APPENDIX - Addendum

Amended Application for Order, J une 17, 2014

Appellate Case: 2D10-5197
Lower Tribunal Case: 05-CA-7205; Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, William Cook.
Exhibit 1 Clerk of Court J ames Birkhold, form letter to Gillespie dated October 7, 2013
Exhibit 2 ORDER granting stay, Hillsborough Circuit J udge Marva Crenshaw, September 9, 2008
Exhibit 3 Plaintiffs Motion for Stay, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie, J une 6, 2008
Exhibit 4 Plaintiff's Claim of Exemption and Request for Hearing, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie Aug-14-2008
Exhibit 5 Emergency Request for Hearing, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie, August 11, 2008
Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, Mr. Bauer prohibited Gillespie from attending hearings
Separate Appendix: Bar Complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, 2007-11,162(13D) Feb-20-2007
Separate Appendix: TRANSCRIPT, Circuit J udge Crenshaw, emergency hearing, August 14, 2008
Separate Appendix: Gillespies letter October 1, 2013 to The Hon. Charles A. Davis, J r. Chief J udge
Separate Appendix: J ohn Gardner RFA No. 14-14647 separate appendix, update J une 5, 2014
Separate Appendix, UPL Complaint against Mr. Rodems, unlawfully represented the state of Florida in a
federal court action; Accompanied the Notice of Appeal, December 5, 2013 to the 2dDCA.
Separate Appendix: Amended Disability Motion, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, 43 page motion only; 251 page
motion and exhibits on Scribd at the link below.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11
Motion shows the Americans With Disabilities Act required disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel.
(-;
"";.. /
The FloridaBar 'fD) In!
.Inquiry/Complaint Fonn
FEB 2 2 )UUI
FLORIDA BAR
TAMPA BRANCH
------=..:...:.:...::...:..::::.:...:.-_---
PART ONE: (Read instructions on reverse side.)
Your Name:AJ61
Address: SW 1/6
City: Q'Ct4 IA State: EL-
Phone: CdJ flifC'l Zip Code: 3r't e/
ACAP Refe,-ence No, c:,u'--'d'"N-'-'--"=- _
Attorney's Name:
Address: . Z/tJt:7
City: U/l-tf2L1- ;="L.
Phone: (fi3J I Zip Code: -3-6-'a-.;<-
"
PART TWO: (See reverse, part two.) The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:
, r cJ

PART THREE: (See reverse, part three.) The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
sheet]_
: (See reverse, part four.)
(circle one or the other) attempt to use ACAP to resolve this situation.
To attem 0 resolve this matter, I did the following:
I did / id no
PART FIVE (See reverse. part five.): Under penalty ofpeIjury. I declare the foregoing facts are true. correct
and complete_
PUBLIC RECORD

