Oppose Ryan Christopher Rodems For Judge, Oct-11-2012

J.
Carter Andersen, Chair October 11, 2012

Thirteenth Circuit JNC
Bush Ross, P.A.
1801 North Highland Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
RE: Oppose Ryan Christopher Rodems for judge
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I oppose the nomination of Ryan Christopher Rodems for judge. Mr. Rodems is profoundly
dishonest and would be a disaster on the bench. For him the practice of law is just a game with
no regard for people. I have known Mr. Rodems for over 12 years and am a former client of his
law firm. His partner and firm stole $7,143 from my settlement in a contingent fee case.
Initially I sought resolution through the Attorney Client Assistance Program (ACAP) of the
Florida Bar, then made several formal Bar complaints, and as a last resort a lawsuit, Gillespie v.
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al., case no. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County. Mr. Rodems
countersued me for libel over a letter about the Bar complaint, and accused me of criminal
extortion for my efforts with ACAP.
In 2007 I retained Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service to
defend the libel counterclaim. Mr. Rodems refused to cooperate with Mr. Bauer, and repeatedly
lied in court about his firms entitlement to $50,000 in court-awarded costs and fees under the
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) in the absence of an actual award. Shortly before Mr. Bauer
withdrew from the case, he made this statement on the record, August 14, 2008, during a hearing
before Judge Marva Crenshaw (p16, line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Rodems has been opposing counsel in sixteen (16) legal actions with me, most of which he
failed to disclose on his application, including the vexatious counterclaim. (Exhibit 1). My
involvement with Mr. Rodems and his cronies has caused me to loose confidence in the Florida
courts. I likely would not use the Florida courts again to resolve a legal dispute.
Justice Thomas granted my Rule 13.5 Application extending the time until December 10, 2012
to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in cases directly related to the
misconduct of Mr. Rodems. These disputes have brought discredit to the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit, which is now a Defendant itself, thanks to Ryan Christopher Rodems.
J. Carter Andersen, Chair
Thirteenth Circuit JNC October 11, 2012
Page - 2
Mr. Rodems Misleading and Incomplete Response, Question 36a
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-7205
Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that I prevailed on his motion to dismiss and strike January 13,
2006, when Judge Richard Nielsen rejected Rodems entitlement to a claim of $50,000 in
court-awarded fees and costs and found my pro se Complaint stated a cause of action for fraud
and breach of contract. Under the legal doctrine of res judicata, Mr. Rodems was precluded from
ever again asserting his bogus claim for $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs in this
matter. But that did not deter Mr. Rodems. He disrupted the tribunal in many ways, and
repeatedly lied and presented false evidence to the Court until he obtained his judgments.
Former counsel Robert Bauer outlined Rodems fraud to Judge Barton October 30, 2007 during a
hearing for judgment on the pleadings: (Transcript, October 30, 2007, pp.39-40)
22 [MR. BAUER] Another issue to point out the fact this is for
23 their claim of court-awarded attorney's fees, there
24 was no claim. The claim had already been determined
25 by the court, denied. It didn't exist any more.
1 [MR. BAUER] Yes, there was an appeal outstanding, but that
2 doesn't resurrect any claim. The only thing that's
3 going to resurrect a claim is an overruling by the
4 appellate court. A claim no longer exist once it's
5 been denied, even if it's on appeal. So in
6 asserting there existed a claim for attorney's fees
7 is false. It - it's not there.
Mr. Bauer should have asserted res judicata, but he was either incompetent, or too busy milking
me for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which fit nicely into Rodems strategy.
Mr. Rodems Misleading and Incomplete Response, Question 38
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-7205
Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that he was a defendant, personally and as a partner in Barker,
Rodems & Cook, PA, in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, submitted May 5, 2010 with
permission of Judge James Barton, in the above captioned action. After I established a cause of
action for fraud and breach of contract January 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems had personal liability,
because 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 (2dDCA, 1965).
Mr. Rodems misconduct is the result of his personal liability, and a consequence of representing
his partner and law firm against a former client on the same or substantially related matter,
contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services,
Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases. McPartland has been a mandatory
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich:
Page - 3
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional
impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.
[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show
existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for
purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing
party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court
must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal
advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial
relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant
and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information
was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
Mr. Rodems Misleading and Incomplete Response, Question 36a.
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, case no. 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
I needed the assistance and protection of an Article III Federal Judge, which is why I filed this
federal lawsuit. The lawsuit in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit with Mr. Rodems turned into a
complete sham once Martha Cook was assigned to the case.
My complaint filed September 28, 2010 was an incomplete first draft. I had planned to file the
lawsuit weeks earlier, as evidenced by my letter dated August 30, 2010 to James Leanheart,
Court Operations Supervisor, but was delayed by disability and mental impairment. My letter is
found at Exhibit 8/2, Motion to Apply Funds Toward Filing Fees (Doc. 70).
Mr. Rodems mislead the JNC in this part of his response to question 36a:
On September 28, 2010, the same date that Judge Martha J. Cook entered summary
judgment against Mr. Gillespie on his last remaining count and also adjudged him in
contempt of court, Mr. Gillespie filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Case
No. 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB, against Judge Martha J. Cook, Judge James M. Barton,
II, Judge Claudia Isom, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, me, his former attorney,
and various court personnel, alleging that his civil rights were violated in the state court
action...
Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that my federal lawsuit was filed before any of the hearings he
mentioned were actually heard. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose how he collaborated with Judge
Page - 4
Cook on September 28, 2010 - after my ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit was filed - to create a
false record that I left the hearing voluntarily, when in fact Judge Cook ordered me removed by
the bailiff after I provided her the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503. Judge Cook refused to disqualify
herself, even though she was a defendant in my lawsuit.
Judge Cook conducted ex parte hearings on Final Summary Judgment, and Civil Contempt, ruled
against me (not surprising), and then lied about my removal in a contempt order September 30,
2010. It was a star chamber proceeding. Fortunately the bailiff who removed me, HCSO Deputy
Christopher E. Brown, impeached Judge Cooks assertion that I left voluntarily. Major James
Livingston put Deputy Browns account in a letter dated January 12, 2011, which appears as
Exhibit E to the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie April 25, 2011, which was provided to you.
Mr. Rodems also failed to disclose in his response to question 36a. that he submitted June 21,
2011 a Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice
(Doc. 32) (Exhibit 2) in my above-captioned ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit.
The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant the motion. On June 30, 2011 I filed a motion to
strike or set aside Rodems notice and motion, as well as his Settlement Agreement and General
Mutual Release of June 21, 2011. (Doc. 33). On July 14, 2011 Mr. Rodems filed a response in
opposition. (Doc. 40). Judge Hodges also ignored this pleading from Mr. Rodems. This shows
that Judge Hodges does not believe Mr. Rodems settlement agreement is legitimate.
On January 12, 2012 I submitted a Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) to challenge Mr. Rodems
evidence, the settlement agreement. (Exhibit 3). From paragraph 3:
Pursuant to Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga.
1988)(noting that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of
objection), Gillespie files this Notice of Objection to Notice of Assignment of Claims And
Motion for Dismissal of Action With Prejudice (Doc. 32), and in support thereof argues
as set forth in his Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Supreme Court of Florida, SC11-1622
(Doc. 62) and Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie. (Doc. 61).
The Court entered Order Of Dismissal (Doc. 64) February 27, 2012. (Exhibit 4). The Court did
not grant Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, and did not assign the claims
to Mr. Rodems. The Court noted at footnote 2:
The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlement
agreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud,
executed under duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However,
the core of the settlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of
various matters pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have
been executed as part of a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court
is the appropriate judicial body with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the
validity and/or enforceability of the settlement agreement and assignment. This Court
will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction) entertain any disputes within the purview of
Page - 5
the settlement agreement unless and until the state court enters a judgment declaring the
settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114
S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
Judge Hodges other comments on my complaint in the Order Of Dismissal (Doc. 64) are only as
to form, which is poor because it was an incomplete first draft. Judge Hodges may believe I have
valid ADA and Civil Rights claims, and did not grant Rodems motion to dismiss with prejudice.
I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will right this wrong.
Mr. Rodems Misleading Response, Question 27b.
Mr. Rodems failed to list my case in Hillsborough County as settled June 21, 2011, suggesting
even he does not believe the case was lawfully concluded. Question 27b: For your last 6 cases,
which were settled in mediation or settled without mediation or trial, list the names and
telephone numbers of trial counsel on all sides and court case numbers (include appellate
cases). Some of the cases reported by Mr. Rodems may not be settled as shown below.
1. Hatfield v. Sarasota Co. School Dist, USDC, M.D. Fla., 8:10-cv-1893-SDT-TBM, this case may
not be settled, docket shows INTAPP, MAGTRL, STAYED, TRLSET
2. Stewart v. CFP at Waterford, LLC, Fla. 9th Circuit, 2010-CA-8722-O, settled Sep-2011
3. Paragon Mortgage, Inc., v. Taneja, et al., Fla. 13th Circuit, 2008-CA-004093, open case.
4. Loftus v. William Ryan Homes, Fla. 13th Circuit, 2008-CA-006022, settled July 2010
Ciarlone v. William Ryan Homes, Fla. 13th Circuit, 2008-CA-010077, settled July 2010
Takamatsu v. William Ryan Homes, USDC, M.D. Fla., 8:08-cv-00938-RAL-EAJ, settled Sep-2009
5. Endress v. TECO, Florida 13th Judicial Circuit, Case No. 04-CA-10462, this case shows
FINAL JUDGMENT JURY TRIAL PLTF RECOVER FROM DEFT 12/14/07 MLC.
The case shows it was reopened by Mr. Rodems in October 2010.
6. Richardson v. HSN, USDC, M.D. Fla, 8:07-cv-01375-VMC-MAP, settled Nov-03, 2008
WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc.,
U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27
Mr. Rodems application shows the WrestleReunion case in response at questions 27a and 29. I
know a little about this case, and it reveals a lot about his character and personality. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, PA, is the registered agent for WrestleReunion, LLC, according to Florida
Division of Corporation records. WrestleReunion (or Wrestle Reunion) is a professional
wrestling event and fan convention, founded by Sal Corrente in 2005. (Wikipedia).
Page - 6
Mr. Rodems lost the WrestleReunion case as plaintiffs counsel in a jury trial. Rodems then
made public written comments attacking the credibility of Eric Bischoff, a witnesses. A copy of
Mr. Rodems comments appears at Exhibit 5, and it is also posted online on a wrestling website.
http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html.
Mr. Rodems letter shows he lacks judicial temperament and calls into question his mental well-
being. After the jury spoke and the case was over Mr. Rodems wrote the following: "It is odd
that Eric Bischoff, whose well-documented incompetence caused the demise of WCW, should
have any comment on the outcome of the WrestleReunion, LLC lawsuit. The expert report
Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was not even called to testify
by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in a deposition in late-July
2009 before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious
problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head of WCW.
Mr. Rodems also wrote, To even sit in the room and question him was one of the most
distasteful things I've ever had to do in 17 years of practicing law. In fact, we understand that
Bischoff was afraid to even come to Tampa and testify because he would have to answer
questions under oath for a third time about his embarrassing past.
Mr. Rodems continued his attack on the witness: The sad state of professional wrestling today
is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman, whose previous career highlights include
selling meat out of the back of a truck, before he filed bankruptcy and had his car repossessed.
Today, after running WCW into the ground, Bischoff peddles schlock like "Girls Gone Wild"
and reality shows featuring B-listers.
The Commentary to Judicial Canon 2A states that a judge must expect to be the subject of
constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
This is contrary to the core of Mr. Rodems, personality and sense of entitlement.
Misleading or Incomplete Answer to Question 34 - Possible Bias or Prejudice
Mr. Rodems hates non-lawyer, pro se litigants and holds them in contempt. He would be unable
to fairly preside over any case involving a pro se litigant. Mr. Rodems may be biased against
working women. I understand he prohibits his own wife from working outside the home.
Mr. Rodems is biased and disrespectful toward people with disabilities. Mr. Rodems contempt
for disabled persons is apparent in his letter to me dated December 13, 2006 where he wrote
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own
poor choices in life. You also claim to have mental or psychological problems, of which I
have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so
abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of mental problems. (P1, 3)
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the
Page - 7
required hourly rates for representation. (P3, 2).
Mr. Rodems partner and law firm previously consulted with me on disability and the Florida
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR. Mr. Rodems later
used that information against me. See Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.
Gillespie in 05-CA-7205. Also see Dr. Huffers report at Exhibit 1. This was also filed in District
Court, and is on PACER, Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11.
On August 6, 2012 in the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, I submitted an amended disability
motion, with motion for declaratory judgment, showing that the disqualification of Mr. Rodems
was required under the ADA. The motion and appendixes 1-3 are posted on Scribd, 251 pages,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11
A copy of Dr. Huffers letter dated October 28, 2010 appears at Exhibit 6.
Rule 4-8.4(d), A lawyer shall not engage in conduct...prejudicial to the administration of
justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or
discriminate against litigants ...on any basis, including, but not limited to ... disability .....
Question 52 - Possible Violation of the Florida Constitution
Q. If you have previously submitted a questionnaire or application to this or any other judicial
nominating commission, please give the name of the commission and the approximate date of
submission.
A. In 2008, I submitted applications to the Tenth Judicial Circuit JNC. In 2009-2012, I have
submitted applications to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit JNC. I was nominated by both
the Tenth and Thirteenth Judicial Circuits.
Mr. Rodems has resided in Hillsborough County since 1994. Submitting applications to the
Tenth Judicial Circuit JNC may have violated the Florida Constitution, Article V Judiciary,
Section 8 Eligibility:
"No person shall be eligible for office of justice or judge of any court unless the person is
an elector of the state and resides in the territorial jurisdiction of the court."
Florida Bar Complaints Against Mr. Rodems
On September 13, 2012 Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr. notified me that the Florida Bar
opened complaint no. 2013-10,271 (13E) against Mr. Rodems (Exhibit 7) in response to my
complaint submitted September 10, 2012. (Exhibit 8). My complaint alleges that Mr. Rodems
has committed multiple violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar while representing
his law firm and partner in civil litigation against me, a former client on the same or
substantially related matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.
Page - 8
Mr. Rodems submitted an improper 46 page response to the Bar September 17, 2012, one that
exceeded the Bars 25 page limit by almost twice. I asked Mr. Littlewood, and later Mr. Marvin,
about Mr. Rodems flagrant violation of the rules, which is typical of Rodems behavior, and
was granted leave until October 16, 2012 to submit a rebuttal up to 46 pages. (Exhibit 9).
In his letter to you dated September 20, 2012, Mr. Rodems supplemented his response to
question 41, and wrote:
I was advised on September 17, 2012 that Neil J. Gillespie has filed a second bar
grievance against me with the Florida Bar. Mr. Gillespie's complaints center on his
disagreement and dissatisfaction with the manner in which I defended my partner and my
law firm and the various courts rulings. I have responded, and I am hopeful that the
matter will be closed as unfounded, as was Mr. Gillespie's 2007 bar grievance, by the end
of October 2012.
My first Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems was submitted February 20, 2007. (Exhibit 10).
Admittedly my complaint did not focus on the most important issue, although there is evidence
on page 2, paragraph C, showing I prevailed on Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike.
On January 13, 2006 Judge Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems argument for a claim for $50,000 in
court-awarded fees and costs in Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, and found
my pro se Complaint stated a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against Mr. Cook
and BRC. Under the legal doctrine res judicata, Mr. Rodems was precluded from ever again
asserting his bogus claim for $50,000 in court-awarded fees in this matter. But that did not
stop him, and I was unaware of the principal of res judicata at the time.
On March 7, 2007 Staff Counsel Troy Matthew Lovell requested additional information from
me. (Exhibit 11). I responded April 11, 2007. My response was date-stamped by the Florida Bar.
(Exhibit 12). However Mr. Lovell closed the inquiry by letter May 15, 2007, stating in part, On
March 7, 2007, we requested additional information regarding these allegations in order for us to
evaluate your grievance. To date, we have received no additional information. (Exhibit 13).
My complaint was not sufficiently articulate due to my own lack of knowledge, and it was
improperly dismissed by Mr. Lovell, whose May 15, 2007 letter is impeached by my response
submitted April 11, 2007, and received by the Bar April 13, 2007.
I made a second Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems June 20, 2007. This complaint may have
been less articulate than my original complaint. At the time I was caring for my mother who had
Alzheimers dementia, which was my first priority. Susan Bloemendaal closed the complaint
November 19, 2007 without assigning a file number or doing a proper an investigation.
I am currently making a more complete review of the Bar complaint process in this matter, and
will provide you a copy when it is complete. Briefly stated, this is a case of Closing Statement
Fraud. Mr. Rodems partner, William Cook, prepared and signed a fraudulent Closing Statement
Page - 9
with me in the settlement of Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v.
AMSCOT Corporation, Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in violation
of Rule 4-1.5(f)(5). The litigation was over payday loan transactions, which are delayed
deposit check cashing schemes that result in usurious rates of interest for the consumer.
This case boils down to the veracity of a single sentence on the Closing Statement (Exhibit 14)
prepared and signed by Mr. Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001. The sentence states:
In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that AMSCOT Corporation separately
paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against
AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs.
This sentence was later determined false. The Closing Statement is a fraud. There were no court-
awarded fees of $50,000 to Mr. Cook or BRC. The Closing Statement itself is evidence of Fraud
by Mr. Cook and BRC against me and the other two clients in the AMSCOT case.
As a matter of law it was impossible to have the court-awarded fees claimed by Mr. Cook and
BRC on the Closing Statement, because the federal trial court Order (Doc. 116) entered August
1, 2001 by U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara dismissed those claims with prejudice in
Clement, Blomefield and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, case no. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C,
U.S. District Court, M.D.Fla., Tampa Division. The Court found that all of the transactions in
this action occurred before the effective date of the applicable law, 65 Fed. Reg. 17129,
Regulation Z, promulgated pursuant to the TILA, the Truth-in-Lending Act. Judge Lazzara held:
After considering the arguments made and all the authorities now before it, the Court
finds that count I fails to allege a claim for relief under the TILA
1
. Moreover, any attempt
at stating a claim under the TILA would be futile. Having reached this conclusion, the
motion for class certification is now moot. (Doc. 116, pp. 3-4)
PACER, Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1340
The Closing Statement prepared and signed by Mr. Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001 failed
to disclose or itemize $3,580.67 in costs and expenses, and failed to reflect $2,544.79 paid to
attorney Jonathan L. Alpert. Mr. Cooks failure to disclose or itemize a total of $6,125.45 in
expenses under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) was done in furtherance of his fraud against his clients.
Mr. Cook maintains he was not required to disclose or itemize under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) costs of
$3,580.67, or show $2,544.79 paid to Mr. Alpert, because AMSCOT Corporation separately
paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for
court-awarded fees and costs. But the claim to $50,000.00 for court-awarded fees and costs
was later determined false. There were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. Mr. Cooks Closing
Statement Fraud was a trick to evade the terms of the contingent fee agreement, and payment to
me of $9,143, my lawful share of the $56,000 total recovery. Instead, Mr. Cook and BRC paid

