Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, Appointment of Counsel UPL Complaint 20133090

VIA UPS No.
1Z64589FP298344878 J une 14, 2013

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando
The Gateway Center
1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Orlando, Florida 32801-1050
RE: Case No. 20133090(5), UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie
Dear Mr. Coaxum:
This is a motion or request for the following in your UPL investigation of me:
1. Appointment of counsel
2. Exclusion of evidence
3. Change to a venue outside Florida
4. Strike the sham Order of J udge Martha Cook (Submitted by Mr. Rodems)
5. Disqualification of Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, from this matter for cause
1. Appointment of counsel
I request appointment of counsel under the laws and Constitution of Florida, and the laws and
Constitution of the United States, including the Sixth Amendment, and the holding of Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and any other case requiring legal counsel in this matter.
Engaging in the unlicensed practice of law in Florida is a third degree felony, punishable by five
(5) years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.00. A conviction of UPL may result in criminal
penalties against me under F.S. 454.23, including fines, incarceration and loss of liberty.
F.S. 454.23 Penalties. - Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law
in this state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out to the public as
qualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes or
uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified, or
recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
I am indigent and cannot afford to hire counsel to advise or represent me. Previously I was
determined indigent or insolvent, and granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the cases
shown below, with evidence thereof attached, Exhibits 1-6.
Florida Supreme Court, No. SC11-858, No. SC11-1622.
Florida Second District Court of Appeal, 2D10-5197, 2D10-5529, and 2D11-2127.
Hillsborough Co., Florida, 05-CA-7205, F.S. 27.52 appointed public defender.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel J une 14, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 2
2. Exclusion of evidence
You failed to inform me that this is a criminal matter. Case No. 20133090(5), while initially
presented as Bar regulatory action, is essentially similar to F.S. 454.23. Tellingly you failed to
inform me in connection with your investigation of my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
I move to exclude any evidence previously given until counsel is appointed to represent me.
3. Change of venue
In the interest of justice I request a change to a venue outside the state of Florida. I do not
believe The Florida Bar will fairly adjudicate this matter because of prejudice or bias against me.
I have filed meritorious Bar complaints with The Florida Bar against lawyers guilty of multiple
breaches of The Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which
complaints The Bar has failed to properly adjudicate. The two most recent were improperly
dismissed without probable cause:
Ryan Christopher Rodems File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
The complaints were found meritorious by intake Bar Counsel Theodore Littlewood, who
determined under Rule 3-7.3(a) that in each case the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute
a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline.
Mr. Littlewood opened a disciplinary file in each case, and pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(b), his
investigation concluded each complaint warranted further consideration. Mr. Littlewood sent
each complaint to the Bars Tampa Branch Office, which corruptly dismissed each case.
Each case was dismissed without probable cause by Bar Counsel Leonard Clark, with the
consent and advice of Ms. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel, Michael Stofer, Chair
of the Sixth J udicial Circuit, and Sandra Fascell Diamond, Designated Reviewer.
The Rule 3-7.3(d) determination in each case of no probable cause by Bar Counsel and
Committee Chair was a sham because the determination did not address a bona fide issue
complained about. Email between Mr. Clark and the parties show the determination in each case
was a foregone conclusion to dismiss without probable cause.
4. Strike sham Order of J udge Martha Cook (submitted by Mr. Rodems)
Enclosed you will find my affidavit made to impeach the Order of J udge Cook submitted by Mr.
Rodems. The Order is a sham on its face and was entered by J udge Cook with a corrupt motive,
to stop legitimate inquiry showing her personal and business financial affairs violated the Florida
Code of J udicial Conduct. J udge Cook recused herself in this case November 18, 2010, three
days after she entered the Order. J udge Cooks recusal shows my motion to disqualify her was
legally justified, and that Cook was unfit to serve as a judge in Florida.
5. Disqualification of Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, from this matter for cause
Unfortunately, your response to my letter of May 29, 2013 would cause a reasonable person to
conclude that you are not conducting this UPL investigation fairly, and that you are biased
against me. You may also be engaged in prosecutorial overreach and/or misconduct.
You responded by email Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:19 PM as follows: (Copy enclosed)
Mr. Gillespie:
It appears that you are requesting an advisory opinion in that you are asking for a
determination. The branch offices are not permitted to render advisory opinions, such
matters are handled through headquarters in Tallahassee. I can grant you a 30 day
extension until J uly 3, 2013 for either you or your counsel to provide a written response.
The complaint in question consisted of the signed form from Mr. Rodems and J udge
Martha J . Cook's two page order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se in case
number 05-CA-7205.
I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct
by J udge Cook as such matters are handled by the Florida J udicial Qualifications
Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com
Thank you,
Ghunise L Coaxum
Henceforth, please respond to me through the U.S. mail. I will not accept email from you.
You are mistaken that I requested an advisory opinion. I did not request an advisory opinion.
Instead, I asked for compliance with Rule 105.1(b):
Rule 105.1(b) Review by Bar Counsel. Bar counsel shall review the complaint and
determine whether the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the
prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. (relevant portion)
Your absence of a reply responsive to my question and required by Rule 10-5.1(b) shows this
inquiry is not legitimate, but vexatious. It appears you are facilitating Mr. Rodems use The
Florida Bar for the untoward purpose of retribution against me. There is no evidence you
complied with Rule 105.1(b). Mr. Rodems UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if
proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.
Your referral to the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) for Martha Cooks sham order
entered November 15, 2010 is misplaced. J udge Cook committed a crime, not misconduct, which
criminal activity is a denial of judicial under the color of law. See my enclosed affidavit.
Unfortunately Mr. Coaxum, you did not respond to my UPL complaint against Mr. Rodems, set
forth in part below.
Mr. Coaxum, I believe this letter gives you sufficient information under Rule 105.1(b)
to determine that Mr. Rodems alleged UPL, conduct, if proven, would constitute a
violation of the prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. The
Orlando UPL office has jurisdiction because Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL in the Ocala
Division of the U.S. District Court. Also, I live in Ocala and am a survivor of Mr.
Rodems UPL. I am also a member of the public, and protection of the public is the
primary goal in determining whether a particular act constitutes the (unlicensed) practice
of law. I was harmed by Mr. Rodems UPL.
The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act
constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)
Your failure Mr. Coaxum to respond to my UPL complaint against Mr. Rodems is remarkable.
You have apparently dispensed with any pretext that this is legitimate investigation. Instead, you
are improperly protecting Mr. Rodems unlicensed practice of law, his representation of the state
of Florida in a federal court action, case no. 5:10-cv-503, my federal ADA disability and section
1983 civil rights lawsuit against the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, state judicial officers,
and state employees.
Mr. Rodems engaged in the unlicensed practice of law as defined by Rule 105.1(b):
RULE 10-2.1 GENERALLY
Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein
set forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicate a different meaning:
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/6F7CBB2BCCBD2AC285257A2C00687BA2
Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the state of Florida and negotiate a settlement
agreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I was
unlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Florida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the Florida
Attorney General can represent the State of Florida, which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
Claudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)
J ames M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
Martha J . Cook, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to
appoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorney
to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.
Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:
16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:
(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or
criminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in the
Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.
The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.
(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the office
of the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutor
shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of
criminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a
related transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or more
judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed
by the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicial
nominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.
Mr. Coaxum, acting under color of law to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive me of rights
protected by the Constitution or U.S. law is a federal crime.
Please remove yourself immediately from this matter.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Enclosures
Cc: Gov. Rick Scott, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295160885
Attorney General Pam Bondi, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297592898
Chief-Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP292600931
Email Cc: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service
list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, 13th Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D

Neil Gillespie
From: "Ghunise Coaxum" <gcoaxum@flabar.org>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)
Page 1of 5
6/2/2013
Mr. Gillespie:

It appears that you are requesting an advisory opinion in that you are asking for a "determination." The branch offices are not permitted to
render advisory opinions, such matters are handled through headquarters in Tallahassee. I can grant you a 30 day extension until July 3,
2013 for either you or your counsel to provide a written response.

The complaint in question consisted of the signed form from Mr. Rodems and Judge Martha J. Cook's two page order Prohibiting Plaintiff
From Appearing Pro Se in case number 05-CA-7205.

I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct by Judge Cook as such matters are handled by the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com

Thank you,

Ghunise L Coaxum
Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar
Unlicensed Practice of Law Department
The Gateway Center
(407) 425-0473
(407) 841-5403 (fax)

From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
To: "Ghunise Coaxum" <gcoaxum@flabar.org>, "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Cc: "Gov. Rick Scott" <Rick.Scott@eog.myflorida.com>, "AG Pam Bondi" <pam.bondi@myfloridalegal.com>, "Diana R Esposito" <Diana.Esposito@myfloridalegal.com>, "Laurel G
Bellows" <lbellows@bellowspc.com>, "James R. Silkenat" <jsilkenat@sandw.com>, "Ellyn Rosen" <Ellyn.Rosen@americanbar.org>, "Myles Lynk" <Myles.Lynk@asu.edu>, "Joseph
Bluemel" <jbluemel@hamsfork.net>, "Nancy Cohen" <ncohen@mcpclaw.com>, "Dolores Dorsainvil" <DorsainvilD@dcobc.org>, "Linda Gosnell" <lindagosnell1@gmail.com>, "James Hill"
<jhill@zkslaw.com>, "James A Kawachika" <JAK@opglaw.com>, "Amy Lin Meyerson" <amy@almesq.com>, "Cleaveland Miller" <cmiller@semmes.com>, "William W Wilhelm"
<wwilhelm@flabar.org>, "Theodore P Littlewood" <tlittlew@flabar.org>, "Susan Varner Bloemendaal" <sbloemen@flabar.org>, "Paul F Hill" <phill@flabar.org>, "Leonard E Clark"
<LClark@flabar.org>, "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <kmarvin@flabar.org>, "John Thomas Berry" <jberry@flabar.org>, "John F Harkness" <jharkness@flabar.org>, "Jeffrey Carter
Andersen" <candersen@bushross.com>, "James N Watson" <jwatson@flabar.org>, "Gwynne Alice Young" <gyoung@carltonfields.com>, "Eugene Keith Pettis" <epettis@hpslegal.com>,
"Annemarie Craft" <acap@flabar.org>, "Mary Ellen Bateman" <mbateman@flabar.org>, "Gregory Harrison Fisher" <fishlaw@gte.net>, "Belinda Barndollar Lazzara" <blazzara@mslo-
law.com>, "Maribeth L. Wetzel" <beth@goldmanwetzel.com>, "Michael G Stofer" <mstofer@deaconandmoulds.com>, "Sandra Fascell Diamond" <sdiamond@wdclaw.com>
Date: 05/29/2013 03:04 PM
Subject: UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297064771
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando
The Gateway Center

RE: UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)
Complaint Against Ryan Christopher Rodems for Unlicensed Practice of Law
Dear Mr. Coaxum:
Your letter to me dated May 14, 2013, copy enclosed, requested: (Exhibit 1)
Please give us your written position concerning the attached correspondence from Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.. I would appreciate
receiving your written response no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. Responses should not exceed twenty-five (25)
pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. A reply from you will assist my office in
determining whether this is a matter which should be referred to an unlicensed practice of law committee. Any response by you will become
a part of the UPL record in this matter and become accessible to the public upon closure of the case.
On information and belief, the twenty (20) day time to respond ends Monday J une 3, 2013.
My "written position" herewith is not a response to the allegations of Ryan Christopher Rodems in the "attached correspondence" which you
failed to identify as his UPL complaint against me. Instead, this is a request for a determination under Rule 105.1(b) whether the alleged
conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition against engaging in UPL.
In the alternative I request a 30 day extension of time to respond. Either way, I am making this UPL complaint part of the appellate review in
the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and will seek appointment of counsel on my pro se appeal of the foreclosure of my home.
Rule 105.1(b) states:
(b) Review by Bar Counsel. Bar counsel shall review the complaint and determine whether the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a
violation of the prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. Bar counsel may conduct a preliminary, informal investigation
to aid in this determination and, if necessary, may employ a Florida bar staff investigator to aid in the preliminary investigation. If bar
counsel determines that the facts, if proven, would not constitute a violation, bar counsel may decline to pursue the complaint. A decision by
bar counsel not to pursue a complaint shall not preclude further action or review under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The
complainant shall be notified of a decision not to pursue a complaint and shall be given the reasons therefor.
In my view, Mr. Rodems UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should
not pursue the complaint.
Quite frankly this UPL complainant is vexatious, and a continuation by Mr. Rodems of a long-standing personal vendetta against me for
having the temerity to hold him and his crooked law partners accountable for defrauding me of $7,143 in prior representation.
Mr. Rodems UPL complaint makes false and/or misleading accusations, under penalty of perjury, but he has not provided any dates, nor
attached any relevant documents supporting his accusations to inform my response. The UPL form states dates and documents are required:
DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT, PROVIDE DATES AND FACTS OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AND ATTACH A COPY OF
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.
The only document I found in the envelope from you is not relevant, and is from a closed case in another matter, and not part of the
allegations in Mr. Rodems complaint. Do I have all the documents in this complaint? If not, please provide me the missing documents
immediately.
The case law I reviewed does not show grounds for this UPL complaint either. I am not licensed to practice law, and never claimed that I was
so licensed. The construction and application of UPL is to protect the public from laypeople who claim to be licensed lawyers:
While the Supreme Court is expressly charged under the Florida Constitution with regulating and disciplining licensed members of the
Florida Bar, it also has a duty to protect the public from laypeople who claim that they are licensed to practice law, but are not. The Florida
Bar v. Abreu, 833 So.2d 752 (2002).
Mr. Rodems has not alleged that I harmed the public, or that I claimed to be a licensed lawyer.
The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v.
Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)
I represented myself, my interest in an estate and trust, pro se. I was not a court-appointed personal representative of an estate. In the trust
matter, my co-trustee is represented by counsel.
Florida Constitution, Article I:
Section 21. Access to courts. - The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without
sale, denial or delay.
Once a person has made a decision to represent himself, the Supreme Court should not enforce any unnecessary regulation which might tend
to hinder the exercise of such right. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978).
The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice is to protect the public
from being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little, if any,
control. Morrison v. West App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearing denied. Attorney And Client App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010),
rehearing denied.
28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,
Page 2of 5
6/2/2013
respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
Martha J ean Cook - judge of questionable ethics
As to the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se, the order was entered by Martha Cook ex parte, without hearing, and prior to
the expiration of time to respond. When Martha Cook entered the order November 15, 2010, she was a Defendant in my federal lawsuit
against her and others of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, and therefore had a duty to recuse. But Martha Cook does not recuse when required,
and enjoys making rulings favorable to her interests.
Unfortunately Martha Cook is a judge of questionable ethics, according to a story on the Florida Bar News Summary J uly 22, 2011,
"CRITICS: J UDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa Tribune". See Exhibit 2, and the
link.
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7aa779e8525688d0073e8f8/b820bfd498a31e31852578d50050dfc9
Martha Cooks sham order entered November 15, 2010 is an honest services fraud in exchange for Mr. Rodems campaign donation, and for
his UPL representation of her and the state of Florida in a federal court action J une 21, 2011.
Rule 10 - 2.1. Generally
Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein set forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicate
a different meaning:
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case
law of the state of Florida.
Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of Law June 21, 2011
Improper Representation of the State of Florida in Federal Litigation
Mr. Rodems submitted Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32) J une 21, 2011 in my federal
ADA and civil rights case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. Mr. Rodems motion, which appears at Exhibit 3, states:
On J une 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie assigned all 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 prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
Fortunately U.S. District J udge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant Mr. Rodems motion, and now I know why: Only the Florida Attorney
General may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. My attorney at the time, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, failed to inform me, and
it appears certain that he and Mr. Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of my rights guaranteed under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.
As set forth in my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747, by September 2010 I needed the assistance and protection of an Article III federal judge, in
Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205, due to Mr. Rodems extreme misconduct representing his firm against me, a former client on the same or
substantially related matter in violation of Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890
F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.
On the morning of September 28, 2010 I filed by hand delivery to the U.S. District Clerk in Ocala, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit,
Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. My Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-
cv-00503 pled violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rights under section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit,
Hillsborough case no 05-CA-7205 commenced five years earlier to recover the money stolen from me by Rodems his partners in the Amscot
lawsuit.
Unfortunately things got worse in the Florida case. Hours after I filed my federal civil rights lawsuit, Martha Cook held me in civil contempt,
with writ of bodily attachment, during an ex parte hearing, where she made a false record that I "elected to leave". Mr. Rodems aided and
abetted that fraud. Fortunately the bailiff, Deputy C.E. Brown, told his commander that J udge Cook ordered me to leave after I provided her a
copy of the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.
Mr. Rodems got a warrant to arrest me on the pretext of a court-ordered deposition after the case was closed and on appeal in 2D10-5197. In
2008 J udge J ames Barton awarded $11,550 to Rodems in attorney-fee sanctions, blaming me for Rodems earlier misconduct and disruption
of the tribunal. Later I was incompetently represented by Robert W. Bauer, at a cost of $31,863. Mr. Bauer was a referral from the Florida
Bars Lawyer Referral Service. Yesterday I submitted a rebuttal to the response of Mr. Bauer in Florida Bar complaint no. 2013-00,540 (8B)
It appears Mr. Bauer and Rodems were engaged in racketeering and obstruction to deprive me of rights guaranteed under the Constitution
and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.
The public defender was appointed to represent me J une 1, 2011 at a civil contempt hearing, but the judge relieved the defender at the
hearing and immediately entered an order to arrest me. For twenty-one days law enforcement sought to arrest me while I was at home with
Page 3of 5
6/2/2013
the blinds closed working on appeal 2D10-5179. Day after day Marion County Sheriff Deputies came pounding on my door looking for me.
On J une 3, 2011 I hired attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo off Craigslist to prepare for the deposition, but that was a disaster. I voluntarily
appeared J une 21, 2011 for the deposition but that was a trap to force a "coercive custody" settlement, which I promptly rescinded.
Castagliuolo also failed to disclose that his daughter was a public defender.
Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlement agreement and assignment of my federal claims to
himself and his law partners while I was unlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida,
in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the Florida Attorney General can represent the State of Florida,
which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:
Claudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)
J ames M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
Martha J . Cook, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to appoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. A circuit court judge was without the
authority to appoint an acting state attorney to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.
Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:
16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:
(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or criminal or in equity, in which the state may be a
party, or in anywise interested, in the Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.
The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.
(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the office of the attorney general the position of statewide
prosecutor. The statewide prosecutor shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of criminal laws
occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a related transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has
affected two or more judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed by the attorney general from
not less than three persons nominated by the judicial nominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.
Unfortunately Mr. Rodems mislead in violation of Rule 11, F.R.C.P., the following three federal judicial officers in the performance of their
duty in case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH.
United States District J udge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge, Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 -
present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398)
United States Magistrate J udge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893)
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to J uly-29-2011

United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269)
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 J uly-29-2011 to February-27-2012
Mr. Rodems again violated his duty under Rule 11 on J uly 14, 2011 when submitted (Doc. 40) Response to "Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespies
Motion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice" [DKT
33], which appears as Exhibit 4, w/o attachment. Mr. Rodems wrote in part:
Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract
the settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of Florida and therefore he cannot represent the
State of Florida in federal litigation. Moreover, U.S. Magistrate J udge Thomas Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that the proper method
of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). The
Order appears at Exhibit 5. Therefore I filed a Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) which appears at Exhibit 6.
The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems
Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). Exh 7.
Florida Bar Complaint J anuary 4, 2013 - Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of Law
Page 4of 5
6/2/2013
Complaint closed, Response by Leonard Clark May 16, 2013
Due to mental impairment and disability, it took me a long time, about 1 year, 5 months, and 14 days, to figure out why J udge Hodges did
not grant Rodems UPL motions. Once I understood that Rodems engaged in UPL, I made a Bar complaint J anuary 4, 2013 to ACAP in
Tallahassee, but I did not hear back until Mr. Clark wrote me May 16, 2013 with the excuse "Your secondary complaint was incorporated
into your original complaint against Mr. Rodems." and dismissed.
Today I reached the understanding that since Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL, I failed to make the necessary or proper UPL complaint, and
submit it to the UPL office. Ironically this knowledge came thanks to Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me.
Enclosed is my letter to Florida Bar President Young of May 22, 2013 requesting a Rule 3-3.4(b) Special Grievance Committees, which
unfortunately Kenneth Marvin subsequently denied.
Mr. Coaxum, I believe this letter gives you sufficient information under Rule 105.1(b) to determine that Mr. Rodems alleged UPL,
conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. The Orlando UPL office
has jurisdiction because Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL in the Ocala Division of the U.S. District Court. Also, I live in Ocala and am a survivor
of Mr. Rodems UPL. I am also a member of the public, and protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular
act constitutes the (unlicensed) practice of law. I was harmed by Mr. Rodems UPL.
The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v.
Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response, hopefully a dismissal of UPL against me, and the criminal prosecution of UPL against
Mr. Rodems with a term of imprisonment.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
NOTE: The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen was not a defendant in any lawsuit by me. It wrongly states in the Attorney Generals Synopsis of
Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, in the 2 page AG Case #Tampa Monitor that "[Gillespie] now brings this claim against his former
attorney and law firm and all the judges who had any involvement in his 13th J udicial Circuit Case."
The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems misleading legal argument, a phony "claim" of $50,000 in "court-awarded fees and
costs" in his Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, entered J anuary 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-
CA-7205.
J udge Nielsen did his best, until Rodems strategically disrupted the tribunal to gain advantage. I request the Attorney General correct its
Synopsis of Major Issues to show this important fact, an error I blame on David Rowlands failure to provide Petition No. 12-7747 to the
AGs office.
Cc: Gov. Rick Scott, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP298992794
Attorney General Pam Bondi, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295720789
Chief-Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297480802

Email Cc: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list;
Mr. Anderson, Chair, 13th Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D". [attachment "Ltr Ghunise Coaxum, Bar Counsel, UPL-
Gillespie.pdf" deleted by Ghunise Coaxum/The Florida Bar]
Page 5of 5
6/2/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327
November 19, 2010
CASE NO.: 2D10-5529
L.T. No. : 05-CA-007205
Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P. A., Et AI
Appellant I Petitioner(s), Appellee I Respondent(s).
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
The affidavit of insolvency and accompanying motion filed in this original
proceeding persuade this court that petitioner is insolvent, and petitioner is accordingly
declared insolvent within the meaning of chapter 57, Florida Statutes (2009), for
purposes of the filing fee associated with this petition. This determination is subject to
rebuttal by respondent within twenty days.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Honorable Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge
Pat Frank, Clerk
vg
1
November 22, 2010
CASE NO.: 2D10-5197
L.T. No. : 05-CA-7205
P. A. & William J. Cook
Appellant / Petitioner(s), Appellee / Respondent(s).
Based upon this court's determination in 2010-5529, the filing fee is not
required in this appeal.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Pat Frank, Clerk
pm
James Birkhold
Clerk
2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND DISTRICT
1005 E. MEMORIAL BOULEVARD
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801-0327
(863)-499-2290
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE
DATE: May 3, 2011
STYLE: NEIL 1. GILLESPIE V. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,
P A & WILLIAM 1. COOK
2DCA#: 2Dll-2127
The Second District Court of Appeal has received thePetition reflecting
a filing date of5/2/11
The county of origin isHillsborough.
The lower tribunal case number provided is05-CA-00n05
The filing fee is Waived.
Case Type: Prohibition Civil
The Second District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence
filed in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE
ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER.
Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment.
cc: Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Pat Frank, Clerk
Rodems, Esq.
3

