To the Judicial Qualifications Commission: Please find enclosed my completed and signed complaint against Judge Claudia Rickert Isom for failing to disclose a conflict with her husband, attorney Woody Isom, and my former attorney Jonathan Alpert. Judge Isom lied to me in open court February 1, 2007 by failing to make the disclosure. Judge Isom’s deceit in the case before her had significant consequences as outlined herein. Judge Isom engaged in dishonesty prejudicial to the administration of justice, and brought discredit to the courts and the judiciary.Judge Isom was dishonest February 1, 2007 during a conflict hearing in my civil lawsuit,Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.Judge Isom lied by omission when she failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpertwere previously law partners and shareholders at the law firm Fowler White in Tampa.
165
STATE OF FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION 1110 THOMASVILLE ROAD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224 (850) 488-1581 October 10, 2012 Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115 th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Re: Docket No. 12385, Judge 150m Dear Mr. Gillespie: The Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above matter and has determined, at its meeting held on Friday, October 5,2012, that the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the Code 'of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are matters for review solely through the court system. The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. If such misconduct or disability is found, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action to the Florida Supreme Court. The Commission has found no basis for further action on your complaint that therefore has been dismissed. Sincerely yours, Michael L. Schneider General Counsel MLS/bsk
Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Docket No. 12385, Judge 150m
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above matter and has determined, at its meeting held on Friday, October 5,2012, that the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the Code'of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are matters for review solely through the court system.
The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. If such misconduct or disability is found, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action to the Florida Supreme Court. The Commission has found no basis for further action on your complaint that therefore has been dismissed.
Please find enclosed my completed and signed complaint against Judge Claudia Rickert Isom forfailing to disclose a conflict with her husband, attorney Woody Isom, and my former attorneyJonathan Alpert. Judge Isom lied to me in open court February 1, 2007 by failing to make thedisclosure. Judge Isom’s deceit in the case before her had significant consequences as outlinedherein. Judge Isom engaged in dishonesty prejudicial to the administration of justice, andbrought discredit to the courts and the judiciary.
Judge Isom was dishonest February 1, 2007 during a conflict hearing in my civil lawsuit,Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.Judge Isom lied by omission when she failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpertwere previously law partners and shareholders at the law firm Fowler White in Tampa.
Please find enclosed the following exhibits in support of my complaint:
Exhibit 1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, December 15, 2006.Exhibit 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, January 7, 2007.Exhibit 3. Transcript of conflict hearing February 1, 2007.Exhibit 4. Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Judge, February 13, 2007.Exhibit 5. Court Order of Recusal, etc., February 13, 2007.Exhibit 6. Copy of the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, July 30, 2012.
On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict (Exhibit 1) thatinformed Judge Isom of campaign contributions from my former lawyer Jonathan Alpert to bothWoody Isom and Judge Isom. In addition, I informed Judge Isom:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protegees and former law partners, and the contract thatforms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between Plaintiffand the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.
Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have recused herself after reading that “thecontract that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, betweenPlaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.”
Judicial Qualifications CommissionComplaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge August 15, 2012
Page - 2
1. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the common lawrule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and wife are consideredas one person and the relatives of one spouse by consanguinity are related to the other byaffinity in the same degree. State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463.
2. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their counsel mightconsider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to discloserelevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v. AmericanaHealthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006.
3. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings with arelative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that a judge's prejudicemay bar a party from having his or her day in court. The function of the trial court onmotion to recuse the trial judge is limited to a determination of the legal sufficiency of anaffidavit, without reference to its truth and veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512,Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
4. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides a judge shall disqualifyhimself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably bequestioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under this rule, a judge is disqualifiedwhenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whetherany of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. The question whether disqualification ofa judge is required focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonablyquestion a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairlyand impartially.
5. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethical responsibilityof all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3.
In March 2010 I found the affidavit of Mr. Alpert dated September 3, 2003, received in theClerk’s file September 11, 2003 in his family law matter, Alpert v. Alpert, Case No.: 29-2001-DR-4977-C. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 10). Mr. Alpert’s affidavit states at paragraph 3.c.:
“I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in lastfall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to JudgeSierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;”
Woody Isom confirmed his relationship with Mr. Alpert to me in his email sent March 23, 2010at 4:35 PM. Woody Isom wrote “He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period oftime prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.” (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 11).
Judicial Qualifications CommissionComplaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge August 15, 2012
Page - 3
Clearly Woody Isom practiced law with, and had a business relationship with, Jonathan Alpert.My affidavit1 of July 30, 2012 sets forth the facts and legal arguments in more detail. (Exhibit 6).
Judge Isom’s dishonesty during the conflict hearing over which she presided is a serious breachof judicial ethics giving rise to this complaint. As set forth in my affidavit, Judge Isom denied medisability accommodation, and made rulings contrary to law. Judge Isom even ruled contrary toher own law essay, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 6).
During a hearing February 5, 2007 I asked Judge Isom if I could expect to receive a fair trial andhearings, but Judge Isom was unable to answer in the affirmative, and only mentioned that thiswas a jury trial. Jury trial notwithstanding, Judge Isom would make ruling in this case, and Ibelieved, based on the response of Judge Isom, that I would not receive fair treatment. ThereforeI submitted February 13, 2007 Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Judge. (Exhibit 4). My motionraised a number of issues that showed I feared I would not receive a fair trial or hearing.
Judge Isom recused herself the same day, see Court Order of Recusal, etc., (Exhibit 5). JudgeIsom wrote:
THIS CAUSE came before the court on the plaintiff's motion to disqualify judge.Although the motion is procedurally sufficient, is it insufficient as a matter of law in thatit appears to have been filed in response to adverse rulings of the court.
This response by Judge Isom is unlawful. Once Judge Isom found that my motion to disqualifywas “procedurally sufficient” she was required to step down. Judge Isom’ further commentswere not permitted under Florida law:
Judicial determination of initial motion. The judge against whom an initial motion todisqualify is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall notpass on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.160(f).
I provided Judge Isom additional case law on this issue, see Plaintiff’s Motion To DisqualifyJudge, pages 4 and 5. (Exhibit 4).
Judge Isom continued in her Order of February 13, 2007: (Exhibit 5)
At the same time, however, the plaintiff has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss hiscause leaving pending a counterclaim filed by the defendants. In an abundance of cautionand in an effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms ofthe plaintiffs future court appearances, the court on the court's own motion on the matterof disqualification has determined that reassignment is appropriate in this cause.
The above Order shows Judge Isom did not follow the law.
1 The original affidavit was submitted in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit July 30, 2012.
Judicial Qualifications Commission Page - 4 Complaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge August 15, 2012
As for Judge Isom's "effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms of the plaintiffs future court appearances", the Hillsborough courts have no integrity. The JQC should know that after its unsuccessful pursuit of the Hon. Gregory P. Holder, perhaps the only honest judge in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
Judge Isom should have recused herself after reading Jonathan Alpert's role in this case, as described in my December 15', 2006 motion for disclosure. Judge Isom lied by omission February 1, 2007 by failing to disclose a conflict with her husband Woody Isom and my former attorney Jonathan Alpert. A transcript of the hearing is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
As set forth in my affidavit, fifteen (15) additional related cases followed in this matter, in addition to the original case, after Judge Isom belatedly stepped down. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 47/exhibit 19). The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty and denial ofjustice has been enormous to me, all the lawyers involved, and to the court system.
This matter has been in the public domain for some time, see my affidavit. (Exhibit 6).
Judge Isom is a disgrace to the judiciary. She should be removed from office. Thank you.
Sincerely, .~.". /)1/?
~ r !
~tI'.' ..,....,t..f .'","
..-:/ ;/> /J../" '/ /. /
eil J:Gill9spie 8092 SW/(15th Loop Ocala,/L 34481 (352) 854-7807
(Note: This form can be typed into here, then printed, or print it out and fill it in by hand.)
Gillespie Neil Joseph
8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481
352-854-7807
Isom Claudia Rickert
George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430
Tampa, FL 33602
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Co
III. Statement of Facts
Please provide in as much detail as possible the information which you have knowledge which you believe constitutes judicial misconduct or disability. Include names, dates, places, addresses and telephone numbers which may assist the Commission.
If additional space is required, attach and number pages.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
c. List and attach copies of any relevant documents which you believe support your claim that the judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability. (Note: Retain a copy for your records as these documents shall become the property of the Commission and may not be returned.)
d. Identify, if you can, any other witnesses to the conduct about which you complain:
Name(s): __________________________________
05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al
✔
✔
n/a
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents. Addresses: _
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.Phone Numbers: _
IN FILING THIS COMPLAINT, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S RULES PROVIDE THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION, SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL PRIOR TO THE FILING OF FORMAL CHARGES. I FURTHER UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RULE OF CONFIDENTIALITY ATTACHES AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON THE FILING OF THIS COMPLAINT AND THAT ANY VIOLATION COULD RESULT IN A CITATION FOR CONTEMPT BY TI-IE COMMISSION.
V. Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and understand this complaint form and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and submitted of my own free will. ?
August 15, 2012 (Date) o plainant's Signqture)
/"'''''-'
ote: Only sigr>ed complaints will be considered.)I
Please note that the Commission only has authority to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct or permanent disability by persons holding state judicial positions. The Commission has no jurisdiction over and does not consider complaints against Federal Judges, magistrates, lawyers, police, court personnel, or State Attorneys. The Commission does not act as an appellate court and cannot review, reverse or modify a legal decision made by a judge in the course of a court proceeding. For example, the Commission does not investigate claims that a judge wrongfully excluded evidence; imposed an improper sentence, awarded custody to the wrong party; incorrectly awarded alimony or child support; incorrectly resolved a legal issue or believed perjured testimony.
Please return this form and direct all future communications to:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff/Petitioner, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205 vs. DIVISION: H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants/Respondents. /
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves the Court for an Order compelling
Defendants and Defendants' counsel to disclose any possible conflict of interest with the
Court or the Court's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this case, and states:
1. A notice from the Court on its website advises that The Honorable Claudia R.
Isom has the following relatives practicing law or involved in litigation support services
in the Tampa Bay Area:
(a) Husband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner
(b) Brother, Dale J. Ricket, who is a shareholder in the Law Firm of Dale J. Ricket
(c) Sister-in-Law, Janice Matson Ricket, who is an associate with the Law Firm of
Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. in the "Health Care Litigation Group"
2. The Court advises: If you feel there might be a conflict in your case based on the
above information, please raise the issue so it can be resolved prior to me presiding over
any matters concerning your case.
1
3. On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, Plaintiffleamed that Defendant William J.
Cook apparently paid $100.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002. The
information is displayed on a website maintained by the Florida Department of State,
Division of Elections. The data base lists the following information about Mr. Cook:
William J. Cook, 4021 West Corona Street, Tampa, FL 33629, profession, attorney. It is
believed that this is the same person as the Defendant in this case, and that Woody Isom
is the husband of The Honorable Claudia R. Isom. It is not exactly clear from the website
why Defendant Cook paid $100.00 to Judge Isom's husband, but the transaction may be
related The Honorable Claudia R. Isom's re-election to the bench in 2002.
4. In addition, it appears from the same Florida Department of State, Division of
Elections website that Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about
Augllst 22, 2002, and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about
May 1, 2002. Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protegees and former law partners, and the
contract that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,
between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.
It is not exactly clear from the website why Mr. Alpert paid $150.00 to Judge Isom's
husband and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom, but the transactions
may be related to the Judge Isom's re-election to the bench in the 2002 general election.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
compelling Defendants and Defendants counsel to disclose any possible conflict of
interest with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this
case, and for such further ruling as the Court deems appropriate.
Page - 2 of3
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15[h day of December, 2006.
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., Attorneys for
Defendants, 400 North AsWey Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 15th day of
December, 2006.
Page - 3 of3
Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 11Sth Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 15, 2006
Clerk of the Circuit Court Circuit Civil P.O. Box 989 Tampa, FL 33601-0989
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Case no: 2005 CA-7205, Division H
To the Clerk of the Court:
Kindly date stamp and file the foHowing in the above captioned lawsuit: Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure Of Conflict.
Thank you.
Sincerely, ~
--------------
IN TH"E CIRCUIT CO·URT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205 vs. DIVISION: H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOI(,
Defendants. /
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT
PART I
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves tile Court for all Order cOlllpelling
Defendants and Defendants' cOllnsel to disclose any possible conflict of illterest witll the
Coul1 or the COlll1's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this case, and states:
1. A notice [roln the Court on its website advises tl1at The Honorable Clalldia R.
ISOITI has the following relatives practicing law or involved in litigation support services
ill tIle Tanlpa Bay Area:
(a) I-Iusband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner
(b) Brother, Dale J. Ricket, who is a sllarellolder in the Law Firm of Dale J. Ricket
(c) Sister-ill-Law, Janice Matson Ricket, who is an associate witll the Law Firm of
Fowler, Wllite, Boggs, Banker, P.A. in the "Health Care Litigation Group"
1
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
2. The Coul1 advises: Ifyou feel there might be a COIlflict in your case based on the
above illformation, please raise the issue so it can be resolved prior to Ine presiding over
any Inatters concerl1ing your case.
