THE FLORIDA BAR

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
December 10, 2013
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115tl1 Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Ryan Christopher Rodems; RFA No. 14-9913
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Pursuant to your request, your UPL complaint against Mr. Rodems is being returned to you
1
As
Ms. Holcomb's letter indicates, the UPL department referred the matter to Lawyer Regulation to
be processed through ACAP/Intake insofar as Mr. Rodems is a licensed attorney. You have
indicated that you do not wish for ACAP/Intake to process the complaint. Accordingly, no
further action will be taken with regard to this matter.
Sincerely,
Shanell M. Schuyler, Director of Intake
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
1 The complaint you mailed to UPL (copy) was forwarded to this office and is being returned to you. This
departnlent has not received the "wet-ink" complaint you sent directly to Mr. Harkness.
F!RE.
Hasler
THE FLORIDA BAR 12/10/2013
5
$01 r922

n
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
m
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 ..J, ' 1IE
;. -::' II -.
.. ZIP 32399

-
-
..
i
011 D11637246

IJ'G PROfESc:.,\:
Visit our website: www.FLORIDABAR.org
THE FLORIDA BAR
f

" 651 EAsT JEFFERSON STREET
; TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

, ...

Visit our web site: www.FLORIDABAR.org
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
TheFloridaBar
651 EastJeffersonStreet
Tallahassee,FL 32399-2300
JohnF. Harkness,Jr. 850/561-5600
ExecutiveDirector www.FLORIDABAR.org
December4,2013
NeilJ. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala,Florida34481
Re: RyanChristopherRodems
DearMr. Gillespie:
IaminreceiptofyourunlicensedpracticeoflawcomplaintagainstMr. Rodems.
Mr. RodemisamemberofTheFloridaBar. YouallegethatMr. Rodemsengagedinthe
unlicensedpracticeoflaw. IfMr. Rodemsengagedintheunlicensedpracticeoflaw,afindingI
amnotmaking,hemaybeinviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConductandsubjectto
discipline. Whetherheisinviolationorsubjecttodisciplineisbeyondthescopeofthe
UnlicensedPracticeofLawdepartment,therefore, Iamnotmakingafindinginthisregard. An
investigationintounethicalconductbyamemberof TheFloridaBarishandledbytheLawyer
RegulationDepartmentofTheFloridaBar. Consequently,Iamreferringyourcomplainttothe
ACAPdepartmentforprocessing. Anunlicensedpracticeoflawfile hasnotbeenopenedanda
findingregardingunlicensedpracticeoflaworanyunethicalconducthasnotbeennlade.
J;_ly_, -----
Lori S. Holcomb
Director,ClientProtection
cc: ACAP(w/encl.)
Ilsh
651 EastJeffersonStreet Tallahassee,FL 32399-2300(850)561-5600 FAX: (850)561-9405 www.floridabar.org
__ -a...
II '" ..... db I 1111.1111. . . ..". '.JIl. ",.., .
_"'0. I ", ... CI..
, d -JP- I .,........I. 9. '.1.. r t . ..
...IlIilItiIi.:::!!...--..---..-----....---..---..---.......... --
,,-.pttS.' THE FLORIDA BAR
FiRST-CLASS MAll
Hasler
651 EAsTJEFFERSONSTREET
5 12/05/2013 A:
:' TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300
$OO.46
Q
[!1i tam::e
1 I

ZIP 32399
-. _.