"'" .../
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
1h
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
VIA US PRIORITY MAIL
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070000320528076
February 20, 2007
The Florida Bar
5521 West Spruce Street, C-49
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958
This is a complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, ID no. 947652.
Enclosed you will find a completed inquiry/complaint form.
My complaint against Mr. Rodems is for his violation of the Rules Regulating the
Florida Bar during his appearance in a civil lawsuit styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William 1. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205. I am the Plaintiff
suing the Defendants, who are my former lawyers. In retaliation my former lawyers
countersued me for. libel over a previous Bar complaint.
Mr. Rodems' misconduct falls into several categories. The first category of his
misconduct involves conflict of interest with a former client (me) and disclosure of my
confidential client information gained during his law firm's prior representation of me,
and his general disregard for the rules as set forth below.
Mr. Rodems' second category of misconduct relates to his allegations that I
committed criminal acts, including his accusation that my Bar complaint against his law
partner, William J. Cook, is criminal extortion under Florida law. Mr. Rodems falsely
accused me of threatening violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers, and when that was
proved false with a tape recording of the conversation, Mr. Rodems accused me of yet a
third crime, a felony for tape recording him. (Even though he wrote me consenting to
being tape recorded).
Mr. Rodems' third category of misconduct is his retaliatory libel counterclaim
against me for writing about a Bar complaint against Mr. Cook in a letter to Ian
PUBLIC RECORD
~
The FloridaBar,Tampa""'- Page- 2of10
February20,2007
MackechnieofAmscotCorporation,afterthecomplaintprocesshadrun itscourse,and
thecomplaintwasamatterof publicrecord. Mr. Rodemsisawarethatmydisclosurehas
absoluteprotectionpursuanttoTobkinv. Jarboe,710So.2d975,ascitedbyMr. Kenneth
LawrenceMarvin,DirectorofLawyerRegulationfortheFloridaBar.
Mr. Rodems' fourthcategoryofmisconductisan incidentofhisperjurythatled
to therecusalofthetrialjudge,theHonorableRichardA. Nielsen.
AnaggravatingfactorinMr. Rodems' misconductisthefact thatIamdisabled,
andMr. Rodemshasusedinformationaboutmydisabilityagainstme, informationhe
learnedfromhislawfirm'spriorrepresentationofme.
Enclosedpleasefind thefollowingdocumentssupportingmycomplaintagainst
Mr. Rodems:
A. MyComplaintforBreachofContractandFraud,filed August 11,2005.
B. Defendants' Motionto DismissandStrike. ThiswasMr. Rodems' first
appearanceinthislawsuit,August29,2005.
C. OrderbyJudgeRichardA. Nielsenfinding acauseofactionforBreachof
ContractandFraudagainstBarker, Rodems& Cook,P.A. andWilliamJ.
Cook,January 13,2006.
D. RetaliatoryLibelcounterclaimby RyanChristopherRodems,January
19, 2006,againstNeilJ. Gillespie,withallegationsofcriminalextortion,
foraletterIwroteAmscotCorp. aboutaBarcompliant. Libel
CounterclaimcontainedinMr. Rodems' Answer,AffirmativeDefenses
andCounterclaim.
E. PlaintiffsMotionfor PunitiveDamagesPursuantto Section768.72
FloridaStatues,withsupportingexhibits. Thisdocumentsmyrelationship
withMr. Rodems' lawfirm, Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A.
F. TranscriptofmyMarch3, 2006,telephoneconversationwithMr. Rodems
wherehethreatenedtorevealmyconfidentialclientinformation,
andwherehemisquotedme inhis verificationtotheCourt.
G. PlaintiffsMotionWithAffidavitForAnOrderToShowCauseWhy
RyanChristopherRodemsShouldnotBe HeldInCriminalContemptOf
CourtAndIncorporatedMemorandumOfLaw. Thisdocument,withan
audiotapeofthepertinentconversation,showsthatMr. Rodemsliedto
JudgeNielsenaboutme, underoath,whichledto JudgeNielsen'srecusal.
H. PlaintiffsAccommodationRequest,AmericansWithDisabilitiesAct,
PUBLIC RECORD
()
The Florida Bar, Tampi;;'
o
Page - 3 of 10
February 20, 2007
shows that Mr. Rodems used information about my disability against me,
information he learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
My complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems:
Mr. Rodems as defense counsel has a direct conflict of interest with me. Defense
counsel is the Defendant in this lawsuit and is being sued by a former client for fraud and
breach of contract. The contract is attached to the complaint as exhibit I. Defendants and
Plaintiff entered into a representation contract that Defendants are now trying to disavow.
Defendants formerly represented Plaintiffs interest in the contract. On January 13,2006,
the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cause of action against Defendants for breach of that
contract and Defendants' accompanying fraud.
Rule 4-1.9(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the
same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially
adverse to the interest of the former client unless the former client consents after
consultation. In the instant case, Defendants represented Plaintiff s interest in the contract
beginning November 3,2000, when it was signed. Now with the commencement of this
lawsuit, Defendants are representing their own interest in the contract, and taking a
position materially adverse to Plaintiff, their former client.
This is what West's Florida Statutes Annotated states under Comment (Vol. 35,
pp. 354-355): "After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer may not
represent another client except in conformity with this rule. The principles in Rule 4-1.9
determine whether the interests of the present and former client are adverse. Thus, a
lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on
behalf of the former client." (underline added). "When a lawyer has been directly
involved a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially
adverse interests clearly is prohibited." (underline added). The contract between Plaintiff
and Defendants is a specific transaction directly involving Defendants who now have
materially adverse interests.
With regard to an opposing party's raising a question of conflict of interest see
comment to rule 4-1.7, which states that a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate
against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if it is wholly unrelated.
(p. 330). As in the instant case, if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is
in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client
detached advise. (pp. 330-331). And a suit charging fraud I entails conflict to a degree not
involved in a suit for a declaratory judgment concerning statutory interpretation. (p. 331).
Where the conflict is such as clearly to call into question the fair or efficient
administration ofjustice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question. (p. 332). Thus
I The Court found a cause of action for fraud against Defendants in the instant case.
PUBLIC RECORD
cB)
The Florida Bar, Page - 4 of 10
February 20, 2007
Plaintiff pro se may properly raise the question of disqualification, because Mr. Rodems'
presence in the litigation calls into question the fair and efficient administration ofjustice,
particularly when Mr. Rodems will commit perjury before the court to gain an advantage
for his own law firm, a defendant in this case.
Finally, Rule 4-1.1 0, the Imputed disqualification general rule, subsection (a) states
that while lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client
when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule 4-1.7, 4-
1.8(c), 4-1. 9, or 4-2.2. This rule is especially valid in the instant case because Defendant
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., is a small, three lawyer firm, and the rule of imputed
disqualification stated in subdivision (a) gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client
as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be considered from
the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially 1 lawyer for purposes of the rules
governing loyalty to the client or from the premise that each lawyer is vicariously bound
by the obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated.
Plaintiff's personal confidential information is also at stake in this motion to disqualify.
Preserving confidentiality is a question of access to information. Access to information,
in tum, is essentially a question of fact in particular circumstances, aided by inferences,
deductions, or working presumptions that reasonably may be made about the way in
which lawyers work together. A lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a
