint
at Exhibit K was Plaintiffs Accommodation Request, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a
certified copy of which appears at Exhibit 4 to this rebuttal. Judge Nielsens Order accompanied
the complaint at Exhibit C, a certified copy of which appears at Exhibit 5.
Second Complaint: June 20, 2007 submitted to Mr. Marvin in Tallahassee, who sent it to
the Tampa Brach Office. No complaint number was assigned to this complaint. The complaint
was not investigated. For almost five months the Bar took no action. Then Ms. Bloemendaal
closed the complaint by letter November 19, 2007, a letter that referenced the first complaint.

2
I submitted Exhibits A through H with the complaint submitted February 20, 2007. Exhibit H was Plaintiffs
Accommodation Request, Americans With Disabilities Act that showed Mr. Rodems used information about my
disability against me, information he learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
Page 4
My signed complaint form June 20, 2007 shows I did not contact ACAP, as noted:
Mr. Rodems considered my previous attempt to use ACAP as extortion, specifically the
felony crime of extortion pursuant to section 836.05 Florida Statutes (2000). Therefore
until the Florida Bar rules otherwise, I will not participate in ACAP.
In 2007 I was unaware of the Cox Report and the proper role of central ACAP intake in
Tallahassee. My above comments about ACAP referred to accusations made by Rodems partner
in 2003, and again by Rodems in his counterclaim January 19, 2006. In October 2007 I inquired
of Donald Spangler, ACAP Director, about Rodems claim that ACAP was extortionate, but he
declined to respond and said my concerns were disposed of in an earlier complaint.
For some time I have been preparing a thorough, detailed review of my early Bar complaints by
the Tampa Branch Office. I will provide you a courtesy copy when it is complete, hopefully in a
week or two. The information is too extensive to include in this rebuttal.
Rebuttal to the November 19, 2007 letter of Ms. Bloemendaal
Procedurally, I submitted a complaint against Mr. Rodems February 20, 2007 to the
Tampa Brach Office that was received February 22, 2007. (Exhibit 3). Accompanying the
complaint at Exhibit K was my ADA accommodation request. (Exhibit 4). Also accompanying
the complaint at Exhibit C was Judge Nielsens Order. (Exhibit 5).
On March 7, 2007 Staff Counsel Troy Matthew Lovell requested additional information from
me. (Exhibit 6). I responded April 11, 2007. My response was date-stamped by the Florida Bar.
(Exhibit 7). However Mr. Lovell closed the inquiry by letter May 15, 2007, stating in part, On
March 7, 2007, we requested additional information regarding these allegations in order for us to
evaluate your grievance. To date, we have received no additional information. (Exhibit 8). The
complaint was improperly dismissed by Mr. Lovell, whose May 15, 2007 letter is impeached by
my response submitted April 11, 2007, and received by the Bar April 13, 2007.
On June 20, 2007 I made a second complaint against Mr. Rodems, which appears in his response
at Exhibit 1. I submitted the second complaint to Mr. Marvin in Tallahassee, who in turn sent the
complaint to Tampa. No complaint number was assigned to this complaint. The complaint was
not investigated. For almost five months the Bar took no action. Then Ms. Bloemendaal closed
the complaint by letter November 19, 2007, a letter that referenced the first complaint.
Each complaint against Mr. Rodems included the following three Exhibits:
A. Complaint for Breach of Contract and Fraud, filed August 11, 2005
B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike, August 29, 2005
C. Order by Judge Nielsen finding a cause of action, January 13, 2006
Page 5
Each complaint informed the Bar that on January 13, 2006, Judge Nielsen found a cause of
action for fraud and breach of contract against William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook,
PA. Judge Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems claim to $50,000 in court-awarded costs and fees.
Each Bar complaint included a copy of Judge Nielsens Order On Defendants Motion To
Dismiss And Strike. (Exhibit 5). Under the legal doctrine res judicata, Mr. Rodems was
precluded from ever again asserting his bogus claim for $50,000 in court-awarded fees in this
case. But that did not stop him, and I was unaware of the principal of res judicata at the time.
William J. Cook prepared and signed a fraudulent Closing Statement with me in the settlement
of Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, Case
No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in violation of Rule 4-1.5(f)(5). This case
boils down to the veracity of a single sentence on the Closing Statement (Exhibit 9) prepared and
signed by Mr. Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001. The sentence states:
In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that AMSCOT Corporation separately
paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against
AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs.
This sentence was later determined false. The Closing Statement is a fraud. There were no court-
awarded fees of $50,000 to Mr. Cook or BRC. The Closing Statement itself is evidence of Fraud
by Mr. Cook and BRC against me and the other two clients in the AMSCOT case.
As a matter of law it was impossible to have the court-awarded fees claimed by Mr. Cook and
BRC on the Closing Statement, because the federal trial court Order (Doc. 116) entered August
1, 2001 by U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara dismissed those claims with prejudice in
Clement, Blomefield and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, case no. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C,
U.S. District Court, M.D.Fla., Tampa Division. The Court found that all of the transactions in
this action occurred before the effective date of the applicable law, 65 Fed. Reg. 17129,
Regulation Z, promulgated pursuant to the TILA, the Truth-in-Lending Act. Judge Lazzara held:
After considering the arguments made and all the authorities now before it, the Court
finds that count I fails to allege a claim for relief under the TILA
3
. Moreover, any attempt
at stating a claim under the TILA would be futile. Having reached this conclusion, the
motion for class certification is now moot. (Doc. 116, pp. 3-4)
PACER, Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1340
The Closing Statement prepared and signed by Mr. Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001 failed
to disclose or itemize $3,580.67 in costs and expenses, and failed to reflect $2,544.79 paid to
attorney Jonathan L. Alpert. Mr. Cooks failure to disclose or itemize a total of $6,125.45 in
expenses under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) was done in furtherance of his fraud against his clients.

3
As to the remaining two state-law claims for usury and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA), the Court finds it inappropriate to exercise its pendent jurisdiction.
Page 6
Mr. Cook maintains he was not required to disclose or itemize under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) costs of
$3,580.67, or show $2,544.79 paid to Mr. Alpert, because AMSCOT Corporation separately
paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for
court-awarded fees and costs. But the claim to $50,000.00 for court-awarded fees and costs
was later determined false. There were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. Mr. Cooks Closing
Statement Fraud was a trick to evade the terms of the contingent fee agreement, and payment to
me of $9,143, my lawful share of the $56,000 total recovery. Instead, Mr. Cook and BRC paid
me $2,000. Likewise with the other two plaintiffs, Mr. Clement and Ms. Blomefield. Mr. Cooks
fraud resulted in $21,431.03 unjust enrichment for him and BRC. Mr. Cook and BRC took over
90% of the Amscot total recovery for themselves through fraud against their clients.
I prevailed on Rodems motion to dismiss and strike January 13, 2006, when Judge Nielsen
rejected Rodems entitlement to a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs. Under
the legal doctrine of res judicata, Mr. Rodems was precluded from ever again asserting his bogus
claim for $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs in this matter. But that did not deter Mr.
Rodems. He disrupted the tribunal in many ways, and repeatedly lied and presented false
evidence to the Court until he obtained his judgments.
Former counsel Robert Bauer outlined Rodems fraud to Judge Barton October 30, 2007 during a
hearing for judgment on the pleadings: (Transcript, October 30, 2007, pp.39-40)
22 [MR. BAUER] Another issue to point out the fact this is for
23 their claim of court-awarded attorney's fees, there
24 was no claim. The claim had already been determined
25 by the court, denied. It didn't exist any more.
1 [MR. BAUER] Yes, there was an appeal outstanding, but that
2 doesn't resurrect any claim. The only thing that's
3 going to resurrect a claim is an overruling by the
4 appellate court. A claim no longer exist once it's
5 been denied, even if it's on appeal. So in
6 asserting there existed a claim for attorney's fees
7 is false. It - it's not there.
Mr. Bauer should have asserted res judicata, but he was either incompetent, or too busy milking
me for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which fit nicely into Rodems strategy.
The contingent fee agreement between me and Mr. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA in the
AMSCOT lawsuit was not signed by any of the parties in violation of Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(2).
Under a scenario discussed by former counsel Mr. Bauer, no attorneys fees were owed in the
absence of a signed fee agreement:
Transcript, telephone call, March 29, 2007, page 16:
2 MR. BAUER: The way that I'm looking at this
3 is that they either are entitled to nothing because
4 they are attempting to enforce an oral contingency
Page 7
5 fee agreement, which is against the Professional
6 Code of Ethics, or they should be entitled to
7 45 percent of 56,000.
Perpetuation of Fraud: The November 19, 2007 letter of Ms. Bloemendaal
Ms. Bloemendaal authored four different letters to me dated November 19, 2007. Three letters
pertained to various Bar complaints, and one pertained to a records request. Ms. Bloemendaal
ignored the essence of my former lawyers misconduct. Admittedly my early Bar complaints
were not sufficiently articulate or focused. But the essence of my complaints alleged closing
statement fraud (Rule 4-1.5(f)(5)), no signed contingent fee agreement (Rule 4-1.5(f)(2)), and
representation against a former client on the same or substantially related matter. (Rules 4-1.7, 4-
1.9, 4-1.10). Today I am focusing on this statement by Ms. Bloemendaal in her letter provided by
Mr. Rodems, captioned Inquiry/Complaint regarding Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No.
2007-11,162 (13D). The statement appears on page 1, the last paragraph:
You have alleged that Mr. Rodems' representation of the defendants constitutes a conflict
of interest in violation of Bar rules. Mr. Rodems has not engaged in a conflict of interest
by defending himself and the law firm against your allegations of wrongdoing. You
waived the conflict by initiating civil action and disciplinary proceedings. Moreover,
Rule 4-1.6(c)(2) allows an attorney to reveal information relating to the representation to
the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to defend himself a controversy
between the lawyer and client. Rule 4-1.6(c)(4) similarly allows the lawyer to reveal such
information to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's
representation of the client.
Rule 4-1.6(c)(2) may allow an attorney to reveal information relating to the representation to the
extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to defend himself in a controversy between the
lawyer and client. Rule 4-1.6(c)(4) may allow the lawyer to reveal such information to respond
to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client. But that
does not change the prohibition on direct litigation against a former client by the lawyer on the
same or substantially related matter as set forth in Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, or waive conflict
on other matter not subject to litigation, see McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp.
1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, a Tampa case that sets forth the duty under Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10.
Rule 4-1.6 allows the attorney to reveal information relating to the representation to separate
counsel for the purpose of defense. William Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA represented
or consulted with me on several payday loan cases where I did not waive conflict, initiate civil
litigation or make Bar complaints.
Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, in United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. (Circuit Court, Hillsborough
Consolidated Case No. 99-9730). This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT.
EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater. This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT.
Page 8
National Cash Advance. This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT.
William Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA consulted with me on disability and
employment matters where I did not waive conflict, initiate litigation or make Bar complaints.
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), DLES Case No. 98-066-DVR.
St. Petersburg Junior College, job placement for students with disabilities.
See Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages
Rebuttal to Rodems Exhibit 2: Order Denying Plaintiffs Emergency Motion To Disqualify
Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Mr. Rodems response to you on the issue my efforts to disqualify him are false and misleading.
My initial motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems was submitted February 5, 2006, Plaintiffs Motion
To Disqualify Counsel. The motion was heard and denied April 25, 2006 by Judge Richard A.
Nielsen. The Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel was entered May 12,
2006. A copy of a Clerk Certified copy of the Order appears at Exhibit 10. The Court held:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiffs
Motion to Disqualify Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and
counsel and Mr. Gillespie having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised
in the premises, it is ORDERED:
The motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may
be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice.
In his response to you, Mr. Rodems misstated the ruling of Judge Nielsen. Rodems asserted
evidence that the motion to disqualify was denied with prejudice; but he failed to inform you
about the full text of the order, which includes this part: except as to the basis that counsel may
Because the motion to disqualify Rodems was not denied with prejudice as to the basis that
counsel may be a witness, Judge James M. Barton suggested during a hearing January 26, 2010
renewed motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems.
Transcript pages 30 and 31, with the cover page, appear at Exhibit 11 to this rebuttal.
Transcript, January 26, 2010, beginning page 30:
19 MR. GILLESPIE: And in my letter of -- in my
20 letter to you today I notice -- I discuss the issue
21 of an amended complaint. This was first raised in
Page 9
22 this case in October 7th, 2005 and for whatever
23 reason, it hasn't been done yet. I think the case
24 is ripe for that. I also discuss Judge Nielsen's
25 order of May 12th about disqualification of Mr.
Transcript, January 26, 2010, page 31:
1 Rodems. This is what the Judge wrote: "This
2 motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice
3 except as to the basis that Counsel may be a
4 witness and on that basis the motion is denied
5 without prejudice." Now, for Mr. Rodems being a
6 witness, the nature of this case is essentially he
7 is a perpetual witness. The transcripts show that
8 his representation is essentially on going
9 testimony about factual matters. Many times in the
10 transcripts he is confused. He is saying, Judge,
11 we -- Oh, I don't mean we, I mean I as my attorney
12 for the firm think this about my client, which is
13 actually myself. That confusion is evident in the
14 transcripts over and over again. I really believe
15 he needs to be disqualified because of his ongoing
16 testimony in this matter.
17 THE COURT: All right. Well, I assume there
18 will be a renewed motion to disqualify that will be
19 filed and then again set for a hearing once we
20 establish our procedure, but we can't do that until
21 we get what I directed you to produce within ten
22 days from Ms. Huffer.
Mr. Rodems provided at Exhibit 2 a copy of Martha Cooks Order Denying Plaintiffs
Emergency Motion To Disqulaify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker
Rodems & Cook, P.A. In the order, Martha Cook also misstates that the motion to disqualify was
denied with prejudice, while failing to honestly show the full text of the order, which includes
except as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied
without prejudice. This sham order by Martha Cook was impeached in three affidavits:
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, September 27, 2010, which appears as Exhibit 12 to the
Complaint (Doc. 1) in federal case 5:10-cv-503. This 7 page affidavit is titled in the state
court action, but the original was filed in the federal court case due to time constraints.
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, October 28, 2010, which appears as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs
Notice of Filing Affidavits of Extraordinary Circumstances
4
(Doc. 23) in federal case
5:10-cv-503. This 7 page affidavit is properly titled in the federal court, with a heading:
Judge Martha J. Cook falsified an official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie

4
Plaintiff gives notice of filing the following Affidavits of Neil J. Gillespie showing extraordinary circumstances,
specifically that Circuit Court Judge Martha J. Cook of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is knowingly and willfully
denying Gillespie his Civil Rights, ADA Rights, and is engaged with malice aforethought in harming Gillespie
through the Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress.
Page 10
due process on the disqualification of Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 23 Filed 10/29/10 Page 16 of 76
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, October 28, 2010, which appears as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs
Notice of Filing Affidavits in state court case 05-CA-7205. This 7 page affidavit was
properly titled and filed in the state court November 1, 2010. (Exhibit 12)
The affidavits are essentially the same, with copies served on Rodems, and state as follows:
4. Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel was heard April 25, 2006 by
Judge Nielsen. On May 12, 2006 Judge Nielsen signed Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion
To Disqualify Counsel. The Order holds that "The motion to disqualify is denied with
prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and on that basis, the
motion is denied without prejudice." A certified copy of the Order is attached to this
affidavit as "Exhibit A". There has been no Order on adjudication as to the basis that
counsel may be a witness. The question of disqualification on the counterclaim has not
been heard at all.
5. Under Florida law the question is not whether Mr. Rodems may be a
witness but whether he "ought" to be a witness. Proper test for disqualification of counsel
is whether counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[l] Matter of Doughty, 51 B.R. 36.
Disqualification is required when counsel "ought" to appear as a witness. [3] Florida
Realty Inc. v. General Development Corp., 459 F.Supp. 781. On information and belief
Mr. Rodems ought to be a witness.
6. On July 9, 2010 I filed Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants'
Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. The motion properly
raises the issue in paragraph 4. The motion properly considered de novo the question of
disqualification on the counterclaim. The motion also shows misconduct by Mr. Rodems
at the April 25, 2006 hearing sufficient to overturn the Order of May 12, 2006.
7. On July 22, 2010 Judge Cook issued "Order Denying Plaintiffs
Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA". A certified copy of the Order is attached to this affidavit
as "Exhibit B". In her Order, Judge Cook wrote "This is the third time that the Plaintiff
has motioned to disqualify Defendant's counsel, despite having been informed in an order
issued May 12,2006 that this issue had been DENIED WITH PREJUDICE." This
statement by Judge Cook is false. The Order issued May 12, 2006 clearly states that
"[e]xcept as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is
denied without prejudice."
8. Judge Cook also wrote, "The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to never accept
another pleading from the Plaintiff that indicates an attempt to disqualify Defendants'
counsel, as this matter has been DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."
9. Upon information and belief, Judge Martha J. Cook knowingly and
Page 11
willfully, with malice aforethought, falsified a record in violation of chapter 839, Florida
Statlltes, section 839.13(1) if any judge shall falsify any record or any paper filed in any
judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or conceal any issue, or falsify any
document filed in any court the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
willfully, with malice aforethought, engaged in official misconduct to harm Neil
Gillespie and benefit Ryan Christopher Rodems and his clients, by falsifying an official
record or official document as described in this affidavit, to deny Gillespie due process,
in violation of the Misuse of Public Office statute, chapter 838 Florida Statutes, section
838.022 Official misconduct. (1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to
obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to: (a) Falsify, or cause
another person to falsify, any official record or official document; (3) Any person who
violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
willfully, with malice aforethought, made a false statement in writing with the intent to
mislead a public servant, Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit Court, in the performance ofher
official duty, in violation of the perjury statute, chapter 837 Florida Statutes, section
837.06 False official statements. Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing
with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082 or s. 775.083.
Martha Cook was also dishonest in her order about the number of motions filed. There were only
two motions considered, not three as Cook claimed in this sentence:
This is the third time that the Plaintiff has motioned to disqualify Defendant's counsel,
despite having been informed in an order issued May 12, 2006 that this issue had been
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
The record shows two motions to disqualify Mr. Rodems; only one motion was heard:
1. Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel, submitted February 6, 2006. There was a
motion for rehearing after Judge Nielsen recused himself over Mr. Rodems perjury of March 6,
2006, in Verified Motion for Bailiff and For Sanctions. Judge Isom began to consider the motion
for rehearing February 5, 2007, along with a number of other motions, but stopped because
evidence showing Mr. Rodems perjury, a transcript of his telephone call, was disputed by Mr.
Rodems. Judge Isom referred me to law enforcement. Tampa Police Department counsel Kirby
Rainesberger later determined that Rodems was not right or accurate in representing to the court
as an "exact quote" language that clearly was not an exact quote. I submitted case law to Mr.
Rainesberger supporting the criminal prosecution of Mr. Rodems for perjury, but he declined.
Either way, Rodems affidavit was part of a strategic maneuver to disrupt the tribunal, whether or
not it met the legal requirement of perjury, or if it was ordinary lying, or misrepresentation.
Page 12
0. Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel was submitted March 24, 2010
following the Judge Bartons request made January 26, 2010. It was a short, four page motion
and focused on the issues discussed with Judge Barton. In response Mr. Rodems served
Defendants Motion For Sanctions Pursuant To Section 57.105(1) and (3), Florida Statutes
Regarding Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel. The motion contained a number
of falsehoods and misstatements that are typical of a Rodems pleading. In response I notified
Judge Barton by letter April 28, 2010 that I withdrew the motion, because I subsequently found
evidence that Judge Claudia Isom failed to disclose a conflict with husband Woody Isom and my
former lawyer in this matter, Jonathan Alpert, at an earlier hearing, and the motion needed to be
further amended. I found the conflict through analysis of one of Mr. Rodems many insulting
letters. By this point Mr. Rodems had become so unhinged that he was inadvertently revealing
valuable information in his frequent harassing letters to me. This motion does not count toward
the total, because it was withdrawn, and only filed at the suggestion of Judge Barton.
2. On July 9, 2010 I filed Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan
Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. This was a verified 81 page motion, with
109 pages of exhibits and supporting pages, 190 pages total. This motion was legally sufficient,
and also addressed Mr. Rodems disability harassment of me. This motion also showed how
Rodems violated Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to Judge Nielsen legal authority in
the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the
client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.
60. A hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Counsel was held April 25, 2006. Mr.
Rodems presented the following case law in support of his position. The cases are largely
irrelevant to this matter and set of facts. Rodems failed to disclose to the court legal
authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the
position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel. The hearing was transcribed
by Denise L. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public, of Berryhill & Associates, Inc., Court
Reporters. The transcript of the hearing was filed with the clerk of the court. Mr. Rodems
presented the following case law April 25, 2006:
a. Frank, Weinberg & Black vs. Effman, 916 So.2d 971
b. Bochese vs. Town of Ponce Inlet, 267 F. Supp. 2nd 1240
c. In Re: Jet One Center 310-BR, Bankruptcy Reporter, 649
d. Transmark USA v State Department of Insurance, 631 So.2d, 1112-1116
e. Cerillo vs. Highley, 797 So.2d 1288
f. Singer Island Limited vs. Budget Construction Company, 714 So.2d 651
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly
adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel, in this
instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal authority directly adverse to
the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are just two of a number of cases Rodems
failed to disclose, see this motion, and the Table of Cases that accompanies this motion.
Page 13
Counsel has a responsibility to fully inform the court on applicable law whether
favorable or adverse to position of client so that the court is better able to make a fair and
accurate determination of the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176.
As evidenced by this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr.
Rodems and BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
Contrary to Rule 4-3.3(c) Mr. Rodems failed to disclose to Judge Nielsen McPartland v. ISI Inv.
Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory authority on
disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional
impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.
[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show
existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for
purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing
party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court
must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal
advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial
relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant
and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information
was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
Mr. Rodems stated this on page 1 of his response to you:
In fact, Mr. Gillespie moved so many times -- unsuccessfully -- to disqualify me as
counsel, the presiding judge entered an Order, stating:
As of today, only one motion was fully heard on his disqualification, before Judge Nielsen, and
Rodems failed in violation of Rule 4-3.3(c) to disclose to Judge Nielsen legal authority in the
controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client
and not disclosed by opposing counsel. A transcript of the hearing is available.
Mr. Rodems response to you on my efforts to disqualify him are dishonest, and shows his deceit
and misrepresentation intended to cover-up his misconduct. Mr. Rodems false statements in his
response to the Florida Bar during this inquiry is additional misconduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice, and a new violation of the following Bar Rules:
Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Page 14
Mr. Rodems and Martha Cook Collaborate September 28, 2010, Create False Record of Hearing
Sham Orders on Final Summary Judgment, Civil Contempt
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., et al., 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.
On the morning of September 28, 2010, I filed a federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit, Gillespie
v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., case no. 5:10-cv-503. I needed the assistance and
protection of an Article III Federal Judge, because the lawsuit in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
with Mr. Rodems had turned into a complete sham once Martha Cook was assigned to the case.
After filing the lawsuit in person by hand delivery to the Ocala Division of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, I drove to Tampa for a hearing before Martha Cook on
Mr. Rodems motions for Final Summary Judgment and Civil Contempt.
Mr. Rodems failed to disclose to you how he collaborated with Martha Cook on September 28,
2010 - after my federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit was filed - to create a false record that I
left the hearing voluntarily, when in fact Martha Cook ordered me removed by the bailiff after I
provided her the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503. Martha Cook refused to disqualify herself, even
though she was a defendant in my lawsuit.
Martha Cook conducted ex parte hearings with Mr. Rodems on Final Summary Judgment, and
Civil Contempt, ruled against me (not surprising), and then lied about my removal in a contempt
order September 30, 2010. It was a star chamber proceeding. Martha Cook made this statement
on the record September 28, 2010:
Transcript, September 28, 2010, Page 19. (Exhibit 13).
5 [THE COURT] You can make a record. I did have your
6 motion, it was noticed for today. As you know,
7 this is a Motion for an Order of Contempt and
8 Writ of Bodily Attachment. And let the record
9 reflect that Mr. Gillespie elected to leave
10 even though he was advised that the hearing
11 would continue in his absence.
Mr. Rodems failed to object or even correct the record when Martha Cook stated And let the
record reflect that Mr. Gillespie elected to leave even though he was advised that the hearing
would continue in his absence.
Fortunately the bailiff who removed me, HCSO Deputy Christopher E. Brown, impeached
Martha Cooks assertion that I left voluntarily. Major James Livingston put Deputy Browns
account in a letter dated January 12, 2011. Maj. Livingston wrote: (1) (Exhibit 14)
Deputy Brown advised that the Judge ordered you to leave after a disruption in the
courtroom. He stated that he followed you to the front door as you exited the building
without assistance.
Page 15
Maj. James P. Livingston serves as the Commander of the Court Operations Division, which is
responsible for all aspects of security at the Courthouse Complex. He earned a Law Degree in
1983 and a Bachelor's Degree with honors in Criminal Justice in 1977, both from the University
of Memphis. Maj. Livingston came to the Sheriff's Office from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), where he retired as a Supervisory Special Agent after a 22-year career.
Maj. Livingston also wrote this, referring to a threat from Mr. Rodems:
As we discussed on the telephone today, you expressed some concern over your
personal safety while in the courthouse due to a disability and due to a potential threat
from opposing counsel. Please let me know the date and time of your next visit to the
courthouse and we will take action to help ensure a safe and orderly visit.
Maj. Livingstons letter dated January 12, 2011 appears at Exhibit 14 to this rebuttal.
The letter also appears as Exhibit E to the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie April 25, 2011. My
original twenty-two (22) page affidavit was filed in the state court, and a copy was submitted to
the federal court in Plaintiffs Response To Order To Show Cause, Doc. 58, and appears as
Exhibit 14. The exact location on PACER begins here: Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS
Document 58-2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 5 of 42 PageID 1578. (Exhibit 15)
Mr. Rodems, in collaboration with Martha Cook to create a false record of the hearing
September 28, 2010, violated the following Bar Rules:
Rule 4-8.4(f), a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct
that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
Rule 4-8.3(b) Mr. Rodems had a duty to report Martha Cooks misconduct.
The Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt, which Mr. Rodems used to obtain a
warrant for my arrest, on a writ of bodily attachment, contains this false statement at footnote 1:
Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. During that hearing, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and
did not return.
The order also misstates my efforts to attend a deposition, and denied any accommodation for
protection from Mr. Rodems stunts intended harm me, disrupt the tribunal, and gain unfair
advantage. Mr. Rodems has a reputation for making false accusations against litigants, and he
was sued for $5 million in a defamation suit brought by attorney Arnold Levine, see Buccaneers
Limited Partnership v. Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, US District Court, Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, case 99-2354-CIV-T-23C.
Page 16
Mr. Rodems and his partner Jonathan Alpert attended a mediation where, according to a Tampa
Police Department report dated June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, Mr. Alpert committed
battery, Florida Statutes 784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing hot coffee on him.
At the time Mr. Levine was a 68 year-old senior citizen. The report states:
The victim and defendant are both attorneys and were representing their clients in a
mediation hearing. The victim alleges that the defendant began yelling, and intentionally
threw the contents of a 20 oz. cup of hot coffee which struck him in the chest staining his
shirt. A request for prosecution was issued for battery.
Mr. Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report and failed to inform me that my attorney
Mr. Alpert attacked attorney Arnold Levine. The police report is available.
It appears that Mr. Rodems himself attacked witness Eric Bischoff July 20, 2009 during a
deposition in WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc., U.S. District
Court, M.D. Fla., Case No. 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP. This was my concern too, that Rodems
would pull a stunt to disrupt the proceedings and then seek sanctions against me.
Mr. Bischoff was represented by Mr. Gregory W. Herbert of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
In WrestleReunion, Mr. Rodems assaulted witness Eric Bischoff during a deposition when he
flung a copy of this testimony across the table at Mr. Bischoff, hitting him on the hands,
according to Defendants Motion In Limine To Preclude References To Eric Bishoffs Personal
Life And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law. (Doc. 104).
Based on Plaintiffs Motion in Limine (Dkt. 100), Plaintiff apparently intends not only
to elicit testimony from Mr. Bischoff regarding his consumption of alcohol on at least
one occasion eight years ago, to damage his credibility, but also to impeach him with
similar testimony elicited in a prior criminal case in which Mr. Bischoff was a nonparty
witness. Footnote 1: See Dkt. 100, at 6-8. Plaintiffs counsel fails to mention that Mr.
Bischoffs deposition was terminated before Mr. Bischoff could answer any questions
regarding the prior testimony and incident because Plaintiffs counsel flung a copy of this
testimony across the table at Mr. Bischoff, hitting him on the hands, after six and a half
hours of deposition testimony. Plaintiff did not challenge the termination nor seek to
reconvene the deposition. (Doc. 104, page 1, last paragraph)
The transcript shows this statement by Mr. Herbert made immediately after Mr. Rodems
assaulted Eric Bischoff by throwing a transcript at him that hit his hand:
Transcript, page 279, Eric Bischoff, July 20, 2009. (Exhibit 15).
16 MR. HERBERT: Okay. Mr. Rodems,
17 unfortunately, just flung a document across the table
18 to land in front of Mr. Bischoff.
24 THE WITNESS: Your seven hours are up. The
25 next time you throw something at me, be very careful.
Page 17
Mr. Herbert is one of the finest lawyers in Florida. Greenberg Traurig, LLP is a top international
law firm with approximately 1,800 attorneys. Greenberg Traurig has even represented the
Florida Bar. And still Rodems assaulted a witness during a deposition. Imagine the free-for-all
with Rodems during a deposition with a lone pro se witness like me.
Rebuke of Mr. Rodems by the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Article III Senior Federal Judge
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, case no. 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division
I needed the assistance and protection of an Article III Federal Judge, which is why I filed the
above captioned federal lawsuit. The lawsuit in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit with Mr. Rodems
had turned into a complete sham once Martha Cook was assigned to the case.
My complaint filed September 28, 2010 was an incomplete first draft. I had planned to file the
lawsuit weeks earlier, as evidenced by my letter dated August 30, 2010 to James Leanheart,
Court Operations Supervisor, but was delayed by disability and mental impairment. My letter is
found at Exhibit 8/2, Motion to Apply Funds Toward Filing Fees (Doc. 70).
The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges has rebuked Mr. Rodems misconduct in this matter by not ruling
on his pleadings filed after June 21, 2011, the date of the Rodems sham Settlement Agreement
and General Mutual Release of June 21, 2011.
Mr. Rodems submitted June 21, 2011 a Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For
Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice (Doc. 32) (Exhibit 16). Judge Hodges did not grant the
motion. On June 30, 2011 I filed a motion to strike or set aside Rodems notice and motion, as
well as his Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release of June 21, 2011. (Doc. 33). On
July 14, 2011 Mr. Rodems filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 40). Judge Hodges also did not
rule on this pleading from Mr. Rodems. Apparently Judge Hodges does not believe Mr. Rodems
settlement agreement is legitimate.
On January 12, 2012 I submitted a Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) to challenge Mr. Rodems
evidence, the settlement agreement. From paragraph 3:
Pursuant to Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga.
1988)(noting that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of
objection), Gillespie files this Notice of Objection to Notice of Assignment of Claims And
Motion for Dismissal of Action With Prejudice (Doc. 32), and in support thereof argues
as set forth in his Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Supreme Court of Florida, SC11-1622
(Doc. 62) and Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie. (Doc. 61).
The Court entered Order Of Dismissal (Doc. 64) February 27, 2012. (Exhibit 17). The Court did
not grant Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, and did not assign the claims
to Mr. Rodems. The Court noted at footnote 2:
Page 18
The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlement
agreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud,
executed under duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However,
the core of the settlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of
various matters pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have
been executed as part of a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court
is the appropriate judicial body with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the
validity and/or enforceability of the settlement agreement and assignment. This Court
will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction) entertain any disputes within the purview of
the settlement agreement unless and until the state court enters a judgment declaring the
settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114
S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
Judge Hodges other comments on my complaint in the Order Of Dismissal (Doc. 64) are only as
to form, which is poor because it was an incomplete first draft. Judge Hodges may believe I have
valid ADA and Civil Rights claims, and did not grant Rodems motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Also, I served the Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to waiver of service, F.R.C.P. Rule 4(d), but none
of the Defendants returned the waiver.
Rebuttal to Rodems Exhibit 4: Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se
Mr. Rodems provided at Exhibit 4 a copy of Martha Cooks Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From