011D11637246
Visit our web site: www.FLORIDABAR.org
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 11Sth Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
:::;448i $3507 ROE:7 ,I h'" II ,i ,i I' i' i" 'J j"", II dill J' II JI j" 111, j " JJ' JJ' iJI JJII'
l _
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
John F. Harkness, Jr. 850/561-5600
Executive Director www.FLORIDABAR.org
December 4, 2013
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
I ~ r e n ~ r e ~
Re: Ryan Christopher Rodems
\f\1 DEC 0 S! 2013 \lJ)
The FIoddB Bar - /Jl;AP
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
TeD8h8BI98. FIoItt8
I am in receipt of your unlicensed practice of law complaint against Mr. Rodems.
Mr. Rodem is a member of The Florida Bar. You allege that Mr. Rodems engaged in the
unlicensed practice of law. If Mr. Rodems engaged in the unlicensed practice of law, a finding I
am not making, he may be in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and subject to
discipline. Whether he is in violation or subject to discipline is beyond the scope of the
Unlicensed Practice of Law department, therefore, I am not making a finding in this regard. An
investigation into unetl1ical conduct by a member of The Florida Bar is handled by the Lawyer
Regulation Departn1ent of The Florida Bar. Consequently, I am referring your complaint to the
ACAP department for processing. An unlicensed practice of law file has not been opened and a
finding regarding unlicensed practice of law or any unethical conduct has not been made.
J_
Iy
_' -----
Lori S. Holcomb
Director, Client Protection
cc: ACAP (w/encl.)
Ilsh
651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 (850) 561-5600 FAX: (850) 561-9405 wwwJloridabar.org
TheFloridaBar
UnlicensedPracticeofLaw
ComplaintForm
PleasecarefullyreviewthiscomplaintformonceyouhaveIncludedallInformation. NotethatthereIsa
requirementforyoutoexecutetheoathattheendofthisform. FalsestatementsmadeIn badfaithor
with malicemaysUbjectyou tocivil orcriminalliability. Acopyofyourcomplaintmaybesenttothe
nonlawyerduringthecourseoftheInvestigation. Additionally,Ifthenonlawyeraskswhocomplained,
yournamewill be provided. FurtherInformationmaybe found In the pamphlet-Filingan Unlicensed
PracticeofLawComplalnt.-
YourName: NeilJ. Gillespie Nonlawyer'sName: RyanChristopher o d e m s
Address: 8092SW115thLoop Address: 501 E. KennedyBlvd,suite790
City: Ocala State:Florida City: Tampa State:Florida
ZipCode: 34481 ZipCode: 33602
Telephone:L3S2-8S4-7807 _
Telephone:( ) 813-489-1001-
DESCRIBEYOURCOMPLAINT,PROVIDEDATESANDFACTSOFALLEGEDMISCONDUCTANDArrACHACOpyOF
RELEVANTDOCUMENTS. YOURCOMPLAINTANDDOCUMENTSWILLBESCANNED. PLEASELIMITCOMPLAINT
ANDAlTACHMENTSTO25PAGES. (Use8 separe.sheetIfnecesury. Donotwrite ontheback ofthisforml)
Pleaseseetheaccompanyingseparate13pagecomplaint, indexand 11 pagesofexhibits,25pagestotalwiththisform
Underpenaltyofperjury,IdeclarethatIhavereadtheforegoingdocument8ndthattothebestofmyknowledge
andbeliefthefactsstatecllnItaretrue. II"
RETURNTOTHEFLORIDABAR
UPLDepartment
ThefloridaBar
SUite2580
4200GeorIeJ.BeenPkwy.
Tempa,FL 33607-1496
UPLDepertment
TheFIor1d8 Bar
TheGeteweycenter
Suite1625
1000LellOnPlace
OrIenclo,FL32801-1050
UPLDepartment
TheFlorideBar
LakeShore PIeDII
Suite130
1300ConcordTerrece
Sunrise,FL 33323
UPLDepertnlent
TheFlorideBar
RIve,..tePI8Z8
SulteM-1oo
444BrickellAvenue
m ~ FL 33131
UPLDepartment
TheFlorldeBar
651E.JeffersonSt.
Tenehe....,FL 32399-2300
J ohn F. Harkness, Executive Director Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar Florida Bar Orlando Branch Office
651 East J efferson Street 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 Orlando, Florida 32801-1050
Email: jharkness@flabar.org Email: N/A
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP293177657 VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291883263
Lori Holcomb, UPL Counsel, Unlicensed Patricia M. Moring, Chair
Practice Of Law Standing Committee Fifth Circuit UPL Committee
The Florida Bar, 651 East J efferson Street Moring & Moring, P.A.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 7655 W. Gulf To Lake Hwy. Suite 12
Email: lholcomb@flabar.org Crystal River, Florida 34429-7910
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP292179273 Email: pmoring@moringlaw.com
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291921686
November 25, 2013
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, violation of Rule 10-2.1(a),
unlawfully represented the state of Florida in a federal court action
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of The Florida Bar:
Enclosed please find my signed UPL complaint and UPL form for Ryan Christopher Rodems,
Bar ID 947652, for the Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL). Wet-ink signed documents were
provided to Mr. Harkness. Copies provided otherwise. [Rule 2.515(c), Fla.R.J ud.Admin.].
Mr. Rodems, while licensed as a Florida attorney in private practice, engaged in the unlicensed
practice of law as defined by The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 102.1(a):
Rules Governing Unlicensed Practice, 10-2 Definitions
Rule 10-2.1. Generally
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL when he represented the state of Florida in a federal court action
J une 21, 2011. The case is Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida et al, case no.
5:10-cv-503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division.
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the state of Florida in a federal court action,
Fla. Const. Art IV 4, F.S. 16.01, State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein. Mr. Rodems is not the
Attorney General of Florida. Pam Bondi was then, and is now, the Attorney General of Florida.
This matter, inter alia, is before the Supreme Court of the United States, Petition No. 13-7280,
Neil J . Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. et al. The Florida Bar is a cross-party for
political persecution of me in retaliation for me seeking a First Amendment redress of grievances
in Petition No. 12-7747, and Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 5:11-cv-539-WTH-TBS.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 2
U.S. Supreme Court review is discretionary, and less than 100 of the approximately 10,000
petitions filed are granted certiorari per Term. Denial is not a judgment on the merits of a case.
Florida Bar Rule 3-7.4(e) No Delay for Civil or Criminal Proceedings. An investigation shall not
be deferred or suspended without the approval of the board even though the respondent is made a
party to civil litigation or is a defendant or is acquitted in a criminal action, notwithstanding that
either of such proceedings involves the subject matter of the investigation.
I. Only the Attorney General of Florida can represent the state of Florida
in a federal court action.
The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.
(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the office
of the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutor
shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of
criminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a
related transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or more
judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed
by the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicial
nominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.
Only the Attorney General of Florida can represent the state of Florida in a federal court action,
which in Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit FL et al, case 5:10-cv-503, are the Defendants:
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit of Florida
Claudia Rickert Isom, Florida Circuit Court J udge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)
J ames M. Barton, II, Florida Circuit Court J udge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
Martha J . Cook, Florida Circuit J udge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)
David A. Rowland, Legal Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit of Florida
Florida case law holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to appoint counsel to
represent the state of Florida:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorney
to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.
Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
Section 16.01 Florida Statutes:
16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:
(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or
criminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in the
Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 3
Under Fla Const Art IV 4, and FS 16.01, the Attorney General has both statutory and
common-law powers to appear in and attend to actions in which the State of Florida is
a party, which powers would include the right to institute suits under either state or
federal law without specific authorization of the individual governmental entities which
have allegedly sustained the local injuries asserted in the attorney general's suit. Thus, the
Attorney General could properly file an antitrust action against 17 major oil companies
notwithstanding the absence of explicit authorization from the state departments,
agencies, or political subdivisions affected by the alleged anticompetitive activities.
State of Fla. ex reI. Shevin v. Exxon Corp., 526 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1976), reh'g denied,
529 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1976).
II. Pamala J o Bondi is the Attorney General of Florida.
The Attorney General of Florida is an elected cabinet official of the Executive Branch who
serves as the chief legal officer of the State of Florida, a position of public trust created by the
Florida Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(b), authorized by 16.01 et seq., Florida Statutes.
The current Attorney General of Florida is Pamela J o Bondi who took office on J anuary 4, 2011,
and swore to support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States
and of the State of Florida [Fla. Const. Art II 5(b)], 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, or conflict of interest. Her term will expire on J anuary 6, 2015.
III. Ryan Christopher Rodems is not the Attorney General of Florida.
The Declaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems (Exhibit 1), Document 92, filed April 25, 2001 in
the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case 8:99-cv-
02795-RAL, Neil Gillespie, et al v. AMSCOT CORPORATION, states in relevant part:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. I am a member in
good standing of the Florida Bar and this Court. I am a founding partner of the law firm
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., counsel for Plaintiffs in this case. This declaration is
made on personal knowledge.
5. Before forming Barker, Rodems & Cook in J anuary, 2001, I was a partner in the
law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. During my tenure, the firm
was lead and co-counsel in numerous class action lawsuits in state and federal courts