law firm and may regularly participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be inferred
that such a lawyer in fact is privy to all information about all the firm's clients. The
following paragraph illustrates how Plaintiffs personal information is freely discussed
among Mr. Barker, Mr. Rodems and Mr. Cook, and probably their support staff too, and
this is another basis for disqualification.
An attorney can be disqualified if he is opposing a former client from whom he
received confidential information related to the pending action or if the attorney had access
to information in prior representation that would prejudice the former client in the
subsequent representation. In any event, it is presumed that that the lawyer received
confidential information if an attorney-client relationship existed. In the instant case
Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. has threatened to use such information to the
disadvantage Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff
at his home and issued the following threat to use infoffi1ation learned from its prior
representation ofPlaintiffto Plaintiffs disadvantage: This is what Mr. Rodems said,
taken from a transcript of the conversation:
MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a car so that you
could get the cash rebate to get some dental work done? We're going
to get to the discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really happen?
MR. GILLESPIE: What?
MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that you could get the cash
rebate to get some dental work done?
PUBLIC RECORD
()
o
TheFloridaBar,Tampa''-:-- Page- 5of10
February20,2007
MR. GILLESPIE: Listen,thisiswhyyouneedtobedisqualified.
MR. RODEMS:No,Imean, that's-- becauseIknowthat? BecauseI
knowthatto beafact?
MR. GILLESPIE: Youknowittobeafact from yourprevious
representationofme.
MR. RODEMS: Well.youknow,seethat's--
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifitis -- ifit'safact, anyway.
MR. RODEMS: Youneedtostudytherulesandregulationsofthe
FloridaBarbecausewhenyoumake--
MR. GILLESPIE: Ithink,IthinkIboughtacarso Iwouldhave
somethingtodrive. Idon'tknowwhyyoubuycars, butthat'swhyI
boughtit.
MR. RODEMS: Well--
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifithadsonleotherbenefits,that'sdifferent.
MR. RODEMS: Iunderstandthatcarwasrepossessedshortlyafteryou
boughtitso--
MR. GILLESPIE:No,itwasn'trepossessed.
MR. RODMES: Okay. Well, thenyoucanprobablydrivethatdownto
tIle hearingthenonthe28th.
MR. GILLESPIE:No, itwasvoluntarilyturnedinbecauseafter911
attackthejobthatIwas indriedup.
Rule4-1.9(b),RulesRegulatingtheFloridaBar,statesthata lawyerwhohas
formerly representedaclientinamattershall notthereafteruse informationrelatingtothe
representationtothedisadvantageoftheformerclient. (relevantportion). Intheinstant
caseMr. RodemshasannouncedthatDefendants' intendto useconfidentialinfom1ation
acquiredinthepreviousrepresentationofPlaintiffto hisdisadvantageinthislawsuit.
RyanChristopherRodemsascounselforDefendantsbroughtafrivolous libel
counterclaimagainstPlaintiffinviolationofRule4-3.1,RulesRegulatingtheFloridaBar.
DefendantsCounterclaimforLibel, CountsIandII, servedJanuary 19,2006,wastaken
primarilyforthepurposeofunreasonabledelayandretaliationagainstPlaintiffforsuing
PUBLIC RECORD
A...: ... '.:..
TheFloridaBar,
Page- 6of 10
February20,2007
hisformerlawyers. DefendantsarenotoriousintheTampalegalcommunityforengaging
inanticswhichincludethrowingacupofcoffeeintheface oftheir counsel
duringamediation
2
, andclaimingthattheothersideengaged incriminalextortionagainst
them
3
. Defendants'counterclaimstatesthatPlaintiff engagedincriminalextortionagainst
them,paragraph67. (AlsoinParagraph57,affirmativedefenses,containedinthesame
document,Answers,AffirmativeDefensesandCounterclaim).
AboutthetimePlaintiffretainedthelawfirmAlpert,Barker,Rodems,Ferrentino
&Cook,P.A.,theSt. PetersburgTimesreportedthatJonathanAlpertthrewa20ounce
cupofcoffeeinthefaceof attorneyArnoldLevineduringmediationinaseasonticket
holderdispute. Alpert,Barker,Rodems, Ferrentino& Cook,P.A.,representedtheBucs'
fans, andArnoldLevinerepresentedtheTampaBayBuccaneers. Accordingtostories
publishedintheSt. PetersburgTimes,Alpertwasrantingandravingwhenhethrewa20
ouncecupofcoffeeintheface of Levine,whothensuedAlpertforcivildamagesandfiled
abatterycomplaintwithTampaPolice. TheSt. PetersburgTimesalsoreportedthat
JonathanAlpertannouncedincourtthathe hadaskedpoliceto investigate"threatsand/or
extortion"bytheBucs'lawyerArnoldLevine. Tampapolicedetectivesreviewedthe
extortioncomplaint,whichnamedLevine,BucsgeneralmanagerRichMcKayand
EdwardandBryanGlazer.
Sothistactic is Defendants' modusoperandi,exceptMr. Rodemsdidnotreport
Plaintiffs"extortion"to lawenforcement. Furthermore,onMarch7,2006,Plaintiff
offeredhissurrenderto MarkOber,buttheStateAttorneyhas notreplied. Plaintiff
contactedtheFloridaBaraboutDefendantsaccusation,anditdoesnotagree. The
DirectorofLawyerRegulation,KennethLawrenceMarvin,wrotePlaintiffthat"Those
questionsinvolvea legalconclusionof criminallawandIamnotinapositionto answer
them." Defendantsarenotcriminallawexpertseither.
Mr. MarvinalsoprovidedPlaintiffwithacopyof aFloridaSupremeCourtcase
Tobkinv. Jarboe, 7'10 So.2d975 (1998),whichheldthatanindividualwhofiles a
complaintagainstanattorneyandmakesno publicannouncementofthecomplaintis
affordedabsoluteimmunityfrom adefamationactionbycomplained-againstattorney. In
the illstantcase,Plaintiffmadeno publicannouncementand infact allowedthegrievance
procedureto runits naturalcourse. TheletterPlaintiffpurportedlywroteto Amscotis
datedaftertheconclusionofthegrievanceprocedure,andannouncesthatMr. Cook
prevailed,andthusdidnotdo anythingwrong. Also,Defendants' counterclaimfor libel
will notsucceedgiventhelimiteddistributionandprivilegednatureofthepublication
complainedof. Seee.g. Nodarv. Galbreath,462So.2d803 (Fla. 1984).
Mr. Rodemslackof candortowardtheCourtisaclearviolationofRule4-3.3,
RulesregulatingtheFloridaBar. Mr. Rodemsknowingmadeafalse statementofnlaterial
facttotheCourtinviolationofRule4-3.3(a)(I). OnMarch6, 2006,Mr. Rodemsfiled
Defendants' VerifiedRequestForBailiffAndForSanctions,wherehesworeunderoath
2 St. PetersburgTimes,June6, 2000,"Attorney'ssuitsayshe receivedcoffee in the face"
3 St. PetersburgTimes,June 10, 2000,"Sucsaccusedof extortion"
PUBLIC RECORD
:")
The Florida Bar, Tampa . Page - 7 of 10
February 20, 2007
that Plaintiff was going to violently assault him in Judge Nielsen's chambers on April 25,
2006. But Mr. Rodems stands impeached by a transcript of the conversation during which
the purported threat was made. In his motion, Mr. Rodems told the Court that Plaintiff
threatened him during a telephone call on March 3, 2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
in paragraph 5:
"At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated - and this is an exact
quote - "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." Quite alarmed, I paused and said "are you threatening me
physically or did you mean that metaphorically?" Plaintiff said
"metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger."
Mr. Rodems invoked the name of the of the Honorable Richard'A. Nielsen in the
threat Plaintiff allegedly made against him. Mr. Rodems did this in a calculated effort to
prejudice the Court against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems used his position as an Officer of the
Court to lend credibility to his verified accusation against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems invoked
the name of the Judge Nielsen to make the Court itself fearful of a violent attack from
Plaintiff. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"I am concerned that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings
do not resolve favorably for him, and I request that the Court have a bailiff
available at any future hearings. In over thirteen years of practicing law, I
have had only one other occasion wherein I was threatened in a matter that
made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involved a pro se
party."
Mr. Rodems then asked the Court to punish Plaintiff for his alleged threat, and to
have a bailiff present in order to prevent Plaintiff from violently attacking Mr. Rodems in
Judge Nielsen's implying that a violent attack in Judge Nielsen's chambers
would most certainly injure Judge Nielsen due to the close proximity of Plaintiff to Judge
Nielsen. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"Defendants request that the Court enter an Order sanctioning Plaintiff for
the threatening comment, as detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refrain
from threatening acts of violence."
Mr. Rodems then wrote: "WHEREFORE, Defendants request a bailiff at all future
hearings and that Plaintiff be sanctioned appropriately." Mr. Rodems then verified the