Case Number: SC11-858 - Closed
NEIL J . GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., ET AL.
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 05-CA-007205

Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
05/21/2011 02:38
Date
Docketed Description Filed By Notes
05/03/2011 PETITION-HABEAS
CORPUS
PS Neil J . Gillespie BY: PS Neil J .
Gillespie
W/ATTACHMENTS (FILED AS
"EMERGANCY PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS & EMERGENCY
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
PROHIBITION") (05/05/11: ACK OF
NEW CASE LTR CORRECTED TO
REFLECT CORRECT CASE STYLE)
05/04/2011 No Fee Required
05/18/2011 DISP-HABEAS
CORPUS DY
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is
hereby denied.
Page 1of 1 Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
5/21/2011 http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket
4
-"
__ _
__ l,",=_P'.....,C'!l . _- -. ""'._ ..p-:w,.,

IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
__..-.:t_".
CASE NO.
=-ST-:-ATE--:--Of=F::-LORID---=-A::-:--Yl......-'-'=-'--1-................:.; { \ 'E:
D_lldallllllnor Child
/ APPLICATION FOR CRIMiNAL INDIGENT STATUS
'_lY"':'_1A . AUM SEEKING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
OR
_I HAVE APRIVATE ATIORNEY OR AM SELF-REPRESENTED AND SEEK DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCE STATUS FOR COSTS
Notice to Applicant: The provision of apublic defender/court appointed lawyer and costs/due process services are not free. Ajudgment and lien may be imposed against all real or
personal property you own to pay for legal and other services provided on your behalf or on behalf of the person for whom you are making this application. There is a$50.00 fee tor each
application filed. If the application fee is not paid to the Cieri( of the Court within 7days, it will be added to any costs that may be assessed against you at the conclusion of this case. If
you are aparent/guardian making this affidavit on behalf of a minor or tax-dependent adult, the information contained in this application must indude your income and assets.
1. Ihive.l!)...JHpendenm. (Do not incl children ';;'t IMng at home and do not include a working spouse or yourself.)
2. Ihive I take home Income of $ paid ( ) weekly ( ) ( ) semi-monthly ( ) monthly ( ) yearly
(Take home income equals salary, wages, bonu s, commissions. aUowances. overtime, tips and simHar payments. minus deductions required by law and other courl-orde19d
support payments) .k. II L :
3. Ihive c:a .. ( this otherwise
compensation Child support or other regular support I J
Union F Yes $ 0 from family memberslspouse...... \, Yes $
Wor1(ers compensation Yes $ Rental income................................. Yes $
Retirement/pensions Yes $ Dividends or inlerest.......................... Yes $
Trusts or gifts Yes t: Other kinds of income not on the list...... Yes $
4. "No."
Bank accounI(s) Yes $@StocksIbonds.........................................Yes$,----' ,"-
certificates of deposit or . 'Equity in Real estale (excluding homestead) Yes $,_-;1""""'-__--1
money mari(et accounts Yes $ @> 'Equity meMS velue minus loans. Also list any
'Equity in MotorVehicleslBoats/ in an interest in such properly.
Othertangbleproperty Ustthe adcJress of this properly.
Ustthe yearlmakelmodel and tag#: I Jd? Address --'-_
sci- City, Stale, =0
r-"'" County of Residence :::;
5. Ihive a total amount of Illbillties Ind debts In the lmount of () (,))
6. Ireceive: (Cirr:le "Yes" or "No'
Temporary Assistance tor Needy Famifies-Cash Assistance.........................
Poverty-related veterans' benefits............................................................................................................................................... Yes
Supplemental security Income (551)............................................................................................................................................... Yes
7. I hive been ",leased on ball In lhellllOllnt of $ Cash __Surety __ PostIId by: Self __ Family __ Other
A person who knowingly provides false information to the der1( or the court in seeking adelennination of indigent status under s. 27.52, F.S., commits. amisdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. ns.082. F.S., or s. n5.083, F.S. I attest that the Information I have provided on this Application Is tru, and accurate to the best of my
knowledge. '.'
Signed this ;?7 day of J.1, ,2olL.
Date of Birth S r /9.. 19S-b Print Full L al Name
Driver's license or ID numbeb 'tC;! S{, Zip
Phone number
CLERK'S DETERMINATION
n the inJ nnation in this App.lieati6ii. I have detennined the applicant to be ( ) Not Indigent
P blic DeJ nder is hereby appointed to the case listed above until relieved by the Court.
PAT FRANK
Cieri< of the Circuit Court
This fonn was completed with the assistance of
__Cler1<lDeputy Cler1<lOther authorized person
APPUCANTS FOUND NOT INDIGENT MAY SEEK REVIEW BY ASKING FOR A HEARING TIME. Sign here if you want the]Udge
to NYtew the clerk's decision of not Indigent. .
06118/10
' ..:.
5

Case Number: SC11-1622 - Active
NEIL J . GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, ET AL.
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2D10-5197, 05-CA-7205

Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
08/23/2011 12:56
Date
Docketed Description Filed By Notes
08/08/2011 PETITION-
MANDAMUS
PS Neil J . Gillespie BY: PS Neil J .
Gillespie
FILED AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL &
TREATED AS A PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDAMUS
08/22/2011 No Fee - Insolvent INSOLVENT BELOW
08/22/2011 ORDER-PROPER
PETITION
Petitioner's Notice of Appeal, filed in this
Court on August 8, 2011, has been treated
as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking
reinstatement of the proceedings in the
district court of appeal below. Petitioner is
allowed to and including September 12,
2011, in which to file a proper petition for
writ of mandamus; that complies with
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100,
addressing why the proceedings in the
district court of appeal should not have been
dismissed. The failure to file a proper
petition with this Court within the time
provided could result in the imposition of
sanctions, including dismissal of this case.
See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Please
understand that once this case is dismissed,
it may not be subject to reinstatement.
Page 1of 1 Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
8/23/2011 http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket
6
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
vs. CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: J
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J . COOK,
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs.
_________________________________/
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA J. COOKS
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
I, Neil J . Gillespie, under oath, testify as follows:
1. My name is Neil J . Gillespie. I am over 18 years old. I was the Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant in the above-captioned case in Hillsborough County, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit.
(hereinafter this case). This affidavit is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.
2. I made this affidavit to impeach the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se
(the Order), a sham Order entered November 15, 2010 by J udge Martha J . Cook in this case.
(Exhibit 1). The Order is a sham and did not address a bona fide issue. J udge Cook corruptly
entered the Order during a conflict of interest, while she was a Defendant in my federal disability
and civil rights lawsuit. J udge Cook entered the Order with a corrupt motive, to stop legitimate
inquiry showing her personal and business financial affairs violated the Florida Code of J udicial
Conduct. J udge Cook recused herself in this case November 18, 2010, three days after entering
the Order. J udge Cooks recusal shows my motion to disqualify her was legally justified.
2
3. On May 1, 2013 Ryan Christopher Rodems submitted the sham Order, under penalty of
perjury, in his vexatious Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) complaint against me to The Florida
Bar, case 20133090(5) for representing myself and my related interest pro se in other cases.
Consumer assistance required: Protection of an Article III federal judge
4. On the morning of September 28, 2010 I sued J udge Martha Cook, and others, for
violation of my ADA disability rights, and civil rights (section 1983) in this case. I filed my
federal lawsuit, case 5:10-cv-503, by hand-delivery to the Ocala Division, U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida. Pages 1and 2 of my pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), stamped 7:47 AM,
appear at Exhibit 2. I paid a $350 filing fee in cash to the Clerk. Exhibit 3. At all times pertinent
I was a law-abiding consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce.
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Non-Criminal J ustice Act Counsel Appointment
5. On information and belief, the federal district court had authority to appoint counsel to
represent me. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit adopted provisions for furnishing representation for
persons financially unable to obtain adequate representation in cases and situations which do not
fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. 3006A, as amended -- but in which the court believes that
the interests of justice will be served by the presence of counsel. Addenda Five, 11th Cir. R.,
Non-Criminal J ustice Act Counsel Appointment, (b)(2) shows cause for appointment of counsel
because I sought relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the interest of justice would be served by the
presence of counsel, and on the basis of disability and mental impairment.
6. In J une 2011 appointment of counsel was, on information and belief, required under 18
U.S.C. 3006A, and the Sixth Amendment, after Mr. Rodems corruptly obtained a warrant for
my arrest through honest services fraud with J udge Cook, who accepted things of value
(campaign donations) in return for official acts [18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)], improper rulings on
3
summary judgment, and civil contempt with arrest on writ of bodily attachment, and who used
the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud me [18 U.S.C. 1341] of the intangible
right of honest services. [18 U.S.C. 1346]. See U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, C.A.6.
J udge Cook made a false record of the hearing September 28. 2010
J udge Cook ordered me removed from court, falsely stated I elected to leave
7. After filing my federal Complaint, I drove from Ocala to Tampa for a hearing before
J udge Cook at 11:00 AM with opposing counsel Mr. Rodems, also a Defendant in 5:10-cv-503.
8. At the start of the 11:00 AM hearing, the transcript shows I informed J udge Cook that
she was a Defendant in federal case 5:10-cv-503, and I provided her a copy of the Complaint.
9. The transcript shows I made a spoken motion to disqualify J udge Cook on several
grounds, including her conflict as a Defendant in my federal lawsuit, case no. 5:10-cv-503, a
business relationship with husband William H. Sedgeman, J r., and disability discrimination.
10. J udge Cook refused to recuse as trial judge. Instead, J udge Cook ordered me removed
from the hearing, made a false record that I elected to leave, and ruled against me ex parte on
summary judgment, and civil contempt with provision for arrest on writ of bodily attachment, to
benefit Mr. Rodems, and his law partner and law firm who were the Defendants in this case.
Eyewitness impeached J udge Cooks false record that I elected to leave the hearing
Witness Christopher E. Brown, Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office (HCSO)
11. A witness present, a bailiff, impeached J udge Cooks statement that I elected to leave
the hearing. The witness, Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputy Christopher E. Brown, told his
Commander, Major J ames Livingston, that J udge Cook ordered me removed from the hearing.
Major Livingston put Deputy Browns statement in a letter to me J anuary 12, 2011. Exhibit 4.
12. At all times pertinent Mr. Rodems was present, and conspired with J udge Cook to create
a false record that I elected to leave the hearing, as shown in the transcript of the proceeding.
4
Entry of sham Order by J udge Cook November 15, 2010
13. On November 15, 2010 J udge Cook entered Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing
Pro Se, done during a conflict of interest, while she was a Defendant in 5:10-cv-503. Exhibit 1.
14. The Order states This matter is before the Court on the Defendants [Mr. Rodems]
motion for an order to show cause as to why Plaintiff should not be prohibited from henceforth
appealing pro se, filed by Rodems J uly 29, 2010, on his personally biased claim that I was an
abusive litigant. Rodems and his firm have a conflict of interest with me as a former client.
15. The Order states On November 4, 2010, this court issued the order to show cause why
Plaintiff should not be prohibited from appearing pro se., which gave me 20 days to respond.
16. J udge Cook entered the Order November 15, 2010, done ex parte, without a hearing, and
before my response was due November 24, 2010. (Plus an additional five days for mailing).
Motions to disqualify J udge Cook were justified: She recused November 18, 2010
17. The Order further states Among Plaintiffs response were his fourth and fifth attempts to
disqualify this court.. This statement is false. My motions to disqualify J udge Cook were not a
response to the order to show cause. The motions to disqualify were separate from that matter,
and independently justified under the Code of J udicial Conduct, Florida Statutes, and case law.
18. On November 4, 2010 the Division of Elections provided me J udge Cooks Form 6
public disclosure of financial interests for the year 2007 that showed J udge Cook owned a
beneficial interest in Community Bank of Manatee. J udge Cook failed to disclose this conflict
September 28, 2010 when I moved to disqualify her based on my financial or fiduciary
5
relationship with Community Bank of Manatee, husband William Sedgeman
1
, and my account
and other business with Community Bank of Manatee.
19. On November 5, 2010 I obtained a copy of the banks Consent Order, No. FDIC-09-569b
and OFR 0692-FI-10/09. The bank was undercapitalized, poorly managed, and at risk of failing.
20. The bank lost $9.3 million in 2009. The bank lost $1.4 million in 2010.
21. On November 8, 2010 the Florida Commission on Ethics provided me J udge Cooks
Form 6 for the years 2008 and 2009. Since 2007 J udge Cooks net worth had declined by almost
half and she was insolvent or essentially insolvent.
22. On November 10, 2010 I filed Plaintiffs 4th Motion to Disqualify J udge Martha J .
Cook. The motion is 64 pages and accompanies this affidavit in a separate volume appendix.
The motion is also posted on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772018/Plainitiff-s-4th-
Motion-to-Disqualify-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-Nov-10-2010
23. On information and belief, J udge Cook was unfit to serve as a judge in Florida because
her personal and business financial affairs violated the Code of J udicial Conduct
2
. An insolvent
judge lacks judicial independence and is a threat to democracy.

1
William H. Sedgeman, J r. was Chairman & CEO of Community Bank of Manatee. Mr. Sedgeman was
married to J udge Cook. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the
common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and wife are considered as
one person and the relatives of one spouse by consanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the
same degree. State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or
their counsel might consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to disclose
relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of
Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their
counsel had dealings with a relative of the court. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla.App.3 Dist.2000.
2
I learned about J udge Cooks finances by accident, while searching online for an explanation of J udge
Cooks contempt for me and disability matters. I found J udge Cook had an adopted daughter who was
disabled. The daughter used the name of her father, Sedgeman. J udge Cook and her daughter appeared in
media stories about the childs hearing loss. J udge Cook was biased on disability, but refused to
disqualify on that basis, or her contempt of my disability. I believe the child is now an adult.
6
Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion for Order of Protection
Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. 2D10-5529 - November 18, 2010
24. On November 18, 2010 I sought removal of trial J udge Cook by writ of prohibition in the
Second District Court of Appeal, case 2D10-5529. J udge Cook recused on her own motion the
same day. J udge Martha Cooks SUA SPONTE ORDER TO RECUSE ASSIGNED JUDGE
appears at Exhibit 5. Pages 1 and 2 of my petition, and the Clerks acknowledgment, appear at
Exhibit 6. Petition No. 2D10-5529 is 37 pages alone, and 763 pages with supporting exhibits.
The petition was denied as moot with respect to J udge Martha Cook December 9, 2010, and in
all other respects. The Order and docket appear at Exhibit 7. The following is posted online:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3852902/Second-District-Court-of-Appeal-Florida
Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion for Order of Protection, with
supporting exhibits (763 pages) and without supporting exhibits (37 pages), Nov-18-2010
Notice of Filing Supplemental Information, Nov-20-2010
Defendants Response and Suggestion of Mootness, Nov-23-2010
Plaintiffs Reply to Mootness, Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment, Dec-08-2010
Final Order, December 9, 2010, and case docket
25. J udge Cooks recusal
3
on her own motion shows my efforts to disqualify her were legally
justified. My 4th motion to disqualify, and petition for writ of prohibition, showed J udge Cooks
personal and business financial affairs violated the Code of J udicial Conduct for Florida.
Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed sham Order prohibiting my pleadings
26. Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed J udge Cooks sham Order prohibiting my pleadings.
The Clerk allowed me to file pro se pleadings to the end of the case in defiance of the Order.

3
A judge has a duty to remain on a case assigned to him or her unless he or she is legally
disqualified. State ex rel. Palmer v. Atkinson, 116 Fla. 366, 156 So. 726, 96 AL.R. 539 (1934);
Micale v. Polen, 487 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1986).
7
27. J udge Cook entered Order Directing Clerk To Close Case (Exhibit 8) that stated:
THIS MATTER is sua sponte before the court subsequent to the final order of summary
judgment and the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all remaining issues by
Defendants. At this time, there are no pending issues before the court. The court therefore
ORDERS the Clerk TO CLOSE the case. The Clerk may only re-open this case in the
event that a mandate is issued by a reviewing court or a proper pleading, signed by a duly
licensed member in good standing of The Florida Bar, is filed in this matter.
28. Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed this second order, also entered November 15, 2010.
The Clerk allowed me to file pro se pleadings to the end of the case in defiance of the order.
29. Mr. Rodems wrote to the Clerk May 11, 2011 as follows: (Exhibit 9).
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, J udge 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 J udge Cooks Order is enclosed.
Would you please explain why your office has not complied with J udge Cooks Order?
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
30. Dale Bohner, Clerks Counsel, notified me that the Clerk did not respond to Rodems.
Motions to disqualify J udge Cook were a public service
Information benefited the citizens and state of Florida
31. Community Bank of Manatee sold a controlling interest to a Brazilian billionaire named
Marcelo Faria de Lima. He and others invested millions of dollars in J udge Cooks bank, and
saved J udge Cook, husband William H. Sedgeman, J r., and the bank, from financial ruin.
8
32. During the review process with OFR, the Office of Financial Regulation, 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 J ustice.
33. 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 J ournal 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.
34. 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. The petition is also on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51601224/Merger-
of-Community-Bank-and-Company-OfR-Petition-for-Public-Hearing
35. My Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for Public Hearing alleged OFR Commissioner J .
Thomas Cardwell used his office to benefit the special interest of J udge Cook, et al, over the
citizens of Florida. The notice is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/53002574/2011-04-14-
11-Notice-of-Withdrawal-Admin-File-0828-FI-03-11
9
36. A letter from the Office of Gov. Rick Scott February 22, 2011 thanked me for contacting
the Governor about changes needed to the Office of Financial Regulation. (ORF), and suggested
I share my concerns with the Florida Cabinet about my recent experience with OFR. Exhibit 10.
37. I shared my concerns with the Florida Cabinet. Brooke McKnight responded for
Commissioner Adam H. Putnam by letter to me May 17, 2011. Exhibit 11. Ms. McKnight wrote:
Thank you for contacting Commissioner Putnam to share your concerns with the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation (OFR). He has requested that I contact you on his behalf.
Commissioner Putnam agrees that politics have no role in detern1ining the future of a
financial institution and believes that consistent regulation of our state's financial
institutions will provide for the growth and stability of sound community banks and
thrifts. Please know that it remains of paramount importance to the Commissioner that
Florida's financial institutions receive fair and equal treatment among regulators -
whether State or Federal.
The Commissioner has directed me to make sure your concerns are brought to OFR's
attention and properly addressed.
38. Brandon Brooks responded on behalf of Attorney General Pam Bondi May 24, 2011 that
my complaint was forwarded the Attorney Generals legal staff for further review, and made a
referral to the Office of Inspector General. The letter appears at Exhibit 12.
39. Gov. Scott choose Tom Grady to replace Mr. Cardwell as OFR Commissioner.
Tampa Tribune: Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures
by Shannon Behnken, J uly 21, 2011
40. Home mortgage foreclosure defense lawyers, and homeowners in foreclosure, also
benefited from information in my motion to disqualify J udge Cook. Martha Cook is a judge of
questionable ethics according to a story in the Tampa Tribune by Shannon Behnken, J uly 21,
2011: "Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures". Exhibit 13. A number of
Florida legal authorities have publicly criticized J udge Cook, including Henry P. Trawick J r., a
Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice and Procedure.
10
Henry P. Trawick J r., a Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice
and Procedure, a textbook used by lawyers, said it'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.
This story was profiled J uly 22, 2011 on The Florida Bars Daily News Summary. Exhibit 14.
41. On J uly 20, 2011, attorney Mark P. Stopa wrote J udge Cook about presiding over
foreclosure cases. Mr. Stopas letter appears at Exhibit 15. Mr. Stopa wrote in part:
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. While I do not profess to have personal knowledge of the veracity of the
following facts, it seems as if these facts are true, particularly since I have seen
documents bearing your signature containing this information:
1. Your husband is the Chairman and CEO of Community Bank of Manatee (and
has been for quite some time);
2. You have/had more than a 5% ownership interest in that bank;
3. Your personal net worth decreased by nearly half in recent years, largely
because of the near-failure of Community Bank.
Mr. Stopa, and other legal authorities, were quoted in the Tampa Tribune story by Shannon
Behnken, Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures:
"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, the foreclosure defense attorney, said 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.
Mike Wasylik, a foreclosure defense attorney, said he's had few cases
11
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."
Mr. Stopas letter was widely distributed on the Internet, and featured by a number of websites.
42. On information and belief, Hillsborough Chief J udge Manuel Menendez, J r. reassigned
J udge Cook to the criminal division because she refused to recuse from foreclosure cases.
Same-sex Husband and Husband mortgage vesting
J udge Cooks bank, then called Community Bank & Company
43. J udge Cooks bank favored its new CEO, an associate of the Brazilian billionaire who
invested millions of dollars to bailout J udge Cook, and save her from financial ruin, by making a
Husband and Husband mortgage for him, perhaps the first same-sex mortgage in the state of
Florida (Page 1 of the mortgage appears at Exhibit 16), but contrary to the Florida Constitution:
Article 1, Section 27: "Marriage defined.Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of
only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as
marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
44. Personally I believe all eligible couples wanting a same-sex mortgage should get one as a
matter of law. Such right should not be limited to a single wealthy benefactor of a Florida judge.
45. The Florida Attorney General wrote me about same-sex mortgage by email August 10,
2012 at 4.17 PM, by Samantha Santana, Office of Citizen Services, who wrote in relevant part:
Hello Mr. Gillespie,
The Florida Attorney General's Office received your most recent email and
postal correspondence in which you request opinions relating to...mortgages
entered into by same-sex couples.
12
Attorney General Bondi has asked that I respond.
To date, this office has not issued an Attorney General Opinion (AGO) in
regard to mortgages entered into by same-sex couples....
46. Florida Gov. Rick Scott wrote me August 6, 2012 about same-sex mortgage in response
to my letter of J uly 20, 2012, by Martha Lynn, Office of Citizen Services, who wrote in part:
The person who can best assist you with your question/concerns about "Husband and
Husband" mortgage is an attorney.
You should contact the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) about your complaint
against J udge Cook.
Regarding your views on same-sex marriage, you can influence legislation by contacting
your local legislative delegation.
The letter of Martha Lynn, Office of Citizen Services for Gov. Scott, appears at Exhibit 17. My
33 page letter to Gov. Scott is posted on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/100665091/Letter-
to-Gov-Rick-Scott-Husband-and-Husband-Mortgage-C1-Bank
J udicial Qualifications Commission - J QC
47. Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar Unlicensed Practice of Law
Department, Orlando Branch Office, emailed me On May 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM in part:
I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct
by J udge Cook as such matters are handled by the Florida J udicial Qualifications
Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com
48. Previously I made three (3) meritorious complaints against J udge Martha J . Cook to the
J udicial Qualifications Commission
4
, all of which were dismissed:

