JQC Complaint No. No 12385 Judge Claudia Rickert Isom

STATE OF FLORIDA
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION

1110 THOMASVILLE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224
(850) 488-1581
October 10, 2012
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Docket No. 12385, Judge 150m
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above
matter and has determined, at its meeting held on Friday, October 5,2012, that
the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the
Code'of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are
matters for review solely through the court system.
The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial
misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State
of Florida. If such misconduct or disability is found, the Commission can
recommend disciplinary action to the Florida Supreme Court. The Commission
has found no basis for further action on your complaint that therefore has been
dismissed.
Sincerely yours,
Michael L. Schneider
General Counsel
MLS/bsk
August 15, 2012
Judicial Qualifications Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
COMPLAINT: Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Co.
George Edgecomb Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430, Tampa, FL 33602
To the Judicial Qualifications Commission:
Please find enclosed my completed and signed complaint against Judge Claudia Rickert Isom for
failing to disclose a conflict with her husband, attorney Woody Isom, and my former attorney
Jonathan Alpert. Judge Isom lied to me in open court February 1, 2007 by failing to make the
disclosure. Judge Isoms deceit in the case before her had significant consequences as outlined
herein. Judge Isom engaged in dishonesty prejudicial to the administration of justice, and
brought discredit to the courts and the judiciary.
Judge Isom was dishonest February 1, 2007 during a conflict hearing in my civil lawsuit,
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.
Judge Isom lied by omission when she failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert
were previously law partners and shareholders at the law firm Fowler White in Tampa.
Please find enclosed the following exhibits in support of my complaint:
Exhibit 1. Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, December 15, 2006.
Exhibit 2. Plaintiffs Amended Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, January 7, 2007.
Exhibit 3. Transcript of conflict hearing February 1, 2007.
Exhibit 4. Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Judge, February 13, 2007.
Exhibit 5. Court Order of Recusal, etc., February 13, 2007.
Exhibit 6. Copy of the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, July 30, 2012.
On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict (Exhibit 1) that
informed Judge Isom of campaign contributions from my former lawyer Jonathan Alpert to both
Woody Isom and Judge Isom. In addition, I informed Judge Isom:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protegees and former law partners, and the contract that
forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between Plaintiff
and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.
Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have recused herself after reading that 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.
Complaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge August 15, 2012
Page - 2
1. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the common law
rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and wife are considered
as one person and the relatives of one spouse by consanguinity are related to the other by
affinity in the same degree. State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463.
2. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their counsel might
consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to disclose
relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v. Americana
Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006.
3. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings with a
relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that a judge's prejudice
may bar a party from having his or her day in court. The function of the trial court on
motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to a determination of the legal sufficiency of an
affidavit, without reference to its truth and veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512,
Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
4. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides a judge shall disqualify
himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under this rule, a judge is disqualified
whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether
any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. The question whether disqualification of
a judge is required focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably
question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly
and impartially.
5. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethical responsibility
of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3.
In March 2010 I found the affidavit of Mr. Alpert dated September 3, 2003, received in the
Clerks file September 11, 2003 in his family law matter, Alpert v. Alpert, Case No.: 29-2001-
DR-4977-C. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 10). Mr. Alperts affidavit states at paragraph 3.c.:
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;
Woody Isom confirmed his relationship with Mr. Alpert to me in his email sent March 23, 2010
at 4:35 PM. 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. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 11).
Page - 3
Clearly Woody Isom practiced law with, and had a business relationship with, Jonathan Alpert.
My affidavit
1
of July 30, 2012 sets forth the facts and legal arguments in more detail. (Exhibit 6).
Judge Isoms dishonesty during the conflict hearing over which she presided is a serious breach
of judicial ethics giving rise to this complaint. As set forth in my affidavit, Judge Isom denied me
disability accommodation, and made rulings contrary to law. Judge Isom even ruled contrary to
her own law essay, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 6).
During a hearing February 5, 2007 I asked Judge Isom if I could expect to receive a fair trial and
hearings, but Judge Isom was unable to answer in the affirmative, and only mentioned that this
was a jury trial. Jury trial notwithstanding, Judge Isom would make ruling in this case, and I
believed, based on the response of Judge Isom, that I would not receive fair treatment. Therefore
I submitted February 13, 2007 Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Judge. (Exhibit 4). My motion
raised a number of issues that showed I feared I would not receive a fair trial or hearing.