Appearing Pro Se. The order was not obeyed by the Hon. Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit Court,
from the entry date of the order November 15, 2010 through June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems was
upset that the Clerk did not obey Martha Cooks order, and submitted a letter May 31, 2011:
Dear Ms. Frank:
I am counsel for William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. in case number 05-
CA-7205.
On November 15, 2010, Judge Cook entered and Order barring the Plaintiff, Neil J.
Gillespie, from appearing pro se, and also directing the Clerks office not to accept any
more filing from Mr. Gillespie. Since that time, the Clerks office has accepted a number
of flings from Mr. Gillespie.
A copy of Judge Cooks Order is enclosed.
Would you please explain why your office has not complied with Judge Cooks Order?
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Mr. Rodems letter to the Clerk appears at Exhibit 18 to this rebuttal.
Page 19
First, the Clerk did not respond to Mr. Rodems, as shown below. The Clerk, like Judge Hodges,
was probably disgusted with Rodems as he trashed the rule of law to punish me for suing him.
The order issued November 15, 2010 was a sham on its face because it was entered before the
time expired for me to respond. Martha Cooks Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not
Be Prohibited From Appearing Pro Se was issued November 4, 2010 and mandated:
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL RESPOND to the motion, in
writing, within twenty days of the date of this order and SHOW CAUSE, if any,
why the Clerk of Court should not be instructed to reject for filing any future
pleadings, petitions, motions or other documents which he submits for filing
unless they are signed by a member of The Florida Bar.
The twenty (20) day time period to respond would have run through November 24, 2010 plus an
additional 5 days for service by mail under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(e), or November 29, 2010. The
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se was entered November 15, 2010 thereby
denying me nine (9) days to respond. Mr. Rodems knows this is a violation of due process.
Therefore, Mr. Rodems knowingly violated the following Bar Rules:
Rule 4-8.4(f), a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct
that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
Rule 4-8.3(b) Mr. Rodems had a duty to report Martha Cooks misconduct.
In addition, successor Judge James Arnold did not obey Cooks order. Judge Arnold did not
follow the order from the day he assumed the case, November 15, 2010, through June 21, 2011.
This made Mr. Rodems very angry, and he filed a motion April 26, 2011, Defendants' Motion to
Strike Pro Se Filings by Plaintiff. Rodems sent a cover letter to Judge Arnold that appears to this
rebuttal at Exhibit 19. Mr. Rodems wrote this to Judge Arnold:
Dear Judge Arnold:
Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Defendants' Motion to Strike Pro Se Filings by
Plaintiff which was filed on even date in the above-referenced matter. By Order of this Court
entered November 15, 2010, Mr. Gillespie is prohibited from filing any documents pro se.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se states this case is presently pending
appellate review of a final summary judgment order and There is nothing left to litigate at this
time. ( 2). Yet Mr. Rodems continued to file pleadings in the trial court to disrupt the appeal in
2D10-5197, and force a settlement from me while in coercive custody of the Hillsborough
Page 20
County Sheriffs Office on a writ of bodily attachment that followed another sham order of
Martha Cook, Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie Contempt, September 30, 2010.
This sham order by Martha Cook was brought to the attention the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges in
my federal ADA and Civil Rights case, U.S. District Court, M.D.Fla., 5:10-cv-503, (Doc. 38,
Doc. 45, Doc. 48) and is likely one reason Judge Hodges ignored Mr. Rodems motions from
June 21, 2011 forward. See the following three documents filed in federal court concerning
Martha Cooks sham Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se:
Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Notice of Filing, Pat Frank, Clerk of Circuit Court Did Not Comply
With Order Of Judge Martha Cook, July 12, 2011.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 38 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 29 PageID 1313
From paragraph 15, Conclusion:
15. The Clerk should be commended for not complying with Judge Cooks Order
Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se. Ms. Frank showed courage in not
complying with Judge Cooks Order. Judge Cooks "Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From
Appearing Pro Se" of September 15, 2010 was a sham as set forth in paragraph 3. Mr.
Rodems sought to strike Gillespies pleadings on the sham order as set forth in paragraph
5. Mr. Rodems continued to file pleadings in the trial court to disrupt the appeal in 2D10-
5197, and force a settlement from Gillespie while in custody of the Hillsborough County
Sheriffs Office on a writ of bodily attachment that followed another sham Order of
Judge Cook, Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie Contempt, entered September
30, 2010, as described in paragraph 4. Judge Cook had a conflict with Gillespie as
defendant in this lawsuit, see paragraph 6. As set forth in paragraph 7, Mr. Rodems and
Defendant Cook paid money to Judge Cook to run for judge and Gillespie did not. As set
forth in paragraph 8, Gillespie was denied due process, a misuse and denial of judicial
process under the color of law by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida. As shown in
"Plaintiffs 4th Motion To Disqualify Judge Martha J. Cook [Footnote 2 Gillespie filed a
Petition For Writ of Prohibition in the Second District Court of Appeal to remove Judge
Cook, Case No. 2010-5529, November 18,2010. Judge Cook recused sua sponte the same
day.] filed November 10, 2010, Judge Cook's financial affairs violated the Code of
Judicial Canons 2, 3, 5 and 6. The Clerk did not respond to Mr. Rodems' letter of May
31, 2011 seeking to enforce Judge Cook's sham "Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From
Appearing Pro Se". Again, the Clerk should be commended for not complying with Judge
Cook's sham Order. For more examples of sham Orders by Judge Cook in the state court
action, see Gillespie's affidavits filed in this federal lawsuit at Docket 23, NOTICE of
filing affidavits of Extraordinary Circumstances by Neil J. Gillespie.
Supplement to Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Notice of Filing, Pat Frank, Clerk of Circuit Court Did
Not Comply With Order Of Judge Martha Cook, August 31, 2011.
Supplement (Second) to Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Notice of Filing, Pat Frank, Clerk of Circuit
Court Did Not Comply With Order Of Judge Martha Cook, September 30, 2011.
Page 21
Mr. Rodems Misuse of Discovery - Civil RICO Pattern of Racketing Activity
I rebut Mr. Rodems response, and can provide the Bar his improper discovery request, and my
affidavit showing he did not provide any RFP, as well as motion(s) to reconsider and compel his
discovery. I was prevented by Rodems ongoing misconduct from addressing the discovery
issues in the trail court, or on appeal. In fact, while the appeal was pending, Rodems lied his way
through several ex-parte hearings to obtain a warrant for my arrest on a writ of bodily attachment
to commence a coercive confinement to obtain a settlement, see my petition in SC11-1622.
My complaint dated September 9, 2012 lists a number of affidavits and pleadings on this issue,
please advise which ones you would like. Since the Bar improperly let Rodems run unfettered
for so many years, this matter is much more complicated than if Ms. Bloemendaal and the Bar
had properly processed and adjudicated my complaints in the years 2004-2007.
Disability Obstruction or Barrier - Ryan Christopher Rodems
Disparaged, Humiliated, and Discriminated Against Me On Bias of Disability
Mr. Rodems' strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on me who he
knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, in an
effort to deny me due process of law, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct, conflict of
interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice. On August 6, 2012 with leave of the U.S. Court of Appeals, I submitted
Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation. This shows disqualification of Mr. Rodems
was required under the ADA. The Motion and Appendixes 1-3 are posted on Scribd, 251 pages,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/l 02585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-l1.
Also see Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie in 05-CA-7205
May 27, 2011. Dr. Huffers report is found at Exhibit 1 therein. Cross-filed in District Court on
PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11.
I am a fifty-six (56) year-old single man, law abiding, college educated, and a former business
owner, who has physical and mental impairments that substantially limit my life activities. I was
determined totally disabled in 1994 by Social Security. I has a record of impairment since birth. I
am also regarded by others as being impaired. The record shows I suffers from depression, post
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), diabetes type II adult onset, traumatic brain injury (TBI),
velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI), craniofacial disorder, and impaired hearing. The Florida
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation determined that my disability was too severe for
rehabilitation services to result in employment.
Mr. Rodems has directed since March 3, 2006, with malice aforethought, a course of harassing
conduct toward me that has aggravated my disability, intentionally inflicted severe emotional
distress on me that served no legitimate purpose. To state a cause of action for intentional
infliction of severe emotional distress, a compliant must allege four elements: 1. deliberate or
reckless infliction of mental suffering; 2. outrageous conduct; 3. the conduct caused the
Page 22
emotional distress; and; 4. the distress was severe; Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steadman,
968 So. 2d 592, 594-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
My ADA request of February 20, 2007, and my amended ADA request of March 5, 2007 shows:
2. Defendants are familiar with Plaintiffs disability from their prior representation of
him. Defendants investigated his eligibility to receive services from the Florida
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). DVR determined that Plaintiff was too
severely disabled to benefit from services. Defendants concurred, and notified Plaintiff
of their decision in a letter to him dated March 27, 2001. (Exhibit A).
Defendants were also informed of Plaintiffs medication for depression by fax dated
October 6, 2000, Effexor XR 150mg. (Exhibit B). (Amended ADA request only)
3. Plaintiff has the following medical conditions which are disabling and prevent him
from effectively participating in court proceedings, including:
a. Depression and related mood disorder. This medical condition prevents Plaintiff from
working, meeting deadlines, and concentrating. The inability to concentrate at times
affects Plaintiff's ability to hear and comprehend. The medical treatment for depression
includes prescription medication that further disables Plaintiffs ability to do the work of
this lawsuit, and further prevents him from effectively participating in the proceedings.
b. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), makes Plaintiff susceptible to
stress, such as the ongoing harassment by Defendants lawyer, Mr. Rodems.
c. Velopharyngeal Incompetence (VPI) is a speech impairment that affects Plaintiffs
ability to communicate.
d. The medical treatment for depression includes prescription medication that further
disables Plaintiff's ability to do the work of this lawsuit, and further prevents him from
effectively participating in the proceedings.
e. Type 2 diabetes. This was diagnosed in 2006 after Defendants' representation.
(Amended ADA request only)
4. Prior to the onset of the most disabling aspects Plaintiff's medical condition(s), he was
a productive member of society, a business owner for 12 years, and a graduate of both the
University of Pennsylvania and The Evergreen State College.
5. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his home and
threatened to use information learned during Defendants prior representation against him
Page 23
in the instant lawsuit. Mr. Rodems threats were twofold; to intimidate Plaintiff into
dropping this lawsuit by threatening to disclose confidential client information, and to
inflict emotional distress, to trigger Plaintiffs Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and inflict
injury upon Plaintiff for Defendants advantage in this lawsuit.
6. On March 6, 2006, Mr. Rodems made a false verification the Court about the March 3,
2006 telephone call. Mr. Rodems submitted Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff
And For Sanctions, and told the Court under oath that Plaintiff threatened acts of
violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers. It was a stunt that backfired when a tape recording
of the phone call showed that Mr. Rodems lied. Plaintiff notified the Court about Mr.
Rodems' perjury in Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit To Show Cause Why Ryan
Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court and
Incorporated Memorandum Of Law submitted January 29,2007.
7. Mr. Rodems harassing phone call to Plaintiff of March 3, 2006, was a tort, the
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Mr. Rodems tort injured Plaintiff by
aggravating his existing medical condition. From the time of the call on March 3, 2006,
Plaintiff suffered worsening depression for which he was treated by his doctors.
a. On May 1, 2006 Plaintiffs doctor prescribed Effexor XR, a serotonin-norepinephrine
reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), to the maximum dosage.
b. Plaintiffs worsening depression, and the side affects of the medication,
lessened Plaintiffs already diminished ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
c. On October 4, 2006 Plaintiff began the process of discontinuing his medication so that
he could improve is ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
d. On or about November 18, 2006, Plaintiff discontinued the use of anti-depression
medication, to improve his ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
8. Mr. Rodems continued to harass Plaintiff during the course of this lawsuit in the
following manner:
a. Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait for Plaintiff outside Judge Nielsen's chambers on April 25,
2006, following a hearing, to taunt him and provoke an altercation.
b. Mr. Rodems refused to address Plaintiff as "Mr. Gillespie" but used his first name, and
disrespectful derivatives, against Plaintiffs expressed wishes.
c. Mr. Rodems left insulting, harassing comments on Plaintiffs voice mail during his
ranting message of December 13, 2006.
d. Mr. Rodems wrote Plaintiff a five-page diatribe of insults and ad hominem abusive
attacks on December 13, 2006.
Page 24
Mr. Rodems conduct was so outrageous that Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a
witness in my own case. Mr. Bauer sent me this email July 8, 2008 at 6.05PM stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be
able to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the
situation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I
believe it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You
have had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much more
difficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be
avoided.
Dr. Karin Huffer, Gillespies ADA Advocate
Beginning in 2010 Dr. Karin Huffer was my ADA accommodation advocate and designer. Dr.
Huffer diagnoses, treats, and serves patients with invisible disabilities, and is the author of
Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome. Dr. Huffer provided me a letter October
28, 2010 documenting the abuses in this case. Dr. Huffer wrote in part:
As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and
testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways
possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the Judge and now,
with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with arrest if
he does not succumb to a deposition. (p1, 2)
At this juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell cannot
be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds. (p1-2)
Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my medical
advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly being
accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of bullies
to sort out a legal problem. (p2, 2)
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than two
years. (p2, 4).
Page 25
$100,000 Cost to Gillespie - Violation of Mental Integrity
Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers estimated on September 17, 2009 the non-pecuniary cost of
this litigation to me at $100,000, as set forth in the Complaint (Doc. 1) in U.S. District Court,
MD of FL, Ocala, Case 5:10-cv-503-oc, paragraph 135:
"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 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."
(September 17, 2009, Economic Analysis Spreadsheet, page 4, paragraph 4)
Misplaced ADA Request For Counsel, Hillsborough Co.
I made a misplaced ADA request September 26, 2006 to Hillsborough Judge Richard A, Nielsen:
Dear Judge Nielsen,
In reply to the telephone message from your judicial assistant Myra Gomez, I am
disabled and being treated for depression and anxiety, which limits my ability to
participate in court proceedings and meet deadlines. I request that you provide an
accommodation for my disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
specifically the appointment of counsel to represent me in this lawsuit and counterclaim.
K. Christopher Nauman, Asst Court Counsel, replied on behalf of Judge Nielsen Sep-29, 2006:
In your letter to Judge Nielsen you indicate that you are being treated for depression and
anxiety and are therefore requesting the appointment of counsel to represent you with
your pending civil lawsuit as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. While
depression and anxiety are conditions that may or may not be considered impairments
under the ADA, depending on whether these conditions result from a documented
physiological or mental disorder, your specific request for the appointment of counsel to
represent you in a civil lawsuit is not a reasonable or appropriate accommodation under
the ADA.
Disqualification of Mr. Rodems - Appropriate ADA Accommodation
This Bar does not need to consider whether the appointment of counsel was reasonable under the
ADA in 2006. I retained counsel in March 2007 from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service,
Page 26
Robert W. Bauer, and the same disability issues continued in this case without me: Outrageous
conduct by Mr. Rodems. Mr. Rodems also failed to cooperate with Mr. Castagliuolo. Even with
counsel, I could not be protected as required by the ADA. Therefore, disqualification of Ryan
Christopher Rodems was appropriate under the ADA in September 2006. Of course,
disqualification of Mr. Rodems was appropriate April 25, 2006 pursuant to Bar Rules, and the
holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Upon
information and belief, Mr. Nauman had a duty to inform Judge Nielsen that Mr. Rodems
appearance was improper pursuant to Bar Rules, the holding of McPartland, and the ADA.
On July 9, 2010 Count Counsel David A. Rowland responded by email at 3.28 p.m. to me about
my ADA request (also copied to Mr. Rodems and ADA Coordinator Gonzalo). Mr. Rowland
wrote: Attached is a response to your July 6, 2010 ADA request for accommodation. Mr.
Rowland provided me a PDF letter from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Legal Department dated
July 9, 2010, and wrote: (Exhibit 20)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
This is a response to your July 6, 2010 ADA request for accommodation
directed to Gonzalo Casares, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ADA Coordinator.
You request the same ADA accommodations previously submitted on February 19, 2010.
Your February 19, 2010 ADA request was a request for the court to take the following
case management actions:
1. Stop Mr. Rodems' behavior directed toward you that is aggravating your
post traumatic stress syndrome.
Mr. Rowland stated that ADA Coordinator Gonzalo had no authority stop Rodems outrageous
conduct. Rowland wrote All of your case management requests - that opposing counsel's
behavior be modified,must be submitted by written motion to the presiding judge of the case.
The presiding judge may consider your disability, along with other relevant factors, in ruling
upon your motion. Mr. Rowland also provided the letter to me by U.S. Postal Mail. (Exhibit X).
Mr. Rowlands email to me arrived on Friday afternoon, July 9, 2010 at 3:28 p.m., less than one
business day before a hearing before Judge Martha Cook on Monday July 12, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
Unknown to Mr. Rowland at the time, on July 9, 2010 I filed by hand delivery to the
Hillsborough Clerk, Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. This filing was exactly what Mr. Rowland suggested to
me. On July 12, 2010 I handed the motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems directly to Judge Cook at
the start of the hearing, but Judge Cook refused to consider the motion. I suffered a panic attack,
and was treated by Tampa Fire Rescue. I was excused by Judge Cook, who proceeded ex-parte.
Judge Cook then created a false record of my panic attack in the Order of July 29, 2010. Judge
Cook wrote: "[t]he Plaintiff voluntarily left the hearing prior to its conclusion.. .loudly gasping
and shouting he was ill and had to be excused." At footnote 2 Judge Cook wrote: "Mr. Gillespie
refused medical care from emergency personnel when called by bailiffs and left the courthouse
immediately after learning that the conference was completed."
Page 27
I made an affidavit September 27, 2010 impeaching Martha Cook, along with treatment records
of me by Tampa Fire Rescue. I submitted my affidavit as Exhibit 13 to the Complaint in District
Court case 5:10-cv-503, but the District Clerk refused to put the document on the Courts
CM/ECF system. A copy of Gillespies affidavit is provided as Exhibit 21.
.
I made an affidavit September 27, 2010 on Martha Cooks refusal to consider the disqualification
of Mr. Rodems, and impeaching Martha Cooks Order of July 22, 2010 "Order Denying
Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. I submitted his affidavit as Exhibit 12 to the Complaint in
District Court case 5:10-cv-503, but the District Clerk refused to put the document on the Courts
CM/ECF system. A copy of my affidavit is provided as Exhibit 22.
The ADA Required Disqualification of Mr. Rodems
The ADA required the disqualification of Mr. Rodems in Hillsborough County. On February 12,
2010 Mr. Rodems filed Defendants Motion For An Order Determining Plaintiffs Entitlement
To Reasonable Modifications Under Title II Of The Americans With Disabilities Act. Using Mr.
Rodems motion as a basis for determining a reasonable ADA accommodation, Rodems
disqualification was appropriate. Beginning with footnote 1 of Mr. Rodems motion:
Under Title II of the ADA, "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." 42 U.S.C. 12132. "A public entity shall make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary
to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate
that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,
program, or activity." 28 C.F.R. 35.130(7). "Public entity" includes "any State or local
government" and "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other
instrumentality of a State or States or local government ...." 42 U.S.C. 12131(1).
As set forth in my disability request, Mr. Rodems was the disability impediment to me and his
lawsuit. Even after I hired Mr. Bauer, the outrageous conduct of Mr. Rodems prevented me from
even attending a hearing. Later when I hired Mr. Castagliuolo, the outrageous conduct of Mr.
Rodems continued. Rodems refused to return calls to Mr. Castagliuolo, or even provide
Castagliuolo with a copy of the writ of bodily attachment. This was during a time when Deputy
Dunlap of the Marion County Sheriffs Office was pounding on my door day after day, trying to