4
On information and belief, the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) is an independent
agency created by the Florida Constitution solely to investigate alleged misconduct by Florida
state judges. It is not a part of the Florida Supreme Court or the state courts and operates under
rules it establishes for itself. Authority for The J udicial Qualifications Commission is found in
the Florida Constitution, Article V J udiciary, Section 12 Discipline; removal and retirement.
13
JQC Docket No. 12554, Complaint against J udge Martha J . Cook November 26, 2012 in
this case for judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the
State of Florida, including:
Lied and was dishonest in judicial proceedings before her, and created a false record.
Abdicated her role as judge, and improperly allowed opposing counsel a judicial role.
Entered as her own authorship a six page order prepared by opposing counsel.
Violated criminal law, 837.06, 838.022, 839.13(1), to favor and assist opposing
counsel in judicial proceedings before her, and to harm me and my cause.
Disparaged, humiliated and discriminated against me on the basis of disability.
Denied J anuary 24, 2013 by letter of Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel. Posted on Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/147841154/J QC-Docket-12554-J udge-Martha-J -Cook
JQC Docket No. 11375, Complaint August 17, 2011, for misconduct reported in the
Tampa Tribune J uly 21, 2011, a news story by reporter Shannon Behnken, "Critics: J udge with
interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures". Denied September 13, 2011 by letter of Michael L.
Schneider, General Counsel. Posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/109873211/J QC-
Complaint-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-Docket-No-11375
JQC Docket No. 10495, Complaint against J udge Martha J . Cook October 5, 2010 in
this case for judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the
State of Florida. Denied J anuary 7, 2011 by letter of Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel.
Posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/109873802/J QC-Complaint-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-
Docket-No-10495
49. February 20, 2011 I emailed the Brennan Center for J ustice, but got no response to my
complaint that Floridas discipline of judges is not credible. I wrote in part:
In the state of Florida there have been forty (40) disciplinary cases against judges for the
last 10 years (2000-2010) according to the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission.
At least two cases that I know of were dismissed without a finding of wrongdoing. (J udge
Gregory Holder). http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
14
This amounts to an average of four (4) cases per year. There are 774 judges in the state of
Florida.
7 supreme court
61 DCA
448 circuit court
258 county court
774 total
Based on these figures just over one half of one percent (0.52%) of Florida J udges have
been subject to inquiry for 2000-2010. This number seems so low as to be not credible.
50. On information and belief, people who complain about wrongdoing in the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit face retribution, and worse, as happened to a sitting judge. Florida Circuit J udge
Gregory Holder paid a heavy price for speaking out against wrongdoing in the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit, almost $2 million and years of legal abuse. As set forth in my Response to Order
to Show Cause (Doc. 58) in case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS: (page 5)
The Thirteenth Circuit is notorious for wrongdoing. The price is high for confronting
judicial misconduct. In one example, Circuit J udge Gregory Holder spoke to the media
about judicial misconduct, and was a cooperating witness (2001-2002) in a federal
criminal investigation of corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. In retaliation
the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) pursued two failed inquiries
against him, J QC Inquiry Nos. 01-303 and 02-487. J udge Holder spent many years and
$1.92 million successfully defending himself. On J une 23, 2005, the Hearing Panel of the
J QC voted unanimously to dismiss the charges against J udge Holder. This was the first
trial defense verdict against the J QC in almost twenty years. On September 15, 2009 the
Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC03-1171, ordered entry of judgment for J udge
Holder for recovery of costs from the J QC in the amount of $70,000 for successfully
defending J QC Inquiry No. 02-487. J udge Holders actual expenses were $1,779,691.81
in legal fees, and cost of $140,870.79.
Public files in the above J QC cases are online on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
According to the public file, J udge Holders life was at risk for reporting judicial misconduct:
During 2001 and 2002, J udge Holder cooperated with the FBI in the courthouse
corruption investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 4-5, at App. 3.] Because of J udge Holders
cooperation, the investigations targets had motive and resources to seek retribution
against him. [Id. at pp. 7-8] Indeed, these targets faced not just loss of position but
15
potential incarceration. [Id.] Detective Bartoszak testified at trial that the courthouse
corruption investigation team was concerned that J udge Holders activities were being
monitored by targets of the investigation. J udge Holder was advised by federal law
enforcement agents to carry a weapon, and he was provided with a secure cell phone to
communicate with the authorities. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7-8, at App. 3.]
Page 7, Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS.
An appendix of key documents in the J QC Inquiry of J udge Holder, J QC No. 02-487, Supreme
Court No. SC03-1171, are posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/147143787/Vexatious-
J QC-Inquiry-No-02-487-of-J udge-Gregory-P-Holder-Fla-sup-Ct-No-SC03-1171
All the documents are online at the link on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/03/03-1171/index.html
David A. Rowland, General Counsel
51. On May 16, 2013 I notified Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Civil
Litigation Bureau, that David Rowland misrepresented to him that I did not provide Rowland a
copy of my Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In turn the Attorney General did not file a response that was due J anuary 14, 2013. Without a
response, a petition has much less chance of success in my opinion, because the issues are not
debated through response and rebuttal briefs permitted under the Rules of the U.S. Supreme
Court. Therefore I believe Mr. Rowland knowingly and willfully obstructed justice in my
petition with malice aforethought. My letter (only) to AAG Wilson appears at Exhibit 18, and
with exhibits (24 pages) is posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/142305243/Kenneth-
Wilson-Fla-AAG-Records-Missing-Petition-No-12-7747
52. My 4th motion to disqualify J udge Cook shows that Mr. Rowland was active in this case,
that he seized control of my ADA disability accommodation request (Exhibit 19), and that he
was likely instructing J udge Cook how to make rulings in this case. Beginning on page 12, 36:
16
36. J udge Cooks poor state of financial affairs suggests why Court Counsel David A.
Rowland has been so active in Gillespies lawsuit since the case was reassigned to J udge
Cook May 24, 2010 after J udge Barton was disqualified when it was learned that
opposing counsel paid thousands of dollars to the J udges wifes business.
37. On J uly 9, 2010 Mr. Rowland seized control of Gillespies ADA accommodation
request from Gonzalo B. Casares, the Courts ADA Coordinator, and issued his own
letter denying the request. Likewise there is evidence that Mr. Rowland is controlling
J udge Cook in this case from behind the scene.
38. On J uly 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM Gillespie spoke by phone with Mr. Rowland about
his letter of J uly 9, 2010 denying Gillespies ADA request. Gillespie and Mr. Rowland
discussed the notice of claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes. They also
discussed Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and Gillespies emergency motion to
disqualify Rodems pending before J udge Cook. Mr. Rowland expresses surprise when
Gillespie informed him that the motion, filed J uly 9th, was still pending. Later that day
J udge Cook denied the motion without a hearing. J udge Cooks Order was filed with the
Clerk J uly 22, 2010 at 3.17 PM according to the Clerks time stamp on the Order.
39. Gillespie believes the timing of events is not circumstantial, and that following the
aforementioned phone call Mr. Rowland instructed J udge Cook to deny Gillespies
emergency motion to disqualify Rodems pending before her. The Order itself is unlawful,
see Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook falsified an
official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie due process on the disqualification
of Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel, filed November 1, 2010.
40. As Court Counsel Mr. Rowland was preemptively defending the Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit against Gillespies lawsuit formally announced J uly 12, 2010 in the notice of
claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes, but first raised in Gillespies
letter to Rowland of J anuary 4, 2010 requesting information about section 768.28(6)(a)
Florida Statutes. (Exhibit 10).
J udge Cook: marionette to Mr. Rodems
U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
53. I am a consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce in this case.
54. I commenced this lawsuit August 11, 2005 by filing the Complaint and paying a $255
filing fee, in cash, to the Clerk of the Court. I paid an additional $40 cash August 11, 2005 to the
Hillsborough County Sheriff to serve the Complaint on the Defendants.
55. The Circuit Court of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, is a court created by statute to administer, apply, and interpret the laws of the state of
17
Florida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal
self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
56. Martha J ean Cook is an elected judge for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, and was by
virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for
lawfully performing and discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
56. As shown in this affidavit, J udge Cook did not lawfully perform and discharge her duties,
but served as Mr. Rodems marionette as that term is used in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S.
Sixth Circuit, which affirmed a jury conviction against former J udge Steven J . Terry of several
honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an
official from accepting things of value in return for official acts. 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).
57. The following is from my Rule 21 motion to correct and supplement my petition for
rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari. Unfortunately my Rule 21 Motion was
delayed one day in transit, and another day at the Supreme Courts separate quarantine location,
and did not arrive to the Court until the rehearing was denied April 15, 2013. The Rule 21
motion was not heard, and was returned to me. This scenario may have been avoided if the Court
permitted e-filing like other federal courts. PACER and CM/ECF would allow the Supreme
Court to provide access to court services in an effective and expeditious manner as required by
the Constitution and laws of the United States. My Rule 21 motion is currently posted on Scribd
at the link below for anyone in the world to read, except perhaps the J ustices of the Supreme
Court of the United States. http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/Rule-21-Motion-12-7747-
With-Appendicies-Apr-10-2013
18
See my letter (only) to Kathleen L. Arberg, Public Information Officer, U.S. Supreme Court at
Exhibit 20, and with exhibits on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/144645896/SCOTUS-
Public-Information-Officer-Kathleen-L-Arberg
58. In U.S. v. Terry, the government proved to a jury that Terry accepted from political
benefactor Frank Russo campaign donations, a thing of value, in return for official acts, improper
rulings on summary judgment. An FBI wiretap provided evidence of the crime. The government
proved that the defendant used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud another,
18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
59. In my case, J udge Cook accepted campaign donations from Mr. Rodems, and two of my
former lawyers, his partners William J . Cook and J onathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings
on summary judgment, and civil contempt, during ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in this
case. H.C.S.O. Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major J ames Livingston, provided evidence
that J udge Cook and Rodems falsified the record of the hearing. J udge Cook and Rodems used
the mail to carry out their scheme or artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest
services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
60. I only attended one of three hearings before J udge Cook September 28, 2010. The first
was my spoken motion to disqualify J udge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a 1983 civil rights and
disability lawsuit. J udge Cook refused, accused me in open court of feigning disability, and
ordered Deputy Brown to remove me. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. required recusal
because the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be
constitutionally tolerable. The Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie attests to the above, and appears in
a separate volume appendix. (Also, trial record Doc. 58-2, Exhibit 14, response to show cause).
19
61. J udge Cook falsified the record that I elected to leave the hearing, in violation of F.S.
839.13(1) and 837.06. The transcript and errata sheet appear in a separate volume appendix.
62. J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the summary judgment hearing, and Mr. Rodems
complied with her instruction to create a record, which false testimony went unchallenged
because no one represented me. J udge Cook then granted summary judgment for Mr. Rodems,
and immediately signed, without reading, a six page order at Mr. Rodems request, one he
prepared in advance. [Appendix 1]. J udge Cook mailed me a conformed copy order in a postage
prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote
5
.
63. Next, J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the civil contempt hearing, again falsified the
record that I elected to leave in violation of F.S. 839.13(1), and found me guilty. Because this
was civil contempt, and not criminal contempt, appointment of counsel was not required under
Gideon v. Wainwright. (The defender was appointed May 27, 2011, but relieved by the court).
64. Two days later September 30, 2010 J udge Cook signed an improper order holding me in
civil contempt [Appendix 4], filed October 1, 2010. This is the same proposed order that Mr.
Rodems provided by mail
6
, and instructed J udge Cook to sign, together with postage paid
envelopes. [Appendix 5]. J udge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order
Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt states 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.
Fortunately Deputy Brown told his Commander, Major J ames Livingstion that I did not leave the

5
The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by order
J anuary 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5,
2010 I filed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of J udge Barton, but
J udge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time.
6
Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.
20
hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by J udge Cook. Major Livingstion in turn
provided me a letter dated J anuary 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B.
65. J udicial elections in Florida are different than those of other elected officials, and as
described in Terry. J udicial elections are nonpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial
office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified to seek
judicial office, there is pressure not to oppose a sitting judge. Lucy Morgan of the Tampa Bay
Times wrote May 2, 2008, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats: [Appendix 8].
...Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races in
the 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to a
review of election results over the past 12 years. J udges frequently escape opposition
because only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering a
judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges have
faced opposition, and only five have been defeated...
...For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide.
Twenty-three of those are open seats and will be contested. Of the 260 remaining seats,
only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and District
Court justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another term
since the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s...
As in Terry, J udge Cooks collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002 bid. See
Appendix 9 for the donation records of Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert - $100 each. An
honest services fraud agreement need not spell out which payments control which act, just that
J udge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.
Unfortunately, J udge Cook acted like Mr. Rodems marionette. Terry at p. 11.
Conflict of Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
with former client Neil J . Gillespie
66. In this case I sued pro se the Defendants, my former lawyers, for stealing $6,224.78
(Attorney Seldon Childers later determined the amount was $7,143) from my settlement in a
payday loan case, a concocted closing statement fraud in Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie
21
v. AMSCOT Corporation, Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in
violation of Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), and for fraud, and breach of contract.
67. Mr. Rodems, a partner in Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., unlawfully represented his firm
and partner against me, a former client in the same or substantially related matter, contrary to
Florida Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, and the holding in McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland was entered J une 30, 1995 by United States
J udge Elizabeth Kovachevich. The case appears at Exhibit 21 and holds as follows:
[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.
68. William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (BRC) represented or consulted with
me on other payday loan cases where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation
against BRC, and did not make Bar complaints against lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A:
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. a payday loan case like AMSCOT. (settled pro se)
22
National Cash Advance. This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT. (settled pro se)
William Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA consulted with me on disability and
employment matters where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation against BRC,
and did not make Bar complaints against the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.:
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), DLES Case No. 98-066-DVR, found my
disability too severe for services to result in employment. (Exhibit 22)
St. Petersburg J unior College, job placement for students with disabilities, the program
did not exist as advertised. Encountered age discrimination (over age 40). (Exhibit 23)
Federal Bureau of Investigation - FBI - Civil Rights, Color of Law Abuses
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
69. From the Federal Bureau of Investigation website, Civil Rights, Color of Law Abuses:
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security
guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government
agenciesauthority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country.
These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize
property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in
certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our
nations democracy. Thats why its a federal crime for anyone acting under color of
law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the
Constitution or U.S. law. Color of law simply means that the person is using authority
given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include
acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of
their lawful authority...
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures....
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of
law statute, taking away the persons rights of due process and unreasonable seizure....
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment
prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these
rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment).
23
The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should
not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal
process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect
local communities. If its shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual
from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts, upon personal
knowledge, and information and belief, are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
Dated this 14th day of J une 2013.

NEIL J . GILLESPIE
Index to Exhibits
Exhibit 1 J udge Cooks Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se, November 15, 2010
Exhibit 2 Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 5:10-cv-503, Complaint (Doc. 1), Pages 1-2
Exhibit 3 U.S. District Clerk receipt, $350 filing fee Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Exhibit 4 Letter of Major J ames Livingston, J anuary 12, 2011, statement of Deputy Brown, HCSO
Exhibit 5 J udge Cooks Sua Sponte Order To Recuse Assigned J udge, November 18, 2010
Exhibit 6 Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, 2D10-5529, November 18, 2010
Exhibit 7 Order 2D10-5529, Denied Writ of Prohibition to J udge Cook, Denied Order of Protection
Exhibit 8 J udge Cooks Order Directing Clerk To Close Case, November 15, 2010
Exhibit 9 Letter of Mr. Rodems to Clerk of Court Pat Frank, disobeyed J udge Cooks Order
Exhibit 10 Letter of Gov. Rick Scott to Gillespie, re Office of Financial Regulation, Apr-13-2011
Exhibit 11 Letter of Commissioner Adam Putnam to Gillespie, re Office of Financial Regulation
Exhibit 12 Letter of Attorney General Pam Bondi to Gillespie, re Office of Financial Regulation
Exhibit 13 Tampa Tribune, Critics: J udge with Interest in Bank Shouldn't Hear Foreclosures
Exhibit 14 Florida Bar, Daily News Summary, J uly 22, 2011, re J udge Cooks bank
Exhibit 15 Attorney Mark Stopa letter to J udge Martha Cook, re recusal on foreclosure cases
Exhibit 16 Husband and Husband vested mortgage, J udge Martha Cooks bank
Exhibit 17 Letter of Gov. Rick Scott to Gillespie, re Husband and Husband vested mortgage
Exhibit 18 Gillespie letter to Kenneth Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, got duped by Mr. Rowland
Exhibit 19 Disability letter of David Rowland to Gillespie, no ADA accommodation to stop Rodems
Exhibit 20 Gillespie letter to Kathleen L. Arberg, SCOTUS Public Information Officer, May-13-2013
Exhibit 21 Case law, McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, USDC, Tampa, 1995
Exhibit 22 William Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook letter to Gillespie, re Vocational Rehabilitaton
Exhibit 23 William Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook letter to Gillespie, re J ob Placement Serv., SPJ C
Exhibit 24 FBI - Color of Law violations
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIR'fEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASEID:
Plaintiff,
v.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOI{, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; and
WILLIAM J. COOI{,
Defendants.

ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM APPEARING PRO SE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' "motion for an order to show cause as
to why should not.be prohi?!ted :fl:om henceforth appeal'ingpro se," filed on July 29,
2010. It is alleged that "Plaintiff is an abusive who should 'not be permitted to fue fiuiher
pleadings in this cause" they are reviewed and signed:b; practice
law in this state. Defendants allege that s prosecution is an affront to the dignity of the
judicial system and an unacceptable burden on its resources. On November 4, 2010, this court
issued the order to sho\v cause why Plaintiff should not be prollibited from appearillgpro se.
Among Plaintiff's response were his fourth and fifth attempts to disqualify this court. This
response is typical of Plaintiff's litigation style. And his continuing course of conduct in this case
is all the more troublesome because this case is presently pending appellate review of a final
surrunary judgment order. There is nothing left to litigate at this tinle. Yet Plaintiff continues to
file spurious pleadings \vith this court, eacll of which must be reviewed and evaluated by members
of the court staff. For these reasons and the reasons enumerated in the nlotion, the Court hereby
finds that Plaintiff is an abusive litigant and, in order to preserve both the dignity and the efficient
operation of the judicial systenl, his right to full access to the court should be curtailed to the
extent described in this order. Plaintiff is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any paper with this
court which is not signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice la\v in the State of Florida.
10f2
1
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
I. Plaintiff SHALL CEASE filing any pleading, correspondence, or other document in this
case unless the document is signed by an attorney who is duly licensed to practice law in
the State of Florida.
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL REJECT for filing any document received from Plaintiff
which does not bear the clear and conspicuous signature of an attorney duly licensed to
practice law in this state.
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL NOT DOCKET any pleading, correspondence or other
document received from Plaintiff which is prohibited by this order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough Florida, this 15
th
day of '. '. '
.
November, 2010. OR\G\Nl\l b\\;)\ ..,
"Q'J 1 5 20\0
r': <\\{IHll J,
______________o.""wo
JUOGE.
MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Judge
Send copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW 115
lh
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Roderns, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
400 N Ashley DrIve
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
20f2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 39
2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 39
RECEIPT FOR PAY"EHT
DISTRICT COURT OF "IDDLE
FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
WWW.Fl"D.USCOURTS.GOV
C8888J5
RECEIVED FRort:
HEll J GILLESPIE
Case NUlber: 5:18CV80583
F/U/B/O:
P a r t ~ ID:UHKNOWN
GILLESPIE V13TH CIRCUIT ET AL
Tender lype:
18-886488
CASH
$19S.90
Civil Filing-886488
Rema"rks:
18-086988 fDB.Be
Civil Filing-886988
Relarks:
18-510888 $198.88
Civil Filing-S1808B
Relarks:
Subtotal: $358.88
Receipt Total: $358.88
==================================
*Checks and drafts are accepted
subject to collections and full
credit will only be given when
the check Dr draft has been
accepted by the financial
institution on which it was drawn.
Date: 9/28/18 0'
Clerk:------------------
"T
3
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 58-2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 24 of 42 PageID 1597
4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
------------_._----=-==--.:....==-==-=-..:--'--==-=-..:....::.=..:=-=-=--'-------
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
and
Case No:
Division:
05-CA-007205
G

G.:":; i'.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
A Florida Corporation, and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
-----------,----,----,/
SUA SPONTE ORDER TO RECUSE ASSIGNED JUDGE Ul
Pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(i), it is ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the undersigned hereby recuses herself from further hearing of this cause.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO RE-ASSIGN the matter to another division under the
blind filing system that is presently in effect in this Circuit.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on
November -L..t:.-, 2010.

. Martha 1. Cook
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
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
5

SECOND DISTRICT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
PlaintifflPetitioner,
Case No.: _
Lower Court Case No. OS-CA-00720S
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK,
DefendantslRespondent.
---------- --....;1
R E C f I YE ~
NOV 18 2010
CLERK DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL i
SECOND DISTRICT I
VERIFIED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
PlaintifflPetitioner pro se Neil J. Gillespie Petitions the Second District Court of
Appeal for an Emergency Writ of Prohibition to remove CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
MARTHA J. COOKas trial court judge, and for an Order ofProtection, and states:
Petitioner Gillespie Faces Risk To His Life And Health
1. Dr. Karin Huffer is Gillespie's disability advocate and wrote "...Neil Gillespie
faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion ofthe 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." (October 28, 2010). Dr. Huffer's
letter is attached as Exhibit I, together with a Cu"icu!um Vitae. Circuit Court Judge
Martha J. Cook is intentionally inflicting severe emotional distress on Gillespie with
malice aforethought, as set forth in Emergency Motion To Disqualify Judge Martha J.