3. On Wednesday, December 13,2006, Plaintiffleamed that Defendant Willianl J.
Cook apparently paid $100.00 by clleck to Woody Isom on or about July 2,2002. TIle
inforl11atiol1 is displayed on a website maintained by the Florida Departmel1t of State,
Divisioll of Elections. The data base lists the following illfonnation aboLlt Mr. Cook:
William J. Cook, 4021 West Corona Street, Talnpa, FL 33629, profession, attorney. It is
believed that this is the same person as the Defendant in this case, and that Woody ISOln
is tIle husballd of The Honorable Claudia R. Isom. It is not exactly clear [roin tIle website
WIlY Defendant Cook paid $100.00 to Judge Isom's husballd, but the transaction may be
related TIle HOllorable Claudia R. Isom's re-election to the bench in 2002.
4. III addition, it appears fronl the same Florida Department of State, Division of
ElectioilS website that Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isoin 011 or
August 22, 2002, and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or abollt
May 1,2002. Defenda11ts are Mr. Alpert's protegees and fonner law partners, al1d tIle
contract tllat [onns the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,
between Plaintiff and the law firin Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrel1till0 & Cook, P.A.
It is not exactly clear from the website WIlY Mr. Alpert paid $150.00 to Judge ISOI11'S
hllsbal1d a11d $100.00 by check to TIle Honorable Claudia R. Isom, but the transactions
nlay be related to the Judge Isom's re-election to the bench in tIle 2002 general electiol1.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that tllis Coul1 enter all Order
cOlnpelling Defelldants and Defendants counsel to disclose any possible conflict of
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
interest with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this
case, and for such further ruling as the Court deems appropriate.
PART II
5. During the course of this litigation Ryan Christopher Rodems, attorney for
Defendants, has sought information relative to Plaintiffs social/political activism and
judicial campaign financing. Mr. Rodems sought the following discovery from Plaintiff
relative to Plaintiff's social/political activism:
a. Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 's First Interrogatories to Plaintiff,
Interrogatory number 11: "Have you ever sent a letter, complaint or grievance
with the Florida Bar alleging that an attorney has committed a breach of ethics or
rules? If so, identify the date on which each such letter, complaint or grievance
was filed, the name of the attorney, the alleged violation, and the final outcome of
the complaint or grievance."
b. Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.'s First Interrogatories to Plaintiff,
Interrogatory number 12: "Have you ever sent any complaint, grievance or
correspondence, whether by electronic transmission or U.S. Postal Service or
courier delivery, to any government agency, including, but not limited to the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Attorney General or the
governor of Florida, regarding an attorney's or judge's alleged misconduct? If so,
identify the date on which each such complaint, grievance or correspondence was
sent, the name of the attorney, the alleged violation, and the final outcome of the
complaint or grievance."
Page - 3 of9
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
c. Defendal1ts' Request for Production to Plaintiff, item number 9: "Each and
every letter or docunlent Plaintiff has sellt to:
a. Governor Jeb Busll
b. Attorney General Charlie Crist
c. TIle Florida Elections Commission
d. The Florida Bar
e. TIle Judicial Qualifications Comnlission"
d. Defel1dants' Reqllest for Production to Plaintiff, item number 22: "Eacll and
every letter, complaint or grieVallCe sent to or received from the Florida Bar
regarding any allegations that an attorney llas comnlitted a breach of ethics or
fllies."
e. Defendants' Request for Production to Plaintiff, item number 23: "Eacll and
every letter, complaint or grievance from or to any govemnlent agency, including
bllt not linlited to tIle Florida Judicial Qualifications Comnlission, the Florida
Elections Commission, the Florida Attorney General or tIle governor of Florida,
regarding any allegations tllat an attorney or judge has engaged in misconduct."
6. On December 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems left Plaintiff a ranting, ad hominenl abusive
telepllone nlcssage tllat referenced Plaintiffs social/political activism and judicial
call1paigl1 financing, among other things. In his ranting telephone lllessage, Mr. Rodems
specifically referellced a Judge in Pinellas County. Tllis an exact quote fronl a transcript
of Mr. Rodems' rallting pllolle message: "And you also filed claims agaillst a Jlldge in
Pinellas COUllty." (Transcript of Telephone Recording, Dec-13-06, p7, '1).
Page - 4 01'9
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
7. Because ofMr. Rodems' repeated references to Plaintiffs social/political activism
and judicial campaign financing, it is clear that he intends use it as a red herring to divert
attention away from his clients' fraud and breach of contract, and away from his own
perjury before the Court. Mr. Rodems is also an attempting to prejudice the Court against
Plaintiff by suggesting that the Court itself could become subject to a compliant. So it is
appropriate to bring this matter before the Court, as the Court itself may have a conflict or
be unduly influenced by Mr. Rodems' tactics.
8. The matter to which Ryan Christopher Rodems refers to in paragraph 6 dates back
to ]998 and involves a small claims lawsuit that Plaintiff successfully brought against a
taxicab company in St. Petersburg. In that small claims action, the Judge ruled in
Plaintiffs favor and awarded Plaintiff a settlement of$337.50. The problem involved the
behavior of the lawyer representing the taxicab company, who disobeyed the COUlt's Pre
Trial Conference Order, failed to follow Florida Small Claims Rules, and threatened and
intimidated Plaintiff during the proceedings.
9. Contemporaneously Plaintiff was taking paralegal classes at St. Petersburg Junior
College, courses taught by several sitting Circuit Court Judges of the Sixth Judicial
Circuit. During a lecture, Plaintiff asked why a lawyer would feel free to ignore
discovery rules and other such. The Circuit Court Judge teaching the class responded that
judges do not want to offend or sanction lawyers who are potential campaign
contributors. The Judge also added, You didn't hear that/rom me.
Page - 5 of9
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
10. Acting on the information learned in paragraph 9, Plaintiff viewed the public
election records. The Judge in question was young and recently appointed to the benchI.
Shortly after the small claims lawsuit described in paragraph 8, the Judge launched his
first campaign to retain his position. The public records indicated that the lawyer who
behaved badly during the small claims lawsuit, his law firm was heavily involved in the
Judge's campaign. In fact, the Judge's Campaign Treasurer's Report ofItemized
Contributions listed a contribution in excess of$500.00 from the law firm, in violation of
section 106.19(1)(a) Florida Statutes.
11. PlaintifI filed a complaint with the Florida Elections Commission about the
unlawful campaign contribution; the Judge admitted an error and the excess funds were
returned to the law firm. However during the course of the investigation it was revealed
that the law firm had provided an in-kind contribution and only reported what it spent on
postage (plus a $40.00 tip to a worker) to mail campaign literature, and did not fairly
value the in-kind contribution. In effect the law firm provided its office and staff to the
Judge for the price of postage, contrary to section 106.055, Florida Statutes, valuation of
in-kind contributions, which requires that the valuation shall be the fair market value of
such contribution. An in-kind contribution is defined as "having an attributable value in
any form." (Op.Div.Elect., DE 78-23, May 18, 1978). The value of campaign literature
should be reported as based on cost to the contributor, if ascertainable, and otherwise on
the basis to the ordinary consumer. (Op.Atty.Gen. 137, 1952).
I The Judge was appointed by the govemor [not Gov. Bush] to replace Judge James Berfield, who was convicted offalsit)ling elections documents. Berfield claimed it was an honest mistake. The St. Petersburg Times wrote that Bertield " ... ignored conventional political wisdom and challenged a longtime incumbent, County Judge Charles A. Carrere, Berfield's victory marked a rare loss by an incumbent Pinellas Judge." Written by David Ballingrud, published May 8, 1999, St. Petersburg Times.
Page - 6 of9
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
12. The culprits in this matter were the lawyers and law firm, old hands in Pinellas
County who had essentially prayed upon a young, inexperienced Judge. In addition to
unlawfully undervaluing their in-kind campaign contribution (undervalued by over
100%), evidence surfaced during the investigation that the lawyers may have been
involved with a political committee that was kept secret from the public and not properly
disclosed pursuant to section 106.144 Florida Statutes. That was the issue which
concerned Plaintiff: the implied quidpro quo associated with financial support. Lawyers
do not give money without expecting something in return, and Plaintiff viewed this
violation of election laws as a threat to the integrity and independence of Florida's
judiciary. There is also a moral component to lawyers giving money to the very judges
before whom they practice; while it may be lawful when done in accordance with the
statute, it is immoral, wrong, not right, incon'ect and repugnant for reasons akin to
bribely. And a number of Pinellas Judges appear to believe this too. Take the case of
The Honorable David Seth Walker, who wrote the following declaration in his Campaign
Treasure's RepOli: "**NOTE: THIS CANDIDATE DID NOT SOLICIT NOR ACCEPT
ANY CONTRIBUTIONS OF ANY KIND FROM ANY BODY". (Exhibit 1, for the
period Jun-Ol-96 through Aug-l 4-96). (Judge Walker is now retired. He was not one of
Plaintiffs instmctors. None of Plaintiffs instmctors, the sitting Circuit Court Judges,
took campaign contributions during this election cycle. Neither the present nor the prior
Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit took any campaign contributions in this cycle).
13. The Florida Elections Commission acknowledged the Judge's return of the
unlawful campaign contribution, but did not pursue the matter fmiher. Plaintiff wanted
the Commission to investigate the lawyers' attempt to cormpt the judicial election
Page - 7 of9
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
process by use of undervalued in-kind contributions, and political committees kept secret
from the public, but the Commission declined. Plaintiff appealed and was not successful,
due to the lack of time, resources, legal training, and politics.
14. Plaintiff had the support of Florida Governor Jeb Bush on this matter. Upon
learning about Plaintiffs efforts, Governor Bush had a staffer, Mrs. Wheeler, telephone
PlaintilTto voice Governor Bush's supp0l1 on January 15, 1999. A transcript of the
telephone message is attached as Exhibit 2. Governor Bush himself wrote Plaintiff on
August 3, 1999, thanking him, and referring the matter to the Department of State on
Plaintiffs behalf. (Exhibit 3). This was a bi-partisan effort, as Plaintiff is not a
Republican, and Jeb Bush is. Plaintiff believes this bi-partisan effort was thwarted by
Attorney General Robert Butterworth, whose office opposed Plaintiffs efforts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable COUl1 consider the
information in this motion and kindly take the following action, or any other remedy this
Court deems appropriate:
A. Advise Plaintiff if there is a conflict with Mr. Cook's payment of $1 00.00
to A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, described in paragraph 3.
B. Advise Plaintiff if there is a conflict with Jonathan Alpert's payments to
both A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, and to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom described in
paragraph 4. Mr. Alpert will be a witness in this matter, and he will be called to testify to
the amount of attorneys' fees incurred at Alpert, Barker, Rodems, FelTentino & Cook,
P.A. on Plaintiffs behalf; how Defendants secretly and deceitfully plalmed and opened a
new law office while still in his employ and partnership; and how Defendants took his
Page - 80f9
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
existing clients, active lawsuits, and key employees to that new law firm; and other
matters relating to the prior representation of Plaintiff and Defendants deceitfulness.
C. Acknowledge any prejudice toward Plaintiff over his social/political
activism on judicial campaign financing, or other matter. In the absence of any such
prejudice, Plaintiff presumes this Honorable Court will treat him fairly.
D. Restrict or prohibit Mr. Rodems discovery of the items described in
paragraph 5 of this motion, and to restrict or prohibit Mr. Rodems' reference to this
matter during the course of this litigation.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of January, 2007.
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
Page - 90f9
. POSIT FROM .HDATE HIMSELF
CAMPAIGN TREASURER'S REPORT -:. ITEMIZED ~
(1) Name DAVID SETH WALKER (2) 1.0. Numoor 00 22252
(3) Cover Period 7 I 1 I 96 through _8_.1 14 I 96 (4) Page __=-1__ of _---=1 _
(5) Dato
(6) Sequence Number
7 /3/96
1
(7)
Full Name (lsst, First, Suffix, Middle)
Street Address & City, State, ZIp Code
WALKER, DAVID SETH 300 Park Street So. St. Petersburg, F1 33707 DEPOSIT FROM CANDIDATE HIMSELF
(8) DEPOSTTOR ~kIXW
Type Occupiltlon
I -Judge
(9)
Deposi ~
Type
Check
(10)
In-kind Description
(11)
Amendment
(12)
Amount
6,000.00
/ /
/ / ...... NOTE: THIS CANDI pATE DID ~r SOLIC
ANY CONTRIBUTIONS 0 FAN ~ KIND ~ROM AN
T NOR A(~CEPT
BODY.
/ /
/ /
/ / .,
/
/
/
/
} D 3
EXHIBIT
---.1'--
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN ~~D FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-7205 -vs-
Division: "H" BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. A Florida Corporation, WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants. -----------------------------j
TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE RECORDING
RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below
DATE & TIME: January 15, 1999
TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth Court Reporter Notary Public
EXHIBIT
R2j
" --
(ORIGINAL ~) (COPY )
Michael J. Borseth Court Reporter/Legal Transcription
(813) 598-2703
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
2
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
NEIL J. GILLESPIE 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 (352) 854-7807
For the Office of Governor Bush:
MRS. WHEELER
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
3
* * * * * * * * * *
MRS. WHEELER: This message is for Neil
Gillespie. My name is Mrs. Wheeler. I'm calling
from the Office of Governor Bush with regards to
your correspondence to the Governor.
The Governor appreciates you keeping him
advised of what has happened with regards to your
motion. We do wish you the best of luck. We are
glad to hear that it has been remanded back to the
commission for further investigation and we hope
that the outcome is positive.
The Governor did review the information you
sent to him and he does appreciate you keeping him
updated as to what's happening.
Please do not hesitate to contact us ln the
future if we can help you on any other issue. And
please keep us advised as to what the outcome is
with the Florida Election Commission investigation.
Thank you so much for writing us with your
letter and we look forward to hearing from you
again in the future. Bye-bye.
AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHINE: 9:03.
MR. GILLESPIE: September 15th, 1999.
