JQC Complaint No. 13527 Judge Clauda Rickert Isom

STATE OF FLORIDA
RICARDO "RICK" MORALES, III

CHAIR
~UDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
HON. KERRY!. EVANDER I I 10 'THOMASVILLE ROAD
VICE - CHAIR
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32303-6224
MICHAEL L. SCHNEIDER <8S0) 488- I S8 I
GENERAL COUNSEL
December 10,2013
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Docket No. 13527, Judge Isom
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above
matter and has determined, at its meeting held on Thursday, December 5,2013,
that the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the
Coqe of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are
matters for review through the normal court process.
The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial

misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State
of Florida. If such misconduct or disability is found, the Commission can
recommend disciplinary action to the Florida Supreme Court. The Commission
has found no basis for further action on your complaint that therefore has been
dismissed.
Sincerely yours,
Michael L. $chneider
General Counsel
MLS/bsk
1.'·~4u.I_l;.'O~11;l~~SO~i.EE. 1::1.... 32°3'
It} ilf:f..:~· '~~:tll:?J prt~r. 1. 'To
STATE OF FLORIDA
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS (;OMMISSION
1110 THOMASVILLE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 t h Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
34481$3567 t IJ J. J' -, J. II J, IJ".II JJ ,,, J"" JIII I l' tJ" ""', 't" I II fJII" I.,
~"'l"_""""" 4 ,.$ ~."':-' J,4/."
Florida Judicial Qualftl6~tttins~·~omniissl'dn··~:j~L.:~:~ .
111 0 Thomasville Road c r ,. ,• • ,'.,. '.'"PH," ~ ..
.•. ~ . ... ~ ~t
Tallahassee, FL 32303-61t4:(··~;j·;·:~· -.2~.~}.·1~;;)·:-: ~ ....~ ~.~. 'tor.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Your correspondence has been received and will be
reviewed by the Commission when it meets next.
You will be notified of the Commission's actions by return mail.
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6224
(850) 488-1581
COMPLAINT FORM
This form is designed to provide the Commission with information required to make an
initial evaluation of your complaint.
PLEASE NOTE: COMPLAINT FORM MUST BE TYPED OR LEGIBLY HAND PRINTED, DATED
AND SIGNED BEFORE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
(Note: This form can be typed into here, then printed, or print it out and fill it in by hand.)
I. Person Making Complaint
Name Gillespie Neil Joseph

Mr. (Last) (First) (Middle)
Ms.
Mrs.
Address 8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone Number(s): (Day) 352-854-7807 (Evening) _
***********************************************************************
II. Judge Against Whom Complaint is Made
Name Isom Claudia Rickert

(Last) (First) (Middle)
Address George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430
Tampa, FL 33602
Supreme Court
District Court
of Appeal
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Hillsborough Co
Circuit Court
County Court
III. Statement of Facts
Please provide in as much detail as possible the information which you have knowledge which you
believe constitutes judicial misconduct or disability. Include names, dates, places, addresses and
telephone numbers which may assist the Commission.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
-
If additional space is required, attach and number pages.

This complaint is not related to my case where Judge Isom presided. However in the interest of full disclosure I noted that case below
(05-CA-7205), and provided a copy (without exhibits) of my previous complaint made August 15, 2012 related to that case, and letter
of Mr. Schneider re: Docket No. 12385 Judge Isom to Neil J. Gillespie October 10, 2012 "the concerns you express....are matters for
review solely through the court system."
This complaint concerns Judge Isom's violation of the Constitution of the State of Florida, Article V, Section 13; failure to disclose
multiple "Interests In Specified Businesses" on the Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests, Section E; failure to
disclose an ownership interest in a high performance aircraft; likely tax evasion through WCAT, INC.; and concealment of the real
purpose and use ofWCAT, INC., the high performance aircraft, and purpose for failing to disclose this information.
IV. Additional Information (if available)
a. If your complaint arises out of a court case, please answer the following questions:
1. What is the name and number of the case?

Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al C N 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.
Case name: ase o. _
2. What kind of case is it?
¢ civil [J criminal D domestic relations D probate
o small claims 0 traffic 0 other (specify)
3. What is your relationship to the case? I

counter-defendant
It plaintiff/petitioner ~ defendant/respondent
o attorney for _
o witness for _
o other (specify)
b. If you were represented by an attorney in this matter at the time of the judge's conduct, please
identify the attorney:
Name _n_l_a _
Address _
Phone _
c. List and attach copies of any relevant documents which you believe support your claim that the
judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability. (Note: Retain a copy for your
records as these documents shall become the property of the Commission and may not be
returned.)
d. Identify, if you can, any other witnesses to the conduct about which you complain:
Name(s): _

Addresses: _
See 8CCOmpanylng written complaint and supporting documents.
Phone Numbers: _
IN FILING THIS COMPLAINT, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S RULES PROVIDE THAT ALL
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION,
SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL PRIOR TO THE FILING OF FORMAL CHARGES. I FURTHER
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RULE OF CONFIDENTIALITY ATTACHES AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON
THE FILING OF THIS COMPLAINT AND THAT ANY VIOLATION COULD RESULT IN A CITATION FOR
CONTEMPT BY THE COMMISSION.
V. Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and understand this complaint form and
to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and
submitted of my own free will.
October 17, 2013

(Date)
Please note that the Commission only has authority to investigate allegations of judicial
misconduct or permanent disability by persons holding state judicial positions. The Commission
has no jurisdiction over a,nd does not consider complaints against Federal Judges, magistrates,
lawyers, police, court personnel, or State Attorneys. The Commission does not act as an
appellate court and cannot review, reverse or modify a legal decision made by a judge in the
course of a court proceeding. For example, the Commission does not investigate claims that a
judge wrongfully excluded evidence; imposed an improper sentence, awarded custody to the
wrong party; incorrectly awarded alimony or child support; incorrectly resolved a legal issue or
believed perjured testimony.
Please return this form and direct all future communications to:

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP292234917 October 17, 2013
Rick Morales JQC Commission Chair

JQC Commission Members (member list enclosed)
c/o Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director
c/o Michael Schneider, General Counsel
Judicial Qualifications Commission - JQC
RE: Complaint against Judge Claudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough County, Florida
Dear Commission Chair Morales, Commission Members, Ms. Kennerly, and Mr. Schneider:
Please find enclosed my signed JQC complaint form and supporting documents in my complaint
against Judge Claudia Rickert Isom. My complaint shows the existence of judicial misconduct
and disability by Judge Isom as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida.
Overview
This complaint concerns Judge Isom’s violation of the Constitution of the State of Florida,
Article V, Section 13; failure to disclose multiple “Interests In Specified Businesses” on the
Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests, Section E; failure to disclose an
ownership interest in a high performance aircraft; likely tax evasion through WCAT, INC.; and
concealment of the real purpose and use of WCAT, INC., the high performance aircraft, and
purpose for failing to disclose this information.
Complaint Count 1:
Judge Isom’s private, for profit, corporate duties, other than judge.
Constitution of the State of Florida, Article V, Judiciary:
SECTION 13. Prohibited activities.—All justices and judges shall devote full time to
their judicial duties. (relevant portion)
Public records filed with the Florida Secretary of State show Judge Isom is employed or serves
as the Vice President and Corporate Secretary for WCAT, INC., mailing address 4412 W.
Estrella St., Tampa FL 33629. Enclosed please find the following Florida Profit Corporation
Amended Annual Report showing Claudia R. Isom serves as the Vice President and Corporate
Secretary for WCAT, INC.:
WCAT, INC. 2009 Florida Profit Corporation Amended Annual Report, Aug-20-2009
WCAT, INC. 2010 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report filed Feb-02-2010
WCAT, INC. 2011 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report filed Jan-03-2011
JQC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 2
Complaint Count 2:
Judge Isom failed to disclose WCAT, INC on Form 6 “Interests In Specified Businesses”
Judge Isom failed to show her interest beginning on or about August 20, 2009 in WCAT, INC, or
her service as the Vice President and Corporate Secretary for WCAT, INC, on the Form 6 Full
and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests, Section E “Interests In Specified Businesses”, that
Judge Isom filed up to and including the disclosure for 2012 filed July 1, 2013.
Enclosed you will find the below listed Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests
filings bearing the name and notarized signature of Judge Isom. However Judge Isom failed to
disclose on the forms her interest in WCAT, INC, or service or employment as Vice President
and Corporate Secretary for WCAT, INC, Section E “Interests In Specified Businesses”:
Isom Claudia Rickert 2009 Form 6, stamped received June 16, 2010
Isom Claudia Rickert 2012 Form 6, stamped received July 1, 2013
Complaint Count 3:
Judge Isom is engaged in fraud through WCAT, INC.
The Articles of Incorporation filed April 2, 2002 for WCAT, INC. show it is a Florida profit
corporation, and in Article III Purpose, organized “to operate, buy, sell and lease aircraft”:
The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized is to operate, buy, sell
and lease aircraft, and to do everything necessary, proper, advisable or convenient for the
accomplishment of said purposes, and to do all other things incidental to them or
connected with them that are not forbidden by the Florida corporation laws or by other
laws, or by those Articles of Incorporation, and to carry out the said purposes in any
state, territory, district, or possession of the United States, or in any foreign country, to
the extent that these purposes are not forbidden by the law of the state, territory, district,
or possession of the United States or by the foreign country.
On information and belief, neither Judge Isom nor husband Woodson Isom “buy, sell and lease
aircraft” as a profession. Judge Isom is a judge, and Woodson Isom is a Florida licensed attorney
who operates a law practice. On information and belief, Woodson Isom is a pilot, and served
1968 - 1972 as an AVIONICS OFFICER, U.S.A.F. Enclosed is an aviation-related resume for
Mr. Isom, and his lawyer resume. It appears this corporation may be used solely to avoid
payment of taxes, by charging the expenses of personal flights as a business expense.
In the alternative, this aircraft may be used for untoward purposes discussed below.
Page - 3
Complaint Count 4:
Judge Isom failed to disclose an ownership interest in a high performance aircraft.
Also missing from Judge Isom’s Form 6 Part B is a valuable asset, a high performance aircraft
registered as owned by WCAT, INC. As shown on the attached evidence of registration, WCAT,
INC. owns a 1979 Piper model 32RT-300T, Serial number 32R-7987092, fixed wing single
engine aircraft, Tail ID 3025L. The aircraft has a high performance 310 horsepower single
Lycoming TI0-540 engine (turbocharged and fuel-injected variant), 7 seats, speed 124mph.
According to the enclosed flight tracker information, the aircraft owned by WCAT, INC. Tail ID
3025L flew from Vaiden Field Marion Alabama (6.42 PM CDT) September 8, 2013 to Tampa
Executive airport Tampa Florida September 8, 2013 (10:51 PM EDT).
The aircraft flew from Tampa Executive airport Tampa Florida (1:31 PM EDT) September 1,
2013 to Palm Beach International airport West Palm Beach Florida (2:39 PM EDT) September 1,
2013, with a return trip the same day. The aircraft left Palm Beach International airport (8:57 PM
EDT) September 1, 2013 and arrived at Tampa Executive airport (10.01 PM EDT) September 1,
2013. It appears this aircraft travels often.
Complaint Count 5:
Judge Isom failed to disclose the real purpose of serving as Vice President and Corporate
Secretary of WCAT INC, or the purpose and use of owning a high performance aircraft.
The 1979 Piper model 32RT-300T is known as a favorite for cargo haulers, with a powerful 310
horsepower engine, multiple well-placed doors, the largest cabin of it class, and an immense
amount of room to load long and bulky objects. (Flying Magazine, Mar 08, 2010)
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/six-seat-stalwart-used-pa-32-review
The PA-32 appears well-suited to smuggling or other untoward usage. Judge Isom has concealed
her position as Vice President and Corporate Secretary with WCAT INC., a Florida for profit
corporation that owns the aircraft. Judge Isom may have concealed an ownership interest in the
aircraft. Flight tracker information shows frequent flights to and from Tampa Florida to the east
coast of Florida, and to and from Tampa Florida to Vaiden Field in Marion Alabama.
Tampa Executive airport in Tampa Florida is a private airport. On information and belief, Tampa
Executive and does not screen passengers or baggage like the adjacent Tampa International
Airport which uses the TSA - Transportation Security Administration to screen passengers and
baggage. Users of Tampa Executive airport may board an aircraft with illegal drugs, large
amounts of cash, loaded firearms, or other illicit items with little effort or chance of discovery.
The above information when considered in its entirety would cause an ordinary person to
question why Judge Isom did not disclose her position as Vice President and Corporate Secretary
with WCAT INC., a Florida for profit corporation that owns the aircraft. A reasonable person
could also question the source of funds used to pay the costs of operating this aircraft frequently.
Page - 4
Complaint Count 6:
Judge Isom failed to disclose Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc. on Form 6 as “Interests In
Specified Businesses”
The enclosed Internet listing by Bizapedia shows Judge Isom served as director of Honey Creek
Lane Farm, Inc., beginning in 2004; currently an inactive Iowa corporation. Judge Isom does not
show on any Form 6 in Part E listed below an interest in Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc.