across the United States, including this Court. I worked extensively on many of these
cases and had primary file responsibility for several of them.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
April 23, 2001. Signed, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 4
I am Neil Gillespie, one of the Plaintiffs in Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL, Neil Gillespie, et al v.
AMSCOT Corporation. Misconduct and subsequent conflict of my former counsel with me on
the same matter as the previous representation is responsible for this legal disaster, along with
the failure of The Florida Bar to administer, apply, and interpret The Rules Regulating The
Florida Bar in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence,
personal self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
All three partners of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. were a part of the AMSCOT case, former
representation of me where they concocted a closing statement fraud to steal $7,143 from me.
The following Appendices are available and online http://www.scribd.com/doc/186736628/
Appendix 1 Declaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems, AMSCOT 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ
Appendix 2 Affidavit of Neil Gillespie, AMSCOT case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ
Appendix 3 Declaration of William J . Cook, AMSCOT case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ
Appendix 4 Declaration of Chris A. Barker, AMSCOT case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ
The general sequence of cases and events in this matter are as follows:
1. Mr. Rodems et al. stole by closing statement fraud $7,143 from my settlement in Case 8:99-
cv-02795-RAL, Gillespie, et al v. AMSCOT while on appeal in 01-14761-AA, C.A.11.
2. Upon learning of the fraud I contacted The Florida Bar, whereupon Mr. Rodems et al. accused
me of criminal extortion for making a $4,524 settlement offer as suggested by The Florida Bar
under ACAP, the Attorney Consumer Assistance Program, RFA No. 03-18867, J une 12, 2003.
3. Florida Bar Counsel William Lance Thompson opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C)
J une 28, 2004 on my complaint against William J . Cook. After six months Mr. Thompson was
gone, and Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal corruptly closed the file
February 9, 2005 without finding misconduct, and has defended her wrong decision ever since.
4. August 11, 2005 I commenced Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook et al, 05-CA-7205,
Hillsborough Co. J udge Richard Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems false legal argument to a claim
of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs that established my cause of action for fraud, and
breach of contract against William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. See Order On
Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, entered J anuary 13, 2006 that established res
judicata, forever barring Mr. Rodems false legal argument from this case.
5. Tampa attorney David M. Snyder informed Mr. Rodems by letter September 7, 2006 that
Mr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss, and Rodems counterclaim had
little chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution and privileged nature....
Mr. Snyder proposed settlement to Rodems, payment to me of $6,224.78, but he rejected.
6. February 26, 2007 The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service referred Robert W. Bauer, who
entered his appearance in 05-CA-7205 April 2, 2007. Mr. Bauer was not competent, (4-1.1) not
diligent (4-1.3). Bauer churned $31,863 in fees benefiting himself, then moved to withdrawal
October 13, 2008 in 05-CA-7205 and 2D08-2224; withdrawal was denied in 2D08-2224; granted
in 05-CA-7205, October 9, 2009 by J udge J ames Barton. I was pro se from that point onward.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 5
7. Attorney Seldon Childers determined September 17, 2009 that actual damages were
$7,143, not $6,224 as in my complaint; and $100,000 Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation, see
http://www.scribd.com/doc/173453711/Thank-You-for-Moral-Courage
8. September 28, 2010, from Petition No. 12-7747, Statement of the Case, paragraphs 2-5:
On the morning of September 28, 2010 Gillespie needed the assistance and protection of
an Article III federal judge, the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, and the Ocala Fla. U.S. District
Court, in a 5 year-old Fla. state court lawsuit gone bad with Ryan Christopher Rodems[fn1],
of Barker, Rodems & Cook, that cheated Gillespie in a prior case. The Fla. suit was to
recover the money.
Gillespies Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-cv-00503 pled violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rights under section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit.
Unfortunately Gillespie did not get federal assistance or protection;[fn2] things got worse[fn3].
Mr. Rodems was somehow representing the State of Florida J une 21, 2011 and moved to
dismiss Gillespies federal claims against the State of Florida which he assigned to himself
and his partners. But only the Florida AG may represent the State of Florida in a federal
court action.
The above is from page 4, Petition 12-7747, and appears at Exhibit 5, and shows the footnotes.
Note for impeachment: Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. was formed when Chris A. Barker
submitted August 2, 2000 Articles of Incorporation for Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., filed
August 4, 2000 by the Florida Department of State, see Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. Mr. Rodems
wrongly attested in his Declaration (Exhibit 1) that Barker, Rodems & Cook (BRC) was formed
in J anuary, 2001; it was not. BRC was formed four (4) months earlier, August 4, 2000.
So it appears Mr. Rodems lied in his Declaration made under penalty of perjury. A letter to me
December 6, 2000 from William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., announced on
letterhead of Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A., formation of our own law firm:
I, along with my partners, Chris Barker and Chris Rodems, are pleased to announce the
formation of our own law firm. I will be happy to take your case with me if you would
like; however, you have the option of deciding whether you wish to remain with our
current firm or whether you wish to retain new attorneys to handle your case.
The letter appears at Exhibit 4. From August 4, 2000 through December 6, 2000, Mr. Rodems
and partners William J . Cook and Chris A. Barker operated two law firms contemporaneously
and in conflict with me and my lawyer J onathan Alpert, etc. as shown in two court pleadings,
which are also posed on Scribd due to the size of the documents (151 pages; and 190 pages):
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint w/motion to amend, Gillespie v. BRC, 05-CA-7205,
May 5, 2010. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55956605/
Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker,
Rodems & Cook, PA, Gillespie v. BRC, 05-CA-7205, http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 6
IV. Unlicensed Practice of Law by Mr. Rodems J une 21, 2011 in the federal court action
shown here, my federal civil rights (Section 1983) and disability (ADA) lawsuit:
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida et al, case no. 5:10-cv-503-WTH-
(DAB)-TBS, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division.
Mr. Rodems represented, by filing motions and other papers in federal court on behalf of
multiple State-of-Florida-Defendants, that he was authorized to represent the State of Florida,
when in fact he was not authorized. Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the
State of Florida in a federal court action, and Mr. Rodems is not the Attorney General of Florida.
Unfortunately Mr. Rodems violated Rule 11(b), F.R.C.P., and mislead three federal judicial
officers in the performance of their duty in case 5:10-cv-503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS.
United States District J udge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge,
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 - present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398)
United States Magistrate J udge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893)
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to J uly-29-2011
United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269)
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 J uly-29-2011 to February-27-2012
Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions,
(b) Representations to the Court... http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose...
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law...
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support...
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted ...
(c) Sanctions.
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately...
(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney...show cause
Mr. Rodems submitted Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With
Prejudice (Doc. 32) J une 21, 2011, which appears as Exhibit 6, and states:
On J une 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J . Cook. See Exhibit "1".
Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
J udge Hodges did not respond to Mr. Rodems, or his motion at Doc. 32.
Exhibit 1 is a Settlement Agreement And General Mutual Release that Mr. Rodems
improperly obtained from me earlier that day while I was in coercive custody in the Tampa
Courthouse on an active bodily-attachment civil arrest order corruptly obtained by Mr. Rodems
from J udge Arnold during an ex parte hearing J une 1, 2011 without disability accommodation.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 7
The public defender (PD) was appointed to represent me at the J une 1, 2011 hearing. J udge Arnold
relieved the PD, without allowing time to find replacement counsel. The hearing proceeded ex
parte with predictable results: Rodems lied to the Court and got his order to arrest me.
J udge Arnold did not hear my motions below, or provide disability accommodation:
May 24, 2011 I filed Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law in 05-CA-7205, cross-filed in the District Court and is on
PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Doc. 37 Filed 07/07/11 (449 pages).
May 27, 2011 I filed Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J . Gillespie in
05-CA-7205. Dr. Huffers report is found at Exhibit 1 therein. Cross-filed in District Court
on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11.
The J une 21, 2011 custody is described in 5 FL Supreme Court petition SC11-1622, J an-09-2012.
5. At the direction of J udge Arnold I voluntarily appeared J une 21, 2011 for a deposition
at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa to purge the contempt and rescind the arrest
