IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs. JUL 27 2010
___________......;1 CLtRK OF CIRCUIT COURT
NOTICE OF FRAUD ON THE COURT BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FL
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS -DISCOVERY
Plaintiff pro se Gillespie hereby reports fraud on the court by Ryan Christopher
Rodems counsel for Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, and in support thereof states:
1. Upon infonnation and belief, Mr. Rodems submitted a letter to Judge C o o ~ dated
July 12, 2010. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Mr. Rodems stated for item 1: "Mr. Gillespie did not file any response or
objection to the request for production." Gillespie objected to the deposition June 14,
2010 with Plaintiffs Motion To Cancel Deposition Duces Tecum June 18,2010 And For
An Order of Protection. (Exhibit B). GiHespie provided objections to Mr. Rodems by fax
June 21, 2010. (Exhibit C). Gillespie filed the letter with the court June 21, 2010.
(Exhibit D). After the court denied Gillespie's Motion For Reconsideration he provided
Mr. Rodems the outstanding discovery by letter dated June 25, 2010. (Exhibit E).
3. Mr. Rodems stated for item 2: "Mr. Gillespie's former counsel served unsigned,
unsworn answers that were evasive or incomplete. Thus. this circumstance does not meet
the criteria for entry of an Order compelling discovery without a hearing." This is false.
Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories of September 2,2008 were provided by my
former lawyer Robert W. Bauer, October 1,2008. (Exhibit F). Mr. Bauer notified Mr.
Rodems October 2,2008 that he was "attempting to comply with your discovery request."
(Exhibit G). I signed the verification page and it was notarized October 2,2008. Bauer
submitted the signed and notarized verification page to the Clerk of Court October 3,
2008. (Exhibit H). Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal from the case October 13, 2008
before completing discovery. Gillespie submitted the remaining response to Interrogatory
No.2 on April 28, 2010, see Affidavit And Inventory Of Personal Property Of Neil J.
Gillespie And Designated Exemptions. (Exhibit I).
4. Mr. Rodems lied to the court because he has a conflict representing himself and
his independent professional judgment is materially limited by the lawyer's own interest,
see Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA submitted July 9,2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED July 27,2010.
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed July 2 ,2010 to
Mr. Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 40 As ey . e, S 'te 2100,
Tampa, Florida 33602.
Page - 2
COpy
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone 813/489 .. 1001
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/489 .. 1008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
July 12, 2010
The Honorable Martha J. Cook
Circuit Court Judge
Circuit Civil, Division "G"
800 E. Twiggs 8treet, Room 511
Tampa, Florida 33602
Re: Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation; and William J. Cook
Case No.: 05-CA-7205; Division "G"
Dear Judge Cook:
Following the hearing of even date, I reviewed, as you requested, the circumstances surrounding
the below described motions to compel to determine ifthey met the criteria under Administrative
Order 8-2008-145, ~ 14, which provides in pertinent part: "When a motion to compel complying
with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(2) alleges the absence of a response or objection to
discovery and there has been no request for an extension oftime to respond, the court, without a
hearing, may enter an order requiring compliance with the original discovery request ...."
My review shows as follows:
1. "Defendant's Motion for an Order compelling Plaintiff to Respond to the
Defendant's Request for Production and Attend Deposition"
Mr. Gillespie did not file any response or objection to the request for production. Thus, it meets
the criteria, and an Order compelling a response is enclosed. As for the depositions that Mr.
Gillespie failed to attend, he did object. Thus, the motion to conlpel his attendance at the
deposition does 'not meet the criteria for entry of an Order compelling attendance without a
hearing.
When this morning's hearings began, you advised that the purpose was for case management only.
After Mr. Gillespie asked to be excused due to his apparent illness, I advised that this motion to
compel was noticed for hearing today. Given that Mr. Gillespie departed before this was clarified,
Defendants would prefer to reschedule the hearing to avoid any claim that Mr. Gillespie was
denied an opportunity to be heard.
A
The Honorable Martha J. Cook
July 12, 2010
Page 2
2. "Defendant's Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to the
Defendant's Interrogatories"
Mr. Gillespie's former counsel served unsigned, unsworn answers that were evasive or incomplete.
Thus, this circumstance does not meet the criteria for entry of an Order compelling discovery
without a hearing.
We request hearing time on the following:
1. "Defendants' Motion for Proceedings Supplementary for Execution" (10 minutes
requested);
2. "Defendant's Motion for an Order compelling Plaintiff to Respond to the
Defendant's Request for Production and Attend Deposition" (only on the deposition
portion)(5 minutes requested);
3. "Defendant's Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to the
Defendant's Interrogatories" (5 minutes requested);
4. "Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment" (30 minutes requested); and,
5. "Defendants' Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section 56.29(2), Florida
Statutes" (5 minutes requested).
Courtesy copies of all nlotions are attached.
We previously requested hearing dates from your judicial assistant for the summary judgment
motion, and slle offered August 24, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., but Mr. Gillespie advised me that the hour
was too early, and he refused to agree to that date and time. Given the scarce judicial resources,
we respectfully suggest that Mr. Gillespie should make arrangements to be available during all
normal business hours.