6
Cook, November 1,2010. (Exhibit 7). This must stop immediately. This case ended
September 28,2010 when Final Summary Judgment was rendered, but Judge Cook
reopened the case to continue a personal vendetta against Gillespie. Currently pending
before Judge Cook is a "Verified Motion For An Order To Show Cause Why Plaintiff
Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court And Writ Of Bodily Attachment Should Not
Be Issued". Petitioner seeks an Order of Protection to stop the threat of incarceration.
Introduction
2. Petitioner sued his former lawyers Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA for defrauding
him of $6,224.78 in prior representation. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PAis unlawfully
representing itself against a former client on matter that is substantially the same as the
prior representationI. The case is in its 5th year. The case is on its 4th trial judge. There
have been 4 appeals to the DCA. Petitioner was represented by counsel, Robert W. Bauer
of Gainesville, but he dropped the case when it became too difficult. Attorney Seldon J.
Childers subsequently reviewed the case for Petitioner and determined Barker, Rodems &
Cook actually defrauded him of$7,143, not $6,224.78 claimed in the original pro se
complaint. Petitioner filed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Exhibit 18) but the court
refused to consider even one amended complaint. This case shows that the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit obstructed justice to help Barker, Rodems & Cook avoid paying
Petitioner $7,143 lawfully owed him. Therefore Petitioner brought a federal Civil Rights
and ADA lawsuit, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Florida, et al., case no.: 5:10
cv-00503, US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, September 28,
I See Emergency Motion To DisqualifY Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems
& Cook, P.A. submitted July 9, 2010. (Exhibit 19)
Page - 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND DISTRICT
1005 E. MEMORIAL BOULEVARD
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801-0327
(863)-499-2290
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE
DATE: November 19,2010
STYLE: NEIL 1. GILLESPIE V. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,
P. A., ET AL
2DCA#: 2DIO-5529
The Second District Court of Appeal has received thePetition reflecting
a filing date ofll/18/10
The county of origin isHillsborough.
The lower tribunal case number provided is05-CA-007205
The filing fee is Waived.
Case Type: Prohibition Civil
The Second District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence
filed in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE
ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER.
Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment.
cc: Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Honorable Martha J.
Pat Frank, Clerk Rodems, Esq. Cook, Circuit Judge
December 9, 2010
CASE NO.: 2010-5529
L.T. No. : 05-CA-007205
P. A., Et AI
Appellant I Petitioner(s), Appellee I Respondent(s).
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied as moot with respect to Judge Martha
Cook and is denied in all other respects.
The petitioner's motion for order of protection is denied.
LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Hon. Martha J. Cook
Pat Frank, Clerk
ag
James Birkhold
Clerk
7
Case Number: 2D10-5529
Civil Prohibition Petition from Hillsborough County
NEIL J. GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P. A., ET AL
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 05-CA-007205
06/13/2013 02:18
Date
Docketed Description Date Due Filed By Notes
11/18/2010 Petition Filed Neil J . Gillespie WITH EXHIBITS AND 2 DISKS.
11/18/2010 Motion To Appear Forma
Pauperis
Neil J . Gillespie
11/19/2010 fee waiver approved -
writ

11/22/2010 Notice of Filing Neil J . Gillespie SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
11/29/2010 RESPONSE Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.
947652
Response and suggestion of mootness to
petitioner's "verified emergency petition
for writ of prohibition".
12/08/2010 REPLY Neil J . Gillespie Reply to respondent's suggestion of
mootness and motion for leave to amend
petition for writ of prohibition...
12/08/2010 Miscellaneous Motion Neil J . Gillespie To amend petition for writ of prohibition
(contained in the reply).
12/08/2010 Miscellaneous Motion Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.
947652
For dissolution of writ of garnishment
(contained in the reply).
12/09/2010 denial of prohibition as moot
12/09/2010 Deny Miscellaneous
Motion-79a

12/09/2010 Denied - Order by J udge LaRose, Khouzamand Crenshaw
12/29/2010 Case Closed
03/03/2011 Case Permanent SET VIA AUTO PERMANENT
APPLICATION
05/17/2013 Case Destroyed
Second District Court of Appeal Case Docket http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket
1 of 1 6/13/2013 2:18 PM
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE ID: OS-CA-720S
Plaintiff,
v.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
THIS MATTER is sua sponte before the court subsequent to the final order of summary
judgment and the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all remaining issues by Defendants. At
this time, there are no pending issues before the court. The court therefore ORDERS the Clerk
TO CLOSE the case. The Clerk may only re-open this case in the event that a mandate is issued
by a reviewing court or a proper pleading, signed by a duly licensed member in good standing of
The Florida Bar, is filed in this matter.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough County, Florida, this 15
th
day of

November, 2010.
tl)V 15 2010
1. ,. r,ill,c,J COUto
. BJDGt
MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Judge
Send copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
400 N Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
1 of 1
8
/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

9
STATE OF FLORIDA
<l&ffire of tbe ~ o l J e r n o r
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001
RICK SCOTT
GOVERNOR
www.flgov.com
850-488-7146
850-487-0801 fax
April 13, 2011
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting Governor Rick Scott's office about changes to the Office of
Financial Regulation. The Governor asked that I respond on his behalf.
Governor Scott wants to know how people feel about the many issues we face and
your input is important to him. As you know, the Governor and the Cabinet serve over
the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) together as the Financial Services
Commission and make decisions about its functions. You may also wish to share your
concerns with the Florida Cabinet: Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief Financial Officer
Jeff Atwater and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. Please do not hesitate to
write again to share your concerns and ideas about issues that are important to you.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the Governor's Office.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Jordan
Office of Citizen Services
JAJ/cas
10
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER THE CAPITOL
400 SOUTH MONROE STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0800
(850) 488-3022
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
COMMISSIONER ADAM H. PUTNAM
May 17,2011
Mr. Neil J. G-illespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Tharlk you for contacting Commissioner Putnam to share your concerns with the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation (OFR). He has requested that I contact you on his behalf.
Commissioner Putnam agrees that politics have no role in detern1ining the future of a
financial institution and believes that consistent regulation of our state's financial institutions
will provide for the growth and stability of sound community banks and thrifts. Please know that
it remains of paramount importance to the Commissioner that Florida's financial institutions
receive fair and equal treatment among regulators - whether State or Federal.
The Commissioner has directed n1e to make sure your concerns are brought to OFR's
attention and properly addressed.
If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact our Cabinet
Affairs Office at (850) 617-7747.
Sincerely,
Brooke R. McKnight
Deputy Cabinet Affairs Director
cc: Linda Charity, Director
Division of Financial Institlltions
Office of Financial Regulation
,\ II,.
~ . ~
~
,---ao-o--H-E-L-PF-L-A------------ltKia.---------w-W-w-.-Fr-es-h-F-ro-m-F-Io-rid-a-.c-o-m
11
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
PAM BONDI
Toll-free In Florida: (866) 966-7226
Telephone: (850) 414-3990
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Fax: (850) 410-1630
STATE OF FLORIDA
May 24,2011
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Attorney General Pam Bondi received your correspondence regarding your experiences with the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation (bPR). Attorney General Bondi asked that I respond. I am sorry for your
difficulties.
We have reviewed your correspondence to determine if our agency can in any way be of assistance to
you. Your complaint has been forwarded to the Attorney General's legal staff for further review. What
action, if any, this office may take is unknown at this time. However, please be aware our office does not
mediate on behalf of private individuals.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your concerns by OFR, you may wish to contact the OFR
Inspector General for any assistance which may be available. The contact information is:
Office of Inspector General
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0370
Telephone: (850) 410-9712
,I
As the OFR is an agency under the direct authority of the Governor's Office, you may also wish to
contact the Chief Inspector General for the State of Florida at (850) 922-4637.
Please consult a private attorney/for any legal guidance you may need. The Florida Bar offers a Lawyer
Referral Service toll-free at (800) 342-8060. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for
low cost or pro bono assistance through a local legal aid office. The Florida Bar can assist you with this
process.
I hope you will understand the Attorney General's duties are prescribed by law. Thank you for taking the
time to share your concerns with the ~ t t o m e y General's Office.
Sincerely,
Brandon Brooks
12

NEWS WEATHER COMMUNITY ENTERTAINMENT SPORTS LIFESTYLES TOOLS Jobs Autos Real Estate Deals Classifieds Services

Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Search: Search Stories, Photos, Video & Keywords Search
Tampa 87.0 Cloudy
A DV E R T I S E ME N T
President Lowers Mortgage
If you owe under $729k you
probably qualify for the Govt
Refi Program.
MortgageRatesExperts.com
Ads by Yahoo!

By SHANNON BEHNKEN | The Tampa Tribune
Published: J uly 21, 2011
Updated: 07/21/2011 05:56 pm
TAMPA - A Hillsborough County judge seeking to tame a backlog of
thousands of foreclosure lawsuits is raising questions from critics who
wonder whether she should be hearing foreclosure cases at all.
J udge Martha J . Cook has an ownership interest in Community Bank,
where her husband, William H. Sedgeman J r., serves as chairman and
chief executive, public documents show.
The bank, known formally as Community Bank of Manatee, has 17
locations throughout the Tampa Bay area. The bank has been hard-hit
by the foreclosure crisis and has struggled to shed troubled assets.
Like most banks, Community Bank often finds itself as a plaintiff against
homeowners in foreclosure cases.
"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."
But Cook said she is not prejudiced.
"I don't have bias," Cook said. "I listed my connection, as required by the
law. Beyond that, my personal life is my personal life."
The state's J udicial Qualifications commission's code of conduct does
not expressly prohibit judges from owning stock in companies they may
see in the courtroom, but it does require disclosure.
The financial disclosures must be filed yearly with the Florida
Commission on Ethics. On forms filed for 2007 and 2008, Cook checked
a box indicating she had more than 5 percent interest in the bank. In
2009 and 2010, Cook indicated she still had an interest but that it was
less than 5 percent.
Cook told the Tribune she disclosed this because of her husband's
interest in the bank. She said she doesn't hear cases involving his bank
and doesn't feel she has a conflict of interest by overseeing foreclosures
by other banks.
The 13th J udicial Circuit, which includes Hillsborough County, has
nearly 30,000 foreclosure cases at some stage in the court system.
Cook is one of 10 judges assigned those cases. This time last year, the
state implemented a program to shed the backlog. Retired senior judges
were brought back to hear foreclosure cases.
But the program was controversial, and judges were accused of rubber-
stamping foreclosures and not checking documents. This came to a boil
late last year when some banks admitted that employees fabricated
documents and forged signatures. The legislature discontinued Florida's
foreclosure program, and starting this month, it's now up to elected
judges, such as Cook, to hear cases.
TBO > NEWS > BREAKING NEWS
Critics: Judge with interest in bank shouldn't hear
foreclosures
A DV E R T I S E ME NT
Castellano Cosmetic Surgery Center -
$25 for $50 worth of Any Cosmetic
Trea...
A DV E R T I S E ME NT

TBO Deals
Get $1 off any WhoNu? Nutrition Rich
cookies with coupon!
Deal Details 9:03 a.m.
Beginning Sept 10, students get
admission to Adventure Island for only
$24.99!
Today's deal: Only $25 for $50 worth of
any cosmetic treatment at Castellano
Cosmetic Surgery Center
More TBO Deals

Page 1of 2 Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures
8/31/2011 http://duke1.tbo.com/content/2011/jul/21/211756/critics-judge-with-interest-in-bank-shoul...
13

Mike Bridenback, court administrator for Hillsborough County, said Cook
was the first to add foreclosure cases to her J uly calendar. Working
through the backlog is important to the circuit, he said, but judges still
want to give homeowners who chose to fight their foreclosure a chance
to be heard.
Bridenback said he wasn't aware of Cook's relationship with the local
bank. He said each judge has to decide whether they have a conflict of
interest and that he's not aware of any problems with her cases.
"J udges have lives beyond the bench," Bridenback said.
Henry P. Trawick J r., a Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice
and Procedure, a textbook used by lawyers, said it'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.
Hillsborough's other nine judges have not owned bank stock over at
least the past four years, according to state disclosure documents.
Stopa, the foreclosure defense attorney, said 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.
Mike Wasylik, a foreclosure defense attorney, 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."
sbehnken@tampatrib.com (813) 259-7804 Twitter:
@TBORealtyCheck

Coupons and Deals Games, Puzzles & Trivia

Advergaming and Branded Media
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online 2011 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company. Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
TBO.com:Feedback | Advertise With Us | Email Alerts | SMS/Text Alerts | Make Us Your Home Page | Member Center | Contact Us | Site Map | Media General Operations Credit Terms and
Conditions
WFLA: See news developing? Email or call our Tipline at 1-800-348-WFLA | 8 on Your Side | 8's Army | Links We Mentioned | EEO Public Filings | Children's Programming | FCC Form388
The Tampa Tribune: Subscribe | Place an Ad | Electronic Edition | Photo Reprints | Public Research | Archive | Corrections
Page 2of 2 Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures
8/31/2011 http://duke1.tbo.com/content/2011/jul/21/211756/critics-judge-with-interest-in-bank-shoul...
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
Daily News Summary
An electronic digest of media coverage of interest to members of The Florida Bar compiled each workday by the Public Information and Bar Services Department.
Electronic links are only active in today's edition. For information on previous articles, please contact the publishing newspaper directly.
Links to online newspapers
July 22, 2011
--Judiciary--
NEW CIRCUIT JUDGE NAMED-- Palatka Daily News, http://www.palatkadailynews.com, July 22,
20111. [Also: GOVERNOR APPOINTS NEW JUDGE-- Daytona Beach News-Journal,
http://www.news-journalonline.com, July 22, 2011; MENDOZA SELECTED FOR CIRCUIT JUDGE
JOB-- St. Augustine Record, http://staugustine.com, July 22, 2011].
St. Augustine Assistant City Attorney Carlos Mendoza is Putnam County's newest circuit judge.
Mendoza was selected Thursday [July 21] by Gov. Rick Scott to fill a vacancy created by Seventh Circuit
Judge Terry LaRue, who is transferring to Volusia County to replace Circuit Judge Julianne Piggotte, who
retired July 1. Mendoza is scheduled to start work in Putnam County on Aug. 29. The Seventh Circuit
includes Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns and Volusia counties.
CRITICS: JUDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa
Tribune, http://www.tbo.com, July 22, 2011.
A Hillsborough County judge seeking to tame a backlog of thousands of foreclosure lawsuits has critics
wondering whether she should be hearing foreclosure cases at all.
Judge Martha J. Cook has an ownership interest in Community Bank of Manatee, where her husband,
William H. Sedgeman Jr., serves as chairman and chief executive, public documents show. The bank has
been hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis and has struggled to shed troubled assets. Like most banks,
Community Bank often finds itself as a plaintiff against homeowners in foreclosure cases. Cook said she
is not prejudiced and that she listed her connection, as required by the law. The state's Judicial
Qualifications Commission's code of conduct does not expressly prohibit judges from owning stock in
companies they may see in the courtroom, but it does require disclosure. Cook said she disclosed the
connection because of her husband's interest in the bank. She said she doesn't hear cases involving his
bank and doesn't feel she has a conflict of interest by overseeing foreclosures by other banks.
--Legal Profession--
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, TWO FIRED LAWYERS IN PUBLIC DISPUTE-- Orlando Sentinel,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com, July 22, 2011.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and two recently fired employees, Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson, are
embroiled in a public fight over whether her office fired the two lawyers for being too aggressive
against mortgage lenders involved in foreclosure fraud cases or whether the lawyers engaged in
unprofessional conduct.
LONGTIME DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO JOIN PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE-- Panama City News Herald,
http://www.newsherald.com, July 22, 2011.
Robert Sombathy, a board certified criminal defense attorney, will fill a position in the 14th Circuit State
Attorney's Office that opened up when John O'Brien left the Major Crimes Division last week. State
Attorney Glenn Hess said he was looking for an experienced trial attorney to replace OBrien, who was
also an accomplished defense attorney earlier in his long career. Sombathy has taken more than 85
Daily News Summary http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7...
1 of 2 6/12/2013 3:50 PM
14
felony cases to trial since being admitted to the Bar in 1993. He will start Aug. 1.
--Criminal Justice Issues--
KIDNAPPERS WILL LIKELY GO FREE NEXT YEAR-- Orlando Sentinel,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com, July 21, 2011.
Two men who as teenagers were sentenced to life in prison for abducting a 16-year-old Ocoee boy and
forcing him into the trunk of his car where he suffered permanent brain damage from the heat will
be released from prison by next summer, lawyers say. Michael Daymon and Terrence Jenkins were 16
and 17 in 1993 when they kidnapped Philip Chandler one hot July day, forced him into the trunk and
then drove around the Orlando area for more than three hours. They were convicted of armed
kidnapping, attempted murder and armed robbery, and both were sentenced to life in prison without
the possibility of parole. However, they must now be resentenced because of a U.S. Supreme Court
decision last year in an unrelated case. The court ruled that, except in cases of murder, it is cruel and
unusual punishment to order a juvenile to prison for life with no possibility of ever regaining freedom.
# # #
[Revised: 07-25-2011]
2013 The Florida Bar | Disclaimer | Top of page |
Daily News Summary http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7...
2 of 2 6/12/2013 3:50 PM

TAMPA
2202 N. Westshore Blvd.
Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
ORLANDO
4700 Millenia Blvd.
Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32839
JACKSONVILLE
10151 Deerwood Park Blvd.
Building 200, Suite 25
Jacksonville, FL 32256
FORT LAUDERDALE
1560 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy
4
th
Floor
Sawgrass, FL 33323

Telephone: (727) 667-3413
STOPA LAW FIRM Mark P. Stopa, Esq.

J uly 20, 2011

Honorable Martha Cook
Circuit Court J udge
800 E. Twiggs St.
Room 511
Tampa, FL 33602

RE: Honorable Martha Cook presiding in foreclosure cases

Your Honor:

It is with the utmost respect for you and our system of justice that I write you this letter. I
hope you realize it is a difficult letter for me to write but one that, under the circumstances, I feel
I must.

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.
While I do not profess to have personal knowledge of the veracity of the following facts, it seems
as if these facts are true, particularly since I have seen documents bearing your signature
containing this information:

1. Your husband is the Chairman and CEO of Community Bank of Manatee (and has
been for quite some time);
2. You have/had more than a 5% ownership interest in that bank;
3. Your personal net worth decreased by nearly half in recent years, largely because of
the near-failure of Community Bank.

I realize that every judge has a personal life and a right to make personal investments and earn a
living (and be married to someone who does). And Im certainly not trying to say you or your
husband has done anything wrong. However, from someone sitting on the homeowners/defense
side of the foreclosure crisis, I find it eminently reasonable for my clients to fear their ability to
get a fair hearing/trial before you, in foreclosure lawsuits, given your personal, financial ties to
the banking industry.

My concern in this regard came to a head at a recent hearing before you. After the
hearing was concluded, I engaged in a 20-30 minute discussion with you (and opposing counsel),
in open court, about the mortgage foreclosure crisis. What really sticks in my mind was your
15

TAMPA
Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
ORLANDO
4700 Millenia Blvd.
Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32839
JACKSONVILLE
FORT LAUDERDALE
4
th
Floor
Sawgrass, FL 33323

Telephone: (727) 667-3413
repeated indications that the only way to improve the economy was to push through
foreclosure cases as quickly as possible.

I understand your desire to improve the economy. Heck, everyone wants the economy to
improve. However, with all due respect, your role as a judge is not to improve the economy (or
to use the cases before you as a mechanism to improve the economy). More significantly, I
cannot help but wonder how much of your stated objective to push through foreclosure cases is
predicated not on helping the economy, but on the personal, financial interests shared by you and
your husband and your clear ties to the banking industry. And if Im wondering this, then
undoubtedly others are/will as well.

Let me put it this way. I have been in the middle of the foreclosure crisis for quite some
time. Bankers always take the position that pushing through foreclosures as quickly as possible
is the correct approach. Hence, when I heard you say those things, it very much sounded to me
like you were speaking not as a neutral and detached judge, but as a part-owner of a bank and as
the spouse of a CEO of a bank.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to criticize you or your ties to the banking
industry. Im sure it is very difficult to separate your judge hat from your bankers hat. But
thats precisely the point. When youre a sitting judge who owns a local bank and whose
husband runs a local bank, it is fair for homeowners to question your ability to preside over
foreclosure cases in a neutral and detached manner.

I suppose my clients and I could address this with you on a case by case basis. However,
rather than start drafting motions to disqualify that could be deemed accusatory or inflammatory,
I thought Id try to write you a respectful letter expressing my concerns. J udge Cook, given your
ties to the banking industry, I am respectfully requesting that you remove yourself as judge from
all foreclosure cases.

I realize that may sound harsh to you. I also realize you may find my request to be totally
misplaced and out of line. Respectfully, however, the publics distrust in the judicial system is at
an all-time high. The fact that I have learned the facts in this letter means that others will as
well. I respectfully submit it would bode well for our system of justice and the appearance of
propriety in our justice system if you did not preside on foreclosure cases going forward.

It is a miserable experience for homeowners to lose their homes. When they do, it is
important that they know they lost their home because that was the correct legal result. It would
not bode well for anyone if homeowners started wondering (correctly or not) if the results in
their foreclosure cases were the lawful and just result or the result of a judge who has ties to the
banking industry. Again, that is not meant to be accusatory. Rather, Im sure you can see that it
would be easy for anyone to question whether your rulings are the rulings of a neutral and
detached judge, or the rulings of an owner of a local bank and the spouse of a CEO of that bank.
Heck, I wondered that myself after our last hearing, and if I did, then undoubtedly others will as

TAMPA
Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
ORLANDO
4700 Millenia Blvd.
Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32839
JACKSONVILLE
FORT LAUDERDALE
4
th
Floor
Sawgrass, FL 33323

Telephone: (727) 667-3413
well.

There are many other, equally capable judges who can preside over foreclosure cases in
Hillsborough County. As such, in my view, it only makes sense to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and have those cases assigned to other judges.