warrant, but that turned out to be a trap to force a walk-away settlement agreement in the
lawsuits. Upon my arrival at the courthouse, I was taken into custody and involuntarily
confined by two Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputies, Deputy Randy Olding and
Deputy Larry Berg. I was denied accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Federal Protection and Advocacy for
Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq. After being held in custody during
the deposition for over four (4) hours without a lunch break, or the usual mid-day meal
provided to a prisoner, I became confused and disoriented. The record (A.4.1.125) shows
that I was so impaired that I could not make a decision to sign the agreement. My counsel
Eugene Castagliuolo (A.7), whom I hired from Craigslist a couple weeks earlier, made
the decision to settle because judges have mud on their shoes. I signed the agreement
while confused and in a diminished state. Castagliuolo disobeyed my prior written
and verbal instructions not to accept a walk-away settlement agreement. Once I was
released from custody and had a meal, I realized the settlement was a mistake and
promptly disaffirmed the agreement by written notice to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo
and Major J ames Livingston of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office. (A.2.1.2-3).
The Settlement Agreement And General Mutual Release at Exhibit 1 (Doc. 32) purports to
settle my federal civil rights (Section 1983) and disability (ADA) lawsuit against the state of
Florida Defendants shown in part I, and assigned my claims to Mr. Rodems and his partners.
Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlement
agreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I was
unlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Florida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 8
Mr. Rodems again violated Rule 11(b) on J uly 14, 2011 when submitted Response to Plaintiff
Neil J . Gillespies Motion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment Of Claims
And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice [DKT 33], (Doc. 40) which appears as
Exhibit 7, pages 1-2 of Mr. Rodems response. (not the transcript). Mr. Rodems wrote in part:
Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract the settlement agreement Gillespie
asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of
Florida and therefore he cannot represent the State of Florida in federal litigation.
U.S. Magistrate J udge Thomas Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that the proper method of
challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700
F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). The Order appears at Exhibit 8. Therefore I filed a Notice
of Objection (Doc. 63) which appears at Exhibit 9.
J udge Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems Notice Of
Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). Exhibit 10.
Due to mental impairment and disability, it took me a long time, about 1 year, 5 months, and 14
days, to figure out why J udge Hodges did not grant Rodems UPL motions. Once I understood
that Rodems engaged in UPL, I made a Bar complaint J anuary 4, 2013 to ACAP in Tallahassee,
but I did not hear back until Mr. Clark wrote me May 16, 2013 with the excuse Your secondary
complaint was incorporated into your original complaint against Mr. Rodems. and dismissed.
While the dismissal of my Bar complaint was a sham, Rodems UPL was not considered.
May 29, 2013 I reached the understanding that since Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL, I failed to
make the necessary or proper UPL complaint, and submit it to the UPL office. Ironically this
knowledge came thanks to Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me May 1, 2013.
U.S. Supreme Court - Petition No. 12-7747 - filed December 10, 2012
Question Presented No. 1:
1. Can a Florida lawyer in private practice usurp the authority of an Article III federal
judge in a federal civil rights and disability lawsuit, by improperly representing the State
of Florida during a coercive custody of the disabled and mentally impaired petitioner to
force a settlement, and assign the petitioners claims against the State of Florida to
himself and his law partners, then move to dismiss the federal lawsuit with prejudice on
behalf of the State of Florida?
The answer is no. Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a
federal court action, Fla. Const. Art IV 4, F.S. 16.01, State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein.
Petition No. 12-7747 was denied February 19, 2013. Rehearing was denied April 15, 2013.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 9
Respondents Fraud or Impairment of Petition No. 12-7747
In May 2013 Diana R. Esposito, Florida Chief-Assistant Attorney General, provided me
incriminating public records showing Respondent David A. Rowland, General Counsel for
Respondent Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, concocted with others a fraud to falsely portray
to Kenneth Wilson, Florida Assistant Attorney General, that I did not serve Mr. Rowland my
petition as I certified under Supreme Court Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he relied on Rowlands
fraud, and did not submit a brief in opposition due the Supreme Court J anuary 14, 2013.
Without a response, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi denied me due process under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. The U.S. Supreme Court relies on opposition briefs as part of its
adversarial process to properly litigate and decide a petition. Floridas opposition brief was due
J anuary 14, 2013. AG Bondi did not respond for Florida, thus no opposition brief was distributed
for the Supreme Courts Conference February 15, 2013.
Now I am being persecuted by The Florida Bar, U.S. J udge William Terrell Hodges, and Florida
attorneys Ryan C. Rodems and Eugene P. Castagliuolo, in retaliation for Petition No. 12-7747.
Specific examples of current and ongoing political persecution of me include:
1. The Florida Bar for a vexatious investigation of me for Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL).
2. Mr. Rodems made the UPL complaint against me for representing myself and my interests.
3. J udge Hodges corruptly assisted McCalla Raymer in a wrongfully foreclosure of my home.
4. Mr. Castagliuolo ongoing threats to interfere with my Social Security disability income.
The following legal proceedings show Rodems wrongdoing, regardless of [corrupt] outcomes.
Petition No. 13-7280 for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court, October 23, 2013
See Exhibit 11, page 6, Statement of the Case, and Exhibit 12, page 34, UPL in Florida.
See pp. 35-37, corruption 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2), mail fraud 1341, honest services 1346
Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
Petition No. SC11-1622 for writ of mandamus, Florida Supreme Court, J anuary 9, 2012
TFB v Rodems, 2013-10, 271 (13E) wrongly dismissed by letter of Mr. Clark J une 14, 2013
Complaint shows Rodems got numerous complaints from other clients and pro se litigants.
United Nations Urgent Appeal for Protection from Political Persecution
To: Gabriela Knaul, U.N. Special Rapporteur, Independence of J udges and Lawyers, Geneva,
Shuaib Chalklen, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Disability United Nations Enable, New York
Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, I have a well-founded fear of political persecution
Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, fraud or impairment of Petition 12-7747, a legitimate government
activity (18 U.S.C. 371), deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. 242), conspiracy
against rights (18 U.S.C. 241). It appears Attorney General Bondi et al. was part of this fraud.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 10
Additional rules and case law supporting a finding of UPL against Mr. Rodems
The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 417 (Fla. 1980). the single most important concern
in the Court's defining and regulating the practice of law is the protection of the public from
incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation.
I am a member of the public, and a FORMER CLIENT, harmed by the unethical Mr. Rodems.
Rule 4-8.6 Authorized Business Entities (d) Violation of Statute or Rule. A lawyer who, while
acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, manager, agent, or employee of an
authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the
violation of...the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall be subject to disciplinary action.
Unfortunately The Florida Bar has failed to administer, apply, and interpret The Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion,
improper influence, personal self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component of the administration of
justice, and, as such, his conduct is subject to judicial supervision and scrutiny. State ex
rel. Florida Bar v. Evans, 94 So.2d 730 (1957).
The Florida Bar has not held Mr. Rodems accountable to the Standards of Professionalism found
in Florida Supreme Court Order SC13-688:
1.1 Standards of Professionalism: The Standards of Professionalism are set forth in the
Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar, The Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism, The
Florida Bar Ideals and Goals of Professionalism, The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar
and the decisions of The Florida Supreme Court.
or Rules found in the Ethics Department Informational Packet Candor Toward the Tribunal, and
Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Florida Bar has not protected me from Mr. Rodems UPL as defined by Rule 10-2.1(a),
Rules Governing Unlicensed Practice, 10-2 Definitions
Rule 10-2.1. Generally
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
The Florida Bar has not protected me from Mr. Rodems UPL as prohibited by The Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar, and case law like McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc, especially,
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm
and partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2)
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 11
substantial risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the
lawyer's responsibilities to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems.
See Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, J uly 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on
Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-
Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-J uly-09-2010
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another
person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are
materially adverse to the interests of the former client. (b) use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal information relating to
the representation about the client. Mr. Rodems firm and law partner represented me the
Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and consulted with me on disability matters with Florida
DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to
Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems J uly 9, 2010.
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All
Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing
so. Mr. Rodems has an imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William
Cook previously represented me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan
Christopher Rodems J uly 9, 2010.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been an
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered J une 30, 1995 by J udge Kovachevich:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional
impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.
[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show
existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for
purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing
party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court
must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal
advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial
relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant
and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information
was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
November 25, 2013
Page - 12
Failure of The Florida Bar to Uphold Disability Statutes and Regulations, Etc.
The Florida Bar has not upheld disability statutes or regulatory provision that either are designed
to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves or establish a
duty to take precautions to guard a certain class of persons from a specific type of injury. Failure
to do so establishes negligence per se. Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d
1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 3d Dist. 1978).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)
Chapter 825 et seq., Fla. Stat., Abuse and Exploitation of Disabled Adults
Stalking or harassment, 784.048(2) and (4), Fla. Stat., and violation of court-imposed
prohibition thereof, which is crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 16(b) (2000), see In re Fernando
MALTA-Espinoza, Respondent, DOJ File A92 717 834 - Eloy
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq.
Federal Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801
Counsel appointment, C.A.11, Addenda Five, 11th Cir. R., Non-Criminal J ustice Act
ABA Basic Principles of a Right to Counsel in Civil Legal Proceedings
Pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam); I was wrongly sanctioned $11,550 thereof.
Under the Eggshell Skull Rule, defendant is liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon
reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. If the defendant commits a tort against the
plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury that is magnified by
the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule
Unfortunately the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit is a dangerous and vindictive jurisdiction.
Hillsborough J udge Gregory Holders life was in danger for reporting judicial crimes and
misconduct. I prepared a composite of documents and news stories about J udge Holder found at
this link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/171038398/J udge-Who-Did-Not-Conform
Public files in the above J QC cases and J udge Holder are posted on the Florida Supreme Court
website: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
UPL Standing Committee
The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law,
has adopted a broad definition of what constitutes the practice of law, and any requests for a
legal opinion concerning possible unauthorized practice of law on the part of agents or
employees of a municipality in the preparation of legal instruments for the acquisition and
conveyance of real property or easements and other interest therein, should properly be
addressed to the standing committee on unauthorized practice of law of the Florida bar.
Op.Atty.Gen., 075129, May 5, 1975.
The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act
constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978).
UPL complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rule 10-2.1(a)
Page - 13
November 25, 2013
People of Florida Entitled to be Represented by the Attorney General
Generally, in any proceeding in which the rights and interests of the people of the state are
necessarily involved, they are entitled to be represented in the proceedings by the Attorney
General. Watson v. Claughton, 160 Fla. 217, 34 So. 2d 243 (1948).
Department of Legal Affairs, Office of Civil Rights
Fla. Stat. 16.57, as amended in 2003, authorizes the Attorney General to investigate alleged
civil rights violations under chapter 760.
Fla. Stat. 760.021, as added in 2003, provides that the Attorney General may commence a civil
action for damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other relief against any person or group
perpetuating discriminatory practices. Any damages recovered shall accrue to the injured party.
Neil J. Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida et aI, case no. 5:10-cv-503-WTH-(DAB)-
TBS, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, is a civil rights lawsuit:
1. This lawsuit arises under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42
U.S.C., Chapter 126, Equal Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities,...
Plaintiff also makes clainls under 42 U.S.C. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights,
and the following amendments to the Constitution of the United States: The Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments as to Due Process; The Eight Amendment as to Cruel &
Unusual Punishment; and the Fourteenth Amendment as to Equal Protection. This
lawsuit also brings claims under Article 1, Section 21 of the Constitution of the State of
Florida, Access to Courts; Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of
Florida, Excessive Punishments. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. 1331, 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1367. NOTE: The Complaint was served under Rule 4(d) waiver. See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/172064977/Thirteenth-Judicial-Circuit-Service-of-Process-Appendix
The Attorney General of Florida should have appeared in this matter, and represented me.
Mr. Rodems should be found guilty ofUPL and related misconduct, and permanently disbarred
from the practice of law, see Florida Standards For Applying Lawyer Discipline, Standard 6.11.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that to the best
of my knowledge and belief the facts stated in it are true.
Sincerely, '/j
~ e i l i. i e s ~
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481 http://www.scribd.com/doc/186795159/UPL-Complaint-RCR
UPL Complaint - Ryan Christopher Rodems - November 25, 2013
Index to Exhibits - due to The Bars 25 page limit, not all Exhibits are provided. The
complaint posted online includes all Exhibits, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/186795159/
Exhibit 1 Declaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems, Document 92, filed April 25, 2001 in
3p-enclosed the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL, Neil Gillespie, et al v. AMSCOT CORPORATION
Exhibit 2 Articles of Incorporation, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., filed August 4, 2000 by
3p-available the Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations
Exhibit 3 2013 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report, filed J anuary 25, 2013
1p-available Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., active Florida Profit Corporation
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Ste. 790, Tampa, FL 33602
Chris A. Barker, Registered Agent: 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL
Chris A. Barker, President: 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL
Ryan C. Rodems, Vice President: 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL
William J . Cook, Secretary Treasurer: 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL
Exhibit 4 Letter December 6, 2000 by William J . Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., on
1p-available letterhead of Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A., new firm open.
Exhibit 5 Statement of the Case, page 4, Petition No. 12-7747 writ of certiorari, SCOTUS
1p-enclosed
Exhibit 6 U.S.D.C. 5:10-cv-503, Mr. Rodems Notice Of Assignment of Claims And
4p-enclosed Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32) J une 21, 2011.
Exhibit 7 U.S.D.C. 5:10-cv-503, Response to Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespies Motion To Strike
2p-available Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment Of Claims And Motion For
Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice [DKT 33] (Doc. 40) J uly 14, 2011.
Exhibit 8 U.S.D.C. 5:10-cv-503, Order (Doc. 51) U.S. Magistrate J udge Thomas B. Smith
3p-available October 6, 2011, inter alia, proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a
notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Exhibit 9 U.S.D.C. 5:10-cv-503, Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) filed pro se by Neil J .
2p-available Gillespie, J anuary 12, 2012.
Exhibit 10 U.S.D.C. 5:10-cv-503, Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) U.S. J udge Hodges,
2p-available February 27, 2012, inter alia, did not grant Notice Of Assignment of Claims And
Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32) filed by Mr. Rodems.
Exhibit 11 Statement of the Case, page 6, Petition No. 13-7280 writ of certiorari, SCOTUS
1p-enclosed
Exhibit 12 Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) in the state of Florida, page 34, Petition No.
1p-enclosed 13-7280 writ of certiorari, SCOTUS
Response Appendix UPL-D, http://www.scribd.com/doc/186736628/
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 157 of 316 PageID 1048
1
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 158 of 316 PageID 1049
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 159 of 316 PageID 1050
2
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, STE. 790
TAMPA, FL 33602
Current Principal Place of Business:
Current Mailing Address:
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, STE. 790
TAMPA, FL 33602 US
Entity Name: BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
DOCUMENT# P00000075354
FEI Number: 59-3672653 Certificate of Status Desired:
Name and Address of Current Registered Agent:
BARKER, CHRIS A
501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD
SUITE 790
TAMPA, FL 33602 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 :
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:
Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail
Date
FILED
Jan 25, 2013
Secretary of State
WILLIAM J. COOK SECRETARY
01/25/2013
2013 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT
No