Isom Claudia Rickert 2007 Form 6, stamped received May 15, 2008
The Judicial Qualifications Commission of Florida
The Judicial Qualifications Commission of Florida is an independent agency created by the

Florida Constitution solely to investigate alleged misconduct by Florida state judges in a fair and
unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal self-enrichment,
self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
Authority for The Judicial Qualifications Commission is found in the Florida Constitution,
Article V Judiciary, Section 12 Discipline; removal and retirement, and section 43.20 Florida
Statutes, Judicial Qualifications Commission:
43.20(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to implement s. 12(b), Art. V of the

State Constitution which provides for a Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Brooke S. Kennerly is the Executive Director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and is
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, conflict of interest, or the
Unlicensed Practice of Law.
Michael Schneider is the General Counsel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and is by
virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for
lawfully performing and discharging his duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
Unlicensed Practice of Law.
Page - 5
Ricardo (Rick) Morales, III, is Commission Chair of the Judicial Qualifications
Commission, and is by virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state
government, responsible for lawfully performing and discharging his duties without bias,
favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment,
conflict of interest, or the Unlicensed Practice of Law.
Commission Members of the Judicial Qualifications Commission are each by virtue of that
position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for lawfully
performing and discharging his or her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
Unlicensed Practice of Law. A list of Commission Members, October 17, 2013, is enclosed.
Florida - Corruption Capital of America
Florida is the most corrupt state in America. The New York Times, September 1, 2013, by Nick
Madigan: Arrests of 3 Mayors Reinforce Florida’s Notoriety as a Hothouse for Corruption:
“...Florida....led the country in convictions of public officials - 781 - between 2000 and
2010, according to Department of Justice figures.”
“Florida has become the corruption capital of America," said Dan Krassner, the executive
director of a watchdog group, Integrity Florida, citing statistics going back to 1976 and
the "significant number of public officials arrested this year and last.”
A paper copy of the Times’ story is enclosed, and can be found online that this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/arrests-of-3-mayors-reinforce-floridas-notoriety-as-a-
hothouse-for-corruption.html
Reporting Professional Misconduct
Member of The Florida Bar have a duty to report misconduct of lawyers and judges as provided
by Rule 4-8.3(a) and (b):
Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer
has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial
question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) Reporting Misconduct of Judges. A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a
violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the
judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
Page - 6
Misprision of Felony
All persons have a duty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4 - Misprision of felony:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court

of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to
some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
See U.S. v Scruggs, 11-60564, C.A.5, Opinion, misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. 4

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-60564-CV0.wpd.pdf
Honest Services Fraud
A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry 11-4130, C.A.6 affirmed a jury conviction against
former Judge 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). 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. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0040p-06.pdf
See enclosed the application of Terry to Hillsborough Co. Florida Judge Martha J. Cook
JQC Complaints, Complainants and the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Offenses Related to Obstruction of Justice Offenses

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01739.htm
In part, from the D.O.J. Criminal Resource Manual 1739 (enclosed):
C. 18 U.S.C. § 241--conspiracy to injure or intimidate any citizen on account of his or her

exercise or possibility of exercise of Federal right (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512,
Page - 7
and 1513). Under 18 U.S.C. § 241, it is a Federal offense to conspire to injure a citizen
for having exercised a Federal right or to conspire to intimidate a citizen from exercising a
Federal right. One such right is the right to be a witness in a Federal court, United States v.
Dinome, 954 F.2d 839, 845 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 830 (1992); United States v. Thevis,
665 F.2d 616, 626 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1008, and cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1109, and
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982); or other Federal proceeding, United States v. Smith, 623 F.2d
627, 629 (9th Cir. 1980). "So is the right to inform Federal officials of violations of Federal
laws." Id.
E. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 372--conspiracies to commit any offense against the United States, or to
prevent or retaliate in response to the lawful discharge of the duties of Federal officers (overlap
with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513). see generally United States v.
Frankhauser, 80 F.3d 641, 653 (1st Cir. 1996) (conspiracy to persuade witness to destroy or
conceal evidence for use in an official proceeding); United States v. Fullbright, 69 F.3d 1468,
1472 (9th Cir. 1995) (conspiracy to mail arrest warrants to a United States Bankruptcy Judge);
United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365, 1367 (6th Cir. 1994) (conspiracy to alter flight log books
of police officers to prevent information from reaching the grand jury); United States v.
Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 683 (5th Cir. 1985) (conspiracy to obtain secret grand jury information),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 (1986).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of legitimate government activity may take any
of several forms:
1. Bribery of a government employee, kickbacks to government employees or extortion

of money or favors by government employees, misrepresentations of financial capability,
alteration or falsification of official records, submission of false documents; and
2. Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function.
Article VI and Treaties of the United States
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides in part, “...all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding.” I believe certain Treaties of the United States may apply:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Signed by President Carter October 5, 1977, Ratified by the United States June 8, 1992.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
Page - 8
U.S. Finally Ratifies Human Rights Covenant, by Jimmy Carter, June 29, 1992
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html
The United States declares that it accepts the competence of the Human Rights,
Committee http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx
to receive and consider communications under article 41 in which a State Party claims
that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en
The review of the United Sates of America has been canceled

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/ReviewUSA.aspx
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
Signed by the United States December 9, 2003

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/
Ratified by the United States October 30, 2006

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=XVIII-
14&chapter=18&lang=en
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Resolution 217(A)(III) of the United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948.
U.S. State Department link http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/204710.pdf
"Legal aid, a right in itself" – UN Special Rapporteur - May 30, 2013
"Legal aid is both a right in itself and an essential precondition for the exercise and enjoyment of
a number of human rights, including the rights to a fair trial and to an effective remedy," said
Ms. Knaul, presenting her latest report to the UN Human Rights Council. "It represents an
important safeguard that contributes to ensuring the fairness and public trust in the
administration of justice."
“States bear the primary responsibility to adopt all appropriate measures to fully realize the right
to legal aid for any individual within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction,” the Special
Rapporteur said. “Beneficiaries of legal aid should include any person who comes into contact
with the law and does not have the means to pay for counsel.”
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13382&LangID=E
Page - 9
The United States and the International Criminal Court
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/Web%20Working%20Papers/ICC.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, in his opening statement as the chief prosecutor at
Nuremberg, reminds us:
"The [Nuremberg] charter recognizes that one who has committed a criminal act may not
take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of state."
Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Working Paper T-00-02
Integrity Florida
http://www.integrityflorida.org/
Integrity Florida is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute and government watchdog whose
mission is to promote integrity in government and expose public corruption. Florida led the U.S.
in federal public corruption convictions from 2000-2010. Florida also received a failing grade for
state ethics enforcement agencies on a Corruption Risk Report Card by State Integrity
Investigation. Integrity Florida is published research reports:
• Corruption Risk Report: Florida Ethics Laws, June 2012 by Ben Wilcox and Dan Krassner
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Integrity_Florida-Corruption-Risk-
Report-Florida-Ethics-Laws-06.06.12.pdf
• Florida’s Broken Campaign Finance System, Jan-16, 2013 by Ben Wilcox and Dan Krassner
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Floridas-Broken-Campaign-
Finance-System-Integrity-Florida-Report-to-the-Florida-House-of-Representatives-FINAL-
01.16.13.pdf
• Enterprise Florida: Economic Development or Corporate Welfare? February 2013
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Enterprise-Florida-Economic-
Development-or-Corporate-Welfare-FINAL2.pdf
• Corruption Risk Report: Enterprise Florida, by Ben Wilcox and Dan Krassner
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Integrity_Florida-Corruption-Risk-
Report-Enterprise-Florida-04.25.12.pdf
Page - 10
The Florida Press Association to Chief Judge

Manuel Menendez, Jr., Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
The Florida Press Association wrote Chief Judge Menendez November 16, 2011 (enclosed):
“[T]o convey our serious concern that foreclosure hearings in Hillsborough County are being
conducted in a manner that inappropriately impedes public access to judicial proceedings. It has
recently come to our attention that members of the public encounter significant obstacles when
attempting to observe foreclosure proceedings, and in some instances are unable to do so at all.
We believe this practice violates Florida law's robust guarantee of open courts.”
The Press Association’s letter was provided “cc” to Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles
T. Canady. Signatories to the November 16, 2011 letter include:
• Samuel J. Morley, General Counsel, The Florida Press Association

• Talbot D’Alemberte, The Florida Press Association
• Barbara Peterson, President, First Amendment Foundation
• Larry Schwartztol, Staff Attorney, The American Civil Liberties Union
• Gil Thelen, Executive Director, Florida Society of News Editors
• Randall C. Marshall, Legal Director, The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida
Conclusion
Unfortunately Claudia Rickert Isom is dishonest and has engaged in a wide range of misconduct
as shown here. This complaint shows the existence of judicial misconduct and disability by
Judge Isom as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. Judge Isom must
be immediately removed from office to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Florida is the most corrupt state in America, and Hillsborough County may be the most corrupt
county in Florida, as shown in my past complaints to the JQC, which it has wrongly dismissed.
A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary. Canon 1. 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.
A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's
Activities. Canon 2. Section A, 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.
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 Commentary to Canon 2A holds, “Irresponsible or
Page - 11
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
nlight be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly."
Fiscal Matters of a Judge Shall be Conducted in a Manner That Does Not Give the Appearance
of Influence or Impropriety; a Judge 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 Judicial Qualifications Commission to Ensure Full
Financial Disclosure. Canon 6.
Claudia Rickert Isom is personally known to me as a complete and utter liar. Judge Isom was
dishonest February 1, 2007 during a conflict hearing in my civil lawsuit, Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, PA, et aI, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co. Judge Isonllied by
omission when she failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law
partners and shareholders at the law firm Fowler White in Tampa.
Judge Isom lied in my case in order to avoid disqualification and stay on the case to unlawfully
help Mr. Rodems and his firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. Judge Isom also denied me
disability accommodation. So why is Judge Isom lying by onlission now, failing to disclose her
position as Vice President and Corporate Secretary ofWCAT INC, and her other misconduct?
In consideration of the foregoing, Claudia Rickert Isom must be removed from office.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and understand this complaint and
submitted of my own free will.
Telephone: (352) 854-7807

Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures: JQC complaint form, and the above supporting documents.