arrest me. I lived in fear that Deputy Dunlap would smash down the door, and given my PTSD,
that may have resulted in a tragedy. Mr. Rodems put law enforcement in harms way for no
reason, other than to feed his need for revenge. At footnote 2 of Mr. Rodems motion:
Under Title II of the ADA, "[d]isability means, with respect to an individual, a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of
such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an
impairment." 28 C.F.R. 35.104. "The phrase physical or mental impairment" includes
"[a]ny mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain
Page 28
syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities." 28 C.F.R.
35.104. "The phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one's self,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and
working." 28 C.F.R. 35.104. A "qualified individual with a disability" is "an individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or
practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the
provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for
the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public
entity." 42 U.S.C. 12131(2).
As set forth in my disability request, I am disabled, have a record of impairment, and am
regarded as having such an impairment. Even Mr. Rodems agrees on this, and often sent me
letters or left phone messages such as this one December 13, 2006:
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been
victimized by your own poor choices in life. You also claim to have
mental or psychological problems, of which I have never seen
documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so
abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of
mental problems.
As set forth in footnote 3 of Mr. Rodems motion:
If Plaintiff has a "disability," then the "reasonable modifications" he may request are
those necessary for him to meet "the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of
services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42
U.S.C. 12131(2).
As set forth in my disability request, the reasonable ADA modification was the disqualification
of Mr. Rodems, which was required under McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp.
1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. This accommodation would not have cost the court anything, other than
the cost of paper to enter the order of disqualification.
Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Robert Bauer - Full Nuclear Blast
Mr. Rodems failed to cooperate with counsel I retained, which caused such a disruption that
counsel was not able to zealously represent my interests. August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this
statement during a hearing before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Page 29
Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Eugene Castagliuolo
Mr. Castagliuolo Calls Rodems asshole
Mr. Rodems failed to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodily
attachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part Last but not
least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but
unhappy message.. On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an asshole in an email
to me. Mr. Castagliuolo wrote (in part): Based on what I know right now about your case, your
debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would
get NOTHING from you.
Former Rodems Client Heike Albert, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB
Rodems Claims His Client Called Him a--hole"
A former client of Mr. Rodems, Heike Albert, contacted me unsolicited March 31, 2012 about
his misconduct in her federal lawsuit, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB.
Ms. Albert called ACAP on February 29, 2012, RFA# 12-14,769 to discuss Rodems conduct.
Ms. Albert did not make a written Bar complaint. Instead Ms. Albert called and sent an email to
Gov. Rick Scott in opposition to Rodems for judge, according to an email she sent me.
Rodems moved to withdrawal as counsel, and argued irreconcilable differences April 4, 2012
before U.S. District Judge Honeywell, claiming Ms. Albert called him an a--hole.
Transcript, page 8
5 [MR. RODEMS] She sent me an email that said everything was fine, but
6 within 24 hours she sent an email to David Sanford. In that
7 email, she called me an a--hole. She said that I did not care
8 about my clients. She said that I did not care about her. She
9 said she felt I was going to pressure her into accepting a
10 settlement that she did not want to take. She said she was
11 pawned off on me, she didn't want me, it was not her choice,
12 and she asked Mr. Sanford to take over the case again.
I helped Ms. Albert find her case on PACER, as her counsel failed to provide her with some
documents in her lawsuit. Fortunately Ms. Albert found new counsel, and the case docket shows
Plaintiffs Notice of Settlement (Doc. 90) August 21, 2012. Ms. Albert found me thorough my
emergency motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems on Scribd.
Heike Albert contacted Gov. Scott about Mr. Rodems nomination by the JNC March 6, 2012,
according to her email April 11, 2012, 10:44 a.m.
Ok, I spoke to the Gov. office regarding Mr. Rodems and voiced my concerns. I
basically told them that a judge should not only know the law but also follow it.. and
Mr. Rodems clearly doesn't do either and that I would be forwarding the transcript
when I get it.
Page 30
Former Client Rita Pesci v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No. 2006-10,278(13D)
I spoke with Ms. Pesci by phone January 7, 2010. Ms. Pesci told me about her experience with
Mr. Rodems representation:
...I found him to be a complete liar. He only did it for the money that he could
get. He didn't want to defend me in my case at all. He had never intended to. And
because there was a chance that he might lose, so rather than be aggressive and
fight the case he dropped me and filed a claim against my retirement fund...He
took a little over half of my retirement money...he placed a lien against what he
said was his bill...And my understanding was that he had taken this case and that
he would be paid if he won. But according to what he said, he didn't say
that...Yeah, this is this is how they get you...You know, I never had a thing
against lawyers until I actually dealt with one... when he started fighting me over
the fee, he would send things that were two and 300 pages long...And I remember
at one point telling him, I didn't care how much paper he sent them, that he had
defrauded me and he knew it... (Rita Pesci, former client of Mr. Rodems)
Ms. Rita M Pesci, 2045 Hunters Glen Dr., Dunedin, FL 34698-2838, (727) 736-8170.
Carl Montag v Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)
Mr. Montags complaint makes the following accusations, which I also experienced:
Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is not
short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing
party is pro se.
Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence
to Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to directly
communicate with Plaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, to
discuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along.
Every portal of communication was used to communicate with Attorney
Rodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and hand
delivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never would
discuss any detail of the case
Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and
improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to
Plaintiffs, etc.
Case law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge &
Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve
lis Pendens.
Page 31
Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to be
treated with courtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that Attorney
Rodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions.
Mr. Montag said he plans to make another Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems.
Complaint RFA No. 12-15330 by Robert Cash Against Rodems
The complaint alleges that Mr. Rodems improperly used a counterclaim to make immaterial,
impertinent and scandalous accusations against Mr. Cash. The complaint further alleges that Mr.
Rodems provided no exhibits to substantiate the immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims.
By way of example, Mr. Rodems made this scandalous claim at paragraph 68, in his Answer,
Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaims, in Cash v. Rodgers, et al., case no. 12-CA-239,
Hillsborough County Circuit Court:
68. Additionally, Mr. Cash told the owner of Medco Data, LLC that the reason Mr. Cash
arrived late at the trade show was because Mr. Cash was "up all night doing coke off a
strippers tits."
The above quote is incredible. Without commenting on this particular case, it is not believable
that an employee would make this statement to an employer, or do so using the quote attributed.
The complaint of Mr. Cash appears to raise issues related to Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious Claims and
Contentions, Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal, Rule 3-4.3 The commission by a lawyer of
any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice.
Mr. Rodems made immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims about witness Eric Bischoff in
commenting on the WrestleReunion case after he lost a jury trial as plaintiffs counsel,
comments that also include accusations of sexual deviancy. This shows a tendency by Mr.
Rodems to make these kinds accusations about litigants.
The expert report Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was
not even called to testify by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured
himself in a deposition in late-July 2009 before running out and refusing to answer any
more questions regarding his serious problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the
Gold Club while the head of WCW.
Mr. Rodems comments about Mr. Bischoff are posted on the DOIWresetling.com website:
http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html
_____________________
I have known Mr. Rodems for over 12 years. In my view he has little actual legal ability. Instead
Mr. Rodems uses the rules of procedure in a perverse way, along with personal dishonesty and
professional misconduct intended to disrupt the tribunal to his advantage. Lying is a habit for
Rodems. He relies on crony judges to deny the due process rights opposing counsel and litigants
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Florida Bar Counsel Page 32
so he can score a "win" now and then, but his overall success rate is low. As such, Mr. Rodems
is little more than a bully and a rules troll.
Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this complaint is available upon request.
Many of the documents are on the federal court's CMIECF system and viewable on PACER,
including many state court documents filed in my federal cases, 5:10-cv-503 and 5:11-cv-539.
Additional documents are available online on Scribd and my on my website and blog.
An Appendix accompanies this rebuttal with a list of Exhibits. However all the Exhibits are not
included, because doing so would exceed forty-six (46) pages. This rebuttal with Appendix is 33
pages, which leaves 13 pages to include. Please advise if you want the Exhibits not provided. Of
course, there are many more documents available. Because the Bar improperly let Mr. Rodems
run unfettered for so many years, this matter is much more complicated than if the Bar, and in
particular, Ms. Bloemendaal, had properly adjudicated my complaints in the years 2004-2007.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Thank you for considering my rebuttal to Mr. Rodems' response dated September 17, 2012.
Enclosures
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems
501 E Kennedy Blvd. Suite 790
Tampa, FL 33602-5237
VIA U.P.S. Ground, Tracking No. lZ64589FP293605096
PS. In response to Mr. Rodems' reference to Cuba and Fidel Castro, the Tampa Port Authority
sent a delegation in 2003 that included Clerk of Court Pat Frank and Tampa attorney Dale
Bohner when they served on the TPA. (Exhibit 23). I am certain Fidel Castro is more honest than
Martha Cook, and Martha likely has some Cuban money in her bank, given her partner's
international background, and TWTE charges at ABN AMRO. I suggest reading my entire
motion rather than rely on Mr. Rodems self-serving misrepresentations. I was unable to find
anyone in Florida to serve as a judge ad litem.
According to World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2011, the United States ranked 21st among
66 countries it studied in assuring access to legal counsel. The U.s. did even worse when it came
to affording a lawyer, ranking 52nd. Legal counsel, and healthcare, is more affordable in Cuba.
Appendix - Rebuttal ofNeil Gillespie, October 16, 2012
Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
The following Exhibits are available. The Exhibits provided with the rebuttal are checked.
~ x h i b i t 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
(Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
~ x h i b i t 7
Exhibit 8
vfxhibit 9
vixhibit 10
~ x h i b i t II
Exhibit 12
\fExhibit 13
Axhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
~ x h i b i t 18
Exhibit 19
tfExhibit 20
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Letter to Mr. Marvin, re ACAP Central Intake Process, October 3, 2012
Martha Cook ethically challenged, family banking industry connection
Complaint February 20, 2007, Ryan C. Rodems, TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D)
Plaintiffs Accommodation Request, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Order by Judge Nielsen finding a cause of action, January 13, 2006
Letter March 7, 2007 Staff Counsel Mr. Lovell, Tampa Branch Office
Letter April 11, 2007 Neil Gillespie to Mr. Lovell, Tampa Branch Office
Letter May 15, 2007 Staff Counsel Mr. Lovell, closed complaint
Amscot Closing Statement, Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel, Judge Nielsen, May-12-2006
Transcript pages, Judge Barton, time for "renewed motion to disqualify" Mr. Rodems
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, October 28, 2010, re Order on disqualification
Transcript page 19, Martha Cook, Gillespie left hearing voluntarily
Maj. Livingston's letter, January 12, 2011, Martha Cook ordered Gillespie removed
Transcript page, Mr. Rodems threw document at witness Eric Bischoff
Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice
Order Of Dismissal (Doc. 64) February 27,2012, 5:10-cv-503
Mr. Rodems' letter to the Clerk, May 31, 2011, Gillespie filing documents
Mr. Rodems' letter to Judge Arnold, April 26, 2011, Gillespie filing documents
Letter July 9, 2010, Count Counsel David A. Rowland, re Mr. Rodems harassment
Affidavit ofNeil J. Gillespie, re Martha Cook, panic attack, September 27, 2010
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, re Martha Cook, disqualification, Rodems, Sep-27-2010
Tampa port officials will travel to Cuba, St. Pete Times, June 12, 2003
. ~
VIA EMAIL AND UPS 1Z64589FP294248239
October 3, 2012
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin
Director of Lawyer Regulation
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
Dear Mr. Marvin:
The Complaint Intake Process was considered by the Special Commission on Lawyer Regulation
chaired by Henry Cox, and is the first issue in the Report and Recommendation. ("Report"). The
Report was drafted by the Commission in a series of conferences culminating April 18, 2006.
The Report states that the Commission recommended ACAP
1
style screening of all written
inquiries and complaints so that all questions concerning the conduct of members of the bar are
addressed in a similar fashion. The Commission also recommended a central intake system
utilizing ACAP resources in Tallahassee.
The Report's implementation status said the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-2007 included
funding to implement the recommendation for central intake for ACAP style screening of all
written complaints, and if approved in the final budget, provided funding effective July 1, 2006.
Mr. Marvin, was a central ACAP style Complaint Intake Process implemented in Tallahassee in
2006 as suggested by the Report? If not, when did the Florida Bar implement a central ACAP
style Complaint Intake Process? Thank you.
1
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
OCT 0 4 7!11Z
1
Martha Cook - Ethically Challenged
Martha Cooks family business is C1 Bank. (f.k.a. Community Bank of Manatee, and Community
Bank & Company). Martha Cook is married to William H. Sedgeman, Jr., the banks founder.
Martha Cook provides unofficial counsel to the bank, and once served as the banks registered agent.
Martha Cook is a judge of questionable ethics, according to a story published in the Tampa
Tribune by Shannon Behnken on July 21, 2011: Critics: Judge with interest in bank shouldn't
hear foreclosures. http://www2.tbo.com/news/real-estate-news/2011/jul/21/2/critics-judge-with-
interest-in-bank-shouldnt-hear--ar-245497/
A number of Florida legal authorities have publicly criticized Martha Cook, including Henry P.
Trawick Jr., a Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice and Procedure. The Tampa
Tribune story was also profiled on The Florida Bars Daily News Summary July 22, 2011.
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINewsSummary.nsf/FV/B820BFD498A31E31852578
D50050DFC9
Florida attorney Mark P. Stopa wrote a public, three page letter to Martha Cook July 20, 2011
that is readily available on the Internet. Mr. Stopa wrote to Cook, Respectfully, I am concerned
at your decision to continue presiding over mortgage foreclosure cases given your personal ties
to the banking industry and that of your husband.
The Tampa Tribune story quotes Mr. Stopa: It's reasonable that a homeowner would fear they
aren't going to get a fair hearing before her," said Mark Stopa, a foreclosure defense attorney.
"There's no way I could go into court before her without thinking about this." Stopa [S]aid
Cook once told him in court that she thought the "only way to improve the economy is to push
through foreclosures as soon as possible." Cook said she was misquoted, but she declined to
correct the statement. Also quoted in the story is Henry P. Trawick Jr., a Sarasota lawyer and
author of Florida's Practice and Procedure, a textbook used by lawyers. [I]t's good that Cook
disqualifies herself from hearing cases that involved her husband's bank. But he said she should
go a step further. "I think she shouldn't hear foreclosure cases," Trawick said. "That's what I
would do if I had that close of a connection, but perhaps my ethical standards are higher."
The problem, Trawick said, is whether or not Cook shows favor to the banks; those representing
homeowners may feel like she might. The story also quotes Mike Wasylik, a foreclosure
defense attorney, who said he's had few cases before Cook but is uncomfortable with her
connection to a local bank. "A judge has the duty to avoid even the appearance of bias," Wasylik
said. "She may have personal opinions about the need to push foreclosures through quickly."
Phyllis Kotey, a professor at FIU School of Law, said the connections show an "appearance of
personal and financial interest." "At the very least, parties before her should be put on notice and
have the opportunity to object to her hearing their cases."
Martha Cook remained defiant and refused to recuse herself from mortgage foreclosure cases.
Apparently Hillsborough County Chief Judge Manuel Menendez, Jr. solved that problem by
administratively reassigning Martha Cook to criminal cases. While struggling homeowners in
Hillsborough County may welcome that change, persons charged with crimes probably do not.
2
2
One such criminal defendant contacted me about Martha Cook. This is what the person wrote:
From: [redacted]
To: <info@YouSue.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:36 PM
Subject: Judge Cook
Hello, I was researching Judge Cook on the Internet and I found your site. First please allow
me to say that out of fear for Judge Cook I am afraid to voice my own opinion. I had a criminal
case that was heard before Judge Cook. I was advised by my lawyer that it didn't matter if I was
guilty or not and it didn't matter if I could prove that I was innocent. I was told the out come was
predetermined and if I fought it, I would do jail time. I was charged with felony criminal
mischief accused of breaking a sign. My question to you is. Do you know of the best way I can
appeal ? What if any way is there to get a different Judge? If I hired a family member or previous
law partner ( if there are any) would that be a conflict of interest? I plead no contest and was
given a felony conviction. This is unfair to me. I thank you in advance.
The email is redacted as to the persons email address.
_________________
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se
November 15, 2010 - Case No. 05-CA-7205
Martha Cooks Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se was entered November 15,
2010 to silence legitimate inquiry into her murky fiancees with a Brazilian billionaire who
invested millions to bailout Martha Cooks bank. Martha Cook recused herself sua sponte
November 18, 2010 the same day I filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Motion
For Order of Protection in the Second District Court of Appeal, case no. 2D10-5529.
Martha Cook is ethically compromised due to past insolvency and violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, Canons 2, 3, 5 and 6 as set forth in Plaintiffs 4th Motion To Disqualify Judge
Martha J. Cook, filed November 10, 2010.
In 2009 Cooks bank lost about $10 million and was ready to fail. On November 25, 2009 the
bank signed a consent order with the FDIC and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation
(OFR), Order No. FDIC-09-569b and OFR 0692-FI-10/09. Martha Cook was likely an
Institution-Related Party as defined by 12 U.S.C. 1813(u) and Section 655.005(1)(i), Florida
Statutes. The bank was reckless and poorly managed by a board of Martha Cooks cronies.
The bank narrowly escaped collapse when a foreign investor Marcelo Faria de Lima intervened.
Mr. Lima is a citizen of Brazil, and formed CBM Florida Holdings with Trevor Burgess of
Artesia Capital Management USA to invest millions for a controlling interest in the bank. Mr.
Lima is an international investor with interests in companies located in the United States, Brazil,
Mexico, Turkey, Denmark and Russia employing over 6,000 people with sales over $1 billion.
3
During the review process with Florida OFR, Mr. Lima failed to disclose that his past employer
ABN AMRO Bank faced one of the largest Money Laundering and Trading With The Enemy
cases ever brought by the Department of Justice. Mr. Lima stated that CBM Florida Holding
Company was formed in 2008 to acquire, capitalize and rehabilitate Florida banking institutions.
About $75 million has been invested with little known about the source of the funds.
Mr. Limas tenure at ABN AMRO Bank in Chicago coincides with accusations of significant
criminal activity. On December 19, 2005 a Cease and Desist Order, FRB Dkt. No. 05-035-B-FB,
was issued against ABN AMRO Bank, including the Chicago Branch where Mr. Lima worked.
ABN AMRO Bank agreed to stop its unlawful money laundering operations which date to 1995
during Mr. Limas tenure. The matter was widely reported in the press, including the Wall Street
Journal on December 20, 2005 ABN Amro to Pay $80 Million Fine Over Iran, Libya, but Mr.
Lima claimed he never knew and failed to disclose the information as required by law on his
Interagency Biographical and Financial Report submitted to OFR.
OFR failed to conduct a sufficient background check on Mr. Lima that would have disclosed
criminal activity during his tenure at ABN AMRO Bank that was not reported on his application
to acquire a controlling interest in the bank as required by Florida law. Much of this information
can be found in my Petition for Public Hearing in the Application To Merge Community Bank &
Company with First Community Bank of America, OFR Admin. File No. 0828-FI-03/11, and my
Notice of Withdrawal Of Petition For Public Hearing, both of which are posted on Scribd.
(-;
"";.. /
The Florida Bar 'fD) In!
.Inquiry/Complaint Fonn
FEB 2 2 )UUI
FLORIDA BAR
TAMPA BRANCH
------=..:...:.:...::...:..::::.:...:.-_--
PART ONE: (Read instructions on reverse side.)
Your Name:AJ61
Address: SW 1/6
City: Q'Ct4 IA State: EL-
Phone: CdJ flifC'l Zip Code: 3r't e/
ACAP Refe,-ence No, c:,u'--'d'"N-'-'--"= _
Attorney's Name:
Address: . Z/tJt:7
City: U/l-tf2L1 ;="L.
Phone: (fi3J I Zip Code: -3-6-'a-.;<
"
PART TWO: (See reverse, part two.) The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:
, r cJ