Title P
Name BARKER, CHRIS A
Address 501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD,
SUITE 790
City-State-Zip: TAMPA FL 33602
Title ST
Name COOK, WILLIAM J
Address 501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD,
SUITE 790
City-State-Zip: TAMPA FL 33602
Title VP
Name RODEMS, RYAN C
Address 501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD,
SUITE 790
City-State-Zip: TAMPA FL 33602
3

ALPERT,BARKER, RODEMS, & COOK

PROFESSIO:>:AL ASSOCI' 1'10:>:
.HTOR:>:nS AT l'"
... ;)!: S< ;JF
100 SOLHI \SlIl.Y DRI'. Slll !OOO .\t..\ILl:-.l(;
?::>5; Jr,'" ;l,:( J':
T."IP\. F1.0RIO, JJbO!
.V:... :. .:. -.1 J C.::)'" =;. ]3'3-';'.1'::-':
:" ==".:;;;:J!-I.) N t: l.>j!] 1 2 J . .: . j:
;:: J,,;( '::I 1 ); ::.:: J ;loj I'::
December6, 2000
Neil J. Gillespie
ApartmentC-2
1121 BeachDriveNE
St. Petersburg, Florida33701-1434
Re: Gillespiev. ACEAmerica'sCash Express. Inc.
U.S.D.C.,MiddleDistrict,Florida,CaseNO.8 :OOCY-723- T-23B
OurFileNo. 00.4813
Dear Neil:
I, along with my partners, Chris Barker and Chris Rodems, are pleased to announce the
formation of our own law firm. I willbe happy to take your case withme if you would like; however,
you have theoptionofdecidingwhetheryouwishto remainwithourcurrent firm orwhetheryOLi
wish to retainnewattorneystohandleyourcase.
Shouldyouwishformetotakeyourfile, pleaseexecutetheattachedClientConsentf0l11l and
return it to meassoonaspossible.
Thankyouforyourtimeandattentionto thismatterandIlookforward to hearing from you
soon.
Sincerely, 4; /
/ , Il
t
vv
0f7
WilliamJ. Cook
WJC/mss
Enclosures
4
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
My name is Neil J . Gillespie, the petitioner appearing pro se, a law-abiding consumer of
legal and court services affecting interstate commerce, among other things. (Gillespie).
On the morning of September 28, 2010 Gillespie needed the assistance and protection of
an Article III federal judge, the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, and the Ocala Fla. U.S. District Court,
in a 5 year-old Fla. state court lawsuit gone bad with Ryan Christopher Rodems
1
, of Barker,
Rodems & Cook, that cheated Gillespie in a prior case. The Fla. suit was to recover the money.
Gillespies Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-cv-00503 pled violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rights under section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit.
Unfortunately Gillespie did not get federal assistance or protection;
2
things got a worse
3
.
Mr. Rodems was somehow representing the State of Florida J une 21, 2011 and moved to
dismiss Gillespies federal claims against the State of Florida which he assigned to himself and
his partners. But only the Florida AG may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action.