APPENDIX, JQC Complaint
Judge Claudia Rickert Isom, October 17, 2013
Exhibit 1 WCAT, INC., composite of Florida Profit Corp. Annual Reports, 2009-2013
Exhibit 2 Judge Isom, composite of Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure, 2004-2013
Exhibit 3 WCAT, INC., Articles of Incorporation filed April 5, 2002
Exhibit 4 A. Woodson Isom, Jr. lawyer resume, aviation-related experience
Exhibit 5 1979 Piper 32RT-300T, ser. 32R-7987092, Tail ID N3025L Aircraft Registration
Exhibit 6 Flight tracker information, Sep-08-2013, Vaiden Field to Tampa Exec, ID N3025L
Exhibit 7 Flight tracker information, Sep-01-2013, Tampa Executive to Palm Beach, ID N3025L
Exhibit 8 Flight tracker information, Sep-01-2013, Palm Beach to Tampa Executive, ID N3025L
Exhibit 9 PA-32 Review, Flying Magazine, March 8, 2010
Exhibit 10 Bizapedia, List of Companies with principals that go by the name of Claudia Isom
Exhibit 11 New York Times, Florida’s Notoriety as a Hothouse for Corruption, Sep-01-2013
Exhibit 12 Judicial Qualification Commission Members, October 17, 2013
Exhibit 13 U.S. v. Terry 11-4130, C.A.6, as applied to Martha Cook
Exhibit 14 Criminal Resource Manual 1739 Offenses-Obstruction of Justice
Exhibit 15 Criminal Resource Manual 925 Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Govt. Activity
Exhibit 16 Florida Press Association Letter to Chief Judge Menendez, Nov-11-2011
Exhibit 17 JQC Docket No. 12385, Judge Claudia R. Isom, October 10, 2010
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2013 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT FILED
DOCUMENT# P02000037731 Jan 25, 2013
Entity Name: WCAT, INC. Secretary of State
Current Principal Place of Business:
4412 W. ESTRELLA ST.
TAMPA, FL 33629
Current Mailing Address:

TAMPA, FL 33629
FEI Number: 72-1567119 Certificate of Status Desired: No

Name and Address of Current Registered Agent:
ISOM, A.WOODSON JR
TAMPA, FL 33629 US
The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida.
SIGNATURE:
Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date
Officer/Director Detail Detail :

Title PT Title VS
Name ISOM, A. WOODSON JR Name ISOM, CLAUDIA R
Address 4412 W. ESTRELLA ST. Address 4412 W. ESTRELLA ST.
City-State-Zip: TAMPA FL 33629 City-State-Zip: TAMPA FL 33629
I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under
oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears
above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered.
SIGNATURE: A. WOODSON ISOM, JR. P 01/25/2013

Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail Date
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
A. WOODSON ISOM, JR.
P.O. Box 320461
Tampa, FL 33679-2461
(813) 629-6388
(813) 286-3699 (fax)
www.woodyisom.com
woodyisom.law@gmail.com
EDUCATION
Florida State University College of Law

Juris Doctor Degree, High Honors
Law Review, Notes and Comments Editor
Book Awards: Torts and Evidence
Research Assistant, Dean Joshua Morse
Research Assistant, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar
Student Intern, First Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office; Student Intern, Florida Supreme Court
University of Florida
Bachelor of Science in Mathematics
MILITARY EXPERIENCE:
United States Air Force, Avionics Officer

Achieved Rank of Captain.
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
1975 - 1985 Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, Florida
Insurance Defense Litigation Practice
1985 Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan & McLaughlin, Tampa, Florida
Plaintiff's Personal Injury Practice
1985 - 2007 A. Woodson Isom, Jr., P.A.; Isom & Pingel, P.A.; Isom, Pingel & Isom-Rickert,
P.A.; Isom & Isom-Rickert, P.A.;A. Woodson Isom, Jr., P.A., Tampa, Florida
Plaintiff's Personal Injury Practice; Mediation and Arbitration
2007 - 6/10 Merlin Law Group, Tampa, Florida
First party insurance trial practice
6/10 - Present A. Woodson Isom, Jr., P.A., Tampa, Florida
Mediation, Arbitration and Trial Practice
4
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Memberships
The American Board of Trial Advocates
Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association
Aviation Law Section, The Florida Bar
Hillsborough County Bar Association
American Inns of Court
Leadership Positions
Hillsborough County Bar Association
Board of Directors, 1984-1990
Trial Lawyers Section, Executive Council. 1984-90, President, 1989-90
Medical-Legal Committee, Chairman, 1983-84
American Board of Trial Advocates, Tampa Chapter, President, 1987-1988; 2004-2005
The Florida Bar
13th Circuit Grievance Committee “C,” Chairman 1984-1985
Aviation Law Section
Trial Lawyers Section, Executive Council, 2001-2007
American Inns of Court, Master of the Bar, 1990-96 ; 2006-present;
Parliamentarian, 1994-95; Secretary, 1995-96
PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS
Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, The Florida Bar, 1983 - present
Certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, 1988 - present
Certified as an arbitrator by state and federal courts
Certified as a mediator by state and federal courts
AV rating, Martindale-Hubbell
Florida “Super Lawyer.” 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
Supreme Court of Florida, 1975

U.S. Supreme Court, 1981
Tennessee Bar, 2009
U.S.D.C., Middle District of Florida, 1975
U.S.D.C., Northern District of Florida, 1981
U.S.D.C., Southern District of Florida, 2009
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1981
A. WOODSON ISOM, JR.
AVIATION-RELATED EXPERIENCE
1968 - 1972 AVIONICS OFFICER, U.S.A.F.
1971 EARNED PRIVATE PILOT LICENSE THROUGH U.S.A.F.

AEROCLUB
1975 - 1985 PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL PRACTICE WHICH INCLUDED

REPRESENTATION OF AIR CARRIERS, MAJOR AVIATION
INSURANCE COMPANIES, AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS,
PRIVATE PILOTS, REPAIR FACILITIES, ETC. IN AVIATION
RELATED MATTERS
1985 - 1996 PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL PRACTICE PRIMARILY LIMITED TO

REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFFS, INCLUDING AVIATION
RELATED MATTERS, AND PILOTS AND MECHANICS IN FAA
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
1987 - Present AOPA LEGAL SERVICES PLAN ATTORNEY
ASMEL, IFR RATING, 3,000+ HOURS, AIRCRAFT OWNER/OPERATOR
GENERAL TRIAL-RELATED EXPERIENCE
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER, THE FLORIDA BAR, SINCE 1983
CERTIFIED AS A CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCATE BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL

ADVOCATES SINCE 1988
AV RATING, MARTINDALE-HUBBELL
http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N3025L
10:09PM EDT
Like 0
L I V E FL I G H T T R AC K I N G 3 9k
Pilot Resources N3025L Aircraft Registration
Aircraft Registration Related Links:
Aircraft Track this plane live

N-number View Flight History
View photos
View Aircraft Registration
Aircraft Registration (N3025L)
Aircraft Summary
Summary Owner Airworthiness Serial Number

1979 PIPER PA-32RT-300T WCAT INC Standard/Normal 32R-7987092
Fixed wing single engine TAMPA, FL
(7 seats / 1 engine) (Corporation)
Aircraft Details
Engine Weight Speed Mode S Code
LYCOMING TI0-540 SER

Less than 12,500lbs 124mph 50624722
Horsepower: 310 (Reciprocating)
Registration Details
Status Certificate Issue Date Airworthiness Date Last Action Date Expiration
Assigned 2002-04-18 1979-09-17 2011-04-14 2014-04-30
Registration History
Date Owner Location Serial Number Mode S Code
02-Jun-2006 WCAT INC TAMPA FL 32R-7987092 50624722
‫ | اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬Deutsch | English (UK) | English (USA) | Español (España) | Français | ‫עבְרִית‬

ִ | Italiano | | | Nederlands | Português | Русский | Svenska | Türkçe | ( )| ( )
© 2013 FlightAware | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | FAQs
5
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N3025L
07:53PM EDT
Like 0
3 9k
Live Flight Tracker N3025L
ACTIVITY LOG Want a full history search for N3025L dating back to 1998? Buy now. Get it within one hour.
Date Aircraft Origin Destination Departed Arrival Duration
No History Data (searched last 14 days)

Registered users (registering is free and easy!) view 4 months history. Join
‫ | اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬Deutsch | English (UK) | English (USA) | Español (España) | Français | ‫ברִית‬

ְ‫ע‬
6
02:50PM EDT
Like 0
3.8k
Live Flight Tracker N3025L 01-Sep-2013 KVDF - KPBI
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Vaiden Field (A08) Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field (KLIT) 02:50PM CDT 05:04PM CDT 2:14
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Vaiden Field (A08) 12:38PM EDT 02:12PM CDT 2:34
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) Tampa Executive (KVDF) 08:57PM EDT 10:01PM EDT 1:04
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) 01:31PM EDT 02:39PM EDT 1:08

7
02:47PM EDT
Like 0
Live Flight Tracker N3025L 01-Sep-2013 KPBI - KVDF
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Vaiden Field (A08) Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field (KLIT) 02:50PM CDT 05:04PM CDT 2:14
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Vaiden Field (A08) 12:38PM EDT 02:12PM CDT 2:34
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) Tampa Executive (KVDF) 08:57PM EDT 10:01PM EDT 1:04
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) 01:31PM EDT 02:39PM EDT 1:08

8
email (/forward?path=node%2F11891) print (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php) share comment (#comments)
By Ian McNeilly / Published: Mar 08, 2010