RCR/so
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie (w/encl)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
_____________----'1
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CANCEL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
JUNE 18,2010 AND FOR AN ORDER OF PROTECTION
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves the Court to cancel Defendants'
Deposition Duces Tecum on June 18,2010 and for an Order of Protection and states:
1. Defendants counsel Ryan C. Rodems failed to coordinate the time and date
of the hearing with the Plaintiff. This is an ongoing problem with Rodems.
2. Plaintiff cannot appear June 18, 2010 and has other commitments.
3. Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Pending ADA Determination, filed June 14,2010
requests an Order to Stay all proceedings pending a determination of his ADA
accommodation request.
4. Mr. Rodems and associates have a history of violence and defamation
against other participants in contentious litigation. This lawsuit is especially contentious,
a former client suing his lawyer for fraud, breach of duty, etc., etc.
a. Mr. Rodems and his former law partners were named in a $5 million dollar
defamation lawsuit brought by attorney Arnold Levine, Buccaneers Limited Partnership
B
v. Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, case 99-2354-CIV-T-23C. In retaliation, a Tampa Police Department report
dated June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges Mr. Alpert committed battery, Florida
Statutes 784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing hot coffee on him. At the
time Mr. Levine was a 68 year-old senior citizen. The report states: "The victim and
defendant are both attorneys and were representing their clients in a mediation hearing.
The victim alleges that the defendant began yelling, and intentionally threw the contents
of a 20 oz. cup of hot coffee which struck him in the chest staining his shirt. A request for
prosecution was issued for battery." Mr. Rodems is listed as a witness on the police
report. A copy of the police report is attached as Exhibit A.
b. Another example of Mr. Rodems' bizarre behavior against participants in
litigation are his defamatory comments about Eric Bischoff, a witnesses in
WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc., United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27, trial August 31-September
10, 2009. Mr. Rodems and his client failed to prevail at trial. The comments may be found
online at: http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente91 O.html, and
include, " The expert report Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and
Bischoff was not even called to testify by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff
perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009 before running out and refusing to
answer any more questions regarding his serious problems with alcohol and sexual
deviancy at the Gold Club while the head ofWCW." and "The sad state of professional
wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman, whose previous career
highlights include selling meat out of the back ofa truck, before he filed bankruptcy and
Page - 2
had his car repossessed. Today, after running WCW into the ground, Bischoff peddles
schlock like "Girls Gone Wild" and reality shows featuring B-listers." A copy of Rodems'
comments are attached as Exhibit B.
5. Another stunt used by Mr. Rodems against participants in contentious
litigation is a sworn affidavit used to falsely accuse his opponent of wrongdoing for the
purpose of advantage. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems made a verified pleading that falsely
named Judge Nielsen in an "exact quote" attributed to Plaintiff, putting the trial judge into
the controversy. The Tampa Police Department recently determined that the sworn
affidavit submitted by Mr. Rodems to the court about an "exact quote" attributed to
Plaintiff was not right and not accurate.
6. These lawyers have a history of physical violence and defamation against
participants in contentious litigation, and Plaintiff fears for his safety and well-being.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the Court to cancel Defendants' Deposition Duces
Tecum on June 18,2010 and for an Order of Protection.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by US mail
to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley
Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 14
th
day of June 010.
Page - 3
A
Et)WhtO
f1RS1""
In/JtA7iOt'{ .lM.lIlW4 7UEIn E7l;';
AlMMj;) , .IJ.!41/Eq,i.lau.it6i WE ,jt).{Cq
" ff A :2.0 Dz.: c..,/J of iAz,.-. rt>Er!J1=M TAft:" V!mftz '.$z1iJK/-fJ.Nm
rk'..rt' /1/..1' ...:r,.-bfX TN" Vlc7{/l1 Ay<:J 1Na'ItIE...r:r till S7?tZZ.a /T '
N!'.s AtVj.!TN7.(;..k, fk::;r': . . .. ' .
STATE FACTS TO ESTABUSHTHAT DEFE."DA1'oi COMMITTED CRIME: ttVQ.
I'" OO-/7'U7EC. 7Zk': ;Lt-IY't:Uv?' 2'7 N'1#A1r- I'\/t:) /I/..!' tJCP4:AJd?Eg.
7HF' tuM (ELF 7i) UfAtrRilvT!#Z lUll #oT
{Mi(#' T, m1l4'- r!1' iii r W..rt:tYZ: WltJi,.fJ
P
2..
(;.J<1"'" t: ,,,,,;..'7 <"'!fA<' ,4 S7';f.1"$""&vTj
i"
DISTR,cr SQUAD SIG?\ATIJRE D:\TE
TO BE FILLED OlT BY I .:blrc pre;,:. JtWD :r: this .:a.c,c ;lnd request Sta!C Attornc) 's Office to review
H !or
CITY ZIP
CROSS COMPl:A!NT ISSUED"
DYES it'NO
CHECK ONE
DOIwrestling.com - Declaration of Independents - The Number 1 Independent Pro Wrestl... Page 1 of3
DOIVIDEO.COM '
Tons of wrestling DVD's including original shoot i n t ~ ~ i e w s
Sal Corrente of WrestleReunion had a lawsuit against Clear Channel/Live Nation because they reneged on a
contract with him. The case went before a jury and Mr. Corrente lost the case, which many feel was unjust.