In concluding, I reiterate that this was an awkward and difficult letter for me to write. I
have many cases (foreclosure and otherwise) before you and other judges in Hillsborough
County. The last thing Im trying to do here is to come across as disrespectful or accusatory.
That said, given the circumstances, I thought it incumbent upon me to apprise you that, from the
perspective of someone on the defense side of these cases, it is eminently reasonable for
homeowners to question your neutrality given your personal circumstances.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
STOPA LAW FIRM

Mark P. Stopa

16
STATE OF FLORIDA
C!&fftcr of tbr <!Pol1rrnor
THE CAPITOL
TALI ,AHASSEE. FLORIDA 32399-000]
www.flgov.com
850-488-7146
RICK SCOTT
GOVERNOR
August 6, 2012
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting Governor Rick Scott. The Governor appreciates your concerns
and asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Florida Constitution limits the Governor's intervention in matters that should be
resolved through the court system. The person who can best assist you with your
question/ concerns about "Husband and Husband" mortgage is an attorney. If you need help
finding an attorney, the Florida Bar offers a Lawyer Referral Service which you may contact by
calling toll-free: (800) 342-8011. For those unable to afford a lawyer, Florida Legal Services or
your local legal aid office has information about the availability of pro bono counsel. The main
telephone number for Florida Legal Services is The Florida Bar can assist you
with this process. Please contact the Florida Bar directly or visit the web site
www.f1oridabar.org..
You should contact the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) about your complaint
against Judge Cook. The Commission considers situations where it is alleged that a judge's
personal conduct and behavior violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. All complaints must be
put in writing. To contact the Commission, please use the information provided below.
Judicial Qualifications Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
(850) 488-1581
Regarding your views on same-sex marriage, you can influence legislation by contacting
your local legislative delegation. To contact your legislators and track bills as they proceed
through the legislative process, please visit www.1eg.state.fl.us.
Thank you again for contacting the Governor's office.
.. ......
! .:' I
; --.J..;' /,.,
f .. t:." --- i -, - ....
, :
'.;" . .
Martha Lynn .
Executive Office of the Governor
ML/cas
17
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 May 16, 2013
and kenneth.wilson@myfloridalegal.com
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa
Office of the Attorney General
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States
Dear Mr. Wilson:
So sorry to see you got duped by court counsel David Rowland and paralegal Sandra Burge, who
misrepresented to you that I did not provide Mr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. That
must explain why the petition was not among the 323 pages of public records provided by your
office that arrived here in Ocala May 9, 2013 in response to my records request.
An email (Exhibit 1) from Mr. Rowlands paralegal Sandra Burge to Chief Assistant Attorney
General Diana R. Esposito 12/20/2012 at 12:51 PM, Cc to David Rowland and Chris Nauman,
advanced this material falsehood, which Ms. Esposito sent to you, Cc to Amanda Cavanaugh:
The Plaintiff's Notice of Filing the petition for writ of certiorari was received in the Legal
Department's Office on 12/18/12 is attached as well as the Court's docket indicating a
response is due, if needed, by J anuary 14, 2013. Neither a copy of the petition nor
"separate Volume Appendices" accompanied the Notice.
A letter (Exhibit 2) emailed by you J anuary 8, 2013 repeated the falsehood back to Mr. Rowland:
While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition....
On December 10, 2012 I served Mr. Rowland per Rule 29, proof of service, the following:
1. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States,
2. Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
3. Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
4. Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.
5. My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking 1Z64589FP297520287 shows delivery December 11, 2012
at 10:55 AM to the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 34481.
FYI, all UPS ground shipping within Florida is delivered next day, unless shipped on Friday.
The UPS proof of delivery for 1Z64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows DAVIS at
the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature D. Davis. A seven
(7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
18
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General May 16, 2013
Office of the Attorney General Page - 2
The document referred to by Ms. Burge in her deceptive email to Ms. Esposito was a Rule 12.3
notice, and notice of waiver to file a response, delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM to the
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit. Unfortunately Ms. Burge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Nauman failed to
inform you that my petition was delivered a week earlier, December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM.
The Thirteenth Circuit gang further mislead you by providing you my December 10, 2012 cover
letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court which they date-stamped December 18, 2012, when this
letter was in fact a second courtesy copy of the one received by Rowland December 11, 2012 but
does not appear date-stamped as such in the records your office provided me May 9, 2013.
Enclosed you will find evidence showing I served by UPS the Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of
waiver to Mr. Rowland December 17, 2012 tracking no. 1Z64589FP291778029, which was
delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, to the Courts address, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa,
Florida. The UPS proof of delivery shows DAVIS at the front desk signed for the delivery. A
composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 4).
The Supreme Court sent me three (s) sets of Rule 12.3 notices, and notices of waiver to file a
response, December 14, 2013 after my petition was docketed, with instructions for notifying
opposing counsel(s) that the case was docketed. (Exhibit 5).
You have my sympathy for any embarrassment caused by the deception of Mr. Rowland and his
accomplices, that caused an inaccurate letter to issue from the Office of the Attorney General
falsely implying I did not provide a copy of my petition to Mr. Rowland. (Exhibit 2).
Enclosed you will find my records request to Mr. Rowland intended to correct the record. If and
when I get an accurate response back, I will provide you the correct date-stamped petition for
inclusion in the record showing it was received by Mr. Rowland December 11, 2012.
Until then you can find Petition No. 12-7747 online at the link below. Thank you.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
cc: Gov. Rick Scott, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290544836
cc: Attorney General Pam Bondi, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294245643
Email to: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list; Mr.
Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth
Circuit BOG, David Rowland, K. Christopher Nauman, Sandra Burge.
19
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP299560632 May 13, 2013
Kathleen L. Arberg
Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
RE: Petition No. 12-7747, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, FL, et al
Application No. 12-A215 granted by J ustice Thomas extending time to file
Dear Ms. Arberg:
This is a request for public information about the Supreme Courts disability accommodation
policy for litigants, e-filing, and public information relative to the above Supreme Court cases.
This is not a request to perform research for, nor provide legal advice. This is a request for public
information, which is why I contacted you as the Public Information Officer, for the following:
1. Public information or records in Application No. 12-A215 showing why it was granted.
2. Public information or records for the cert. pool memo in Petition No. 12-7747, or other
records or information that show how my petition, and rehearing, was considered and/or denied.
3. Public information or records for any law clerks memo in Petition No. 12-7747, or other
records that show how my petition, and rehearing, was considered and/or denied.
4. Public information or records about the Supreme Courts cert. pool policy and practices.
5. Public information or records about the Supreme Courts e-filing policy and practices.
6. Public information or records about the Supreme Courts disability accommodation
policy for unrepresented pro se parties, represented parties, and disabled counsel, and how to
request disability accommodation. Does the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the ADA apply?
7. Public information or records about my disability accommodation request submitted to
the Hon. William K. Suter August 28, 2012, & resubmitted with my petition December 10, 2012.
I am concerned that the Supreme Court does not permit e-filing, or use the federal CM/ECF
system and PACER, which resulted in a denial of access for me, and prevented full consideration
on the merits in my petition for rehearing. On April 10, 2013 I sent by U.P.S. a Rule 21 motion
to correct and supplement my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.
Unfortunately my Rule 21 Motion was delayed one day in transit, and another day at the
Supreme Courts separate quarantine location, and did not arrive to the Court until the rehearing
20
Kathleen L. Arberg, Public Information Officer May 13, 2013
Supreme Court of the United States Page - 2
was denied April 15, 2013. The Rule 21 motion was not heard, and was returned to me. This
scenario may have been avoided if the Court permitted e-filing like other federal courts.
PACER and CM/ECF would allow the Supreme Court to provide access to court services in an
effective and expeditious manner as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
My Rule 21 motion is currently posted on Scribd at the link below for anyone in the world to read,
except perhaps the J ustices of the Supreme Court of the United States. This irony is an injustice.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/Rule-21-Motion-12-7747-With-Appendicies-Apr-10-2013
My Rule 21 motion presented two important issues to the Supreme Court:
A. A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
was of a substantial or controlling effect in my case. In Terry, the government proved that
the Defendant, J udge Terry, used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud
another, 18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
Terry was recommended for full publication, and was on point in my rehearing.
B. Consideration of the nexus requirement in disability accommodation, as
presented by Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable
Accommodations Law, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013). The Supreme Court has never
addressed the nexus requirement directly. (p. 1394).
Existing disability of pro se parties in civil litigation may create a second case within the
original case which may be more difficult than the original matter due to the personal nature of
disability, and the indifference or hostility of opposing counsel and courts toward the disabled
party. For example, an intelligent person with mental impairment may not be able to effectively
advocate for themselves when the mental impairment is a barrier to effective self representation.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures

Page 1
890 F.Supp. 1029
(Cite as: 890 F.Supp. 1029)

United States District Court,
M.D. Florida,

Tampa Division.
.
Frank J . McPARTLAND, and Economic & Invest-
ment Technologies, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
ISI INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., F/K/A In-
vestment Services Holding Corp., Defendant.
No. 95-704-CIV-T-17E.

J une 30, 1995.

In action concerning settlement of employment
agreement and payment for services and products,
plaintiffs sought to disqualify defendants' counsel.
The District Court, Kovachevich, J., held that re-
cord established both prior representation of
plaintiffs by law firm representing defendants and
substantial relationship to the present issues, thus
requiring disqualification of entire law firm under
Florida law.

Disqualification ordered.

West Headnotes

[1] Attorney and Client 45 19

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k19 k. Disqualification in General.
Most Cited Cases

Attorney and Client 45 21.20

45k21.20 k. Disqualification Proceedings;
Standing. Most Cited Cases

Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appear-
ance of professional impropriety, and any doubt is
to be resolved in favor of disqualification.


45k20 Representing Adverse Interests
45k21 k. Interests of Former Clients.
Most Cited Cases
To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant
must show existence of prior attorney-client rela-
tionship and that the matters in pending suit are
substantially related to the previous matter or cause
of action.


Most Cited Cases
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.

[4] Attorney and Client 45 21.20

For purposes of motion to disqualify defendants'
counsel in action involving settlement of employ-
ment agreement, statements of plaintiff that he had
repeatedly sought legal advice from a representat-
ive of defendants' law firm and that such represent-

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2of 5
4/29/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?ifm=NotSet&prft=HTMLE&pbc=F299C...
21
Page 2
890 F.Supp. 1029
ative had provided such legal advice was sufficient
to establish that attorney-client relationship previ-
ously existed between plaintiff and member of the
firm.


Most Cited Cases
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 reason-
able persons would understand as important to the
issues involved.

[6] Attorney and Client 45 21.5(1)

45k21.5 Particular Cases and Problems
45k21.5(1) k. In General. Most
Cited Cases
For purposes of motion to disqualify defendants'
counsel, prior representation of plaintiff in obtain-
ing funding through drafting and issuance of offer-
ing memoranda was substantially related to present
action involving agreement to pay plaintiff spe-
cified amounts for services and products provided
by plaintiff to defendant, in that it was not unreas-
onable that customer might consider financial sta-
bility and wherewithal of supplier when contracting
to purchase goods and services over extended peri-
od.



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.


45k21.15 k. Partners and Associates.
Most Cited Cases
Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm
on basis of prior representation of opposing party
necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, un-
der Florida law. West's F.S.A. Bar Rules 4-1.9,
4-1.10(a).
*1030 Terrence Scott Buchert, Cohrs, McQueen &
Ford, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL, for plaintiffs.

Robert MacFarlane Mayer, Kelley, Drye & Warren,
Miami, FL, for defendant.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DIS-
QUALIFY KELLEY DRYE & WARREN

KOVACHEVICH, District J udge.

This cause of action is before the Court on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Kelley Drye &
Warren (KDW). Plaintiffs claim that KDW has, at
times, represented Mr. McPartland, Economic &
Investment Technologies, Inc. (EIT), and ISI In-
vestment Services, Inc. (ISI).

This representation is asserted to be sometimes con-
current and at other times discrete. Plaintiffs aver
that during KDW's representation of McPartland
and EIT, KDW acquired confidential information
which, if used by KDW in the current dispute,

Page 3of 5
Page 3
890 F.Supp. 1029
would be advantageous to ISI. Plaintiffs profess
that the matters embraced in the current action are
substantially related to matters involving KDW's
previous representation of McPartland and EIT.

The dispute described in Plaintiffs' Complaint al-
legedly arose out of discussions and agreements
between Plaintiffs and ISI regarding the terms of
two (2) documents attached to the Complaint as Ex-
hibits A and B. The terms of Exhibit A ad-
dress the payment to McPartland of specified
amounts in settlement of an employment agree-
ment. Exhibit B relates to an agreement to pay
EIT specified amounts over a three (3) year period
for services and products to be provided by EIT to
ISI.

[1] The professional conduct of all members of the
Bar of this Court is governed by the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct of the American Bar Associ-
ation, as modified and adopted by the Supreme
Court of Florida. Rule 2.04(c), Local Rules of the
Middle District. While the Code of Professional
Conduct does not contain an express provision pro-
hibiting the appearance of impropriety, Florida law
clearly retains this requirement. In State Farm Mut.
Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991),
the Florida Supreme Court ruled that attorneys must
still avoid the appearance of professional impropri-
ety. It has been held that even an appearance of
impropriety may, under the *1031 appropriate cir-
cumstances, require prompt remedial action from
the court ... Consequently, any doubt is to be re-
solved in favor of disqualification. Rentclub, Inc.
v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp.
651, 654 (M.D.Fla.1992).

[2] The precedent governing the instant issue is
clear. To prevail on a motion to disqualify, the
movant must show: 1) the existence of a prior attor-
ney/client relationship and 2) that the matters in the
pending suit are substantially related to the previ-
ous matter or cause of action. Smalley Transp. Co.
v. Prime Computer, Inc., 137 F.R.D. 397, 398
(M.D.Fla.1991); Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe
Co., 847 F.2d 725, 728 (11th Cir.1988); Duncan v.

Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 646
F.2d 1020, 1028 (5th Cir. (Fla.) 1981), cert. denied,
454 U.S. 895, 102 S.Ct. 394, 70 L.Ed.2d 211
(1981).
FN1

FN1. The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v.
City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207
(11th Cir.1981) (en banc) declared that de-
cisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered
prior to October 1, 1981 are binding on
this Circuit.

[3][4] In the case at bar, KDW disputes whether
there was ever an attorney/client relationship
between KDW and McPartland. McPartland asserts
that he repeatedly sought personal legal advice
from Mr. Brodrick, a member of the KDW firm. In
determining whether an attorney/client relationship
existed, the court may focus on the subjective ex-
pectation of the client that he is seeking legal ad-
vice. Smalley at 399 (citing Glover v. Libman, 578
F.Supp. 748, 757 (N.D.Ga.1983)). Clearly from the
Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Kelley Drye &
Warren (Docket No. 8), McPartland states that he
repeatedly sought legal advice from Mr. Brodrick, a
representative of KDW, and claims that Mr.
Brodrick provided such legal advice. Therefore, un-
der guidance from Glover, McPartland's Motion to
Disqualify leaves little doubt that McPartland con-
sulted KDW for legal advice. The law does not re-
quire a long-term or complicated attorney/client re-
lationship to fulfill the first prong of the test for dis-
qualification. The weight of the evidence indicates
an attorney/client relationship existed between Mc-
Partland and Brodrick, and the Court, for the pur-
poses of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify, there-
fore finds such a relationship. The parties do not
dispute that there was a attorney/client relationship
between EIT, the other Plaintiff, and KDW.

[5] Having satisfied the first prong for disqualifica-
tion, the Court must consider the second prong:
whether the matters handled by KDW in the past
for McPartland and EIT were substantially related
to the disputes in the case at bar. To be
substantially related the matters need only be

Page 4of 5
Page 4
890 F.Supp. 1029
akin to the present action in a way reasonable per-
sons would understand as important to the issues
involved. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust
Litigation, 659 F.2d 1341, 1346 (5th Cir.1981);
Ruff v. Ivey, 102 B.R. 868 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989).

McPartland asserts that Broderick (and therefore
KDW) provided legal advice to McPartland regard-
ing modification and acceptance of Exhibits A
and B. This advice was allegedly provided to Mc-
Partland at the same time KDW was representing
ISI as general counsel regarding the drafting and fi-
nalization of the same documents. Therefore, as to
McPartland, not only were the matters
substantially related, the matters were identical.

[6] KDW represented EIT in obtaining funding
through the drafting and issuance of offering
memoranda to potential investors. This representa-
tion of EIT poses the question to this Court whether
the matters of EIT obtaining funding and the sub-
stance of the Exhibits are akin to the present ac-
tion in a way reasonable persons would understand
as important to the issues involved. Id. It is not un-
reasonable that a customer might consider the fin-
ancial stability and wherewithal of a supplier when
contracting to purchase goods and services over an
extended period of time (the subject of Exhibit
B). Since any doubt is to be resolved in favor of
disqualification, the conservative position most
likely to achieve justice is for this Court to hold
that the matters were substantially related.
Rentclub Inc., at 654.

*1032 [7][8] This Court, having found a substantial
relationship between the instant case in which
KDW represents ISI and both the McPartland and
EIT issues, arrives at a irrebuttable presumption
that confidential information was disclosed to
KDW by both McPartland and EIT. Therefore, cur-
rent counsel for ISI must be disqualified. Duncan at
1028. Further, the disqualification of even one at-
torney, such as Mr. Brodrick, at KDW necessitates
the disqualification of the firm as a whole. Rule
4-1.10(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, entitled Imputed

Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm, clearly
applies. This rule provides that While lawyers are
associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
represent a client when any one of them practicing
alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule ...
4-1.9. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a
lawyer's ethical obligations to former clients gener-
ally require disqualification of the lawyer's entire
firm where any potential for conflict arises. Castro
v. State, 597 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla.1992).

It is this Court's duty to not only dispense justice,
but, equally as important, to maintain the integrity
of the judicial system. The public's trust and confid-
ence in the system is essential to the ability of the
system to function efficiently and justly. As this
Court previously noted, even an appearance of im-
propriety may, under the appropriate circumstances,
require prompt remedial action from the court ...
Consequently, any doubt is to be resolved in favor
of disqualification. Rentclub, Inc., at 654. Accord-
ingly, it is

ORDERED that Kelley Drye & Warren be dis-
qualified from representing the Defendant in this
cause of action and the Defendant shall have thirty
(30) days from the date of this order to obtain new
counsel and have that counsel file a notice of ap-
pearance with this Court. This Court reminds the
Defendant that a corporation is required by the loc-
al rules to proceed with counsel, so failure to file a
notice of appearance may result in the imposition of
sanctions, even including entry of default. It is fur-
ther

ORDERED that all other outstanding motions be
denied, with leave to refile if appropriate within fif-
teen (15) days of appearance by new counsel.

DONE AND ORDERED.

M.D.Fla.,1995.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.
890 F.Supp. 1029

END OF DOCUMENT

Page 5of 5

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAllON
AlTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
Telephone 813/4891001
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/4891008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33606
March 27,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Re: Vocational Rehabilitation
Dear Neil:
I am enclosing the material you provided to us. We have reviewed them and, unfortunately,
we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have. Please understand that our
decision does not mean that your claims lack merit, and another attorney might wish to represent you.
If you wish to consult with another attorney, we recommend that you do so immediately as a statute
oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations is a legal
deadline for filing a lawsuit. Thank you for the opportunity to review your materials.
William 1. Cook
WJC/mss
Enclosures
22
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone 813/489.1001
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/489.1008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33606
May 25,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Re: St. Petersburg Junior College
Dear Neil:
I have and thank you for your May 22, 2001 letter with enclosures. We have reviewed the
materials that you provided, and while we do not disagree with your criticisms of the St. Petersburg
Junior College, we are not in the position to pursue litigation. Of course, another attorney may have
a different opinion. If you wish to consult with another attorney, you should do so immediately, as
a statute oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations
is a legal deadline for filing a lawsuit.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review your potential claims.
Sincerely,
WJC/so
23
Col or of Law Abuses
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges,
prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous
power by local, state, and federal government agencies
authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice
in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and
arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal
charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in
certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally
necessary to the health of our nations democracy. Thats why
its a federal crime for anyone acting under color of law willfully
to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. Color of
law simply means that the person is using authority given to himor her by a local, state, or federal
government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts
carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.
Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
During 2012, 42 percent of the FBIs total civil rights caseload involved color of law issuesthere were
380 color of law cases opened during the year. Most of the cases involved crimes that fell into into five
broad areas:
Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep fromharm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are
allowed to use whatever force is reasonably necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is
vastfromjust the physical presence of the officerto the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law
occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully unreasonable or excessive.
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other
settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual
compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the
person if he or she doesnt comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees
the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided
under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them
and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary powersuch as an unlawful detention or
illegal confiscation of propertythat a violation of a persons civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute,
taking away the persons rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of
property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a persons
property, which oversteps or misapplies the officials authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of
cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of
force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed
the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded
the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local
communities. If its shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual fromharm, that official could
be in violation of the color of law statute.
Filing a Complaint
To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The
following information should be provided:
All identifying information for the victim(s);

Key Civi l Ri ghts Links
Civil Rights Home
Priority Issues
- Hate Crime
- Human Trafficking/Involuntary Servitude
- Color of Law Abuses
- Freedomof Access to Clinic Entrances
Report Civil Rights Violations
- File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
- File a Report on Our Internet Tip Line
Home About Us What We Investigate Civil Rights Color of Law
FBI Color of Law http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
1 of 2 6/14/2013 11:01 AM
24
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice
Close
As much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
agency employed;
Date and time of incident;
Location of incident;
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
A complete chronology of events; and
Any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorneys Office in your district or send a written complaint to:
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S.
Attorneys Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of J ustice in Washington, D.C.,
which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.
Civil Applications
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow
officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the
Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the
Department of J ustice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have
policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an
agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice
investigation include:
Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers actions;
Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.
Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of J ustice has the ability to initiate civil actions
against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention
facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized
persons.
Report Civil Rights Violations
File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
File a Report over Our Internet Tip Line
Visit Our VictimAssistance Site
Resources
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Statute
Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf)
Addressing Police Misconduct
FBI Color of Law http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
2 of 2 6/14/2013 11:01 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
vs. CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: J
J . COOK,
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs.
_________________________________/
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX TO THE
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA JEAN COOKS
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
Entered by J udge Cook November 15, 2010
________________________________
Plaintiffs 4th Motion to Disqualify J udge Martha J . Cook
Filed in this case on November 10, 2010
____________________________
AN INSOLVENT JUDGE
LACKS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
AND IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY

IN AND FOR ffiLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
RECEIVED
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: G
NOV 10 2010
J.COOK,
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
Defendants.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FL
------------_....:/
PLAINTIFF'S 4TH MOTION TO DISOUALIFY JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK
1. Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves to disqualify Circuit Court Judge Martha J. Cook
as trial judge in this action pursuant to chapter 38 Florida Statutes, Rule 2.330, Florida
Rules of Judicial Administration, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2. This motion is timely and made within ten days of the date Gillespie discovered
the grounds for disqualification pursuant to Rule 2 . 3 3 0 ( ~ ) , Fla.R.Jud.Admin.
Disclosure under Rule 2.330Cc)(4)' Fla.R.Jud.Admin,
3. Pursuant to Rule 2.330(c)(4), a motion to disqualify shall include the dates of all
previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this rule in the case and the dates of
the orders granting those motions. This infonnation is attached. (Exhibit 1)
Disqualification Mandated by Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3E(l)
4. Canon 3E(1) provides that a judge has an affinnative duty to enter an order of
disqualification in any proceeding "in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned." The object of this provision of the Code is to ensure the right to fair trials
Page - 2
and hearings, and to promote confidence in a fair and independent judiciary by avoiding
even the appearance of partiality.
Introduction
5. On Monday November 1, 2010 Gillespie attempted to close his checking account
at the Community Bank of Manatee in Tampa and learned his account had been flagged.
William H. Sedgeman, J r. Chairman & CEO of the bank was present and removed the
hold so the account could be closed. Mr. Sedgeman is the husband of J udge Cook. Since
the bank apparently had Gillespie under special surveillance he investigated further. On
November 4, 2010 the Division of Elections provided Gillespie J udge Cooks Form 6
public disclosure of financial interests for the year 2007 that showed the J udge owned a
beneficial interest in Community Bank of Manatee, information the J udge failed to
disclose September 28, 2010 when Gillespie moved to disqualify based on a financial
relationship with her husband. On November 5, 2010 Gillespie obtained a copy of the
banks Consent Order with the FDIC and OFR. The bank lost millions of dollars and
almost failed in 2009. On Monday November 8, 2010 the Florida Commission on Ethics
provided Gillespie J udge Cooks Form 6 for the years 2008 and 2009. Since 2007 J udge
Cooks net worth has declined by almost half and she is essentially insolvent. In addition
the bank has not fully complied with the Consent Order. The bank also sold a majority
interest to a foreign entity. All this and more shows J udge Cook must be disqualified for
bias and conflict under Canon 3E(1) which provides that a judge has an affirmative duty
to enter an order of disqualification in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned. Finally, the events described in this motion call into
question J udge Cooks fitness to serve as a judge in the State of Florida.
Page - 3
6. The forgoing information in paragraph 5 shows the following facts sufficient
to produce a reasonable fear that Gillespie cannot obtain a fair trial or hearing before
J udge Cook because the J udge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned:
a. Gillespie was under special surveillance by J udge Cooks bank and husband.
b. J udge Cook failed to disclose a conflict with Gillespie September 28, 2010.
c. J udge Cooks personal and business financial affairs violate the Code of
J udicial Conduct for the State of Florida.
d. J udge Cook has a conflict of interest presiding over matters involving financial
institutions and related transactions.
Gillespies Financial Relationship With Community Bank of Manatee
7. Gillespie banked at the Tampa branch of Community Bank of Manatee located in
his old neighborhood. Stephanie Zambrana at the Tampa branch referred Gillespie to the
banks mortgage specialist Christine Palese since Gillespies family home is facing
foreclosure on a reverse mortgage due to the death of his mother last year.
8. Gillespie called Ms. Palese August 20, 2010 but did not qualify for a conventional
mortgage. Ms. Palese advised Gillespie about his current situation and they decided his
best bet was to enforce the terms of the current reverse mortgage. Ms. Palese also said
Gillespie could make a complaint against the bank involved to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). US Senator Bill Nelson previously contacted the
OCC on his behalf and Gillespies discussed the response of the OCC with Ms. Palese.
9. August 23, 2010 Gillespie wrote Ms. Palese and thanked her for speaking with
him and provided copies of the reverse mortgage documents. Gillespie asked Ms. Palese
if he should appeal to the OCC or make an online complaint.
Page - 4
10. August 31, 2010 Gillespie called Ms. Palese to discuss his letter of August 23rd
but she was busy and he unilaterally made an appeal to the OCC.
11. Gillespie had a financial relationship with Community Bank of Manatee and it
owed him a fiduciary duty.
Gillespie Under Special Surveillance by J udge Cooks Bank and Husband
12. On Monday November 1, 2010 Gillespie attempted to close his checking account
at the Tampa branch of Community Bank of Manatee and learned his account was
flagged. Other than his initial $50 cash deposit to open the checking account there were
no other transactions on the account.
13. Bank teller J ennifer informed Gillespie that when she accessed his account on the
banks computer she was puzzled by a note on the account to contact Maria Luna at the
banks headquarters in Lakewood Ranch, Florida. J ennifer telephoned Ms. Luna but was
unable to reach her. Meanwhile Gillespie was unable to close his account. J ennifer then
left the teller window to speak with William H. Sedgeman, J r. Chairman & CEO of the
bank. Mr. Sedgeman personally authorized J ennifer to close Gillespies account.
14. After obtaining special authorization to access Gillespies account J ennifer
completed a closing account worksheet that Gillespie signed. J ennifer then provided
Gillespie the $50 closing balance in cash. Gillespie thanked J ennifer and left the bank.
15. The next day Gillespie telephoned Ms. Luna to learn why his account was
flagged. He spoke with Mary Beth who said Ms. Luna was unavailable. Mary Beth was
also puzzled by the note on the account to contact Maria Luna. Mary Beth told Gillespie
she doesnt see what would have triggered that and would have Ms. Luna call him.
Page - 5
16. Ms. Luna telephoned Gillespie at 3.05 PM November 2, 2010. Ms. Luna said
Gillespies account had a new account banner that required a manager be contacted
prior to closing to check for any customer service issues. This explanation conflicted
with the statements of both J ennifer and Mary Beth who did not mention a new account
banner but a note on the account to contact Maria Luna personally, not a manager.
When pressed on this point Ms. Luna became defensive and said the Tampa branch did
not have a manager. Several days later Gillespie learned that Laura Schaefer manages
both the Tampa and Riverview office and is the branch contact for consumer issues.
Gillespie concluded Ms. Luna was not truthful as to the reason his account was flagged.
17. November 6, 2010 Gillespie consulted an independent banker who reviewed the
forgoing and opined that the teller could not complete a transaction on Gillespies
account because it was flagged. The note on Gillespies account instructed the teller to
call Maria Luna before doing something on the account. There was a hold on Gillespies
account, his account was frozen, and the account needed an override for access.
18. Gillespie believes J udge Cook alerted her husband William H. Sedgeman, J r.
Chairman & CEO of the bank about Gillespies account which resulted in the forgoing.
Gillespie believes J udge Cook became aware of Gillespies financial relationship with
her husband during a hearing September 28, 2010 before J udge Cook for Final Summary
J udgment when Gillespie made a speaking motion to disqualify J udge Cook. Page 4 of
the transcript of the hearing September 28, 2010 shows this exchange:
1 MR. GI LLESPI E: I move t o di squal i f y you
2 on t he basi s t hat I have a f i nanci al
3 r el at i onshi p wi t h your husband.
Page - 6
4 THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Your mot i on t o
5 di squal i f y me on t hat basi s i s deni ed.
J udge Cook made no inquiry into the nature of the financial relationship between
Gillespie and her husband before denying his spoken motion to disqualify.
J udge Cooks Relationship With Community Bank of Manatee
19. William H. Sedgeman, J r. is the Chairman & CEO of Community Bank of
Manatee. Mr. Sedgeman is the husband of J udge Martha J . Cook.
20. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the
common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and wife
are considered as one person and the relatives of one spouse by consanguinity are related
to the other by affinity in the same degree. State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463.
21. On November 4, 2010 the Division of Elections provided Gillespie J udge Cooks
Form 6 public disclosure of financial interests for the year 2007 (Exhibit 2) that showed
the J udge owned a beneficial interest in Community Bank of Manatee, information the
J udge failed to disclose September 28, 2010 when Gillespie moved to disqualify based on
a financial relationship with her husband. A judge has a duty to disclose information that
the litigants or their counsel might consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A
judge's obligation to disclose relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify.
Stevens v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist.,
2006. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings with a
relative of the court. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
22. On Monday November 8, 2010 the Florida Commission on Ethics provided
Gillespie J udge Cooks Form 6 for the year 2001 that shows J udge Cook served as a
Page - 7
registered agent for Community Bank of Manatee and she owned more than a 5%
beneficial interest in the bank. (Exhibit 3).
23. On Monday November 8, 2010 the Florida Commission on Ethics provided
Gillespie J udge Cooks Form 6 for the years 2008 and 2009. (Exhibits 4, 5). Since 2007
J udge Cooks net worth has declined by almost half and she is now likely insolvent.
J udge Martha J . Cooks Insolvency
24. Insolvency. The condition of a person or business that is insolvent; inability or
lack of means to pay debts. Such a relative condition of a persons or entitys assets and
liabilities that the former, if made immediately available, would not be sufficient to
discharge the latter. Financial condition such that businesses or persons debts are
greater than the aggregate of such debtors property at fair valuation. American Nat.
Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, Ill. v. Bone. C.A.Mo., 333 F.2d 984, 987. (Blacks Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition)
25. A spreadsheet prepared by Gillespie using information from J udge Cooks Form 6
for the years 2007-2009 shows her reported net worth declined from $181,588 in 2007 to
$94,987 in 2009. (Exhibit 6). This is a decline of $86,601 or 47.69%.
26. A closer look at J udge Cooks self-valuation of her two largest assets casts doubt
on the accuracy of amounts reported. J udge Cook reported the value of her home in 2009
at $300,000. In 2001 she reported the value of the same home at $190,000. Given the
sharp decline in Florida real estate, the $300,000 value appears inflated. A comparable
sale near J udge Cooks home sold February 2010 for $270,000. From that amount
brokerage ($16,200 @ 6%) and other sale costs must be deducted.
Page - 8
J udge Cooks next largest asset is household goods and personal effects for which
she listed at an aggregate value of $75,000. Household goods and personal effects may
be reported in a lump sum if their aggregate value exceeds $1.000. This category includes
any of the following if not held for investment purposes: jewelry; collections of stamps,
guns, and numismatic items; art objects; household equipment and furnishings; clothing
other household item; and vehicles for personal use. In 2001 J udge Cook reported the
aggregate value of household goods and personal effects at $72,500. For the years 2007-
2009 she reported the aggregate value of household goods and personal effects at
$75,000 each year with no change. J udge Cook did not separately list any vehicles for
personal use so it is assumed her personal vehicle is included in the aggregate value of
household goods and personal effects. Personal vehicles are a depreciating assets but
J udge Cooks reported amount does not reflect any depreciation. This is evidence of
possible wrongdoing but not conclusive proof that J udge Cook misrepresented the value
of her assets to avoid showing insolvency.
Community Bank of Manatee Under Consent Order
27. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported that Community
Bank of Manatee lost $9.3 million dollars in 2009. This was reported in the press, by
J ohn Hielscher, Senior Reporter for the Herald-Tribune and others, and by the FDIC in a
call report. The bank lost another $1.4 million in 2010 as reported by J ohn Hielscher
May 4, 2010 in a story Millions More Lost By Bank.
28. The bank was on the verge of collapse in 2009. When a bank fails it is known in
the industry as "Friday Night Lights Out". After 6 p.m. on Fridays is when officials from
the FDIC accompanied by other federal or state regulators walk into an ailing bank and
Page - 9
pull the plug. When this happens the banks shareholders are wiped out and management
is immediately terminated and escorted off the premises. The FDIC then conducts an
audit of the failed bank and makes arrangement for an orderly transfer of accounts, often
to healthy bank that assumes the failed banks assets and obligations.
29. Community Bank of Manatee narrowly escaped collapse when a foreign investor
agreed to save the bank. Marcelo Faria de Lima, a citizen of Brazil, formed CBM Florida
Holdings with Trevor Burgess of Artesia Capital Management USA to invest $11.5
million for a controlling interest in Community Bank of Manatee. Mr. Lima is Chairman
the banks holding company, CBM Florida Holding Company. 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. Mr. Lima has served as a director of Community Bank of Manatee since the
change of control transaction was completed on December 3, 2009.
30. On November 25, 2009 Community Bank of Manatee signed a consent order with
the FDIC and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) agreeing to boost capital
and improve banking practices. The Consent Order, FDIC-09-569b and OFR 0692-FI-
10/09 is attached as Exhibit 7. The Consent Order was executed by the banks board of
directors who consented, without admitting or denying any charges of unsafe or unsound
banking practices or violations of law or regulation relating to weaknesses in the banks
capital adequacy, asset quality, management effectiveness, earnings, liquidity and
sensitivity to market risk.
31. The FDIC and OFR Ordered, among other things, in 2(a) Management, that
(a) Within 60 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall
Page - 10
have and retain qualified management with the qualifications and experience
commensurate with assigned duties and responsibilities at the Bank. Each
member of management shall be provided appropriate written authority from the
Bank's Board to implement the provisions of this ORDER. At a minimum,
management shall include the following:
(i) a chief executive officer with proven ability in managing a bank of
comparable size and in effectively implementing lending, investment and
operating policies in accordance with sound banking practices;
As of today, almost a year after the FDIC and OFR Ordered the bank to have and retain
qualified management William H. Sedgeman, J r. is still the banks CEO, even though he
was at the wheel and drove the bank into the ditch, lost $9.3 million in 2009, and $1.4
million in 2010. In addition, Gillespie observed Mr. Sedgeman November 1, 2010 while
closing his account at the Tampa branch. Mr. Sedgeman, purportedly 70 years-old,
appears older, frail, and shuffles about, and probably is not competent to run a bank.
J udge Cook A Current Or Former Institution-Related Party
32. The provisions of the Consent Order shall not bar, estop, or otherwise prevent the
FDIC, the OFR or any other federal or state agency or department from taking any other
action against the Bank or any of the Banks current or former institution-affiliated
parties, as such term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(u) and Section 655.005(1)(i), Florida
Statutes. (page 21, 2) Upon information and belief, J udge Cook is a current or former
institution-affiliated party.
33. The bank announced it made a $105,000 profit in the quarter ended September
Page - 11
30, 2010. In J une it announced a $489,000 profit for the quarter ended J une 30, 2010. But
figures provided by the Investigative Reporting Workshop of the American University
School of Communication (Exhibit 8) for the period J une 30, 2009 to J une 30, 2010 show
a decline or worsening of the following key indictors:
Assets fell by $3,669,000
Deposits fell by $12,218,000
Loans fell by $9,072,000
Other real estate owned increased by $8,911,000
Total troubled assets increased by $10,014,000
The loan loss provision dropped from $6.9 million to $899,000
Attorney Matt Weidner Predicts Collapse of Florida Real Estate Market
34. The banks future is tied to an improving economy, which in Florida depends on a
recovery in the real estate market. St. Petersburg foreclosure attorney Matthew Weidner
predicts a collapse of the market. His arguments on YouTube sound plausible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB7ghUzp4As.
Bauer Rates Community Bank of Manatee at Two Stars - Problematic
35. Florida banking consultant Ken Thomas now estimates 30 Florida banks will go
down in 2010, up from his prediction of 20 at the start of the year, reported by J ohn
Hielscher, Senior Reporter for the Herald-Tribune, Monday September 20, 2010 in Are
we at the end of local bank failures? (Exhibit 9)
Problem banks are all over Florida, although a few regions like yours with many
new banks have a disproportionate amount, Thomas said. Florida is for sure the
leader in bank failures this year, but I did not anticipate that literally 10 percent of
Page - 12
our banking industry would disappear this year, but we are on the way to that
happening, he said. So far, 23 Florida banks have failed this year, nine more than
in all of 2009 and nearly 20 percent of the U.S. total. Some 286 banks and thrifts
were in business at the start of 2010. Horizon Bank of Bradenton was the latest
failure, on Sept. 10. It became the fourth Manatee County bank to fall during the
recession.... Locally, Bauer rated Community Bank of Manatee, Englewood Bank
and Sabal Palm Bank at two stars, or problematic.
The nation's 7,830 banks earned a combined $21.6 billion in the second quarter,
up from a year-ago loss of $4.4 billion and the best profit in nearly three years.
Florida banks, however, lost $263 million in the recent quarter, a tad higher than
the $257 million loss last year. The FDIC's confidential list of problem U.S.
institutions is up to 829, a 17-year high. Every third bank in Florida is a problem
bank, which means there is a big pipeline of potential failures, Thomas said.
Not all problem banks, however, will fail, and many will be recapitalized by
investors or others, and some of the troubled banks may be merged into other
banks....Thomas still expects 200 U.S. banks will fall in 2010, and well over
100 will go down in 2011. It took many years to get into this mess, and it will
take many years to get out of it, he said.
J udge Cooks Financial Affairs Compromised Her J udicial Independence
36. J udge Cooks poor state of financial affairs suggests why Court Counsel David A.
Rowland has been so active in Gillespies lawsuit since the case was reassigned to J udge
Cook May 24, 2010 after J udge Barton was disqualified when it was learned that
opposing counsel paid thousands of dollars to the J udges wifes business.
Page - 13
37. On J uly 9, 2010 Mr. Rowland seized control of Gillespies ADA accommodation
request from Gonzalo B. Casares, the Courts ADA Coordinator, and issued his own
letter denying the request. Likewise there is evidence that Mr. Rowland is controlling
J udge Cook in this case from behind the scene.
38. On J uly 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM Gillespie spoke by phone with Mr. Rowland about
his letter of J uly 9, 2010 denying Gillespies ADA request. Gillespie and Mr. Rowland
discussed the notice of claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes. They also
discussed Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and Gillespies emergency motion to
disqualify Rodems pending before J udge Cook. Mr. Rowland expresses surprise when
Gillespie informed him that the motion, filed J uly 9th, was still pending. Later that day
J udge Cook denied the motion without a hearing. J udge Cooks Order was filed with the
Clerk J uly 22, 2010 at 3.17 PM according to the Clerks time stamp on the Order.
39. Gillespie believes the timing of events is not circumstantial, and that following the
aforementioned phone call Mr. Rowland instructed J udge Cook to deny Gillespies
emergency motion to disqualify Rodems pending before her. The Order itself is unlawful,
see Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook falsified an
official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie due process on the disqualification of
Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel, filed November 1, 2010.
40. As Court Counsel Mr. Rowland was preemptively defending the Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit against Gillespies lawsuit formally announced J uly 12, 2010 in the notice of claim
made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes, but first raised in Gillespies letter to
Rowland of J anuary 4, 2010 requesting information about section 768.28(6)(a) Florida
Statutes. (Exhibit 10).
Page - 14
J udge Cooks Financial Affairs And The Code of J udicial Conduct - Canons 2, 3, 5 and 6
41. The Florida Code of J udicial Conduct Canon 6 states Fiscal Matters of a J udge
Shall be Conducted in a Manner That Does Not Give the Appearance of Influence or
Impropriety; a J udge Shall Regularly File Public Reports as Required by Article II,
Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, and Shall Publicly Report Gifts; Additional
Financial Information Shall be Filed With the J udicial Qualifications Commission to
Ensure Full Financial Disclosure Section D requires disclosure of a judge's income,
debts, investments or other assets to the extent provided in Canon 6 and in Sections 3E
and 3F or as otherwise required by law. Commentary, Canon 6D, Section 3E requires a
judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge has an
economic interest
1
. Section 5D requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and
from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial
2
performance of judicial
duties; Section 6B requires a judge to report all compensation the judge received for
activities outside judicial office. A judge has the rights of any other citizen, including the
right to privacy of the judge's financial affairs, except to the extent that limitations
established by law are required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge's duties.
42. J udge Cook has an "economic interest" in Community Bank of Manatee shown on
disclosure documents filed with The Florida Commission on Ethics. J udge Cook
formerly served as registered agent for the bank. J udge Cook is married to William H.
Sedgeman, J r. the banks Chairman & CEO. In Florida the relationship to a party or
attorney is computed by using the common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In

1
"Economic interest" denotes ownership of a more than de minimis legal or equitable interest, or a
relationship as officer, director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party.
Page - 15
computing affinity husband and wife are considered as one person and the relatives of
one spouse by consanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the same degree. State
v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463. J udge Cooks insolvency is likely related to recapitalization efforts
with the bank, which lost $9.3 million in 2009 and $1.4 million in 2010. The bank almost
failed in 2009 which, had that occurred, would have wiped out the investors. The bank is
currently under a Consent Order by the FDIC and OFR. One of the conditions of the
Order is retaining qualified management, including a CEO. That condition remains
unfilled as long as the current CEO Mr. Sedgeman remains at the helm long past his time.
J udge Cook is a current or former institution-affiliated party as defined in 12 U.S.C.
1813(u) and Section 655.005(1)(i), Florida Statutes. A reasonable person would
conclude that J udge Cook is up to her neck in the interest and survival of Community
Bank of Manatee which in turn is dependent on a recovery in the Florida real estate
market. J udge Cook provides legal and other advice to her husband on bank matters,
including the Consent Order and his resignation, if not in the boardroom, then
unofficially at home. To believe otherwise strains credulity.
43. As defined by the Code of J udicial Conduct impartiality or impartial denotes
absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties,
as well as maintaining an open mind in considering issues that may come before the
judge. Given J udge Cooks "economic interest" in Community Bank of Manatee, no
reasonable person could believe J udge Cook is impartial in matters of banks or financial
institutions, or matters involving the real estate market, such as mortgage foreclosure.