1
As to the remaining two state-law claims for usury and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA), the Court finds it inappropriate to exercise its pendent jurisdiction.
Page - 10
me $2,000. Likewise with the other two plaintiffs, Mr. Clement and Ms. Blomefield. Mr. Cooks
fraud resulted in $21,431.03 unjust enrichment for him and BRC. Mr. Cook and BRC took over
90% of the Amscot total recovery for themselves through fraud against their clients.
The contingent fee agreement between me and Mr. Cook and BRC in the AMSCOT lawsuit was
not signed by any of the parties in violation of Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(2). Under a scenario discussed
by my former counsel Robert W. Bauer, a referral from The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral
Service, no attorneys fees were owed in the absence of a signed fee agreement:
Transcript, telephone call, March 29, 2007, page 16:
2 MR. BAUER: The way that I'm looking at this
3 is that they either are entitled to nothing because
4 they are attempting to enforce an oral contingency
5 fee agreement, which is against the Professional
6 Code of Ethics, or they should be entitled to
7 45 percent of 56,000.
The above cited misconduct by Mr. Cook in the AMSCOT case, and Mr. Rodems subsequent
misconduct in case 05-CA-7205, was reported to the Florida Bar beginning in 2003, initially to
ACAP. From 2004 through 2007 Ms. Bloemendaal obstructed my complaints, with the help of
Troy Matthew Lovell, Staff Counsel. Ms. Bloemendaal used her official position with the
Florida Bar to facilitate Mr. Cooks fraud after the fact, rather than hold him accountable.
Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Robert Bauer
Mr. Rodems failed to cooperate with counsel I retained, which caused such a disruption that
counsel was not able to zealously represent my interests. Mr. Rodems behavior was so bad that
Mr. Bauer would not allow me to attend hearings in my own case. Mr. Bauer sent me an email
July 8, 2008 at 6.05 p.m. stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be able to
properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the situation. I am
sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I believe it is best to
keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You have had a very adversarial
relationship with him and it has made it much more difficult to deal with your case. I
don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be avoided.
Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Eugene Castagliuolo
Mr. Rodems failed 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.. On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an asshole in an email
to me. (Exhibit 15). Mr. Castagliuolo wrote (in part): Based on what I know right now about
Page - 11
your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy,
and he would get NOTHING from you.
Former Client Heike Albert, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB
A former client of Mr. Rodems, Heike Albert, contacted me unsolicited March 31, 2012 about
his conduct in her federal lawsuit, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB.
Rodems moved to withdrawal as counsel, and argued irreconcilable differences April 4, 2012
before U.S. District Judge Honeywell, claiming Ms. Albert called him an a--hole.
Transcript, page 8 (Exhibit 16)
5 [MR. RODEMS] She sent me an email that said everything was fine, but
6 within 24 hours she sent an email to David Sanford. In that
7 email, she called me an a--hole. She said that I did not care
8 about my clients. She said that I did not care about her. She
9 said she felt I was going to pressure her into accepting a
10 settlement that she did not want to take. She said she was
11 pawned off on me, she didn't want me, it was not her choice,
12 and she asked Mr. Sanford to take over the case again.
I helped Ms. Albert find her case on PACER, as her counsel failed to provide her with some
documents in her lawsuit. Fortunately Ms. Albert found new counsel, and the case docket shows
Plaintiffs Notice of Settlement (Doc. 90) August 21, 2012. Ms. Albert found me thorough my
emergency motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems on Scribd.
Heike Albert contacted Gov. Scott about Mr. Rodems nomination by the JNC March 6, 2012,
according to her email April 11, 2012, 10:44 a.m. (Exhibit 17)
Ok, I spoke to the Gov. office regarding Mr. Rodems and voiced my concerns. I
basically told them that a judge should not only know the law but also follow it.. and
Mr. Rodems clearly doesn't do either and that I would be forwarding the transcript
when I get it.
Former Client Rita Pesci v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No. 2006-10,278(13D)
I spoke with Ms. Pesci by phone January 7, 2010. Ms. Pesci told me about her experience with
Mr. Rodems representation:
...I found him to be a complete liar. He only did it for the money that he could
get. He didn't want to defend me in my case at all. He had never intended to. And
because there was a chance that he might lose, so rather than be aggressive and
fight the case he dropped me and filed a claim against my retirement fund...He
took a little over half of my retirement money...he placed a lien against what he
said was his bill...And my understanding was that he had taken this case and that
Page - 12
he would be paid if he won. But according to what he said, he didn't say
that...Yeah, this is this is how they get you...You know, I never had a thing
against lawyers until I actually dealt with one... when he started fighting me over
the fee, he would send things that were two and 300 pages long...And I remember
at one point telling him, I didn't care how much paper he sent them, that he had
defrauded me and he knew it... (Rita Pesci, former client of Mr. Rodems)
Ms. Rita M Pesci, 2045 Hunters Glen Dr., Dunedin, FL 34698-2838, (727) 736-8170.
Carl Montag v Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)
Mr. Montag asked that I provide the JNC a copy of his Bar complaint, as he was unable to due so
in a timely manner due to travel. Pages 1-6 of Mr. Montags complaint appear at Exhibit 18. The
complaint makes the following accusations, in part:
Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is not
short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing
party is pro se.
Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence
to Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to directly
communicate with Plaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, to
discuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along.
Every portal of communication was used to communicate with Attorney
Rodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and hand
delivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never would
discuss any detail of the case
Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and
improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to
Plaintiffs, etc.
Case law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge &
Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve
lis Pendens.
Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to be
treated with courtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that Attorney
Rodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions.
Mr. Montag said he plans to make another Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems.
Page - 13
Financial History
Information about Mr. Rodems financial history is obscured and not reliable because he does
not honestly or fully answer the financial questions. This is an ongoing issue with Mr. Rodems,
one I previously raised with Erik M. Figlio, General Counsel to Gov. Charlie Crist.
The Financial History questions 1 and 2 ask for gross income and net income respectively. Mr.
Rodems responded with amounts on his W-2 Wage and Tax Statement. While W-2 amounts may
be part of the response, the W-2 figures do not fully respond to the question.
Mr. Rodems is employed by Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, a small, closely held professional
association. His W-2 amount does not include the gross income or loss, or the net income or loss,
of the professional association. Mr. Rodems responded My W-2 employee earnings in 2011
were $133,978. This response is insufficient in understanding his actual financial condition.
The professional association could be running deficits, or showing windfall profits.
Mr. Rodems responses to the gross income and net income questions is the same amount.
Therefore he has not fully answered questions 1 and 2 and his application is not complete.
Mr. Rodems responded to question 1 My year-to-date earnings are approximately $100,000;.
In response to question 2 he reported My year-to-date earnings are approximately $6,000;
These numbers appear to be in conflict.
The JNC should require applicants to submit three years of signed tax returns.
Mr. Rodems application to the JNC shows dishonesty in large and small ways, including the
photograph of himself submitted with his application. The photo of Mr. Rodems is not current,
and appears at least 10-15 years old. The photo does not accurately portray Mr. Rodems. I last
saw Mr. Rodems June 21, 2011. His appearance was one of a middle-age, overweight, balding
man, not the young man depicted in the photo with thick hair. This is not a trifling matter, and
goes to the core of presenting a truthful profile to the JNC.
Thank you for considering this information in opposition to Ryan Christopher Rodems for judge.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Enclosures
Appendix - Comments to the Thirteenth Circuit JNC
Opposition To Ryan Christopher Rodems for judge
October 11, 2012
Exhibit 1 List of related lawsuits, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
Exhibit 2 Notice/Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32) 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
Exhibit 3 Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
Exhibit 4 Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
Exhibit 5 Letter of Mr. Rodems attacking witness Eric Bischoff in WrestleReunion lawsuit
Exhibit 6 Letter of Dr. Karin Huffer, October 28, 2010
Exhibit 7 Mr. Littlewood letter Sept-17, 2012, opened Rodems complaint No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Exhibit 8 Bar Complaint against Mr. Rodems, Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Exhibit 9 Mr. Littlewood letter October 2, 2012, re Mr. Rodems 46 page response
Exhibit 10 Bar Complaint against Mr. Rodems, TFB No. 2007-11,162 (13D)
Exhibit 11 Letter of Troy Lovell, March 3, 2007 re Mr. Rodems TFB No. 2007-11,162 (13D)
Exhibit 12 Neil Gillespie response to Troy Lovell, April 11, 2007, TFB No. 2007-11,162 (13D)
Exhibit 13 Letter of Troy Lovell May 15, 2007, closed TFB No. 2007-11,162 (13D) re Mr. Rodems
Exhibit 14 BRC Closing Statement, Amscot lawsuit, November 1, 2001
Exhibit 15 Email of Eugene Castagliuolo, re asshole Rodems June 14, 2011
Exhibit 16 Transcript page 8, Albert, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB
Exhibit 17 Email of former Rodems client Heike Albert re comments to Gov. Rick Scott
Exhibit 18 Carl Montag v Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)
20 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
RCR - denotes cases where Ryan Christopher Rodems represented his firm and partner against former client Gillespie
1.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 to
Jun-21-2011, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009).
2.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, Jan-19-2006
to Sep-28-2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)
3.RCR 2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
4.RCR 2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
5.RCR 2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
6. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
7. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
8. RCR 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
9. RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
10.RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
11.RCR Federal Ct. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA (closed, appeal)
12. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA (closed, appeal)
13. C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Estate claims, Civil RICO (closed, appeal)
14.RCR C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA, (closed, appeal)
15.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
16.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
17.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 review Fla.Sup.Ct. case no. SC11-1622,
Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time.
18.RCR SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas August 13, 2012 docketed August 31, 2012,
No. 12A215 extend the time to file a petition for a writ, C.A.11, cases, 12-11028-B and 12-11213-C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Original case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corp. class action Dec-09, 1999
20. Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp, filed August 20, 2001
1
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PagelD 600
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
vs.
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT,
FLORIDA, et aL
. Defendants.
_____________.....:1
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS;AND
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
On June 21, 2011, PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie assigned aU claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. See Exhibit "1".
Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prej udice,
pmsuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21
st
day of June, 2011.
lsI Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 947652
Attorney for Assignees
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 489-1001
Fax: (813) 489-1008
E-mail: rodemsra1barkelTodemsandcook.com
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERyICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and COITect <;opy of the foregoing has been served this
21
st
day of June, 2011 by electronic transmission to Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire,
catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.,
and Robert W. Bauer. No other defendant has been served.
lsI Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
2
-
t
m
:f"""
)(
w
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL MUTUAL RELEASE
This settlement agreement and general mutual release, executed on Iune 21,2011, by and
between Neil J. Gillespie, hereinafter "Party A" and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., its agents and
employees, and Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook, and Ryan Christopher Rodems, hereinafter
''Party B".
WHEREAS disputes and differences have arisen between the parties, as detailed in the
pleadings and records filed in the case styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.A..
and WilliamJ. Cook. Esquire, Case No. 05CA7205, pending in the Circuit Court ofthe Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida and Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit. Florida. et a1., 5: 1O-cv-00503-WTH-DAB, pending in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division; WHEREAS, the parties wish to fully and finally
resolve all differences between them from the beginning of time through June 21,2011;
WHEREAS, the parties represent that none ofthe claims released herein have been assigned to a
third-party;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe assignment to Party "B" ofall claims pending
or which could have been brought, based on the allegations of Party "A", against any person or
entity, without limitation, in Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Florida. et aI.,
5:1O-cv-00503-WTII-DAB and dismissal with prejudice oftheir claims in the case styled Neil J.
Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.An and William J. Cook. ESQuire, Case No. 05CA7205,
and dismissal ofthe appeal, Case No. 2DlO-5197, pending in the Second District Court ofAppeal,
with the parties to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, and the agreement of Party "B" to
record a Satisfaction ofJudgment regarding the Final Judgment entered on March 27,2008, in Neil
J. Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.A.. and William J. Cook. Esquire, Case No. OSCA720S:
Each party (the releasing party) hereby releases, without limitation, the other party (the
released party) from any and all actions, suits, claims, debts, accounts, bills, bonds, attorneys' fees
or costs, judgments, or any claims, without limitation, whether in law or equity, and whether
known or unknown, which the releasing party now has or ever had resulting from any actions or
omissions by the released paqy from the beginning of time through June 21, 2011.
This mutual release shall be acknowledged before a notary public and may be signed in
counterpart.
Cpse 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 4 PagelD 603
STATE OF J L
COUNTY OF Vff'"
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.2r" day of J , 20II, by
NEILJ. GILLESPIE.
- State ofFlorida
Personally Known OR Produced Identification V'
Type of Identification Produced-flu r, $\)ci\fGrlJ---'ULe""--n.'"
. 'MBERlY HIMES
4:t: Go If'),...\ ".3. 51:," () '{q
tiJm: Nolal \ . "pile Siale of florid;
i' ." .My ComIII tAPIr88 Nov 18, 201
CommissIon /I DO 909877
STATE OF FL9,RP,:>A .,,;tnr,f$"' Bonded Through NalloMl Notary Ass
COUNTY OF /fi
...............-.....
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
WILLIAM J. COOK.
te ofF. ri
NOTARY Pl.'BLlC-STATE OF1LO,RID!
Personally Known j OR Produced Identification _ ... Lynne Anne Spma
W \ CODunlIlSioD # DD941173
Type of Identification Produced. _
Expires: DEC:26,2013