Judge Isom recused herself the same day, see Court Order of Recusal, etc., (Exhibit 5). Judge
Isom wrote:
THIS CAUSE came before the court on the plaintiff's motion to disqualify judge.
Although the motion is procedurally sufficient, is it insufficient as a matter of law in that
it appears to have been filed in response to adverse rulings of the court.
This response by Judge Isom is unlawful. Once Judge Isom found that my motion to disqualify
was procedurally sufficient she was required to step down. Judge Isom further comments
were not permitted under Florida law:
Judicial determination of initial motion. The judge against whom an initial motion to
disqualify is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall not
pass on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.160(f).
I provided Judge Isom additional case law on this issue, see Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify
Judge, pages 4 and 5. (Exhibit 4).
Judge Isom continued in her Order of February 13, 2007: (Exhibit 5)
At the same time, however, the plaintiff has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his
cause leaving pending a counterclaim filed by the defendants. In an abundance of caution
and in an effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms of
the plaintiffs future court appearances, the court on the court's own motion on the matter
of disqualification has determined that reassignment is appropriate in this cause.
The above Order shows Judge Isom did not follow the law.

1
The original affidavit was submitted in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit July 30, 2012.
Judicial Qualifications Commission Page - 4
As for Judge Isom's "effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms
of the plaintiffs future court appearances", the Hillsborough courts have no integrity. The JQC
should know that after its unsuccessful pursuit of the Hon. Gregory P. Holder, perhaps the only
honest judge in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
Judge Isom should have recused herself after reading Jonathan Alpert's role in this case, as
described in my December 15', 2006 motion for disclosure. Judge Isom lied by omission
February 1, 2007 by failing to disclose a conflict with her husband Woody Isom and my former
attorney Jonathan Alpert. A transcript of the hearing is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
As set forth in my affidavit, fifteen (15) additional related cases followed in this matter, in
addition to the original case, after Judge Isom belatedly stepped down. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph
47/exhibit 19). The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty and denial ofjustice has been enormous to
me, all the lawyers involved, and to the court system.
This matter has been in the public domain for some time, see my affidavit. (Exhibit 6).
Judge Isom is a disgrace to the judiciary. She should be removed from office. Thank you.
Sincerely,
. ~ . " . /)1/?
~ r !
~ t I ' . ' ..,....,t.
.f .'"
,"
..-:/ ;/> /J../" '/
/. /
eil J:Gill9spie
8092 SW/(15th Loop
Ocala,/L 34481
(352) 854-7807
Enclosures
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Supreme Court ___________________________________
District Court
of Appeal ___________________________________
Circuit Court ___________________________________
County Court ___________________________________
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6224
(850) 488-1581
COMPLAINT FORM
This form is designed to provide the Commission with information required to make an
initial evaluation of your complaint.
PLEASE NOTE: COMPLAINT FORM MUST BE TYPED OR LEGIBLY HAND PRINTED, DATED
AND SIGNED BEFORE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
I. Person Making Complaint
Name ___________________________________________________________________________
Mr. (Last) (First) (Middle)
Ms.
Mrs.
Address ___________________________________________________________________________
Telephone Number(s): (Day)_________________________ (Evening)_________________________
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
II. Judge Against Whom Complaint is Made
Name ___________________________________________________________________________
(Last) (First) (Middle)
Address ____________________________________________________________________________
(Note: This form can be typed into here, then printed, or print it out and fill it in by hand.)
Gillespie Neil Joseph
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
352-854-7807
Isom Claudia Rickert
George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430
Tampa, FL 33602
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Co
III. Statement of Facts
Please provide in as much detail as possible the information which you have knowledge which you
believe constitutes judicial misconduct or disability. Include names, dates, places, addresses and
telephone numbers which may assist the Commission.