pleadings with the following statement:
"I swear under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this motion
are true and accurate and that the quotes attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are
true and accurate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6
th
day of March,
2006. RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE" and the
verification contained Mr. Rodems' signature.
PUBLIC RECORD
(l
n
l.. .
The Florida Bar, T a m p ~
Page - 8 of 10
February 20, 2007
Mr. Rodems' verified request for bailiff and sanctions was notarized by Lynne
Anne Spina, a notary public employed by Mr. Rodems at his law firm. Defendants'
Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions submitted by Mr. Rodems was false and
misleading, and Mr. Rodems committed perjury regarding the "exact quote" attributed to
Neil J. Gillespie.
Mr. Rodems' defamation aggravated Plaintiffs disability. On March 3, 2006, Mr.
Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his home in Ocala, Florida, and issued several threats. Mr.
Rodems knows Plaintiff suffers from a disability from his law firm's prior representation
of Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems insulted Plaintiff. (Transcript, page 7, line
21). Then Mr. Rodems threatened Plaintiff and said "I mean, it was kind of bizarre that
you would even send that letter, but you did, so now you will have to pay for that."
(Transcript, page 9, line 1). Mr. Rodems continued his threats, insults, and taunts until
Plaintiff spoke metaphorically and said he would "slam him" on the law. This is
Plaintiffs exact quote: "So listen you little, whatever, you raise anything you want, 1will
see you on the 25
th
and 1will slam you against the wall like 1did before." (Referring to
Plaintiffs legal victory over Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike). (Transcript, page
11, line 3). Mr. Rodems then falsely presented this information to the Court in
Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, submitted March 6, 2006.
Mr. Rodems stated, under oath, that this is the exact quote attributable to Plaintiff: "I am
going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's chambers." Plaintiff did not say
"in Judge Nielsen's chambers" but in fact Plaintiff said "like 1did before." These are two
very different statements. Ryan Christopher Rodems lied to the Court to again an
advantage. The hearing before Judge Nielsen on April 25, 2006 began with Mr. Rodems
discussing his request for a bailiff to be present. This is what Mr. Rodems told the Court:
MR. RODEMS: The fourth motion that we filed had to do with a request
for a bailif(to be present. We didn't notice that for hearing, but obviously
we have a deputy here. So that 1don't know that that necessarily needs to
come up. Itwas not noticed for hearing today, but we can take it up if you
want to. (Transcript, April 25,2006, page I, lines 15-20).
And the Court responded:
THE COURT: 1agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is
on any case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for
future reference you do not have to submit a request. And since it's not in
the form of a motion, 1don't think it needs a ruling. All right. (Transcript,
April 25, 2006, beginning page 1, line 24).
And during the hearing, Mr. Rodems stated that everything he represented
to the court has been accurate. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
PUBLIC RECORD
TheFloridaBar,Tampa
Page- 9of10
February20,2007
"Hisfinal reasonfortryingtodisqualifyme is he saidthatIlackcandor,
whichhecitesnocaselawtothat
4
. AndIwouldassertbeforetheCourt,as
anofficerofthecourt,thateverythingthatI've representedto thecourthas
beenaccurate."(Transcript,April25, 2006,page 12, beginningline2).
ThehearingbeforeJudgeNielsenonJune28,2006broughtmorefalse
statementsfrom Mr. Rodems. ThisiswhatMr. Rodemssaid:
MR. RODEMS:Allright. Firstof all,Judge,thiscontinuedallegationby
Mr. Gillespiethatthere'sbeenathreatagainsthim,there'sbeenno threat
againsthim; he is theonethatthreatenedmewhenwehadatelephone
conversationandhetoldmehewasgoingto slamme upagainstyour
hearingchamberswall. That'sneverbeenfollowed, buthecontinuesto
repeatit ineverypleadingandthen,youknow,theideaisthat, Iguess, if
you'vegotjudicialimmunityfrom whatyousay- butthebottomlineis, is
that'sthere'sbeennothingbutcordialbehavioronourpart. (Transcript,
June28, 2006,page 11, lines 11-22).
Mr. Rodemsstatementtothecourtthat"there'sbeennothingbutcordial behavior
onourpart"isimpeachedbythetranscriptofhisphonecall to PlaintiffonMarch3,
2006. Mr. RodemsrepeatedlyliedtotheCourtwithimpunity,to my detriment.
RyanChristopherRodemsviolatedRule4-3.4,Rules RegulatingtheFloridaBar,
Fairnessto OpposingPartyandCounsel. Rule4-3.4states,Alawyershallnot: (g)present,
participateinpresenting,orthreatentopresentcriminalchargessolelyto obtainan
advantageinacivilmatter. Aspreviouslystatedinparagraph5(c), Defendants'
counterclaimstatesthatPlaintiffengagedincriminalextortionagainstthem,paragraph67.
(Also inParagraph57,affirmativedefenses,containedinthesamedocument,Answers,
Affirmative f n s ~ s andCounterclaim). DefendantsarenotoriousintheTampalegal
communityforengaginginanticswhichincludeclaimingthattheothersideengagedin
criminalextortionagainstthem. Sothistacticis Defendants' modusoperandi,andtheBar
shouldstopthispracticeandrebukeMr. Rodems. Furthermore,onMarch7, 2006,
Plaintiffofferedto surrenderto MarkOber,onthe felony crimeofextortion,buttheState
Attorneyhas notreplied. PlaintiffcontactedtheFloridaBaraboutDefendantsaccusation,
anditdoesnotagreeeither. TheDirectorofLawyerRegulation, KennethLawrence
4 Floridacaselaw prohibits lawyers from presentingfalse testimonyorevidence. Kneale v. Williams. 30 So.
2d 284(Fla. 1947), statesthatperpetrationof afraud is outsidethescopeofthe professionaldutyofan
attorneyandno privilegeattachestocommunicationbetweenanattorneyandaclientwithrespectto
transactionsconstitutingthe makingof afalse claimorthe perpetrationofafraud. Dodd v. The Florida
Bar, 118So2d 17(Fla. 1960), remindsus that"thecourtsare ... dependenton membersof the barto ...
presentthe true facts ofeachcause toenablethejudgeorthejuryto [decidethefacts] to whichthe law
may beapplied. Whenanattorney allows false testimony ... [theattorney] ... makes it impossibleforthe
scales[ofjustice]to balance." See The Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394So.2d405 (Fla. 1981),and The Fla. Bar v.
Simons. 391 So. 2d684(Fla. 1980).
PUBLIC RECORD
en
( .
~ . , ,
:;
TheFloridaBar,Tampa' .-'
't"
Page- 10of10
February20,2007
Marvin,wrotePlaintiffthat"Thosequestionsinvolvealegalconclusionof criminallaw
andIamnotinapositiontoanswerthem."
Finally,IamaskingtheBartoconsiderMr. RodemsperjurytotheCourtthatled
toJudgeNielsen'srecusalonNovember22,2006. Mr. Rodems' perjuryissetforthin
PlaintiffsMotionWithAffidavitForAnOrderTo ShowCauseWhyRyanChristopher
RodemsShouldnotBeHeldInCriminalContemptOfCourtAndIncorporated
MemorandumOfLaw. (ExhibitG). Thisdocument,withanaudiotapeof thepertinent
conversation,showsthatMr. RodemsliedtoJudgeNielsenaboutme,underoath,which
ultimatelyledtoJudgeNielsen'srecusal.
Inreviewingmycomplaint,IasktheBartoconsiderthedutythislawfirmonce
owedme. Itislongestablishedthattherelationshipbetweenanattorneyandhisclientis
oneof themostimportant,aswellasthemostsacred,knowntothelaw. The
responsibilityof anattorneytoplacehisclient'sinterestaheadof hisownindealings
withmattersuponwhichtheattorneyisemployedisatthefoundationof ourlegalsystem.
(Deal v. Migoski, 122So. 2d415). Itisafiduciaryrelationshipinvolvingthehighest
degreeoftruthandconfidence,andanattorneyis underaduty,atalltimes,to represent
hisclientandhandlehisclient'saffairswiththeutmostdegreeofhonesty,forthrightness,
loyalty,andfidelity. (Gerlachv. Donnelly,98 So. 2d493). ThelawyersatBarker,
Rodenls& Cook,P.A.didnotmeetthisdutywhileIwastheirclient. Mr. Cookdidnot
behaveaslawyerwithafiduciaryduty. Instead,my fonnerlawyersactedmorelikea
pawnSllOP outfortheirownfinancial interests. Assetforth innlY motionforpunitive
damages(ExhibitE),myformerlawyers' conductwasfraudulent, deliberately
oppressive,malicious,andcommittedwithsuchgrossnegligenceasto indicatewanton
disregardformyrights. (See Domkev. McNeil-P.P.C.,Inc.,M.D.Fla.1996,939F.Supp.
849). Assetforthinthiscomplaint,Mr. Rodems' unethicalbehaviorcontinuesunabated.
ThisconcludesmyinitialcomplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems.
Sincerely,
enclosures
PUBLIC RECORD
D.
E. Plaintiff'sMotionforPunitiveDamagesPursuanttoSection768.72
FloridaStatues,withsupportingexhibits. Thisdocumentsmyrelationship
withMr.Rodems'lawftnn,Barker,Rodems&Cook,P.A.
F. TranscriptofmyMarch3,2006,telephoneconversationwithMr.Rodems
where,#ethreatenedtorevealmyconftdentialclientinformation,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJ1einhisVeriiicati"ntotheCourt.; . .