Related Tags: Pistons (/aircraft/pistons) , Single-Engine Piston (/aircraft-types/single-engine-piston) , Piper Aircraft (/aircraft-brands/piper-aircraft) , Cherokee Six (/results/cherokee-six) , PA-32 (/results
/pa-32) , used aircraft (/results/used-aircraft)
It's been 45 years since Piper stretched the Cherokee fuselage to create the Six, and the much refined version of
the airplane remains in production as the Saratoga II. That kind of production longevity is proof that Piper
found an enduring market niche for the PA-32 family, and solid demand on the used market even in today's
depressed conditions is additional evidence that the airplane can do what others can't.
The original four-seat Cherokee had been in production for only three years at Piper's then-new Vero Beach,
Florida, factory when the first Cherokee Six was delivered in 1965. The Six fuselage was stretched more than
four feet compared with the original PA-28 Cherokee, and engine power was increased from 160 to 260 to pull
the heavier load.
Piper, however, added less than three feet to the wingspan of the Six, making the broad constant-chord
"Hershey bar" wing look even chunkier. The extended span was mostly at the tips, where the Six had an Saratoga
additional fuel tank on each side, plus at the standard Cherokee tanks near the wing root. Enlarge Photo View Gallery
(http://www.flyingmag. (/photo-gallery
The four-tank arrangement is one of the few pilot annoyances in the Six because your fuel reserve can end up com/sites/all/files /photos/six-seat-
spread over all four tanks. The only way to concentrate your reserve in one or two tanks is to run the others dry before/imagecache
switching. I can tellstalwart-used-pa-
you that takes nerves of
steel, particularly when flying in the clouds, because it can take an eternity of seconds for the engine to catch again after you switch from the
/enlarged_image empty tank.
32-review)
/_images/201003
Another fuel system quirk of the Six is a handbook requirement to burn down the inboard tanks first when flying at higher weights. The reason is to reduce the wing
/FLY0210_used_1000x6
bending moment. With the weight of fuel concentrated at the tips, the load on the wing is spread a little more evenly than
74.jpg)if both fuel and fuselage weight are at the
wing root. All larger airplanes (#) have zero fuel weights that require all weight above that limit to be fuel, not payload in the cabin. The Six was among the first
light airplanes to have a fuel weight limit. Many larger airplanes have fuel systems that drain center tanks first, but those systems are usually automated. In the Six,
it's up to the pilot to keep track. And the fuel selector is mounted down below the seats on the forward edge of the wing spar where you can't easily see it, so tank
switching is done mostly by feel.
Since the beginning the PA-32 family has had a passenger door on the left side of the fuselage in addition to the standard entry door over the wing on the right side
for access to the pilot seats. The passenger door is aft of the wing's trailing edge, making it one of the easiest of all piston singles to enter and exit.
In a stroke of design foresight that pilots have praised for decades, Piper also put a baggage door on the left side. The baggage door is about half the size of the
passenger door and is hinged at the top, while the passenger door has forward-mounted hinges. But when you open the passenger door and lift the baggage door,
there is an immense amount of room to load long and bulky objects. The door arrangement, probably more than any other feature, has made the PA-32 a favorite for
cargo haulers and, for obvious reasons, was the No. 1 choice for flying funeral directors before steep insurance requirements stopped them from routinely
transporting the departed.
Many years ago Flying columnist Gordon Baxter wrote about flying funeral directors and their work to comfort the living and hit upon the idea of why, in a flight
plan or at the request from controllers, we always say "souls on board," not persons. Most of us had never thought of that before.
The PA-32 cabin is the roomiest of the popular six-seat singles. Most of the series have club-style seating with the center row of seats facing aft, and there is plenty
of room for full-size adults to find space for their knees. The cabin is wide enough that there is an option to add a third seating position in the middle row. It's tight
for adults but ideal for adding children to the payload. Most of the airplanes have a storage container or cooler between the middle seats instead of the third belted
position.
The original Cherokee Six had a six-cylinder 260 hp Lycoming with a fixed-pitch propeller as standard. The fixed-pitch prop produced barely enough thrust to lift the
Six off the runway, but the weight savings (#) allowed Piper to claim a useful load greater than the empty weight for the basic model. Few, if any, Sixes flew with
the standard fixed-pitch propeller, which was replaced by the optional constant-speed prop. The engine also has a carburetor, so carb ice is always a threat. By the
second year of production, the Six was offered with a fuel-injected 300 hp version of the Lycoming 540 engine with a constant-speed prop standard.
9
The Six 300 turned out to be much more popular than the 260 version. The original price (#) difference was $3,000. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it did bump
the base price from $18,500 for the 260 to $21,500, a significant percentage increase. The Six 260 remained in production until 1978, and surprisingly, the price
difference between it and the 300 on the used market is about the same as it was when the airplanes were new. Most of the difference in performance is in takeoff
and climb, with higher weights amplifying that difference. Both models were approved for 3,400 pounds maximum takeoff weight.
Most of the Cherokee Sixes have 84-gallon fuel capacity. At maximum cruise, the Six 300 on a good day can make 145 knots, and the 260 around five or six knots
less. More typical cruise speeds are around 135 knots true, and the 300 will consume around 15 gph while the 260 burns a gallon or two less. With full fuel the Six is
a five-hour airplane with minimal reserve, but four hours is very comfortable.
MORE FROM FLYING FROM AROUND THE WEB

Cessna Skymaster Breaks Up Over New Jersey Airport (http://www.flyingmag.com/safety Southwest CEO on Flight 345's Crash Landing (http://video.foxbusiness.com
/accident-investigations/cessna-skymaster-breaks-over-new-jersey-airport%26quot%3B?src=related) /v/2565911455001/southwest-ceo-on-flight-345s-crash-landing/) (Video - Business Leaders)
Pilot Shoots Self in Flight (http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/pilot-shoots- Elon Musk Talks Shop: Renewable Energy, Tesla, and Space Exploration
self-flight?src=related) (http://www.informationweek.com/video/smarterbiz/1909191857) (InformationWeek)
NTSB: Father Wasn’t at Controls of Doomed Turbo Commander 12 Weapons That Changed Everything (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/08
(http://www.flyingmag.com/news/ntsb-father-wasn%E2%80%99t-controls-doomed-turbo- /15/12-Weapons-That-Changed-Everything) (The Fiscal Times)
commander?cmpid=obinsite&con=outbrain&obref=obinsite&src=related)
Toyota Re-Recalling 780K Vehicles Over Suspension Issue (http://video.foxbusiness.com
Video: C-17 Accidentally Lands at Small GA Airport (http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots- /v/2662970451001/toyota-re-recalling-780k-vehicles-over-suspension-issue/) (Fox Business)
places/pilots-adventures-more/video-c-17-accidentally-lands-small-ga-airport?src=related)
15 Pics Miley Cyrus Will Regret From The 2013 MTV Video Music Awards
CitationJet Crashes into Hangar at Santa Monica Airport (http://www.flyingmag.com (http://styleblazer.com/178286/6-photos-miley-cyrus-will-regret-from-the-2013-mtv-video-music-awards/)
/technique/accidents/citationjet-crashes-hangar-santa-monica-airport) (Styleblazer)
50,000 U.S. Airplanes Disappear (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/50000-us-airplanes- The Best Ways to Get Airline Seat Upgrades (http://www.creditcardguide.com/creditcards
disappear?cmpid=enews031913&con=outbrain&obref=obnetwork&spJobID=213038391& /credit-smarts/the-best-ways-to-get-airline-seat-upgrades-5141/) (Credit Card Help Topics)
spMailingID=16988136&spPodID=030&spReportId=MjEzMDM4MzkxS0&src=related)
[What's This?] (#)
RELATED ARTICLES
(/aircraft/pistons/swift-opens-unleaded-fuel-processing-facility)
Swift Opens Unleaded Fuel Processing Facility (/aircraft
Indiana plant will begin operations next month.
/pistons/swift-opens-unleaded-fuel-processing-facility)
(/aircraft/pistons/flight-training-provider-places-huge-cessna-172-order)
Flight Training Provider Places Huge Cessna 172 Order
ViraZH adds to its fleet of Cessna 172s.
(/aircraft/pistons/flight-training-provider-places-huge-cessna-
172-order)
Cirrus Aircraft Riding Recovery Wave (/aircraft/pistons

/cirrus-aircraft-riding-recovery-wave)
Deliveries up 32 percent in second quarter of 2013.
(/aircraft/pistons/cirrus-aircraft-riding-recovery-wave)
Facebook social plugin

http://www.bizapedia.com/people/CLAUDIA-ISOM.html
62,710,539 Companies
53,791,211 Principals
Tweet 296 Like 4.3k

707
CLAUDIA ISOM 707

Tweet 296 Like 4.3k
This information is current as of September 5, 2012.
InstantCheckmate.com
1) Enter Name and State. 2) Access

Full Background Checks Instantly.
There are 2 individuals that go by the name of Claudia Isom. These individuals collectively are associated with 2 companies.
List of Companies with principals that go by the name of Claudia Isom:

Principal Name: Claudia Isom (Director)
Company Name: Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc.
Status: Inactive Filing Date: 02/12/2004
Entity Type: Corporation File Number: 290319
Filing State: Iowa (IA) Registered Agent: Dale Rickert
Principal Name: Claudia R Isom (Vice President, Secretary)

Company Name: Wcat, Inc.
Status: Active Filing Date: 04/05/2002
Entity Type: Domestic Profit Corporation File Number: P02000037731
Filing State: Florida (FL) Registered Agent: Isom A.woodson Jr
www.LegalZoom.com
Save time and money with LegalZoom.

Fast, low cost. We're here to help.
Page 1 of 1 (2 Records)
10
Previous Next Search People Order Business Services
Bizapedia.com is not affiliated with any government agency.
Copyright © 2012-2013 · Bizapedia.com · All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sitemap
http://www.bizapedia.com/ia/HONEY-CREEK-LANE-FARM-INC.html
Tweet 296 Like 4.3k

707
HONEY CREEK LANE FARM, INC. 707

Tweet 296 Like 4.3k
Information current as of Apr 8, 2012.
Company Name: HONEY CREEK LANE FARM, INC. Status: Inactive Filing Date: 02/12/2004
Entity Type: Corporation File Number: 290319 Company Age: 9 Years, 8 Months

Registered Agent: Dale Rickert Filing State: Iowa (IA)

4606 146th Ave Qualifying State: N/A
Wapello, IA 52653
DIRECTOR
Claudia Isom
DIRECTOR
Dale Jamison Rickert
DIRECTOR
Pamela Broeker
www.deepwaterhorizonsettlements.com
Deepwater Horizon Settlements.

Official Court-Authorized website.
Previous Next Search Order Business Services For Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc.
Bizapedia.com is not affiliated with the Office of the Secretary of State.
http://www.bizapedia.com/fl/WCAT-INC.html
Tweet 296 Like 4.3k

707
WCAT, INC. 707

Tweet 296 Like 4.3k
Information current as of Jul 6, 2012.
Company Name: WCAT, INC. Status: Active Filing Date: 04/05/2002

Entity Type: Domestic Profit Corporation File Number: P02000037731 Company Age: 11 Years, 6 Months

Registered Agent: Isom A.woodson Jr Filing State: Florida (FL)

4412 W. Estrella St. Qualifying State: N/A
Tampa, FL 33629
Principal Address: 4412 W. Estrella St. Mailing Address: 4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629 Tampa, FL 33629
PRESIDENT, TREASURER
Isom A. Woodson Jr
4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629
VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY

Isom Claudia R
4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629
www.deepwaterhorizonsettlements.com
Deepwater Horizon Settlements.