But Eric Bischoff made a statement on wrestlezone.com, which is below, that caused Sal's lawyer to send his
statement:
In my last post regarding the WrestleReunion/Live Nation lawSUit, I suggested that Bill Behrens and Eric
Bischoff were expert witnesses for WrestleReunion. That was not the case as they were actually witnesses
for the Clear Channel/Live Nation side. I just spoke with Eric Bischoff who said he agreed to be an expert
witness after reading and taking interest in the case, however he was not called to the stand.
"The case was wrapped up quickly," Bischoff told Wrestlezone.com, "the jury didn't waste any
time and came back with what I felt was the correct decision".
Eric was happy with the outcome, to say the least. "Rob Russen and Sal Corente give the wrestling
business a bad name," he stated, "so I'm glad justice prevailed and the bottom feeders didn't win
one".
Bischoff wanted to make sure that everyone knew his comments and opinions were solely his and did not
reflect those of Clear Channel/Live Nation.
In regards to the above statement, we have a statement from Mr. Corrente's lawyer:
"It is odd that Eric Bischoff, whose well-documented incompetence caused the demise of WCW,
should have any comment on the outcome of the WrestleReunion, LLC lawsuit. The expert report
Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was not even called to testify
by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009
before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious problems
with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head of WCW. To even sit in the
room and question him was one of the most distasteful things I've ever had to do in 17 years of
practicing law. In fact, we understand that Bischoff was afraid to even come to Tampa and
testify because he would have to answer questions under oath for a third time about his
embarrassing past.
The sad state of professional wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman,
whose previous career highlights include selling meat out of the back of a truck, before he filed
bankruptcy and had his car repossessed. Today, after running WCW into the ground,
Bischoff peddles schlock like "Girls Gone Wild" and reality shows featuring B-Iisters.
Sal Corrente, on the other hand, has always been an honorable man, and he delivered on every
promise and paid every wrestler while staging the three WrestleReunlon events. Unlike the
cowardly Bischoff, Mr. Corrente took the stand In this case. Although his company did not
prevail, Sal Corrente proved that he was man enough to fight to the finish -- something Bischoff
could never understand."
Sincerely,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker, Rodems &. Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
813/489-1001
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com
We just wanted to give Mr. Corrente's lawyer a chance to speak his mind.
Georgie GMakpoulos@aol.com
Since I have always had wrestlers autograph signings as a speciality for any website I worked for, I know for
sure, Mr. Corrente is an honest promoter who has NEVER stiffed a wrestler working for his shows or
conventions. I would have heard about it.
There are many promoters who do that in this business, which is very sad.
The information on this website is exclusive property of the Declaration of Independents and cannot be used elsewtJBfS without proper link credff. All 001 purchases
are non-refundab1e. All mail (electronic or postal) sent to the 001 becomes property of the 001 which allows the DOf to reprint that emaif In H's entirety by doing so, ff
the email is considered newsworthy.
Copyright declarationofindependents.net & dorwrestting.com. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.declarationofmdependents.netldoi/pages/corrente91 O.html 1/28/2010
B
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
June 21, 2010
VIA FAX (813) 489-1008
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Barker Rodems & Cook, PA
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division G
Dear Mr. Rodems:
This is in response to the last paragraph ofyour letter of June 11, 2010 concerning
discovery and Rule 1.380(a)(4). This is my good faith effort to provide the discovery
without court action and/or response justifying not providing the discovery.
As you know, much of your discovery to me is outstanding, some of it dating to 2006.
Currently the following motions to compel your discovery are pending:
1. December 14, 2006, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
2. February 1, 2007, Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
3. March 30, 2010, Plaintiffs Third Motion to Compel Discovery
Mr. Rodems, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery?
Your June 11, 2010 letter states "I made sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010
hearing date, but you have not reciprocated." This is a false statement. You did not make
sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010 hearing date with me. Instead you placed
calls to a number that you knew or should have known was no longer valid or associated
with this litigation. Upon information and belief, the number you called, (352) 502-8409
was associated years ago with my cell phone and disconnected and reassigned in 2007.
See Notice Of Fra.ud On The Court By Ryan Christopher Rodems, filed June 17, 2010.
C
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Page - 2
Barker Rodems & Cook, PA June 21, 2010
In response to the motions you improperly set for June 9, 2010, and the hearing of which
Judge Cook canceled, the motions are all related to collection ofthe final judgment of
$11,550. A Motion For Reconsideration of the final judgment and other orders and
rulings made by disqualified Judge Barton was filed under Fla.R.Jud.Admin., Ru1e
2.330(h), Prior Ru1ings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be
reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for
reconsideration. Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, 707 So.2d 868, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1998.
held that final judgment entered by a judge who was later disqualified is, like any other
order, subject to being reconsidered by successor judge.