G. ,PI3intifrs'MotionWithAffidavitFor'An: OrderToShow''CauseWhy
RyahChristopherRodemsShouldnotBeHeldInCriminalContemptOf
Court And Incorporated MemorandumOfLaw. This document, with an
audiotapeofthepertinentconversation,showsthatMr.Rodemsliedto
JudgeNielsenaboutme,underoath,whichledtoJudgeNielsen'srecusal.
-, \ ,
) Ii
....'-' , ....
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHETIllRTEENTHJUDICIALCmCUITOF
THESTATEOFFLORIDA,INANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,
CIVILDIVISION
NEILJ.GILLESPIE,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BARKER,RODEMS&COOK,P.A.,
aFloridaCorporation;andWILLIAM
J.COOK,
DEFENDANTS.
--------------_-----:/
ORDERONDEFENDANTS'MOTIONTODISMISSANDSTRIKE
TIDSCAUSEcameonforhearingonSeptember26,2005,uponDefendant's
MotiontoDismissandStrike,andcounselforthepartiesbeingpresentandhavingmade
argumentsandthecourthavingconsideredthePlaintiffsRebuttaltoDefendant'sMotion
toDismissandStrike. Defendant'sReplyto PlaintiffsRebuttaltoDefendant'sMotion
toDismissandStrikeandthePlaintiff'sSecondRebuttaltoDefendant'sMotionto
DismissandStrike,andthecourtbeingadvisedfullyinthepremises,itisthereupon,
ADJUDGEDasfollows:
1. Defendant'sMotiontoDismissandStrikeisgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart.
2. ThoseportionsofDefendant'sMotiontoDismissandStrikeseekingto
dismisstheComplaintaredenied. Defendantshallhavefifteendaysfromthedateof this
orderwithinwhichtofileresponsivepleadings.
DIVISION"F "
or, 36
-
//1-
C
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
RICHARD A. NIELSEN
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33606
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
or' 37
f _
,
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHETHIRTEENTHJUDICIAL
CIRCUITINANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,FLORIDA
GENERALCIVILDIVISION
NEILJ. Gll..LESPIE,
Plaintiff, .
CASENO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER,RODEMS& COOK,P.A., DMSION:H
aFloridacorporation,Wll..LIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
------------_/
PLAINTIFF'SACCOMODATIONREQUEST
(ADA)andstates:
1. Plaintiffwasdeterm.iliedtotallydisabledbySocialSecurityin1994. r
2. DefendantsarefamiliarwithPlaintiff'sdisabilityfromtheirprior
representationofhim. Defendantsinvestigatedhiseligibilitytoreceiveservicesfromthe
FloridaDepartmentofVocationalRehabilitation(DVR). DVRdeterminedthatPlaintiff
wastooseverelydisabledtobenefitfromservices. Defendantsqoncurred,andnotified
Plaintiff of theirdecisioninaletter tohimdatedMarch27,2001.(ExhibitA).
3. Plaintiff hasthefollowingmedicalconditionswhicharedisablingand
preventhimfromeffectivelyparticipatingincourtproceedings,including:
a Depressionandrelatedmooddisorder. Thismedicalconditionprevents
Plaintiff fromworking,meetingdeadlines, andconcentrating. Theinabilityto
concentrateattimesaffectsPlaintiff'sabilitytohearandcomprehend.
- .. -
H
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, l' .A., case no. OS-CA-7205
b. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), makes Plaintiff susceptible to
stress, such as the ongoing harassment by Defendants' lawyer, Mr. Rodems.
c. Velopharyngeallncompetence (VPI) is a speech impairment that affects
Plaintiff's ability to communicate.
d. The medical treatment for depression includes prescription medication
that further disables Plaintiff's ability to do the work ofthis lawsuit, and further
prevents him from effectively participating in the proceedings.
4. Prior to the onset of the most disabling aspects Plaintiff's medical
condition(s), he was a productive member of society, a business owner for 12 years, and a
graduate of both the University of Pennsylvania and The Evergreen State College.
5. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his
home and threatened to use information learned during Defendants prior representation
against him in the instant lawsuit. Mr. Rodems' threats were twofold; to intimidate
Plaintiff into dropping this lawsuit by threatening to disclose confidential client
information, and to inflict emotional distress, to trigger Plaintiff's Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and inflict injury upon Plaintiff for Defendants' advantage in this lawsuit.
6. On March 6, 2006, Mr. Rodems made a false verification the Court about
the March 3, 2006 telephone call. Mr. Rodems submitted Defendants' Verified Request
For Bailiff And For Sanctions, and told the Court under oath that Plaintiff threatened acts
of violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers. It was a stunt that backfired when a tape
recording of the phone call showed that Mr. Rodems lied. Plaintiff notified the Court
about Mr. Rodems' perjury in Plaintiff's Motion With Affidavit To Show Cause Why
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court and
Incorporated Memorandum Of Law submitted January 29,2007.
Page - 2 of4
_.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook: case no. 05-CA-7205
7. Mr. Rodems' harassing phone call to Plaintiff of March 3, 2006, was a
tort, the Intentional Infliction o/Emotional Distress. Mr. Rodems' tort injured Plaintiff
by aggravating his existing medical condition. From the time of the calIon March 3,
2006, Plaintiff suffered worsening depression for which he was treated by his doctors.
a. On May 1, 2006 Plaintiffs doctor prescribed Effexor XR., a serotonin-
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), to the maximum dosage.
b. Plaintiff's worsening depression, and the side affects ofthe medication,
lessened Plaintiffs already diminished ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
c. On October 4, 2006 Plaintiff began the process of discontinuing his
medication so that he could improve is ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
d. On or about November 18, 2006, Plaintiff discontinued the use of anti-
depression medication, to improve his ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
8. Mr. Rodems continued to harass Plaintiff during the course of this lawsuit
in the following manner:
a. Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait for Plaintiff outside Judge Nielsen's chambers
on April 25, 2006, following a hearing, to taunt him. and provoke an altercation.
b. Mr. Rodems refused to address Plaintiff as "Mr. Gillespie" but used his
fIrst name, and disrespectful derivatives, against Plaintiff's expressed wishes.
c. Mr. Rodems left insulting, harassing comments on Plaintiffs voice mail
during his ranting message of December 13, 2006.
d. Mr. Rodems wrote Plaintiff a five-page diatribe of insults and ad
hominem abusive attacks on December 13,2006.
9. Plaintiff notified the Court of his inability to obtain counsel in Plaintiffs
Notice o/Inability to obtain Counsel submitted February 13,2007.
Page - 3 of4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, .1""\., case no. 05-CA-7205
10. Plaintiff acknowledges that this ADA accommodation request is unusual,
'but so are the circumstances. Defendants in this lawsuit are Plaintiffs former lawyers,
who are using Plaintiffs client confidences against him, while contemporaneously
inflicting new injuries upon their former client based on his disability.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests additional time to obtain counsel, a stay in the
proceedings for 90 days. Plaintiff also requests accommodation in the forin of additional
time to meet deadlines when needed due to his disability.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20
th
day of February, 2007.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct .copy of the foregoing has been
furnished via US Mail to Ryan C. Rodems, attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400
N Ashley Dr., Suite 2100, Tampa, FL 33602, this 20
th
day o f e b ~ 2007.
Page - 4 of4
-
.
BARKER,RODEMS &lCOOK
ASSOCIA'110N
A'ITURNEY::'; ATLA\V
':IIIUS I',AItl'FIl. Tr.Ir.l'hO'\l: 5IJ/18<).1001
300 West Plat.t Street, Suite 150
':11Itl!:TllI'IIFit ROIJr:.MS
F,c.illlilr. SJJ/Hitl.IOOS
WII.IIAM I. Cl.'flK T'll1pn, Florid3 33606
March27,2001
Neil J. Gillespie
Apartlllcllt C-2
I12\ BeachDriveNE
Sf. Pdersburg,Florida33701-1434
Rc: Vocatiollal Rehabilil:nlion
DearNeil:
Jam cnclosingthematerial yOll provided to us. We have reviewed them und, unfortunately,
we arc not in a position to representyou for any claims you may have. Pleaseunderstand that our
decision docsnotmcan thatyourclaimslackmerit, andanotherattorneymightwishto representyou.
If yoII wish to cOllsldtwithanotherattorney, we recommendthatyou do so immedinlelyas astatute
orlilllilaliollswill apply to anyclaimsyou llIay have. As you know, astatuteoflimitationsis alegal
deadline forfiling alawsuit. ThankyOll forthe opportunityto reviewyourmaterials.