(Whereupon, the above recording was
concluded.)
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
4
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
I, Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter
for the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for
Hillsborough County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that I was
authorized to and did transcribe a tape/CD recording of
the proceedings and evidence in the above-styled cause,
as stated in the caption hereto, and that the foregoing
pages constitute an accurate transcription of the tape
recording of said proceedings and evidence, to the best
of my ability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of
Florida, this 22 December 2006.
MICHAEL J. BORSETH, Court Reporter
STATE OF FLORIDA
-. . THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001 JEB BUSH
August 3, 1999GOVERNOR
ML Neil J. Gillespie 1121 Beach Drive, Northeast Apartment C-2 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Florida Elections Commission. I appreciate your contacting me.
Although I am glad to have the opportunity to review your request, the subject about which you wrote is under the jurisdiction of the Department of State. Honorable Katherine Harris, Secretary of State, is the public official who can best address your concerns. I am forwarding your letter to her, and her office should contact you.
Again, thank you for writing. If I can assist you with a matter under my authority, I hope you will let me know.
S)n erely, 1
l/d~ b Bush
JB/hlg
cc: Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
EXHIBIT
I 3 __
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, Case No. 05-7205
-vs-Division: "H"
BARKER RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
The undersigned certifies that a copy hereof has been furnished to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Attorneys for Defendants, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, by hand this 13th day of
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, Case No. OS-CA·7205
Division H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida Corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants. _________________~I
COURT ORDER OF RECUSAL AND DIRECTING CLERK TO REASSIGN TO NEW DIVISION
THIS CAUSE came before the court on the plaintiff's motion to disqualify judge. Although the motion is procedurally sufficient, is it insufficient as a matter of law in that it appears to have been filed in response to adverse rulings of the court. At the same time, however, the plaintiff has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his cause leaving pending a counterclaim filed by the defendants. In an abundance of caution and in an effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms of the plaintiffs future court appearances, the court on the court's own motion on the matter of disqualification has determined that reassignment is appropriate in this cause. The court having reviewed the file and pleadings filed therein, does hereby enter this order of recusal, it is therefore,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED the undersigned circuit judge hereby recuses Division H, the division over which she currently presides, from all matters which may arise in the future concerning the above-styled cause.
The Clerk of Court is directly to randomly reassign this matter by blind rotation pursuant to the established administrative procedures and certify below the division to which this case is reassigned.
DONE AND ORDERED February 13, 2007, in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Pursuant to the established administrative procedures, I certify that the above-caption case has been randomly reassigned to Division _
PAT FRANK CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
________________, Deputy Clerk (signature)
(date) Copies Provided: Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Ryan Christopher Rodems 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, FL 33602
P.A. (“BRC”) and William J. Cook (“Cook”) represented me beginning December 12,
2000. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. BRC and Cook appealed.
5. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and
Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit.
Amscot settled for business reasons before the appeal was decided. The Certificate of
Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1) attached to the Joint
Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this Affidavit:
Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.Amscot CorporationBarker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.Barker, Chris A., Esq.Cook, William J., Esq.Gillespie, NeilMacKechnie, IanRodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq.
This stipulation was not provided to me by my former lawyers. I obtained it from the
Court in April 2006 with a records request. (Exhibit 1).
6. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA
with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorney’s fees. (Exhibit 2).
7. BRC and Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot.
Cook lied to me about a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the
closing statement. (Exhibit 3). There was no such award. The $50,000 was actually part
of the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned contingent fee agreement, or Florida
Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was later
found to be $7,143.68. I filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Cook for violation
of ethics rules. The Florida Bar failed to properly adjudicate my complaint.
3
8. On August 11, 2005 I sued, pro se, BRC and Cook to recover $6,224.78. The case
was caption was Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook,
Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. BRC partner Ryan Christopher
Rodems defended his firm BRC and law partner Cook.
9. On January 13, 2006 Judge Richard A. Nielsen found by Order that I established
a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Cook. (Exhibit 4). On
information and belief, partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for
the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the
ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There was an actual conflict of interest in Mr.
Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves in this case.
10. On January 19, 2006, BRC and Cook countersued me for Libel over a letter I
wrote to Ian MacKechnie, president of Amscot, about the prior litigation.
11. On February 4, 2006 I moved to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. On
information and belief, disqualification was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge
Kovachevich, U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida, Tampa Division:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professionalimpropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must showexistence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters inpending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause ofaction. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, forpurposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposingparty, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and courtmust focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legaladvice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be “substantially related”
4
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable personswould understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantialrelationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendantand issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs createdirrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential informationwas disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification ofeven one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation ofopposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
McPartland cites State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 75 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991), a
Florida Supreme Court case. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I found
McPartland and other similar cases in 2010.
12. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify
him and an argument ensued. During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech,
and threatened me. Rodems said “you will pay” for writing a letter to Ian MacKechnie,
president of Amscot. All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-
7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use exemption
of Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health
Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
13. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with a sworn
affidavit under the penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of the Judge Nielsen in
“Defendants’ Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions”. Mr. Rodems falsely
named Judge Nielsen in an “exact quote” attributed to me. Upon information and belief,
it was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage.
14. A voice recording of the call impeached Mr. Rodems’ sworn affidavit. Kirby
Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department, investigated the matter and
wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing
5
to the Court as an “exact quote” language that clearly was not an exact quote. The
investigation did not show any wrongdoing by me.
15. Beginning on March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems has directed, with malice aforethought,
a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disabilities, caused
substantial emotional distress and served legitimate purpose.
16. On March 20, 2006 I requested from Mr. Rodems pursuant to Bar Rule 4-
1.5(f)(5) settlement documents at the heart of the lawsuit. The documents were in dispute
as to their existence or whether the documents were signed. (Exhibit 5).
17. On March 27, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a hostile email in response to my Bar
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) request, with his typical false reference to threats of physical violence.
(Exhibit 6). Mr. Rodems wrote:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requestedhave been previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to yourinitial complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Given your threats of physicalviolence against me during our last telephone conversation, and given that youhave copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort to harass us.Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I wasadvised that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse ofthe rules by former clients, the most practical response would be to send thedocuments to you again. They are attached in pdf format. In the event you makethis request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format is not to yourliking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00p.m. to inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that wemay arrange to have security present.
18. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard.
Judge Richard Nielsen failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of
McPartland. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c)
when he failed to disclose McPartland to Judge Nielsen:
6
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to thetribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to bedirectly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposingcounsel, in this instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v.ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legalauthority directly adverse to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp arejust two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and theTable of Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fullyinform the court on applicable law whether favorable or adverse to position ofclient so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination ofthe matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced bythis motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr. Rodems andBRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
Paragraph 61, Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. July 9, 2010, also Exhibit 10 to the Complaint
in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
19. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment. It was set
for a hearing before Judge Nielsen August 1, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Rodems objected by
email the same day. I canceled the hearing with the intention of resetting the hearing, and
hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was never heard.
20. On April 25, 2006 Mr. Rodems waited outside Judge Nielsen’s chambers to taunt
me following a hearing. At the next hearing June 28, 2006 I requested protection from the
Court to prevent a reoccurrence. Judge Nielsen did not provide the requested protection:
(Transcript, June 28, 2006, page 21, beginning at line 20)
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallwayand I don’t want that to happen today.
THE COURT: Well, you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and thenyou can decide what you want to do, sir.
21. Initially I had a good working relationship with Judge Nielsen and his judicial
assistant Myra Gomez. After Rodems’ stunt Judge Nielsen did not manage the
7
case lawfully, favored Defendants in rulings, responded to me sarcastically, and
sanctioned me for failing to comply with Mr. Rodems’ discovery requests, even though I
complied with the discovery requests to the best of my ability. I moved to disqualify
Judge Nielsen, which he denied, but recused himself sua sponte November 22, 2006.
22. Upon information and believe, the right to bodily integrity and security of person
includes mental integrity, that is, freedom from mental and psychological abuse. The
right to safely pursue justice is a fundamental civil right that underscores a litigant’s right
not to be subjected to physical, sexual, mental or emotional violence inside or outside the
court, either by private attorneys or by judges and people acting on the part of the state.
The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. Litigants in civil proceedings
must be free from mental or emotional violence, which may be a form of torture, or their
Constitutionally protected rights, including due process, are rendered meaningless.
23. My case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006.
24. On December 3, 2006 I read a notice on Judge Isom’s web page that advised that
the judge had a number of relatives practicing law and “If you feel there might be a
conflict in your case based on the above information, please raise the issue so it can be
resolved prior to me presiding over any matters concerning your case”. One relative
listed was husband A. Woodson “Woody” Isom, Jr.. (Exhibit 7).
25. On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict,
and moved for disclosure of conflict with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other
conflict of interest in this case. My motion noted the following possible conflicts:
“…Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 bycheck to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002.” (¶3, page 2)
8
“…Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002,and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002.”(¶4, page 2)
My motion informed Judge Isom of the significance of Jonathan Alpert to this case:
“Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protégées and former law partners, and the contractthat forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook,P.A.” (¶4, page 2)
On January 5, 2007 I served Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict.
26. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Discovery, to reconsider a July 24, 2006 Order by Judge Richard Nielsen for discovery
sanctions against me.
27. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Disqualify Counsel, to reconsider Judge Nielsen's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to
Disqualify Counsel (Mr. Rodems and BRC) entered May 12, 2006.
28. On December 12th and December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems left voice mail messages
on my cell phone. (Exhibit 8.4). Rodems called me “cheap” and other such:
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)
24 I would also point out that the problem that25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probably more
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 7, beginning at line 1)
1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're3 usual hours rates are for litigation like this,…
19. …..And then on top of all20. that you always fall back on your medical21. condition, which I have never seen any22. documentation of, that you always allude to that in23. your Court fillings. And quite frankly, you play24. the victim when it suits you and you play the
9
25. advocate when it suits you…
29. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a five page letter of insults,
including ridicule of mental illness: (Exhibit 8.3)
“I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by yourown poor choices in life. You also claim to have mental or psychologicalproblems, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior inthis case has been so abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions ofmental problems.” (P1, ¶3)
“So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to paythe required hourly rates for representation.” (P3, ¶2).
30. On December 27, 2006 I responded to Mr. Rodems letter. (Exhibit 7.1).
Dear Mr. Rodems,
This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, andyour subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lostperspective in this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting yourdisqualification as counsel.
As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theoriesare little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside thebounds of acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I havereferred them to the attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your namecalling, that I am a “pro se litigant of dubious distinction”, “cheap”, and othersuch, is harassment. Be advised that I received your telephone message while atthe oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, and was so upset that Ihad to cancel my appointment and leave.
Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 inresponse to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created toidentify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse,mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers(Bar Rule 2-9.11)….
Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of JudgeNielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoingharassment of me. I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.,or a provider of your choice.
10
Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type ofcommunication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourselfaccordingly.
31. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to Judge Isom about Mr. Rodems’ harassment of
me. (Exhibit 8). I provided Judge Isom a transcript of Rodems’ ranting phone message of
December 13, 2006. I provided Judge Isom a copy of Rodems’ five page diatribe to me of
December 13, 2006. (Exhibit 8.3).
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephonemessage of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his subsequent five pagediatribe of even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling,ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all isevidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lostperspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that ledto the recusal of Judge Nielsen.
Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribeof wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodemscontacts the Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. ApparentlyMr. Rodems has been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from homeduring normal business hours. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line15). As stated before, I am concerned for his well-being and mine. I alsorequested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages andletters.
32. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order To Compel
Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop Harassing Behavior. (Exhibit 9).
33. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Mary
Elizabeth Blazer and is part of the record. Judge Isom denied the existence of any
conflict. The transcript shows that Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husband
Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at the
11
law firm Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and
Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.
34. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom engaged in deception and dishonesty
prejudicial to the administration of justice February 1, 2007 when she lied by omission
and failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners
and shareholders at Fowler White:
a. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their counselmight consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation todisclose relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v.Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006.
b. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using thecommon law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband andwife are considered as one person and the relatives of one spouse byconsanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the same degree. State v.Wall, 41 Fla. 463.
c. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealingswith a relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that ajudge's prejudice may bar a party from having his or her day in court. Thefunction of the trial court on motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to adetermination of the legal sufficiency of an affidavit, without reference to its truthand veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
d. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides a judge shalldisqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartialitymight reasonably be questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under thisrule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably bequestioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.The question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on thosematters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartialityrather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially.
e. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethicalresponsibility of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code ofJud. Conduct, Canon 3.
12
35. In 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. While
researching accusations in one of Rodems’ harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit
signed by Jonathan Alpert in Alpert’s divorce case that stated in ¶3c: (Exhibit 10).
I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, inlast fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically calledto Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;
36. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed in an email to me that he practiced
law with Jonathan Alpert. (Exhibit 11). Woody Isom wrote: “He and I were shareholders
at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.”
37. On February 5, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing in the case.
a. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Denise L. Bradley, and is part of
the record. Judge Isom considered the following matters:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify CounselPlaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery (Sanctions)Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike CounterclaimThe Americans with Disabilities Act (ABA)
On February 6, 2007 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter with two proposed Orders. (Exhibit 20)
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery (Sanctions)Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim
Neither Order was signed by Judge Isom, and neither Order was entered into the record.
These motions were not considered by any successor judge.
b. Judge Isom did not rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify
Counsel. The Court considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as shown in the
transcript, from page 22 through 40, which is presented as Exhibit 21, but then Mr.