1
The Florida Bar opened complaint no. 2013-10,271 (13E) against Mr. Rodems Sep-13, 2012.
2
Respondent J udge Martha Cook held Gillespie in civil contempt with writ of bodily attachment
during an ex parte hearing, where she made a false record that he elected to leave. Fortunately
the bailiff, Deputy C.E. Brown, told his commander that J udge Cook ordered Gillespie to leave.
This was after Gillespie provided her a copy of the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503, filed hours before.
Mr. Rodems got a warrant to arrest Gillespie on the pretext of a court-ordered deposition after
the case was closed and on appeal. In 2008 Respondent J udge J ames Barton awarded $11,550 to
Mr. Rodems in attorney-fee sanctions, blaming Gillespie for Mr. Rodems earlier misconduct
and disruption of the tribunal. Gillespie was later incompetently represented by Respondent
Robert Bauer, at a cost of $31,863, referred from the Fla. Bar. His 2d Bar complaint is enclosed.
3
The public defender was appointed to represent Gillespie J une 1, 2011 at a civil contempt
hearing, but the judge relieved the defender at the hearing and immediately entered an order to
arrest Gillespie. For twenty-one days law enforcement sought Gillespie, who was at home with
the blinds closed working on his appeal. Day after day the sheriff came pounding on the door
looking to arrest Gillespie. On J une 3, 2011 Gillespie hired attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo off
Craigslist to prepare for the deposition, but that was a disaster, and the Bar opened a complaint.
5
Petition No. 12-7747, SCOTUS
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 600
6
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID 601
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID 602
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID 603
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,
Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants.
____________________________________/

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIES MOTION TO STRIKE OR SET
ASIDE MR. RODEMS NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AND MOTION
FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT 33]

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. Dkt 32, Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the
Assignees moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt 32.
Gillespie now moves this Court to set aside the settlement agreement reached wherein he
assigned the claims in this action to Assignees. Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion,
and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract -- the
settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
1


1
Notwithstanding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gillespies recitation of the
events surrounding the settlement are belied by the record. The settlement agreement was signed
by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie
stated to his attorney, Ill defer to your judgment on this. Gillespies attorney stated, Ive
already given you judgment in private, and Ill give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is
an agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest. (Exhibit 1). Gillespie
now claims that he signed under duress, lacked informed consent, and asserts other reasons it
should be set aside, none of which are supported by the record of the settlement conference.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1350
7
2

The Court should deny Gillespies motion and grant the Assignees motion to dismiss the action,
Dkt 32.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14
th
day of July, 2011.

/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 947652
Attorney for Assignees
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 489-1001
Fax: (813) 489-1008
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
filed using the Courts CM/ECF filing system, which will send an electronic notice of filing to:
Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The
Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer and anyone else registered to receive
such filings. No other defendant has been served.
/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1351
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10DAB
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies Motion to Strike or
Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of
Action with Prejudice and Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and
General Mutual Release (Doc. 33).
When Mr. Gillespie instituted this lawsuit he included as defendants the law firm
of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (the Firm) and attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems
(Doc. 1). Mr. Gillespie sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 13)
but he chose instead to voluntarily dismiss his claims against the Firm and Mr. Rodems
(Doc. 22). Upon receipt of Mr. Gillespies notice of voluntary dismissal the Court
directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing all claims against the Firm and Mr.
Rodems without prejudice (Doc. 25). The Judgment was entered on November 23,
2010 (Doc. 26).
On June 21, 2011, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker and William J.
Cook (the Assignees), filed their Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for
Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (the Notice) (Doc. 32). Attached to the Notice is a
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 51 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1444
8
document entitled Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release (the
Settlement Agreement) (Id.). The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Mr.
Gillespie, the Assignees and the Firm. In the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Gillespie
assigned all claims pending or which could have been brought, based on the
allegations of [Mr. Gillespie], against any person or entity, without limitation, in [this
case]. In return, he received the satisfaction of a judgment.
Mr. Gillespie has motioned this Court to strike or set aside both the Notice and
the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 33). The Assignees served a response to the motion
in which they dispute certain facts alleged by Mr. Gillespie, assert that he does not have
standing to bring his motion to strike and they say this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction (Doc. 40).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that [t]he court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter. (Emphasis supplied). The only pleadings allowed are: (1) a
complaint; (2) the answer to the complaint; (3) the answer to a counterclaim; (4) the
answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party
complaint; and (7) if the Court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.
Because the Notice and Settlement Agreement are not pleadings they are not subject
to a motion to strike. McNair v. Monsanto Co., 279 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1298 (M.D. Ga.
2003)(motion to strike is only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the
pleadings.); Merritt v. Hubb Intern. Southwest Agency Ltd., 2011 WL 4026651, *2
(N.D. Ga. 2011)(motion to strike declaration held procedurally improper because Rule
12(f) only applies to pleadings.); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Belu, 2009
2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 51 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1445
WL 2848995, *3 (N.D. Ga. 2009)(explaining that Rule 12(f) only applies to pleadings);
and Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988)(noting
that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection).
Therefore, Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies Motion to Strike or Set Aside Mr. Rodems
Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice and
Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release (Doc.
33) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on the 6 day of October, 2011.
th
Copies furnished to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Counsel of Record
3
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 51 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1446
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 63 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1794
9
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 63 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1795
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
-vs- Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10TBS
THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint against eleven (11)
Defendants which, by its title, purports to state a claim under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq., as well as various violations of his
constitutional rights.
1
(Doc. 1). The Complaint is due to be dismissed for several reasons.
First, the Plaintiff has never effected service of summons on any of the Defendants,
or complied with any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second, the Complaint
consists of 39 pages of rambling, largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Third, the Complaint fails to allege the basis for the
Courts subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) the parties are
clearly all citizens of Florida and therefore not diverse, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any
1
The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two (2) of the Defendants, Barker
Rodems & Cook, P.A., and Ryan Christopher Rodems, on October 29, 2010 (Docs. 22, 25-26).
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 64 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1796
10
intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. And fourth, it appears that the Plaintiff has assigned all of
his claims in this case to Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and
William J . Cook, who have moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(2). (See Doc. 32).
2
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,
terminate all pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 27th day of February, 2012.
Copies to: Counsel of Record
Neil J . Gillespie, pro se
2
The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlement
agreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, executed
under duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However, the core of the
settlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of various matters
pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have been executed as part
of a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court is the appropriate judicial
body with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the validity and/or enforceability of the
settlement agreement and assignment. This Court will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction)
entertain any disputes within the purview of the settlement agreement unless and until the state
court enters a judgment declaring the settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 64 Filed 02/27/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1797
6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
My name is Neil Gillespie, the petitioner reluctantly appearing pro se
1
, henceforth in the
first person, age 57, a law-abiding, indigent, disabled single man, a surviving reverse mortgage
borrower
2
, and homeowner in a 55+community in Ocala Florida. This petition is to save my
home from a disputed foreclosure
3
of a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage
4
or HECM, a FHA
5
reverse mortgage program administered by the Secretary, United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (Secretary or HUD). My homes value is $74,730 and falling.
The mortgage payoff balance is $114,889. The property is underwater by $40,159. A HECM
cannot be refinanced. A ruling J anuary 4, 2013 in Bennett v. Donovan held in part:
HUD itself has the capability to provide complete relief to the lenders and mortgagors alike,
which eliminates the uncertainty of third-party action that would otherwise block standing.
I bear witness to the uncertainty of third-party action, which here includes political
persecution by The Florida Bar, U.S. J udge William Terrell Hodges, and Florida attorneys Ryan
Christopher Rodems and Eugene P. Castagliuolo, in retaliation for my Petition No. 12-7747 for
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Current political persecution of me includes:
1. The Florida Bar for an open investigation of me for Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL).
2. Mr. Rodems made the UPL complaint against me for representing myself and my interests.
3. J udge Hodges corruptly assisted McCalla Raymer in a wrongfully foreclosure of my home.
4. Mr. Castagliuolo ongoing threats to interfere with my Social Security disability income.