William J. Cook

P.nclosl1res STATEOFFLOqlDA )
COUNTYOFHiLLSBOROUGH)
THIS15TOCERTIFYTHAT THEFOREGOINGISATRUE
AND (;()RMiCT0C>JII'f OF THE DOCUMENT ON FILE IN
MY OFFICE. wtlHU6 MY ANO Of!'FICIAl SEAL
THIS arat QAY(JF .abo.T 20/cJ
v -
P.T FfWIIK
OF.CIRCUITCOURT
".:,....
h,,,,,''- B D. C.
-
EXHIBIT'
1.68
o
u.s.PostalServiceTilOeliveryConfinnationTilReceipt
Accessinternetwebsiteat
PostageandDeliveryConfinnationfeesmustbepaidbeforemaning.
ArDeleSentTo:(tobecompletedbymailer)
-rk- dt<..,
"""'SPI tv(' .!> r 5ff1.u( e rr, 'If
tl?J ;:L 33/,(77 -S-f6"J'
POSTALCUSTOMER:
Keepthisreceipt. ForInquiries:
Postmark
Here
www.usps.com 8
orca.1I1-800-222-1811
ONE USEONLY)
Mall Service
oFirst-ClassMairparcel
oP8CkageSeMcesparcel
(SeeRev8r88)
llPADDOCK BRANCH POST OFFICEll
OCALA, Florida
344749998
1143840606 -0096
02/20/2007 (352)861-8188 03:04:54 PM
Product
Sales Receipt
Sale Unit
s
final
Description Qty Price Price
HOUSTON TX 77027 $2.31
First-Class
8.30 oz.
Issue PVI: $2.31
TAf.1PA FL 33602 $0.63
First-Class
1.10 oz.
Customer Postage $0.39
Issue PVI: $0.24
TAt1PA FL 33601 $0.63
First-Class
1.10 oz.
Customer Postage -$0.39
Issue PVI: $0.24
TAMPA
Mail
FL 33607 Priority $6.65
5 1b. 790 oz.
Delivery Confirmation $0.50
Label #: 03061070000320528076
Issue PVI: $7.15
Total: $9.94
Paid by:
Cash $20.00
Change Due: -$10.06
Bi11#: 1000401881296
Clerk: 07
All sales final on stamps and postage.
Refunds for guaranteed services only.
Thank you for your business.
Customer COpy
--
USPS - Track & ConfIrm Page 1 of 1
Q
Track&Confirm
SearchResults
Label/ReceiptNumber:03061070000320528076
DetailedResults:
Track&Confirm
Delivered,February22, 2007,11:32am,TAMPA,FL33607
EnterLabel/ReceiptNumber.
ArrivalatUnit,February22, 2007,8:11 am,TAMPA, FL33607
Acceptance,February20, 2007,3:04pm,OCALA,FL34474
Go>
<Back, , Rtlfum to USPS.CDm HtHne >
--. ~ _ ~
Notification Options
Track&Confirmbyemail
Getcurrenteventinformationorupdatesforyouritemsenttoyouorothersbyemail. : 60>