Rodems objected, as shown on pages 36-37 of the transcript, February 5, 2007:
12 MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,13 Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into
13
14 earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he15 didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes16 say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be17 considered for any purposes by the court in any18 hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie19 for illegally recording the conversation.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address1 the motion for reconsideration and the motion to2 disqualify today.
(Note: Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department,investigated this matter and wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was notright and not accurate in representing to the Court as an “exact quote” languagethat clearly was not an exact quote. The investigation did not show anywrongdoing by me.)
c. Judge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions. Upon
information and belief, Judge Isom failed to follow her own law essay on discovery
sanctions, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 12).
Judge Isom’s essay describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors intensive case
management for lawyers to avoid costly sanctions, because Florida judges are elected and
need the financial support of lawyers. Judge Isom acknowledged that lawyers behave
badly in court, and this bad behavior - which Judge Isom calls “cutting up” - is intended
to churn more fees for themselves. Judge Isom refused to provide me the same kind of
intensive case management to avoid sanctions. Judge Isom denied me the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of the court, specifically mediation services:
(Transcript, February 01, 2007, page 15, line 20)
THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolvethis without litigation?MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
Judge Isom did not offer me mediation. Judge Isom let the sanction Order stand. Upon
information and belief the sanction Order is contrary to the law on discovery:
14
Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to encouragethe settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d517 (Fla. 1996). The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedydetermination every action (In re Estes’ Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast DentalServices, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure thatjudgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd.Partnership v. Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and notupon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division ofAdministration, State Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2dDist. 1977).
The sanction Order was later used by Judge James M. Barton to penalize me with a
$11,550 sanction. Mr. Rodems used this sanction to extort a settlement from me.
d. Judge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems’ counterclaim for libel
against me. The counterclaim was a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to Ian
MacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are interested parties on the
Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1). My
letter complained about the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation by BRC and
Cook. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have, but did not, disqualify
Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems pursued vexatious litigation against me
that began January 19, 2006 and continued through September 28, 2010, whereupon
Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I retained counsel to
defend against the vexatious lawsuit and incurred over $33,000 in legal fees by attorney
Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for libel.
e. Judge Isom conducted an ADA assessment of me during the February 5,
2007 hearing. This matter is more fully described in Verified Notice of Filing Disability
Information of Neil J. Gillespie, submitted May 27, 2011 in Hillsborough County. (And
15
later filed in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala, case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc (Doc. 36),
and case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc (Doc 15, Appendix 2).
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even8 hearing you. But it sounded all right.9 THE COURT: What's is the nature of your10 disability?11 MR. GILLESPIE: It's depression and12 post-traumatic stress disorder.13 THE COURT: Are you under the care of a doctor?14 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.15 THE COURT: And do you have a disability rating16 with the Social Security Administration?17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge. In the early '90s,18 I'm going to say '93 or '94, I was judged disabled by19 Social Security. And I applied for vocational20 rehabilitation. And to make a long story short, I21 guess it was in about '98 or '99 I received a22 determination from vocational rehabilitation that my23 disability was so severe that I could not benefit from24 rehabilitation.25 I would say in the interim that they had prepared
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 46, beginning at line 1)
1 a rehabilitation plan for me and they didn't want to2 implement it. And that's the reason that they gave for3 not implementing it. I brought that cause of action to4 the Barker, Rodems and Cook law firm and they reviewed5 that. And apparently they were in agreement with it6 because they decided not to represent me on that claim.7 And a copy of their letter denying that is part of my8 motion for punitive damages. You can read that letter.9 I think I have it here.
After taking testimony about my disability, Judge Isom offered to abate the matter
for three months so I could find counsel, but Mr. Rodems objected. I retained attorney
Robert W. Bauer one month later.
16
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 46, beginning at line 10)
10 THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of direction11 today, do you want to just stop everything and abate12 this proceeding for three months so that you can go out13 and try to find substitute counsel or --you know, I14 realize there's a counterclaim.15 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.16 THE COURT: But originally, at least, it was your17 lawsuit. So if you feel that you're at a disadvantage18 because of your lack of counsel, I guess I could abate19 it and give you additional time to try to find an20 attorney.21 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, we would oppose that.22 And let me tell you why.
Mr. Rodems continued with a self serving diatribe and accused me of criminal
extortion for trying to resolve this matter through the Florida Bar ACAP Program, and
other such. Then Mr. Rodems made this accusation in open court:
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 49, beginning at line 12).
12 [MR: RODEMS:] In any event, at every stage of the proceedings13 when Mr. Gillespie is about to be held accountable for14 his actions he cries that he's got a disability or he15 complains about the fact that he can't get a lawyer.16 The reason he can't get a lawyer is because he's not17 willing to pay a lawyer by the hour for the services he18 wants.
And I responded: (Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 50, beginning at line 14).
14 MR. GILLESPIE: I am willing to pay an attorney15 by the hour. I have sent a payment of $350 an hour to16 an attorney with the promise of a retainer if they17 would take the case. So Mr. Rodems calling me cheap18 and all of this name-calling and not willing to pay,19 that's not true. In fact, I offered Rick Mitzel who20 said the cost would be $200 an hour, I gladly offered21 to pay him $200 an hour. He wouldn't take the case.22 These lawyers don't want to litigate against this firm23 because they're aware of what this firm does and what24 they're capable of.
17
38. Judge Isom went against her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused to
abate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to continue the
lengthy hearing due to disability. I was too confused:
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even8 hearing you.
39. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom misused and denied me judicial
process under the color of law. Two days later on February 7, 2007 I gave notice
of voluntary dismissal (Exhibit 13) and submitted a motion for an order of
voluntary dismissal. (Exhibit 14). Mr. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his
counterclaim. If Rodems did so, that would have ended the case February 7, 2007.
40. On February 26, 2007 The Lawyer Referral Service of The Florida Bar provided
me a referral to Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville (Florida Bar ID: 11058) for Libel &
Slander. (Exhibit 15). I was not able to find counsel in Tampa. After reviewing my case,
Mr. Bauer told me “…the jury would love to punish a slimy attorney.” (Transcript,
March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer encouraged me to reinstate my claims.
41. Mr. Bauer reinstated my voluntarily-dismissed claims in Hillsborough County.
Mr. Rodems appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA),
Case No. 2D07-4530. The 2dDCA denied Mr. Rodems’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
and held as follows: (Exhibit 22).
PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix SuperMarkets, Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that whencounterclaim is pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint withoutorder of court).
18
42. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems sent threatening email to Mr. Bauer in
May 2007. Mr. Rodems objected to Mr. Bauer’s leave to amend, threatened Bauer with
sanctions under § 57.105, Fla. Stat., and reiterated his usual laundry list of alleged bad
acts against me, which had no bearing on the matter at hand. (Exhibit 16). Rodems wrote:
I am serving the 57.105 motion today...we object to the motion for leave toamend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and youare flat wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked atRule 1.100(a)? I assume you are aware of the line of cases that hold that amislabeled pleading or motion is not a nullity. We'll send you a 57.105 motion,and you can decide how to proceed.
Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for acourt appointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriatedefenses, the economic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQthe trial judges, appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and falsestatements about a judge in a letter to the court, threatening to slam me against thewall, and telling an insurance company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims),I am surprised you would rely on any portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.
This example is representative of Mr. Rodems’ boorish behavior.
43. On August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an Emergency
Hearing on garnishment before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work1 this out in a professional manner. It is my2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Rodems' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated my disability to the
point where I can no longer represent my at hearings. I become easily distracted and
confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent
himself. See Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011.
19
44. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case. Mr. Bauer
sent me this email July 8, 2008 at 6.05PM stating in part:
“No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not beable to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame thesituation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. Ibelieve it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. Youhave had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much moredifficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can beavoided.”
See Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie filed September 18, 2010,
Exhibit 10 to the Complaint in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
I was denied access to court in my own case due to Rodems conflict and misconduct.
45. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 13, 2008; it was granted October 1,
2009. Mr. Bauer charged me $31,863 in legal fees. $12,650 remains unpaid.
46. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with
Eugene P. Castagliuolo (Florida Bar ID 104360) who represented me in June 2011. Mr.
Rodems refused to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodily
attachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part “Last but not
least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but
unhappy message.” (Exhibit 17). On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an
“asshole” in an email to me. (Exhibit 18). Castagliuolo wrote (in part): “Based on what I
know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged
in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you.” This example is
representative of Mr. Rodems’ boorish behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo.
47. There are now fifteen (15) additional related cases in this matter due to Judge
Isom’s dishonesty and denial of justice. (Exhibit 19). Judge Isom was dishonest when she
failed to disclose a conflil;t with husband Woody Isom and Mr. Alpert. Judge Isom
denied me justice under t~1e color of law when she failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems and
BRC as counsel as required by McPartland. Judge Isom denied me justice under the color
of law when she failed to provide intensive case management as she advocated in her law
review, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, and when she failed to abate the hearing
February 5, 2006 until Mr. Bauer could be retained. The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty
and denial ofjustice has been enormous to me, all the lawyers, and the court system.
FURTHER AFF]ANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated this 30th day of July 2012.
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MARION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments in the State of Florida, appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, personally known to me or provided identification who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the above matters contained in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 30th day of July 2012.
I~W' CECIUA ROSENBERGER..:~~i·: ~ Cormission # EE 191610 ~~ ~ 1 Expires m6, 2016 Notary Public, State of Florida
"... !Ii Bonded Thru na,Flirt......800-315-7019
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was provided July 30, 2012 by
WILLIAM J. CO K, ESQUIRE R. FERNANDEZ, ES Florida Bar No. 986194 Florida Bar No. 008 5 300 West Platt Street 501 E. Kennedy Blvd ~)uite 150 Sllite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33606 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 489-1001 (TEL) (813) 273-5000 (TE"L) (813) 489-1008 (FAX) (t~J3) 273-5145 (F~AX)
Z.:\.t to rrle :i5 for Appe 11 ant ~3 ..~tt~~~jrneys for Appellee
1
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and
Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-1, counsel for the Appellants certify
that the following persons and entities have an interest in the
Enclosed is payment of $45.00 to Clerk of the Court to retrieve the above captioned case for copying, as we discussed by telephone on March 29,2006,
Upon retrieval of the file, kindly call me with the total number of pages so that I can send you the 50 cents per page for the cost of copying.
Thank you.
S?~p~. ~ak~ enclosure
I
'~A0182 040171ORIGI~
(Rev. 1lU89).' o RECEIPT FclllvMENT". "
- UNITED STATED COURT OF APPEAL:S for the
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ATLANTA, GEORGIA
o•'" '" ~
~. '" o 13' ! I
~.
•
•
GENERAL AND SPECIAL FUND 0869PL PLRA Filing Fees 086900 Docketing Fees 322340 Sales of Publications & Opinions 322350 Copy Fees 322360 Miscellaneous Fees
(Includes Certifi tion Fee) 510000 Fees for Judicial ervices
ACCOUNT AMOUNT
0869PL
086900
322340
510000
322350
322360
TOTAL $
Mail~I~ -0 Rail
All checks, money orders, drafts, etc. are accepted subject to collection. Full credit will not be • given until the negotiable i t has een ac . cia' itution on which it
was drawn.
•
• •I, " ~
• • • •,,' "
• • • •
•
..
·ATLANTP<.GA 303
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS _ •... '. "•. _.r.... "_ .."•...., _".'_ 16" 44 ~~, (::'!~ '1r:~\ r#·t..<. .;·;:'-~ ..~:.lt~ y .lt1~. . ",...ELEVENTH CIRCUIT , ~....."....,,;r:lI!
_ ..~l'!\.""'~••.. • • "W~OFFICE OF THE CLERK ....- .~ - .__.
56 FORSYTH STREET. N.W. 04i18i2006
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 Mailed From 3.0303
US POSTAGE ~ ~ OFFICIAL BUSINESS \
PENALlY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300t
t " :j ol
~
o Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115 tho Loop Ocala, FL. 34481
3448 i +::::=5:£·7 111/1,.1,,/,I.. " ,,1111/ 11,,11,,/ ,Ill"1/1,,, 11,1,,1//.11,.1,'
p
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 121 Filed 12/10/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1363
2
i
BARKER, RODEl\'1S & COOK, P.A. CLOSIN'C STATEMENT
Style of Case: Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomelleld, and As of: October 31, 2001 Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation.
Our File No.: 99.4766
ATTORNEYS' FEES $ 50,000.00 & COSTS
PAYMENTS TO CLIENTS
EUGENE R. CLEMENT $ 2,000.00 GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD 2,000.00 NEIL GILLESPIE 2,000.00
TOTAL $ 56,000.00 .I
In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that ANISCOT Corporation separately paid my attomeys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for courtawarded fees and costs. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy of the fully executed Release and Settlement Agreement dated October 30, 2001.
3
-, \ ,) Ii .... '-' , ....
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,
DEFENDANTS.
--------------_-----:/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made
arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,
ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.
2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to
dismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this
order within which to file responsive pleadings.
DIVISION" F "
or, 36
- //1
4
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 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
or' 37 f _
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115111 Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT ARTICLE NO.: 7005257000004274 1994
March 20, 2006
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
Dear Mr. Resems,
This request is made pursuant to Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Kindly provide the following:
1. A copy of the executed closing statement of October 31, 2001, reflecting an itemization of all costs and expenses in the Amscot litigation, together with the amount of fee received by each participating lawyer or law firm; and
2. A copy ofthe executed contingent fee contract in the Amscot case. This includes the executed Statement of Client's Rights as well as an Acknowledgment regarding the investigation of my claim. These three documents encompass the entire agreement between me and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (See Class Representation Contract, page 3).