Official Court-Authorized website.
Previous Next Associated Companies Search Order Business Services For Wcat, Inc.
Bizapedia.com is not affiliated with the Florida Department of State.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/arrests-of-3-mayors-reinforce-floridas-notoriety-as-a-hothouse-for-corruption.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewan...
September 1, 2013
By NICK MADIGAN
HOMESTEAD, Fla. — Even by Florida standards, the arrests of three suburban Miami mayors on
corruption charges within a month were a source of dismay, if not exactly a surprise.
On Wednesday, Steven C. Bateman, 58, the mayor of Homestead, was arrested. He is accused of
accepting under-the-table payments from a health care company that sought to build a clinic in
town, the state attorney’s office for Miami-Dade County said. Mr. Bateman was turned in by City
Council members and staff, said employees interviewed Friday at City Hall.
On Aug. 6, Manuel L. Maroño, 41, the mayor of Sweetwater and president of the Florida League of
Cities, and Michael A. Pizzi, 51, the Miami Lakes mayor, were picked up along with two lobbyists.
The United States attorney’s office has accused them of involvement in kickback and bribery
schemes concerning federal grants.
Prosecutors said Mr. Maroño had received more than $40,000 in bribes and Mr. Pizzi $6,750. The
defendants, who were targets of an F.B.I. sting operation, are charged with “conspiracy to commit
extortion under color of official right” and could face 20 years in prison if convicted.
Gov. Rick Scott suspended all three mayors while the criminal cases proceed.
“We bought the trifecta,” said Carla Miller, the ethics officer for Jacksonville and a former federal
prosecutor. “It’s bad when three mayors get led out in handcuffs. What’s left of the public trust gets
ground into little pieces.”
Not that such situations are unusual in Florida, which led the country in convictions of public
officials — 781 — between 2000 and 2010, according to Department of Justice figures.
“Florida has become the corruption capital of America,” said Dan Krassner, the executive director
of a watchdog group, Integrity Florida, citing statistics going back to 1976 and the “significant
number of public officials arrested this year and last.”
Florida, and especially Miami and its environs, has long had a reputation as a place where the odd
and the eccentric mix with the furtive and the felonious. Last century, organized crime figures
from Chicago and New York set up lucrative gambling, extortion and loan-sharking endeavors in
Miami Beach and elsewhere, and beginning in the 1980s, South Florida’s economy, culture and
reputation were transformed by drug trafficking.
11
With so much money sloshing about, it was perhaps inevitable that a parade of officials would
enrich themselves illicitly at the public trough.
One was Alex Daoud, who in 1985 became the mayor of Miami Beach and six years later was
indicted on 41 counts of bribery. He served 18 months in prison, and has since written a memoir.
Last year in Miami Beach, City Manager Jorge Gonzalez, who was making $273,000 a year and
had been mired in a web of investigations, was forced to step down after seven of his employees
were arrested in a federal corruption investigation. His six-figure pension remained intact.
The arrests of the three Miami-Dade mayors followed news in July that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had charged the City of Miami and one of its former budget directors with
securities fraud, only a few years after the commission reprimanded the city for similar behavior.
In May, a former mayor of Hialeah, Julio Robaina, and his wife, Raiza, were charged with failing to
report income from high-interest loans totaling more than $1 million that they had made under an
informal system involving friends and associates. The Robainas said they were innocent.
In 2011, in the largest municipal recall election in the country, the mayor of Miami-Dade County,
Carlos Alvarez, was removed from office after he gave large pay raises to close aides and then
pushed for a significant increase in property taxes.
This year, the State Legislature approved two ethics bills and six that focus on government
transparency and accountability — the first time in 36 years that state lawmakers had passed ethics
legislation. Mr. Krassner and others think legislators could do more. But many people seem
resigned to the prevalence of officials who appear oblivious to ethical boundaries.
“They get drunk on power,” said Katy Sorenson, who served on the Miami-Dade Board of County
Commissioners for 16 years and runs the Good Government Initiative at the University of Miami,
which educates elected officials about ethics and related issues.
“There’s a certain psychology to some of the people who run for office here — they don’t think
they’re going down the wrong track, but there’s a slippery slope,” she added. “There’s a lack of
self-awareness, an immaturity, a brazenness, of feeling like a big shot. So when they’re arrested,
they’re very surprised.”
The persistence of political malfeasance — often involving the stereotypical envelopes stuffed with
cash, delivered with knowing nods — perplexes those for whom public service is a noble calling.
“Maybe it’s the heat,” said Ruth Campbell, 93, a former City Council member here and the curator
of the Historic Homestead Town Hall Museum.
Mrs. Campbell, who has lived in town since 1942, was sadly aware of Florida’s reputation as a
haven for corruption. “We like to be distinguished,” she said, “but not like that.”
Prosecutors said Mr. Bateman, among other things, had failed to disclose that the health care
company, Community Health of South Florida Inc., secretly agreed to pay him $120,000 over a
year to lobby on its behalf. By the time he was arrested, he had accepted $3,625, State Attorney
Katherine Fernandez Rundle said.
After the mayor’s arrest, a City Council member, Judy Waldman, told reporters, “I have zero
tolerance for people using their public office to make money.” Ms. Waldman, who referred to Mr.
Bateman only as “that individual,” said his activities on behalf of Community Health Care of South
Florida were “just the tip of the iceberg,” and encouraged prosecutors to dig deeper.
Mr. Bateman’s lawyer, Ben Kuehne, told The Associated Press that his client was “shocked” by his
arrest and had “served the community for many years in an honest, dependable manner.”
At City Hall on Friday, in a frame that contained photos of city officials, Mr. Bateman’s likeness
had been concealed behind a paper copy of the city’s crest. But a day earlier, a group of his
supporters rallied a couple blocks away, and Mr. Bateman, out on bond, showed up, shook hands
and vowed to fight the charges.
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS
October 17, 2013
Mr. Ricardo (Rick) Morales, III , CHAIR Hon. Krista Marx

President, Morales Construction Co., Inc. Florida Bar ID Number: 511749
The Morales Group 205 N Dixie Hwy.
6950 Philips Highway, Suite 15 West Palm Beach, Florida 334014-5222
Jacksonville, FL 32216
Steven R. Maxwell, Ed.D.
Hon. Kerry I. Evander, VICE-CHAIR Educator, School District of Lee County
Florida Bar ID Number: 302597 Sanibel, Florida
Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 S Beach St. Hon. Michelle T. Morley
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-5002 Florida Bar ID Number: 603333
Sumter County Courthouse
Alan B. Bookman, Esq. 215 E McCollum Ave.
Florida Bar ID Number: 154770 Bushnell, Florida 33513-6120
Emmanuel Sheppard & Condon, P.A.
PO Box 1271 Hon. Robert Morris
Pensacola, Florida 32591-1271 Florida Bar ID Number: 308439
2nd District Court of Appeal
Ms. Shirlee P. Bowne PO Box 327
Tallahassee, Florida (retired) Lakeland, Florida 33802-0327
Michelle K. Cummings, Esq. Jerome S. Osteryoung, Ph.D.

Florida Bar ID Number: 299464 Professor of Finance
GrayRobinson, P.A. FSU, Tallahassee Florida
401 E Las Olas Blvd Ste 1850
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-4236 Hon. James A. Ruth
Florida Bar ID Number: 494372
Mayanne Downs, Esq. Duval County Courthouse
Florida Bar ID Number: 754900 501 W Adams St. Rm. 7159
GrayRobinson P A Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4603
301 E Pine St. Fl 14
Orlando, Florida 32801-2724 John G. (Jay) White, III, Esq.
Mr. Harry R. Duncanson, C.P.A. Richman Greer P.A.
9704 Waters Meet Drive 250 S Australian Ave Ste 1504
Tallahassee, FL 32312-372 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5016
_________________________________
Hon. Thomas B. Freeman
Florida Bar ID Number: 118504 Executive Director, Brooke S. Kennerly
Pinellas Co. C J C, Florida
General Counsel, Michael L. Schneider
12
From Petition No.
12-7747, Rule 21
Motion to amend,
received-SCOTUS
April 15, 2013, the
Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
date of dismissal.
A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit is of a
substantial or controlling effect, which I intended to, but did not present with my petition March
18, 2013 due to disability related illness, discussed in Part 3. The petition contained 12 pages,
three pages less than the Rule 33.2(b) limit. I move to submit the three pages now.
U.S. v. Terry affirmed a jury conviction against former Judge 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).
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.
In my case, Respondent Judge Martha J. Cook accepted campaign donations from
Respondent Ryan C. Rodems, and two of my former lawyers, his partners William J. Cook and
Jonathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings on summary judgment, and civil contempt, during
ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.
Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major James Livingston, provided evidence the
Respondents falsified the record of the hearing. The Respondents 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.
I only attended one of three hearings before Judge Cook September 28, 2010. The first
was my spoken motion to disqualify Judge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a § 1983 civil rights and
3
13
disability lawsuit. Judge 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).
Judge 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.
Judge 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. Judge 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]. Judge Cook mailed me a conformed copy order in a postage
prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote1.
Next, Judge 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).
Two days later September 30, 2010 Judge 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 mail2, and instructed Judge Cook to sign, together with postage paid
1
The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by order
January 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5,
2010 I filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of Judge Barton, but
Judge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time.
2
Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems’ notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.
4
envelopes. [Appendix 5]. Judge 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 James Livingstion that I did not leave the
hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by Judge Cook. Major Livingstion
in turn provided me a letter dated January 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B.
Judicial elections in Florida are different than those of other elected officials, and as
described in Terry. Judicial 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. Judges 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, Judge Cook’s 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
Judge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.
Unfortunately, Judge Cook acted like Mr. Rodems’ “marionette”. Terry at p. 11.
5
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 13a0040p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ;

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 11-4130
v.
>

STEVEN J. TERRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:10-cr-390-1—Sara E. Lioi, District Judge.
Argued: October 10, 2012
Decided and Filed: February 14, 2013
Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Sylvester Summers, Jr., SYLVESTER SUMMERS, JR., CO., LPA,
Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel R. Ranke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sylvester Summers, Jr.,
SYLVESTER SUMMERS, JR., CO., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel R.
Ranke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. “If you can’t eat [lobbyists’] food, drink their
booze, . . . take their money and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being
[in politics],” said Jesse Unruh, a one-time Speaker of the California General Assembly,
in the 1960s. Bill Boyarsky, Big Daddy: Jesse Unruh and the Art of Power Politics 112
(2007). That is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it comes courtesy
of the federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an official from accepting
1
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 2
things of value “in return for” official acts. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). A jury found that a
state court judge did just that and convicted him of several honest services fraud
violations. We affirm.
I.
In April 2007, Governor Ted Strickland appointed Steven Terry to fill a vacancy
on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Soon after, Terry announced that he
intended to seek reelection to retain the seat the following November. Having never run
for elected office before, Terry sought the help of County Auditor Frank Russo, a
presence in Cleveland politics. Russo agreed to help Terry with his reelection campaign
and indeed had already helped him by recommending Terry to the Governor for the
appointment and by lobbying members of the local judicial nominating committee to
support him.
Terry knew that Russo was helping him behind the scenes. What Terry did not
know was that the FBI was investigating Russo on corruption charges and that federal
agents had tapped Russo’s phones. On July 15, 2008, Russo had a phone conversation
with a local attorney, Joe O’Malley, about two foreclosure cases on Terry’s docket.
O’Malley represented several homeowners in a lawsuit against American Home Bank,
and he asked Russo to convince Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary
judgment. Russo promised to call Terry and make sure Terry did what he was
“supposed to do” with the cases. Gov’t Ex. 116; 2 Trial Tr. 294.
Two days later, Russo and Terry spoke on the phone. Russo told Terry to deny
the motions for summary judgment, and Terry said he would. In the same conversation,
the two men also discussed Russo’s attendance at future fundraisers for Terry’s
reelection campaign.
That same day, Terry contacted the magistrate judge responsible for the
foreclosure cases and told her to deny the motions for summary judgment. Surprised by
Terry’s directive, the magistrate passed along the docket so that Terry could deny the
motions himself. Terry did just that, even though he never reviewed the case files, never
read the motions before denying them and never obtained a recommendation from the
magistrate or anyone else (within the court system) about how to rule on the motions.
Terry’s collaboration came relatively cheap. Russo’s political action committee