If additional space is required, attach and number pages.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
IV. Additional Information (if available)
a. If your complaint arises out of a court case, please answer the following questions:
1. What is the name and number of the case?
Case name: ______________________________ Case No. _____________________________
2. What kind of case is it?
civil criminal domestic relations probate
small claims traffic other (specify)
3. What is your relationship to the case?
plaintiff/petitioner defendant/respondent
attorney for _______________________________: ________________________________
witness for ________________________________: ________________________________
other (specify)
b. If you were represented by an attorney in this matter at the time of the judges conduct, please
identify the attorney:
Name _____________________________________________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________________________________________
Phone ____________________________________________________________________________
c. List and attach copies of any relevant documents which you believe support your claim that the
judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability. (Note: Retain a copy for your
records as these documents shall become the property of the Commission and may not be
returned.)
d. Identify, if you can, any other witnesses to the conduct about which you complain:
Name(s): __________________________________
05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al
n/a
Addresses: _
Phone Numbers: _
IN FILING THIS COMPLAINT, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S RULES PROVIDE THAT ALL
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION,
SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL PRIOR TO THE FILING OF FORMAL CHARGES. I FURTHER
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RULE OF CONFIDENTIALITY ATTACHES AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON
THE FILING OF THIS COMPLAINT AND THAT ANY VIOLATION COULD RESULT IN A CITATION FOR
CONTEMPT BY TI-IE COMMISSION.
V. Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and understand this complaint form and
to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and
submitted of my own free will. ?
August 15, 2012
(Date) o plainant's Signqture)
/"'''''-'
ote: Only sigr>ed complaints will be considered.)
I
Please note that the Commission only has authority to investigate allegations of judicial
misconduct or permanent disability by persons holding state judicial positions. The Commission
has no jurisdiction over and does not consider complaints against Federal Judges, magistrates,
lawyers, police, court personnel, or State Attorneys. The Commission does not act as an
appellate court and cannot review, reverse or modify a legal decision made by a judge in the
course of a court proceeding. For example, the Commission does not investigate claims that a
judge wrongfully excluded evidence; imposed an improper sentence, awarded custody to the
wrong party; incorrectly awarded alimony or child support; incorrectly resolved a legal issue or
believed perjured testimony.
Please return this form and direct all future communications to:
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6224
---------------

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff/Petitioner, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs. DIVISION: H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants/Respondents.
/
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves the Court for an Order compelling
Defendants and Defendants' counsel to disclose any possible conflict of interest with the
Court or the Court's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this case, and states:
1. A notice from the Court on its website advises that The Honorable Claudia R.
Isom has the following relatives practicing law or involved in litigation support services
in the Tampa Bay Area:
(a) Husband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner
(b) Brother, Dale J. Ricket, who is a shareholder in the Law Firm of Dale J. Ricket
(c) Sister-in-Law, Janice Matson Ricket, who is an associate with the Law Firm of
Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. in the "Health Care Litigation Group"
2. The Court advises: If you feel there might be a conflict in your case based on the
above information, please raise the issue so it can be resolved prior to me presiding over
any matters concerning your case.
1
3. On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, Plaintiffleamed that Defendant William J.
Cook apparently paid $100.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002. The
information is displayed on a website maintained by the Florida Department of State,
Division of Elections. The data base lists the following information about Mr. Cook:
William J. Cook, 4021 West Corona Street, Tampa, FL 33629, profession, attorney. It is
believed that this is the same person as the Defendant in this case, and that Woody Isom
is the husband of The Honorable Claudia R. Isom. It is not exactly clear from the website
why Defendant Cook paid $100.00 to Judge Isom's husband, but the transaction may be
related The Honorable Claudia R. Isom's re-election to the bench in 2002.
4. In addition, it appears from the same Florida Department of State, Division of
Elections website that Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about
Augllst 22, 2002, and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about
May 1, 2002. Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protegees and former law partners, and the
contract that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,
between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.
It is not exactly clear from the website why Mr. Alpert paid $150.00 to Judge Isom's
husband and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom, but the transactions
may be related to the Judge Isom's re-election to the bench in the 2002 general election.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
compelling Defendants and Defendants counsel to disclose any possible conflict of
interest with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this
case, and for such further ruling as the Court deems appropriate.
Page - 2 of3
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15[h day of December, 2006.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by US mail
to Ryan Christopher Rodems, attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Attorneys for
Defendants, 400 North AsWey Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 15
th
day of
December, 2006.