2
Impartiality or impartial denotes absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties
or classes of parties, as well as maintaining an open mind in considering issues that may come before the
judge.
Page - 16
J udge Cook is biased in favor of banks and financial institutions and prejudice against
parties suing banks and financial institutions. J udge Cook is also biased in matters
involving the real estate market, such as mortgage foreclosure, favoring banks and
financial institutions and prejudice against people in foreclosure. It is only natural for
J udge Cook to be prejudiced against those in foreclosure. Had clients of Community
Bank of Manatee not defaulted on their mortgages the bank would not have lost millions
of dollars, risk failure, currently operate under a Consent Order, and put J udge Cook in a
position of insolvency.
44. Canon 5, A J udge Shall Regulate Extrajudicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of
Conflict With J udicial Duties. 5A. Extrajudicial Activities in General. A judge shall
conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not:
(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judges capacity to act impartially as a judge;
(2) undermine the judges independence, integrity, or impartiality;
(3) demean the judicial office;
45. Because of the foregoing J udge Cook violates Canon 5A(1), (2) and (3). J udge
Cooks extrajudicial activities with the Community Bank of Manatee (1) cast reasonable
doubt on the judges capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) undermine the judges
independence, integrity, or impartiality; (3) demean the judicial office;
46. Canon 3, A J udge Shall Perform the Duties of J udicial Office Impartially and
Diligently. Given J udge Cooks "economic interest" in Community Bank of Manatee, no
reasonable person could believe J udge Cook is impartial in matters of banks or financial
institutions, or matters involving the real estate market, such as mortgage foreclosure.
J udge Cook is biased in favor of banks and financial institutions and prejudice against
Page - 17
parties suing banks and financial institutions. J udge Cook is also biased in matters
involving the real estate market, such as mortgage foreclosure, favoring banks and
financial institutions and prejudice against people in foreclosure. Canon 3E(1) states that
a judge shall disqualify herself in any proceeding "in which the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned..." This includes any case in which the judge "has a personal
bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer..." Canon 3E(1)(a).
47. Canon 2 states A J udge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of
Impropriety in all of the J udge's Activities. A judge shall respect and comply with the
law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary. Commentary, Canon 2A. Irresponsible or improper
conduct by judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary. A judge must avoid all
impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of
constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so
freely and willingly. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would
create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a
reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out
judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired. (relevant
portion, underline added for emphasis). Given J udge Cooks "economic interest" in
Community Bank of Manatee, no reasonable person could believe J udge Cook is
impartial in matters of banks or financial institutions, or matters involving the real estate
market, such as mortgage foreclosure. J udge Cook is biased in favor of banks and
financial institutions and prejudice against parties suing banks and financial institutions.
Page - 18
J udge Cook is also biased in matters involving the real estate market, such as mortgage
foreclosure, favoring banks and financial institutions and prejudice against people in
foreclosure.
48. Gillespies lawsuit before J udge Cook is a dispute with his former lawyers over
the settlement of an earlier lawsuit against Amscot Corporation for predatory lending
under the guise of check cashing, a.k.a. payday loans. It was a class action lawsuit that
settled for business reasons on appeal. Amscot Corporation is a financial institution and
J udge Cook is biased in favor of banks and financial institutions and prejudiced against
people who sue them. In addition, J udge Cook appears to be making rulings along a
theory of Economic Advantage, favoring the wealthier party instead of relying on the
facts and the law. J udge Cook is also prejudiced against Gillespie because of his
foreclosure status. It is only natural for J udge Cook to be prejudiced against those in
foreclosure. Had clients of Community Bank of Manatee not defaulted on their
mortgages the bank would not have lost millions of dollars, risk failure, currently operate
under a Consent Order, and put J udge Cook in a position of insolvency.
49. A letter from Dr. Huffer shows that Gillespie has been routinely denied
participatory and testimonial access to the court. (Exhibit 11). Dr. Huffer wrote:
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
J udge and now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is
threatened with arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like
threatening to arrest a paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving
Page - 19
his wheelchair behind. This is precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask
for DOJ guidance on this matter. (Dr. Huffer, October 28, 2010, paragraph 2)
50. Because J udge Cook is not impartial as set forth herein she must be disqualified
because Gillespie fears he cannot have a fair hearing.
J udge Cooks Financial Affairs And The Code of J udicial Conduct - Canon 1
51. The Florida Code of J udicial Conduct Canon 1 states A J udge Shall Uphold the
Integrity and Independence of the J udiciary. An independent and honorable judiciary is
indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those
standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved ... The
Commentary states deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public
confidence in the integrity and independence of judges...judges should be independent,
they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence
in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this
responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the
judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.
52. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary and the courts has been
injured due to the mortgage foreclosure crisis. New words such as robo signer and
rocket docket and foreclosure mills pejoratively describe the publics lack of
confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary and courts.
53. The Attorney General of Florida has active investigations into foreclosure mills
for fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases.
These documents have been presented in court before judges as actual assignments of
Page - 20
mortgages and have later been shown to be legally inadequate and/or insufficient. J udges
have been negligent in accepting these bad document.
54. J udge Cook is operating her court against the interest of Gillespie and for the
benefit of the Defendants, lawyers who made campaign contributions to J udge Cook.
Final Summary J udgment was entered September 28, 2010 which ended the case. The
Clerk of the Circuit Court closed the file. J udge Cook reopened the case to proceed as a
kleptocracy for the purpose of assessing and collecting excessive fines and sanctions
from Gillespie to give to the Defendants and incarcerating Gillespie. This is not a lawful
or appropriate function of the court and is a violation of the Florida Constitution, Article
1, Section 9 Due Process, Section 11 Imprisonment for Debt, Section 17 Excessive Fines,
and Section 21 Access to Courts, as well as the claims in Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit, Florida, et al., Case No. 5:10-cv-00503, US District Court, Middle District of
Florida, Ocala Division.
55. As described in paragraphs 42 and 43, given J udge Cooks "economic interest" in
Community Bank of Manatee, no reasonable person could believe J udge Cook is
impartial in matters of banks or financial institutions, or matters involving the real estate
market such as mortgage foreclosure. J udge Cook is biased in favor of banks and
financial institutions and prejudice against parties suing banks and financial institutions.
J udge Cook is also biased in matters involving the real estate market, such as mortgage
foreclosure, favoring banks and financial institutions and prejudice against people in
foreclosure. For this reason J udge Cook must be disqualified in these cases because a
reasonable person would not believe she was impartial and therefore would fear
they could not have a fair hearing before Judge Cook. This calls into question Judge
Cook's fitness to be a judge in the State of Florida.
Successor Judge
56. Because there is a federal lawsuit against the 13th Judicial Circuit, and not just an
individual judge(s), the 13th Judicial Circuit cannot hear this case. A final judgment was
rendered September 28, 2010 so this case is over and the file must be closed.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned movant certifies that the motion and the movant's
statements are made in good faith.
Submitted and Sworn to November 10, 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 J. 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 10th day of November 2010.
NAIl UN
..\' ;MY COMMISSION' DO 923360
..-:
EXPIRES: January 8,2014
Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed November 10,
2010 to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Barker, Rodem ok, PA, 400 orth Ashley
Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602.
Page - 21
Page - 1
Disclosure under Rule 2.330(c)(4), Fla.R.J ud.Admin
Pursuant to Rule 2.330(c)(4), a motion to disqualify shall include the dates of all previously
granted motions to disqualify filed under this rule in the case and the dates of the orders
granting those motions. In this case two judges previously recused themselves and one judge
was disqualified. Gillespie moved to disqualify J udge Cook thrice, and she denied each time.
a. Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Circuit J udge Martha J . Cook, filed J une 14,
2010; denied by J udge Cook J une 16, 2010.
b. Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify J udge Martha J . Cook, filed J uly 23, 2010; denied
by J udge Cook J uly 27, 2010.
c. Plaintiffs Emergency Motion To Disqualify J udge Martha J . Cook, filed November
1, 2010; denied by J udge Cook November 2, 2010.
Circuit J udge Richard A. Nielsen Recused
1. Plaintiffs motion to disqualify J udge Nielsen was filed November 3, 2006. J udge
Nielsen denied the motion November 20, 2006 as legally insufficient because it was not filed
in a timely manner. J udge Nielsen recused himself two days later sua sponte stating that it is
in the best interest of all parties that this case be assigned to another division.
2. Misconduct by Defendants counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems is responsible for the
recusal of J udge Nielsen. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems made a verified pleading that falsely
named J udge Nielsen in an exact quote attributed to Plaintiff, putting the trial judge into the
controversy. The Tampa Police Department recently determined that the sworn affidavit
submitted by Mr. Rodems to the court about an exact quote attributed to Plaintiff was not
right and not accurate.
1
Page - 2
3 Initially Plaintiff had a good working relationship with J udge Nielsen and his judicial
assistant Myra Gomez. Plaintiff attended the first hearing telephonically September 26, 2005
and prevailed on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Strike. After Rodems strategic
disruptive maneuver J udge Nielsen did not manage the case lawfully, favored Defendants in
rulings, and responded to Plaintiff sarcastically from the bench.
Circuit J udge Claudia Rickert Isom Recused
4. This lawsuit was reassigned to J udge Isom effective November 22, 2006. A notice on
J udge Isoms official judicial web page advised that the judge had a number of relatives
practicing law in the Tampa Bar area and If you feel there might be a conflict in your case
based on the above information, please raise the issue so it can be resolved prior to me
presiding over any matters concerning your case. One of the relatives listed was husband Mr.
A Woodson Woody Isom, J r.
5. Plaintiff found a number of campaign contributions between Defendant Cook and
witness J onathan Alpert to both J udge Isom and Woody Isom. This lawsuit is about a fee
dispute. The only signed fee contract is between Plaintiff and the law firm of Alpert, Barker,
Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. Plaintiffs Motion To Disclose Conflict was submitted
December 15, 2006 and heard February 1, 2007. J udge Isom failed to disclose that husband
Woody Isom is a former law partner of J onathan Alpert. Mr. Rodems represented Defendants
at the hearing and also failed to disclose the relationship. Plaintiff only recently learned
(March 2010) of the relationship in the course of researching accusations contained an
offensive letter from Rodems to the Plaintiff.
Page - 3
6. Subsequently J udge Isom did not manage the case lawfully and ignored her own law
review on case management and discovery, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28
STETSON L. REV. 323, 324 (1998). J udge Isoms law review shows how she coddles lawyers
but slams ordinary people with extreme sanctions. It explains why J udge Isom favored the
Defendants in rulings, and was prejudiced against the Plaintiff. A motion to disqualify J udge
Isom was submitted February 13, 2007. J udge Isom denied the motion as legally insufficient
but recused herself sua sponte.
Circuit J udge J ames M. Barton, II Disqualified
7. This case was reassigned to J udge Barton February 14, 2007. Plaintiff retained
attorney Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville to represent him. Plaintiff could not find an attorney
in the Tampa Bay area to litigate against Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA because of their
aggressive reputation and the general professional courtesy not to sue another lawyer. J udge
Barton was pleased with Mr. Bauer, and stated so on the record:
THE COURT: It is a good thing for Mr. Gillespie that he has retained
counsel. The way in which Mr. Gillespie's side has been presented today with
- with a high degree of professionalism and confidence reflects the wisdom of
that decision. (Transcript, hearing J uly 3, 2007, p. 21, line 6)
8. Nonetheless, J udge Barton made disparaging comments on the record about the
Plaintiff, did not manage the case lawfully, and was prejudiced against the Plaintiff. J udge
Barton provided copious hearing time to Defendants to obtain sanctions for a discovery error
and a misplaced defense to a counterclaim under 57.105 Florida Statutes. The counterclaim
for libel against Plaintiff was an Abuse of Process, a willful and intentional misuse of process
Page - 4
for the collateral purpose of making Plaintiff drop his claims against Defendants and settle
this lawsuit on terms dictated by them. Defendants perverted the process of law for a purpose
for which it is not by law intended. Defendants used their counterclaim as a form of
extortion, as described in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. On September 28, 2010 Mr.
Rodems filed Defendants Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counterclaims.
9. J udge Barton sanctioned Plaintiff the extreme amount of $11,550 and allowed
Defendants to garnish Plaintiffs bank account and client trust fund with Mr. Bauer.
10. Attorney Bauer complained about Mr. Rodems on the record: Mr. Rodems has,
you know, decided to take a full nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work this out
in a professional manner. It is my mistake for sitting back and giving him the opportunity to
take this full blast attack. (transcript, August 14, 2008, emergency hearing, the Honorable
Marva Crenshaw, p. 16, line 24).
11. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 13, 2008. J udge Barton took no action and
allowed the case to languish with no activity for almost one year. J udge Barton failed to
fulfill his case management duties imposed by Rule 2.545, Fla.R.J ud.Admin. Plaintiff also
notes that Mr. Rodems failed to take any action during that one year time period,
undercutting his claim that Defendants are prejudiced by the length of this lawsuit.
12. One year after Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal, J udge Barton released him from the
case upon Plaintiffs request October 1, 2009. Plaintiff moved to disqualify J udge Barton
October 5, 2009, because he feared that he will not receive a fair trial because of specifically
described prejudice or bias of the judge. J udge Barton denied Plaintiffs motion for
disqualification as legally insufficient by order October 9, 2009.
Page - 5
13. In May 2010 Plaintiff found that the Defendants had paid thousands of dollars to Ms.
Chere J . Barton, President of Regency Reporting Service, Inc. of Tampa for her services.
Chere Barton is the wife of and married to J udge Barton. Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify
J udge Barton was found lawfully sufficient and J udge Barton entered an Order of
disqualification May 24, 2010.
2
3
4
5
J udge Martha J . Cook
Financial information obtained from J udge Cook's Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests
2009 2008 2007
94,987.00 $ 102,402.00 $ 181,588.00 $ Self-Reported Net Worth, December 31
Assets
$75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Household goods and personal effects
- $ 3,005.00 $ 3,041.00 $ Money Market IRA
12,558.00 $ 9,437.00 $ 16,446.00 $ 373 Common Shares Dupont
300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ Home (Address confidential)
3,000.00 $ 11,001.00 $ 8,836.00 $ Checking Account Bank of Tampa
- $ 3,817.00 $ 9,369.00 $ Community Bank of Manatee Shares (694) IRA
$390,558 $402,260 $462,692
Liabilities
124,534.00 $ 135,794.00 $ 146,466.00 $ Chase Home Finance, P. O. Box 24696, Columbus. OH 43224-0696
123,213.00 $ 123,290.00 $ 85,230.00 $ Wachovia Bank, P. O. Box 563966, Char1otte, NC 28256-3966
34,500.00 $ 19,350.00 $ 20,879.00 $ Bank of Tampa, P. O. Box 1, Tampa, FL 33601-0001
13,324.00 $ 21,424.00 $ 28,529.00 $ Honda Financial, P, O. Box 1027, Alpharetta, GA 30009-1027
295,571.00 $ 299,858.00 $ 281,104.00 $
Income
138,348.00 $ 144,159.00 $ 145,159.00 $ State of Florida -W-2 (circuit judge salary)
Part E - Interest in Specified Business (Form 6)
yes yes yes Community Bank of Manatee, Lakewood Ranch, Florida
no yes yes ownes more than 5% interest in the business
yes yes yes ownes a benfical interest
6

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
COMMUNITY BANK OF MANATEE ) CONSENT ORDER
LAKEWOOD RANCH, FLORIDA )
)
) FDIC-09-569b
) OFR 0692-FI-10/09
(INSURED STATE NONMEMBER BANK )
)
___________________________________)

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is the appropriate Federal
banking agency for COMMUNITY BANK OF MANATEE, LAKEWOOD RANCH,
FLORIDA (Bank), under 12 U.S.C. 1813(q).
The Bank, by and through its duly elected and acting Board of Directors
(Board), has executed a STIPULATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CONSENT
ORDER (STIPULATION), dated November 25, 2009 that is accepted by the FDIC and
the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR). With the STIPULATION, the Bank
has consented, without admitting or denying any charges of unsafe or unsound banking
practices or violations of law or regulation relating to weaknesses in the Banks capital
adequacy, asset quality, management effectiveness, earnings, liquidity and sensitivity to
market risk, to the issuance of this Consent Order (ORDER) by the FDIC and the OFR.
7

2
Having determined that the requirements for issuance of an order under 12 U.S.C.
1818(b) and Chapter 120 and Section 655.033, Florida Statutes, have been satisfied, the
FDIC and the OFR hereby order that:
1. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(a) Beginning on the effective date of this ORDER, the Board of Directors
(Board) shall increase its participation in the affairs of the Bank, assuming full
responsibility for the approval of sound policies and objectives and for the
supervision of all of the Bank's activities, consistent with the role and expertise
commonly expected for directors of banks of comparable size. The Board shall
prepare in advance and follow a detailed written agenda for each meeting,
including consideration of the actions of any committees. Nothing in this
paragraph shall preclude the Board from considering matters other than those
contained in the agenda. This participation shall include meetings to be held no
less frequently than monthly at which, at a minimum, the following areas shall be
reviewed and approved: reports of income and expenses; new, overdue, renewal,
charged-off, and recovered loans; investment activity; operating policies; and
individual committee actions. Board minutes shall document these reviews and
approvals, including the names of any dissenting directors.
(b) Within 30 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Board shall
establish a Board committee (Directors Committee), consisting of at least four
members, to oversee the Banks compliance with the ORDER. Three members of
the Directors Committee shall not be officers of the Bank. The Directors
Committee shall receive from Bank management monthly reports detailing the

3
Banks actions with respect to compliance with the ORDER. The Directors
Committee shall present a report detailing the Banks adherence to the ORDER to
the Board at each regularly scheduled Board meeting. Such report shall be
recorded in the appropriate minutes of the Boards meeting and shall be retained
in the Banks records. Establishment of this committee does not in any way
diminish the responsibility of the entire Board to ensure compliance with the
provisions of this ORDER.
2. MANAGEMENT
have and retain qualified management with the qualifications and experience
commensurate with assigned duties and responsibilities at the Bank. Each
member of management shall be provided appropriate written authority from the
Bank's Board to implement the provisions of this ORDER. At a minimum,
management shall include the following:
(i) a chief executive officer with proven ability in managing a bank of
comparable size and in effectively implementing lending, investment and
operating policies in accordance with sound banking practices;
(ii) a senior lending officer with a significant amount of appropriate
lending, collection, and loan supervision experience, and experience in
upgrading a low quality loan portfolio;
(iii) a chief operating officer with a significant amount of appropriate
experience in managing the operations of a bank of similar size and
complexity in accordance with sound banking practices; and

4
(iv) a chief credit officer with significant experience to independently
analyze loans and advise the Board regarding credit quality and
compliance with proper underwriting standards and processes.
(b) The qualifications of management shall be assessed on its ability to:
(i) comply with the requirements of this ORDER;
(ii) operate the Bank in a safe and sound manner;
(iii) comply with applicable laws and regulations; and
(iv) restore all aspects of the Bank to a safe and sound condition,
including, but not limited to, asset quality, capital adequacy, earnings,
management effectiveness, risk management, liquidity and sensitivity to
market risk.
(c) During the life of this ORDER, the Bank shall notify the Regional
Director of the FDIC's Atlanta Regional Office (Regional Director) and the
OFR (collectively, Supervisory Authorities), in writing, of the resignation or
termination of any of the Banks directors or senior executive officers within
fifteen (15) days of any such resignation or termination. The Bank shall also
provide notification to the Supervisory Authorities prior to the addition of any
individual to the Banks Board or employment of any individual as a senior
executive officer as that term is defined in Part 303 of the FDIC Rules and
Regulations, 12 C.F.R. 303.101, or executive officer as that term is defined and
applied in Section 655.005(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 69U-100.03852,
Florida Administrative Code. The notification to the Supervisory Authorities
shall comply with the requirements set forth in 12 C.F.R. Part 303, Subpart F, and

5
Rule 69U-100.03852, Florida Administrative Code. The notification should
include a description of the background and experience of the individual or
individuals to be added or employed and must be received at least 60 days before
such addition or employment is intended to become effective. If the Regional
Director or OFR issues a notice of disapproval pursuant to section 32 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831i, or Section 655.0385(2) or (3),
Florida Statutes, with respect to any proposed individual, then such individual
may not be added or employed by the Bank.
(d) Within 60 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall
develop and approve a written analysis and assessment of the Bank's management
and staffing needs (Management Plan) for the purpose of providing qualified
management for the Bank. The Management Plan shall include, at a minimum:
(i) identification of both the type and number of officer positions
needed to properly manage and supervise the affairs of the Bank;
(ii) identification and establishment of such Bank committees as are
needed to provide guidance and oversight to active management;
(iii) annual written evaluations of all Bank officers and, in particular,
the chief executive officer, senior lending officer, and the chief operating
officer to determine whether these individuals possess the ability,
experience and other qualifications required to perform present and
anticipated duties, including, but not limited to, adherence to the Bank's
established policies and practices, and restoration and maintenance of the
Bank in a safe and sound condition;

6
(iv) a plan to recruit and hire any additional or replacement personnel
with the requisite ability, experience and other qualifications to fill those
officer positions consistent with the needs identified in the Management
Plan; and
(v) an organizational chart.
(e) The Management Plan and its implementation shall be satisfactory to the
Supervisory Authorities. Within 60 days of the date of this ORDER, the Bank
shall submit the proposed Management Plan to the Supervisory Authorities for
review and comment. Within 10 days of receipt of comments from the
Supervisory Authorities, the Bank shall incorporate those comments, if any, and
shall approve and adopt the Management Plan as revised.
3. CAPITAL
have Tier 1 Capital in such amount as to equal or exceed seven percent (7%) of
the Banks total assets and Total Risk-Based Capital in such an amount as to
equal or exceed twelve percent (12%) of the Banks total risk-weighted assets.
Thereafter, during the life of this Order, the Bank shall maintain Tier 1 Capital
and Total Risk-Based Capital ratios equal to or exceeding seven percent (7%) and
twelve percent (12%), respectively, as those capital ratios are described in the
FDIC Statement of Policy on Risk-Based Capital and contained in Appendix A to
Part 325 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 325, Appendix A.
(b) The level of Tier 1 Capital to be maintained during the life of this ORDER
pursuant to this paragraph shall be in addition to a fully funded allowance for loan

7
and lease losses (ALLL), the adequacy of which shall be satisfactory to the
Supervisory Authorities as determined at subsequent examinations and/or
visitations.
(c) Any increase in Tier 1 Capital necessary to meet the requirements of this
paragraph may be accomplished by the following:
(i) sale of common stock; or
(ii) sale of noncumulative perpetual preferred stock; or
(iii) direct contribution of cash by the Board, shareholders, and/or
parent holding company; or
(iv) any other means acceptable to the Supervisory Authorities; or
(v) any combination of the above means.
Any increase in Tier 1 Capital necessary to meet the requirements of this
paragraph may not be accomplished through a deduction from the Bank's ALLL.
(d) If all or part of any increase in Tier 1 Capital required by this paragraph is
accomplished by the sale of new securities, the Board shall forthwith take all
necessary steps to adopt and implement a plan for the sale of such additional
securities, including the voting of any shares owned or proxies held or controlled
by them in favor of the plan. Should the implementation of the plan involve a
public distribution of the Banks securities (including a distribution limited only
to the Bank's existing shareholders), the Bank shall prepare offering materials
fully describing the securities being offered, including an accurate description of
the financial condition of the Bank and the circumstances giving rise to the
offering, and any other material disclosures necessary to comply with the Federal

8
securities laws. Prior to the implementation of the plan and, in any event, not less
than fifteen (15) days prior to the dissemination of such materials, the plan and
any materials used in the sale of the securities shall be submitted for review to the
FDIC, Accounting and Securities Disclosure Section, 550 17
th
Street, N.W.,
Room F-6066, Washington, D.C. 20429 and to the Office of Financial Regulation,
200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0371. Any changes requested
to be made in the plan or materials by the FDIC or the OFR shall be made prior to
their dissemination. If the increase in Tier 1 Capital is provided by the sale of
noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, then all terms and conditions of the
issue, including but not limited to those terms and conditions relative to interest
rate and convertibility factor, shall be presented to the Supervisory Authorities for
prior approval.
(e) In complying with the provisions of this paragraph, the Bank shall provide
to any subscriber and/or purchaser of the Banks securities, a written notice of any
planned or existing development or other changes which are materially different
from the information reflected in any offering materials used in connection with
the sale of Bank securities. The written notice required by this paragraph shall be
furnished within ten (10) days from the date such material development or change
was planned or occurred, whichever is earlier, and shall be furnished to every
subscriber and/or purchaser of the Bank's securities who received or was tendered
the information contained in the Bank's original offering materials.
(f) For the purposes of this ORDER, Tier 1 Capital, Total Risk-Based
Capital, total assets, and total risk-weighted assets shall have the meanings

9
ascribed to them in Part 325 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part
325.
4. CHARGE-OFF
eliminate from its books, by charge-off or collection, all assets or portions of
assets classified Loss in the FDIC Report of Examination dated J une 16, 2009
(the ROE) that have not been previously collected or charged-off. Elimination
of any of these assets through proceeds of other loans made by the Bank is not
considered collection for purposes of this paragraph.
(b) Additionally, while this ORDER remains in effect, the Bank shall, within
30 days from the receipt of any official Report of Examination of the Bank from
the FDIC or the OFR, eliminate from its books, by collection, charge-off, or other
proper entries, the remaining balance of any asset classified Loss unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Supervisory Authorities.
5. REDUCTION OF ADVERSELY CLASSIFIED ASSETS
formulate and submit to the Supervisory Authorities, for review and comment, a
written plan to reduce the Banks risk position in each asset or relationship which
is in excess of $1,000,000 and which is classified Substandard in the ROE. For
purposes of this provision, reduce means to collect, charge off, or improve the
quality of an asset so as to warrant its removal from adverse classification by the
Supervisory Authorities. In developing the plan mandated by this paragraph, the
Bank shall, at a minimum, and with respect to each adversely classified loan or

10
lease, review, analyze and document the financial position of the borrower,
including source of repayment, repayment ability, and alternative repayment
sources, as well as the value of and accessibility of any pledged or assigned
collateral, and any possible actions to improve the Banks collateral position.
Within 10 days from the receipt of any comment from the Supervisory
Authorities, and after due consideration of any recommended changes, the Bank
shall approve the plan, which approval shall be recorded in the minutes of a Board
meeting. Thereafter, the Bank shall implement and follow this plan. The plan
shall be monitored and progress reports thereon shall be submitted to the
Supervisory Authorities at 90 day intervals concurrent with the other reporting
requirements set forth in this ORDER.
(b) The plan mandated by this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(i) the dollar levels to which risk in each classified asset will be
reduced;
(ii) a description of the risk reduction methodology to be followed;
(iii) provisions for the submission of monthly written progress reports
to the Board;
(iv) provisions mandating board review of said progress reports; and
(v) provisions for the mandated review to be recorded by notation in
the minutes of the Board meetings.
(c) The written plan mandated by this paragraph shall further require a
reduction in the aggregate balance of assets classified Substandard in the ROE

11
in accordance with the following schedule. For purposes of this paragraph,
number of days means number of days from the effective date of this ORDER.
The reduction schedule is:
(i) within 90 days, the aggregate balance of assets classified
Substandard shall not exceed one hundred sixty percent (160%) of the
sum of Tier 1 Capital and ALLL;
(ii) within 180 days, the aggregate balance of assets classified
Substandard shall not exceed one hundred twenty-five percent (125%)
of the sum of Tier 1 Capital and ALLL;
(iii) within 360 days, the aggregate balance of assets classified
Substandard shall not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the sum of
Tier 1 Capital and ALLL;
(iv) within 540 days, the aggregate balance of assets classified
Substandard shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the sum of
Tier 1 Capital and ALLL; and
(v) within 720 days, the aggregate balance of assets classified
Substandard shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the sum of Tier 1
Capital and ALLL
(d) The requirements of this paragraph are not to be construed as standards for
future operations of the Bank. Following compliance with the above reduction
schedule, the Bank shall continue to reduce the total volume of adversely
classified assets.