donated $500 to Terry’s reelection campaign in July 2007. Russo’s committee
purchased around $700 worth of stationery, envelopes and car magnets for Terry’s
campaign in July 2007. And Russo had his official staff work for Terry’s campaign
during business hours and provided other political help throughout the relevant time
period. In exchange for this assistance, Russo explained that he expected Terry “to
answer the phone any time I called. And any time I called with a recommendation, or
a problem, or a case, I would expect Steve to give it special attention” and “follow
through for me.” 2 Trial Tr. 290. Russo in other words expected that his political and
financial patronage meant Terry “would do what I asked him to do,” including “granting
[] a motion so it wouldn’t tie [a] case up.” Id. For his part in this and like-minded
arrangements with other Cleveland-area officials, Russo pled guilty to twenty-one
political corruption counts of one form or another and received a 262-month prison
sentence.
For his part, Terry ran into similar problems. A grand jury indicted him on five
political corruption charges. Count One alleged that Terry conspired with Russo to
commit mail fraud and honest services fraud. Count Two alleged that Terry committed
mail fraud by denying the bank’s summary judgment motions. And Counts Three, Four
and Five alleged that he committed honest services fraud by “accepting gifts, payments,
and other things of value from Russo and others in exchange for favorable official
action.” R. 24 ¶ 52. Each honest services fraud count was tied to a mailed document:
Counts Three and Four stemmed from checks Russo’s political action committee wrote
to pay for Terry’s stationery, envelopes and car magnets, while Count Five stemmed
from a thank you note Terry wrote to Russo. Id. ¶ 54.
After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Terry on Counts One, Three and Four, and
acquitted him on Counts Two and Five. The district court sentenced him to 63 months
in prison on each count, to be served concurrently.
II.
Terry presses three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court should have
dismissed the indictment because it failed to identify a crime under United States v.
Skilling, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010); (2) the district court improperly instructed the jury on
the requirements for showing that Terry accepted a bribe; and (3) insufficient evidence
showed that Terry accepted a bribe.
A.
The district court correctly denied Terry’s motion to dismiss. An indictment

must contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts
constituting the offense charged” and a “citation of the statute . . . that the defendant is
alleged to have violated.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c). Terry’s indictment did just that. It
outlined the contours of the relationship between Terry and Russo, detailed how Russo
instructed Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary judgment, listed the benefits
Terry received from Russo and mentioned each statute Terry allegedly violated.
The indictment also complied with Skilling. Honest services mail fraud requires
the government to prove 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,” id. § 1346. That intangible right, Skilling made clear, covers only schemes in
which the defendant deprives another of his honest services by participating in a bribery
or kickback scheme. 130 S. Ct. at 2931. The relevant counts of Terry’s indictment
allege that he “devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud” the
citizens of Cuyahoga County (including the litigants before him) of honest services
“through bribery and kickbacks” that he “knowingly caused to be delivered by mail.”
R. 24 ¶ 51. Several details supported the allegations, including the checks from Russo’s
political action committee that traveled through the mail and the summary-judgment
motions that Terry denied at Russo’s behest.
Terry argues that, in upholding the indictment, the district court misread Skilling
to say that honest services fraud required the government to prove that he also violated
a state-law duty. But why should Terry care? Right or wrong, the district court’s
decision benefitted Terry. By requiring the government to show Terry violated a state-
law duty, the district court added an element to the government’s case. That helped
Terry; it could not conceivably prejudice him. In narrowing honest services fraud to
require a bribe or kickback, Skilling did nothing to prevent federal courts from narrowing
the offense still further to include only bribes or kickbacks that also violate a state-law
duty. See 130 S. Ct. at 2928 n.36 (noting without elaboration that “[c]ourts have
disagreed about whether § 1346 prosecutions must be based on a violation of state law”).
We thus need not wade into the debate over whether a state-law violation is a
precondition of honest services fraud. Compare United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728,
734–735 (5th Cir. 1997), with United States v. Weyhrauch, 548 F.3d 1237, 1245–46 (9th
Cir. 2008).
B.
Terry’s second claim turns on the proper definition of a bribe when it comes to
a public official. The slate is not clean. Bribery in this setting has long been taken
seriously. See, e.g., Herodotus, The Histories 5:25 (A.D. Godley trans., Harvard Univ.
Press 1920) (describing how, in ancient Persia, a judge who accepted a bribe was flayed
alive and his successor was forced to sit on a chair made from the predecessor’s skin).
Punishment for the offense today is less severe, but the prohibition remains. The
political-corruption statutes and cases make a few principles in this area clear:
• A public official can commit honest services fraud only by accepting a

bribe or a kickback. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2931.
• A public official accepts a bribe when he “corruptly . . . receives

. . . anything of value . . . in return for . . . being influenced in the
performance of any official act.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2); see also
18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (similar definition in federal-programs bribery
statute); Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.02(b) (similar definition in state bribery
statute).
• One element of bribery is that the public official must agree that “his
official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or the
undertaking.” McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 273 (1991);
see also United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 526 (1972) (“The
illegal conduct is taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act
in a certain way.”); United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405, 411 (7th Cir.
1993) (looking to extortion cases to interpret a bribery statute because the
two crimes are “different sides of the same coin”).
• This agreement must include a quid pro quo—the receipt of something

of value “in exchange for an official act.” United States v. Sun-Diamond
Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 404–05 (1999).
• The agreement between the public official and the person offering the
bribe need not spell out which payments control which particular official
acts. Rather, “it is sufficient if the public official understood that he or
she was expected to exercise some influence on the payor’s behalf as
opportunities arose.” United States v. Abbey, 560 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir.
2009); accord United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 358–59 (4th Cir.
2012); Ryan v. United States, 688 F.3d 845, 852 (7th Cir. 2012); United
States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134, 147 (2d Cir. 2007).
That is a start. These principles, to be sure, do not spell out what kinds of
agreements—and what level of specificity—must exist between the person offering a
bribe and the public official receiving it. And some cases debate how “specific,”
“express” or “explicit” a quid pro quo must be to violate the bribery, extortion and
kickback laws. See, e.g., United States v. Ring, ___ F.3d ___, No. 11-3100, 2013 WL
276020, at *4 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“[C]ourts have struggled to pin down the definition of
an explicit quid pro quo in various contexts.”); United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d
1159, 1171 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610, 635 n.6 (2d Cir.
2011); United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 348–54 (5th Cir. 2009).
Yet these adjectives do not add a new element to these criminal statutes but
signal that the statutory requirement must be met—that the payments were made in
connection with an agreement, which is to say “in return for” official actions under it.
So long as a public official agrees that payments will influence an official act, that
suffices. What is needed is an agreement, full stop, which can be formal or informal,
written or oral. As most bribery agreements will be oral and informal, the question is
one of inferences taken from what the participants say, mean and do, all matters that
juries are fully equipped to assess. “[M]otives and consequences, not formalities,” are
the keys for determining whether a public official entered an agreement to accept a bribe,
and the trier of fact is “quite capable of deciding the intent with which words were
spoken or actions taken as well as the reasonable construction given to them by the
official and the payor.” United States v. Evans, 504 U.S. 255, 274 (1992) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); see also McCormick, 500 U.S. at 270
(“It goes without saying that matters of intent are for the jury to consider.”); Ring, 2013
WL 276020, at *7 (noting that intent “distinguishes criminal corruption from
commonplace political and business activities”); United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560,
569 (3d Cir. 2012) (“We rely on the good sense of jurors . . . to distinguish intent from
knowledge or recklessness where the direct evidence [of a quid pro quo] is necessarily
scanty.”).
That a bribe doubles as a campaign contribution does not by itself insulate it from
scrutiny. No doubt, a contribution is more likely to be a duty-free gift than a bribe
because a contribution has a legitimate alternative explanation: The donor supports the
candidate’s election for all manner of possible reasons. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S.
1, 21 (1976). But the prosecution may rebut that alternative explanation, and context
may show that an otherwise legitimate contribution is a bribe. Take Evans. In that case,
the Court permitted a jury to convict a state legislator who attempted to claim the
payment he received was a campaign contribution. See 504 U.S. at 257–59. Take as
well the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Whitfield. Two state judges argued that the loan
guarantees they received were made in the context of their electoral campaigns and thus
required special protection, but the court upheld a finding that the payments were bribes.
590 F.3d at 353. If an official receives money “through promises to improperly employ
his public influence,” he has accepted a bribe. Abbey, 560 F.3d at 519. A donor who
gives money in the hope of unspecified future assistance does not agree to exchange
payments for actions. No bribe thus occurs if the elected official later does something
that benefits the donor. On the other hand, if a donor (like Russo) makes a contribution
so that an elected official will “do what I asked him to do,” 2 Trial Tr. 290, and the
official (like Terry) accepts the payment with the same understanding, the donor and the
official have formed a corrupt bargain. That agreement marks the difference between
a run-of-the-mine contribution and a bribe.
Hold on, says Terry: Bribery should have two definitions, not one, a definition
for public officials who may not receive campaign contributions and a
definition for those who may. For public officials who may not receive campaign
contributions—appointed officials, for instance—any payment in exchange for a future
benefit is a bribe, he says. Terry Letter Br. at 3. But for officials who may accept
campaign contributions, a payment becomes a bribe only if it is made “in exchange for
a specific official act or omission.” Id. (emphasis added). Congress, however, did not
distinguish between public officials who may legally accept contributions and those who
may not in the bribery statutes. Nor has the Supreme Court. It has refused to
“distinguish[] between legal and illegal campaign contributions” in the context of
extortion. McCormick, 500 U.S. at 271; see also United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62,
77 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (refusing to carve out an exception in the federal bribery statute for
campaign contributions). An agreement, once again, is the dividing line between
permissible and impermissible payments.
Terry persists that campaign contributions must meet a higher standard to

become a bribe because “the financing of political campaigns depends upon officials
accepting contributions from people expecting some kind of benefit in return.” Terry
Reply Br. at 20. That sentiment may sum up Frank Russo’s donation strategy, but a
contribution also may represent nothing more than “a general expression of support for
the candidate and his views.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21. Just as “[n]ot every campaign
contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s