Page - 3 of3
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 15, 2006
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Circuit Civil
P.O. Box 989
Tampa, FL 33601-0989
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Case no: 2005 CA-7205, Division H
To the Clerk of the Court:
Kindly date stamp and file the foHowing in the above captioned lawsuit:
Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure Of Conflict.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~
--------------
IN TH"E CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs. DIVISION: H
J. COOI(,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT
PART I
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves tile Court for all Order cOlllpelling
Defendants and Defendants' cOllnsel to disclose any possible conflict of illterest witll the
Coul1 or the COlll1's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this case, and states:
1. A notice [roln the Court on its website advises tl1at The Honorable Clalldia R.
ISOITI has the following relatives practicing law or involved in litigation support services
ill tIle Tanlpa Bay Area:
(a) I-Iusband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner
(b) Brother, Dale J. Ricket, who is a sllarellolder in the Law Firm of Dale J. Ricket
(c) Sister-ill-Law, Janice Matson Ricket, who is an associate witll the Law Firm of
Fowler, Wllite, Boggs, Banker, P.A. in the "Health Care Litigation Group"
1
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
2. The Coul1 advises: If you feel there might be a COIlflict in your case based on the
above illformation, please raise the issue so it can be resolved prior to Ine presiding over
any Inatters concerl1ing your case.
3. On Wednesday, December 13,2006, Plaintiffleamed that Defendant Willianl J.
Cook apparently paid $100.00 by clleck to Woody Isom on or about July 2,2002. TIle
inforl11atiol1 is displayed on a website maintained by the Florida Departmel1t of State,
Divisioll of Elections. The data base lists the following illfonnation aboLlt Mr. Cook:
William J. Cook, 4021 West Corona Street, Talnpa, FL 33629, profession, attorney. It is
believed that this is the same person as the Defendant in this case, and that Woody ISOln
is tIle husballd of The Honorable Claudia R. Isom. It is not exactly clear [roin tIle website
WIlY Defendant Cook paid $100.00 to Judge Isom's husballd, but the transaction may be
related TIle HOllorable Claudia R. Isom's re-election to the bench in 2002.
4. III addition, it appears fronl the same Florida Department of State, Division of
ElectioilS website that Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isoin 011 or
August 22, 2002, and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or abollt
May 1,2002. Defenda11ts are Mr. Alpert's protegees and fonner law partners, al1d tIle
contract tllat [onns the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,
between Plaintiff and the law firin Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrel1till0 & Cook, P.A.
It is not exactly clear from the website WIlY Mr. Alpert paid $150.00 to Judge ISOI11'S
hllsbal1d a11d $100.00 by check to TIle Honorable Claudia R. Isom, but the transactions
nlay be related to the Judge Isom's re-election to the bench in tIle 2002 general electiol1.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that tllis Coul1 enter all Order
cOlnpelling Defelldants and Defendants counsel to disclose any possible conflict of
interest with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other conflict of interest in this
case, and for such further ruling as the Court deems appropriate.
PART II
5. During the course of this litigation Ryan Christopher Rodems, attorney for
Defendants, has sought information relative to Plaintiffs social/political activism and
judicial campaign financing. Mr. Rodems sought the following discovery from Plaintiff
relative to Plaintiff's social/political activism:
a. Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 's First Interrogatories to Plaintiff,
Interrogatory number 11: "Have you ever sent a letter, complaint or grievance
with the Florida Bar alleging that an attorney has committed a breach of ethics or
rules? If so, identify the date on which each such letter, complaint or grievance
was filed, the name of the attorney, the alleged violation, and the final outcome of
the complaint or grievance."
b. Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.'s First Interrogatories to Plaintiff,
Interrogatory number 12: "Have you ever sent any complaint, grievance or
correspondence, whether by electronic transmission or U.S. Postal Service or
courier delivery, to any government agency, including, but not limited to the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Attorney General or the
governor of Florida, regarding an attorney's or judge's alleged misconduct? If so,
identify the date on which each such complaint, grievance or correspondence was
sent, the name of the attorney, the alleged violation, and the final outcome of the
complaint or grievance."