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) requires that each participating lawyer shall retain a copy of the written fee contract and closing statement for 6 years after execution of the closing statement. Any contingent fee contract and closing statement shall be available for inspection at reasonable times by the client, by any other person upon judicial order, or by the appropriate disciplinary agency. This is a request for a copy of the documents in lieu of an inspection. In the alternative I will make an inspection. Please indicate how you wish to proceed. You may contact me by email [email protected].
Sincerely,
~/Z'h?~k-Neil J. Gilt{spie .
5
Page 1 ofl ,
~~C_.ciiiio_m _
From: "Chris Rodems" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 6:05 PM Attach: Docs responsive to NJG letter of 3-20-6.pdf Subject: Your document request - March 20, 2006
Dear Neil:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requested have been previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to your initial complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Given your threats of physical violence against me during our last telephone conversation, and given that you have copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort to harass us. Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I was advised that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse of the rules by former clients, the most practical response would be to send the documents to you again. They are attached in pdf format. In the event you make this request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format is not to your liking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that we may arrange to have security present.
Sincerely,
Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 E-mail: [email protected]
NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorneyclient privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
3/28/2006
6
l'age 1 or 1Thirteenth Judicial Circuit - The Honorable Claudia R. 1som - Notice of Conflict
General CiVil, Division H 800 E. TWiggs St., Room 513 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 272-6972
NOTICE FROM THE COURT
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT JUDGE ISOM HAS THE FOLLOWING RELATIVES PRACTICING LAW OR INVOLVED IN LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES
IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA Husband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner.
Brother, Dale J.. Rickert, who is a shareholder in the Law Firm of Dale J. Rickert.
Sister-in-Law, Janice Matson Rickert, who is an associate with the Law Firm of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., in the "Health Care Litigation Group".
f you feel the . t be a conflict in your case based on the abm information, ease raise the issue 0 it can be resolved prior to n
(;residing over any matters concerning your case.
Thank you, Claudia Rickert Isom Circuit Judge
Home • DIVISIons 0 t:l1e Courts • Judges· Directory • Leg;)1 • Admlnlstrllb~ Offll:e at t:l1e (
Geneml Informa on • MediCI Center • Job lIsbngs • Lmks • Search 10 2DO~ I et!1Ilh d td Lrcu
Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 11Sth Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 27,2006
The Honorable Claudia R. Isom Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Circuit Court, Division H 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 513 Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 2005 CA 7205, Division H
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodenls' ranting telephone message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy ofhis subsequent five page diatribe of even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling, ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all is evidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lost perspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen.
Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribe of wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodems contacts the Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. Apparently Mr. Rodenls has been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from home during normal business hOllrs. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line 15). As stated before, I anl concerned for his well-being and mine. I also requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters.
Thank you.
Enclosures cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney for Defendants
8
Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 27, 2006
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Dear Mr. Rodems,
This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, and your subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lost perspective in this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting your disqualification as counsel.
As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theories are little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside the bounds of acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I have referred them to the attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your name calling, that I am a "pro se litigant of dubious distinction", "cheap", and other such, is harassment. Be advised that I received your telephone message while at the oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, and was so upset that I had to cancel my appointment and leave.
Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in response to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created to identify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse, mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers (Bar Rule 2-9.11). FLA is independent of The Florida Bar, although it does receive funding from that organization. Paramount to FLA is the protection of confidentiality for those attorneys who contact FLA for help. Confidentiality in voluntary cases is protected by a written contract with The Florida Bar which guarantees the confidentiality of FLA records, as well as by Bar Rule 3-7.1(i), Chap. 397.482-486, F.S., and other state and federal regulations. Judges, attorneys, law students, and support personnel who seek the assistance of FLA need not worry that FLA will report them to the Bar, the Board of Bar Examiners, or their
8.1
I •
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Page - 2 Gillespie v. Barker, case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H Decenlber 27, 2006 , . employer. Information is shared with these entities only if the participating individual signs a waiver of confidentiality. FLA's primary purpose is to assist the impaired attorney in his or her recovery. (The preceding paragraph is from the Florida Bar's web site).
Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoing harassment of me. I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., or a provider of your choice.
Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type of communication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourself accordingly.
Enclosure: Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006
cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom, w/enclosures Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006 Copy of Mr. Rodems' five page letter dated December 13, 2006
Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115lh Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Dear Mr. Rodems,
Kindly take notice that we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie". I have made this request to you several times, in writing, and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understand the problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do not understand your difficulty. Let me remind you that I am ten years your senior, which only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie".
As for your immature, childish remark left on my voice mail, your statement that because the greeting on my voice mail says "Hi,this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get back to you", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use my first name, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in this lawsuit. It also calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A).
I am providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it in the record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will question you about this matter, to give the Court and the jury some idea about how unprofessional you are, and to provide a glimpse into the nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Please address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.
cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom enclosure, page 5, transcript ofMr. Rodems' phone message of Dec-13-06
8.2
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone 813/489·1001400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS Facsimile 813/489·1008WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
December 13, 2006
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Neil:
As you know, I called you on Decelnber 12, 2006 to schedule hearings before Judge Isoln on February 7,2007. You did not answer, so I left you a voice Inail. Later that afternoon, you sent a letter to Ine by facsilnile. In it, you clailn to be unavailable Febluary 7 and that you "hope to have representation within 30 days." You have Illade that assertion for several months now, without retaining counsel, and I cannot delay this proceeding any further on your unfulfilled prolnises of retaining counsel. You also state in your letter that I have "threatened the lawyers that were helping" you, which is completely unfounded. I will address that issue below.
Judge ISOI11 has all day on February 5, 2007 open, and we could resolve all pending motions, excel)t for your ITIotion for sUlnmary judgtnent, on that date. I left you a voice mail on this today.
As has Judge Nielsen, I have endured for severallnonths now disparaging remarks from you, false allegations, attacks on my credibility and otherwise boorish behavior. I have not responded to Illuch of it because I recognize that you are a bitter lnan Wll0 apparently has been victilnized by your own poor choices in life. You also claim to have ITIental or psychological problelns, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so abnonnal that I would not disagree with your assertions of Inental problems. I have lnaintained courtesy in every tneeting with you, including a wann senti111ent following a hearing -- only to be accused after that of "taunting" you.
I intend to continue treating you with the saIne dignity and respect as I would opposing counsel in any other case; however, I have First AInendInent rights, too. I aln not obligated to accept your false statelnents, disparaging relnarks, attacks on IUy credibility and the other tactics you have used in this case. I want to ensure that you understand IUy position, and so I find it necessary now to write to COlTect the record.
8.3
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie December 13,2006 Page 2
As for your claims that I "threatened the lawyers" that is simply false. I forwarded bye-mail portions of your October 18, 2006 to Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Buchholz and Mr. Snyder, and stated "Neil Gillespie has filed a letter with Judge Richard Nielsen, and has attributed comments to the three of you. As an officer of the Court, I believe I have a duty to advise you of this. Please review pages 8-10 of the attached letter. Should any of you desire the complete document, with attachments, please advise." I have received no reply. In fact, the first confirmation that my letter had been received by these three attorneys was your December 12 facsimile letter.
Let me explain why I sent the portions of the letter to them. Your tactic of naming these three lawyers as people you had spoken to, and then attributing statements to them anonymously and en masse is very damaging to them professionally. I sent the portions of the October 18, 2006 letter to them so that they could review it and do whatever they felt necessary.
I also sent it to them because I questioned the veracity of your letter. I considered four possibilities about the statements you attributed to them anonymously: First, you may be lying. Second, you may be taking some or all of the statements out of context. Third, you may be paraphrasing and changing the meaning of the actual statements. Fourth, one or all of these attorneys may have never said anything to you, but were being used by you to endorse statements that you would later use to attempt to recuse Judge Nielsen.
I also disagree that my actions have hanned your ability to hire counsel. The primary problem is that your case is weak. You are essentially claiming in this action that our law finn breached its contract with you by not paying you a portion of the attomeys' fees earned in the Amscot case. Every attorney knows -- or should know -- that the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the caselaw prohibit splitting attorneys' fees with a nonlawyer.
It is also clear by reviewing the Closing Statement and your letters to us that you knew that Amscot was paying all of your attorneys' fees and that you would not have to pay any pOliion of your settlement for attorneys' fees and costs. In this case, you received 100% of your settlement, not 60%, and Amscot paid all of your attorneys' fees and costs.
No one has ever rendered an opinion that your case has any merit. You misunderstood the meaning of a denial of a motion to dismiss. It is not a comment on the merits. In fact, the Court is required to accept all of your allegations as true. That requirement disappears after the motion to dismiss is resolved. Now, you are required to prove your specious allegations. Any rational attomey looking at this situation would not take this case on a contingency fee basis and would instead require you to pay them by the hour.
You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court filings, are unwilling to pay an attomey fairly for the work that would need to be done. In fact, you even moved the Court to have an
Mr. Neil J. G'illespie Decclnbcr 13, 2006 Page 3
attorl1ey appointed for you at the government's expense. Of course, there is no provision under the ADA for appointlnent of counsel, but the fact tl1at you believe the government should foot the bill for you to file baseless lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases.
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rates for representation. Yet, you have had no problem paying filing fees for this baseless lawsuit, the court reporters to transcribe hearings and our telephone calls, and for the frivolous appeal of the discovery order.
Another lnajor probleln, I gather, in hiring attorneys is your extortion of your fonner attorneys by threatening to file a Florida Bar complaint if they do not split portions of their earned fees with you. In fact, you have filed three grievances against Bill Cook in connection with this lnatter -- all of which were dislnissed, meaning your allegations were unfounded. Rhetorically, why would an attorney wish to represent you given your past actions against other attorneys?
Additionally, any reasonable attorney would find your conduct in this case to be reprehensible.
1. You have routinely violated tIle Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, only to clailll that pro se litigants are entitled to special treatlnent. At every hearing, I recall Judge Nielsen had to advise you to follow the procedural rules and protocol. As I have pointed out with citations of authority, the law in Florida is clear: You are expected to follow the rules of procedure, and you are not entitled to special treatment. When I have cited tIle law to you, you have told lne not to do so.
2. You threatened to "slaIn lne up against the wall." After that, I had to request a bailiff to attend the hearings. You claimed I "taunted" you when, after a hearing, I wished you well.
3. You have recorded a telephone conversation without lny pennission. I aSSUlne your research skills have led you to the statutes and caselaw 011 recording telephone conversation without pennission. In fact, you only filed a portion of the transcript of our very first telephone conversation and we both know why: You never told lne you were recording it.
4. You represented to the Cou11 tllat I "threatened" you, and the COlnlnent on which you based it was lny COffilnent to you that your libeling of lny clients was unnecessary, and that act would cause you to have to pay. Which, it will. You have accused lne of perjury.
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie Decetnber 13, 2006 Page 4
5. You have filed defenses to the counterclailTI that are nonsensical, and yet you claimed to be well-qualified to represent yourself when I moved for sanctions and asked the Court to require you to hire counsel.
6. You took a contradictory position and moved to have an attorney appointed for you because you were not qualified or able to represent yourself, citing your disability, without proof, and a federal law that does not even address the appointlnent of counsel in a civil action. In one hearing, when Judge Nielsen asked you for authority, you replied with words to the effect tllat you have no training in the law. You have portrayed yourself as the victim wIlen it suits you and the able advocate when it suits you.
7. You failed to respond to discovery, forcing me to file a motion to cOInpel, which was granted. You refused to cOInply with that Order, filed a frivolous appeal, which was dismissed, and then petitioned for writ of certiorari, which was also disInissed.
8. WIlen I filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause on the discovery Order, you claimed to be pursuing coverage of the counterclaim by an insurance COInpany. You asked for a continuance of the hearing on that basis. We contacted the insurer's claims adjuster and negotiated a very favorable settlement for you of tIle counterclaim, and when you found out, you withdrew the claim, thereby preventing the counterclaim from being resolved.
9. Facing an imIninent hearing on your contumacious disregard for the Court's July 24, 2006 discovery Order after your appeal of it was denied, you decided to "judge shop" and attacked Judge Nielsen to force him to recuse himself. In doing so, you cited unrelated, irrelevant issues and atteInpted to bait hinl witll disparagi11g and caustic relnarks, even though he was polite and respectful towards you at all tilnes, allowed you to sublnit additional argulnent when you caIne to the first hearing unprepared, and gave you additional tilne to find an attorney when we were scheduled to hear on October 4, 2006 your defiance of the July 24, 2006 discovery Order. No good deed goes unpunished, rigllt?
You succeeded in having Judge Nielsen step down. There is no effective process for challenging his recusal or having a Court rule on the motive of your Inotioll to disqualify hiIn, but if you were an attorney, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar would require Ine to file a bJTievance alld you would likely have faced severe sanctions.
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie Decell1ber 13, 2006 Page 5
Neil, we offered to settle with you without pursuing our right to attorneys' fees and costs, as ordered by Judge Nielsen in the July 24,2006 Order. You rejected it. We offered to settle the coullterclailTI with your insurer. You withdrew the insurance claim. You are spending a lot of 1110ney on filing fees, court reporter fees, and gasoline to hand-deliver motions and whatnot. It appears you want your day in court, so to speak. Judge Isom has all day on February 5,2007 open. I urge you to a!:,Tfee to set the hearings on that date. We can then tTIove forward and bring this case to resolution.
I hope tl1is clarifies lIlY position oIllnatters, and I look forward to workillg with )lOU.