PART THREE: (See reverse, part three.) The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
sheet]_
: (See reverse, part four.)
(circle one or the other) attempt to use ACAP to resolve this situation.
To attem 0 resolve this matter, I did the following:
I did / id no
PART FIVE (See reverse. part five.): Under penalty ofpeIjury. I declare the foregoing facts are true. correct
and complete_
PUBLIC RECORD
3
i ~
"'" .../
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
1h
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
VIA US PRIORITY MAIL
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070000320528076
February 20, 2007
The Florida Bar
5521 West Spruce Street, C-49
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958
This is a complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, ID no. 947652.
Enclosed you will find a completed inquiry/complaint form.
My complaint against Mr. Rodems is for his violation of the Rules Regulating the
Florida Bar during his appearance in a civil lawsuit styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William 1. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205. I am the Plaintiff
suing the Defendants, who are my former lawyers. In retaliation my former lawyers
countersued me for. libel over a previous Bar complaint.
Mr. Rodems' misconduct falls into several categories. The first category of his
misconduct involves conflict of interest with a former client (me) and disclosure of my
confidential client information gained during his law firm's prior representation of me,
and his general disregard for the rules as set forth below.
Mr. Rodems' second category of misconduct relates to his allegations that I
committed criminal acts, including his accusation that my Bar complaint against his law
partner, William J. Cook, is criminal extortion under Florida law. Mr. Rodems falsely
accused me of threatening violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers, and when that was
proved false with a tape recording of the conversation, Mr. Rodems accused me of yet a
third crime, a felony for tape recording him. (Even though he wrote me consenting to
being tape recorded).
Mr. Rodems' third category of misconduct is his retaliatory libel counterclaim
against me for writing about a Bar complaint against Mr. Cook in a letter to Ian
PUBLIC RECORD
: ' ~
The Florida Bar, Tampa""' Page - 2 of 10
February 20, 2007
Mackechnie of Amscot Corporation, after the complaint process had run its course, and
the complaint was a matter of public record. Mr. Rodems is aware that my disclosure has
absolute protection pursuant to Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, as cited by Mr. Kenneth
Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation for the Florida Bar.
Mr. Rodems' fourth category of misconduct is an incident of his perjury that led
to the recusal of the trial judge, the Honorable Richard A. Nielsen.
An aggravating factor in Mr. Rodems' misconduct is the fact that I am disabled,
and Mr. Rodems has used information about my disability against me, information he
learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
Enclosed please find the following documents supporting my complaint against
Mr. Rodems:
A. My Complaint for Breach of Contract and Fraud, filed August 11,2005.
B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike. This was Mr. Rodems' first
appearance in this lawsuit, August 29, 2005.
C. Order by Judge Richard A. Nielsen finding a cause of action for Breach of
Contract and Fraud against Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J.
Cook, January 13, 2006.
D. Retaliatory Libel counterclaim by Ryan Christopher Rodems, January
19, 2006, against Neil J. Gillespie, with allegations of criminal extortion,
for a letter I wrote Amscot Corp. about a Bar compliant. Libel
Counterclaim contained in Mr. Rodems' Answer, Affirmative Defenses
and Counterclaim.
E. Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72
Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits. This documents my relationship
with Mr. Rodems' law firm, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
F. Transcript of my March 3, 2006, telephone conversation with Mr. Rodems
where he threatened to reveal my confidential client information,
and where he misquoted me in his verification to the Court.
G. Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit For An Order To Show Cause Why
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of
Court And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law. This document, with an
audio tape of the pertinent conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to
Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which led to Judge Nielsen's recusal.
H. Plaintiffs Accommodation Request, Americans With Disabilities Act,
PUBLIC RECORD
()
The Florida Bar, Tampi;;'
o
Page - 3 of 10
February 20, 2007
shows that Mr. Rodems used information about my disability against me,
information he learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
My complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems:
Mr. Rodems as defense counsel has a direct conflict of interest with me. Defense
counsel is the Defendant in this lawsuit and is being sued by a former client for fraud and
breach of contract. The contract is attached to the complaint as exhibit I. Defendants and
Plaintiff entered into a representation contract that Defendants are now trying to disavow.
Defendants formerly represented Plaintiffs interest in the contract. On January 13,2006,
the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cause of action against Defendants for breach of that
contract and Defendants' accompanying fraud.
Rule 4-1.9(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the
same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially
adverse to the interest of the former client unless the former client consents after
consultation. In the instant case, Defendants represented Plaintiff s interest in the contract
beginning November 3,2000, when it was signed. Now with the commencement of this
lawsuit, Defendants are representing their own interest in the contract, and taking a
position materially adverse to Plaintiff, their former client.
This is what West's Florida Statutes Annotated states under Comment (Vol. 35,
pp. 354-355): "After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer may not
represent another client except in conformity with this rule. The principles in Rule 4-1.9
determine whether the interests of the present and former client are adverse. Thus, a
lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on
behalf of the former client." (underline added). "When a lawyer has been directly
involved a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially
adverse interests clearly is prohibited." (underline added). The contract between Plaintiff
and Defendants is a specific transaction directly involving Defendants who now have
materially adverse interests.
With regard to an opposing party's raising a question of conflict of interest see
comment to rule 4-1.7, which states that a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate
against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if it is wholly unrelated.
(p. 330). As in the instant case, if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is
in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client
detached advise. (pp. 330-331). And a suit charging fraud I entails conflict to a degree not
involved in a suit for a declaratory judgment concerning statutory interpretation. (p. 331).
Where the conflict is such as clearly to call into question the fair or efficient
administration ofjustice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question. (p. 332). Thus
I The Court found a cause of action for fraud against Defendants in the instant case.
PUBLIC RECORD
cB)
The Florida Bar, Page - 4 of 10
February 20, 2007
Plaintiff pro se may properly raise the question of disqualification, because Mr. Rodems'
presence in the litigation calls into question the fair and efficient administration ofjustice,
particularly when Mr. Rodems will commit perjury before the court to gain an advantage
for his own law firm, a defendant in this case.
Finally, Rule 4-1.1 0, the Imputed disqualification general rule, subsection (a) states
that while lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client
when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule 4-1.7, 4
1.8(c), 4-1. 9, or 4-2.2. This rule is especially valid in the instant case because Defendant
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., is a small, three lawyer firm, and the rule of imputed
disqualification stated in subdivision (a) gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client
as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be considered from
the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially 1 lawyer for purposes of the rules
governing loyalty to the client or from the premise that each lawyer is vicariously bound
by the obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated.
Plaintiff's personal confidential information is also at stake in this motion to disqualify.
Preserving confidentiality is a question of access to information. Access to information,
in tum, is essentially a question of fact in particular circumstances, aided by inferences,
deductions, or working presumptions that reasonably may be made about the way in
which lawyers work together. A lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a
law firm and may regularly participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be inferred
that such a lawyer in fact is privy to all information about all the firm's clients. The
following paragraph illustrates how Plaintiffs personal information is freely discussed
among Mr. Barker, Mr. Rodems and Mr. Cook, and probably their support staff too, and
this is another basis for disqualification.
An attorney can be disqualified if he is opposing a former client from whom he
received confidential information related to the pending action or if the attorney had access
to information in prior representation that would prejudice the former client in the
subsequent representation. In any event, it is presumed that that the lawyer received
confidential information if an attorney-client relationship existed. In the instant case
Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. has threatened to use such information to the
disadvantage Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff
at his home and issued the following threat to use infoffi1ation learned from its prior
representation ofPlaintiffto Plaintiffs disadvantage: This is what Mr. Rodems said,
taken from a transcript of the conversation:
MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a car so that you
could get the cash rebate to get some dental work done? We're going
to get to the discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really happen?
MR. GILLESPIE: What?
MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that you could get the cash
rebate to get some dental work done?
PUBLIC RECORD
()
o
The Florida Bar, Tampa''-:-- Page - 5 of 10
February 20, 2007
MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need to be disqualified.
MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I know that? Because I
know that to be a fact?
MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from your previous
representation of me.
MR. RODEMS: Well. you know, see that's-
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifit is -- ifit's a fact, anyway.
MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and regulations of the
Florida Bar because when you make -
MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a car so I would have
something to drive. I don't know why you buy cars, but that's why I
bought it.
MR. RODEMS: Well -
MR. GILLESPIE: If it had sonle other benefits, that's different.
MR. RODEMS: I understand that car was repossessed shortly after you
bought it so -
MR. GILLESPIE: No, it wasn't repossessed.
MR. RODMES: Okay. Well, then you can probably drive that down to
tIle hearing then on the 28th.
MR. GILLESPIE: No, it was voluntarily turned in because after 911
attack the job that I was in dried up.
Rule 4-1.9(b), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (relevant portion). In the instant
case Mr. Rodems has announced that Defendants' intend to use confidential infom1ation
acquired in the previous representation of Plaintiff to his disadvantage in this lawsuit.
Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel for Defendants brought a frivolous libel
counterclaim against Plaintiff in violation of Rule 4-3.1, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
Defendants Counterclaim for Libel, Counts I and II, served January 19, 2006, was taken
primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay and retaliation against Plaintiff for suing
PUBLIC RECORD
A...: ... '.:..
The Florida Bar,
Page - 6 of 10
February 20, 2007
his former lawyers. Defendants are notorious in the Tampa legal community for engaging
in antics which include throwing a cup of coffee in the face of their counsel
during a mediation
2
, and claiming that the other side engaged in criminal extortion against
them
3
. Defendants' counterclaim states that Plaintiff engaged in criminal extortion against
them, paragraph 67. (Also in Paragraph 57, affirmative defenses, contained in the same
document, Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim).
About the time Plaintiff retained the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino
& Cook, P.A., the St. Petersburg Times reported that Jonathan Alpert threw a 20 ounce
cup of coffee in the face of attorney Arnold Levine during mediation in a season ticket
holder dispute. Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A., represented the Bucs'
fans, and Arnold Levine represented the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. According to stories
published in the St. Petersburg Times, Alpert was ranting and raving when he threw a 20
ounce cup of coffee in the face of Levine, who then sued Alpert for civil damages and filed
a battery complaint with Tampa Police. The St. Petersburg Times also reported that
Jonathan Alpert announced in court that he had asked police to investigate "threats and/or
extortion" by the Bucs' lawyer Arnold Levine. Tampa police detectives reviewed the
extortion complaint, which named Levine, Bucs general manager Rich McKay and
Edward and Bryan Glazer.
So this tactic is Defendants' modus operandi, except Mr. Rodems did not report
Plaintiffs "extortion" to law enforcement. Furthermore, on March 7, 2006, Plaintiff
offered his surrender to Mark Ober, but the State Attorney has not replied. Plaintiff
contacted the Florida Bar about Defendants accusation, and it does not agree. The
Director of Lawyer Regulation, Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, wrote Plaintiff that "Those
questions involve a legal conclusion of criminal law and I am not in a position to answer
them." Defendants are not criminal law experts either.
Mr. Marvin also provided Plaintiff with a copy of a Florida Supreme Court case
Tobkin v. Jarboe, 7'10 So.2d 975 (1998), which held that an individual who files a
complaint against an attorney and makes no public announcement of the complaint is
afforded absolute immunity from a defamation action by complained-against attorney. In
the illstant case, Plaintiff made no public announcement and in fact allowed the grievance
procedure to run its natural course. The letter Plaintiff purportedly wrote to Amscot is
dated after the conclusion of the grievance procedure, and announces that Mr. Cook
prevailed, and thus did not do anything wrong. Also, Defendants' counterclaim for libel
will not succeed given the limited distribution and privileged nature of the publication
complained of. See e.g. Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1984).
Mr. Rodems lack of candor toward the Court is a clear violation of Rule 4-3.3,
Rules regulating the Florida Bar. Mr. Rodems knowing made a false statement of nlaterial
fact to the Court in violation of Rule 4-3.3(a)(I). On March 6, 2006, Mr. Rodems filed
Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, where he swore under oath
2 St. Petersburg Times, June 6, 2000, "Attorney's suit says he received coffee in the face"
3 St. Petersburg Times, June 10, 2000, "Sucs accused of extortion"
PUBLIC RECORD
:")
The Florida Bar, Tampa . Page - 7 of 10
February 20, 2007
that Plaintiff was going to violently assault him in Judge Nielsen's chambers on April 25,
2006. But Mr. Rodems stands impeached by a transcript of the conversation during which
the purported threat was made. In his motion, Mr. Rodems told the Court that Plaintiff
threatened him during a telephone call on March 3, 2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
in paragraph 5:
"At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated - and this is an exact
quote - "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." Quite alarmed, I paused and said "are you threatening me
physically or did you mean that metaphorically?" Plaintiff said
"metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger."
Mr. Rodems invoked the name of the of the Honorable Richard'A. Nielsen in the
threat Plaintiff allegedly made against him. Mr. Rodems did this in a calculated effort to
prejudice the Court against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems used his position as an Officer of the
Court to lend credibility to his verified accusation against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems invoked
the name of the Judge Nielsen to make the Court itself fearful of a violent attack from
Plaintiff. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"I am concerned that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings
do not resolve favorably for him, and I request that the Court have a bailiff
available at any future hearings. In over thirteen years of practicing law, I
have had only one other occasion wherein I was threatened in a matter that
made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involved a pro se
party."
Mr. Rodems then asked the Court to punish Plaintiff for his alleged threat, and to
have a bailiff present in order to prevent Plaintiff from violently attacking Mr. Rodems in
Judge Nielsen's implying that a violent attack in Judge Nielsen's chambers
would most certainly injure Judge Nielsen due to the close proximity of Plaintiff to Judge
Nielsen. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"Defendants request that the Court enter an Order sanctioning Plaintiff for
the threatening comment, as detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refrain
from threatening acts of violence."
Mr. Rodems then wrote: "WHEREFORE, Defendants request a bailiff at all future
hearings and that Plaintiff be sanctioned appropriately." Mr. Rodems then verified the
pleadings with the following statement:
"I swear under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this motion
are true and accurate and that the quotes attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are
true and accurate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6
th
day of March,
2006. RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE" and the
verification contained Mr. Rodems' signature.
PUBLIC RECORD
(l
n
l.. .
The Florida Bar, T a m p ~ : '
Page - 8 of 10
February 20, 2007
Mr. Rodems' verified request for bailiff and sanctions was notarized by Lynne
Anne Spina, a notary public employed by Mr. Rodems at his law firm. Defendants'
Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions submitted by Mr. Rodems was false and
misleading, and Mr. Rodems committed perjury regarding the "exact quote" attributed to
Neil J. Gillespie.
Mr. Rodems' defamation aggravated Plaintiffs disability. On March 3, 2006, Mr.
Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his home in Ocala, Florida, and issued several threats. Mr.
Rodems knows Plaintiff suffers from a disability from his law firm's prior representation
of Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems insulted Plaintiff. (Transcript, page 7, line
21). Then Mr. Rodems threatened Plaintiff and said "I mean, it was kind of bizarre that
you would even send that letter, but you did, so now you will have to pay for that."
(Transcript, page 9, line 1). Mr. Rodems continued his threats, insults, and taunts until
Plaintiff spoke metaphorically and said he would "slam him" on the law. This is
Plaintiffs exact quote: "So listen you little, whatever, you raise anything you want, 1will
see you on the 25
th
and 1will slam you against the wall like 1did before." (Referring to
Plaintiffs legal victory over Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike). (Transcript, page
11, line 3). Mr. Rodems then falsely presented this information to the Court in
Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, submitted March 6, 2006.
Mr. Rodems stated, under oath, that this is the exact quote attributable to Plaintiff: "I am
going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's chambers." Plaintiff did not say
"in Judge Nielsen's chambers" but in fact Plaintiff said "like 1did before." These are two
very different statements. Ryan Christopher Rodems lied to the Court to again an
advantage. The hearing before Judge Nielsen on April 25, 2006 began with Mr. Rodems
discussing his request for a bailiff to be present. This is what Mr. Rodems told the Court:
MR. RODEMS: The fourth motion that we filed had to do with a request
for a bailif(to be present. We didn't notice that for hearing, but obviously
we have a deputy here. So that 1don't know that that necessarily needs to
come up. It was not noticed for hearing today, but we can take it up if you
want to. (Transcript, April 25,2006, page I, lines 15-20).
And the Court responded:
THE COURT: 1agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is
on any case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for
future reference you do not have to submit a request. And since it's not in
the form of a motion, 1don't think it needs a ruling. All right. (Transcript,
April 25, 2006, beginning page 1, line 24).
And during the hearing, Mr. Rodems stated that everything he represented
to the court has been accurate. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
PUBLIC RECORD
The Florida Bar, Tampa
Page - 9 of 10
February 20, 2007
"His final reason for trying to disqualify me is he said that I lack candor,
which he cites no case law to that
4
. And I would assert before the Court, as
an officer of the court, that everything that I've represented to the court has
been accurate." (Transcript, April 25, 2006, page 12, beginning line 2).
The hearing before Judge Nielsen on June 28,2006 brought more false
statements from Mr. Rodems. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
MR. RODEMS: All right. First of all, Judge, this continued allegation by
Mr. Gillespie that there's been a threat against him, there's been no threat
against him; he is the one that threatened me when we had a telephone
conversation and he told me he was going to slam me up against your
hearing chambers wall. That's never been followed, but he continues to
repeat it in every pleading and then, you know, the idea is that, I guess, if
you've got judicial immunity from what you say - but the bottom line is, is
that's there's been nothing but cordial behavior on our part. (Transcript,
June 28, 2006, page 11, lines 11-22).
Mr. Rodems statement to the court that "there's been nothing but cordial behavior
on our part" is impeached by the transcript of his phone call to Plaintiff on March 3,
2006. Mr. Rodems repeatedly lied to the Court with impunity, to my detriment.
Ryan Christopher Rodems violated Rule 4-3.4, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar,
Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. Rule 4-3.4 states, A lawyer shall not: (g) present,
participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an
advantage in a civil matter. As previously stated in paragraph 5(c), Defendants'
counterclaim states that Plaintiff engaged in criminal extortion against them, paragraph 67.
(Also in Paragraph 57, affirmative defenses, contained in the same document, Answers,
Affirmative D e f e n s ~ s and Counterclaim). Defendants are notorious in the Tampa legal
community for engaging in antics which include claiming that the other side engaged in
criminal extortion against them. So this tactic is Defendants' modus operandi, and the Bar
should stop this practice and rebuke Mr. Rodems. Furthermore, on March 7, 2006,
Plaintiff offered to surrender to Mark Ober, on the felony crime of extortion, but the State
Attorney has not replied. Plaintiff contacted the Florida Bar about Defendants accusation,
and it does not agree either. The Director of Lawyer Regulation, Kenneth Lawrence
4 Florida case law prohibits lawyers from presenting false testimony or evidence. Kneale v. Williams. 30 So.
2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration of a fraud is outside the scope of the professional duty of an
attorney and no privilege attaches to communication between an attorney and a client with respect to
transactions constituting the making of a false claim or the perpetration of a fraud. Dodd v. The Florida
Bar, 118 So2d 17 (Fla. 1960), reminds us that "the courts are ... dependent on members of the bar to ...
present the true facts of each cause to enable the judge or the jury to [decide the facts] to which the law
may be applied. When an attorney allows false testimony ... [the attorney] ... makes it impossible for the
scales [ofjustice] to balance." See The Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394 So.2d 405 (Fla. 1981), and The Fla. Bar v.
Simons. 391 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1980).
PUBLIC RECORD
en
( .
' ~ . ' , , "
:;
The Florida Bar, Tampa' .-'
't"
Page - 10 of 10
February 20, 2007
Marvin, wrote Plaintiff that "Those questions involve a legal conclusion of criminal law
and I am not in a position to answer them."
Finally, I am asking the Bar to consider Mr. Rodems perjury to the Court that led
to Judge Nielsen's recusal on November 22, 2006. Mr. Rodems' perjury is set forth in
Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit For An Order To Show Cause Why Ryan Christopher
Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court And Incorporated
Memorandum Of Law. (Exhibit G). This document, with an audio tape of the pertinent
conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which
ultimately led to Judge Nielsen's recusal.
In reviewing my complaint, I ask the Bar to consider the duty this law firm once
owed me. It is long established that the relationship between an attorney and his client is
one of the most important, as well as the most sacred, known to the law. The
responsibility of an attorney to place his client's interest ahead of his own in dealings
with matters upon which the attorney is employed is at the foundation of our legal system.
(Deal v. Migoski, 122 So. 2d 415). It is a fiduciary relationship involving the highest
degree of truth and confidence, and an attorney is under a duty, at all times, to represent
his client and handle his client's affairs with the utmost degree of honesty, forthrightness,
loyalty, and fidelity. (Gerlach v. Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493). The lawyers at Barker,
Rodenls & Cook, P.A. did not meet this duty while I was their client. Mr. Cook did not
behave as lawyer with a fiduciary duty. Instead, my fonner lawyers acted more like a
pawn SllOP out for their own financial interests. As set forth in nlY motion for punitive
damages (Exhibit E), my former lawyers' conduct was fraudulent, deliberately
oppressive, malicious, and committed with such gross negligence as to indicate wanton
disregard for my rights. (See Domke v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., M.D.Fla.1996, 939 F.Supp.
849). As set forth in this complaint, Mr. Rodems' unethical behavior continues unabated.
This concludes my initial complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems.
Sincerely,
enclosures
PUBLIC RECORD
D.
E. Plaintiff's Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72
Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits. This documents my relationship
with Mr. Rodems' law ftnn, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
F. Transcript ofmy March 3, 2006, telephone conversation with Mr. Rodems
where,#ethreatenedto reveal my conftdentialclient information,
' ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJ1einhis Veriiicati"nto the Court.; . .
G. ,PI3intifrs'MotionWithAffidavit For' An: Order To Show''Cause Why
Ryah Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of
Court And Incorporated Memorandum OfLaw. This document, with an
audio tape ofthe pertinent conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to
Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which led to Judge Nielsen's recusal.
,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. Gll..LESPIE,
Plaintiff, .
CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DMSION:H
a Florida corporation, Wll..LIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
------------_/
PLAINTIFF'S ACCOMODATION REQUEST
(ADA) and states:
1. Plaintiffwas determ.ilied totally disabled by Social Security in 1994. r
2. Defendants are familiar with Plaintiff's disability from their prior
representation ofhim. Defendants investigated his eligibility to receive services from the
Florida Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). DVR determined that Plaintiff
was too severely disabled to benefit from services. Defendants qoncurred, and notified
Plaintiff of their decision in a letter to him dated March 27,2001. (Exhibit A).
3. Plaintiff has the following medical conditions which are disabling and
prevent him from effectively participating in court proceedings, including:
a Depression and related mood disorder. This medical condition prevents
Plaintiff from working, meeting deadlines, and concentrating. The inability to
concentrate at times affects Plaintiff's ability to hear and comprehend.
- ..
4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, l' .A., case no. OS-CA-7205
b. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), makes Plaintiff susceptible to
stress, such as the ongoing harassment by Defendants' lawyer, Mr. Rodems.
c. Velopharyngeallncompetence (VPI) is a speech impairment that affects
Plaintiff's ability to communicate.
d. The medical treatment for depression includes prescription medication
that further disables Plaintiff's ability to do the work ofthis lawsuit, and further
prevents him from effectively participating in the proceedings.
4. Prior to the onset of the most disabling aspects Plaintiff's medical
condition(s), he was a productive member of society, a business owner for 12 years, and a
graduate of both the University of Pennsylvania and The Evergreen State College.
5. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his
home and threatened to use information learned during Defendants prior representation
against him in the instant lawsuit. Mr. Rodems' threats were twofold; to intimidate
Plaintiff into dropping this lawsuit by threatening to disclose confidential client
information, and to inflict emotional distress, to trigger Plaintiff's Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and inflict injury upon Plaintiff for Defendants' advantage in this lawsuit.
6. On March 6, 2006, Mr. Rodems made a false verification the Court about
the March 3, 2006 telephone call. Mr. Rodems submitted Defendants' Verified Request
For Bailiff And For Sanctions, and told the Court under oath that Plaintiff threatened acts
of violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers. It was a stunt that backfired when a tape
recording of the phone call showed that Mr. Rodems lied. Plaintiff notified the Court
about Mr. Rodems' perjury in Plaintiff's Motion With Affidavit To Show Cause Why
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court and
Incorporated Memorandum Of Law submitted January 29,2007.
Page - 2 of4
_.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook: ~ ; ( case no. 05-CA-7205
7. Mr. Rodems' harassing phone call to Plaintiff of March 3, 2006, was a
tort, the Intentional Infliction o/Emotional Distress. Mr. Rodems' tort injured Plaintiff
by aggravating his existing medical condition. From the time of the calIon March 3,
2006, Plaintiff suffered worsening depression for which he was treated by his doctors.
a. On May 1, 2006 Plaintiffs doctor prescribed Effexor XR., a serotonin
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), to the maximum dosage.
b. Plaintiff's worsening depression, and the side affects ofthe medication,
lessened Plaintiffs already diminished ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
c. On October 4, 2006 Plaintiff began the process of discontinuing his
medication so that he could improve is ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
d. On or about November 18, 2006, Plaintiff discontinued the use of anti
depression medication, to improve his ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
8. Mr. Rodems continued to harass Plaintiff during the course of this lawsuit
in the following manner:
a. Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait for Plaintiff outside Judge Nielsen's chambers
on April 25, 2006, following a hearing, to taunt him. and provoke an altercation.
b. Mr. Rodems refused to address Plaintiff as "Mr. Gillespie" but used his
fIrst name, and disrespectful derivatives, against Plaintiff's expressed wishes.
c. Mr. Rodems left insulting, harassing comments on Plaintiffs voice mail
during his ranting message of December 13, 2006.
d. Mr. Rodems wrote Plaintiff a five-page diatribe of insults and ad
hominem abusive attacks on December 13,2006.
9. Plaintiff notified the Court of his inability to obtain counsel in Plaintiffs
Notice o/Inability to obtain Counsel submitted February 13,2007.
Page - 3 of4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, .1""\., case no. 05-CA-7205
10. Plaintiff acknowledges that this ADA accommodation request is unusual,
'but so are the circumstances. Defendants in this lawsuit are Plaintiffs former lawyers,
who are using Plaintiffs client confidences against him, while contemporaneously
inflicting new injuries upon their former client based on his disability.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests additional time to obtain counsel, a stay in the
proceedings for 90 days. Plaintiff also requests accommodation in the forin of additional
time to meet deadlines when needed due to his disability.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20
th
day of February, 2007.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct .copy of the foregoing has been
furnished via US Mail to Ryan C. Rodems, attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400
N Ashley Dr., Suite 2100, Tampa, FL 33602, this 20
th
day o f F e b ~ , 2007.
Page - 4 of4
-
.
BARKER, RODEMS &l COOK
ASSOCIA'110N
A'ITURNEY::'; AT LA \V
':IIIUS I',A Itl'FIl. Tr.Ir.l'hO'\l: 5IJ/18<).1001
300 West Plat.t Street, Suite 150
':11 Itl !:Tll I' II Fit ROIJr:.MS
F,c.illlilr. SJJ/Hitl.IOOS
WII.IIAM I. Cl.'flK T'll1pn, Florid3 33606
March 27,2001
Neil J. Gillespie
Apartlllcllt C-2
I 12\ Beach Drive NE
Sf. Pdersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Rc: Voca tiollal Rehabilil:n lion
Dear Neil:
J am cnclosing the material yOll provided to us. We have reviewed them und, unfortunately,
we arc not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have. Please understand that our
decision docs not mcan that your claims lack merit, and another attorney might wish to represent you.
If yoII wish to cOllsldt with another attorney, we recommend that you do so immedinlely as a statute
orlilllilaliolls will apply to any claims you llIay have. As you know, a statute oflimitations is a legal
deadline for filing a lawsuit. Thank yOll for the opportunity to review your materials.