recusal,” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 884 (2009), not every
contribution to an elected judge is a bribe. Whatever else McCormick may mean, it does
not give an elected judge the First Amendment right to sell a case so long as the buyer
has not picked out which case at the time of sale.
The jury instructions in this case accurately conveyed that an agreement is the
key component of a bribe. The district court told the jury that, in order to find that Terry
violated the honest services fraud statute, it needed to find a “quid pro quo”: that is,
Terry agreed “to accept [a] thing of value in exchange for official action.” 5 Trial Tr.
1189. A “thing of value” could include a campaign contribution, so long as that was
“received in exchange for official acts.” Id. at 1192. Terry’s intent to exchange official
acts for contributions could be “based on [Terry’s] words, conduct, acts, and all the
surrounding circumstances disclosed by the evidence and the rational or logical
inferences that may be drawn from them.” Id. Each payment did not need to be tied to
a specific official act, so long as Terry understood that, “whenever the opportunity
present[ed] itself,” Terry would “take specific official actions on the giver’s behalf.” Id.
at 1190. These instructions matched the definition of bribery. The jury needed to find
that Terry agreed to accept things of value in exchange for official acts.
C.
Based on these instructions, the jury found that Terry accepted a bribe. We may
overturn that conclusion only if, after “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, [no] rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
A jury could find that Terry and Russo entered an agreement to fix cases. Start
with the benefits, financial and otherwise, that Russo provided to Terry during the
relevant time period. He gave Terry’s campaign $500. He supplied Terry’s campaign
with approximately $700 in campaign materials. He expected his employees in the
Auditor’s office to engage in electioneering for Terry during office hours. And he hired
a woman Terry had fired from his chambers staff to prevent Terry from suffering
negative publicity.
A flow of benefits from one person to a public official, to be sure, does not by
itself establish bribery. The benefits instead must be part and parcel of an agreement by
the beneficiary to perform public acts for the patron. That existed as well. On one side
of the bargain, Russo thought that they had a deal. In return for showering Terry with
benefits, Russo expected Terry to use his official powers whenever and however Russo
requested. Any time Russo called, he expected Terry to “give it special attention” and
“follow through with me.” 2 Trial Tr. 290. “Special attention,” he clarified, meant that
“whether it would be a character reference or whether it would be a case,” Terry would
“do what I asked him to do.” Id.
So, too, on the other side of the bargain. Although Terry disclaimed at trial any
agreement to fix cases in which Russo had a stake, his actions belied his words. Terry’s
rulings on the foreclosure cases were, at the very least, highly irregular, and the reality
that a tape recording captured the Russo-Terry conversation immediately preceding these
rulings did Terry no favor. No subtle winks and nods were needed. Russo straight up
asked Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary judgment in the two cases, and
with Terry’s tape-recorded reply (“Got it.” Gov’t Ex. 117), Terry agreed to do just that.
And he did, within hours of the conversation. Here is the timeline: Terry and Russo
spoke at 11:58 a.m. on July 17; Terry called the magistrate later that afternoon, around
12:30 p.m.; and Terry called Russo at 10:31 a.m. the next morning to confirm he had
denied the motions. Without reading the motions, without consulting the case files and
without relying on the recommendation of anyone—within the court system—who had
read the files, Terry did just what Russo asked. That is not an everyday occurrence in
the judicial branch, and a jury could readily infer that Terry’s unusual behavior, along
with the other evidence, stemmed from an agreement to use his position as a public
official to do Russo’s bidding in return for Russo’s financial, campaign and staff support.
In the face of this evidence, Terry claims that the record nonetheless does not
establish an agreement between him and Russo to exchange campaign contributions and
help for official acts. Yes and no. Yes, the government never presented a formal
agreement between Russo and Terry stating that Russo’s gifts would control Terry’s
actions. But no, there was ample evidence for the jury to infer that an agreement
nonetheless existed between the two men.
Not every campaign contribution, we recognize, is a bribe in sheep’s clothing.

Without anything more, a jury could not reasonably infer that a campaign contribution
is a bribe solely because a public official accepts a contribution and later takes an action
that benefits a donor. See, e.g., McCormick, 500 U.S. at 272. But when a public official
acts as a donor’s marionette—by deciding a case to a donor’s benefit immediately after
the donor asks him to and without reading anything about the case—a jury can reject
legitimate explanations for a contribution and infer that it flowed from a bribery
agreement. Here, the jury rejected any legitimate explanation for Russo’s contributions
in the face of strong circumstantial evidence that Terry and Russo had a corrupt bargain.
Once the jury found Terry and Russo had an agreement, it could easily find that Terry
accepted a bribe, violating the honest services fraud statute along the way. The same
holds true for Terry’s conspiracy conviction.
III.
For these reasons, we affirm.

US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1739
prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
Conduct within the purview of the obstruction of justice statutes may also violate one or more of the
following statutes:
A. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1112, and 1114--interference with, assaults on, or killing of Federal judges and
prosecutors, (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, and 1513). See United States v. Houlihan, 937 F. Supp.
75, 76 (D. Mass. 1996).
B. 18 U.S.C. § 201(a), (b) and (c)--bribery of Federal public officials and witnesses (overlap with 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1503 and 1505 (public officials) and 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (witness)). Subsection (e) of this statute provides
that the offenses and penalties in this section are separate from and in addition to those in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503,
1504, and 1505. See United States v. DeAlesandro, 361 F.2d 694, 699-700 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S.
842 (1966). [NOTE: Subsection (k) as cited in DeAlesandro was redesignated as subsection (e), Pub. L. No.
99-646, § 46(k), 100 Stat. 3604 (amended 1986).]
C. 18 U.S.C. § 241--conspiracy to injure or intimidate any citizen on account of his or her exercise or possibility
of exercise of Federal right (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512, and 1513). Under 18 U.S.C. § 241,
it is a Federal offense to conspire to injure a citizen for having exercised a Federal right or to conspire to
intimidate a citizen from exercising a Federal right. One such right is the right to be a witness in a Federal
court, United States v. Dinome, 954 F.2d 839, 845 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 830 (1992); United States
v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 626 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1008, and cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1109, and
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982); or other Federal proceeding, United States v. Smith, 623 F.2d 627, 629
(9th Cir. 1980). "So is the right to inform Federal officials of violations of Federal laws." Id.
D. 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(D), (2)(D), (4)(A), and (5)--intimidating or retaliating against individuals on account of
their serving or possibly serving as a grand or petit juror in a Federal court (overlap with 18 U.S.C. § 1503)
or on account of their serving or possibly serving as a grand or petit juror in a state court if the conduct is
motivated by the race, color, religion, or national origin of the victim.
E. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 372--conspiracies to commit any offense against the United States, or to prevent or
retaliate in response to the lawful discharge of the duties of Federal officers (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§
1503, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513). see generally United States v. Frankhauser, 80 F.3d 641, 653 (1st Cir.
1996) (conspiracy to persuade witness to destroy or conceal evidence for use in an official proceeding);
United States v. Fullbright, 69 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1995) (conspiracy to mail arrest warrants to a
United States Bankruptcy Judge); United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365, 1367 (6th Cir. 1994) (conspiracy to
alter flight log books of police officers to prevent information from reaching the grand jury); United States v.
Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 683 (5th Cir. 1985) (conspiracy to obtain secret grand jury information), cert. denied,
475 U.S. 1142 (1986).
F. 18 U.S.C. § 401--contempt of court (overlaps with 18 U.S.C. § 1503). Contemptuous conduct in the
presence of the court is specifically covered by 18 U.S.C. § 401; however, such conduct may also satisfy the
elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. In that situation, a defendant may be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 even
though the offense conduct occurred in the presence of the court. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 663 F.2d
567, 569 (5th Cir. 1981) (threat directed at judge and prosecutor).
G. 18 U.S.C. § 1001--false statements and concealment of material facts before Federal departments and
agencies (overlap with 18 U.S.C. § 1505).
14
H. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 to 1623--perjury, subornation of perjury, and false declarations before grand juries and
courts (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, and 1512). It has been held by at least one court that simple
perjury, the assertion of a false affirmative statement by an individual testifying under oath, is not an
obstruction of justice under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. See United States v. Faudman, 640 F.2d
20, 23 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 1969). But see United States v.
Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 203, 204 (5th Cir.) (dicta), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 825 (1979); cf. Smith v. United
States, 234 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1956) (submission of false affidavits of others violates omnibus clause).
However, if simple perjury is accompanied by other obstructive, truth-suppressing acts, an omnibus
clause offense may exist. In United States v. Alo, 439 F.2d 751 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 850 (1971),
the court held that evasive testimony, such as a false denial of knowledge or memory, was included within
the coverage of the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. The court rejected the argument that the clause
proscribed only those efforts that interfered with other witnesses or documentary evidence. Id. at 754.
This reasoning applies as well to the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Griffin, 589 F.2d at 203-05
(false denial of knowledge and memory before grand jury); United States v. Cohn, 452 F.2d 881, 883-84 (2d
Cir. 1971) (same), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 975 (1972).
Suborning perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622, may also be an 18 U.S.C. § 1503 omnibus clause offense. See
Griffin, 589 F.2d at 203 (construing United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621, 630-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
434 U.S. 903 (1977); Catrino v. United States, 176 F.2d 884, 886-87 (9th Cir. 1949). While section 1622
requires proof that perjury was in fact committed, see, e.g., United States v. Brumley, 560 F.2d 1268, 1278
n.5 (5th Cir. 1977), the omnibus clause of section 1503 does not and thus may be used to prosecute attempts
to suborn perjury. See Catrino, 176 F.2d at 886-87.
I. 26 U.S.C. § 7212--interference with or endeavors to interfere with the due administration of the Internal
Revenue laws (overlap with 18 U.S.C. § 1505).
[cited in USAM 9-69.100]
US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 925
prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of legitimate government activity may take any of several
forms:
1. Bribery of a government employee, kickbacks to government employees or extortion of money or

favors by government employees, misrepresentations of financial capability, alteration or falsification
of official records, submission of false documents; and
2. Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function.
[cited in USAM 9-42.001]
15
16
STATE OF FLORIDA
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
1110 THOMASVILLE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224
(850) 488-1581
October 10, 2012
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Docket No. 12385, Judge 150m
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above
matter and has determined, at its meeting held on Friday, October 5,2012, that
the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the
Code'of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are
matters for review solely through the court system.
The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial

misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State
of Florida. If such misconduct or disability is found, the Commission can
recommend disciplinary action to the Florida Supreme Court. The Commission
has found no basis for further action on your complaint that therefore has been
dismissed.
Sincerely yours,
Michael L. Schneider
General Counsel
MLS/bsk
17
August 15, 2012
Judicial Qualifications Commission

Tallahassee, FL 32303
COMPLAINT: Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Co.
George Edgecomb Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430, Tampa, FL 33602
To the Judicial Qualifications Commission:
Please find enclosed my completed and signed complaint against Judge Claudia Rickert Isom for
failing to disclose a conflict with her husband, attorney Woody Isom, and my former attorney
Jonathan Alpert. Judge Isom lied to me in open court February 1, 2007 by failing to make the
disclosure. Judge Isom’s deceit in the case before her had significant consequences as outlined
herein. Judge Isom engaged in dishonesty prejudicial to the administration of justice, and
brought discredit to the courts and the judiciary.
Judge Isom was dishonest February 1, 2007 during a conflict hearing in my civil lawsuit,
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.
Judge Isom lied by omission when she failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert
were previously law partners and shareholders at the law firm Fowler White in Tampa.
Please find enclosed the following exhibits in support of my complaint:
Exhibit 1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, December 15, 2006.