Because a motion for reconsideration has been filed, and considering the holding of
Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, it is reasonable to assume that the final judgment of
$11,550 will be voided because of the extreme injustice it represents. Therefore your
motions related to the collection of the final judgment of$11,550 are now misplaced.
If the final judgment is voided, your motions will be moot. Therefore I am justified in not
providing the discovery and I am justified in not attending the deposition.
Again, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery Mr. Rodems?
Fax
From: Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
To: Mr. Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
Fax: (813) 489-1008
Date: June 21 , 2010
Pages: three (3), including this page
Re: see accompanying letter with Rule 1.380(a)(4) response
NOTE: This fax and the accompanying infonnation is privileged and confidential and is intended only for use by
the above addressee. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or
copying ofthis fax and the accompanying communications is strictly prolnbited Ifyou have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, collect ifnecessary, and return the
original message to me at the above address via u.s. mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes
pursuant to the business use exemption ofFlorida Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4XaXl) and the holding of
Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Lift Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TmRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
/
NOTICE OF FILING LETTERS, DISCOVERY
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Neil J. Gillespie pro se hereby files copies of
letters pertaining to discovery and Rule 1.380(a)(4), his good faith effort to provide the
discovery without court action and/or response justifying not providing the discovery.
1. Letter and enclosures of Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA to Neil
J. Gillespie dated June 11, 2010;
2. Letter ofNeil J. Gillespie to Mr. Rodems dated June 21, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 21, 2010.
D
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by mail June 21, 2010 to the office of Ryan Christopher Rodems, attorney for
the Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, at Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 400 North Ashley
Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602.
Page 2
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone 813/489 .. 1001
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/489 .. 1008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
June 11, 2010
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW IIS
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida- 34481
ro COpy
Re: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
Case No.: 05-CA-7205; Division "G"
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
I have and thank you for your letter of even date, transmitted by facsimile. Regardless of your accusations that I did
not call you, I made multiple telephone calls, some in the presence ofmy start: to coordinate hearings on June 9 and
July 12, 2010, and I dialed the same telephone number that I have successfully used to call you in the past.
What is most troubling about your letter is that you claim a hearing transcript shows that I am prohibited from calling
you, but you did not include the entirety ofthe transcript excerpt. Here is the pertinent language you omitted:
THE COURT: And as my dear father always says, discretion being the better part of valor, I would request
that you not engage in any telephonic communication with Mr. Gillespie between now and the next hearing.
MR. RODEMS: I will not, Your Honor. No phone messages, no direct calls. I'll conduct all of my
communications with Mr. Gillespie in writing.
Your omission of the entirety ofthe discussion creates a misperception; Judge Isom's request limited the request to
"between now and the next hearing."
I made sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12,2010 hearing date, but you have not reciprocated. Although I will not
cancel it based on your claim to not be available, I will renew my offer made regarding the motions to compel when
they were scheduled for June 9: Ifyou agree to provide the discovery within ten days and attend the deposition, then I
will cancel the hearing on the motions to compel (but not the Case Management Conference). The incentive for you
to consider that may be the prospect ofbeing held liable for my clients' attorneys' fees and costs, under Rule
1.380(a)(4).
I look forward to hearing from you.
RCRlso
cc: Honorable Martha J. Cook
Enclosure
74
1
proceed with your lawsuit. You of course can take a
2 voluntary dismissal if you so choose. However, they
3
filed a counterclaim. So even if you take a voluntary
4 dismissal that doesn't dismiss the counterclaim.
5 MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh.
6 THE COURT: But you know, again, because of your
7
express desire to file a motion to disqualify me, we're
8 going to terminate today's hearing to give you an
9 opportunity to do 50.
COpy
10 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.
11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
12 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, before we
13 THE COURT: I think I will hang on to all of this
14 stuff just in case we need them for any other hearings.
15 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, before we close the
16 record, am I still to prepare the orders based on your
17 rulings today and to submit them to you?
18 THE COURT: Please do.
19 MR. RODEMS: Yes, ma'am. I will of course send
"20 them to Mr. Gillespie in advance of sending them to
21 Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: And as my dear fat"her always says,
23 discretion being the better part of valor, I would
24 request that you not engage in any telephonic
communication with Mr. Gillespie between now and the 25
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75

next hearing.
MR. RODEMS: I will not, Your Honor. No phone
messages, no direct calls. I'll conduct all of my
communications with Mr. Gillespie in writing.
THE COURT: I think that would be advisable.
That way we don't have to be concerned with whether or
not there's any other improper statements or contact.
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir.
(Thereupon, the hearing concluded.)
o COpy
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW IIS
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
June 21, 2010
VIA FAX (813) 489-1008
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Barker Rodems & Cook, PA
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
T a m ~ Florida 33602
ro COpy
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et ale
Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division G
Dear Mr. Rodems:
This is in response to the last paragraph ofyour letter ofJune 11, 2010 concerning
discovery and Rule 1.380(a)(4). This is my good faith effort to provide the discovery
without court action and/or response justifying not providing the discovery.
As you know, much ofyour discovery to me is outstanding, some of it dating to 2006.