BOMDiDTHllc Al'U.,"CBo.\llI:fOoo,lKC,
STATF; OF FL9lWlJ\ .f- .
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me of ,2011, by
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS.
Personally Known OR Produced Identification v"
Type ofIdentification Produced fl. ok tblrCtO
KIMBERLY HIMES
f * '\ Notlry Public. State of AOI
"It: . 35'"1. '1 lot.. 444- b
i' i My Comm. fxplres Nov 16. 2
CommissIon # DO 90987
, I'".... BOnded ,ll/ough NallonJl NotIty A
. COUNTY OF
1<J- 4
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ...1.J4'K. ,2011,
by CHRIS A. BARKER, individually and as officer fo BARKER ODEM COOK, P.A.
fFI ida
NOTARY PL'BLlCSTATE OF FLOlUD!
Lynne Anne Spina
Personally Known OR Produced Identification J _
{Wj Commlaslon # DD941173
Type ofIdentification _
DEC:26.2013
BQl'G)IID'lllRC ATLA.\"C BONDINO co..1NC.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 63 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1794
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
-vs- Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10TBS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint against eleven (11)
Defendants which, by its title, purports to state a claim under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq., as well as various violations of his
constitutional rights.
1
(Doc. 1). The Complaint is due to be dismissed for several reasons.
First, the Plaintiff has never effected service of summons on any of the Defendants,
or complied with any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second, the Complaint
consists of 39 pages of rambling, largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Third, the Complaint fails to allege the basis for the
Courts subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) the parties are
clearly all citizens of Florida and therefore not diverse, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any
1
The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two (2) of the Defendants, Barker
Rodems & Cook, P.A., and Ryan Christopher Rodems, on October 29, 2010 (Docs. 22, 25-26).
4
intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. And fourth, it appears that the Plaintiff has assigned all of
his claims in this case to Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and
William J. Cook, who have moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(2). (See Doc. 32).
2
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,
terminate all pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 27th day of February, 2012.
Copies to: Counsel of Record
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se
2
The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlement
agreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, executed
under duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However, the core of the
settlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of various matters
pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have been executed as part
of a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court is the appropriate judicial
body with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the validity and/or enforceability of the
settlement agreement and assignment. This Court will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction)
entertain any disputes within the purview of the settlement agreement unless and until the state
court enters a judgment declaring the settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
2
Sal Cor r ent e of Wr est l eReuni on had a l awsui t agai nst Cl ear Channel / Li ve Nat i on because t hey r eneged on a
cont ract wi t h hi m. The case went befor e a j ur y and Mr. Cor r ent e l ost t he case, whi ch many feel was unj ust .
But Er i c Bi schoff made a st at ement on wr est l ezone.com, whi ch i s bel ow, t hat caused Sal ' s l awyer t o send hi s
st at ement :
I n my l ast post r egar di ng t he Wr est l eReuni on/ Li ve Nat i on l awsui t , I suggest ed t hat Bi l l Behr ens and Er i c
Bi schoff wer e exper t wi t nesses for Wr est l eReuni on. That was not t he case as t hey wer e act ual l y wi t nesses
for t he Cl ear Channel / Li ve Nat i on si de. I j ust spoke wi t h Er i c Bi schoff who sai d he agr eed t o be an exper t
wi t ness aft er r eadi ng and t aki ng i nt er est i n t he case, however he was not cal l ed t o t he st and.
" The case w as w r apped up qui ck l y ," Bi schof f t ol d Wr est l ezone.com, " t he j ur y di dn' t w ast e any
t i me and came back w i t h w hat I f el t w as t he cor r ect deci si on" .
Er i c was happy wi t h t he out come, t o say t he l east . " Rob Russen and Sal Cor ent e gi v e t he w r est l i ng
busi ness a bad name," he st at ed, " so I ' m gl ad j ust i ce pr ev ai l ed and t he bot t om f eeder s di dn' t w i n
one" .
Bischoff want ed t o make sur e t hat ever yone knew his comment s and opinions wer e solely his and did not
r eflect t hose of Clear Channel/ Live Nat ion.
I n r egar ds t o t he above st at ement , we have a st at ement fr om Mr. Cor r ent e' s l awyer :
" I t i s odd t hat Er i c Bi schof f , w hose w el l - document ed i ncompet ence caused t he demi se of WCW,
shoul d hav e any comment on t he out come of t he Wr est l eReuni on, LLC l aw sui t . The ex per t r epor t
Bi schof f submi t t ed i n t hi s case bor der ed on i l l i t er acy , and Bi schof f w as not ev en cal l ed t o t est i f y
by Cl ear Channel / Li v e Nat i on because Bi schof f per j ur ed hi msel f i n a deposi t i on i n l at e- Jul y 2009
bef or e r unni ng out and r ef usi ng t o answ er any mor e quest i ons r egar di ng hi s ser i ous pr obl ems
w i t h al cohol and sex ual dev i ancy at t he Gol d Cl ub w hi l e t he head of WCW. To ev en si t i n t he r oom
and quest i on hi m w as one of t he most di st ast ef ul t hi ngs I ' v e ev er had t o do i n 17 y ear s of
pr act i ci ng l aw . I n f act , w e under st and t hat Bi schof f w as af r ai d t o ev en come t o Tampa and t est i f y
because he w oul d hav e t o answ er quest i ons under oat h f or a t hi r d t i me about hi s
embar r assi ng past .

The sad st at e of pr of essi onal w r est l i ng t oday i s di r ect l y at t r i but abl e t o t hi s snak e oi l sal esman,
w hose pr ev i ous car eer hi ghl i ght s i ncl ude sel l i ng meat out of t he back of a t r uck , bef or e he f i l ed
bank r upt cy and had hi s car r epossessed. Today , af t er r unni ng WCW i nt o t he gr ound,
Bi schof f peddl es schl ock l i k e " Gi r l s Gone Wi l d" and r eal i t y show s f eat ur i ng B- l i st er s.

Sal Cor r ent e, on t he ot her hand, has al w ay s been an honor abl e man, and he del i v er ed on ev er y
pr omi se and pai d ev er y w r est l er w hi l e st agi ng t he t hr ee Wr est l eReuni on ev ent s. Unl i k e t he
cow ar dl y Bi schof f , Mr . Cor r ent e t ook t he st and i n t hi s case. Al t hough hi s company di d not pr ev ai l ,
Sal Cor r ent e pr ov ed t hat he w as man enough t o f i ght t o t he f i ni sh - - somet hi ng Bi schof f coul d
nev er under st and."

Si ncer el y ,

Ry an Chr i st opher Rodems
Bar k er , Rodems & Cook , P.A.
400 Nor t h Ashl ey Dr i v e, Sui t e 2100
Tampa, Fl or i da 33602
813/ 489- 1001
E- mai l : r odems@bar k er r odemsandcook .com
We j ust want ed t o gi ve Mr. Cor r ent e' s l awyer a chance t o speak hi s mi nd.

Geor gi e GMakpoul os@aol .com

Si nce I have al ways had wr est l er s aut ogr aph si gni ngs as a speci al i t y for any websi t e I wor ked for, I know for
sur e, Mr. Cor r ent e i s an honest pr omot er who has NEVER st i ffed a wr est l er wor ki ng for hi s shows or
convent i ons. I woul d have hear d about i t .
Ther e ar e many pr omot er s who do t hat i n t hi s busi ness, whi ch i s ver y sad.
The information on this website is exclusive property of the Declaration of Independents and cannot be used elsewhere without proper link credit. All DOI purchases are
non-refundable. All mail (electronic or postal) sent to the DOI becomes property of the DOI which allows the DOI to reprint that e-mail in it's entirety by doing so, if the email
is considered newsworthy.
Copyright declarationofindependents.net & doiwrestling.com. All Rights Reserved.
DOIwrestling.com - Declaration of Independents - The Number 1 Indepen... http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html
1 of 3 9/29/2012 6:59 PM
5
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Li censed Marri age and Fami l y Therapi st #NV0082
ADAAA Ti t l es II and III Speci al i st
Counsel i ng and Forensi c Psychol ogy
3236 Mount ai n Spri ng Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www. l vaal l c. com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and
testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways
possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the Judge and
now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with
arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
6
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my
medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly
being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of
bullies to sort out a legal problem.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than
two years.
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
September 13, 2012
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Ryan Christopher Rodems; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Enclosed is a copy of our letter to Mr. Rodems which requires a response to your complaint.
Once you receive Mr. Rodems's response, you have 10 days to file a rebuttal if you so desire. If
you decide to file a rebuttal, you must send a copy to Mr. Rodems. Rebuttals should not exceed
25 pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Please
address any and all correspondence to me. Please note that any correspondence must be sent
througll the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
Please be advised that as an arm of the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida Bar can
investigate allegations of misconduct against attorneys, and where appropriate, request that the
attorney be disciplined. The Florida Bar cannot render legal advice nor can The Florida Bar
represent individuals or intervene on their behalf in any civil or criminal matter. Further, please
notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative litigation which
pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should new litigation
develop during the pendency of this matter.
Please review the enclosed Notice on mailing instructions for information on submitting your
rebuttal.
Sincerely,
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosures (Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Letter to Mr. Rodems; Notice - Mailing
Instructions)
cc: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
7
NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
1. The enclosed letter is an informal inquiry. Your response is required under the
provisions of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4 8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct.
Failure to provide a written response to this conlplaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4 8.4(g). If
you do not respond, the matter will be forwarded to the grievance committee for disposition in
accordance with Rule 3-7.3 of the Rules of Discipline.
2. Many conlplaints considered first by staff counsel are not forwarded to a grievance
committee, as they do not involve violatiol1s of the Rules of Professional Conduct justifying
disciplinary action.
3. "Pllrsuant to Rule 3-7.1(a), Rules of Discipline, any response by you in these proceedings
shall become part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public
upon the closure of the case by Bar counselor upon a finding of no probable cause, probable
cause, minor misconduct, or recommendation of diversion. Disclosure during the pendency of
an investigation may be nlade only as to status if a specific inquiry concerning this case is made
and if this matter is generally known to be in the public donlain."
4. The grievance committee is the Bar's "grand jury." Its function and procedure are set
forth in Rule 3-7.4. Proceedings before the grievance committee, for the most part, are non
adversarial in nature. However, you should carefully review Chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating
The Florida Bar.
5. If the grievance committee finds probable cause, formal adversarial proceedings, which
ordinarily lead to disposition by the Supreme Court of Florida, will be commenced under
3-7.6, unless a plea is submitted under Rule 3-7.
THE FLORIDA BAR
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
September 13, 2012
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker
501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790
Tampa, FL 33602-5237
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Rodems:
Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the
above referenced complainant(s). Your response to this complaint is required under the
provisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating The Florida
Bar, and is due in our office by September 28, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages al1d
may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to
provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please note
that any correspondence must be sent through the u.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your written
response, including any documents submitted therewith.
Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Discipline, any reports, correspondence,
papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s)
shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon a
disposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the
status of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made and
the matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline,
you are further required to complete and retllm the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form.
Furtller, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative
litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should
new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
September 13, 2012
Page Two
Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and
the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your
response.
Sincerely,

Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,
Notice - Mailing Instructions)
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
NOTICE
Mailing Instructions
The Florida Bar is in the process of converting its disciplinary files to electronic media.
All submissions are being scanned into an electronic record and hard copies are
discarded.
Please limit your submission to no more than 25
pages including exhibits.
If you have additional documents available, please make reference to them in 'your
written submission as available upon request. Should Bar counsel need to obtain copies
of any such documents, a subsequent request will be sent to you. Please do not bind, or
index your You may underline but do not highlight documents under
any circumstances. We scan documents for use in our disciplinary files and when
scanned, your document highlighting will either not be picked up or may obscure
any underlying text.
** Materials received that do not meet these guidelines may be returned. **
Please refrain from attaching media such as audio
tapes or CD's, oversized documents, or
photographs.
We cannot process any media that cannot be scanned into the electronic record.
Please do not submit your original documents.
All documents will be discarded after scanning.
Please do not submit confidential or privileged
information.
If information ofthis nature is important to your submission, please describe the nature of
the information and indicate that it is available upon request. Bar counsel will contact
you to make appropriate arrangements for the protection of any such information that is
required as part ofthe investigation ofthe complaint.
Thank you for your consideration in this respect.
"'----- -'
...... -..
THE FLORIDA BAR
f

\ 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
;
"
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

.. ' .;:'

It'G
Visit our web site: www.FLORIDABAR.org
016H165073,.56

f1\ (\(\ c 5(\
Qi
'::
.a1'"
tt\ 09 13 2012
:t'
uS PU51AGr:
Ocala, FL 34481
i ".:35S7 R::iS7 i51 III.' J J iJ iJ .1111 ill I.Ji II Ii I J IJ I. J Ii J1 ilit Ilii, 111 i.1i I Ji.'
IIIIIl!!I!IIIII- - - ---""""""
THE FLORIDA BAR
INQUIRy/COMPLAINT FORM
PART ONE (See Pa2e I, PART ONE - Required Information.):
Your Name: Neil J. Gillespie
Organization: _
Address: 8092 SW 115th Loop
City: Ocala State: FL
Zip Code: 34481 Phone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
ACAP Reference No._n_o_ne _
Attorney's Name: Ryan Christopher Rodems
Address: 501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
City: Tampa State: ~
Zip Code: 33602 Telephone: 813-489-1001
PART TWO (See Pa2e I, PART TWO - Facts/AIle2ations.): The specific thing or thin2s I am comolainin2 about are:
Please see accompanying letter and exhibits.
PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE - Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
sheet].
PART FOlTR (See Page 1, PART FOUR - Signature.): Under penalties ofperjury, I declare that theforegoingfacts are
true, correct and complete.
8
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program September 10, 2012
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 323992300
Complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID: 947652,
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602, telephone (813) 489-1001;
Mr. Rodems has committed multiple violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar while
representing his law firm and partner in civil litigation against me, a former client on the same or
substantially related matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.
In August 2005 I sued, pro se, Mr. Rodems firm and partner to recover $6,224.78
1
stolen by
them from my settlement in a prior case against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot). Amscot was
a class action lawsuit over payday loans or delayed deposit check cashing schemes that result
in usurious rates of interest. The case is Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and
William J. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Mr. Rodems countersued me on February 19, 2006. It was a vexatious counterclaim for libel
over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, about the litigation and a closed
Bar complaint. On September 28, 2010 Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without
prejudice. I incurred $31,863
2
in legal fees to attorney Robert W. Bauer, a February 26, 2007
referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service to defend the libel suit. Mr. Bauer also
reinstated my voluntarily dismissed claims against Rodems firm and partner, but latter dropped
the case in October 2008
3
. Rodems misconduct made lawful resolution of this case impossible.
Lying is a habit for Mr. Rodems, and he is guilty of misconduct related to lack of candor, which
rules and standards are contained in a publication by The Florida Bar Ethics Department, the
Informational Packet entitled Candor Toward The Tribunal. Rodems is guilty of dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rodems
also knowingly disparaged, humiliated, and discriminated against me on the basis of disability.
Mr. Rodems partner and law firm previously consulted with me on disability and the Florida
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR.
Mr. Rodems misused discovery, disrupted the tribunal, obtained $11,550 in sanctions, and then a
money judgment against me. Much of the case was spent obtaining and executing on the $11,550
judgment. Through a series of ex parte hearings, Mr. Rodems wrongly obtained a warrant for my
arrest on civil contempt, a writ of bodily attachment, for allegedly failing to attend a full
deposition, post final judgment. On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems announced that he had
accumulated another 130 hours of sanctions. That would amount to $45,500 at $350 per hour.
On June 21, 2011 I was held in coercive custody at the Tampa Courthouse until I signed a
settlement while incompetent. I promptly disaffirmed the agreement upon a meal after release.