Page - 3 of9
c. Defendal1ts' Request for Production to Plaintiff, item number 9: "Each and
every letter or docunlent Plaintiff has sellt to:
a. Governor Jeb Busll
b. Attorney General Charlie Crist
c. TIle Florida Elections Commission
d. The Florida Bar
e. TIle Judicial Qualifications Comnlission"
d. Defel1dants' Reqllest for Production to Plaintiff, item number 22: "Eacll and
every letter, complaint or grieVallCe sent to or received from the Florida Bar
regarding any allegations that an attorney llas comnlitted a breach of ethics or
fllies. "
e. Defendants' Request for Production to Plaintiff, item number 23: "Eacll and
every letter, complaint or grievance from or to any govemnlent agency, including
bllt not linlited to tIle Florida Judicial Qualifications Comnlission, the Florida
Elections Commission, the Florida Attorney General or tIle governor of Florida,
regarding any allegations tllat an attorney or judge has engaged in misconduct."
6. On December 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems left Plaintiff a ranting, ad hominenl abusive
telepllone nlcssage tllat referenced Plaintiffs social/political activism and judicial
call1paigl1 financing, among other things. In his ranting telephone lllessage, Mr. Rodems
specifically referellced a Judge in Pinellas County. Tllis an exact quote fronl a transcript
of Mr. Rodems' rallting pllolle message: "And you also filed claims agaillst a Jlldge in
Pinellas COUllty." (Transcript of Telephone Recording, Dec-13-06, p7, '1).
Page - 4 01'9
7. Because ofMr. Rodems' repeated references to Plaintiffs social/political activism
and judicial campaign financing, it is clear that he intends use it as a red herring to divert
attention away from his clients' fraud and breach of contract, and away from his own
perjury before the Court. Mr. Rodems is also an attempting to prejudice the Court against
Plaintiff by suggesting that the Court itself could become subject to a compliant. So it is
appropriate to bring this matter before the Court, as the Court itself may have a conflict or
be unduly influenced by Mr. Rodems' tactics.
8. The matter to which Ryan Christopher Rodems refers to in paragraph 6 dates back
to ]998 and involves a small claims lawsuit that Plaintiff successfully brought against a
taxicab company in St. Petersburg. In that small claims action, the Judge ruled in
Plaintiffs favor and awarded Plaintiff a settlement of$337.50. The problem involved the
behavior of the lawyer representing the taxicab company, who disobeyed the COUlt's Pre
Trial Conference Order, failed to follow Florida Small Claims Rules, and threatened and
intimidated Plaintiff during the proceedings.
9. Contemporaneously Plaintiff was taking paralegal classes at St. Petersburg Junior
College, courses taught by several sitting Circuit Court Judges of the Sixth Judicial
Circuit. During a lecture, Plaintiff asked why a lawyer would feel free to ignore
discovery rules and other such. The Circuit Court Judge teaching the class responded that
judges do not want to offend or sanction lawyers who are potential campaign
contributors. The Judge also added, You didn't hear that/rom me.
Page - 5 of9
10. Acting on the information learned in paragraph 9, Plaintiff viewed the public
election records. The Judge in question was young and recently appointed to the benchI.
Shortly after the small claims lawsuit described in paragraph 8, the Judge launched his
first campaign to retain his position. The public records indicated that the lawyer who
behaved badly during the small claims lawsuit, his law firm was heavily involved in the
Judge's campaign. In fact, the Judge's Campaign Treasurer's Report ofItemized
Contributions listed a contribution in excess of$500.00 from the law firm, in violation of
section 106.19(1)(a) Florida Statutes.
11. PlaintifI filed a complaint with the Florida Elections Commission about the
unlawful campaign contribution; the Judge admitted an error and the excess funds were
returned to the law firm. However during the course of the investigation it was revealed
that the law firm had provided an in-kind contribution and only reported what it spent on
postage (plus a $40.00 tip to a worker) to mail campaign literature, and did not fairly
value the in-kind contribution. In effect the law firm provided its office and staff to the
Judge for the price of postage, contrary to section 106.055, Florida Statutes, valuation of
in-kind contributions, which requires that the valuation shall be the fair market value of
such contribution. An in-kind contribution is defined as "having an attributable value in
any form." (Op.Div.Elect., DE 78-23, May 18, 1978). The value of campaign literature
should be reported as based on cost to the contributor, if ascertainable, and otherwise on
the basis to the ordinary consumer. (Op.Atty.Gen. 137, 1952).