POSTALINSPECTORS sitemap contactus governmentservices jobs National& PremierAccounts

PreservingtheTrust Copyright 1999-2004USPS. All RightsReserved. TermsofUse PrivacyPolicy
http://trkcnfrml.smi.usps.com/PTSIntemetWeb/InterLabelDetail.do
2/22/2007
1
f.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Via US Priority Mail
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070 0003 2052 8113
February 23, 2007
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin
Director of Lawyer Regulation
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205
Dear Mr. Marvin,
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2006, and the enclosed copy of Tobkin v.
Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975. The information is useful in defending the libel claim brought
against me by my former lawyers, who are represented by Ryan Christopher Rodems.
On November 22, 2006, the trial judge in the above captioned matter recused
himself over Mr. Rodems perjury to the Court. Earlier this week I made a Bar complaint
about Mr. Rodems misconduct, but I am concerned that the Tampa office has pre-judged
this matter. I am concerned that my complaint may not be fairly considered, given the
Bar's track record of excusing Mr. Cook's misconduct.
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch
Disciplinary Counsel of the Bar's Tampa office where I raised my concern. It appears
that the Tampa office feels that because I received a $2,000.00 settlement in the Amscot
lawsuit, this somehow releases the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. from
observance of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, as well as fraud and contract law.
You may recall our correspondence concerning a $5,000.00 "improper payoff
attempt'" between my former lawyer and Amscot's lawyer. In March, 2005, you wrote me
on behalf of Ms. Overstreet Johnson saying a complaint was needed. In March, 2006,
you forwarded the complaint to the Bar's Tampa office for investigation. In response to
the complaint, I received an incredible letter from Assistant Staff Counsel Troy Lovell
Kenneth Lawrence Page -2
Director of Lawyer Regulation February 23, 2007
that the six year time limit for considering the complaint had expired, but arithmetic does
not bear out his conclusion. The six year limitation pursuant to Rule 3-7.16 does not
expire until August, 2007, which is still six months away.
Also enclosed is a copy of Plaintiff's Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to
Section 768.72 Florida Statutes, which my letter to Ms. Bloemendaal. This
docuIIlent, with its fifty supporting documents (including your letter of July 12, 2006,
Exhibit 48), provides the full context of my fomler lawyer's misconduct. I do not believe
that the misconduct described in the motion can be explained away because of a
$2,000.00 payment as Ms. Bloemendaal asserts. The misconduct of my former lawyers -
from throwing coffee in the face of another lawyer during a deposition, to Mr. Rodems
perjury that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen - is so encompassing that it would be
difficllit to arrange in the form of a usual Bar co:mplaint. And the tenets of Rule 3-4.3
reminej us that misconduct is not to be narrowly construed.
Mr. Marvin, I appreciate your prior interest in this matter. The above captioned
lawsuit is ongoing, and I am preparing an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the libel
counterclaim brought by my former lawyers for filing a Bar complaint. But I am disabled
and this limits my effectiveness, and I would prefer the assistance of counsel, including
for the show cause motion pending against Mr. Rodems for criminal contempt. I have
been unable through the exercise of diligence to obtain counsel, and have exhausted the
referrals form the Hillsborough County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service.
In conclusion, how can I be assured that my complaint against Mr. Rodems will
be fairly considered, given the Bar's track recor(} of excusing Mr. Cook's misconduct?
And how can I obtain counsel for an admittedly difficult situation? These are my two
questions to you, for which I would like a response.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
..-_-----.. /" ..<1 )"7 //
/// /
.;7 /..&..
..... P ,/
./ ,(tc./ Y:; ./ ,,' /1
N ,.v //
(
cc: Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel, Tampa office
enclosures
o
"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OFFICEII
OCALA, Florida
344749998
1143840606 -0095
02/23/2007 (352)861-8188 04:06:34 PM
Sales Receipt
Product
Description
Sale
Ot.y
Unit
Price
final
Price
TALLAHASSEE
Prior;ty '.1ai
3 lb. 9.90
fL 3
1
oz.
2399 $5.60
De1ivery Confirmation $0.50
Label #: 03061070000320528113
Issue PVI: $6.10
39c Ronald 1 $0*39 $0.39
Reagan PSA
Total: $6.49
Paid by:
Debit Card $6.49
Account #: XXXXXXXXXXXX5762
Approva1 #: 061323
Transaction #: 934
23 903300648
Receipt#: 010032
Order stamps at USPS.com/shop or call
1-800-Stamp24. Go to
U5PS.com/cli cknship to print shipping
labels with postage. For other
i nformati on call 1-S00-ASK-USPS.
6;11#: 1000502371569
C1 ark: 01
All sales final on stamps and postage.
Refunds for guaranteed services only.
Thank you for your business.
Customer Copy
u.s. Postal ServiceTliDelivery Confirmation
lll
Receipt
Postmark
Here . >
...'
23
;,,/'
PS Form 152. May 2002
651 EASTJEFFERSONSTREET
L '\
---.__ ....'ft/'[\J(

tiN F.HARKNESS,JR. TALLAHASSEE,FL32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUnvEDIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
February28,2007
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW IIS
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
DearMr. Gillespie:
Ihave received yourletterdatedFebruary23, 2007 askingmetwo specificquestions. Thefirst
is "HowcanIbeassuredthatmycomplaintagainstMr. Rodemswill befairlyconsidered?",and
my answer is: Bar Counsel takes their job very seriously and it is a difficultjob. They are
trained to recognize issues and analyze evidence to assist their determination as to whether a
complaint should be dismissed or pursued. Bar Counsel is concerned with doing the "right
thing", notpersecutinglawyersnordismissingvalidcomplaints. Yourletterdated February22,
2007 to Ms. Bloemendaal, paragraph 2 states that ". . . I understand your desire to protect a
fellow lawyer." That statement is incorrect. Bar Counsel has a desire to prosecute lawyers
where the facts andlawindicatethatthe lawyerhasviolatedaRuleRegulatingTheFloridaBar
andtheconverseis alsotrue. Thesecondquestionis: "Howcanyouobtaincounsel...?" You
state that you have tried the local Bar Association without success and I have no other good
suggestion, other than to speak to other members ofthe community orperhaps try the Yellow
Pages.
Sincerely,

KennethLawrenceMarvin
Director,LawyerRegulation
KLM/mmm
Icc: SusanBloemendaal
PUBLIC RECORD
THEFLORIDABAR
MAILINGADDRESS: PHYSICALADDRESS:
fOHN F.HARKNESS,JR. 5521WESTSPRUCESTREET AIRPORTMARRIOTIHOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR
SUITEC-49 SUITEC-49
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
TAMPA,FL33607-5958 TAMPA,FL33607-5958
March7,2007
NeilGillespie
8092SWIIS
th
Loop
Ocala,FL 34481
Re: Inquiry/ComplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems
TFBNo.2.007-11,162(13D)
DearMr. Gillespie:
WehavereceivedandreviewedyourcomplaintagainstRespondent. Inorderto evaluateyour
complaint,weneedadditionalinformation,assetforthbelow.
YouhavecomplainedthatRespondenthasmisusedconfidentialinfonnationobtainedinhisprior
representationof youduringthecurrentproceedingyoubroughtagainstRespondent'sfirm. In
orderforustoevaluatethisclaim,pleaseidentifywithspecificitytheinformationinquestion
andthemannertheinformationwascommunicatedtohim. Also,pleasenotethatRule4-
1.6(c)(2)pennitsanattorneytorevealclientconfidencestotheextenttheattorneybelieves
necessarytodefendhimself inadisputewiththeclient. Pleaserefertotherule(availableonour
website)andaddresswhetherthisruleisapplicabletothesituationaboutwhichyouare
complaining.
YouhavecomplainedthatRespondenthasanimpermissibleconflictof interest. In your
complaint,youhaveass.ertedthatRespondentshouldbedisqualifiedfromrepresentingthe
Defendantsbecauseof thisconflict. PleasebeawarethatTheFloridaBarhasnoauthority
regardingthedisqualificationof counselinpendingcases. IfyoubelievethatRespondentshould
bedisqualified,thatissueshouldbebroughttotheattentionof thepresidingjudgethroughan
appropriate motion. If the matter has been brought to the attentionof the court, please provide us
withcopiesofanymotions,responses,orordersrelatedtheretoforourreview.
YoualsocomplainthatRespondentpeIjuredhimself duringtheproceedingsandthatthis
misconductresultedinJudgeNielsen'srecusal. Pleaseprovideacopyof themotionandorder
relatedtoJudgeNielsen'srecusal. If thereisatranscriptof anyhearingonthematter,please
providethattranscript,also.
PUBLIC RECORD
Neil Gillespie
March 7, 2007
Page 2
You complain about Respondent' s f i l i ~ g of a counterclaim for libel against you, which you claim
was a knowingly frivolous counterclaim. Please provide information regarding whether this
claim is still pending and, if it has been resolved, copies of all documents related to the
resolution.
Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be matters which are the subject of the
civil litigation between you and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are deferred until after the
conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding. Ifthere are reasons you believe that such a
deferral would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your response.
We would appreciate a response within thirty (30) days. Please contact us if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
~ t// :
/ .
..,.,/
~
Troy Matthew Lovell
Assistant Staff Counsel
TML/emh
PUBLIC RECORD
S