1
Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers later determined that the amount stolen was $7,143.68, see
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, filed pro se May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton.
2
$12,650 remains unpaid; the rest was paid from Social Security disability benefits or borrowed.
3
Judge Barton entered Order Granting Motion To Withdrawal As Counsel October 1, 2009.
The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012
Page - 2
Mr. Rodems continued his misconduct in my related federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit,
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., 5:10-cv-503, U.S. District Court, M.D.,
Fla. A list of twenty (20) related cases appears at Exhibit 1. Currently I am preparing a petition
for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. My Rule 13.5 Application to extend time to file
a petition for writ of certiorari was docketed August 31, 2012, Docket No. 12A215.
I. Overview of the Misconduct of Ryan Christopher Rodems
A. Represented his partner/firm against me, a former client on a substantially related matter.
B. Represented his partner/firm at ex parte hearings and mislead the Court.
C. His exercise of independent professional judgment was materially limited by conflict.
D. Lack of Candor Toward The Tribunal; Rodems failed to correct earlier false testimony.
E. Misused discovery and obtained sanctions thorough a pattern of racketeering activity.
F. Disrupted the tribunal to improperly influence and prejudice the Court.
G. Disparaged, humiliated, and discriminated against me on the basis of disability.
II. Bar Rules And Case Law Violated by Ryan Christopher Rodems
Mr. Rodems was admitted to the Florida Bar September 23, 1992, and was Board Certified in
Civil Trial Law in 2007. The misconduct described in this complaint cannot be attributed to
mistake or inexperience. This is knowing, willful misconduct, committed with malice
aforethought, and utterly lacking independent professional judgment. Mr. Rodems crossed the
line from misconduct to criminal behavior when he presented false testimony during several ex
parte official proceedings to obtain a warrant for my arrest. The following is my laymans
understanding of Mr. Rodems misconduct and crimes, and the applicable rule or law.
Rule 3-4.3 The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty
and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an
attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and
whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.
Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows
or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent.
Rule 4-1.6(b) requires a lawyer to reveal information to the extent the lawyer reasonably
believes necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime.
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm
and partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2)
substantial risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the
lawyer's responsibilities to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems.
See Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on
Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-
Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010
Page - 3
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent
another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons
interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client. (b) use information
relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal
information relating to the representation about the client. Mr. Rodems firm and law
partner represented me the Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and consulted with me on
disability matters with Florida DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and other matters.
Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All
Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing
so. Mr. Rodems has an imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William
Cook previously represented me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan
Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.
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:
Rule 4-1.16 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result
in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law.
Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a
proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so
that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification,
or reversal of existing law. (i.e., Vexatious libel claim, later voluntarily dismissed)
Page - 4
Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal,
(a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false
statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to
avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction
known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not
disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer
testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so
ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyers client, or a witness called by the
lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity,
the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary,
disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer
reasonably believes is false.
(b) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative
proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged
in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial
measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
(c) Ex Parte Proceedings. In an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of
all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed
decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
(d) Extent of Lawyer's Duties. The duties stated in this rule continue beyond the
conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of
information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6.
Rule 4-3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, A lawyer shall not:
(a) A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise
unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or
reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding...
(b) prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness to testify falsely.
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal...
(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to
comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;
(g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to
obtain an advantage in a civil matter; or
Rule 4-3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
(a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge....
(b) Communication with Judge or Official. In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not
communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge.
(c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.
Rule 4-8.4(a) Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act
Rule 4-8.4(c) Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation
Rule 4-8.4(d) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
Page - 5
The Florida Bars Ethics Department Information Packet Candor Toward the Tribunal notes:
To permit or assist a client or other witness to testify falsely is prohibited by section
837.02, Florida Statutes (1991), which makes perjury in an official proceeding a felony,
and by section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1991), which proscribes aiding, abetting, or
counseling commission of a felony. (page 6, 4)
Florida caselaw prohibits lawyers from presenting false testimony or evidence. Kneale v.
Williams, 30 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration of a fraud is outside the
scope of the professional duty of an attorney and no privilege attaches to communication
between an attorney and a client with respect to transactions constituting the making of a
false claim or the perpetration of a fraud. Dodd v. The Florida Bar, 118 So. 2d 17 (Fla.
1960), reminds us that "the courts are . . . dependent on members of the bar to . . . present
the true facts of each cause . . . to enable the judge or the jury to [decide the facts] to
which the law may be applied. When an attorney . . . allows false testimony . . . [the
attorney] . . . makes it impossible for the scales [of justice] to balance." See The Fla. Bar
v. Agar, 394 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1981), and The Fla. Bar v. Simons, 391 So. 2d 684 (Fla.
1980). (page 6, 5)
Ex parte proceedings. Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting
1 side of the matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting
position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte
proceeding, such as an application for a temporary injunction, there is no balance of
presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless
to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord
the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the
correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the
lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision. (pages 6-7)
III. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - All Courts
1. 2005-present. Mr. Rodems improperly represented his law firm and partner against me in
16 cases (Exhibit 1), a former client on the same or substantially related matter, contrary to
Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890
F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems did this to cover-up the fraud and other wrongdoing
committed against me by his partner and law firm. No other lawyer outside this firm could have
ethically presented the same defense without violating Bar rules, because Mr. Rodems defense
is merely perpetration of the original fraud. As shown below, Mr. Rodems representation of
his law firm essentially consisted of his presenting false testimony on behalf of his firm and
partner, while harassing me and committing other fraud on the court. Mr. Rodems is guilty of
misconduct, conflict of interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice, and lack of independent professional judgment. (Exhibit 2).
IV. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - Hillsborough Co., Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL
Reverse Chronology, with some exceptions as shown.
Limited by the Bars prohibition on submitting more than 25 pages.
Page - 6
2. June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems improperly extorted a settlement from me during a
coercive confinement at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa, held without disability
accommodation. From 5, Florida Supreme Court petition SC11-1622, January 9, 2012:
5. At the direction of Judge Arnold I voluntarily appeared June 21, 2011 for a deposition at the
Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa to purge the contempt and rescind the arrest warrant, but that
turned out to be a trap to force a walk-away settlement agreement in the lawsuits. Upon my
arrival at the courthouse, I was taken into custody and involuntarily confined by two
Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputies, Deputy Randy Olding and Deputy Larry Berg. I was
denied accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq., and the Federal Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801
et seq. After being held in custody during the deposition for over four (4) hours without a lunch
break, or the usual mid-day meal provided to a prisoner, I became confused and disoriented. The
record (A.4.1.125) shows that I was so impaired that I could not make a decision to sign the
agreement. My counsel Eugene Castagliuolo (A.7), whom I hired from Craigslist a couple weeks
earlier, made the decision to settle because judges have mud on their shoes. I signed the
agreement while confused and in a diminished state. Castagliuolo disobeyed my prior written
and verbal instructions not to accept a walk-away settlement agreement. Once I was released
from custody and had a meal, I realized the settlement was a mistake and promptly disaffirmed
the agreement by written notice to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo and Major James Livingston of
the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office. (A.2.1.2-3).
Mr. Castagliuolo admitted August 30, 2012 in a written response to Theodore P. Littlewood Jr.,
Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10,162 (6D), that Mr. Rodems made an unsolicited offer to
Castagliuolo to assist him in any future Bar grievance from me. From page 3, 1:
My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher Chris" Rodems.
Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The Florida
Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer.
This shows how the discipline process is compromised, in this case by Mr. Rodems, whos
misconduct is at the center of this matter. It suggests a pattern of racketeering activity where
adversaries know in advance how to position themselves to avoid discipline. In this case it may
have caused Mr. Castagliuolo to work for the benefit of Mr. Rodems instead of me, his client.
Mr. Bauer stated in a letter to me August 24, 2012 that the settlement only binds me, not him.
3. June 16, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied about my income during a hearing before Judge James
Arnold on Plaintiffs Motion To Quash Writ of Bodily Attachment And To Rescind Warrant For
Plaintiffs Arrest, where I was represented by Mr. Castagliuolo. I was subject to an arrest warrant
and did not attend the hearing. Castagliuolo informed the court I would sit in jail for two weeks
if arrested before transfer from Marion to Hillsborough Co. Rodems refused to allow 60 days to
attend a deposition with counsel. Mr. Rodems lied about my income to Judge Arnold.
Transcript, page 7:
8 [MR. RODEMS] Mr. Gillespie receives income from a trust.
Transcript, page 13:
21 MR. RODEMS: There is one matter, Judge. And
22 I'm just trying to head off a problem in the past.
23 Mr. Gillespie is trying very hard not to show
24 to me the trust documents, where he gets income.
Page - 7
Mr. Rodems statement to Judge Arnold is false because I do not receive income from a trust.
My income is from Social Security disability. No one receives income from the trust because the
trust does not have any money. The trust has no assets other than my home. My home is valued
at $85,584. The outstanding mortgage is $108,056. The home is underwater with negative
equity of -$22,532. The delinquent HOA fees are $6,902. A copy of The Gillespie Family Living
Trust was filed September 20, 2011 with the District Court and is on PACER along with my
Affidavit of Indigency, Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Document 3 Filed 09/20/11 Page
1 of 37 PageID 76. I did not create the trust and do not know its purpose. The grantor trustees
are all dead. No living person knows the purpose of the trust.
4. June 3, 2011 through June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems refused to provide upon request of my
attorney Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily attachment.
5. June 1, 2011 through June 21, 2011 For twenty-one days, law enforcement tried to arrest
me. On June 3, 2011, upon receipt of my monthly disability payment, I hired Mr. Castagliuolo
off Craigslist to represent me at the court-ordered deposition. Mr. Rodems and his staff refused
to cooperate with Mr. Castagliuolo, or provide him a copy of a writ of bodily attachment. In his
email to me June 10, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo stated in part Last but not least, Rodems' useless
assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but unhappy message. On June
14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an asshole in an email to me: 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 uncooperative behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo.
Ex parte Hearings: Civil Contempt, Writ of Bodily Attachment, Arrest Warrant
6. September 28, 2010 to June 1, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied to Judge Martha Cook, and Judge
James Arnold, during 3 ex-parte hearings, and obtained a warrant for my arrest on a writ of
bodily attachment for civil contempt. The hearings before Judge Arnold in 2011 were after the
case was closed and on appeal of Final Summary Judgment in 2D10-5197. I have mental
impairments and disability. I can no longer represent myself due to intentional infliction of
severe emotional distress by Mr. Rodems, a course of harassing conduct since March 2006.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.14 Comment - Rules of procedure in litigation generally provide
that minors or persons suffering mental disability shall be represented by a guardian or
next friend if they do not have a general guardian. (I do not have a general guardian)
I also filed the following and provided Judge James Arnold courtesy copies May 27, 2011:
May 27, 2011 letter to Judge Arnold informing him that Rodems lied at earlier hearings, and that
I cannot represent myself. This letter was cross-filed in the District Court and is on PACER, see
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 35 Filed 07/07/11.
May 24, 2011 I filed Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law in 05-CA-7205, cross-filed in the District Court and is on
PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 37 Filed 07/07/11 (449 pages).
Page - 8
May 27, 2011 I filed Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.
Gillespie in 05-CA-7205. Dr. Huffers report is found at Exhibit 1 therein. Cross-filed in District
Court on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11.
7. June 1, 2011. The public defender was appointed to represent me September 27, 2011,
but Judge Arnold relieved the public defender, and I had no counsel. Judge Arnold proceeded
with the hearing ex parte and issued a warrant for my arrest at the demand of Mr. Rodems.
8. May 3, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied during an ex parte hearing before Judge James Arnold
demanding my arrest on a writ of bodily attachment. Mr. Rodems lied about my cooperation to
attend a deposition. Rodems also lied about my disability, and failed to tell Judge Arnold that I
must be represented by counsel at a deposition due to Mr. Rodems past behavior, such as
making a false affidavit against me March 6, 2006, and his intentional infliction of severe
emotional distress, see Plaintiffs Amended Accommodation Request (ADA) Mar-05-2006. I
cannot have unmoderated contact with Mr. Rodems because of his antics and the imbalance of
power between us. Rodems also made this false statement to Judge Arnold: Transcript, page 9
20 There is no possibility that Mr. Gillespie is
21 going to voluntarily show up for a deposition.
This is false. In my letter to Mr. Rodems November 8, 2010 I provided three dates where I would
appear: Wednesday November 10, 2010, Thursday November 11, 2010, Friday November 12,
2010. I filed this letter with the Clerk November 8, 2010.
Mr. Rodems Filed False Information In Court Pleading November 3, 2010
9. November 3, 2010. Mr. Rodems filed false information with the court in his Response
To Plaintiffs Emergency Motion To Disqualify Judge Martha J. Cook And Amended Motion
For An Order To Show Cause As To Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Prohibited From Henceforth
Appearing Pro Se. Mr. Rodems stated on page 2 The transcript shows that Plaintiff elected to
leave [the hearing]; in fact Judge Cook ordered me removed from the hearing. The bailiff who
removed me, HCSO Deputy Christopher E. Brown, impeached Judge Cooks assertion that I left
voluntarily. HCSO Major James Livingston put Deputy Browns statement in a letter to me dated
January 12, 2011 on Hillsborough County Sheriff Office letterhead, and it appears as Exhibit E
to the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie of April 25, 2011. Judge Cook ordered me removed after I
provided her the Complaint in my federal ADA and 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, 5:10-cv-503.
Mr. Rodems also stated in his pleading that I concocted illness during a hearing July 12, 2010.
This is false. I became ill and was treated by Tampa Fire Rescue, as shown by treatment records,
and described in Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011, see 37, 43-49. From 44:
44. Gillespie suffered a panic attack July 12, 2010 during a hearing. The Court excused
Gillespie from the hearing. Deputies of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office saw
Gillespie was in distress and offered assistance. Tampa Fire Rescue was called. Corporal
Gibson was by Gillespies side and walked him to the lobby of courthouse where he
waited for the paramedics. Tampa Fire Rescue arrived and Gillespie received medical
attention at 10:42 AM by EMT Paramedic Robert Ladue and EMT Paramedic Dale
Kelley. Later Gillespie obtained a report of the call, incident number 100035129.
Page - 9
(Exhibit 35). The narrative section states found 54yom sitting in courthouse
with tight throat secondary to stress from court appearance. The impressions section
states abdominal pain/problems. The nature of call at scene section states Resp
problem. See Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Judge Martha J. Cook ,falsified record of
Gillespie's panic attack; ADA, October 28, 2010. (Exhibit 32).
Ex Parte Hearings: Final Summary Judgment, and Civil Contempt, September 28, 2010
10. September 28, 2010. Mr. Rodems collaborated with Judge Cook during hearings on Final
Summary Judgment, and Civil Contempt, and created a false record to show that I left the
hearing voluntarily, when in fact Judge Cook ordered me removed by the bailiff after I provided
her the Complaint in my federal ADA and 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, Gillespie v. Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, FL, et al., 5:10-cv-503, U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla.
Judge Cook continued the hearings ex parte after ordering me removed by the bailiff, ruled
against me, then lied about my removal in a contempt order September 30, 2010. It was a classic
Star Chamber proceeding. Thankfully the bailiff who removed me, HCSO Deputy Christopher E.
Brown, impeached Judge Cooks assertion that I left voluntarily. HCSO Major James Livingston
put Deputy Browns statement in a letter dated January 12, 2011, and appears as Exhibit E to the
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie April 25, 2011. Rodems has an ongoing duty to correct the record.
A transcript of the hearing on Final Summary Judgment shows Mr. Rodems did not comply with
Rule 4-3.3(c), and did not inform the tribunal of all material facts known to him to enable the
tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts were adverse. Rodems stated:
Pages 5-6
[MR. RODEMS] The following facts that are in my motion
are undisputed.
All the facts Mr. Rodems presented were, in fact, disputed. See Plaintiffs Motion For
Summary Judgment filed April 25, 2006, and Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint submitted
May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton. Mr. Rodems did not inform the Court that he lied
October 30, 2007 to Judge Barton when he testified that I signed a contingent fee agreement with
BRC, when in fact I did not sign one. His falsehood was the basis of earlier favorable judgments.
A transcript of the hearing on Civil Contempt shows Mr. Rodems did not comply with Rule 4-
3.3(c), and did not inform the tribunal of all material facts known to him to enable the tribunal to
make an informed decision, whether or not the facts were adverse. Mr. Rodems failed to correct
the record when Judge Cook lied and said that I leave the hearing voluntarily (p.19, lines 8-11).
Mr. Rodems failed to inform the Court that his representation of his firm and partner was
contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland; Rodems failed to
inform the Court that I was entitled to ADA disability accommodation at a deposition.
Robert W. Bauer Shows Mr. Rodems Fraud - No Claim For Court-Awarded Attorneys Fees
11. October 30, 2007. Robert W Bauer outlined Mr. Rodems fraud to Judge Barton October
30, 2007 during a hearing for judgment on the pleadings: (Transcript, October 30, 2007, p.39)
22 [MR. BAUER] Another issue to point out the fact this is for
23 their claim of court-awarded attorney's fees, there
Page - 10
24 was no claim. The claim had already been determined
25 by the court, denied. It didn't exist any more.
1 [MR. BAUER] Yes, there was an appeal outstanding, but that
2 doesn't resurrect any claim. The only thing that's
3 going to resurrect a claim is an overruling by the
4 appellate court. A claim no longer exist once it's
5 been denied, even if it's on appeal. So in
6 asserting there existed a claim for attorney's fees
7 is false. It - it's not there.
Robert W. Bauer Shows Mr. Rodems Perjury Before The Court
4
12. October 30, 2007. Mr. Rodems lied in open court October 30, 2007 before Judge James
Barton, essentially testifying as a witness for his law firm and partner, claiming that I signed a
contingent fee agreement with BRC. There is no signed contract because I did not sign one.
(October 30, 2007, p.20, beginning at line 2)
2 MR. RODEMS: Wait just a second. I have a
3 written signed copy of that contract. I'm not the
4 one that filed this lawsuit. Gillespie did. And
5 Gillespie filed an unsigned version of that
6 contract.
24 MR. RODEMS: That is completely incorrect.
25 There is a signed contract. It exists.
13. July 20, 2010. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, No Signed Contingent Fee Agreement
with BRC, filed July 20, 2010 and swears that I did not sign a contingent fee contract with BRC.
14. October 30, 2007. Mr. Rodems, as counsel for his firm and partner, essentially testified as
a witness, and clearly lacked independent professional judgment, or a modicum of decorum.
(October 30, 2007, p.31, line 23)
23 [RODEMS] We are being shaken down by Mr. Gillespie.
24 That's what's happening here.
(October 30, 2007, p.45, beginning at line 20)
20 [RODEMS] But, you know, we believe that if you will
21 carefully consider this matter, you will see that,
22 you know, Mr. Gillespie is basically trying to shake
23 us down.