RCRIso
D IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN THE STATE OF FlORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSB)OC)UGH COUNTY
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-7205 -vs
D.ivision: "Hn
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. A Florida Corporation, WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants. -----------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE RECORDING
RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below
DATE & TIME: December 12 & 13, 2006
TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth Court Reporte.r ·Notary Public
(ORIGINAL (COpy
Hichael J. Borseth Court Reporter/Legal Transcription
I~yan Christopher Rodems, Attorlley at Law 13arker, "Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 rratnpa, f'lorida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
[)ear Mr. Rodems,
Kindly take notice tllat we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you address l1le as lOlOMr. Gillespie"". I have made this request to you several times, in writing, and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understalld the problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do not lltlderstand yo"ur difficulty. Let me remind you that I atn ten years YOllr senior, which only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie".
As for your immature, childisll remark left on lny voice mail, your statement tllat because tlle greeting on my voice mail says "Hi, this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get back to YOll", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use IllY first natTIe, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in tllis lawsuit. It also calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A).
I al11 providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it ill the record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will questioll you about tllis lnatter, to give tIle C:ou11 and the jury some idea about how ul1professional you are, and to provide a glinlpse itltO tIle nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Cool<, P.A.
l>lease address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.
Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared Jonathan L. Alpert, personally known to me, who upon being duly sworn deposed upon oath as follows:
1. Myname is Jonathan L. Alpert and I am a party in that lawsuit styled Alpert v. Alpert, Case No. 29-2001-DR-4977-C.
2. I make the following statements in this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge.
3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trial in Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierra ofthat Court has against me for the following facts and reasons:
a. Judge Sierra has refused for over five months to set a hearing on my Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and has instead set for hearing all pending motions on September 11, 2003 for two hours, including some ten (10) Motions for Contempt of Court that have been filed against me due to Judge Sierra's refusal to set an earlier hearing;
b. Judge Sierra has shown by her sua sponte ruling, not raised by counsel, refusing to complete the record on appeal, that she is even intent on denying me my appellate rights. In fact, both lawyers have agreed that not only did Judge Sierra have the jurisdiction to rule on the Motion, which she decided
10
on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that her•
ruling was erroneous.
c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody 1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;
d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for it.
e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response.
f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute Section 38.10 at that time.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thO Alpert who is personally known to me.
He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.
A. Woodson Isom, Jr. Attorney Merlin Law Group, P.A. 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 229-1000 Fax: (813) 229-3692 Web: www.merlinlawgroup.com
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachment immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the content to any person. Thank you.
From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> To: Woody Isom Sent: Tue Mar 23 16:15:25 2010 Subject: Jonathan Alpert
Mr. Isom,
While researching a disability issue claimed by Jonathan Alpert, I found his affidavit of September 11, 2003 naming you as his former law partner (paragraph "c").
Is that true, where you a law partner with Mr. Alpert? A PDF of the affidavit is attached.
If I don’t hear from you I will assume the affidavit is correct and that you were in fact a law partner of Mr. Alpert.
Thank you.
Neil Gillespie
11
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA •
Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared Jonathan L. Alpert, personally known to me, who upon being duly sworn deposed upon oath as follows:
1. Myname is Jonathan L. Alpert and I am a party in that lawsuit styled Alpert v. Alpert, Case No. 29-2001-DR-4977-C.
2. I make the following statements in this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge.
3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trial in Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierra ofthat Court has against me for the following facts and reasons:
a. Judge Sierra has refused for over five months to set a hearing on my Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and has instead set for hearing all pending motions on September 11, 2003 for two hours, including some ten (10) Motions for Contempt of Court that have been filed against me due to Judge Sierra's refusal to set an earlier hearing;
b. Judge Sierra has shown by her sua sponte ruling, not raised by counsel, refusing to complete the record on appeal, that she is even intent on denying me my appellate rights. In fact, both lawyers have agreed that not only did Judge Sierra have the jurisdiction to rule on the Motion, which she decided
on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that her•
ruling was erroneous.
c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody 1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;
d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for it.
e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response.
f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute Section 38.10 at that time.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thO Alpert who is personally known to me.
ll-..JJayof ~ ,2003 by Jonathan L.
Notary Public
28 STETLR 323 Page 128 Stetson L. Rev. 323
Stetson Law Review
Fall, 1998
Essay
*323 PROFESSIONALISM AND LITIGATION ETHICS
Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom [FNa1]
Copyright (c) 1998 by Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom My first assignment as a newly elected circuit judge was to the family law division. Although I consideredmyself to be an experienced trial attorney, I was somewhat naive about my role as a judge presiding over discov-ery issues. I assumed that the attorneys assigned to my division would know the rules of procedure and the localrules of courtesy. I also assumed that, being knowledgeable, they would comply in good faith with these provi-sions. I soon learned that attorneys who were entirely pleasant and sociable creatures when I was counted amongtheir numbers, assumed a much different role when advocating for litigants. For example, take Harvey M. (not his real name). Harvey and I had bantered for years, having many com-mon interests. Perhaps this familiarity gave rise to, while not contempt, a certain lackadaisical attitude aboutcomplying with case management and pretrial orders. Harvey challenged me to establish my judicial prerogativeand assist him in achieving goals not of his own making. A common assumption regarding family law is that clients receive the quality of legal representation thatthey deserve. However, my time in the family law division has convinced me that this is not necessarily true.Often times, a case that has wallowed along, seemingly hung up in endless depositions and discovery problems,becomes instantly capable of resolution by bringing all parties together in the context of a pretrial conference.Apparently, some attorneys feel that “cutting up” is a large part of what their clients expect them to do. Whenthis litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectively bring cases to resolution, the judgemust get involved to assist the process. Recently, the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges conducted an educational seminar designed toguide circuit judges in appropriately responding to unprofessional and unethical behavior. [FN1] Various scen-arios were presented on video, after which the *324 judges voted on what they felt would be the appropriatecourt response. A surprising number of judges voted to impose sanctions or report unethical behavior to theFlorida Bar Grievance Section. However, the most common response was to do nothing or to privately counselthe offending attorney. A common theme at meetings of the Florida Bar Standing Committee on Professionalism is that, while attor-neys can aspire to greater professionalism, the courts can be a bully pulpit to encourage professional behavior.Perhaps the perceived backlash of cracking down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's circuitjudges who are elected officials. However, that perception shapes the judicial response, even when respondingtheoretically at a seminar.
The Joint Committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar and the Conferences of Circuit andCounty Court Judges' 1998 Handbook on Discovery Practice admonishes trial judges to fully appreciate theirbroad powers to end discovery abuses and the 1998 Handbook reassuringly states that the appellate courts willsustain the trial court's authority if it is exercised in a procedurally correct manner. [FN2] Once again, this rally-ing cry ignores the reality of our situation. As a new judge, the lessons urged by bar leadership have been a matter of trial and error (pun intended).Harvey quickly established his reputation, not as a fellow member of my legal community, but as a problematiclitigator whose behavior had to be controlled and modified by court order for the legal process to smoothly pro-gress. For example, hearing time was made available to address discovery issues, very specific orders wereentered regarding who was to do what, when, and how, verbal commitments were elicited on the record aboutdocument production and interrogatory responses, in an attempt to avoid additional hearings. Cases involvingHarvey were, by necessity, intensely case managed. Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive case management. Attorneys may perceive that thecourt is trying to prevent them from earning additional attorney fees by streamlining the process. However, cli-ents rarely complain once they realize that the underlying purpose is to bring the case to timely resolution. In Harvey's case, extreme tools--reporting Harvey to the Florida*325 Bar, striking responses, striking wit-nesses, imposing financial sanctions, and conducting contempt hearings-- were never implicated. What did hap-pen was that Harvey trained me to be a better judge by showing me how, in a nonconfrontational manner, Icould effectively case manage Harvey and similar counsel without having to take off the gloves. Fortunately, not every litigator requires the case management skills of a Harvey situation. Most attorneys arewell-intentioned, have a legitimate interest in pursuing discovery efficiently, and do not seek to unnecessarilydelay the resolution of a case. What a relief it is to have a case with opposing counsel who are both of thisschool of thought. New attorneys, or attorneys who are appearing in front of a judge for the first time, must remember that theirreputation is primarily built on the judge's personal experiences with them. No bench book exists with a list ofwhich attorneys are trustworthy professionals and which are not. Instead, the individual judge keeps a mentalcatalog of experiences. For example, does this attorney routinely generate complaints from opposing counsel inother cases about not clearing depositions with their office? Is this attorney often the subject of motions to com-pel? Can this attorney be trusted when he tells you that the responses to interrogatories are “in the mail”? Once anegative reputation has been established with the court, an attorney's job will be much more challenging in es-tablishing credibility with the court. And certainly, with so many issues up to the court's discretion, an attorney'sreputation as trustworthy and ethical is of utmost importance. And, what about Harvey? Do his clients suffer? Of course they do. But, with effective case management andan experienced judiciary, the damage and delay caused by the Harveys of this world can be minimized whilestill allowing clients the freedom to choose their own counsel. [FNa1]. Circuit Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 1991-Present; B.S.Ed., University of Iowa,1972; J.D., Florida State University, 1975; Vice-Chair and member, Florida Bar Standing Committee on Profes-sionalism; Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 1979-1982; District VI Legal Counsel, Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1984-1986; Shareholder, Isom, Pingel and Isom-Rickert,P.A., 1986-1990. [FN1]. See ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES: PRO-FESSIONALISM PROBLEM SOLVING (1998). [FN2]. See JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR ANDCONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGES 1998 HANDBOOK 8-9 (1998). 28 Stetson L. Rev. 323 END OF DOCUMENT
IN THE CIRCIJIT COIJRT 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: H a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants. /
PLAINITFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff pro se moves the Court for an Order of voluntary dismissal of this action
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 1.420(a)(2). Defendants' counterclaim can remain for
adjudication.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of February, 2007.
'''-'-'-''f .J j~~J"//»;; fJ2«~.!',' / /' // ' /
/ // ///, /-.;'..r ~./ ~.c£ . ~ _~.-..~
eil J. Gi)lespi I, Plaintijf'pro se 092 SW IISth Loop /
Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 502-8409
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 7th day ~~ 2007. /')
~/ /-". /5('/ I ~~/t:.':/~. 'i C.' /'///"~'7/ /~~ L.-.......----
:" j/ ' " ./."
14
The Florida Bar's Online Lawyer Referral Service Page 1 of2
PrintZlble Versiono o g
-. Lawyer Referral Service Referral Confirmation
PLEASE PRINT AND BRING THIS CONFIRMATION FORM WITH YOU TO THE LAWYER'S OFFICE. sf 7. c~ 7
/ll1~Mj·
Robert W. Bauer 2815 NW 13th St Ste 200E
You have been referred to: 3?~fH:::------
Gainesville FL 32609-2865 PH: (352) 3755960
FOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF LAW: Ubel & Slander
THE LAWYERS ON THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE A HALFHOUR OFFICE CONSULTATION FOR NO MORE THAN $25.00. PLEASE CALL THE LAWYER'S OFFICE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. THE LAWYER WILL NOT CONTACT YOU. PLEASE REMEMBER TO INFORM THE OFFICE THAT YOU WERE REFERRED BY THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE.
TO HELP YOU PREPARE FOR YOUR CONSULTATION, PLEASE CONSIDER READING THE FOLLOWING FLORIDA BAR CONSUMER PAMPHLETS:
YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO HIRE THE LAWYER.
THE LAWYER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO TAKE YOUR CASE.
YOU MUST CONTACT THE REFERRED LAWYER BEFORE MAKING ANOTHER REFERRAL REQUEST.
Your lawyer was selected based on the information provided below:
You requested a lawyer who is licensed in: Florida and willing to work in, but not located in a specfic county
What county: Marion
We have several attonery panels, please select the panel you need: Regular What area of law do you need an attonery for? Libel & Slander Do you have a special language requirement?
Must the attorney be willing to make a Jail call? No Personal Information: Nell Gillespie
So that there is no misunderstanding, we do not agree to any delays in compliance with the July 24, 2006 discovery order. H·t'~·ha-s"'been"·Errit-ered·~··t:ha-l<letiged·befo::t€r·t.neseco'rid'-:-I5l:A:ahcl
again before Judge Isom.
We will notice our hearings on one of the agreed dates, and notice will be sent ASAP.
Rule 1.170 addresses counterclaims.~amserving the 57.105 motion today.
Sincerely,
Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 E-mail: [email protected]
NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
-----Original Message----From: Robert W. Bauer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:11 AM To: Ryan C. Rodems Cc: 'Neil Gillespie' Subject: RE: Gillespie hearings
I'm sorry if there has been some confusion, but I believed I had responded to your inquiry about discovery. When we first spoke I advised over the phone that I fully intended to comply with the discovery demands as required by the court. You informed me that I would be afforded whatever time I needed to get up to speed in the case. If you have a deadline for discovery I would be happy to comply with that. However, it seems reasonable to first deal with the outstanding motions so that it can be determined if discover is required at all.
I did responded in my email that I would contact you Tuesday. I apologize that I was not able to do so until Wednesday morning. I did not think it would be a problem. However, I felt that the courtesy email copy of the memorandum clearly complied with your request for clarification as to our position on the future of the case. If you have any further questions please feel free to call.
I am available for any of the 7/3, 7/5 or 7/16 dates at 9:30. Please advise how much time will be set aside.
have read rule 1.100(a) and you will note that the wording of it does not even allow for a counter-claim - actually by implication it bars a counterclaim. It only allows for an answer to a counterclaim - but not the counterclaim itself. However, clearly
1
I
16
counterclaims are allowed. ~ admit that a counter-countercla~m is a strange pleading. You will note that I attempted to make that point in my memorandum. In the interest of cooperation I will be happy to rename the counter-counter claim just a counter claim if that would satisfy your concerns.