William J. Cook

P.nclosl1 res STATE OF FLOqlDA )
COUNTY OF HiLLSBOROUGH)
THIS 15 TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS ATRUE
AND (;()RMiCT 0C>JII'f OF THE DOCUMENT ON FILE IN
MY OFFICE. wtlHU6 MY ANO Of!'FICIAl SEAL
THIS arat QAY(JF .abo.T 20/cJ
v
P.T FfWIIK
OF. CIRCUIT COURT
".:,....
h,,,,,''- B D. C.
EXHIBIT'
1.68
-, \ ,
) Ii
....'-' , ....
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
DEFENDANTS.
--------------_-----:/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made
arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,
ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.
2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to
dismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this
order within which to file responsive pleadings.
DIVISION" F "
or, 36
-
//1
5
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
RICHARD A. NIELSEN
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33606
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
or' 37
f _
o
o
THE FLORIDA BAR
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUITEC-49 SUITE C-49
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
March 7, 2007
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW IISth Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Inquiry/Complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems
TFB No. 2007-11,162 (13D)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
We have received and reviewed your complaint against Respondent. In order to evaluate your
complaint, we need additional information, as set forth below.
You have complained that Respondent has misused confidential information obtained in his prior
representation of you during the current proceeding you brought against Respondent's firm. In
order for us to evaluate this claim, please identify with specificity the information in question
and the manner the information was communicated to him. Also, please note that Rule 4
1.6(c)(2) permits an attorney to reveal client confidences to the extent the attorney believes
necessary to defend himself in a dispute with the client. Please refer to the rule (available on our
website) and address whether this rule is applicable to the situation about which you are
complaining.
You have complained that Respondent has an impermissible conflict of interest. In your
complaint, you have asserted that Respondent should be disqualified from representing the
Defendants because of this conflict. Please be aware that The Florida Bar has no authority
regarding the disqualification of counsel in pending cases. If you believe that Respondent should
be disqualified, that issue should be brought to the attention of the presiding judge through an
appropriate motion. If the matter has been brought to the attention of the court, please provide us
with copies of any motions, responses, or orders related thereto for our review.
You also complain that Respondent perjured himself during the proceedings and that this
misconduct resulted in Judge Nielsen's recusal. Please provide a copy of the motion and order
related to Judge Nielsen's recusal. If there is a transcript of any hearing on the matter, please
provide that transcript, also.
6
Neil Gillespie
o o
March 7, 2007
Page 2
You complain about Respondent's filing of a counterclaim for libel against you, which you claim
was a knowingly frivolous counterclaim. Please provide information regarding whether this
claim is still pending and, if it has been resolved, copies of all documents related to the
resolution.
Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be matters which are the subject of the
civil litigation between you and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are deferred until after the
conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding. If there are reasons you believe that such a
deferral would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your response.
We would appreciate a response within thirty (30) days. Please contact us if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
~ / ?
Troy Matthew Lovell
Assistant Staff Counsel
TML/emh
h\
'0
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
'j ; I- ,.
. r
April 11, 2007
Troy Matthew Lovell, Assistant Staff Counsel
The Florida Bar
5521 West Spruce Street, C-49
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958
RE: Inquiry/Complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems
TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D)
Dear Mr. Lovell:
This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2007, requesting additional
information to evaluate the above captioned complaint. Please take notice that I recently
retained counsel in the matter of Gillespiev. Barker,. Rodems & Cook. case no. 05-CA
7205. I am currently represented by Robert W. Bauer, Esq., of Gainesville, Florida.
Because ofthe time neededto confer With Mr. Bauer and provide him the case file
in the civil lawsuit, I have not been able to respOnd to your request within the 30 days you
requested. However now that Mr. Bauer is litigating the civil lawsuit, I hope to have a
response to you soon, hopefully within a week. Mr. Bauer does not represent me in my
Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems.
One response that I can provide now is that there has been no settlement regarding
Mr. Rodems' libel counterclaim over my Bar complaint against Mr. Cook. When I
moved to dismiss the libel counterclaim, Mr. Rodems moved for sanctions pursuant to
section 57.105(1) Florida Statutes. Mr. Rodems is demanding attorneys' fees thereto, and
I subsequently filed an answer to the libel counterclaim. The matter is now in the hands
ofMr. Bauer, who entered his appearance with the Court on April 2, 2007.
PUBLIC RECORD
7
c o
THE FLORIDA BAR
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUITEC-49 SUITEC-49
www.FLABAR.ORG
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
May 15, 2007
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
RE: Inquiry/Complaint regarding Ryan Christopher Rodems
TFB No. 2007-11,162 (13D)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
We have reviewed your complaint against the above-referenced attorney and supporting
documentation. Based on our review of these materials, we have concluded that no further
proceedings are warranted in this matter and will be closing our file.
Respondent is a member of your former law firm and is defending that law firm in civil litigation
brought by you. You alleged that Respondent has engaged used confidential information against
you based on the prior representation. On March 7, 2007, we requested additional information
regarding these allegations in order for us to evaluate your grievance. To date, we have received
no additional information. In the absence of specific allegations and supporting evidence, we
have no basis for further proceedings.
Accordingly, our file in this matter is now closed. The records regarding this Inquiry/Complaint
will be destroyed one (1) year from today. Our disposition of your complaint has no effect on
any legal remedy that you may have.
Sincerely,
~ ~
Troy Matthew Lovell
Assistant Staff Counsel
TML/emh
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems
8
i
BARKER, RODEl\'1S & COOK, P.A.
CLOSIN'C STATEMENT
Style of Case: Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomelleld, and As of: October 31, 2001
Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation.
Our File No.: 99.4766
ATTORNEYS' FEES $ 50,000.00
& COSTS
PAYMENTS TO CLIENTS
EUGENE R. CLEMENT $ 2,000.00
GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD 2,000.00
NEIL GILLESPIE 2,000.00
TOTAL $ 56,000.00
. I
In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that ANISCOT Corporation separately paid
my attomeys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for court
awarded fees and costs. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy ofthe fully executed Release
and Settlement Agreement dated October 30, 2001.
9
3ft
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
NEIL J.
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 05CA7205
Division: F
a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
.
:': tn
...... ",;;. ::r:":"
S
Defendants.
C)
/
\. .... .. !

--------------
-: CJ1

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
fIC"--i -.-..
-... ..
ioo'"
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on PlaintiffS0
r... -.
Motion to Disqualify Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and counsel
and Mr. Gillespie having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, it is ORDERED:
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this lZ"'A-Iday of May, 2006.
Richard A. Nielsen
Circuit Judge
Copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se STAlE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF !-tiLLSBOROUGH) .
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire
FOREGOING ISA TRUE
AND COt1RECT (X}PY OF DOCUMENT ON FILE IN
MY MY HAND AND Of'!FlCIAL SEAL
THIS 3'. 20/D
. PAT FRANK

... -
10
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL GILLESPIE
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-CA-7205
vs.
Division: "C"
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
a Florida Corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES M. BARTON, II
CIRCUIT JUDGE
TAKEN AT: George Edgecomb Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street
Tampa, Florida
DATE & TIME: January 26, 2010
3:00 p.m.
REPORTED BY: Thomasina L. Berryhill, RPR
Court Reporter
Notary Public
813-229-8225
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 775
11
30
1
THE COURT: There is nothing really except for
2
the fact that from what I've seen it doesn't happen
3
but theoretically that could happen.
4
MR. GILLESPIE: It seems to be happening in
5
this case.
6
THE COURT: Well, it may or may not be. There
7
obviously have been multiple attorney's fees
8
motions filed. But what we are dealing with now is
9
what has been volunteered to do something that he
10
doesn't have to do. And again, you don't have to
11
do anything either except look at the letter and
12
you have 20 days to think about what is in the
13
letter and if you don't want to do anything, you
14
don't have to do anything. But it is just an
15
additional period of time for you to think about
16
what is in the letters that are going to be sent.
17
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.
18
THE COURT: All right.
19
MR. GILLESPIE: And in my letter of -- in my
20
letter to you today I notice -- I discuss the issue
21
of an amended complaint. This was first raised in
22
this case in October 7th, 2005 and for whatever
23
reason, it hasn't been done yet. I think the case
24
is ripe for that. I also discuss Judge Nielsen's
25
order of May 12th about disqualification of Mr.
31
1
Rodems. This is what the Judge wrote: "This
2
motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice
3
except as to the basis that Counsel may be a
4
witness and on that basis the motion is denied
5
without prejudice." Now, for Mr. Rodems being a
6
witness, the nature of this case is essentially he
7
is a perpetual witness. The transcripts show that
8
his representation is essentially on going
9
testimony about factual matters. Many times in the
10
transcripts he is confused. He is saying, Judge,
11
we -- Oh, I don't mean we, I mean I as my attorney
12
for the firm think this about my client, which is
13
actually myself. That confusion is evident in the
14
transcripts over and over again. I really believe
15
he needs to be disqualified because of his ongoing
16
testimony in this matter.
17
THE COURT: All right. Well, I assume there
18
will be a renewed motion to disqualify that will be
19
filed and then again set for a hearing once we
20
establish our procedure, but we can't do that until
21
we get what I directed you to produce within ten
22
days from Ms. Huffer.
23
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, once I -- I'm
24
going to ask for ten days from the receipt of the
25
transcript so that I can give that to Ms. Huffer so
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL GILLESPIE
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-CA-7205
vs.
Division: "C"
a Florida Corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES M. BARTON, II
CIRCUIT JUDGE
TAKEN AT: George Edgecomb Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street
Tampa, Florida
DATE & TIME: January 26, 2010
3:00 p.m.
REPORTED BY: Thomasina L. Berryhill, RPR
Court Reporter
Notary Public
813-229-8225
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 775
11
30
1
THE COURT: There is nothing really except for
2
the fact that from what I've seen it doesn't happen
3
but theoretically that could happen.
4
MR. GILLESPIE: It seems to be happening in
5
this case.
6
THE COURT: Well, it may or may not be. There
7
obviously have been multiple attorney's fees
8
motions filed. But what we are dealing with now is
9
what has been volunteered to do something that he
10
doesn't have to do. And again, you don't have to
11
do anything either except look at the letter and
12
you have 20 days to think about what is in the
13
letter and if you don't want to do anything, you
14
don't have to do anything. But it is just an
15
additional period of time for you to think about
16
what is in the letters that are going to be sent.
17
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.
18
THE COURT: All right.
19
MR. GILLESPIE: And in my letter of -- in my
20
letter to you today I notice -- I discuss the issue
21
of an amended complaint. This was first raised in
22
this case in October 7th, 2005 and for whatever
23
reason, it hasn't been done yet. I think the case
24
is ripe for that. I also discuss Judge Nielsen's
25
order of May 12th about disqualification of Mr.
31
1
Rodems. This is what the Judge wrote: "This
2
motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice
3
except as to the basis that Counsel may be a
4
witness and on that basis the motion is denied
5
without prejudice." Now, for Mr. Rodems being a
6
witness, the nature of this case is essentially he
7
is a perpetual witness. The transcripts show that
8
his representation is essentially on going
9
testimony about factual matters. Many times in the
10
transcripts he is confused. He is saying, Judge,
11
we -- Oh, I don't mean we, I mean I as my attorney
12
for the firm think this about my client, which is
13
actually myself. That confusion is evident in the
14
transcripts over and over again. I really believe
15
he needs to be disqualified because of his ongoing
16
testimony in this matter.
17
THE COURT: All right. Well, I assume there
18
will be a renewed motion to disqualify that will be
19
filed and then again set for a hearing once we
20
establish our procedure, but we can't do that until
21
we get what I directed you to produce within ten
22
days from Ms. Huffer.
23
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, once I -- I'm
24
going to ask for ten days from the receipt of the
25
transcript so that I can give that to Ms. Huffer so
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: G
J. COOK,
Defendants.
/
-------------
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Judge Martha J. Cookfalsified an official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie
due process on the disqualification ofRyan Christopher Rodems as counsel
Neil J. Gillespie, under oath, testifies as follows:
1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This
affidavit is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.
2. Circuit Judge Martha J. Cook is presiding over Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. et aI., Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Circuit Civil, 13th Judicial Circuit.
3. I am the Plaintiff suing my former lawyers in this lawsuit. On information
and belief, Ryan Christopher Rodems is unlawfully representing Barker, Rodems &
Cook, PA and William J. Cook against me.
EXHIBIT
1;1.
12
been heard at all.
is whether counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[I] Matter of Doughtv, 51 B.R. 36.
Disqualification is required when counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[3] Florida
raised the issues in paragraphs 4 and 5. The motion properly considered de novo
disqualification on the counterclaim. The motion showed misconduct by Mr. Rodems at
the April 25, 2006 hearing sufficient to overturn the Order of May 12,2006.
statement by Judge Cook is false. The Order issued May 12,2006 clearly states that
Page - 2
9. Upon information and belief, Judge Martha 1. Cook knowingly and
Statutes, section 839.13(1) if any judge shall falsify any record or any paper filed in any
judicial proceeding in any court ofthis state, or conceal any issue, or falsify any
document filed in any court the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
10. Upon information and belief, Judge Martha 1. Cook knowingly and
willfully, with malice aforethought, engaged in official misconduct to harm Neil
Gillespie and benefit Ryan Christopher Rodems and his clients, by falsifying an official
record or official document as described in this affidavit, to deny Gillespie due process,
in violation of the Misuse of Public Office statute, chapter 838 Florida Statutes, section
838.022 Official misconduct. (1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to
obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to: (a) Falsify, or cause
another person to falsify, any official record or official document; (3) Any person who
violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Page - 3
mislead a public servant, Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit Court, in the performance of her
official duty, in violation ofthe perjury statute, chapter 837 Florida Statutes, section
775.082 or s. 775.083.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated this 28th day of October 2010.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments
in the State of Florida, appeared NEIL 1. GILLESPIE, personally known to me, or produced
identification, who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the above matters
contained in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 28th day of October 2010.
C ~ ~
Notary Public :a--
State of Florida
Page - 4
":. EXHIBIT
3Pr
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Division: F
1' ..... )
t" ...... r
J. COOK,
rq
...... ,.
. =::
..
Defendants.
C') .,--<
/