4
During a February 9, 2009 telephone call Mr. Bauer and I discussed Mr. Rodems perjury
before Judge Barton about the unsigned contingent fee agreement. (Transcript, p11, Feb-09-09)
MR. BAUER:...[I] think it clearly puts
12 before the Court the mistake or perjury, whichever
13 the Court determines that they wish to interpret as
14 Mr. Rodems misleading the Court when he said that
15 certain things were present that weren't. If you
16 read those motions I clearly said that in there.
Page - 11
15. Because of the foregoing false witness testimony by Mr. Rodems, I asked Mr. Bauer if I
should attend hearings to rebut Rodems perjury. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a
witness in my own case, and sent me an email July 8, 2008 at 6.05 p.m. stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be
able to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the
situation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I
believe it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You
have had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much more
difficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be avoided.
Because I was not present at hearings, Mr. Rodems lied with impunity about factual matters in
2007 and 2008 while Mr. Bauer represented me. Mr. Rodems was essentially a witness for his
firm and law partner. I was not present at the hearings to present rebuttal testimony.
Mr. Rodems Full Nuclear Blast, Harassment - Unfairness to Opposing Party or Counsel
16. 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 full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal as counsel October 13, 2008. The motion was granted a year
later October 1, 2009. The case was inactive for a year. I was unrepresented thereafter.
17. September 17, 2010. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Mr. Bauer prohibited me from attending
hearings due to Mr. Rodems full nuclear blast approach harassment, filed September 18, 2010.
18. Mr. Rodems' full nuclear blast approach was unprofessional as stated by Mr. Bauer,
and was a tort, the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress on me. Mr. Rodems full
nuclear blast approach has aggravated my disability to the point where I can no longer represent
myself at hearings. I become easily distracted and confused, and can no longer speak coherently
enough during a hearing to represent himself. I retained Dr. Karin Huffer as my ADA disability
advocate. Dr. Huffer prepared a disability report for me in February 2010 which the court
essentially ignored. On October 28, 2010 Dr. Huffer wrote a letter stating I had been denied
disability accommodations and improperly threatened with arrest. (page 1 2). See Exhibit 3.
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind.
Page - 12
Dr. Huffer also wrote He is left with permanent secondary wounds. (page 2). Also:
It is against my medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path
without properly being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human
being into a field of bullies to sort out a legal problem. (page 2, 1)
Additional Affidavits, Notices, Motions of Rodems Fraud and Misconduct Filed in 05-CA-7205
19. July 27, 2010. Notice of Fraud on the Court by Ryan C. Rodems, Discovery.
20. July 26, 2010, Mr. Rodems filed Motion For Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should
Not Be Prohibited From Henceforth Appearing Pro Se. To deny me access to court.
21. June 28, 2010. Motion to Strike Mr. Rodems Improperly Notarized Affidavit of Mr. Cook.
Rodems notarized the affidavit of his law partner to garnish my funds, contrary to notary law.
22. June 17, 2010. Sworn Notice of Mr. Rodems Fraud on the Court, re: Coordinating Hearing
23. June 14, 2010. Motion For Order of Protection, cancel deposition, Stay pending ADA ruling.
24. May 5, 2010. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Mr. Rodems as a Defendant personally.
25. February 22, 2010, Perjury Complaint against Mr. Rodems to Tampa Police, re: his
Motion For Bailiff and Sanctions, March 6, 2006; outcome: Rodems not right, not accurate.
26. February 19, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, ADA Disability.
27. January 5, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, Harassment.
28. December 15, 2009. Motion To Hold Mr. Rodems in Contempt, Violated Stay Order
29. January 29, 2007. Plaintiff's Motion with Affidavit For Order to Show Cause, Rodems
Criminal Contempt, his false affidavit Mar-06-2006. See Perjury Complaint to TPD, 25.
30. April 25, 2006. Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment, BRC Fraud & Breach of Contract
Motions To Disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as Counsel for BRC and Mr. Cook
31. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard. Judge
Nielsen did not to disqualify 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 and did not argue it.
The following is Paragraph 61 from my Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel
Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. filed July 9, 2010. It was not heard.
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the tribunal
legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse
to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel, in this instance
Page - 13
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, legal authority directly adverse
to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are just two of a number of cases
Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the Table of Cases that accompanies this
motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully inform the court on applicable law whether
favorable or adverse to position of client so that the court is better able to make a fair and
accurate determination of the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176.
As evidenced by this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr.
Rodems and BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
On February 13, 2006 I prevailed on Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss the Complaint, and thereby
established a cause of action for Fraud and Breach of Contract. This established personal liability for
Mr. Rodems. 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 (2dDCA, 1965). Mr. Rodems and BRC had an actual
conflict. Disqualification of Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel was required. Also see Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify Counsel, December 11, 2006.
32. Judge Nielsens Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel held:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiffs
Motion to Disqualify Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and
counsel and Mr. Gillespie having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised
in the premises, it is ORDERED:
The motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may
be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Under Florida law the question is not whether Mr. Rodems may be a witness but whether he
"ought" to be a witness. Proper test for disqualification of counsel is whether counsel "ought" to
appear as a witness.[l] Matter of Doughty, 51 B.R. 36. Disqualification is required when counsel
"ought" to appear as a witness. [3] Florida Realty Inc. v. General Development Corp., 459
F.Supp. 781. Rodems ought to be a witness on his affidavit of Mar 6, 2006. In addition, no judge
has considered disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel for his vexatious libel counterclaim
against me. Mr. Rodems should have been disqualified because my letter to Ian MacKechnie,
President of Amscot, was substantially related to the prior litigation and a related Bar
complaint. See Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Judge Cook falsified Order, Rodems disqualif,
September 27, 2010. Also on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105438019/Affidavit-of-Neil-
J-Gillespie-Judge-Cook-Falsified-Order-Rodems-Disqualif-Sep-27-2010
Mr. Rodems Misuse of Discovery - Civil RICO Pattern of Racketing Activity
33. Mr. Rodems misused discovery with the help of presiding judges to whom he either paid
money to as campaign contributions, or to whom his partners paid money as campaign contributions.
Judge Claudia Isom, the second trial judge authored an essay, Professionalism and Litigation
Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323, that describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors
intensive case management for lawyers to avoid costly discovery sanctions, because judges are
elected and need the support of lawyers. The essay acknowledges that lawyers behave badly in
Page - 14
court (like Mr. Rodems in this case), and this behavior, which Judge Isom calls
cutting up, is intended to churn more fees for themselves. In my case Judge Isom refused to
provide me the same intensive case management, but instead held me to rigid standards, and set
the stage for the next trial judge, Judge James Barton, to slam me with $11,550 in sanctions,
which in turn Mr. Rodems used to obtain a money judgment, and used that to extort a settlement.
In the case of Judge Barton, Mr. Rodems law firm paid money to the business of Judge Bartons wife,
Chere Barton, president of Regency Reporting Service. Chere Barton transcribed my deposition in the
Amscot case May 14, 2001. The transcript, which contains much information about my disabilities,
has apparently been stored in the home office of Judge Barton. It was not until May 2010 that all the
dots were connected during a hearing. Judge Barton was disqualified as trial judge May 24, 2010 for
cause, a long-standing business relationship between Mr. Rodems law firm and the court-reporting
business of Judge Bartons wife. The $11,550 sanction award is contrary to the law on discovery:
Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to encourage the
settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.
1996). The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedy determination
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 Dental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure that judgments 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 not upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler
v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (2dDCA 1977).
Because Mr. Rodems firm and partner previously represented me in the Amscot case, and the current
litigation was about the Amscot case, Mr. Rodems already had most, if not all, my discovery on file.
On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems announced at the court-ordered deposition that he had accumulated
another 130 hours of sanctions against me. At $350 per hour, that would amount to $45,500.
The Civil RICO pattern of racketeering activity is more fully described in Motion to Reconsider, U.S.
Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 12-11028-B, and on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95369974
34. March 28, 2006. Rule 4-3.4(d). Improper Interrogatory requests by Mr. Rodems, such as 10
years of medical history (#8), a list of bar complaints filed (#11), information on any complaints to
any government agency ever made, including the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which
complaints Mr. Rodems knows are confidential. (#12). Same with RFP. I tried my best to comply, but
Rodems did not really want the discovery, (which he already had from his firms prior representation
of me), Rodems wanted to get discovery sanctions against me to use as extortion to force a settlement.
My discovery requests to Mr. Rodems were essentially the same as he sent me. But Mr. Rodems
refused to provide any documents in response to my RFP, not a single page. He objected to many
of the same Interrogatories he sent me. See, Motion for Reconsideration, $11,550 Sanctions, 05-
CA-7205, June-18-2010, and Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery Sanctions, Dec-11-2006.
35. July 29, 2010. Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Mr. Rodems false letter about his discovery.
Mr. Rodems refused to provide documents in response to my RFP. Instead, Rodems sent me a
letter dated December 19, 2006, stating The documents have already been produced..., which
was false. In fact, much of Mr. Rodems discovery is still outstanding.
Page - 15
V. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. 5:10-cv-503
36. In 5:10-cv-503, Mr. Rodems' misconduct was so bad that I dismissed him and BRC
under Rule 41 September 29, 2010. Mr. Rodems' misconduct in violation of Rule 11 (b) is found
at Doc. 58 Plaintiffs Response To Order To Show Cause, beginning on page 28, ~ 1 9 . In
pleadings Mr. Rodems told the Court that my Complaint was filed AFTER the state court
"disposed of' all my claims, which is false; my Complaint was filed BEFORE. Rodems also told
the Court that I sued "the four judges" in the state court action. This is false, I did not sue Judge
Richard Nielson because he too was duped by Rodems' false affidavit of March 6, 2006. On
June 21,2011 Mr. Rodems gave notice of assignment of claims, and moved for dismissal with
prejudice under Rule 41 (a)(2), but that was not granted. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges dismissed
the case without prejudice on other grounds and noted Rodems' assignment. (Order, Doc. 64.)
VI. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems Regarding Disability
37. I am an indigent fifty-six (56) year-old single man, law-abiding, college educated, and a
former business owner, disabled with physical and mental impairments that substantially limit
my life activities. The Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DRV) determined that my
disability was too severe for rehabilitation services to result in employment. In March 2001 I
consulted with Mr. Cook and BRC on disability and DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR.
Social Security determined I was totally disabled in 1994. I have a record of impairment since
birth. I am also regarded by others as being impaired. The record shows I suffer from depression,
post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), diabetes type II adult onset, traumatic brain injury (TBI),
velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI), craniofacial disorder, and impaired hearing. Mr. Rodems'
strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on me who he knows to be
especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, in an effort to deny
me due process of law, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct, conflict of interest,
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the
administration ofjustice. On August 6, 2012 with leave of the U.S. Court of Appeals, I submitted
Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation. This shows disqualification of Mr. Rodems
was required under the ADA. The Motion and Appendixes 1-3 are posted on Scribd, 251 pages,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/l 02585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-l1.
Rule 4-8.4(d), "A lawyer shall not engage in conduct. ..prejudicial to the administration of
justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or
discriminate against litigants... on any basis, including, but not limited to... disability....".
Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this complaint is available upon request.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Thank you for considering this complaint.
20 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
RCR - denotes cases where Ryan Christopher Rodems represented his firm and partner against former client Gillespie
1.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 to
Jun-21-2011, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009).
2.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, Jan-19-2006
to Sep-28-2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)
3.RCR 2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
4.RCR 2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
5.RCR 2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
6. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
7. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
8. RCR 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
9. RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
10.RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
11.RCR Federal Ct. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA (closed, appeal)
12. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA (closed, appeal)
13. C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Estate claims, Civil RICO (closed, appeal)
14.RCR C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA, (closed, appeal)
15.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
16.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
17.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 review Fla.Sup.Ct. case no. SC11-1622,
Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time.
18.RCR SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas August 13, 2012 docketed August 31, 2012,
No. 12A215 extend the time to file a petition for a writ, C.A.11, cases, 12-11028-B and 12-11213-C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Original case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corp. class action Dec-09, 1999
20. Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp, filed August 20, 2001
1
I. Prior Representation of Neil Gillespie by Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. et al.
1. I was a plaintiff in a class action suit against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot). Jonathan Alpert filed the Amscot
lawsuit December 9, 1999
1
as partner of the firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. The action was based
on payday lending and alleged violations of federal and state lending laws. Myself and another plaintiff intervened in
November 2000 to save the case from dismissal, because the first plaintiff was unqualified.
2. Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. also represented me in another class action suit, one against
ACE Cash Express filed April 14, 2000, Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, U.S.
District Court, M.D. Fla., Tampa Div. (ACE)
3. A Tampa Police Department report dated June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges Mr. Alpert committed
battery, Florida Statutes 784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing hot coffee on him. At the time Mr. Levine was
a 68 year-old senior citizen. The report states: The victim and defendant are both attorneys and were representing their
clients in a mediation hearing. The victim alleges that the defendant began yelling, and intentionally threw the contents of a
20 oz. cup of hot coffee which struck him in the chest staining his shirt. A request for prosecution was issued for battery.
Mr. Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report and failed to inform me that Mr. Alpert attacked attorney Arnold
Levine
2
in the Bucs case, during the same time Mr. Alpert and the Alpert firm represented me in Amscot and ACE.
4. On or about July 20, 2000 Mr. Alpert became a candidate for state attorney for Hillsborough County
3
. The
vacancy was created by the suicide of State Attorney Harry Lee Coe who shot himself July 13, 2000.
5. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Barker executed Articles of Incorporation for Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A (BRC), a
new law firm formed in secret from Jonathan Alpert. The new firm was not announced until December 6, 2000. Prior to
that time, Mr. Cook told me that he and Messrs. Barker and Rodems formed their own law firm, and asked me to keep the
information secret from Mr. Alpert. This double-dealing and deception against Mr. Alpert placed me in a position of
conflict and divided loyalties with the lawyers and law firm representing me.
6. During the four month period between the formation of Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (BRC) in August 2000,
and the formal announcement in December 2000, Mr. Cook secretly sought to bring cases and clients from the Alpert firm
to BRC. Mr. Cook offered me a number of incentives to sue Amscot, and bring my cases from the Alpert firm to BRC. Mr.
Cook said I would get special attention as a favorite client of his newly formed law firm. The new firm would be anxious
for business which he and his partners hoped I would provide. Mr. Cook said once they were free from the control of Mr.
Alpert they would be able to decide themselves what cases to accept and litigate. Following the breakup of the Alpert firm,
I brought new claims to BRC. In a March 22, 2001 letter to Mr. Cook, I requested representation on disability matters and
the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. (DVR). DVR determined that my disability was too severe for
rehabilitation services to result in employment. I provided Mr. Cook documents in the matter, DLES case 98-066-DVR.
Mr. Cook responded March 27, 2001 that ...we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have.
7. Mr. Rodems and his partners announced the formation of their new law firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (BRC)
by letter December 6, 2000. Substitute counsel BRC and William J. Cook represented me beginning December 12, 2000 in
both the Amscot and ACE cases. Both cases were contingent fee, but BRC did not sign a contingent fee agreement with me.
The only contingent fee agreement in each case was with the closed Alpert firm.
8. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. The court held that the transactions involved predated the
applicable law. BRC and Mr. Cook appealed. 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 attached to the
Joint Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this complaint:
Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.
Amscot Corporation
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Barker, Chris A., Esq.
Cook, William J., Esq.
Gillespie, Neil

1
, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, US District Court, Tampa
2
Mr. Levine previously sued Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, a $5 million dollar defamation claim, Buccaneers Limited
Partnership v. Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, 99-2354-CIV-T-23C.
3
Mr. Alpert was defeated and eliminated in the September 5, 2000 primary election.
2
2
MacKechnie, Ian
Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq.
9. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA with prejudice, with the parties
bearing their own costs and attorneys fees.
10. BRC and Mr. Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot. Mr. Cook lied to me about
a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the closing statement. There was no $50,000 award. The
closing statement was a fraud. 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. The closing statement did not comply with Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) in that no costs or expenses were
itemized, and payment of $2,544.79 to Mr. Alpert was not shown.
11. This case boils down to the veracity of a single sentence on the closing statement prepared and signed by Mr.
Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001. The sentence states In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that
AMSCOT Corporation separately paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against
AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs. This sentence was later determined false. The closing statement is a fraud.
There were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. As a matter of law it was impossible to have court-awarded fees as claimed
by BRC and Mr. Cook because the federal court dismissed those claims with prejudice and held that the transactions
involved predated the applicable law.
12. During the course of litigation with me, Mr. Rodems argued that the claim for court-awarded fees and costs
actually refers to a fee-shifting provision of the federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA). In fact, the $50,000 claim against
AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs is a fraud, a deliberate misrepresentation by Mr. Rodems. There were no
attorneys fees awarded under TILA in this case. None. There was no possibility of an awarded of attorneys fees under
TILA in this case because of prior court decisions in other cases known to Rodems, specifically the ACE
4
and Payday
Express
5
cases litigated by BRC. Three different federal courts ruled that the transactions complained-about predated the
TILA rule. This happened in all three separate TILA lawsuits brought by Mr. Rodems predecessor firm (Alpert) and
acquired by Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. This is one example of Rodems, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation,
and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
13. The foregoing is more fully described in two pleadings to large to submit with this complaint:
a. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (151 pages with exhibits) was filed May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge
Barton and a motion for leave, and is posted on Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55956605/Plaintiffs-First-Amended-
Complaint-Gillespie-v-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-May-5-2010
b. Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. (190 pages with exhibits) was filed July 9, 2010. Also on Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-
Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010
II. Substantially Related Litigation - Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al. Case No. 05-CA-7205
14. My litigation against BRC and Mr. Cook was to recover $6,224.78 stolen by them from me, from my settlement in
prior litigation in the Amscot case. I filed the original complaint pro se August 11, 2005 alleging fraud and breach of
contract against BRC and Mr. Cook. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint was filed with permission of Judge James Barton
May 5, 2010. Seldon Childers, Esq. later found the amount stolen by BRC was $7,143.68.
15. On August 29, 2005 Mr. Rodems entered his appearance on behalf of BRC and Mr. Cook by way of filing
Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Strike. I responded September 6, 2005 and denied Mr. Rodems the assertions in his
motion. Rodems set his motion for hearing Monday, September 26, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. without coordinating the time and
date with me. Because I live in Ocala which is 100 miles from the Tampa courthouse, Judge Richard Nielsen allowed me to
attend the hearing telephonically. The hearing commenced as noticed September 26, 2005 but Mr. Rodems failed to
provide me copies of case law prior to the hearing. Since I was attending telephonically, Judge Nielsen directed Mr.
Rodems to provide the case law to me by mail, and allowed me to file a written response, which I did October 7, 2005. Mr.
Rodems filed a reply October 10, 2005, where he revealed BRC and Cooks fraud on me: (page 6, 2)