Currently the following motions to compel your discovery are pending:
1. December 14,2006, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
2. February 1, 2007, Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
3. March 30,2010, Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel Discovery
Mr. Rodems, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery?
Your June 11, 2010 letter states "I made sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010
hearing date, but you have not reciprocated." This is a false statement. You did not make
sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010 hearing date with me. Instead you placed
calls to a number that you knew or should have known was no longer valid or associated
with this litigation. Upon information and belief, the number you called, (352) 502-8409
was associated years ago with my cell phone and disconnected and reassigned in 2007.
See Notice Of Fraud On The Court By Ryan Christopher Rodems, filed June 17, 2010.
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Page - 2
Barker Rodems & Cook, PA June 21, 2010
In response to the motions you improperly set for June 9, 2010, and the hearing of which
Judge Cook canceled, the motions are all related to collection ofthe final judgment of
$11,550. A Motion For Reconsideration ofthe final judgment and other orders and
rulings made by disqualified Judge Barton was filed under Fla.R.Jud.Admin., Rule
2.33O(h), Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be
reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for
reconsideration. Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, 707 So.2d 868, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1998.
held that final judgment entered by ajudge who was later disqualified is, like any other
order, subject to being reconsidered by successor judge.
Because a motion for reconsideration has been filed, and considering the holding of
Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, it is reasonable to assume that the final judgment of
$11,550 will be voided because ofthe extreme injustice it represents. Therefore your
motions related to the collection of the fmaljudgment of$II,550 are now misplaced.
Ifthe fmal judgment is voided, your motions will be moot. Therefore I am justified in not
providing the discovery and I am justified in not attending the deposition.
Again, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery Mr. Rodems?
ro (opy
?4
J.. opie ~
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
June 25,2010
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Barker Rodems & Cook, PA
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division G
Dear Mr. Rodems:
This is a follow-up to my June 21,2010 fax good faith effort to provide the discovery
without court action and/or response justifying not providing the discovery pursuant to
Rule 1.380(a)(4).
I received Judge Cook's Order Denying Motion For Reconsideration of June 22, 2010
yesterday, June 24,2010. Since I am no longer justified in not providing the discovery,
please find enclosed the following:
Exhibit 1. Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories of September 2, 2008
Exhibit 2. Responses to Defendants' Request for Production submitted Sept. 2,2008
Exhibit 3. Responses to Defendants' Request for Production submitted October 13, 2009
Note: this request for production was made in violation of Judge Barton's Order of
October 9, 2009: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above action be shall be stayed
for 60 Days to allow the Plaintiff to find replacement counsel. (relevant portion).
Exhibit 4. Responses to Defendants' Request for Production submitted June 1,2010
Exhibit 5. Responses to Defendants' Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section
56.29(2), Florida Statutes, submitted June 1,2010.
As you know, much of your discovery to me is outstanding, some of it dating to 2006.
Currently the following motions to compel your discovery are pending:
E
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Page - 2
Barker Rodems & Cook, PA June 25, 2010
1. December 14,2006, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
2. February 1,2007, Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
3. March 30, 2010, Plaintiffs Third Motion to Compel Discovery
A letter from you dated December 19,2006 falsely states "documents have already been
produced" but I have not received any documents from you.
Mr. Rodems, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery?
Enclosures
Responses to Defendants Interrogatories of September 2, 2008 were provided by my former
lawyer Robert W. Bauer, October 1, 2008, see attached.
The verification page was signed and notarized by me October 2, 2008. Mr. Bauer submitted the
signed and notarized verification page to the Clerk of Court October 3, 2008.
New information.
Interrogatory No. 1. Mr. Bauer previously provided bank records. There are no other records
available to provide any additional information that would allow the Plaintiff to answer this
question. On November 16, 2009 I requested my client file from Mr. Bauer. He responded by
letter November 23, 2009 that he was exercising a charging lien and refused to provide the file.
The matter is currently subject to regulatory process.
In response to Mr. Rodems speculation contained in Defendants Motion For An Order
Compelling Plaintiff To Respond To The Defendants Interrogatories that Defendant in good
faith believes Plaintiff uses more than one bank account, has debit cards or credit cards, and
operates a business or makes purchases using PayPal or other similar payment services:
Plaintiff has no bank account.
Plaintiff has no credit card.
Plaintiff uses throw-away debit cards that have no records.
Plaintiff does not operate a business or make purchases for the business using PayPal or other
similar payment services.
Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff provided the answer by way of his Affidavit and Inventory of
Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie and Designated Exemptions submitted to the court April
28, 2010, see copy attached.
1
1
Responses to Defendants Request for Production submitted Sept. 2, 2008
1. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest
of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie
Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not
entitled to an attachment to subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of
the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is
not available even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla.
474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust
is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of express statutory authorization.
McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937.
2. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
3. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
4. None.
5. None.
6. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise.
7. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise.
8. None.
9. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise.
10. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want it again, please advise.
11. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what
is owned to Barker, Rodems & Cook.
12. None
13. None.
14. None.
15. None.
16. None.
2
2
17. None.
18. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want.
19. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance.
20. None.
21. None that I can recall.
22. None.
23. None.
24. None.
25. None.
26. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated
Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010,
and related documents.
27. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
28. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
29. None.
30. None.
31. None.
32. None.
33. None.
34. None.
35. None.
36. None.
37. All contracts undue which you currently have any legal rights. Request makes no
sense.
38. Objection, vague, what is a trust instrument? Otherwise see #1
3
39. None.
40. Objection vague. Otherwise none.
41. Repeated request, see the response to #26
42. Repeated request, see the response to #27
43. Objection, vague. Otherwise none.
44. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist.
45. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist.
46. I do not have a copy of my credit report.
1
Responses to Defendants Request for Production submitted October 13, 2009
1. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest
of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie
Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not
entitled to an attachment to subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of
the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is
not available even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla.
474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust
is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of express statutory authorization.
McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937.
2. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
3. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
4. None.
5. None.
6. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise.
7. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise.
8. None.
9. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise.
10. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want it again, please advise.
11. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what
is owned to Barker, Rodems & Cook.
12. None
13. None.
14. None.
15. None.
16. None.
3
2
17. None.
18. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want.
19. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance.
20. None.
21. None that I can recall.
22. None.
23. None.
24. None.
25. None.
26. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated
Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010,
and related documents.
27. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
28. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
29. None.
30. None.
31. None.
32. None.
33. None.
34. None.
35. None.
36. None.
37. All contracts undue which you currently have any legal rights. Objection, request
makes no sense.
38. Objection, vague, what is a trust instrument? Otherwise see #1
3
39. None.
40. Objection vague. Otherwise none.
41. Repeated request, see the response to #26
42. Repeated request, see the response to #27
43. Repeated request, see the response to #40
44. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist.
45. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist.
46. I do not have a copy of my credit report.
1
Responses to Defendants Deposition Duces Tecum submitted June 1, 2010
1. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest
of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie
Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not
entitled to an attachment to subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of
the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is
not available even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla.
474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust
is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of express statutory authorization.
McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937.
2. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
3. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
4. None.
5. All contracts undue which Gillespie currently have any legal rights. Objection,
request makes no sense.
6. Objection, vague, what is a trust instrument? Otherwise see #1
7. None.
8. Objection, vague. Otherwise none.
9. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated
Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010,
and related documents.
10. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
11. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist.
12. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist.
13. I do not have a copy of my credit report.
14. None.
15. None.
4
2
16. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
17. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
18. None.
19. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
20. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want it again, please advise.
21. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require
the creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what
is owned to Barker, Rodems & Cook.
22. None.
23. None.
24. None.
25. None.
26. None.
27. None.
28. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want.
29. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance.
30. None.
31. None that I can recall.
32. None.
33. None.
34. None.
35. None.
36. Repeated question, see response to #9.
37. Repeated question, see response to #10.
3
38. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
39. None.
40. None.
41. None.
42. None.
43. None.
44. None.
45. None.
Responses to Defendants Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section 56.29(2), Florida
Statutes, submitted June 1, 2010
4a. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest of a
defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie Family Living
Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not entitled to an attachment to
subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor,
99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is not available even if the debt is chargeable
to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla. 474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of
a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of
express statutory authorization. McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937.
b. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
c. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation
of a record when the record does not exist.
d. None.
e. All contracts undue which you currently have any legal rights. Request makes no sense.
f. Objection, see #1
g. None.
h. Objection vague. Otherwise none.
i. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated Exemptions,
and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010, and related documents.
j. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise.
k. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist.
l. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation
of a record when the record does not exist.
m. I do not have a copy of my credit report.
n. None.
o. None.
p. Already provided. If you want again, please advise.
5
q. Already provided. If you want again, please advise.
r. None
s. Already provided. If you want again, please advise.
t. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want again, please advise.
u. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the
creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what is owned to
Barker, Rodems & Cook.
v. None.
w. None.
x. None.
y. None.
z. None.
aa. None.
bb. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want.
cc. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance.
dd. None.
ee. None that I can recall.
ff. None.
gg. None.
hh, None.
ii. None.
jj. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated Exemptions,
and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010, and related documents.
kk. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want again, please advise.
ll. Already provided, if you want again, please advise.
mm. None.
nn. None.
oo. None.
pp. None.
qq. None.
rr. None.
ss. None.
The Law Offices of
Robert W . Bauer, P.A.
2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200, Gainesville, FL 32609
www.bauerlegal.com
Robert W Bauer, Esq.
Tanya M Uhi, Esq.
Phone: (352)375.5960
Fax: (352)337.2518
October 1, 2008
Hillsborough County Clerk of Court
FYI Only
PO Box 989
Tampa, Florida 33601-0989
No
Re: Case .No.: 05-CA-007205
Necessary
Dear of the Court:
Enclosed for filing in connection with the above referenced case please find the following:
Plaintiff s Notice of Service of Responses to Interrogatories to Plaintiff Neil
J. Gillespie.
If you have any questions, then please contact me at 352-375-5960.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Meghan E. Godby
RWB/meg
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Ryan C. Rodems Esq.