t,
o A
f
i
...
0",
"'G
THE FLORIDA BAR
TAMPA OFFICE
5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET
SUITE C-49
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
Visit our website: www.FLORIDABAR.org
w
017H15534459
C)
0::

$O.39Q
en
C:! o
a..
I 03/06/2007
en
Mailed From 33607
::>
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SV'J Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
3448i $:;:;567 RCi4E: 1 11 1'1' .1 11 ' 111.111111' IIII.II.I.J 11111" I, II" I,I
h\
'0
NeilJ.Gillespie
8092SW115
th
Loop
Ocala,Florida34481
'j ; I- ,.
. r
April 11,2007
TroyMatthewLovell,AssistantStaff Counsel
TheFloridaBar
5521 WestSpruceStreet,C-49
Tampa,Florida33607-5958
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems
TFBNo.2007-11,162(13D)
DearMr. Lovell:
Thisisinresponsetoyourletterof March7,2007,requestingadditional
informationtoevaluatetheabovecaptionedcomplaint. PleasetakenoticethatIrecently
retainedcounselinthematterof Gillespiev.Barker,.Rodems&Cook.caseno.05-CA-
7205. IamcurrentlyrepresentedbyRobertW.Bauer,Esq.,of Gainesville,Florida.
BecauseofthetimeneededtoconferWithMr.Bauerandprovidehimthecasefile
inthecivillawsuit,IhavenotbeenabletorespOndtoyourrequestwithinthe30daysyou
requested. HowevernowthatMr. Bauerislitigatingthecivillawsuit,Ihopetohavea
responsetoyousoon,hopefullywithinaweek. Mr.Bauerdoesnotrepresentmeinmy
BarcomplaintagainstMr. Rodems.
OneresponsethatIcanprovidenowisthattherehasbeennosettlementregarding
Mr. Rodems' libelcounterclaimovermyBarcomplaintagainstMr. Cook. WhenI
movedtodismissthelibelcounterclaim,Mr. Rodemsmovedforsanctionspursuantto
section57.105(1)FloridaStatutes. Mr.Rodemsisdemandingattorneys'feesthereto,and
Isubsequentlyfiledananswertothelibelcounterclaim. Thematterisnowinthehands
ofMr. Bauer,whoenteredhisappearancewiththeCourtonApril2,2007.
PUBLIC RECORD
CJ
Neil J. Gillespie
8092SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala,Florida34481
Telephone: (352)502-8409
April 18,2007
TroyMatthewLovell,AssistantStaffCounsel
TheFloridaBar
5521 WestSpruceStreet,C-49
Tampa,Florida33607-5958
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems
TFBNo. 2007-11,162(13D)
DearMr. Lovell:
Thisisafollow-uptomyletterofApril 11,2007,andinresponsetoyourletterof
March7,2007,whereinyouaskedthefollowing:
1. Inparagraphtwoof yourletteryouaskedaboutRespondent'smisuseof
confidentialinformationobtainedinhispriorrepresentationofme, anddisclosedduringthe
currentproceedingIbroughtagainstRespondent'sfirm. MyresponseisthatRespondent
threatenedtorevealclientconfidences,althoughhedidnotactuallydoso. Mr.Rodems'
threatto revealclientconfidenceswasforthepurposeofintimidationofawitness.
DuringatelephonecallonMarch3,2006,Mr. Rodemsthreatenedtoreveal
confidentialinformationaboutmypaymentformedicaltreatment. Mr.Rodems' threatwas
memorializedbyavoicerecordingwhichhasbeentranscribed. Youalreadyhaveacopyof
thetranscriptwhichwasprovidedwithmycomplaint.(ExhibitF).
AsforthemannertheinformationwascommunicatedtoMr. Rodems,helearnedit
from Mr. Cook. Theinformationwasnotpublicknowledge,andwasknownonlytomy
lawyers. Specifically,Mr.Rodemsthreatenedthefollowing: (relevantportion)
TheFloridaBar,Tampf)
o
Page- 2of5
April 18,2007
"MR.RODEMS: Didn'tyouatonetimepurchaseacarsothatyoucouldgetthe
cashrebatetogetsomedentalworkdone? We'regoingtogettothediscovery,
anyhow,sojusttellme,didthatreallyhappen?
MR. GILLESPIE: What?
MR. RODEMS: Didyoupurchaseacarsothatyoucouldgetthecashrebateto
getsomedentalworkdone?
MR. GILLESPIE: Listen,thisiswhyyouneedtobedisqualified.
MR. RODEMS: No,Imean,that's-- becauseIknowthat? BecauseIknowthat
tobeafact?
MR. GILLESPIE: Youknowittobeafactfromyourpreviousrepresentationof
me.
MR.RODEMS: Well,youknow, seethat's-
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifitis-- ifit'safact, anyway.
MR. RODEMS: YouneedtostudytherulesandregulationsoftheFloridaBar
becausewhenyoumake-
MR. GILLESPIE: Ithink,IthinkIboughtacarsoIwouldhavesomethingto
drive. Idon'tknowwhyyoubuycars,butthat'swhyIboughtit.
MR. RODEMS: Well-
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifithadsomeotherbenefits,that'sdifferent.
MR. RODEMS: Iunderstandthatcarwasrepossessedshortlyafteryouboughtit
so-
MR. GILLESPIE: No, itwasn'trepossessed.
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well,thenyoucanprobablydrivethatdowntothe
hearingthenonthe28th.
MR. GILLESPIE: No,itwasvoluntarilyturnedinbecauseafter911 attackthe
jobthatIwasindriedup...."
2. ConcerningyourquestionaboutRespondent'simpermissibleconflictof
interest,andmyassertionthatheshouldbedisqualifiedfromrepresentingtheDefendants
becauseofthisconflict,IassumeyouarecorrectwhenyouwrotethatTheFloridaBar
The Florida Bar, Tampf.) o
Page - 3 of5
April 18, 2007
has no authority regarding the disqualification of counsel in pending cases. As such,
kindly limit your inquiry to Respondent's impermissible conflict of interest. As I
understand your letter, The Florida Bar has no jurisdiction to make a determination on
disqualification, so it would be inappropriate for The Florida bar to consider the matter of
disqualification. But Respondent's current, ongoing, impermissible conflict of interest
representing the Defendants in the civil litigation against me is within the jurisdiction of
The Florida Bar, and the Bar is obligated to investigate his impermissible conflict.
Nonetheless, my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems in the civil litigation was
denied. In my view the denial was based on a delay in bringing the motion, not on the
substance of the impermissible conflict
l
. But since The Florida Bar has no jurisdiction to
make a determination on disqualification, it would be improper for the Bar to consider the
ruling. I am complaining about Respondent's impermissible conflict of interest, not
whether or not he should be disqualified.
3. Concerning Mr. Rodems' perjury before the court, you asked for a copy of
the motion and order related to Judge Nielsen's recusal. I am happy to comply with your
request, and the following is enclosed:
a. Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Judge, and Memorandum of Law;
b. Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Judge;
c. Order of Recusal (on Judge Nielsen's own motion).
You also asked for a transcript of any hearing on the matter. My response is that
Judge Nielsen did not have a hearing on this matter. Judge Nielsen initially ruled that my
motion was not timely filed. Then two days later the Judge recused himself on his own
motion, presumably on the merits of my motion that Mr. Rodems perjured himself.
4. You asked about Respondent's filing of a counterclaim for libel against
me, and to provide information regarding whether this claim is still pending and, if it has
been resolved, copies of all documents related to the resolution. I already responded to
this question last week, in my letter to you dated April 11,2007. This is what I wrote you
concerning the counterclaim:
"One response that I can provide now is that there has been no settlement
regarding Mr. Rodems' libel counterclaim over my Bar complaint against Mr. Cook.
When I moved to dismiss the libel counterclaim, Mr. Rodems moved for sanctions
pursuant to section 57.105(1) Florida Statutes. Mr. Rodems is demanding attorneys' fees
thereto, and I subsequently filed an answer to the libel counterclaim. The matter is now
in the hands ofMr. Bauer, who entered his appearance with the Court on April 2, 2007."
In addition, in Florida judges generally pander to attorneys in the hope of receiving future campaign
contributions and political support, and favor attorneys over pro se litigants, especially when the attorney is
a defendant, and where Mr. Rodems filed a false affidavit to prejudice the court against me.
I
The Florida Bar, TampP
o
Page - 4 of5
April 18, 2007
As of today Defendants' counterclaim for libel is still pending against me.
5. Finally Mr. Lovell, you made the following assertion in an attempt to defer
my grievance because the allegations are the same as in pending civil litigation. This is
what you wrote:
"Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be
matter which are the subject of the civil litigation between you
and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are
deferred until after the conclusion of the civil or criminal
proceeding. If there are reasons you believe that such a deferral
would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your
response." (Lovell, March 7, 2007, p2, ~ 2
Mr. Lovell, my response is that your assertion is not correct. Grievances are not
typically deferred until after the conclusion of contemporaneous civil or criminal
proceedings. Specifically, Rule 3-7.4, Grievance Committee Procedures, states:
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.
Mr. Lovell, unless you can provide evidence that the board has approved a
deferral or suspension pursuant to Rule 3-7.4(e), I view your unilateral effort to defer my
grievance as obstruction of a bar complaint, and as an effort to help your fellow
colleagues Mr. Rodems and his law partners. Contrary to your assertion that this
grievance should be deferred, Rule 3-74(e) provides otherwise. Mr. Lovell, why are you
unilaterally obstructing my grievance contrary to the rule of law?
Mr. Lovell, this is not the first time you have improperly tried to obstruct my
grievance against Mr. Cook and his cohorts. In your letter to me dated April 18, 2006,
concerning a bar complaint about a $5,000.00 "improper payoff attempt" Mr. Cook
received from opposing counsel, you wrote:
"In addition, we note that the conduct in question occurred in 2001.
The Florida Bar has jurisdiction to consider complaints filed up to
six (6) years after the conduct in question. Thus, even if we were to
conclude that failing to file a grievance constituted a violation of the
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, we would be unable to conclude
that he failed in his duty before the time period for filing had
expired." (Lovell, April 18, 2006, pI, 5
The Florida Bar, TampP o
Page - 5 of5
April 18, 2007
Mr. Lovell, it appears you are referring to bar Rule 3-7.16, Limitations on Time to
Bring Complaint. It also appears you are wrong, and the information you provided was
incorrect, because the six year time period had not expired at the time of your April 18,
2006 letter. In fact, as of today the six year time period has not yet expired, and the time
does not expire until August, 2007, which is still four months away. At the time of your
letter, only years had passed, allowing another 1Y:z years for The Florida Bar to
conclude that Mr. Cook failed in his duty to report the $5,000.00 "improper payoff
attempt".
Mr. Lovell, in addition to the two preceding examples of improperly invoked
procedural obstacles to my bar complaints, your pervious letters to me have asserted facts
not in the record, and have attributed statements to me that I did not make. As such, the
objective evidence of your numerous false or inaccurate assertions calls into question
whether or not you take my complaints seriously, and prompts the following queries:
1. Mr. Lovell, did you willfully provide false, incorrect, or misleading
information relative to bar Rule 3-7.16, Limitations on Time to Bring Complaint, in your
letter to me of April 18, 2006, to help your colleague Mr. Cook evade discipline?
2. Are you currently providing false information relative to bar Rule 3-7A(e),
No Delayfor Civil or Criminal Proceedings, specifically your present claim that
grievances which are based on the same allegations as pending civil or criminal
proceedings are deferred until after the conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding?
3. Mr. Lovell, is your behavior willfully calculated to obstruct justice, and the
grievance procedures of The Florida Bar? Or do your numerous false or incorrect
assertions result from your ignorance of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar?
Mr. Lovell, kindly answer the above so I know how to proceed with this matter.
At this time I believe I have answered all your questions, and provided the items
you requested. Kindly contact me if you have additional questions or need anything else.
It is my intent to fully cooperate with The Florida Bar and its grievance process.
enclosures
Q
THEFLORIDABAR
MAILINGADDRESS: PHYSICALADDRESS:
JOHNF.HARKNESS,JR. 5521 WESTSPRUCESTREET AIRPORTMARRIOlTHOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR
SUITEC-49 SUITEC-49
www.FLABAR.ORG
TAMPA,FL33607-5958 TAMPA,FL33607-5958
May15,2007
NeilGillespie
8092SWII5thLoop
Ocala,Florida 34481
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintregardingRyanChristopherRodems
TFBNo.2007-11,162(13D)
DearMr. Gillespie:
Wehavereviewedyourcomplaintagainsttheabove-referencedattorneyandsupporting
documentation. Basedonourreviewof thesematerials,wehaveconcludedthatno further
proceedingsarewarrantedinthismatterandwillbeclosingourfile.
Respondentisamemberof yourfonnerlawfinnandisdefendingthatlawfinnincivillitigation
broughtbyyou. YouallegedthatRespondenthasengagedusedconfidentialinformationagainst
youbasedonthepriorrepresentation. OnMarch7,2007,werequestedadditionalinfonnation
regardingtheseallegationsinorderforusto evaluateyourgrievance. Todate,wehavereceived
noadditionalinfonnation. Intheabsenceof specificallegationsandsupportingevidence,we
havenobasisfor u r t ~ r proceedings.
Accordingly,ourfileinthismatterisnowclosed. TherecordsregardingthisInquiry/Complaint
willbedestroyedone(1) yearfromtoday. Ourdispositionof yourcomplainthasno effecton
anylegalremedythatyoumayhave.
Sincerely,
~ ~
TroyMatthewLovell
AssistantStaff Counsel
TML/emh
cc: RyanChristopherRodems
PUBLIC RECORD

Sl(,+G'
c;
'" '"
.. A
n
... m
'l!
o
tJ.-
O

..
G
",
THE FLORIDA BAR
TAMPA OFFICE
5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET
SUITE C-49
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
r n 7 ; 5
a::

<:(
I
r' .....
017H15534459
$0.41Q
05/15/2007
Mailed From 33607

<t
t;
0
a.
(/J
=0

(
,.
Visit our website: www.FLORIDABAR.org
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
3448i 7 R:::45 ',.",.1 1.1'1II II 'I I. I 11 ". ,III"'" I,II '.'