4
Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B
5
Eugene R. Clement v. Payday Express, Inc., case no. 99-2768-CIV-T-23C
3
Because the Closing Statement Mr. Gillespie signed shows that he knew the payment was
for a claim for court-awarded fees, not for an award of fees by the Court, Mr. Gillespie cannot claim to have relied
on the presumed-to-be-true allegation that Mr. Cook told him that the Court awarded BRC $50,000 in fees.
I responded October 31, 2005 to the court in a second rebuttal after Rodems admission of how the fraud worked:
1. Defendants central argument implodes on page 5 of its Reply dated October 10, 2005, paragraph 3 b. ii. Here
Defendants argue that the $50,000 is for a claim for court-awarded fees, and not an actual fee award. This begs
the question - without an actual court-awarded fee, there is no claim for a court-awarded fee. Because Defendants
did not prevail in court, they cannot rely on a statutory claim for court-awarded fees, because there is none. This
is how Defendants created the impression that the Appellate Court awarded fees, when in fact the it ruled that the
parties bear their own costs and attorneys fees. This is Defendants fraud on its own clients. Fraud is an
exemption to the parole evidence rule, blocking Defendants reliance on Franz Tractor v. Case, 566 So. 2d 524.
16. Judge Richard Nielsen agreed in his Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, February 13, 2006.
My complaint stated a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Mr. Cook. Judge Nielsen rejected
Mr. Rodems claim for court-awarded fees. Under the legal doctrine res judicata, Mr. Rodems was precluded from again
raising this defense of a claim for court-awarded fees in this matter. Mr. Rodems at this point also had personal
responsibility, because 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 (2dDCA, 1965). Mr. Rodems and BRC now had an actual conflict. Disqualification of Rodems was required.
17. On January 19, 2006, Mr. Rodems countersued me for Libel over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie, President of
Amscot, about the prior litigation and a related closed Bar complaint.
18. On February 4, 2006 I filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. In 2006 I did not know about
the McPartland case. I found McPartland and other similar cases in 2010. 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.
19. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify him and started an argument.
During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech, and threatened me saying you will pay for writing the letter to
Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot. Rodems also threatened to reveal confidential medical information learned about
my payment for dental treatment from his firms prior representation of me. This is from the March 3, 2006 phone call:
(Page 7) 24 MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a
25 car so that you could get the cash rebate to get
(Page 8) 1 some dental work done? We're going to get to the
2 discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really
3 happen?
4 MR. GILLESPIE: What?
4
5 MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that
6 you could get the cash rebate to get some dental
7 work done?
8 MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need
9 to be disqualified.
10 MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I
11 know that? Because I know that to be a fact?
12 MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from
13 your previous representation of me.
14 MR. RODEMS: Well, you know, see that's --
15 MR. GILLESPIE: If it is -- if it's a fact,
16 anyway.
17 MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and
18 regulations of the Florida Bar because when you
19 make --
20 MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a
21 car so I would have something to drive. I don't
22 know why you buy cars, but that's why I bought it.
20. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with his sworn affidavit made under the
penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of trial Judge Richard Nielsen in Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff
And For Sanctions. Mr. Rodems falsely named Judge Nielsen in an exact quote attributed to me. Rodems falsely told the
Court that I planned to attack him in chambers. It was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage by improperly
influencing the judge. And it worked, because after that date Judge Nielsen was hostile toward me. Prior to that time I had
a good working relationship with Judge Nielsen and his JA Myra Gomez.
21. A recording of the call
6
impeached Mr. Rodems sworn affidavit. Judge Nielsen recused himself November 22,
2006 after I provided him a transcript of the phone call and a motion to disqualify. In a letter dated February 22, 2010,
Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Dept., provided the results an investigation of matter and wrote that
Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing to the Court as an exact quote language that clearly was not
an exact quote. The investigation did not show wrongdoing by me.
22. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard. Judge Nielsen did not to disqualify
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 and did not argue it. 61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client
and not disclosed by opposing counsel, 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, legal authority directly adverse to the position of his
client. McPartland and Culp are just two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the Table of
Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully inform the court on applicable law whether
favorable or adverse to position of client so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of the
matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced by this motion, legal authority directly adverse to
the position of Mr. Rodems and BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
23. Judge Nielsens Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel held:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify
Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and counsel and Mr. Gillespie having been heard,
and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED:
The motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may
be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Under Florida law the question is not whether Mr. Rodems may be a witness but whether he "ought" to be a witness.
Proper test for disqualification of counsel is whether counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[l] Matter of Doughty, 51 B.R.

6
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). In addition, Mr. Rodems provided
written authorization to record our calls, which I filed with the court. Furthermore, on December 30, 2009 I filed Plaintiff's
Notice of Telephone Recording in this case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.
5
36. Disqualification is required when counsel "ought" to appear as a witness. [3] Florida Realty Inc. v. General
Development Corp., 459 F.Supp. 781. Rodems ought to be a witness on his affidavit of Mar 6, 2006.
In addition, no judge has considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel for his vexatious libel counterclaim
against me. Mr. Rodems should have been disqualified because my letter to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, was
substantially related to the prior litigation and a related Bar complaint.
24. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiffs 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, and hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was not heard and I was denied due
process. Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment filed April 25, 2006 predated, and should have lawfully precluded,
Defendants Final Summary Judgment September 28, 2010.
25. Following the April 25, 2005 hearing Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait outside Judge Nielsens court to harass me. Rodems
claimed it was to wish a warm greeting, belying his fear of attack.
26. This case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006. On December 15, 2006 I submitted
Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, and moved for disclosure of conflict and noted the following possible
conflicts:
Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 by check to Woody Isom on or
about July 2, 2002. (3, page 2)
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 protges 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. (4, page 2)
On January 5, 2007 I served Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict.
27. On December 12th and 13th, 2006 Mr. Rodems left this voice mail for me:
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)
24 I would also point out that the problem that
25 youre 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 and
2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're
3 usual hours rates are for litigation like this,
19. ..And then on top of all
20. that you always fall back on your medical
21. condition, which I have never seen any
22. documentation of, that you always allude to that in
23. your Court fillings. And quite frankly, you play
24. the victim when it suits you and you play the
25. advocate when it suits you
28. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter of insults and ridicule of mental illness:
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own poor choices in life. You also
claim to have mental or psychological problems, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior
in this case has been so abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of mental problems. (P1, 3)
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rates for
representation. (P3, 2).
29. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to Judge Isom about Mr. Rodems harassment of me. 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.
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephone
6
message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his 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. Rodems has been missing work, as evidenced from his
calling me from home during normal business hours. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line 15). As
stated before, I am concerned for his well-being and mine. I also requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad
hominem abusive messages and letters.
30. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For An Order To Compel Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop
Harassing Behavior.
31. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom held a hearing on Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The
hearing was transcribed 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 Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were
previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.
32. In March 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. While researching accusations in
one of Mr. Rodems harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit signed by Mr. Alpert in his divorce case that stated in 3c:
I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in last fall's election and supported
him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth
Alpert's counsel;
33. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed by email that he practiced law with Mr. Alpert. 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.
34. During a hearing February 5, 2007 Judge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions,
contrary to her own law essay on discovery sanctions that favors intensive case management instead, Professionalism and
Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. Judge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems counterclaim for
libel against me, 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. My letter was substantially
related to the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation of BRC and Cook. Judge Isom should have, but did not,
disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland on the counterclaim. 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.
35. By February 7, 2007 I could no longer tolerate Mr. Rodems bully tactics, harassment, name-calling, hate mail,
and rude phone calls. Mr. Rodems refused to call me Mr. Gillespie as I requested, and called me Neily instead. This is
in addition to Judge Isoms misconduct. So on February 7, 2007 I gave notice of voluntary dismissal and submitted a
motion for an order of voluntary dismissal. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his counterclaim. If Mr. Rodems did so,
that would have ended the case in 2007. But Rodems wanted vengeance.
36. In March 2007 I retained counsel Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville for the libel counterclaim through the Florida
Bar Lawyer Referral Service. Mr. Bauer reviewed the case and said this about Rodems law partner William Cook: the
jury would love to punish a slimy attorney. (Transcript, March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer reinstated my
voluntarily-dismissed claims. Rodems appealed the decision in 2D07-4530, which denied Mr. Rodems petition for writ of
certiorari February 8, 2008, and ruled:
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).
The information in the foregoing paragraphs 1-36 is more fully described in Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Conflict of
Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co. , Submitted in Support
of Motion for Disability Accommodation, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, case 12-11213-C, and is posted on Scribd at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101764386/Affidavit-of-Neil-Gillespie-Conflict-of-Judge-Claudia-R-Isom-ADA-July-30-2012
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Li censed Marri age and Fami l y Therapi st #NV0082
ADAAA Ti t l es II and III Speci al i st
Counsel i ng and Forensi c Psychol ogy
3236 Mount ai n Spri ng Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www. l vaal l c. com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
3
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my
medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly
being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of
bullies to sort out a legal problem.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than
two years.
THE FLORIDA BAR
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
October 2,2012
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Reference your letter dated September 21,2012 expressing concern that Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems's
response to your complaint, which you received from him, consists of 46 pages and requesting that you
accordingly be pernlitted to subnlit a rebuttal of up to 46 pages.
If you wish to file a rebuttal to the response, please do so in writing by October 16, 2012. Your rebuttal
should be limited to no more than 46 pages. Your correspondence may refer to any additional documents
or exhibits that are available to us upon request. Additionally, you must send a copy to Mr. Rodems.
Sincerely,
I .

Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
9
(-;
"";.. /
The Florida Bar 'fD) In!
.Inquiry/Complaint Fonn
FEB 2 2 )UUI
FLORIDA BAR
TAMPA BRANCH
------=..:...:.:...::...:..::::.:...:.-_--
PART ONE: (Read instructions on reverse side.)
Your Name:AJ61
Address: SW 1/6
City: Q'Ct4 IA State: EL-
Phone: CdJ flifC'l Zip Code: 3r't e/
ACAP Refe,-ence No, c:,u'--'d'"N-'-'--"= _
Attorney's Name:
Address: . Z/tJt:7
City: U/l-tf2L1 ;="L.
Phone: (fi3J I Zip Code: -3-6-'a-.;<
"
PART TWO: (See reverse, part two.) The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:
, r cJ