400 N Ashley Dr
Ste 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
F
-----------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Case No.: 2005-CA-7205
Division: C
Plaintiff,
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS, & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation, and WILLIAM J. COOK,
an individual,
Defendants.
- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - _ /
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO
PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
The Plaintiff, NEIL J. GILLESPIE, through their undersigned attorney, hereby gives
notice of serving the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
NEIL J. GILLESPIE without verification page, verification page to follow.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THE UNDERSIGNED Robert W. Bauer, Esq., attorney for the Defendants hereby certifies that
a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished to each person listed below by US Mail on
OCT 0 1 2008
Ryan C. Rodems, Esq.
400 North Ashley Drive, 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
T.he L.... ~ a ... "' . .. of Robert W. Bauer ....w.. ~
" ~ ~
By:
.
Robert W. Bauer, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants
Florida Bar No. 0011058
Tanya M. Uhl Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0052924
2815 NW 13
th
Street, Suite 200E
Gainesville, Florida
Telephone: (352) 375-5960
Fax: (352) 337-2518
INTERROGATORIES
1. For each such payment since January 1, 2005, identify the name and address of
each person who gave you cash or other payments for any reason (including but
not limited to payments made by cash, credit card, PayPal, check, in-kind) and
state why the person gave you cash or any other payments.
See Attached.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F.
Page 2 of 7
2. Identify with specificity each and every item of tangible personal property you
own whether individually or jointly, including but not limited to: motor vehicles,
articles of clothing, furniture (e.g., bed, dresser, table, desk), guns, knives,
exercise equipment (e.g., bicycles, treadmills), electronic device (e.g., computer,
IPOD, television, stereo, calculator, printer, camera, videocamera, videogame
console), jewelry, artwork, appliances (e.g., washer, dryer, oven, microwave,
dishwasher), equipment, tools, animals (including domestic and farm), stocks,
bonds, savings, retirement accounts (e.g., 401K, IRA, annuities), lawn or garden
equipment, cleaning equipment, linens, items made of cloth, items made of
plastic, items made of iron, copper, bronze, silver, platinum, gold, clay, ceramic or
marble. For each such item, identify the date obtained, the market value, the
serial number (if the item has one).
See Attached.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F.
Page 3 of 7
3. For each transaction since January 1,2005, identify with specificity each item of
tangible personal property you owned, individually or jointly, but have sold,
donated, gifted or otherwise disposed of own whether individually or jointly,
including but not limited to: motor vehicles, articles of clothing, furniture (e.g.,
bed, dresser, table, desk), guns, knives, exercise equipment (e.g., bicycles,
treadmills), electronic device (e.g., computer, IPOD, television, stereo, calculator,
printer, camera, videocamera, videogame console), jewelry, artwork, appliances
(e.g., washer, dryer, oven, microwave, dishwasher), equipment, tools, animals
(including domestic and fann), stocks, bonds, savings, retirement accounts (e.g.,
401K, IRA, annuities), lawn or garden equipment, cleaning equipment, linens,
items made of cloth, items made of plastic, items made of iron, copper, bronze,
silver, platinum, gold, clay, ceramic or marble. For each such item, identify the
date sold, donated, gifted or otherwise disposed of, the name of the person or
entity the item was so given, the market value, the serial number (if the item has
one).
See Attached.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F.
Page 4 of 7
4. Do you own, jointly or individually, any real property? Do you have any interest
as a beneficiary, trustee or other legal status, in any real property or trust? If so,
identify with specificity the real property owned or the interest as a beneficiary,
trustee in any real property or trust.
See Attached.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F.
Page 5 of 7
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO NEIL GILLESPIE
1. Please see bank records that have been previously provided. There are no other
records available to provide any additional information that would allow the Plaintiff to answer
this question.
2. The Plaintiff is still compiling a list ofhis personal property at this time. The
Plaintiffrequests an additional fifteen (15) days to complete this list.
3. No such records exist at this tinle that \vould enable the Plaintiff to provide the
requested infonnation.
4. The Plaintitf does not own allY real property in any capacity and does not have
any interests in real property or trust at this tinle.
The Law Offices of
Robert W . Bauer, P.A.
2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200, Gainesville, FL 32609
www.bauerlegal.com
Robert W Bauer, Esq.
Tanya M Uhi, Esq.
Phone:
Fax:
(352)375.5960
(352)337.2518
October 2, 2008
Ryan C. Rodems Esq.
400 N Ashley Dr
FYI Only
Ste 2100
Tanlpa, Florida 33602
OUf client: Neil Gillespie
Dear Sir:
We are still attempting to comply with your discovery request. Please allow an additional 15
days for my client to gather all the documents requested. I will further the production along
with the requested inventory when it is completed. Thank you in advance for your cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerely,
; n ~
~ ~ ~ Bauer, Esq.
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
G
The Law Offices of
Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200, Gainesville, FL 32609
www.bauerlegal.com
Robert W Bauer, Esq.
Tanya M Uhl, Esq.