I The Judge was appointed by the govemor [not Gov. Bush] to replace Judge James Berfield, who was
convicted offalsit)ling elections documents. Berfield claimed it was an honest mistake. The St. Petersburg
Times wrote that Bertield " ... ignored conventional political wisdom and challenged a longtime incumbent,
County Judge Charles A. Carrere, Berfield's victory marked a rare loss by an incumbent Pinellas Judge."
Written by David Ballingrud, published May 8, 1999, St. Petersburg Times.
Page - 6 of9
12. The culprits in this matter were the lawyers and law firm, old hands in Pinellas
County who had essentially prayed upon a young, inexperienced Judge. In addition to
unlawfully undervaluing their in-kind campaign contribution (undervalued by over
100%), evidence surfaced during the investigation that the lawyers may have been
involved with a political committee that was kept secret from the public and not properly
disclosed pursuant to section 106.144 Florida Statutes. That was the issue which
concerned Plaintiff: the implied quidpro quo associated with financial support. Lawyers
do not give money without expecting something in return, and Plaintiff viewed this
violation of election laws as a threat to the integrity and independence of Florida's
judiciary. There is also a moral component to lawyers giving money to the very judges
before whom they practice; while it may be lawful when done in accordance with the
statute, it is immoral, wrong, not right, incon'ect and repugnant for reasons akin to
bribely. And a number of Pinellas Judges appear to believe this too. Take the case of
The Honorable David Seth Walker, who wrote the following declaration in his Campaign
Treasure's RepOli: "**NOTE: THIS CANDIDATE DID NOT SOLICIT NOR ACCEPT
ANY CONTRIBUTIONS OF ANY KIND FROM ANY BODY". (Exhibit 1, for the
period Jun-Ol-96 through Aug-l 4-96). (Judge Walker is now retired. He was not one of
Plaintiffs instmctors. None of Plaintiffs instmctors, the sitting Circuit Court Judges,
took campaign contributions during this election cycle. Neither the present nor the prior
Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit took any campaign contributions in this cycle).
13. The Florida Elections Commission acknowledged the Judge's return of the
unlawful campaign contribution, but did not pursue the matter fmiher. Plaintiff wanted
the Commission to investigate the lawyers' attempt to cormpt the judicial election
Page - 7 of9
process by use of undervalued in-kind contributions, and political committees kept secret
from the public, but the Commission declined. Plaintiff appealed and was not successful,
due to the lack of time, resources, legal training, and politics.
14. Plaintiff had the support of Florida Governor Jeb Bush on this matter. Upon
learning about Plaintiffs efforts, Governor Bush had a staffer, Mrs. Wheeler, telephone
PlaintilTto voice Governor Bush's supp0l1 on January 15, 1999. A transcript of the
telephone message is attached as Exhibit 2. Governor Bush himself wrote Plaintiff on
August 3, 1999, thanking him, and referring the matter to the Department of State on
Plaintiffs behalf. (Exhibit 3). This was a bi-partisan effort, as Plaintiff is not a
Republican, and Jeb Bush is. Plaintiff believes this bi-partisan effort was thwarted by
Attorney General Robert Butterworth, whose office opposed Plaintiffs efforts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable COUl1 consider the
information in this motion and kindly take the following action, or any other remedy this
Court deems appropriate:
A. Advise Plaintiff if there is a conflict with Mr. Cook's payment of $1 00.00
to A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, described in paragraph 3.
B. Advise Plaintiff if there is a conflict with Jonathan Alpert's payments to
both A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, and to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom described in
paragraph 4. Mr. Alpert will be a witness in this matter, and he will be called to testify to
the amount of attorneys' fees incurred at Alpert, Barker, Rodems, FelTentino & Cook,
P.A. on Plaintiffs behalf; how Defendants secretly and deceitfully plalmed and opened a
new law office while still in his employ and partnership; and how Defendants took his
Page - 80f9
existing clients, active lawsuits, and key employees to that new law firm; and other
matters relating to the prior representation of Plaintiff and Defendants deceitfulness.
C. Acknowledge any prejudice toward Plaintiff over his social/political
activism on judicial campaign financing, or other matter. In the absence of any such
prejudice, Plaintiff presumes this Honorable Court will treat him fairly.