As a professional courtesy I would appreciate if you would clearly spell out your reasons as to why you believe I have erred in my motion prior to you filing for 57.105 sanctions. Such threats are not conducive to this case moving forward in a collegial and professional manner.
As to the 57.105 issue itself - I am sure that you are aware that such sanctions are only available when there is no colorable argument at all. My motion states an argument with cases and reasoning to support it. I have carefully reviewed the cases to insure that I have not misquoted their holdings. I believe this greatly surpasses the bar for a frivolous lawsuit.
I thank you in advance for your thoughtful attention to this matter.
Respectfully
Robert W. Bauer, Esq.
-----Original Message----From: Ryan C. Rodems [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:59 AM To: Robert W. Bauer Subject: Gillespie hearings
Robert:
We are still awaiting to hear from you on when we can set our hearings. Based on your earlier e-mail, I expected to hear from you by Tuesday. I did receive the transmittal of the memorandum/motion yesterday.
I think you need to reconsider the memorandum/motion. We object to the motion for leave to amend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and you are flat wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked at Rule 1.100(a)? I assume you are awarf of the line of cases that hold that a mislabeled pleading or motion is not a nullity. VWe'll send you a 57.105 motion, and you can decide how to proceed.
Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for a courtappointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriate defenses, the econom.ic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQ the trial judges, appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and false statements about a judge in a letter to the court, threatening to slam me against the wall, and telling an insurance company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims), I am surprised you would rely on any portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.
I also again urge you to address the discovery issue. This is at least the third time I have raised it with you, and you have not responded. Gillespie has not answered the discovery Judge Nielsen ordered compelled almost a year ago. Although you have not moved to DQ the trial judges twice -- Gillespie was responsible for that and you did not improvidently appeal the discovery order -- also Gillespie's doing -- you took the case as is. You are now responsible for complying with the court's order.
Sincerely,
Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 E-mail: [email protected]
NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication
2
Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:43 PMSubject: Re: communication
Page 1 of 6
9/9/2011
when I try to click on the HCSO's link, I get the following message:Sorry, our systems are too busy to service your request. Similarly, when I telephoned them my call went into a "black hole" and was never picked up in the Warrants Unit. Last but not least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but unhappy message. Try to come up with some more money (preferably $1,000 but at least $750). Then, next week, I will file a motion to vacate the writ. I will call the clerk on Monday, and if the file is available for me to view, then I will attempt to get down there on Monday or Tuesday to view the file myself. The good news is that the HCSO seems to be so overwhelmed that they are most probably placing all civil warrants on the back burner. So you have my game plan, now try to borrow some money and stay home this weekend. Eugene www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A. 2451 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, Florida 33759 (727) 712-3333 Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC §§ 101-1330).
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (and any associated files) from Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A. is for the sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original message. --- On Fri, 6/10/11, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]> To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfionet> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:46 PM Subject: Re: your call earlier "love made m}' ]JetlCe ~vi,h the lO/"ti. 1°111 55 .vears-olll hut.feellike 85. /°/11 lIt the ellll (~f'the line."
Sorry it's taken me longer than I thought to get back to you.
This kind of talk isn't good Neil. You're not at the end of the line until you're at the end of the line. And I don't see you being any closer to the end than I am.
As for a new agreement, this is my suggestion. Give me another $1,000.00 on July 1, and I won't take another dime from you. Consider it a flat fee to get you out from under this writ (BUT WITHOUT entering an appearance in this state court case) and/or to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for you. The only other things you would have to pay for if we go the bankruptcy route(and these are NOT my fees, they are costs) is the filing fee of $299.00, a credit report fee of $30.00, and the credit counseling fee(s) which will be at most $80.00 (sometimes you can find a cheaper vendor). Based on what I know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you.
Take care, I'll be asleep in an hour, but I will be calling Judge Arnold's chambers first thing tomorrow.
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A. 2451 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, Florida 33759
(727) 712-3333
Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC §§ 101-1330).
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message(andanyassociatedfiles)fromCastagliuoloLawGroup.P A. is for the sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure: distribution, or other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original
message.
--- On Tue, 6/14/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@]mfinet> wrote:
From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> Subject: your call earlier To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 3:58 PM
7/19/2011
18
18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
1. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Hillsborough County,Florida (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009)
2. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, January 19, 2006 -September 28, 2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)
Cases in the Second District Court of Appeal, Florida
3. Case No. 06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
4. Case No. 07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
5. Case No. 08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, § 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
6. Case No. 10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
7. Case No. 10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
8. Case No. 11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
Cases in the Supreme Court of Florida
9. Case No. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
10. Case No. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
Cases in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division
11. Case No. 10-cv-00503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)
12. Case No. 11-cv00539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)
Cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
13. Case No. 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA(Gillespie pro se) (closed)
14. Case No. 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA(Gillespie pro se) (active)
19
Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States
15. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
16. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
Original Litigation
17. Case No. 01-14761-AA, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOTCorporation, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed August 20, 2001
18. Case No. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, class action complaint inUnited States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, filed December 9, 1999
CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone B13/4B9~100 1400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS Facsimile B13/4B9~100B WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
February 6, 2007
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Following Judge Isom's rulings of February 5, 2007 on your motion to reconsider discovery and your motion to dismiss the counterclaims, enclosed please find two proposed orders. I will transmit these orders to the Judge on Monday, February 12, 2007. If you have any objections, please feel free to write to me.
Sincerely,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Enclosures RCR/so
20
--------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 Division: H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants. I
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - DISCOVERY
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Monday, February 5, 2007 on "Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery," and the proceedings having been read and considered,
counsel and Plaintiff having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, it is
ORDERED that "Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery" is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of February, 2007.
copies to:
Claudia R. Isom Circuit Judge
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire Neil J. Gillespie, pro se
--------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 Division: H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants. I
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Monday, February 5,2007 on Plaintiffs
Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim, and the proceedings having been read and
considered, counsel and Plaintiff having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised
in the premises, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim is DENIED.
Plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date that this Order is signed within which to answer the
counterclaims.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of February, 2007.
copies to:
Claudia R. Isom Circuit Judge
Ryan CI1fistopher Rodems, Esquire Neil J. Gillespie, pro se
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
1
.,JC
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 05-7205
-vs-Division: H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., A Florida Corporation
Defendant.
-----------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE: HONORABLE CLAUDIA R. ISOM Circuit Judge
TAKEN AT: In Chambers Hillsborough County Courthouse Tampa, Florida
DATE & TIME: February 5, 2007 Commencing at 1:30 p.m.
REPORTED BY: Denise L. Bradley, RPR Notary Public
[ORIGINALI STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
21
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
2
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
NEIL J. GILLESPIE (Pro se litigant) 8092 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
On behalf of the Defendant:
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
3
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
23
24
PRO C E E DIN G S
THE COURT: All right. On the record. Would
everybody please introduce themselves for the record,
starting with our court reporter.
THE REPORTER: My name is Denise Bradley with
Berryhill Court Reporters.
THE COURT: Okay. And for plaintiff.
MR. GILLESPIE: My name is Neil Gillespie. I'm
appearing pro se.
THE COURT: Okay. And for defense.
MR. RODEMS: Ryan Christopher Rodems here on
behalf of defendants Barker, Rodems and Cook, P.A. and
William J. Cook.
THE COURT: Okay. And we've got several things.
The first thing is plaintiff's motion for order of
protection. Is that still pending? That's not
something we addressed the other day?
MR. GILLESPIE: The first thing, in the most
recent order in the most recent scheduling was an order
to show cause why Mr. Rodems should not be held in
contempt of court.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GILLESPIE: But before we get into that,
Judge -
THE COURT: Well, no, I'm just looking at the
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
22
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sanctions, you can do that in this division. You don't
have to have a separate cause of action filed within
criminal court.
MR. GILLESPIE: And, Judge, if I were an attorney
and knew what I was doing I would do that, but that's
the problem here. I'm not an attorney. And I'm not
sure of the procedure. And I don't want to miss
dotting an "I" and having this thing not be taken
seriously. That's why I felt that it was important to
be represented by an attorney and that's what I'm
trying to do.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, since I have several
things scheduled for today, we're going to pass on the
order to show cause and move on to your motion for
reconsideration of Judge Nielsen's denial of your
motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems from representing I
guess himself, his law firm and Mr. Cook, is that
correct?
MR. RODEMS: Actually, Judge -
THE COURT: All of those entities?
MR. RODEMS: I only represent Mr. Cook and the
law firm. I'm not a party to these proceedings.
THE COURT: Oh, you only represent the law firm
and Mr. Cook. Is Mr. Cook still with your firm?
MR. RODEMS: Yes, ma'am.
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
23
1
2
J J
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
?0_L
0J LJ
24
,
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RODEMS: He's my law partner.
THE COURT: Okay. So, all right, on your motion
for reconsideration, why should this Court reconsider
or rehear the motion to disqualify counsel?
MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, defense counsel has a
direct conflict of interest with me, the plaintiff.
And this lawsuit turns on a contract which is attached
to the complaint as Exhibit 1. The contract -- there's
some history to the contract because it was signed
under the previous law firm, Alpert, Barker, Rodems and
Cook. And then it became Barker, Rodems & Cook and
they took the assignment of the contract.
They never signed a new contract and there's a
whole matter about that. But with regard to -- there
is a contract that forms the basis of this dispute.
And that contract was drafted by the defendants. And
now they're trying to disavow that same contract. And
that's prohibited by the rules. As a matter of fact, I
brought the Florida Statutes Annotated and they discuss
that. And that's under Rule 4-1.9, conflict of
interest-former client.
It says here, thus, a lawyer cannot properly seek
to rescind on behalf of the new client a contract
drafted on behalf of the former client.
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
24
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
~ 14
16
17
18
19
21
~~ L.L
~~ ~J
24
And that's what they're doing here. They drafted
a contract on my behalf and now they're seeking to
rescind that contract on behalf of their new client,
which is themselves and Mr. Cook.
Also, going into the scope of the matter, when a
lawyer has been directly involved in a specific
transaction -- and the specific transaction is this
contract -- subsequent representation of other clients
with materially adverse interest is clearly prohibited.
So at one point they represented my interest
directly on the specific contract. Now they're taking
a materially adverse position. And this is prohibited
according to Rule 4-1.9.
THE COURT: Okay. So they represented you in a
legal transaction where you had a written employment
agreement with them, is that correct?
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. So what was the scope of
the employment? What were they supposed to do for you?
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, the contract was a
contingent fee agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. But what was the scope? What
were they supposed to do for you under this contingent
fee agreement?
MR. GILLESPIE: Under the contingent fee
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
25
1 agreement they were representing the interest - it was
2 a lawsuit against the Amscot Corporation. But this
J J representation contract primarily dealt with the
4 relationship between myself and the lawyers and how any
5 proceeds were going to be divided.
6 THE COURT: All right. So ultimately did they
7 settle your lawsuit or did you go to trial?
8 MR. GILLESPIE: There was a settlement, Judge.
9 THE COURT: There's a settlement, okay. And did
10 you sign a release and a closing statement?
11 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, and they were subsequently
12 found to be fraudulent.
13 THE COURT: Okay. So is your law firm holding
14 settlement proceeds that have not been distributed?
15 MR. RODEMS: No, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Okay. So did your law firm undertake
17 representation of Mr. Gillespie after Mr. Alpert had to
18 retire from practicing law?
19 MR. RODEMS: No. Actually what happened, if I
20 can give you just a brief history, me, Chris Walker and
21 Bill Cook left the law firm that was then known as
2~L Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Farantino and Cook in 2000.
23 When we left and started our new firm, Jonathan,
24 Mr. Alpert, and all of us agreed that we would contact
, ~5 our clients and see which ones wanted to stay with
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
26
1
2
~ J
4
cJ
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 OJJ
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0~ LJ
24
25
~
Mr. Alpert's remaining firm, which was going to be
renamed Alpert and Farantino, and which ones wanted to
join Barker, Rodems and Cook. Mr. Gillespie elected to
go with Barker, Rodems and Cook.
Then the case proceeded to settlement if I recall
correctly. And Mr. Gillespie signed the closing
statement and a release and received all of his money.
THE COURT: And the money was disbursed?
MR. RODEMS: Yes.
THE COURT: So is this lawsuit then a legal
malpractice action?
MR. RODEMS: No. He's claiming that he went back
and looked at it agaln and figured out a different way
that he thinks he should have been paid instead of what
he agreed to in the closing statement and what he
agreed to in the release and what he directed us to do.
MR. GILLESPIE: I would object to that.
THE COURT: So this is then a contract action.
MR. GILLESPIE: It's a contract action.
MR. RODEMS: He's alleging that we breached our
contingency fee contract. That's what he's alleging.
The previous lawsuit against Arnscot involved the Truth
in Lending Act, the federal statute dealing with
requirements with lenders.
THE COURT: Okay.
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
27
1
2
J J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor
THE COURT: So in terms of this lawsuit then your
firm would be witnesses in the case. So did Judge
Nielsen -
MR. RODEMS: Oh, yeah, he considered all of that,
Judge.
THE COURT: Did he consider the fact that you
guys would be witnesses in the case?
MR. GILLESPIE: If it please the Court, Judge.