Phone: (352)375.5960
Fax: (352)337.2518
October 3,2008
FYI Only
No Action
Hillsborough County Clerk of Court Necessary
PO Box 989
Tampa, Florida 33601-0989
Re: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems, & Cook, P.A. et al / 2005-CA-007205
Dear Clerk of the Court:
Enclosed for filing in connection with the above referenced case please find the following:
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF VERIFICATION PAGE FOR RESPONSES
TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
If you have any questions, then please contact me at 352-375-5960.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
i 't
. J \. '.
I '0"- ~ r- ..,11, :,'
l.'/ t )1' i: 01 II".'--J i /7 '.0' ' U ~ . ,oJ
1
/
. :....... .",
I ~ / /.
.'/
0.""
Meghan E. Godby
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 SW I I5th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Ryan C. Rodems Esq.
400 N Ashley Dr
Ste 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
H
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 2005-CA-007205
Division: .o:::C' _
NEIL 1. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BAKER, RODEMS, & COOK, a Florida
Corporation and WILLIAM 1. COOK, an individual,
Defendants.
----------------_/
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF VERIFICATION PAGE FOR RESPONSES
TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
The Plaintiff, NEIL 1. GILLESPIE, through his undersigned attorney, hereby gives notice
of serving the PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF VERIFICATION PAGE FOR
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE. On October 1,
2008, the Plaintiff served the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO NEIL
1. GILLESPIE without the verification page, as the verification page was to follow.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THE UNDERSIGNED Robert W. Bauer, Esq., attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certifies
that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished to each person listed below by US Mail
on OCT 0 3 2008 .
Ryan C. Rodems, Esq.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602 The of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
.--: "
By:!/ .' /Z/V. Zc


Attorney for Plaintiff
Florida Bar No. 0011058
Tanya M. Uhl, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0052924
2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E
Gainesville, FL 32609
Telephone: (352) 375-5960
Fax: (352) 337-2518
BY:
.7fwper
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF 'v_"j_"_
O
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this oZ day of eta h y> , 200
personally appeared Aj \ 3. G.It e. sf i' t::. , who deposes and says that the foregoing
answers to this Interrogatory are true and correct. .JJ c,', l:::r; Gj I' I 'e is either
personally known to me or produced -F' L r:S \ L,:::' as identification.
DAVID S, liNDAHL
Notary Public State of Florida
(: r!ct).J:). Commission Expires Jan 2;), 2010
Commission II DO 511509
Bonded Bv Nation.:=tl Notary Assn.
....,.:'i1;."""" c,.:",:-ot,." ,':If' ::\,..'>
Print name -bC\. '" J.e! ..:5, L, 1.-\
Notary Public, State at Large
(commission number and expiration
date)
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F.
Page 6 of 7
AFFIDAVIT AND INVENTORY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
AND DESIGNATED EXEMPTIONS
Before me, the undersigned, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths, personally
appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, who being fITSt duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am a bona fide resident of Marion County, Florida. I am over the age of 18 years,
am competent to make this affidavit.
2. I filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition, Chapter 7 case 02-14021-8B7, US Bankruptcy
Court. Middle District of Florida. The case was discharged March 5, 2003. The case
was terminated December 30, 2003.
3. I was homeless for the period approximately September 2002 through February 2005.
4. In February 2005 I moved to 8092 SW 115
th
Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, Marion
County, to care for my elderly mother, an unremarried widow.
5. The premises at 8092 SW 115
th
Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, Marion County is
owned by The Gillespie Family Living Trust. The contents are owned by the trust.
6. The following inventory contains a true and correct schedule of all personal property
owned by me in the state of Florida, including its fair market value:
Clothing and personal effects, $348
Used laptop computer, $150
Proceeds from the Reuter V. Check 'n Go Settlement Fund, $394.32
Social Security Disability benefits of $22,049 a year (2009)
1990 Dodge Grand Caravan, serial #IB4FK54R6LX309555, $300.00
7. According to F.S. 222.061(1), affiant elects to apply the following exemptions:
(a) Debtor's interest in personal property, not to exceed $4,000, pursuant to
section 222.25(4), Florida Statutes:
Clothing and personal effects, $348
Used laptop computer $150
Proceeds from the Reuter V. Check 'n Go Settlement Fund, $394.32
Total: 892.32
(b) 1990 Dodge Grand Caravan pursuant to section 222.25(1), Florida Statutes, a
debtor's interest, not to exceed $1,000 in value, in a single motor vehicle.
Total: $300.00
I
(c ) Social Security Disability benefits pursuant to section 222.18 Florida Statutes.
SWORN to this ~ day of April, 2010.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to take oaths and
acknowledgments in the State of Florida, personally appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
known to me, who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the above
matters contained in this document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge and
belief.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this ~ 8 day of April, 2010.
.~ ~ ~ ~ - ._-' - - - - ~
CINDY L. BORDIEN..BAUMBAR ER
Notary Public, State of F l o r i - - - - ~
My Comm. Expires Aug. 25, 2011
Now 00690208
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by mail to
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley
Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this dr day of April, 2010.