PART THREE: (See reverse, part three.) The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
sheet]_
: (See reverse, part four.)
(circle one or the other) attempt to use ACAP to resolve this situation.
To attem 0 resolve this matter, I did the following:
I did / id no
PART FIVE (See reverse. part five.): Under penalty ofpeIjury. I declare the foregoing facts are true. correct
and complete_
PUBLIC RECORD
10
i ~
"'" .../
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
1h
Loop
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
VIA US PRIORITY MAIL
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070000320528076
February 20, 2007
The Florida Bar
5521 West Spruce Street, C-49
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958
This is a complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, ID no. 947652.
Enclosed you will find a completed inquiry/complaint form.
My complaint against Mr. Rodems is for his violation of the Rules Regulating the
Florida Bar during his appearance in a civil lawsuit styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William 1. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205. I am the Plaintiff
suing the Defendants, who are my former lawyers. In retaliation my former lawyers
countersued me for. libel over a previous Bar complaint.
Mr. Rodems' misconduct falls into several categories. The first category of his
misconduct involves conflict of interest with a former client (me) and disclosure of my
confidential client information gained during his law firm's prior representation of me,
and his general disregard for the rules as set forth below.
Mr. Rodems' second category of misconduct relates to his allegations that I
committed criminal acts, including his accusation that my Bar complaint against his law
partner, William J. Cook, is criminal extortion under Florida law. Mr. Rodems falsely
accused me of threatening violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers, and when that was
proved false with a tape recording of the conversation, Mr. Rodems accused me of yet a
third crime, a felony for tape recording him. (Even though he wrote me consenting to
being tape recorded).
Mr. Rodems' third category of misconduct is his retaliatory libel counterclaim
against me for writing about a Bar complaint against Mr. Cook in a letter to Ian
PUBLIC RECORD
: ' ~
The Florida Bar, Tampa""' Page - 2 of 10
February 20, 2007
Mackechnie of Amscot Corporation, after the complaint process had run its course, and
the complaint was a matter of public record. Mr. Rodems is aware that my disclosure has
absolute protection pursuant to Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, as cited by Mr. Kenneth
Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation for the Florida Bar.
Mr. Rodems' fourth category of misconduct is an incident of his perjury that led
to the recusal of the trial judge, the Honorable Richard A. Nielsen.
An aggravating factor in Mr. Rodems' misconduct is the fact that I am disabled,
and Mr. Rodems has used information about my disability against me, information he
learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
Enclosed please find the following documents supporting my complaint against
Mr. Rodems:
A. My Complaint for Breach of Contract and Fraud, filed August 11,2005.
B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike. This was Mr. Rodems' first
appearance in this lawsuit, August 29, 2005.
C. Order by Judge Richard A. Nielsen finding a cause of action for Breach of
Contract and Fraud against Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J.
Cook, January 13, 2006.
D. Retaliatory Libel counterclaim by Ryan Christopher Rodems, January
19, 2006, against Neil J. Gillespie, with allegations of criminal extortion,
for a letter I wrote Amscot Corp. about a Bar compliant. Libel
Counterclaim contained in Mr. Rodems' Answer, Affirmative Defenses
and Counterclaim.
E. Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72
Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits. This documents my relationship
with Mr. Rodems' law firm, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
F. Transcript of my March 3, 2006, telephone conversation with Mr. Rodems
where he threatened to reveal my confidential client information,
and where he misquoted me in his verification to the Court.
G. Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit For An Order To Show Cause Why
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of
Court And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law. This document, with an
audio tape of the pertinent conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to
Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which led to Judge Nielsen's recusal.
H. Plaintiffs Accommodation Request, Americans With Disabilities Act,
PUBLIC RECORD
()
The Florida Bar, Tampi;;'
o
Page - 3 of 10
February 20, 2007
shows that Mr. Rodems used information about my disability against me,
information he learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
My complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems:
Mr. Rodems as defense counsel has a direct conflict of interest with me. Defense
counsel is the Defendant in this lawsuit and is being sued by a former client for fraud and
breach of contract. The contract is attached to the complaint as exhibit I. Defendants and
Plaintiff entered into a representation contract that Defendants are now trying to disavow.
Defendants formerly represented Plaintiffs interest in the contract. On January 13,2006,
the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cause of action against Defendants for breach of that
contract and Defendants' accompanying fraud.
Rule 4-1.9(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the
same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially
adverse to the interest of the former client unless the former client consents after
consultation. In the instant case, Defendants represented Plaintiff s interest in the contract
beginning November 3,2000, when it was signed. Now with the commencement of this
lawsuit, Defendants are representing their own interest in the contract, and taking a
position materially adverse to Plaintiff, their former client.
This is what West's Florida Statutes Annotated states under Comment (Vol. 35,
pp. 354-355): "After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer may not
represent another client except in conformity with this rule. The principles in Rule 4-1.9
determine whether the interests of the present and former client are adverse. Thus, a
lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on
behalf of the former client." (underline added). "When a lawyer has been directly
involved a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially
adverse interests clearly is prohibited." (underline added). The contract between Plaintiff
and Defendants is a specific transaction directly involving Defendants who now have
materially adverse interests.
With regard to an opposing party's raising a question of conflict of interest see
comment to rule 4-1.7, which states that a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate
against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if it is wholly unrelated.
(p. 330). As in the instant case, if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is
in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client
detached advise. (pp. 330-331). And a suit charging fraud I entails conflict to a degree not
involved in a suit for a declaratory judgment concerning statutory interpretation. (p. 331).
Where the conflict is such as clearly to call into question the fair or efficient
administration ofjustice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question. (p. 332). Thus
I The Court found a cause of action for fraud against Defendants in the instant case.
PUBLIC RECORD
cB)
The Florida Bar, Page - 4 of 10
February 20, 2007
Plaintiff pro se may properly raise the question of disqualification, because Mr. Rodems'
presence in the litigation calls into question the fair and efficient administration ofjustice,
particularly when Mr. Rodems will commit perjury before the court to gain an advantage
for his own law firm, a defendant in this case.
Finally, Rule 4-1.1 0, the Imputed disqualification general rule, subsection (a) states
that while lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client
when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule 4-1.7, 4
1.8(c), 4-1. 9, or 4-2.2. This rule is especially valid in the instant case because Defendant
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., is a small, three lawyer firm, and the rule of imputed
disqualification stated in subdivision (a) gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client
as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be considered from
the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially 1 lawyer for purposes of the rules
governing loyalty to the client or from the premise that each lawyer is vicariously bound
by the obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated.
Plaintiff's personal confidential information is also at stake in this motion to disqualify.
Preserving confidentiality is a question of access to information. Access to information,
in tum, is essentially a question of fact in particular circumstances, aided by inferences,
deductions, or working presumptions that reasonably may be made about the way in
which lawyers work together. A lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a
law firm and may regularly participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be inferred
that such a lawyer in fact is privy to all information about all the firm's clients. The
following paragraph illustrates how Plaintiffs personal information is freely discussed
among Mr. Barker, Mr. Rodems and Mr. Cook, and probably their support staff too, and
this is another basis for disqualification.
An attorney can be disqualified if he is opposing a former client from whom he
received confidential information related to the pending action or if the attorney had access
to information in prior representation that would prejudice the former client in the
subsequent representation. In any event, it is presumed that that the lawyer received
confidential information if an attorney-client relationship existed. In the instant case
Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. has threatened to use such information to the
disadvantage Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff
at his home and issued the following threat to use infoffi1ation learned from its prior
representation ofPlaintiffto Plaintiffs disadvantage: This is what Mr. Rodems said,
taken from a transcript of the conversation:
MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a car so that you
could get the cash rebate to get some dental work done? We're going
to get to the discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really happen?
MR. GILLESPIE: What?
MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that you could get the cash
rebate to get some dental work done?
PUBLIC RECORD
()
o
The Florida Bar, Tampa''-:-- Page - 5 of 10
February 20, 2007
MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need to be disqualified.
MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I know that? Because I
know that to be a fact?
MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from your previous
representation of me.
MR. RODEMS: Well. you know, see that's-
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifit is -- ifit's a fact, anyway.
MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and regulations of the
Florida Bar because when you make -
MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a car so I would have
something to drive. I don't know why you buy cars, but that's why I
bought it.
MR. RODEMS: Well -
MR. GILLESPIE: If it had sonle other benefits, that's different.
MR. RODEMS: I understand that car was repossessed shortly after you
bought it so -
MR. GILLESPIE: No, it wasn't repossessed.
MR. RODMES: Okay. Well, then you can probably drive that down to
tIle hearing then on the 28th.
MR. GILLESPIE: No, it was voluntarily turned in because after 911
attack the job that I was in dried up.
Rule 4-1.9(b), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (relevant portion). In the instant
case Mr. Rodems has announced that Defendants' intend to use confidential infom1ation
acquired in the previous representation of Plaintiff to his disadvantage in this lawsuit.
Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel for Defendants brought a frivolous libel
counterclaim against Plaintiff in violation of Rule 4-3.1, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
Defendants Counterclaim for Libel, Counts I and II, served January 19, 2006, was taken
primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay and retaliation against Plaintiff for suing
PUBLIC RECORD
A...: ... '.:..
The Florida Bar,
Page - 6 of 10
February 20, 2007
his former lawyers. Defendants are notorious in the Tampa legal community for engaging
in antics which include throwing a cup of coffee in the face of their counsel
during a mediation
2
, and claiming that the other side engaged in criminal extortion against
them
3
. Defendants' counterclaim states that Plaintiff engaged in criminal extortion against
them, paragraph 67. (Also in Paragraph 57, affirmative defenses, contained in the same
document, Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim).
About the time Plaintiff retained the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino
& Cook, P.A., the St. Petersburg Times reported that Jonathan Alpert threw a 20 ounce
cup of coffee in the face of attorney Arnold Levine during mediation in a season ticket
holder dispute. Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A., represented the Bucs'
fans, and Arnold Levine represented the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. According to stories
published in the St. Petersburg Times, Alpert was ranting and raving when he threw a 20
ounce cup of coffee in the face of Levine, who then sued Alpert for civil damages and filed
a battery complaint with Tampa Police. The St. Petersburg Times also reported that
Jonathan Alpert announced in court that he had asked police to investigate "threats and/or
extortion" by the Bucs' lawyer Arnold Levine. Tampa police detectives reviewed the
extortion complaint, which named Levine, Bucs general manager Rich McKay and
Edward and Bryan Glazer.
So this tactic is Defendants' modus operandi, except Mr. Rodems did not report
Plaintiffs "extortion" to law enforcement. Furthermore, on March 7, 2006, Plaintiff
offered his surrender to Mark Ober, but the State Attorney has not replied. Plaintiff
contacted the Florida Bar about Defendants accusation, and it does not agree. The
Director of Lawyer Regulation, Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, wrote Plaintiff that "Those
questions involve a legal conclusion of criminal law and I am not in a position to answer
them." Defendants are not criminal law experts either.
Mr. Marvin also provided Plaintiff with a copy of a Florida Supreme Court case
Tobkin v. Jarboe, 7'10 So.2d 975 (1998), which held that an individual who files a
complaint against an attorney and makes no public announcement of the complaint is
afforded absolute immunity from a defamation action by complained-against attorney. In
the illstant case, Plaintiff made no public announcement and in fact allowed the grievance
procedure to run its natural course. The letter Plaintiff purportedly wrote to Amscot is
dated after the conclusion of the grievance procedure, and announces that Mr. Cook
prevailed, and thus did not do anything wrong. Also, Defendants' counterclaim for libel
will not succeed given the limited distribution and privileged nature of the publication
complained of. See e.g. Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1984).
Mr. Rodems lack of candor toward the Court is a clear violation of Rule 4-3.3,
Rules regulating the Florida Bar. Mr. Rodems knowing made a false statement of nlaterial
fact to the Court in violation of Rule 4-3.3(a)(I). On March 6, 2006, Mr. Rodems filed
Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, where he swore under oath
2 St. Petersburg Times, June 6, 2000, "Attorney's suit says he received coffee in the face"
3 St. Petersburg Times, June 10, 2000, "Sucs accused of extortion"
PUBLIC RECORD
:")
The Florida Bar, Tampa . Page - 7 of 10
February 20, 2007
that Plaintiff was going to violently assault him in Judge Nielsen's chambers on April 25,
2006. But Mr. Rodems stands impeached by a transcript of the conversation during which
the purported threat was made. In his motion, Mr. Rodems told the Court that Plaintiff
threatened him during a telephone call on March 3, 2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
in paragraph 5:
"At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated - and this is an exact
quote - "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." Quite alarmed, I paused and said "are you threatening me
physically or did you mean that metaphorically?" Plaintiff said
"metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger."
Mr. Rodems invoked the name of the of the Honorable Richard'A. Nielsen in the
threat Plaintiff allegedly made against him. Mr. Rodems did this in a calculated effort to
prejudice the Court against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems used his position as an Officer of the
Court to lend credibility to his verified accusation against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems invoked
the name of the Judge Nielsen to make the Court itself fearful of a violent attack from
Plaintiff. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"I am concerned that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings
do not resolve favorably for him, and I request that the Court have a bailiff
available at any future hearings. In over thirteen years of practicing law, I
have had only one other occasion wherein I was threatened in a matter that
made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involved a pro se
party."
Mr. Rodems then asked the Court to punish Plaintiff for his alleged threat, and to
have a bailiff present in order to prevent Plaintiff from violently attacking Mr. Rodems in
Judge Nielsen's implying that a violent attack in Judge Nielsen's chambers
would most certainly injure Judge Nielsen due to the close proximity of Plaintiff to Judge
Nielsen. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"Defendants request that the Court enter an Order sanctioning Plaintiff for
the threatening comment, as detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refrain
from threatening acts of violence."
Mr. Rodems then wrote: "WHEREFORE, Defendants request a bailiff at all future
hearings and that Plaintiff be sanctioned appropriately." Mr. Rodems then verified the
pleadings with the following statement:
"I swear under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this motion
are true and accurate and that the quotes attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are
true and accurate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6
th
day of March,
2006. RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE" and the
verification contained Mr. Rodems' signature.
PUBLIC RECORD
(l
n
l.. .
The Florida Bar, T a m p ~ : '
Page - 8 of 10
February 20, 2007
Mr. Rodems' verified request for bailiff and sanctions was notarized by Lynne
Anne Spina, a notary public employed by Mr. Rodems at his law firm. Defendants'
Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions submitted by Mr. Rodems was false and
misleading, and Mr. Rodems committed perjury regarding the "exact quote" attributed to
Neil J. Gillespie.
Mr. Rodems' defamation aggravated Plaintiffs disability. On March 3, 2006, Mr.
Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his home in Ocala, Florida, and issued several threats. Mr.
Rodems knows Plaintiff suffers from a disability from his law firm's prior representation
of Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems insulted Plaintiff. (Transcript, page 7, line
21). Then Mr. Rodems threatened Plaintiff and said "I mean, it was kind of bizarre that
you would even send that letter, but you did, so now you will have to pay for that."
(Transcript, page 9, line 1). Mr. Rodems continued his threats, insults, and taunts until
Plaintiff spoke metaphorically and said he would "slam him" on the law. This is
Plaintiffs exact quote: "So listen you little, whatever, you raise anything you want, 1will
see you on the 25
th
and 1will slam you against the wall like 1did before." (Referring to
Plaintiffs legal victory over Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike). (Transcript, page
11, line 3). Mr. Rodems then falsely presented this information to the Court in
Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, submitted March 6, 2006.
Mr. Rodems stated, under oath, that this is the exact quote attributable to Plaintiff: "I am
going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's chambers." Plaintiff did not say
"in Judge Nielsen's chambers" but in fact Plaintiff said "like 1did before." These are two
very different statements. Ryan Christopher Rodems lied to the Court to again an
advantage. The hearing before Judge Nielsen on April 25, 2006 began with Mr. Rodems
discussing his request for a bailiff to be present. This is what Mr. Rodems told the Court:
MR. RODEMS: The fourth motion that we filed had to do with a request
for a bailif(to be present. We didn't notice that for hearing, but obviously
we have a deputy here. So that 1don't know that that necessarily needs to
come up. It was not noticed for hearing today, but we can take it up if you
want to. (Transcript, April 25,2006, page I, lines 15-20).
And the Court responded:
THE COURT: 1agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is
on any case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for
future reference you do not have to submit a request. And since it's not in
the form of a motion, 1don't think it needs a ruling. All right. (Transcript,
April 25, 2006, beginning page 1, line 24).
And during the hearing, Mr. Rodems stated that everything he represented
to the court has been accurate. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
PUBLIC RECORD
The Florida Bar, Tampa
Page - 9 of 10
February 20, 2007
"His final reason for trying to disqualify me is he said that I lack candor,
which he cites no case law to that
4
. And I would assert before the Court, as
an officer of the court, that everything that I've represented to the court has
been accurate." (Transcript, April 25, 2006, page 12, beginning line 2).
The hearing before Judge Nielsen on June 28,2006 brought more false
statements from Mr. Rodems. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
MR. RODEMS: All right. First of all, Judge, this continued allegation by
Mr. Gillespie that there's been a threat against him, there's been no threat
against him; he is the one that threatened me when we had a telephone
conversation and he told me he was going to slam me up against your
hearing chambers wall. That's never been followed, but he continues to
repeat it in every pleading and then, you know, the idea is that, I guess, if
you've got judicial immunity from what you say - but the bottom line is, is
that's there's been nothing but cordial behavior on our part. (Transcript,
June 28, 2006, page 11, lines 11-22).
Mr. Rodems statement to the court that "there's been nothing but cordial behavior
on our part" is impeached by the transcript of his phone call to Plaintiff on March 3,
2006. Mr. Rodems repeatedly lied to the Court with impunity, to my detriment.
Ryan Christopher Rodems violated Rule 4-3.4, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar,
Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. Rule 4-3.4 states, A lawyer shall not: (g) present,
participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an
advantage in a civil matter. As previously stated in paragraph 5(c), Defendants'
counterclaim states that Plaintiff engaged in criminal extortion against them, paragraph 67.
(Also in Paragraph 57, affirmative defenses, contained in the same document, Answers,
Affirmative D e f e n s ~ s and Counterclaim). Defendants are notorious in the Tampa legal
community for engaging in antics which include claiming that the other side engaged in
criminal extortion against them. So this tactic is Defendants' modus operandi, and the Bar
should stop this practice and rebuke Mr. Rodems. Furthermore, on March 7, 2006,
Plaintiff offered to surrender to Mark Ober, on the felony crime of extortion, but the State
Attorney has not replied. Plaintiff contacted the Florida Bar about Defendants accusation,
and it does not agree either. The Director of Lawyer Regulation, Kenneth Lawrence
4 Florida case law prohibits lawyers from presenting false testimony or evidence. Kneale v. Williams. 30 So.
2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration of a fraud is outside the scope of the professional duty of an
attorney and no privilege attaches to communication between an attorney and a client with respect to
transactions constituting the making of a false claim or the perpetration of a fraud. Dodd v. The Florida
Bar, 118 So2d 17 (Fla. 1960), reminds us that "the courts are ... dependent on members of the bar to ...
present the true facts of each cause to enable the judge or the jury to [decide the facts] to which the law
may be applied. When an attorney allows false testimony ... [the attorney] ... makes it impossible for the
scales [ofjustice] to balance." See The Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394 So.2d 405 (Fla. 1981), and The Fla. Bar v.
Simons. 391 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1980).
PUBLIC RECORD
en
( .
' ~ . ' , , "
:;
The Florida Bar, Tampa' .-'
't"
Page - 10 of 10
February 20, 2007
Marvin, wrote Plaintiff that "Those questions involve a legal conclusion of criminal law
and I am not in a position to answer them."
Finally, I am asking the Bar to consider Mr. Rodems perjury to the Court that led
to Judge Nielsen's recusal on November 22, 2006. Mr. Rodems' perjury is set forth in
Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit For An Order To Show Cause Why Ryan Christopher
Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court And Incorporated
Memorandum Of Law. (Exhibit G). This document, with an audio tape of the pertinent
conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which
ultimately led to Judge Nielsen's recusal.
In reviewing my complaint, I ask the Bar to consider the duty this law firm once
owed me. It is long established that the relationship between an attorney and his client is
one of the most important, as well as the most sacred, known to the law. The
responsibility of an attorney to place his client's interest ahead of his own in dealings
with matters upon which the attorney is employed is at the foundation of our legal system.
(Deal v. Migoski, 122 So. 2d 415). It is a fiduciary relationship involving the highest
degree of truth and confidence, and an attorney is under a duty, at all times, to represent
his client and handle his client's affairs with the utmost degree of honesty, forthrightness,
loyalty, and fidelity. (Gerlach v. Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493). The lawyers at Barker,
Rodenls & Cook, P.A. did not meet this duty while I was their client. Mr. Cook did not
behave as lawyer with a fiduciary duty. Instead, my fonner lawyers acted more like a
pawn SllOP out for their own financial interests. As set forth in nlY motion for punitive
damages (Exhibit E), my former lawyers' conduct was fraudulent, deliberately
oppressive, malicious, and committed with such gross negligence as to indicate wanton
disregard for my rights. (See Domke v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., M.D.Fla.1996, 939 F.Supp.
849). As set forth in this complaint, Mr. Rodems' unethical behavior continues unabated.
This concludes my initial complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems.
Sincerely,
enclosures
PUBLIC RECORD
D.
E. Plaintiff's Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72
Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits. This documents my relationship
with Mr. Rodems' law ftnn, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
F. Transcript ofmy March 3, 2006, telephone conversation with Mr. Rodems
where,#ethreatenedto reveal my conftdentialclient information,
' ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJ1einhis Veriiicati"nto the Court.; . .
G. ,PI3intifrs'MotionWithAffidavit For' An: Order To Show''Cause Why
Ryah Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of
Court And Incorporated Memorandum OfLaw. This document, with an
audio tape ofthe pertinent conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to
Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which led to Judge Nielsen's recusal.
o
o
THE FLORIDA BAR
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUITEC-49 SUITE C-49
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
March 7, 2007
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW IISth Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Inquiry/Complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems
TFB No. 2007-11,162 (13D)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
We have received and reviewed your complaint against Respondent. In order to evaluate your
complaint, we need additional information, as set forth below.
You have complained that Respondent has misused confidential information obtained in his prior
representation of you during the current proceeding you brought against Respondent's firm. In
order for us to evaluate this claim, please identify with specificity the information in question
and the manner the information was communicated to him. Also, please note that Rule 4
1.6(c)(2) permits an attorney to reveal client confidences to the extent the attorney believes
necessary to defend himself in a dispute with the client. Please refer to the rule (available on our
website) and address whether this rule is applicable to the situation about which you are
complaining.
You have complained that Respondent has an impermissible conflict of interest. In your
complaint, you have asserted that Respondent should be disqualified from representing the
Defendants because of this conflict. Please be aware that The Florida Bar has no authority
regarding the disqualification of counsel in pending cases. If you believe that Respondent should
be disqualified, that issue should be brought to the attention of the presiding judge through an
appropriate motion. If the matter has been brought to the attention of the court, please provide us
with copies of any motions, responses, or orders related thereto for our review.
You also complain that Respondent perjured himself during the proceedings and that this
misconduct resulted in Judge Nielsen's recusal. Please provide a copy of the motion and order
related to Judge Nielsen's recusal. If there is a transcript of any hearing on the matter, please
provide that transcript, also.
11
Neil Gillespie
o o
March 7, 2007
Page 2
You complain about Respondent's filing of a counterclaim for libel against you, which you claim
was a knowingly frivolous counterclaim. Please provide information regarding whether this
claim is still pending and, if it has been resolved, copies of all documents related to the
resolution.
Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be matters which are the subject of the
civil litigation between you and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are deferred until after the
conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding. If there are reasons you believe that such a
deferral would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your response.
We would appreciate a response within thirty (30) days. Please contact us if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
~ / ?
Troy Matthew Lovell
Assistant Staff Counsel
TML/emh
h\
'0
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
'j ; I- ,.
. r
April 11, 2007
Troy Matthew Lovell, Assistant Staff Counsel
The Florida Bar
5521 West Spruce Street, C-49
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958
RE: Inquiry/Complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems
TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D)
Dear Mr. Lovell:
This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2007, requesting additional
information to evaluate the above captioned complaint. Please take notice that I recently
retained counsel in the matter of Gillespiev. Barker,. Rodems & Cook. case no. 05-CA
7205. I am currently represented by Robert W. Bauer, Esq., of Gainesville, Florida.
Because ofthe time neededto confer With Mr. Bauer and provide him the case file
in the civil lawsuit, I have not been able to respOnd to your request within the 30 days you
requested. However now that Mr. Bauer is litigating the civil lawsuit, I hope to have a
response to you soon, hopefully within a week. Mr. Bauer does not represent me in my
Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems.
One response that I can provide now is that there has been no settlement regarding
Mr. Rodems' libel counterclaim over my Bar complaint against Mr. Cook. When I
moved to dismiss the libel counterclaim, Mr. Rodems moved for sanctions pursuant to
section 57.105(1) Florida Statutes. Mr. Rodems is demanding attorneys' fees thereto, and
I subsequently filed an answer to the libel counterclaim. The matter is now in the hands
ofMr. Bauer, who entered his appearance with the Court on April 2, 2007.
PUBLIC RECORD
12
THE FLORIDA BAR
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
JOHN F. HARKNF..8S, JR. SS21VVESTSPRUCESTREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECunvE DIRECTOR www.FLABAR.ORC
SlHTE C-49 SUITEC-49
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
May ]5,2007
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
RE: Inquiry/Complaint regarding Ryan Christopher Rodems
TFB No. 2007-11,162 (130)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
We have reviewed your complaint against the above-referenced attorney and supporting
documentation. Based on our review of these materials, we have concluded that no further
proceedings are warranted in this matter and will be closing our file.
Respondent is a member of your fonner law finn and is defending that law firm in civil litigation
brought by you. You alleged that Respondent has engaged used confidential information against
you based on the prior representation. On March 7, 2007, we requested additional information
regarding these allegations in order for us to evaluate your grievance. To date, we have received
no additional infonnation. In the absence of specific allegations and supporting evidence, we
have no basis for further proceedings.
Accordingly, our file in this matter is now closed. The records regarding this Inquiry/Complaint
will be destroyed one (1) year from today. Our disposition of your complaint has no effect on
any legal remedy that you nlay have.
Sincerely,
~ ~
Troy Matthew Lovell
Assistant Staff Counsel
TMUemh
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems
13
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 court
awarded fees and costs. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy ofthe fully executed Release
and Settlement Agreement dated October 30, 2001.
14

Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: your call earlier
Page 1 of 2
7/19/2011
"Ive made my peace with the lord. Im 55 years-old but feel like 85. Im at the end of 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.

www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com

Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLI UOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMul l en Boot h Road, Cl ear w at er , Fl or i da 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 Tue, 6/14/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Subject: your call earlier
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 3:58 PM

15
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
8
as I said it would be. I responded back to her, look, I've got
a heavy load to carry here. I'm not being paid. I'm doing
this on a contingency fee. The least you can do is come to
Tampa. She took great offense at that.
She sent me an email that said everything was fine, but
within 24 hours she sent an email to David Sanford. In that
email, she called me an a--hole. She said that I did not care
about my clients. She said that I did not care about her. She
said she felt I was going to pressure her into accepting a
settlement that she did not want to take. She said she was
pawned off on me, she didn't want me, it was not her choice,
and she asked Mr. Sanford to take over the case again.
Mr. Sanford sent that email to me and, quite honestly,
Your Honor, it was like a knife in the heart. It was
extremely upsetting. I had worked very hard on Ms. Albert's
case from the time that I got involved. I did a lot of things
to advance the case. She accused me multiple times of missing
deadlines, which was not true. I got extensions to the
discovery from Mr. Gordon on two occasions. Even after I
explained all this to her in her email to Mr. Sanford, she
accuses me of missing deadlines. When I explained to her again
that I had not missed any deadlines, she accused me of it
again.
She and I have a fundamental difference in what my role
is and what her role is. She wants to be the attorney. She
16

Neil Gillespie
From: "dezmartin" <dezmartin@hotmail.com>
To: "'Neil Gillespie'" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Did you ever call or email Gov. Scott's office?
Page 1 of 1
10/10/2012
Ok, I spoke to the Gov. office regarding Mr. Rodems and voiced my concerns. I
basically told them that a judge should not only know the law but also follow it.. and
Mr. Rodems clearly doesn't do either and that I would be forwarding the transcript
when I get it.

Also Thank you so much for the CD...

Heike

From: Neil Gillespie [ mailt o: neilgillespie@mfi.net ]
Sent : Monday, April 09, 2012 8: 30 PM
To: dezmart in
Subj ect : Re: Did you ever call or email Gov. Scot t 's office?

Thanks Heike, please keep me posted. Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: dezmartin
To: 'Neil Gillespie'
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: Did you ever call or email Gov. Scott's office?

Good morning,

I emailed them last week and I followed up with a phone call today Mr. Sevi is out of
the office until tomorrow so I ask him to call me

Will let you know

Heike

From: Neil Gillespie [ mailt o: neilgillespie@mfi.net ]
Sent : Sunday, April 08, 2012 4: 39 PM
To: Heike Albert
Subj ect : Did you ever call or email Gov. Scot t 's office?

Heike,

Did you ever call or email Gov. Scott's office about Rodems' nomination for judge?

Neil
17
THE FLORIDA BAR
INQUIRY/COMPLAINT FORM
J A N 1 8 2 0 12
T h e Florida B a r - A C A P
Tallahassee, Florida
PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE - Required Information.):
Your Name:
Organization:
Address: O i
City:_
Zip Code:
Email:
5U
^
uttAJl
State:
ACAP Reference No.
Attorney's Name: l^U ftw CWiS"bpWY-
Address:
C ity: 'VDuv\\>pa State:
Zip Code: Jjfefr telephone:
PART TWO (See Page 1, PART TWO - Facts/Allegations.); The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:
PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE - Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
sheet]. Vr-
PART FOUR (See Page 1, PART FOUR - Signature.): Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are
true, correct and complete.
Signature Date
18
THE FLORIDA BAR INOUIRY/COMP1
[PART TWO ~ FACTS/A TJ.KKA TIDM]
ETHICAL SHORTCOMINGS OF
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS. ESQUIRE
Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is not
short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing
party is pro se.
Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence
to Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to direcdy
communicate withPlaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, to
discuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along.
Every portal of communication was used to communicate withAttorney
Rodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and hand
delivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never would
discuss any detail of the case (and acknowledges same in his responsive letter
to Plaintiffs dated June 15,2011, and only communicated a couple of times by
fax or mail (would never orally speak to Plaintiffs), but again, NEVER
addressing any of the letters, faxes and pleadings that Plaintiffs sent him.
(Please see various letters to Attorney Rodems from Plaintiffs}
Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and
improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to
Plaintiffs, etc. Attorney Rodems never would acknowledge or communicate
withPlaintiffs regarding their properly filed and noticed 'Counter Motion To
Quash.' Plaintiffs hand delivered their Motion to the Court and to Attorney
Rodems office, requesting time be coordinated and set for suchMotion at the
upcoming hearing. Again, thwarting any legal efforts made by Plaintiffs. In
fact, Attorney completely ignored said Motion at the hearing and didn't allow
Plaintiffs Motion to be heard after his Motion was called up, and thus denying
due process of law. There was not one word communicated {Please see
various letters to Attorney Rodems, that were also copied to Judge Silver,
from Plaintiffs}
Case lawthat Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge &
Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve
lis Pendens. Also, the Judge had to tell him he was submitting a wrong Order
for the Court to consider granting, thus leading Plaintiffs to believe Attorney
Rodems was attempting to "ambush" them, especially because he did not
offer suchcase lawprior to the hearing, but in the middle of the hearing.
(Please see case lawthat was provided to Plaintiffs}
Attorney Rodems called up for hearing the above Motion To Dissolve Lis
Pendens or Alternatively Posting of a Surety Bond that he filed in the instant
case over THREE (3) YEARS AGO, to wit May 9,2008. This same Motion
was "used up" or had a resolution of same when he originally filed such
Motion when bothAttorney Rodems and Plaintiffs' prior counsel, Bud
Stansell, Esquire, had stipulated to Plaintiffs posting a $20,000 surety bond,
and whichPlaintiffs followed throughwithand posted. Why did Attorney
Rodems, a member of the Bar in good standing, who is supposed to uphold
and followthe TLetter of the Law', use a stale Motion, or otherwise already
'used up' Motion that had already been acted upon, and that whichhe should
have at least known, or possibly did know, he needed to file a newMotion to
call up for hearing three years later, the same issue again but in proper order
(signing a newMotion to call up instead of using a three year old Motion that
had already been stipulated by the Parties thereto and thus considered satisfied
and nownull and void, as per the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure?
Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to be
treated withcourtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that Attorney
Rodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions.
Attorney Rodems intentionally did not provide Plaintiffs withproperly plead
discovery requests, blantantiy withheld information, as well as requested proof
of legal authority for Nell Crowley to be present and be able to make any kind
of decisions for settlement of any or all issue at the only Mediation held in this
case, whichwas on May 15,2008. Attorney Rodems repeatedly alluded to
there was a signed Power of Attorney from the Garofalo's giving Nell
Crowley Power of Attorney over them to act in their absence. This same
document was asked for time after time, all to no avail. Plaintiffs' are entitled
to suchinformation. Plaintiff feels that Attorney Rodems did not followhis
oathof being a member of the Florida Bar in good standing, nor practice the
requirements in his Creed of Professionalism. {Please see Plaintiffs' Motion
To Compel, and other discovery requests from various time periods}
DISINGENIOUS MEDIATION - MAY 15.2008
The Mediation that was held in good faithby Plaintiffs, and also ordered by
the Court, would be the venue that any or all issues relating to the instant
litigation may have been solved. Unfortunately, this Mediation never could
have had any real substance or legal impact on the case, because there were
ZERO documents giving authority to Nell Crowley to attend suchmediation,
and by that fact, the Mediation Settlement Agreement the Parties reached,
meant nothing at all come to find out There was nothing binding the
Defendants to suchAgreement, because the actual Parries, or any legal
representative, did not come to the the Mediation, and therefore, showing
Attorney Rodems blantant disregard to protect due process of parties and
legitimate furthering of litigation. {Please see Mediation Settlement
Agreement}
ATI.F.naiNG THAT AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. RYAN
CHRISTOPHER RODEMS. ESQUIRE. PARTICIPATED &
POSSIBLY EVEN FACILITATED. A POSSTRTJR FR Aim
THIS HONORABLE COURT
Jacob Garofalo signed two Power of Attorneys literally the day after the Order
Dissolving Lis Pendens was entered and Attorney Rodems possibly drewup
suchinstruments, informed Jacob Garofalo of same & then recorded same in
public records in Hillsborough County, Florida. {Please see newly signed
Power of Attorneys attached}
Newly signed Power of Attorney filed in HillsboroughCounty public records
This is especially upsetting because Attorney Rodems personally represented
to the Court that his client, Emilio Garofalo, was incompetent and was
deteriorating and unable to further be a part of any proceedings (Unanswered
discovery requests directed to Mr. Garofalo were being addressed at the time
before the Court on a Motion to Compel) and Judge Silver entered an
ORDER, based on Attorney Rodems representation of his client's physical
and mental incompetence, that Mr. Garofalo no longer had to answer any
discovery requests pending, and was excused from taking part of any further
litigation in the instant case. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, presumed to
be prepared by Attorney Rodems to effect the sale of the condominium he
had been trying to pushthroughfor his clients, had this same gentleman,
Emilio Garofalo, signing before a notary in Louisiana, to give Jacob Garofalo
Power of Attorney on his behalf. However, Emilio Garofalo would have
needed to have sound mind and mental & physical competency to sign such
an Affidavit and would therefore showthat Attorney Rodems
SYSTEMATICALLY & KNOWINGLY allowed in the scope of his
professional conduct this illegal document to be recorded in Hillsborough
County public records, whichallowed the sale of the subject condominium
that is the subject of the instant litigation in Hillsborough County. It is
outrageous that Attorney never turned over to Plaintiffs the requested Power
of Attorney that he used as legal authority for Nell Crowley to be present at
Mediation for FOUR YEARS, yet later facilitates a Power of Attorney to be
produced ONE DAY after Order was entered from the Court, and is an
entirely DIFFERENT POWER OF ATTORNEY than was alluded to by
Attorney Rodems to Plaintiffs. The Garofalo's nowappoint their son Jacob
in Louisiana to act on their behalf.
NON-COMPT JANCE ISSUES WITH
To this date, Plaintiffs Request For Production heretofore filed in the instant
Hgitation HAS STILL NEVER BEEN RECEIVED. {Please see Plaintiffs'
Request for Production}
Again, the alleged Power of Attorney that Attorney Rodems stated he had
withhim at Mediation giving authority to Nell Crowley to be there at
Mediation has NEVER BEEN PRODUCED after many, many requests.
The Interrogatories Plaintiffs' had properly requested and filed withthe Court
were never produced until AFTER Attorney Rodems made Plaintiffs file a
Motion To Compel suchanswers and was granted by Judge Silver. Upon
receipt of said answers to Interrogatories, Attorney Rodems provided to
Plaintiffs minimal and scantily answered Interrogatories, seemingly trying to
thwart Plaintiffs' right to information sought in suchdiscovery request
(Please see Defendant's Answer to Interrogatories}
Attorney Rodems refusal or ignoring of Plaintiffs' various discovery requests
ensued the entire time Plaintiffs were pro se.
A
THE FLORIDA BAR INQUIRY/COMPLAINT FORM
[PA RT THREE ~ WITNESSES]
=> Plaintiff Carl Montag
=> Plaintiff Stephanie Miller
=> Defendant Emilio Garofalo
=> Defendant Martha C. Garofalo
=> The Honorable Bernard C. Silver, Circuit Court Judge
=> Prior Plaintiffs counsel, B. Bud Stansell, Jr., Esquire
=> Defendants' counsel, Christopher Rodems, Esquire
=> Nelle Crowley
=> Tom Crowley
=> Jacob Yates Cowden-Garofalo
= > David Garofalo
=> Tom Dickinson
=> Louise Hale
=> Sheila Dugan
=> Any other witnesses requested, needed, or found to have information relating
to mis matter

Oppose Ryan Christopher Rodems For Judge, Oct-11-2012

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Oppose Ryan Christopher Rodems For Judge, Oct-11-2012

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

J.

Carter Andersen, Chair October 11, 2012

S-ar putea să vă placă și