--------------
;;:Ei (J1
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY =?
I _-.; -..
.........1.,.,.
--...
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiffsv
f- -
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this lZ-mday of May, 2006.
Richard A. Nielsen
Circuit Judge
Copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, Case No: 05-CA-007205
Division: G
and
C:'"
A Florida Corporation, and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
0...')
..
Defendants.
.. -,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS & BARKER RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Plaintiffs motion, filed July 9,2010. This is the
third time that the Plaintiff has motioned to disqualify Defendant's counsel, despite having been informed
in an order issued May 12, 2006 that this issue had been DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. "With
prejudice" that means that the motion in question is "finally disposed ... and bars any future action on
that claim."} Moreover, because of the doctrine of res judicata 2 this motion must be DENIED.
The Plaintiff is again noticed (as he has been in two previous Court orders) that repeat filings
attempting to revisit the same issue can be found to rise to the level of a sanctionable offense.
3
The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to never accept another pleading from the Plaintiff that
indicates an attempt to disqualify Defendants' counsel, as this matter has been DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on July
2010 STATE OF FLORIOA )
COUNTY OF HkLS9DRi)'jGf..n
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT fHE F(19f.:GOING IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COpy OF THE ON FILE
MY OFFICE. A.ND OFF;ClAL SEAL J{fr
THIS DAY Or.: 20/ ,,.,
"-""'\\11 Martha J. Cook -
,)-.. 'I -,I
.... j CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
.. CLFR:{ JF eiRe;' T COURT
I Black's ".
2 Matters that have been "definitively settled by Judicial decision." Black's Law Dictionary, 7
th
Edition.
3 Lanier v. State of Flo.rida, 982 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2008).
Page 1 of 2 J
a
'/EXHIBIT
Copies Furnished To:
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se (Plaintiff)
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. (for Defendants)
400 North Ashley Drive, Ste. 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
Page 2of2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 58-2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 20 of 42 PageID 1593
13
Po. Box 3371
Phone (813)247-8000
www.hcso.tampa.jl.us David Gee, Sheriff
Jose Docobo, ChiefDeputy
Hillsborough County
January 12,2011
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW l1S
th
Loop
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
In response to your letter dated November 13,2010, I made contact with Deputy
Christopher E. Brown concerning your request for an explanation regarding why he
escorted you out of the courthouse on September 28, 2010 after a hearing with Judge
Martha Cook. Deputy Brown advised that the Judge ordered you to leave after a
disruption in the courtroom. He stated that he followed you to the front door as you
exited the building without assistance. Other than the official records maintained by the
Court, I am not aware of any other records related to the hearing before Judge Cook.
As we discussed on the telephone today, you expressed some concern over your
personal safety while in the courthouse due to a disability and due to a potential threat
from opposing counsel. Please let me know the date and time of your next visit to the
courthouse and we will take action to help ensure a safe and orderly visit. Please feel free
to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
James P. Livingston, Major
Court Operations Division
14
Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 100 Filed 08/21/09 Page 18 of 26 PageID 3633
15
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PagelD 600
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
vs.
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT,
FLORIDA, et aL
. Defendants.
_____________.....:1
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS;AND
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
On June 21, 2011, PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie assigned aU claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. See Exhibit "1".
Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prej udice,
pmsuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21
st
day of June, 2011.
lsI Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 947652
Attorney for Assignees
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Telephone: (813) 489-1001
Fax: (813) 489-1008
E-mail: rodemsra1barkelTodemsandcook.com
1
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERyICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and COITect <;opy of the foregoing has been served this
21
st
day of June, 2011 by electronic transmission to Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire,
catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.,
and Robert W. Bauer. No other defendant has been served.
lsI Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
2
-
t
m
:f"""
)(
w
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL MUTUAL RELEASE
This settlement agreement and general mutual release, executed on Iune 21,2011, by and
between Neil J. Gillespie, hereinafter "Party A" and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., its agents and
employees, and Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook, and Ryan Christopher Rodems, hereinafter
''Party B".
WHEREAS disputes and differences have arisen between the parties, as detailed in the
pleadings and records filed in the case styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.A..
and WilliamJ. Cook. Esquire, Case No. 05CA7205, pending in the Circuit Court ofthe Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida and Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit. Florida. et a1., 5: 1O-cv-00503-WTH-DAB, pending in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division; WHEREAS, the parties wish to fully and finally
resolve all differences between them from the beginning of time through June 21,2011;
WHEREAS, the parties represent that none ofthe claims released herein have been assigned to a
third-party;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe assignment to Party "B" ofall claims pending
or which could have been brought, based on the allegations of Party "A", against any person or
entity, without limitation, in Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Florida. et aI.,
5:1O-cv-00503-WTII-DAB and dismissal with prejudice oftheir claims in the case styled Neil J.
Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.An and William J. Cook. ESQuire, Case No. 05CA7205,
and dismissal ofthe appeal, Case No. 2DlO-5197, pending in the Second District Court ofAppeal,
with the parties to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, and the agreement of Party "B" to
record a Satisfaction ofJudgment regarding the Final Judgment entered on March 27,2008, in Neil
J. Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.A.. and William J. Cook. Esquire, Case No. OSCA720S:
Each party (the releasing party) hereby releases, without limitation, the other party (the
released party) from any and all actions, suits, claims, debts, accounts, bills, bonds, attorneys' fees
or costs, judgments, or any claims, without limitation, whether in law or equity, and whether
known or unknown, which the releasing party now has or ever had resulting from any actions or
omissions by the released paqy from the beginning of time through June 21, 2011.
This mutual release shall be acknowledged before a notary public and may be signed in
counterpart.
Cpse 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 4 PagelD 603
STATE OF J L
COUNTY OF Vff'"
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.2r" day of J , 20II, by
NEILJ. GILLESPIE.
- State ofFlorida
Personally Known OR Produced Identification V'
Type of Identification Produced-flu r, $\)ci\fGrlJ---'ULe""--n.'"
. 'MBERlY HIMES
4:t: Go If'),...\ ".3. 51:," () '{q
tiJm: Nolal \ . "pile Siale of florid;
i' ." .My ComIII tAPIr88 Nov 18, 201
CommissIon /I DO 909877
STATE OF FL9,RP,:>A .,,;tnr,f$"' Bonded Through NalloMl Notary Ass
COUNTY OF /fi
...............-.....
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
WILLIAM J. COOK.
te ofF. ri
NOTARY Pl.'BLlC-STATE OF1LO,RID!
Personally Known j OR Produced Identification _ ... Lynne Anne Spma
W \ CODunlIlSioD # DD941173
Type of Identification Produced. _
Expires: DEC:26,2013

BOMDiDTHllc Al'U.,"CBo.\llI:fOoo,lKC,
STATF; OF FL9lWlJ\ .f- .
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me of ,2011, by
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS.
Personally Known OR Produced Identification v"
Type ofIdentification Produced fl. ok tblrCtO
KIMBERLY HIMES
f * '\ Notlry Public. State of AOI
"It: . 35'"1. '1 lot.. 444- b
i' i My Comm. fxplres Nov 16. 2
CommissIon # DO 90987
, I'".... BOnded ,ll/ough NallonJl NotIty A
. COUNTY OF
1<J- 4
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ...1.J4'K. ,2011,
by CHRIS A. BARKER, individually and as officer fo BARKER ODEM COOK, P.A.
fFI ida
NOTARY PL'BLlCSTATE OF FLOlUD!
Lynne Anne Spina
Personally Known OR Produced Identification J _
{Wj Commlaslon # DD941173
Type ofIdentification _
DEC:26.2013
BQl'G)IID'lllRC ATLA.\"C BONDINO co..1NC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
-vs- Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10TBS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint against eleven (11)
Defendants which, by its title, purports to state a claim under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq., as well as various violations of his
constitutional rights.
1
(Doc. 1). The Complaint is due to be dismissed for several reasons.
First, the Plaintiff has never effected service of summons on any of the Defendants,
or complied with any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second, the Complaint
consists of 39 pages of rambling, largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Third, the Complaint fails to allege the basis for the
Courts subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) the parties are
clearly all citizens of Florida and therefore not diverse, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any
1
The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two (2) of the Defendants, Barker
Rodems & Cook, P.A., and Ryan Christopher Rodems, on October 29, 2010 (Docs. 22, 25-26).
17
intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. And fourth, it appears that the Plaintiff has assigned all of
his claims in this case to Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and
William J. Cook, who have moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(2). (See Doc. 32).
2
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,
terminate all pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 27th day of February, 2012.
Copies to: Counsel of Record
2
The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlement
agreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, executed
under duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However, the core of the
settlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of various matters
pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have been executed as part
of a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court is the appropriate judicial
body with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the validity and/or enforceability of the
settlement agreement and assignment. This Court will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction)
entertain any disputes within the purview of the settlement agreement unless and until the state
court enters a judgment declaring the settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
2
/0 L.f-
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
JlR()FESSIONAL ASSOCJAT'ION
A<T'fORNF:YS l\ T Ll\W
C1UU$ A. MRKER Tt.,.lt+pl...:me 813/489... 1-(101
400 Nortlt Ashley Drive. Suire Z100
KYAN CllRlSTOMlEA ROOEMS
MtOlimile 8' 1/489.. 1008
WIUJ.-\M J. COOK
Tanlpa. r':lori(la 1,602
May 31, .2011
'+.
HOllorable Pat Frank
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Post Office Box 989
Tanlpa, Florida 33601
Re: :Ncil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
a FI()rida Corporation; and William .J. Cook
No.: OS-CA-7205; I)ivision "J"
Dear Ms. Frank:
I am counsel for William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. in case number 05-CA-7205.
011 Novetllber 15,2010, Judge Cc)ok c:utcrcd an Order barring the J>laintin: Neil J. from
appearing pro se, and also directin.g the office not to accept any more filing from Mr.
Gillespie. Since tllat time, the Clerk's office has accepted a number of filings from Mr. Gillespie.
A copy of Judge Cook's Order is enclosed.
Would }'OU please explain why your office has not complied ",ith Judge Cook's Order'?
RCRIso

18
copy
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATrON
ATIORNEYSATlAW
CHRIS A BARKER Telephone 8 1 3 / 4 8 9 ~ 1 0 0 1
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/489-1008
WILLIAM]. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
April 26, 2011
The Honorable James D. Arnold
Circuit Court Judge
Circuit Civil, Division "J"
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 514
Re: Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation; and William J. Cook
Case No.: 05-CA-7205; Division "J"
Dear Judge Arnold:
Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Defendants' Motion to Strike Pro Se Filings by Plaintiff
which was filed on even date in the above-referenced matter. By Order ofthis Court entered
November 15, 2010, Mr. Gillespie is prohibited from filing any documents pro see
Thank you for your tinle and attention to this matter.
RCR/so
Enclosure
cc: Neil J. Gillespie (w/encl)
19
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
DAVID A. ROWLAND
GENERAL COUNSEL
July 9,2010
Neil 1. Gillespie
8092 SW IIS
lh
Loop
Via E-Mail: neilgillespic(Ct:mli.Jlct
Re: ADA Accommodation Request
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-007205,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, General Civil Division
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
This is a response to your July 6, 2010 ADA request for accommodation
directed to Gonzalo Casares, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ADA Coordinator.
You request the same ADA accommodations previously submitted on February 19,
2010. Your February 19,2010 ADA request was a request for the court to take the
following case management actions:
1. Stop Mr. Rodems' behavior directed toward you that is aggravating your
post traumatic stress syndrome.
2. Fulfill case management duties imposed by Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.545 and designate the above-referenced case as complex
litigation under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.201.
3. Offer services, programs, or activities described in Judge Isom's law review
article - Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 Stetson L. Rev. 323, 324
(1998) - so the court can "intensively" manage the case.
800 EAST TWIGGS STREET SUITE 603 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 PHONE: (813) 272-6843 WEB: www.fIjud13.org
20
Neil 1. Gillespie
July 9,2010
Page 2
4. Enforce Judge Isom's directives imposed on February 5, 2007 which require
both parties to only address each other by surname when communicating
about this case and require parties to communicate in writing instead of
telephone calls.
5. Allow a l80-day stay so you can scan thousands of documents in this case to
PDF and find and hire replacement counsel.
As ADA Coordinator, Mr. Casares can assist in providing necessary
auxiliary aids and services and any necessary facility-related accommodations.
But neither Mr. Casares, nor any other court employee, can administratively grant,
as an ADA accommodation, requests that relate to the internal management of a
pending case. All of your case management requests - that opposing counsel's
behavior be modified, that the court fulfill its duties under Rule 2.545, that the
above-referenced case be designated as complex, that your case be "intensively"
managed as suggested by Judge Isom's law review article, that Judge Isom's
previous directive regarding communication between parties be enforced, that your
case be stayed - must be submitted by written motion to the presiding judge of the
case. The presiding judge may consider your disability, along with other relevant
factors, in ruling upon your motion.
Sincerely,
i l f J ~
David A. Rowland
cc: The Honorable Martha J. Cook
Ryan C. Rodems, Counsel for Defendant
Gonzalo Casares, ADA Coordinator for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
J. COOK,
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs.
-------------_/
2. Circuit Judge Martha J. Cook is presiding over this lawsuit.
3. I made a request for accommodation to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to Gonzalo B. Casares, the (ADA)
Coordinator. On Friday July 9, 2010 Court Counsel David A. Rowland sent me a letter by
email that denied my ADA accommodation request. Mr. Rowland denied my request less
than one business day prior to a hearing I was scheduled to attend.
4. On Monday July 12,2010 I attended a hearing at 10:30 AM before Judge
Cook in this lawsuit. While attending the hearing I suffered a panic attack. I informed
Judge Cook that I was ill and needed medical attention. Judge Cook excused me. This is
exactly what Judge Cook said:
Page 1 of3
21
6 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gillespie, you're
7 excused. Thank you.
(Transcript, July 12,2010, page 6, beginning at line 6)
5. Deputies of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office saw I was in distress
and offered assistance. Tampa Fire Rescue was called. Corporal Gibson was by my side
and walked me to the lobby of courthouse where I waited for the paramedics.
6. Tampa Fire Rescue arrived and I received medical attention at 10:42 AM
by EMT Paramedic Robert Ladue and EMT Paramedic Dale Kelley. Later I obtained a
report of the call, incident number 100035129. The narrative section states "found 54yom
sitting in courthouse" with "tight throat secondary to stress from court appearance". The
impressions section states "abdominal pain/problems". The nature of call at scene section
states "Resp problem". A copy of the report is attached to this affidavit as "Exhibit A."
7. Because the Court denied my ADA accommodation I appeared at the
hearing without one and became ill and was excused by Judge Cook, who continued the
hearing without me, thereby denying me by reason of my disability to 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 in violation of law.
8. I received a document from Judge Cook dated July 29,2010 "Notice Of
Case Management Status and Orders On Outstanding Res Judicata Motions" and "Notice
Of Court-Ordered Hearing On Defendants' For Final Summary Judgment". A certified
copy of the document is attached to this affidavit as "Exhibit B". The document begins
with a false account of my panic attack and medical treatment on July 12,2010. Judge
Cook wrote: "[t]he Plaintiff voluntarily left the hearing prior to its conclusion.. .loudly
Page 2 of3
gasping and shouting he was ill and had to be excused." At footnote 2 Judge Cook wrote:
"Mr. Gillespie refused medical care from emergency personnel when called by bailiffs
and left the courthouse immediately after learning that the conference was completed."
Statutes, section 839.13(1) if any judge shall falsify any record or any paper filed in any
judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or conceal any issue, or falsify any document
filed in any court or falsify any minutes or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to
any public office within this state the person so offending shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Dated this 27th day of September 2010.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
in the State of Florida, appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, personally known to me, or provided
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 27th day of September 2010.
C ~ ~
Notary Public
~ ~ CECIUA ROSENBERGER
State of Florida
f,.: ~ Commission DO 781620
.; Expires June 6, 2012
80ndId TtIU TIGf FIil ........701.
Page 3 of3
Page #1
Incident Number: 100035 129; Incident Date: 7/1212010; Patient: Gillespie. Neil
Printed By: MOLINA. LAURA Admin Asst (000) on 712712010 7:49:45 AM
TAMPA FIRE RESCUE (EMSID: 2911; FDID: 03072)
808 Zack St.
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 274-7005 x
TAMPA FIRE RESCUE Incident Date: 07/12/2010
Incident Number: 100035129 Patient 1 of 1
RESCUE 1 shift: B
GILLESPIE, NEIL 54 YEAR OLD, MALE
PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Depression, Diabetic, Hypertension
ALLERGIES: None ;
MEDICATIONS: unknown pt doesnt know names;
ASSESSMENT: 10:42
Patient Conscious.
NO External Hemorrhage Noted; Mucous Membrane Normal
Central Body Color Normal
Extremities Normal
WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS (Airway, Breathing Quality, Accessory Muscle use,
chest Rise, Radial pulse, Skin Temp, Skin Moisture, skin Turgor, cap
Refill, Pupil size and Reaction)
ALS Assessment Done to rule out NOC at Dispatch.
SECONDARY ASSESSMENT - INJURY:
CHEST - No Injury:. Left breath sounds are clear to auscultation.
Right breath sounds are clear to auscultation. Breath sounds are
equal. Heart sounds: Normal.
NARRATIVE:
R1 found 54yom sitting in courthouse. pt a&ox3, skin w&d, pt cc tight
throat secondary to stress from court appearance pt states, lungs
clear bi-lat, sa02 100%, pt blood sugar 179mg/dl, vitals as shown in
flow sheet section, monitor shows sinus rhythm w/ no ectopy noted, pt
denies being in any pn, secondary found no acute findings, advise pt
multo times to be transported to hospital pt refuses transport and
states he would rather go to his Dr. pt signed refusal and advise to
call back if any issues occur w/ full understanding.
TREATMENT:
10:42 pulse:120 Regular and Rapid Resp:16 Respiratory
Effort:Normal BP:148/96 Rhythm:NSR Sa02:100% (on Room Air)
Blood Sugar:179 Ectopy:NO GCS:4 spontaneous; 5 oriented; 6 obeys
= 15 Responsiveness:Alert painseverity:O
10:42 Sao2, successful, 1 attempt, LADUE, ROBERT EMT-Paramedic
(PMD514678) (unchanged) (100 room air)
10:43 Blood Glucose, KELLEY, DALE EMT-paramedic (PMD49960)
(unchanged) (179mg/dl)
10:44 ECG 4 Lead, successful, 1 attempt, ENGINE 1 (unchanged) (nsr
w/ no ectopy)
10:48 pulse:110 Not Assessed Resp:16 Respiratory
Effort: Normal BP:153/86 Rhythm:NSR sa02:100% (on Room Air)
Ectopy:NO GCS:4 spontaneous; 5 oriented; 6 obeys = 15
Responsiveness:Alert painseverity:O
No Venous Access
No Medications Done
IMPRESSION:
primary Impression: Other secondary Impression: Unknown Other
Impressions: Abdominal pain / problems
INCIDENT INFORMATION:
Incident location: 0000800 TWIGGS ST E Tampa, Hillsborough, FL 33602
'EXHIBIT
IJL
Page ##2
Incident Number: 100035129; Incident Dale: 7/12n.O 1 Patient: Gillespie, Neil
Printed By: MOLINA. LAURA Admin Asst (000) on 7127/20107:49:45 AM
TAMPA FIRE RESCUE (EMSID: 2911; FDID: 03072)
808 Zack St.
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 274-7005 x
Nature of call as dispatched: chest pain Nature of call at scene:
Resp Problem (Anatomic Location: Not Known) (organ system: Not
Known) (primary symptom: None) (Other symptom: Not Known )
(condition code: other)
Disposition: Non-Transport Evaluation only
Type of exposure on this run: None
07/12/2010 10:36:35 Call Received
07/12/2010 10:37:24 Dispatched
07/12/2010 10:38:50 Depart
07/12/2010 10:39:51 Arrive location
07/12/2010 10:40:00 patient Contact
07/12/2010 10:40:00 Assume Patient Care
07/12/2010 10:56:31 Available
Response to scene: Lights and sirens
Lead Crew Member: LADUE, ROBERT EMT-paramedic (PMD514678)
Crew Member 2: KELLEY, DALE EMT-paramedic (PMD49960)
ASSISTING:
ENGINE 1,
PATIENT:
GILLESPIE, NEIL OOB: 03/19/1956 54 YEARS OLD.
white, Male, 285 lbs
8092 sw 11Sth lOOp
ocala, FL 34481
SSN#: 160-52-5117
BILLING INFORMATION:
work Related: NO
Next of Kin Name:, () Address: City: State: Z; p: Phone:
SSN:
NFIRS:
Exposure #: 000 Incident Type: 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle
accident with injury Action Taken: 32 provide basic life support
(BLS)
N None
property Use: 599 Business office
RESPONDING UNITS:
suppression [Apparatus:l personnel:4]
EMS personnel:2]
other [Apparatus:O personnel:OJ
Includes no mutual aid resources.
Human Factors Involved: N None
other Factors Involved: N None
Impression: 00 other condition of patient: 2 Remained Same
Census Tract:
Page 113
Incident Number: 100035 129; Incident Date: 7/1212010; Patient: Gillespie, Neil
Printed By: MOLINA, LAURA Admin ASSl (000) on 7127120107:49:45 AM
TAMPA FIRE RESCUE (EMSID: 2911; FOlD: 03072)
808 Zack 51.
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 274-7005 x