MR. RODEMS: May I finish, Your Honor. We had a
hearing in front of Judge Nielsen. And I attached the
transcript of that hearing to a letter and sent that to
you. Everything that Mr. Gillespie has just
represented to you was fully addressed in front of
Judge Nielsen.
MR. GILLESPIE: It was not.
MR. RODEMS: We went through the 4-1.9 argument.
We went through the fact that Mr. Gillespie said I
might be a witness. We went through all of that. And
after having heard all of that, Judge Nielsen denied
his motion to disqualify. And that's why I filed the
transcript because this motion for reconsideration is
nothing more than him trying to get a second bite at
the apple after all of the repugnant things he said
about Judge Nielsen in his motion to disqualify.
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
28
1
~ L
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
~~ L~
23
24
~
MR. GILLESPIE: I object to that. This man lied
before Judge Nielsen. I didn't say anything repugnant
about the judge.
MR. RODEMS: Well, there's letters in the court
file
MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, if it pleases the
Court, I can help the Court understand what Mr. Rodems
is trying -- how he's trying to mislead the Court now.
THE COURT: No. I just want to know in terms of
your motion for reconsideration what's new or different
or additional case law.
MR. GILLESPIE: What's different here -
THE COURT: Why should it be reconsidered.
MR. GILLESPIE: What's different here, Judge,
turns on and you have put your hand right on it. We
are talking about the contract between myself and the
defendant. That is the issue in hand.
What Judge Nielsen did -- and it was a very
sleight of hand accompanied by the defendants here.
They turned it into -- this was not the same matter
because it was a matter of truth in lending law. And
don't know whether that was intentional by him or he
was just misled by Mr. Rodems. The issue at hand is
not a truth in lending claim. The matter at hand is
the representation contract.
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
I
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
29
Really there are two parallel issues running in
the representation, the prior representation. That was
their representation of me on truth in lending and
their representation of me between the law firm and
myself. And that's what we're talking about. That was
not considered last time. What was considered last
time was whether the truth in lending claim was the
issue. And it clearly wasn't.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. GILLESPIE: And I think the record shows that
if you look at it. I'm looking for the transcript,
Judge, that was provided by Mr. Rodems.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Looking at that
transcript on page ten talks about timeliness, that
under the motion to disqualify I guess they're saying
that you filed the motion six to eight months after the
litigation began.
MR. GILLESPIE: Actually, the first speaking
motion I made was to have him disqualified. We don't
have a transcript of that hearing. So that's not
accurate. That was back in September.
THE COURT: Did you sign the closing statement on
behalf of the law firm?
MR. RODEMS: No, Mr. Cook did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cook did?
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 MR. RODEMS: Yes.
2 THE COURT: Did you attend the mediation or
3 settlement conference or anything regarding this case?
4 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, I didn't have anything
to do with the Amscot case at all other than the
6 typical normal things that partners would say to each
7 other in the hallway or at lunch. I didn't handle the
8 litigation. I don't recall having any participation in
9 the case at all. I certainly didn't attend any
mediations or involve myself in the settlement or the
11 releases or any of the strategy decisions, nothing like
12 that.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, whether or not he was
14 directly involved is immaterial. There's an imputed
disqualification.
16 MR. RODEMS: Judge, if you'll look on page ten we
17 also talked about the case of Ceri~~o vs. High~ey
18 which is at 797 So.2d 1288.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Let's go off the record. I
want to just review this transcript.
21 MR. RODEMS: Okay. Your Honor, if we have just a
moment may I be excused?
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 MR. RODEMS: I just need a moment.
THE COURT: Yes.
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
31
J.
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
~ 14
16
17
18
19
21
22
~~ LJ
24
(Pause in the proceedings.)
THE COURT: Okay, back on the record. I've now
had an opportunity to refresh my recollection. I
believe we used this same transcript earlier in
relationship to the hearing. I've now had a chance to
review it again.
So you feel that in terms of your motion for
reconsideration that there was additional information
that was not presented to Judge Nielsen that would be
important to this decision?
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if you look at page
five of the transcript, this is where Judge Nielsen is
questioning. This begins on page five, line seven.
The Court: Well, see then there was one clarification
I had. And you actually just read the portion of it.
He made reference to the same or a substantially
similar matter to the present controversy. And he asks
what I'm referring to. I answer: Amscot Corporation.
And this is where it gets tricky. Yes, it was
the Amscot lawsuit, but it wasn't the truth in lending
portion of the Amscot lawsuit. It was the contingent
fee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
And if you go down further the judge asked: And
the action was brought in federal court?
And I responded: Yes, Judge.
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~ 14
1 (0o::J
16
17
18
19
20
21
,..,,.., L.L.
23
24
25
~
And he asked again: Is this the matter that
you're referring to that's substantially similar?
And I answer: Yes.
And then Mr. Rodems responds to that further down
the page on page six. And Mr. Rodems states beginning
on line 14: The matter that defendants represented Mr.
Gillespie on was a Truth in Lending Act claim filed in
the federal court involving the issues of the Rule
4-1.9.
And Mr. Rodems goes on at the bottom of page six
beginning on line 23, So the case that Mr. Gillespie
alleges is substantially the same or similar involved a
claim by Mr. Gillespie against Arnscot, a corporation,
involving alleged violations of Mr. Gillespie's rights
under the Truth in Lending Act. This lawsuit involves
different parties, different facts and different legal
issues.
And this is where this matter turns very subtly
because what Mr. Rodems said there was correct. But
that's not what this current lawsuit is about. We're
not questioning the Truth in Lending Act or what Arnscot
did. We're questioning the contract that is between
myself and the defendants. And it's the same parties,
the same facts and the same legal issues. And that is
where Judge Nielsen either missed this or didn't
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
33
1
~ L
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
)"~~
24
~
consider it properly.
My motion for reconsideration beginning on page
three discusses the fine points of all of this with
references.
THE COURT: Where is the section about a lawyer
as witness? Because I know it talks in there about
you're permitted to be a witness if you're being sued
or you're suing your former clients. Seems like that
might be
MR. RODEMS: There is a provision of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar that authorizes an
attorney -
THE COURT: Right. So it seems like that would
be relevant to this discussion because in this case, if
I understand correctly, the plaintiff is suing his
former law firm.
MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, In my motion for
reconsideration I don't raise that issue of them being
a witness, of them being an advocate.
THE COURT: I'm just saying that if you look at
4-3.7, a lawyer as witness, it talks about the scenario
where a lawyer may be an advocate at a trial in which
the lawyer is likely to be a witness where the
testimony relates to the nature and value of legal
services rendered In the case. And by extrapolation it
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
34
1
~ 2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
?J__.J
24
would seem that that's of assistance in determining
whether or not Judge Nielsen made a correct decision.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, that notwithstanding, it
says when a lawyer has been directly involved in a
specific transaction subsequent representation of other
clients with materially adverse interests is clearly
prohibited. In other words, the defendants are
prohibited from representing themselves.
However, they could testify about this if they
were represented by another counsel. But they can't
represent themselves on this. So, yes, they can give
testimony. They just can't give testimony while
they're representing themselves on this matter.
And it also talks about if the lawyer's own
conduct in the transaction is in serious question
which it is -- it may be difficult or impossible for a
lawyer to give the client detached advice. And that's
what we have here. It also goes on to say a suit
charging fraud entails conflict to a degree not
involved in a suit for declaratory judgment concerning
statutory interpretation.
If the pleases the Court, I can give you West's
Florida Statutes annotated which I'm reading from.
Would you care to look at this, Judge.
THE COURT: I have it in the law library across
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
35
the hall. And in point of fact, I recently reviewed it1
0 in connection with a different case where there hadL
J been a motion to disqualify counsel.J
Based upon my review of Rule 4-1.7, 4-1.8, 4-1.9,4
r 4-1.10, and this later one I was talking about, 4-3.7,J
I don't hear anything new in your argument today that6
Judge Nielsen overlooked or failed to address whenever7
he ruled on your motion previously.8
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I still have more of this9
motion to go through.10
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Please continue.11
MR. GILLESPIE: So is what you're saying, Judge,12
that you considered that he was correct in that point13
of law?~ 14
THE COURT: I'm just saying looking at the15
transcript it looks like in terms of new information16
17 I'm looking to see what's changed. Is there a recent
ruling in the supreme court? Is there something that18
19 was not argued at that time or case law that was
materially relevant to the case that was not available20
to counsel at the time that Judge Nielsen ruled upon21
22 the motion? You know, in terms of a motion for
reconsideration I'm looking for some information that23
would have been overlooked by him or perhaps24
25 misinterpreted by him which would seem to be the thrust
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
36
of your arguments thus far.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, one thing that he did not
consider, an attorney can be disqualified if he is
opposing a former client from whom he received
confidential information. And that's what we have
here. Judge Nielsen did not consider that. And Mr.
Rodems has already threatened to use some of that
confidential information against me. And if you turn
to page five of the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration there's -- this is taken from the
transcript of a conversation.
MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,
Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into
earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he
didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes
say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be
considered for any purposes by the court in any
hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie
for illegally recording the conversation.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, that's not true. And
that's set forth in my motion for an order to show
cause with sufficient case law why that recording was
true. And this is -- I'm going to reiterate my request
that I be represented by an attorney because now he is
threatening me in open court with a criminal
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
37
1 prosecution.
2 All things go back to this, Judge, which is why
3 we shouldn't have even begun this hearing today because
4 he is going to object and threaten me with criminal
prosecution. And I need to have an attorney. Now I
6 have made accommodations to have that done. I've taken
7 steps today to have an advertisement placed in the st.
8 Petersburg Times and a paper here in Tampa that is
9 familiar with this representation, the Creative
Loafing, has done an article about me and Mr. Cook and
11 his representation of me.
12 And I really think that because of Mr. Rodems'
13 propensity to keep threatening me with criminal acts
14 and criminal violations that I need to have an
attorney.
16 THE COURT: I gave you the opportunity early on
1 '7 to strike your order to show cause. Now we're just
18 talking about the motion for reconsideration. So is it
19 necessary to reference the transcript of that telephone
call in order to argue your motion for reconsideration?
21 MR. GILLESPIE: I don't know how to answer that
22 from a legal standpoint because I am not an attorney.
And I want an attorney because you just heard him
24 threaten me with a criminal prosecution.
THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the mDtion for reconsideration and the motion to
disqualify today. What about the motion for
reconsideration for the discovery motion?
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge -
THE COURT: Do you need to reference that
transcript for the motion for reconsideration of the
discovery motion?
MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, we can go on with this,
but it's part of this motion. What you're saying is
that I have -- I'm being prohibited from excluding part
of this motion. And I don't see how it can be
effective.
THE COURT: I'm just saying, I'm responding to
your statement that you don't want to present anything
today without the benefit of legal counsel because of
your concern for the comment made by counsel about the
use of that transcript of a telephone call. Is there
<anything today that you can consider that doesn't have
to do with the transcript of that telephone call?
MR. GILLESPIE: Not really, Judge, because it all
boils down to his dishonesty. And if we would have a
transcript of our conversations from the first time
met them there wouldn't be a lawsuit here. But we
don't and that's the problem.
This one instance that we do have just a fleeting
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
I
5
10
15
20
25
39
1
~ 2
J J
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
glimpse into what went on behind closed doors -- this
man is a liar. And it's in black and white. And of
course he doesn't want it to come into the hearing. Of
course not.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any motions
that we can consider today that don't reference -
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if it pleases the
Court, I'm getting confused here. I have a specific
reference here where he threatened to use a specific
piece of prior knowledge. But the law states that
that's not even necessary. The rules state that just
the existence of prior representation there is a
presumption that privileged information was disclosed.
And Judge Nielsen didn't consider that. And that's an
important part of this motion to disqualify. I have it
here. I'm trying to find it. There is a presumption.
Are you familiar with that, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes, I'm very familiar with it. That
was the basis -- you know, I was referencing a recent
motion that was brought to disqualify trial counsel.
And that was the basis for that ruling. That's the one
that I reviewed all of the annotations and publications
you brought with you today referencing that situation.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge Nielsen did not
consider whether confidential information was
~ Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
5
10
15
20
25
40
disclosed. And the rule -- I can't find it here right1
~ now -- but the rule states that it's presumed that it2
~ happened and that that's a basis for disqualification.
4
J
Judge, I'm going to need some time to compose
myself. The other matter that we haven't discussed is
6 how my disability impacts the ability to represent
7 myself. We haven't gotten into that. I've offered to
8 have a hearing on that. And this is a problem.
9 THE COURT: I see that you had talked to Judge
Nielsen about whether or not a civil judge has any
11 ability or funds with which to appoint private counsel.
12 Was that an ADA issue with him?
13 MR. GILLESPIE: I raised that issue. And let me
14 just say on the record that I'm not looking for someone
to pay the lawyer. I would be happy if the Court would
16 appoint someone and I'll pay him.
17 THE COURT: On an hourly basis? Did you go
18 through the Hillsborough County Bar Association's
19 lawyer referral service? Didn't you say you had
already tried that avenue?
21 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge, and I have the
22 results from that. And Mr. Rodems had discussion on
23 that earlier today.
24 THE COURT: What do you mean? The only
discussion I remember you mentioning that you had not
~ Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
,·
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., ) a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. ) COpyCOOK, )
) FYI Only Petitioners, ) )
v. ) Case No. 2D07-4530 )
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ) )
No Aetion Respondent. ) Necessary
--------------)
Opinion filed February 8, 2008.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; James M. Barton, II, JUdge.
Ryan Christopher Rodems of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioners.
Robert W. Bauer, Gainesville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix Super Markets,
Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that when counterclaim is
pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint without order of court).
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