12
6. ADDITIONAL CREDIT TO ADVERSELY CLASSIFIED BORROWERS
(a) As of the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall not extend, directly
or indirectly, any additional credit to, or for the benefit of, any borrower who has
a loan or other extension of credit from the Bank that has been charged off or
classified, in whole or in part, "Loss" or Doubtful and is uncollected. The
requirements of this paragraph shall not prohibit the Bank from renewing (after
collection in cash of interest due from the borrower) any credit already extended
to any borrower.
(b) Additionally, as of the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall not
extend, directly or indirectly, any additional credit to, or for the benefit of, any
borrower who has a loan or other extension of credit from the Bank that has been
classified, in whole or part, "Substandard" or Special Mention and is
uncollected.
(c) Paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall not apply if the Banks failure to
extend further credit to a particular borrower would be detrimental to the best
interests of the Bank. Prior to the extending of any additional credit pursuant to
this paragraph, either in the form of a renewal, extension, or further advance of
funds, such additional credit shall be approved by a majority of the Board or a
designated committee thereof, who shall certify in writing as follows:
(i) why the failure of the Bank to extend such credit would be
detrimental to the best interests of the Bank;
(ii) that the Banks position would be improved thereby; and
(iii) how the Banks position would be improved.

13
The signed certification shall be made a part of the minutes of the Board or its
designated committee and a copy of the signed certification shall be retained in
the borrowers credit file.
7. WRITTEN STRATEGIC/BUSINESS PLAN
prepare and submit to the Supervisory Authorities for review and comment a
written business/strategic plan covering the overall operation of the Bank. At a
minimum the plan shall establish objectives for the Banks earnings performance,
growth, balance sheet mix, liability structure, capital adequacy, and reduction of
nonperforming and underperforming assets, together with strategies for achieving
those objectives. The plan shall also identify capital, funding, managerial and
other resources needed to accomplish its objectives. Such plan shall specifically
provide for the following:
(i) goals for the composition of the loan portfolio by loan type
including strategies to diversify the type and improve the quality of loans
held;
(ii) goals for the composition of the deposit base including strategies to
reduce reliance on volatile and costly deposits; and
(iii) plans for effective risk management and collection practices.
(b) Within 10 days from the receipt of any comments from the Supervisory
Authorities, and after due consideration of any recommended changes, the Board
shall approve the business/strategic plan, which approval shall be recorded in the
minutes of the appropriate Board meeting.

14
8. INTERNAL LOAN REVIEW
Within 90 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall adopt an effective
internal loan review and grading system to provide for the periodic review of the Bank's
loan portfolio in order to identify and categorize the Bank's loans, and other extensions of
credit which are carried on the Bank's books as loans, on the basis of credit quality. Such
system and its implementation shall be satisfactory to the Supervisory Authorities as
determined at their initial review and at subsequent examinations and/or visitations.
9. LENDING AND COLLECTION POLICIES
Within 90 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall revise, adopt and
implement its written lending and collection policy to provide effective guidance and
control over the Bank's lending function. That implementation shall include the
resolution of those exceptions, problems and deficiencies described in the ROE,
including those described on pages 11-13 thereof. In addition, the Bank shall obtain
adequate and current documentation for all loans in the Bank's loan portfolio. Such
policy and its implementation shall be in a form and manner acceptable to the
Supervisory Authorities.
10. CONCENTRATIONS OF CREDIT
Within 45 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall perform a risk
segmentation analysis with respect to the Concentrations of Credit listed on page 37 of
the ROE. Concentrations should be identified by product type, geographic distribution,
underlying collateral or other asset groups, which are considered economically related
and in the aggregate represent a large portion of the Banks Tier 1 Capital. A copy of this
analysis shall be provided to the Supervisory Authorities and the Board shall develop a

15
plan to reduce any segment of the portfolio which the Supervisory Authorities deem to be
an undue concentration of credit in relation to the Bank's Tier 1 Capital. The plan and its
implementation shall be in a form and manner acceptable to the Supervisory Authorities.
11. ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN AND LEASE LOSSES
Within 30 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Board shall review the
adequacy of the ALLL and, within 90 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the
Board shall establish a comprehensive policy for determining the adequacy of the ALLL.
For the purpose of this determination, the adequacy of the ALLL shall be determined
after the charge-off of all loans or other items classified Loss. The policy shall provide
for a review of the ALLL at least once each calendar quarter. Said review shall be
completed in time to properly report the ALLL in the quarterly Reports of Condition and
Income. The review shall focus on the results of the Bank's internal loan review, loan
and lease loss experience, trends of delinquent and non-accrual loans, an estimate of
potential loss exposure on significant credits, concentrations of credit, and present and
prospective economic conditions. A deficiency in the ALLL shall be remedied in the
calendar quarter it is discovered, prior to submitting the Reports of Condition and
Income, by a charge to current operating earnings. The minutes of the Board meeting at
which such review is undertaken shall indicate the results of the review. The Bank's
policy for determining the adequacy of the ALLL and its implementation shall be
satisfactory to the Supervisory Authorities.
12. BUDGET
formulate and fully implement a written plan and a comprehensive budget for all

16
categories of income and expense for the calendar year ending December 31,
2010. The plan and budget required by this paragraph shall include formal goals
and strategies, consistent with sound banking practices and taking into account the
Bank's other written policies, to improve the Bank's net interest margin, increase
interest income, reduce discretionary expenses, and improve and sustain earnings
of the Bank. The plan shall include a description of the operating assumptions
that form the basis for, and adequately support, major projected income and
expense components. Thereafter, the Bank shall formulate such a plan and budget
by November 30 of each subsequent year and submit the plan and budget to the
Supervisory Authorities for review and comment by December 15 of each
subsequent year.
(b) The plans and budgets required by this paragraph shall be acceptable to
the Supervisory Authorities.
(c) Following the end of each calendar quarter, the Board shall evaluate the
Bank's actual performance in relation to the plans and budgets required by this
paragraph and shall record the results of the evaluation, and any actions taken by
the Bank, in the minutes of the Board meeting at which such evaluation is
undertaken.
13. LIQUIDITY CONTINGENCY PLAN
(a) Within 90 days from the effective date of this Order, the Bank shall revise
its Liquidity Contingency Plan to ensure the Bank has sufficient access to
alternative funding sources. The Liquidity Contingency Plan should include

17
actions management will employ to improve liquidity levels and should address
the items described on pages 13 and 14 of the ROE.
(b) The plan shall incorporate the guidance contained in Financial Bank Letter
(FIL) 84-2008, dated August 26, 2008, entitled Liquidity Risk Management.
(c) A copy of the plan shall be submitted to the Supervisory Authorities upon

its completion for review and comment. Within 10 days from the receipt of any

comments from the Supervisory Authorities, the Bank shall incorporate those

recommended changes. Thereafter, the Bank shall implement and follow the

plan, and implementation shall be in a form and manner acceptable to the

Supervisory Authorities as determined at subsequent examinations and/or

visitations.

14. INTEREST RATE RISK MANAGEMENT
Within 90 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall develop and
implement a written policy for managing interest rate risk in a manner that is appropriate
to the size of the Bank and the complexity of its assets. The policy shall comply with the
J oint Agency Policy Statement on Interest Rate Risk, 61 Fed. Reg. 33169 (J une 26,
1996), shall be consistent with the comments and recommendations detailed in the ROE,
and shall include, at a minimum, the means by which the interest rate risk position will be
monitored, the establishment of risk parameters, and provision for periodic reporting to
management and the Board regarding interest rate risk with adequate information
provided to assess the level of risk. Such policy and its implementation shall be
satisfactory to the Supervisory Authorities.

18
15. POLICY FOR INTERNAL ROUTINE AND CONTROL

Within 90 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall adopt and
implement a policy for the operation of the Bank in such a manner as to provide adequate
internal routine and controls within the Bank consistent with safe and sound banking
practices. Such policy and its implementation shall, at a minimum, eliminate and/or
correct all internal routine and control deficiencies as more fully set forth on pages 14
and 15 of the ROE and shall be satisfactory to the Supervisory Authorities.
16. AUDITS
Within 90 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall adopt and
implement a comprehensive written audit program which shall be satisfactory to the
Supervisory Authorities. A copy of the audit program shall be submitted to the
Supervisory Authorities upon its completion for review and comment. Within 10 days
from the receipt of any comments from the Supervisory Authorities, the Bank shall
incorporate those recommended changes. The Bank shall thereafter implement and
enforce an effective system of internal and external audits. The internal auditor shall
make written monthly reports of audit findings directly to the Board. The minutes of the
meetings of the Board shall reflect consideration of these reports and describe any action
taken as a result thereof.
17. VIOLATIONS OF LAW, REGULATION AND POLICY
Within 30 days from the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall eliminate and/or
correct all violations of law and regulation, and all contraventions of statements of policy,
which are more fully set out on pages 16-19 of the ROE. In addition, the Bank shall take
all necessary steps to ensure future compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
applicable statements of policy.

19
18. CALL REPORTS
Within 30 days after eliminating from its books any asset in compliance with the
Charge-Off paragraph of this ORDER and establishing an adequate ALLL in
compliance with the Allowance For Loan and Lease Losses paragraph of this ORDER,
the Bank shall file with the FDIC amended Reports of Condition and Income which shall
accurately reflect the financial condition of the Bank as of J une 30, 2009. Thereafter,
during the life of this ORDER, the Bank shall file with the FDIC Reports of Condition
and Income which accurately reflect the financial condition of the Bank as of the end of
the period for which the Reports are filed, including any adjustment in the Banks books
made necessary or appropriate as a consequence of any official Report of Examination of
the Bank from the FDIC or the OFR during that reporting period.
19. CASH DIVIDENDS
The Bank shall not pay cash dividends without the prior written consent of the
Supervisory Authorities.
20. BROKERED DEPOSITS
Throughout the effective life of this ORDER, the Bank shall not accept, renew, rollover
any brokered deposit, as defined by 12 C.F.R. 337.6(a)(2), unless it is in compliance
with the requirements of 12 C.F.R. 337.6(b), governing solicitation and acceptance of
brokered deposits by insured depository institutions. In addition, the Bank shall comply
with the restrictions on the effective yields on deposits as described in 12 C.F.R. 337.6.
21. NO MATERIAL GROWTH WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE
While this ORDER is in effect, the Bank must notify the Supervisory Authorities at least
60 days prior to undertaking asset growth of 10% or more per annum or initiating

20
material changes in asset or liability composition. In no event shall asset growth result in
non-compliance with the capital maintenance provisions of this ORDER unless the Bank
receives prior written approval from the Supervisory Authorities.
22. PROGRESS REPORTS
Within 30 days from the end of the first quarter following the effective date of this
ORDER, and within 30 days of the end of each quarter thereafter, the Bank shall furnish
written progress reports to the Supervisory Authorities detailing the form and manner of
any actions taken to secure compliance with this ORDER and the results thereof. Such
reports shall include a copy of the Bank's Reports of Condition and Income. Such reports
may be discontinued when the corrections required by this ORDER have been
accomplished and the Supervisory Authorities have released the Bank in writing from
making further reports. All progress reports and other written responses to this ORDER
shall be reviewed by the Board and made a part of the minutes of the appropriate Board
meeting.
23. DISCLOSURE

Following the effective date of this ORDER, the Bank shall send or otherwise furnish to
its shareholders a description of this ORDER in conjunction with the Bank's next
shareholder communication and also in conjunction with its notice or proxy statement
preceding the Bank's next shareholder meeting. The description shall fully describe the
ORDER in all material respects. The description and any accompanying communication,
statement, or notice shall be sent to the FDIC, Accounting and Securities Disclosure
Section, 550 17
th
Street, N.W., Room F-6066, Washington, D.C. 20429 and to the
Director of DFI of the OFR, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0371 at least

21
fifteen (15) days prior to dissemination to shareholders. Any changes requested to be
made by the FDIC or the OFR shall be made prior to dissemination of the description,
communication, notice, or statement.

The provisions of this ORDER shall not bar, estop, or otherwise prevent the
FDIC, the OFR or any other federal or state agency or department from taking any other
action against the Bank or any of the Banks current or former institution-affiliated
parties, as such term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(u) and Section 655.005(1)(i), Florida
Statutes.
This ORDER shall be effective on the date of issuance.
The provisions of this ORDER shall be binding upon the Bank, its institution-
affiliated parties, and any successors and assigns thereof.
The provisions of this ORDER shall remain effective and enforceable except to
the extent that and until such time as any provision has been modified, terminated,
suspended, or set aside by the Supervisory Authorities.
Issued Pursuant to Delegated Authority

Dated this 25th day of November, 2009

/s/
____________________________
Doreen R. Eberley
Acting Regional Director
Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection
Atlanta Region
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

22

The Commissioner of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, having duly
approved the foregoing ORDER, and the Bank, through its Board, having agreed that the
issuance of said ORDER by the FDIC shall be binding as between the Bank and the OFR
to the same degree and legal effect that such ORDER would be binding upon the Bank if
the OFR had issued a separate order that included and incorporated all of the provisions
of the foregoing ORDER pursuant to Chapters 120, 655, and 658, Florida Statutes,
including specifically Sections 655.033 and 655.041, Florida Statutes (2009).
Dated this 25
th
day of November, 2009.

/s/
_____________________________
Linda B. Charity
Director
Division of Financial Institutions
By Delegated Authority for the Commissioner,

HOW HEALTHY IS THIS BANK?
Community Bank of Manatee
H E A D Q U A R T E R E D I N L A K E WO O D R A N C H , F L
THE TROUBLED ASSET RATIO
1. A "troubled asset ratio" compares the sum of troubled assets with the sum of Tier 1 Capital plus Loan Loss
Reserves. Generally speaking, higher values in this ratio indicate that a bank is under more stress caused by loans
that are not paying as scheduled. Each bank graphic is own it's own scale: use caution when comparing two banks.
2. The graphs are for comparing this bank to the national median troubled asset ratio. Because the ratio varies so
widely among the 7,900 banks across the nation, the scale is not consistent from bank to bank and the graphs should
not be used to compare banks to one another.

FINANCIAL DETAILS FOR COMMUNITY BANK OF MANATEE
Note: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. insures deposit accounts up to $250,000. The "troubled asset ratio" is not
an FDIC statistic. It is derived by adding the amounts of loans past due 90 days or more, loans in non-accrual status
and other real estate owned (primarily properties obtained through foreclosure) and dividing that amount by the bank's
capital and loan loss reserves. It is reported as a percentage. For example, a bank with $100,000 in "troubled assets"
and $1,000,000 in capital would have a "troubled asset ratio" of 10 percent. For a fuller explanation, see our
methodology.
WORKSHOP ABOUT STAFF INVESTI GATI ONS ILAB BLOG CONTACT
Line item
Assets
Deposits
Loans
Loan loss provision
Profit
Capital
Reserves
Loans 90 days or more past due
Non-accruing loans
Other real estate owned
Capital plus reserves
Total troubled assets
June 30, 2009
$253,240,000
$217,126,000
$187,176,000
$6,935,000
$-5,686,000
$10,131,000
$4,920,000
$0
$12,899,000
$2,430,000
$15,051,000
$15,329,000
June 30, 2010
$249,571,000
$204,908,000
$178,104,000
$899,000
$-1,725,000
$22,480,000
$4,968,000
$0
$14,002,000
$11,341,000
$27,448,000
$25,343,000
Dec. 07 March 08 J une08 Sept. 08 Dec. 08 March 09 J une09 Sept. 09 Dec. 09 March 10 J une10
0
50
100
150
200
Community Bank of Manatee
National median
Home About Staff Legal Privacy Contact
Copyright 2008-2010
American University School of Communication
Page 1of 1 Community Bank of Manatee of Lakewood Ranch, FL | Investigative Reporting Workshop
10/10/2010 http://banktracker.msnbc.msn.com/banks/florida/lakewood-ranch/community-bank-of-ma...
8

HERALD-TRIBUNE ARCHIVE
Two Florida Highway Patrol Officers enter the
downtown Sarasota branch of Flagship
National Bank as federal regulators seized and
closed the bank on Friday evening, Oct. 23,
2009.
Are we at the end of local bank failures?

By John Hielscher

Published: Monday, September 20, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
To some in the banking industry, the end of the
work week has become known as Friday Night
Lights Out.
After 6 p.m. on Fridays is when officials from
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,
accompanied by other federal or state
regulators, walk into an ailing bank and pull the
plug.
It has become an all-too-common event in
Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte counties,
where eight community banks have failed in the
past 25 months.
Thirteen community banks remain standing in the three counties, and at this point
all appear able to survive in a still-struggling economy.
But Florida banking consultant Ken Thomas is not so sure. He now estimates 30
Florida banks will go down in 2010, up from his prediction of 20 at the start of the
year.
Problem banks are all over Florida, although a few regions like yours with many new
banks have a disproportionate amount, Thomas said.
Florida is for sure the leader in bank failures this year, but I did not anticipate that
literally 10 percent of our banking industry would disappear this year, but we are on
the way to that happening, he said.
So far, 23 Florida banks have failed this year, nine more than in all of 2009 and
nearly 20 percent of the U.S. total. Some 286 banks and thrifts were in business at
the start of 2010.
Horizon Bank of Bradenton was the latest failure, on Sept. 10. It became the fourth
Manatee County bank to fall during the recession.
The region's weakest banks, according to analyst BauerFinancial Inc., are The Bank
of Commerce and LandMark Bank of Florida, both based in Sarasota. Bauer gave
each bank the lowest grade of zero stars in its report card based on June 30 data.
Both banks have uncomfortable levels of nonperforming assets to total assets, but
neither are near the crippling levels that hastened the demise of Horizon or
Peninsula Bank of Englewood, the region's other 2010 failure.
LandMark is considered undercapitalized because its total risk-based capital ratio
has dipped to 7.75 percent, under the 8 percent needed to be adequately capitalized.
Its other two key capital ratios are at the adequate level.
Bank of Commerce remains adequately capitalized. It has lost $1.8 million through
the first half of 2010, the largest loss among the region's community banks.

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-
ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the
"Reprints" tool that appears above any article. Order a reprint of this article now.
Page 1of 3
11/9/2010 http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100920/ARTICLE/10091973...
9
Both banks are trying to raise fresh capital to strengthen their financial conditions.
Frank Knautz, a Sarasota consultant who works with banks throughout Florida,
including LandMark, thinks the weakest local players have been weeded out.
I think that it's over in this area, Knautz said. I don't believe we have any banks
that are at a point of weakness that will cause the kind of concerns that we have
experienced over the past 2 1/2 years.
Plenty of Florida banks still have loan problems to work out in a weak economy, but
Knautz said some bankers may not be as pessimistic as they were last year.
The common response I'm getting to How's business?' is Not worse.' Nobody's
willing to say It's getting better,' but they aren't saying it's getting worse, he said.
Other zero-star players
TIB Bank of Naples, which has branches in Venice and Nokomis, also was rated zero
stars. But that will likely improve after an investor group pumps a promised $175
million into TIB later this year.
Southern Commerce Bank of Tampa, with branches in Bradenton and Punta Gorda,
was rated zero stars. So was Superior Bank of Birmingham, Ala., which has offices in
Sarasota and Bradenton.
Locally, Bauer rated Community Bank of Manatee, Englewood Bank and Sabal Palm
Bank at two stars, or problematic.
1st Manatee Bank, Calusa National Bank, Charlotte State Bank and Insignia Bank
graded at three stars, or adequate. National Bank of Southwest Florida was a 3 1/2-
star bank, or good.
First America Bank, Florida Shores Bank-Southwest and Gateway Bank of Southwest
Florida were the region's top rated at four stars, or excellent. It was Gateway's first
rating after two years as a start-up.
No locally based bank earned Bauer's highest five-star superior grade.
The big picture
The nation's 7,830 banks earned a combined $21.6 billion in the second quarter, up
from a year-ago loss of $4.4 billion and the best profit in nearly three years.
Florida banks, however, lost $263 million in the recent quarter, a tad higher than the
$257 million loss last year.
The FDIC's confidential list of problem U.S. institutions is up to 829, a 17-year high.
Every third bank in Florida is a problem bank, which means there is a big pipeline of
potential failures, Thomas said. Not all problem banks, however, will fail, and many
will be recapitalized by investors or others, and some of the troubled banks may be
merged into other banks.
Some bankers former Horizon CEO Charles Conoley is one believe federal
regulators are closing community banks to deliberately shrink the industry's size to
benefit the giant bank companies.
That also would concentrate power among federal regulators, such as FDIC
Chairman Sheila Bair, those bankers say.
Thomas scoffs at what he calls a Mel Gibson conspiracy theory.
Copyright 2010 HeraldTribune.com All
rights reserved. Restricted use only.
Page 2of 3
Look at the financials of the failed Horizon and ask yourself, who put them in that
position, Sheila Bair or the bank's board and senior management? Why was this the
only bank she took over in a few weeks? he said.
On the bright side, most experts, including Bair, believe bank failures will peak this
year.
Thomas still expects 200 U.S. banks will fall in 2010, and well over 100 will go
down in 2011.
It took many years to get into this mess, and it will take many years to get out of it,
he said.
Page 3of 3
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No.: 7009 1410 0001 5637 1467
January 4, 2010
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel
Administrative Offices Of The Courts
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida
Legal Department
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603
Tampa, Florida 33602
Dear Mr. Rowland:
This is a request for information and any related public records.
1. Please advise the undersigned if notice is required by Florida Statutes section
768.28(6)(a) prior to instituting an action on a claim against Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of
Florida. If yes, kindly identify who is authorized to accept notice or service on behalf of
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
2. Ifnotice is required by Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a), is one notice sufficient for
the entire court, or are separate notices required for the HCSO for claims pertaining to
security matters, or to the Clerk of Court for claims pertaining to the duties of the clerk?
Is a separate notice required for claims pertaining to the ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) office or coordinator?
3. Please advise the undersigned what effect a notice under Florida Statutes section
768.28(6)(a) would have on any litigation currently on the docket in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit involving litigants now making a claim against the court pursuant to
Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a)? What would happen to the existing litigation?
Would that create a conflict of interest?
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
10
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082
ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist
Counseling and Forensic Psychology
3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www.lvaallc.com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
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 J udge and
now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with
arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. 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
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

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.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of J ustice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of J ustice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
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.

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, Appointment of Counsel UPL Complaint 20133090

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

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, Appointment of Counsel UPL Complaint 20133090

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIA UPS No.

1Z64589FP298344878 J une 14, 2013

You might also like