SIGNATURES:
signed By: LADUE,
Last Modified By:
PM
ROBERT EMT-paramedic (PMD514678)
MILLER, LILAH Admin Asst. (000) on 7/23/2010 1:46:04
..
***** Addendum / Data correction Added
(000) on 7/23/2010 1:46:07 PM *****
by: MILLER, LILAH Admin Asst.
(-) :
124(+): Last
1:46:04
125(+): PM
141000
Modified By: MILLER, LILAH Admin Asst. (000) on 7/23/2010
..
- r ' ~
r-
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Division: G
and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
------------_---.:/
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT STATUS and
ORDERS ON OUTSTANDING RES JUDICATA MOTIONS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for case management on July 12, 2010. Both parties
appeared for the hearing; however, the Plaintiff voluntarily left the hearing prior to its conclusion, stating
his objection to the case management conference, demanding status of ADA claims already addressed by
the court administration, objecting to the physical presence of opposing counsel, objecting to this Court
presiding in this matter due to his "notice of filing" of a purported lawsuit against the 13
th
Judicial
Circuit,l and finally loudly gasping and shouting he was ill and had to be excused.
2
Prior to the Plaintiff s
voluntary departure, the parties were asked by the Court for a status update on this case and to list for the
Court those petitions and motions presently outstanding. Subsequent to the hearing, the Court reviewed
the 11 volumes, paying specific attention to Court orders that substantively disposed issues. In so doing,
it was clear that certain of Plaintiff's re-filed motions are res judicata - matters that have been
"definitively settled by judicial decision.,,3 Having considered these re-filed motions, the Court hereby
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES:
13
th
lRegarding the Plaintiffs "noticed" lawsuit against the Judicial Circuit, it is well-established law that the
Plaintiff's filing does not present legally sufficient grounds for this Court's disqualification or recusal from this case.
See Dowdy v. Sa/fi, 455 So.2d 604 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 1984), 5-H Corforation v. Padovana, 708 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1997),
May v. South Florida Water Management, 866 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4
t
DCA 2004) and Bay Bank & Trust v. Lewis, 634
So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). This objection was addressed in the Court's July 27, 2010 denial of disqualification.
2 Mr. Gillespie refused medical care from emergency personnel when called by bailiffs and left the courthouse
immediately after learning that the conference was completed.
3 Black's Law Dictionary, 7
th
Edition.
EXHIBIT
Page 1 of 7
1-8
1. Plaintiff's "Motions to Strike CMC" (6-14-10) were DENIED prior to the July 12, 2010
hearing.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing (7-16-08) is DENIED. The judge to whom this rehearing
motion was directed removed himself from the case and the subsequent judge has, in .her
discretion under Rule 2.330, denied reconsideration of the orders of proceeding judges (see order
dated June 22, 2010).
3. Plaintiff's "Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel" (no date provided in Judge Barton's
order) and "Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendant's Counsel" (7-9-10) are each
DENIED. The Plaintiff's original attempt to disqualify Defendants' counsel was first denied,
with prejudice, on May 12, 2006. When a Court dismisses a motion "with prejudice" that means
that the motion in question is "finally disposed ... and bars any future action on that claim.,,4
Additionally, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, these motions must be denied.
4. Plaintiff's "Motion to Declare Complex Litigation" (5-3-10) "Motion to Disclose Conflict"
(5-5-10). and "Motion to Disclose Ex Parte Communication" (5-5-10) were each addressed and
DENIED in the July 16, 2010 order denying disqualification of Judge Cook, the Plaintiffs
motion for which referenced these matters.
5. Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to Amend," citing ADA (4-1-10), "Motion for Leave to
Amend" (5-5-10), "Motion to Consider Prior ADA Accommodation," (5-3-10), and "Motion
to Stay Pending ADA" (6-14-10) are each DENIED. Even if ADA applied in the fashion which
the Plaintiff sought to employ it, a stay would be unnecessary as that is the point of the protection
- to allow a "person with a disability who needs an accommodation to access court facilities or
participate in a court proceeding.,,5 Court administration has informed the Plaintiff that the nature
of his ADA requests, thus far, involve "the internal management of pending cases,,6 - in other
4 Black's Law Dictionary, 7
th
Edition.
5 13
th
Judicial Circuit Website, accessed July 22, 2010:
http://www.flj ud 13.org/dotnetnuke/BusinessOperations/CourtFacilitiesSecurity/ADAAccommodations.aspx
6 See July 9, 2010 letter from administration, as copied to all parties.
Page 2 of7
words, Plaintiff s issues are the subject of "case management." Moreover, excepting Count 1,
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim against Defendant law firm, all of the Plaintiff's pleadings and
answers have been disposed and amendment is thereby impossible. See Order Granting Motion
for Sanctions (7-20-07), Order Granting In Part Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
Pleadings (11-28-07), Final Judgment (3-27-08), Order Determining Amount of Sanctions
(3-27-08), Order Granting and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Judgment on
Pleadings (7-7-08), Final Judgment as to Defendant Cook (7-7-08), Order Granting
Defendant's Motion for Writ of Garnishment (7-24-08), and the Order from Second District
Court of Appeals (2D08-2224), opinion and mandate. See also Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.100(a).7
6. Plaintiff's "Motions for Reconsideration" (6-18-10 and 6-23-10) were duplicative and
DENIED by this Court's discretion on June 23, 2010. Plaintiff's "Motion for
Reconsideration" (6-28-10) filed after entry of that denial is DENIED, as it is duplicative of the
prior two motions, and is disposed by res judicata.
7. Plaintiff's "Motion Dissolve Writ" (5-3-10) is DENIED as lacking legal basis. The Defendants
are entitled to this Writ by a final judgment and a judgment granting motion for sanctions;
moreover, the Second District Court of appeal has affirmed and issued a "mandate," which means
this Court has no option but to enforce the judgment.
8. The Plaintiff's "Motion for Order of Protection," (no date provided in Judge Barton's order)
renewed in his "Motion to Cancel Deposition" (6-16-10) is DENIED. The Plaintiff has
repeatedly been the subject of Motions to Compel by the Defendants during the course of these
proceedings, and has ignored Court orders requiring his participation. The Court will not accept
these or any further attempts by the Plaintiff to avoid the Defendant's right to discovery in this
7 "There shall be a complaint or ... petition, and an answer to it; an answer to a counterclaim ... an answer to a
cross claim [if applicable]; a third party complaint [and answer, if applicable] ... no other pleading shall be
allowed."
Page 3 of7
case and to bring this matter to a close. Non-compliance with the Court's orders is grounds for
dismissal of the Plaintiff s remaining count with prejudice.
9. Each of the Plaintiff's "Motions to Disqualify" against the undersigned have been DENIED by
separate order of the Court, the most recent of which was entered July 27, 2010.
10. The Court RESERVES JURISDICTION to consider the following motions:
a. Plaintiff's "Motions to Compel Discovery" (12-14-06,2/1/07,4-1-10, and 6-23-10)
b. Plaintiff's "Claim for Exemption" (8-14-08 and 5-3-10)
c. Plaintiff's "Motion for Contempt" (no date provided in Judge Barton's order)
d. Plaintiff's "Motion for Order to Show Cause and Contempt" (no date provided in
Judge Barton's order)
e. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanction" (4-28-10)
f. Defendant's "Motion for Proceedings Supplementary for Execution" (no date
provided by Defendants)
g. Defendant's "Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section 56.29(2)" (no date
provided by Defendants)
h. Defendants' "Motion for an Order to Show Cause as to Why Plaintiff Should Not
Be Prohibited from Henceforth Appearing Pro Se," received July 27, 2010.
11. These motions shall not be set for hearing until the Court has first ruled on the Defendant's
outstanding motion for Final Summary Judgment.
12. The Court GRANTS the Defendant's request to set a mandatory hearing upon their outstanding
"Motion for Final Sumnlary Judgment," served upon the Plaintiff January 23, 2007.
8
Both the
Defendants and the Plaintiff are ORDERED TO APPEAR on September 28, 2010 at
11:00a.m. The hearing shall be for no more than 30 minutes. The hearing will be held at 800 E.
Twiggs Street, Hearing Room 511, Tampa, Florida, 33602. The Court shall not grant any
continuance, or any motion for reconsideration or rehearing of this order setting hearing.
13. The Court will allow the Plaintiff to appear telephonically, but it is his responsibility to file a
timely written motion no later than September 21, 2010 and for him to provide, at his own
expense, for the services of a notary on his end of the phone, since it may be necessary to swear
8 Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.080, the question of whether or not a receiving party facilitates acceptance of papers
(i.e. refuses to accept certified mail and/or federal express deliveries) is irrelevant; the question is the "good faith" of
the party who is attempting to produce the document, which can be proven up by delivery receipts and/or any other
evidence of legitimate attempt at service. In addition, "the certificate [of service] shall be taken as prima facie proof
of such service in compliance with these rules." Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.080(t).
Page 4 of7
him in for testimony. Should the Plaintiff fail to arrange telephonic appearance, then his in
person appearance is mandatory. Should the Plaintiff voluntarily forfeit his appearance by failing
to attend, call in, or not participate in good faith (including failure to provide the required notary),
then the hearing shall proceed in his absence and the Court may consider sanctions for his non
appearance.
14. At this mandatory hearing the parties must also be prepared to discuss the effect of the "Order
Adjudging Contempt" entered by Judge Barton on July 7, 2008. This order found that the
Plaintiff had ability to comply with the "Final Judgment" entered on March 27, 2008 and that
the Plaintiff violated the terms of that order by failing to complete Form 1.977 Fact Information
Sheet. The Plaintiff was ordered to complete the sheet and to serve a copy to the Defendant no
later than July 11, 2008. If the Plaintiff did not timely submit Form 1.977, as ordered, then
pursuant to the "Order Adjudging Contempt," "the Court shall dismiss" with prejudice, the
Plaintiff's last remaining claim (i.e. Count 1, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim against
Defendant law firm). Because this dismissal sanction may render hearing on the Defendant's
"Motion for Final Summary Judgment" to be moot, the parties are ORDERED to provide
proof to this Court that this prior contempt sanction has been addressed.
15. A separate notice of hearing on the motion for summary judgment accompanies this order. Copies
will be sent to the parties at the address provided to the Clerk of Court.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on July m, 2010.
~ ) ~ t ~
Martha J. Cook
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Page 5 of7
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
:!: ......,
r
c::::::')
- r"
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
and
Case No:
Division:
05-CA-007205
G
C,/')
("")0,::)

-\C">
C")::c
C
c:
r-
w
o
:t'D

.. r-

WILLIAM J. COOK,
-71
r"

r _...
:<

-::
N
C1'
C')
", .....,1

---'
Defendants.

NOTICE OF COURT-ORDERED HEARING ON
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO: Neil J. Gillespie, pro se (Plaintiff)
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tampa, 33602
YOU ARE NOTIFIED that a hearing on the Defendants' Motion for Final Summary Judgment,
filed and served upon the Plaintiff since January 23, 2007, has been ORDERED by the Court (see
"Notice of Case Management Status and Orders on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions," entered
July 29, 2010).
At this mandatory hearing the parties must be prepared to address the ORDER ADJUDGING
CONTEMPT entered by Judge Barton on July 7, 2008, as instructed by this Court's prior order.
Both the Defendants and the Plaintiff are ORDERED TO APPEAR before:
JUDGE: The Honorable Martha J. Cook
PLACE: 800 E. Twiggs Street, Hearing Room 511, Tampa,Florida, 33602.
TIME: ll:00a.m.
DURATION: 45 minutes
DATE: September 28,2010
Should either party fail to attend or to participate in good faith as described in the "Notice of
Case Management Status and Orders on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions," then the hearing shall
proceed on the merits without that party. All parties will be required to abide by the Rules of Civil
Procedure and follow appropriate courtroom decorum.
A copy of this notice has been furnished to the parties on the date of this NOTICE.
Page 6 of7
The parties are further advised that failure to appear or to comport with either the "Notice of
Case Management Status and Orders on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions" or this "Notice of
Court-Ordered Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Final Summary Judgment" may constitute
contempt of court, which could result in the imposition of sanctions, including without limitation fine,
incarceration or dismissal of the action with prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on July 29, 2010.
/hLLLU/U. if' ~
Martha J. Cook
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the
Administrative Office of the Courts, Attention: ADA Coordinator, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, FL
33602, Phone: 813-272-6513, Hearing Impaired: 1-800-955-8771, Voice impaired: 1-800-955-8770, e
mail: ADA @fljudI3.org. at least seven (7) days before your scheduled court appearance. Ifyou are
hearing or voice impaired, call 711.
Page 7 of7
--------------
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
J ~ COOK,
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs.
/
2. Circuit Judge Martha J. Cook is presiding over this lawsuit.
3. I am suing my former lawyers in this lawsuit. On information and belief,
Ryan Christopher Rodems is unlawfully representing Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA and
William J. Cook against me.
Page 1 of4
22
been heard at all.
is whether counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[l] Matter of Doughty, 51 B.R. 36.
Disqualification is required when counsel "ought" to appear as a witness. [3] Florida
raises the issue in paragraph 4. The motion properly considered de novo the question of
disqualification on the counterclaim. The motion also shows misconduct by Mr. Rodems
at the April 25, 2006 hearing sufficient to overturn the Order of May 12, 2006.
statement by Judge Cook is false. The Order issued May 12, 2006 clearly states that
Page 2 of4
Statlltes, section 839.13(1) if any judge shall falsify any record or any paper filed in any
judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or conceal any issue, or falsify any document
filed in any court the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
willfully, with malice aforethought, engaged in official misconduct to harm Neil Gillespie
and benefit Ryan Christopher Rodems and his clients, by falsifying an official record or
official document as described in this affidavit, to deny Gillespie due process, in violation
of the Misuse of Public Office statute, chapter 838 Florida Statutes, section 838.022
Official misconduct. (1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a
benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to: (a) Falsify, or cause another person
to falsify, any official record or official document; (3) Any person who violates this
section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.
775.083, or s. 775.084.
mislead a public servant, Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit Court, in the performance of her
official duty, in violation of the perjury statute, chapter 837 Florida Statutes, section
Page 3 of4
775.082 or s. 775.083.
Dated this 27th day of September 2010.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
in the State of Florida, appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, personally known to me, or produced
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 27th day of September 2010.
~ ~
CECIUA ROSENBERGER
Notary Public
,
it1 Commission 00 781620
Exptres June 6, 2012 State of Florida
BondIdl1w T ~ Fain InuInoe....701.
Page 4 of4
Defendants.
/
-------------
I
EXHIBIT
3ft
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Division: F
J. COOK,
be a witness, aJ.1d on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this lZ"'Afday of May, 2006.
Richard A. Nielsen
Circuit Judge
Copies to:
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Division: G
and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
(,;.,)
..
Defendants.
-----------_-----:/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS & BARKER RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
TillS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Plaintiffs motion, filed July 9, 2010. This is the
third time that the Plaintiff has motioned to disqualify Defendant's counsel, despite having been informed
in an order issued May 12, 2006 that this issue had been DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. "With
prejudice" that means that the motion in question is "finally disposed ... and bars any future action on
that claim."1 Moreover, because of the doctrine of res judicata 2 this motion must be DENIED.
The Plaintiff is again noticed (as he has been in two previous Court orders) that repeat filings
attempting to revisit the same issue can be found to rise to the level of a sanctionable offense.
3
The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to never accept another pleading from the Plaintiff that
indicates an attempt to disqualify Defendants' counsel, as this matter has been DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on July
STATE OF FLORJOA )
201 OF HILLSBOROUGH)
THIS IS TOCERTIFY Tf-'.ATTHE IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COpy OF THE DOCUMENT ON FILE IN A
WITNOEASy-'S' MF'LXuaND AND.oFFlCiAL SEAL . u..A/___
O
...""",\\\ . -' .t\.AR 20@. -- -..
/ Martha J. Cook
PAT FRANK
"CLE' CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
... ..
\"" ....
I Black's Law Dictionary, 7 than. D.C.
2 Matters that have been "definitively settl by judicial decision." Black's Law Dictionary, 7
th
Edition.
3 Lanier v. State of Florida, 982 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2008).
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT
Copies Furnished To:
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se (Plaintiff)
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tampa, FL 33602
Page 2 of 2
Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
But Mayor Pam Iorio says she will not join them, though she is a member of the port's
governing board.
STEVE HUETTEL
Published June 12, 2003
TAMPA - With permission from the federal government in hand, Tampa Port Authority officials are gearing
up for a trade trip to Cuba, and it may happen as soon as next month.
The agency wants to talk with Cuban officials about shipping agricultural products they buy from Tampa Bay
area companies through Tampa instead of other Florida ports.
The agency hasn't set a date or decided who will make the trip, said port counsel Dale Bohner. But Tampa
Mayor Pam Iorio, a member of the port's governing board, said Wednesday she's not interested in going.
"The port should explore trade and travel opportunities there, but it's not the role for the mayor at this time,"
she said.
Anti-Castro groups and two City Council members criticized then-Mayor Dick Greco last year for leading a
delegation of business and civic leaders on a four-day trip to Cuba that included a meeting with Castro.
One of the most vocal critics, Tampa attorney Ralph Fernandez, said Wednesday that sending a local
delegation on the heels of a recent crackdown on Cuban dissidents would be a mistake. He noted that the
European Union this month announced unprecedented diplomatic sanctions against Cuba.
"The timing could not be more embarrassing or poorer," Fernandez said. "It would be an affront to the
freedom-loving world."
Congress voted in 2000 to ease the trade embargo and allow U.S. companies to sell certain food and
agricultural products to Cuba on a cash-only basis.
Cuba bought $138.6-million in goods last year, said John Kavulich of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic
Council. Sales are projected to increase nearly 20 percent to $166-million this year, he said.
Tampa port officials skipped a major food and agricultural expo in Havana last fall, dismissing Cuba as an
insignificant trading partner.
But after learning that local companies with contracts from Cuba were shipping products through
Jacksonville, the port's governing board directed its staff to explore Cuba's potential.
In February, the chairman of Cuba's government-owned buyer of food and agricultural products invited Greco
and executives of the port and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce to visit and discuss rebuilding
traditional trading ties.
Business: Tampa port officials will travel to Cuba http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/12/news_pf/Business/Tampa_port_offic...
1 of 2 10/16/2012 4:15 PM
23
The port authority applied in March to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control for a
travel license. But federal officials held up the request, saying the port asked for a different kind of license
than had been granted to similar agencies.
The license was quietly approved last month for a trip no longer than one week. The visit must be completed
by Sept. 6.
Port officials asked to send a delegation that included Bohner, the port counsel; port director George
Williamson; port board chairman Joseph Diaz; Hillsborough County Commissioner Pat Frank; Louis Ricard
of Cargill Inc.; and Joe Guidry, the editorial page editor of the Tampa Tribune.
But the license covers only paid employees of the port authority who specialize in agricultural marketing and
sales. Diaz and Frank are not paid for serving on the port board. Bohner said he will contact Treasury
Department officials to clarify who can travel under the license.
The port counsel also said he expects to plan the trip next week with Williamson, who was in Mexico this
week on a trade mission with Tampa chamber economic development officials.
- Steve Huettel can be reached at huettel@sptimes.com or 813 226-3384.
Copyright, St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.
Business: Tampa port officials will travel to Cuba http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/12/news_pf/Business/Tampa_port_offic...
2 of 2 10/16/2012 4:15 PM

Rebuttal To Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rebuttal To Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Via Email: tlittlew@flabar.

org, and October 16, 2012

You might also like