1
I was a client of Community Legal Services of Mid-Fla. which provides legal advice, but not
foreclosure representation. I paid a $25 Florida Bar referral fee to Gregory D. J ones, Esq. but he
has not responded to my disability accommodation request, or consulted with me on UPL.
2
I am one of three (3) HECM borrowers, with brother Mark Gillespie, and mother Penelope
Gillespie, whose death September 16, 2009 Plaintiff claims is grounds to accelerate the debt.
3
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J . Gillespie, et al., Marion County Florida, Fifth
J udicial Circuit, No. 42-2013CA-000115-AXXX-XX; removed February 4, 2013 to U.S. District
Court, Ocala Division, Middle District Florida, No. 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL; U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 13-11585-B; real party Plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A.
4
12 U.S.C. 1715z20 - Insurance of home equity conversion mortgages for elderly
homeowners, and 24 C.F.R. Part 206, Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance.
5
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is a United States government agency.
11
Petition No. 13-7280, SCOTUS
34
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) in the state of Florida
UPL is a 3d felony subject to 5-yrs in prison (454.23), defined by Florida Bar Rule 10-2.1(a):
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me appears in this petition at Appendix L and alleges:
Neil J . Gillespie is not a lawyer. He has...represented a Trust in state and federal court
litigation, and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie...
I am not a lawyer. I appear pro se because I am indigent and financially unable to obtain counsel.
I deny Mr. Rodems allegation that I represented a Trust in state and federal court litigation,
and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie... I represent only my
personal interest for myself, and my personal interest as co-trustee, as permitted by law:
First Amendment right to petition the Governmental for a redress of grievances.
28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 17 capacity (a) real interest (1) own name (E) trustee of express trust
Fla Const, Art I, Sec 21: Access to courts. The courts shall be open to every person for
redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Florida Statutes, 454.18, any person, whether an attorney or not . . . may conduct
his or her own cause in any court of this state.
Fla. Prob. Rule 5.030(a) Exception, see Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy. I appear for my
own interest in the Estate. No one was appointed personal representative of the
Estate by Court Order. The last will and testament of my Mother names Mark
Gillespie personal representative and me as substitute personal representative.
Mark Gillespie, et al, represented in foreclosure by Tiffany Caparas Esq., Kaufman,
Englett and Lynd, PLLC; Notice of Consent to J udgment filed in 42-2013CA-000115
because they have no interest in the property. I only represent my interest in the trust.
Pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard, see Tannenbaum v. United States.
The Courts failed to make a counsel appoint for me on basis of mental, physical and
speech disability. I plan to make a new motion for counsel appointment ASAP.
Order of J udge Cook attached to Rodems UPL complaint is a sham. see U.S. v Terry
The ICCPR provides me additional rights to represent my own interest in a fair court.
I was a client of FLSMF and got legal advice on the foreclosure, no advice of UPL.
UPL by Mr. Rodems: Represented the state of Florida in 5:10-cv-503, J une 21, 2011, prohibited:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action, Fla. Const. Art IV 4, F.S. 16.01, State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein.
Mr. Castagliuolo, misprision of felony 18 U.S.C. 4, J une 21, 2011 failed to report Rodems UPL.
UPL by Mr. Rodems: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205 (and 20 related cases),
prohibited by Fla. Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, and McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.
UPL by paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez, McCalla Raymer, Rule 10-2.1(a), Ethics Opinion 70-62,
activity which requires the attorney's personal judgment and participation; Florida Court, see
emails Aug-07-2013 Gillespie-Martinez (Sep. Vol. App No. 2); District Court, see Rule 11
sanction motion (Doc. 15); Rule 55 motion for default judgment, (Doc. 16); Rule 72/Rule
60(b)(3) Verified Objection to Magistrate Order (Doc. 17); Affidavit 28 U.S.C. 144 (Doc. 22)
12
Petition No. 13-7280, SCOTUS