Exhibit 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, January 7, 2007.
Exhibit 3. Transcript of conflict hearing February 1, 2007.
Exhibit 4. Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Judge, February 13, 2007.
Exhibit 5. Court Order of Recusal, etc., February 13, 2007.
Exhibit 6. Copy of the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, July 30, 2012.
On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict (Exhibit 1) that
informed Judge Isom of campaign contributions from my former lawyer Jonathan Alpert to both
Woody Isom and Judge Isom. In addition, I informed Judge Isom:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protegees and former law partners, and the contract that
forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between Plaintiff
and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.
Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have recused herself after reading that “the
contract that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between
Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.”
Judicial Qualifications Commission Page - 2
Complaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge August 15, 2012
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings with a
relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that a judge's prejudice
may bar a party from having his or her day in court. The function of the trial court on
motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to a determination of the legal sufficiency of an
affidavit, without reference to its truth and veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512,
Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
4. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides a judge shall disqualify
himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under this rule, a judge is disqualified
whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether
any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. The question whether disqualification of
a judge is required focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably
question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly
and impartially.
5. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethical responsibility
of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3.
In March 2010 I found the affidavit of Mr. Alpert dated September 3, 2003, received in the
Clerk’s file September 11, 2003 in his family law matter, Alpert v. Alpert, Case No.: 29-2001-
DR-4977-C. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 10). Mr. Alpert’s affidavit states at paragraph 3.c.:
“I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in last
fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge
Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;”
Woody Isom confirmed his relationship with Mr. Alpert to me in his email sent March 23, 2010
at 4:35 PM. Woody Isom wrote “He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of
time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.” (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 11).
Clearly Woody Isom practiced law with, and had a business relationship with, Jonathan Alpert.
My affidavit1 of July 30, 2012 sets forth the facts and legal arguments in more detail. (Exhibit 6).
Judge Isom’s dishonesty during the conflict hearing over which she presided is a serious breach
of judicial ethics giving rise to this complaint. As set forth in my affidavit, Judge Isom denied me
disability accommodation, and made rulings contrary to law. Judge Isom even ruled contrary to
her own law essay, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 6).
During a hearing February 5, 2007 I asked Judge Isom if I could expect to receive a fair trial and
hearings, but Judge Isom was unable to answer in the affirmative, and only mentioned that this
was a jury trial. Jury trial notwithstanding, Judge Isom would make ruling in this case, and I
believed, based on the response of Judge Isom, that I would not receive fair treatment. Therefore
I submitted February 13, 2007 Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Judge. (Exhibit 4). My motion
raised a number of issues that showed I feared I would not receive a fair trial or hearing.
Judge Isom recused herself the same day, see Court Order of Recusal, etc., (Exhibit 5). Judge
Isom wrote:
THIS CAUSE came before the court on the plaintiff's motion to disqualify judge.
Although the motion is procedurally sufficient, is it insufficient as a matter of law in that
it appears to have been filed in response to adverse rulings of the court.
This response by Judge Isom is unlawful. Once Judge Isom found that my motion to disqualify
was “procedurally sufficient” she was required to step down. Judge Isom’ further comments
were not permitted under Florida law:
Judicial determination of initial motion. The judge against whom an initial motion to
disqualify is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall not
pass on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.160(f).
I provided Judge Isom additional case law on this issue, see Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify
Judge, pages 4 and 5. (Exhibit 4).
Judge Isom continued in her Order of February 13, 2007: (Exhibit 5)
At the same time, however, the plaintiff has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his
cause leaving pending a counterclaim filed by the defendants. In an abundance of caution
and in an effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms of
the plaintiffs future court appearances, the court on the court's own motion on the matter
of disqualification has determined that reassignment is appropriate in this cause.
The above Order shows Judge Isom did not follow the law.
1
The original affidavit was submitted in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit July 30, 2012.
As for Judge Isom's "effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms
of the plaintiffs future court appearances", the Hillsborough courts have no integrity. The JQC
should know that after its unsuccessful pursuit of the Hon. Gregory P. Holder, perhaps the only
honest judge in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
Judge Isom should have recused herself after reading Jonathan Alpert's role in this case, as
described in my December 15', 2006 motion for disclosure. Judge Isom lied by omission
February 1, 2007 by failing to disclose a conflict with her husband Woody Isom and my former
attorney Jonathan Alpert. A transcript of the hearing is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
As set forth in my affidavit, fifteen (15) additional related cases followed in this matter, in
addition to the original case, after Judge Isom belatedly stepped down. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph
47/exhibit 19). The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty and denial ofjustice has been enormous to
me, all the lawyers involved, and to the court system.
This matter has been in the public domain for some time, see my affidavit. (Exhibit 6).
Judge Isom is a disgrace to the judiciary. She should be removed from office. Thank you.
Sincerely,
~
.~.".
~tI'.'
/)1/? ..
r
,....,t. ,"
.f
!
.'"
. -:/ ;/> /J../" '/
/
J:
/ .
eil Gill9spie
8092 SW/(15th Loop
Ocala,/L 34481
(352) 854-7807
Enclosures
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
(850) 488-1581
COMPLAINT FORM
This form is designed to provide the Commission with information required to make an
initial evaluation of your complaint.
PLEASE NOTE: COMPLAINT FORM MUST BE TYPED OR LEGIBLY HAND PRINTED, DATED
AND SIGNED BEFORE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
(Note: This form can be typed into here, then printed, or print it out and fill it in by hand.)
___________________________________________________________________
I. Person Making Complaint
Name Gillespie Neil Joseph

___________________________________________________________________________
Mr. (Last) (First) (Middle)
Ms.
Mrs.
Address 8092 SW 115th Loop

___________________________________________________________________________
Ocala, Florida 34481
___________________________________________________________________________
352-854-7807
Telephone Number(s): (Day)_________________________ (Evening)_________________________
***********************************************************************
II. Judge Against Whom Complaint is Made
Name Isom Claudia Rickert

___________________________________________________________________________
(Last) (First) (Middle)
Address
George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430
____________________________________________________________________________
Tampa, FL 33602
___________________________________________________________________________
Supreme Court ___________________________________
District Court
of Appeal ___________________________________
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Co
Circuit Court ___________________________________
County Court ___________________________________

III. Statement of Facts
Please provide in as much detail as possible the information which you have knowledge which you
believe constitutes judicial misconduct or disability. Include names, dates, places, addresses and
telephone numbers which may assist the Commission.
If additional space is required, attach and number pages.

IV. Additional Information (if available)
a. If your complaint arises out of a court case, please answer the following questions:
1. What is the name and number of the case?

Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.
Case name: ______________________________ Case No. _____________________________
2. What kind of case is it?
✔ civil criminal domestic relations probate
small claims traffic other (specify)
3. What is your relationship to the case?
✔ plaintiff/petitioner defendant/respondent
attorney for _______________________________: ________________________________
witness for ________________________________: ________________________________
other (specify)
b. If you were represented by an attorney in this matter at the time of the judge’s conduct, please
identify the attorney:
n/a
Name _____________________________________________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________________________________________
Phone ____________________________________________________________________________
c. List and attach copies of any relevant documents which you believe support your claim that the
judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability. (Note: Retain a copy for your
records as these documents shall become the property of the Commission and may not be
returned.)
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
d. Identify, if you can, any other witnesses to the conduct about which you complain:
Name(s): __________________________________

Addresses: _
Phone Numbers: _
IN FILING THIS COMPLAINT, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S RULES PROVIDE THAT ALL
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION,
SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL PRIOR TO THE FILING OF FORMAL CHARGES. I FURTHER
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RULE OF CONFIDENTIALITY ATTACHES AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON
THE FILING OF THIS COMPLAINT AND THAT ANY VIOLATION COULD RESULT IN A CITATION FOR
CONTEMPT BY TI-IE COMMISSION.
V. Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and understand this complaint form and
submitted of my own free will. ?
August 15, 2012

(Date) o plainant's Signqture)
/"'''''-'
ote: Only sigr>ed complaints will be considered.)
I
Please note that the Commission only has authority to investigate allegations of judicial
misconduct or permanent disability by persons holding state judicial positions. The Commission
has no jurisdiction over and does not consider complaints against Federal Judges, magistrates,
lawyers, police, court personnel, or State Attorneys. The Commission does not act as an
appellate court and cannot review, reverse or modify a legal decision made by a judge in the
course of a court proceeding. For example, the Commission does not investigate claims that a
judge wrongfully excluded evidence; imposed an improper sentence, awarded custody to the
wrong party; incorrectly awarded alimony or child support; incorrectly resolved a legal issue or
believed perjured testimony.
Please return this form and direct all future communications to:


JQC Complaint No. 13527 Judge Clauda Rickert Isom

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

JQC Complaint No. 13527 Judge Clauda Rickert Isom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF FLORIDA

RICARDO "RICK" MORALES, III

Re: Docket No. 13527, Judge Isom

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial

It} ilf:f..:~· '~~:tll:?J prt~r. 1. 'To

Tallahassee, FL 32303-61t4:(··~;j·;·:~· -.2~.~}.·1~;;)·:-: ~ ....~ ~.~. 'tor.

reviewed by the Commission when it meets next.

You will be notified of the Commission's actions by return mail.

Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission

FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION

1110 Thomasville Road

AND SIGNED BEFORE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED.

I. Person Making Complaint

Name Gillespie Neil Joseph

Address 8092 SW 115th Loop

II. Judge Against Whom Complaint is Made

Name Isom Claudia Rickert

See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.

If additional space is required, attach and number pages.

IV. Additional Information (if available)

1. What is the name and number of the case?

2. What kind of case is it?

¢ civil [J criminal D domestic relations D probate

o small claims 0 traffic 0 other (specify)

3. What is your relationship to the case? I

See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.

October 17, 2013

Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission

Rick Morales JQC Commission Chair

Constitution of the State of Florida, Article V, Judiciary:

Isom Claudia Rickert 2004 Form 6, stamped received July 5, 2005

The Judicial Qualifications Commission of Florida

The Judicial Qualifications Commission of Florida is an independent agency created by the

43.20(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to implement s. 12(b), Art. V of the

Florida - Corruption Capital of America

Reporting Professional Misconduct

Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

All persons have a duty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4 - Misprision of felony:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court

See U.S. v Scruggs, 11-60564, C.A.5, Opinion, misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. 4

Honest Services Fraud

JQC Complaints, Complainants and the First Amendment

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

Offenses Related to Obstruction of Justice Offenses

In part, from the D.O.J. Criminal Resource Manual 1739 (enclosed):

C. 18 U.S.C. § 241--conspiracy to injure or intimidate any citizen on account of his or her

1. Bribery of a government employee, kickbacks to government employees or extortion

2. Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function.

Article VI and Treaties of the United States

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The review of the United Sates of America has been canceled

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)

Signed by the United States December 9, 2003

Ratified by the United States October 30, 2006

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

"Legal aid, a right in itself" – UN Special Rapporteur - May 30, 2013

Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Working Paper T-00-02

• Enterprise Florida: Economic Development or Corporate Welfare? February 2013

The Florida Press Association to Chief Judge

• Samuel J. Morley, General Counsel, The Florida Press Association

Telephone: (352) 854-7807

Enclosures: JQC complaint form, and the above supporting documents.