D. Restrict or prohibit Mr. Rodems discovery of the items described in
paragraph 5 of this motion, and to restrict or prohibit Mr. Rodems' reference to this
matter during the course of this litigation.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5
th
day of January, 2007.
to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley
Page - 90f9
. POSIT FROM
.HDATE HIMSELF
CAMPAIGN TREASURER'S REPORT -:. ITEMIZED
(1) Name DAVID SETH WALKER (2) 1.0. Numoor 00 22252
(3) Cover Period 7 I 1 I 96 through _8_.1 14 I 96 (4) Page __=-1__of _---=1 _
(5)
Dato
(6)
Sequence
Number
7 /3/96
1
(7)
Full Name
(lsst, First, Suffix, Middle)
Street Address &
City, State, ZIp Code
WALKER, DAVID SETH
300 Park Street So.
St. Petersburg, F1
33707 DEPOSIT FROM
CANDIDATE HIMSELF
(8)
DEPOSTTOR

Type Occupiltlon
I
-Judge
(9)
Deposi

Type
Check
(10)
In-kind
Description
(11)
Amendment
(12)
Amount
6,000.00
/ /
/ /
...... NOTE: THIS CANDI pATE DID r SOLIC
ANY CONTRIBUTIONS 0 FAN KIND AN
T NOR A(
BODY.
/ /
/ /
/ /
.
,
/
/
/
/
}
D
3
EXHIBIT
---.1
'--
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN ~ ~ D FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-7205
-vs-
Division: "H"
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
A Florida Corporation,
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
-----------------------------j
TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE RECORDING
RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below
DATE & TIME: January 15, 1999
TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporter
Notary Public
EXHIBIT
R2
j
" --
(ORIGINAL ~ )
(COPY )
Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporter/Legal Transcription
(813) 598-2703
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
8092 SW 115th Loop
(352) 854-7807
For the Office of Governor Bush:
MRS. WHEELER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
* * * * * * * * * *
MRS. WHEELER: This message is for Neil
Gillespie. My name is Mrs. Wheeler. I'm calling
from the Office of Governor Bush with regards to
your correspondence to the Governor.
The Governor appreciates you keeping him
advised of what has happened with regards to your
motion. We do wish you the best of luck. We are
glad to hear that it has been remanded back to the
commission for further investigation and we hope
that the outcome is positive.
The Governor did review the information you
sent to him and he does appreciate you keeping him
updated as to what's happening.
Please do not hesitate to contact us ln the
future if we can help you on any other issue. And
please keep us advised as to what the outcome is
with the Florida Election Commission investigation.
Thank you so much for writing us with your
letter and we look forward to hearing from you
again in the future. Bye-bye.
AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHINE: 9:03.
MR. GILLESPIE: September 15th, 1999.
(Whereupon, the above recording was
concluded.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
I, Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter
for the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for
Hillsborough County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that I was
authorized to and did transcribe a tape/CD recording of
the proceedings and evidence in the above-styled cause,
as stated in the caption hereto, and that the foregoing
pages constitute an accurate transcription of the tape
recording of said proceedings and evidence, to the best
of my ability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of
Florida, this 22 December 2006.
MICHAEL J. BORSETH, Court Reporter
STATE OF FLORIDA
-
.
.
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001
JEB BUSH
August 3, 1999
GOVERNOR
ML Neil J. Gillespie
1121 Beach Drive, Northeast
Apartment C-2
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Florida Elections Commission. I appreciate your
contacting me.
Although I am glad to have the opportunity to review your request, the subject about
which you wrote is under the jurisdiction of the Department of State. Honorable
Katherine Harris, Secretary of State, is the public official who can best address your
concerns. I am forwarding your letter to her, and her office should contact you.
Again, thank you for writing. If I can assist you with a matter under my authority, I hope
you will let me know.
S)n erely, 1
l / d ~
b Bush
JB/hlg
cc: Honorable Katherine Harris
Secretary of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
EXHIBIT
I 3__
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-7205
-vs-
Division: "H"
BARKER RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE: HONORABLE CLAUDIA
Circuit Judge
R. ISOM
TAKEN AT: George Edgecomb
In Chambers
Tampa, Florida
Courthouse
DATE & TIME: February 1,
9:06 a.m.
2007
REPORTED BY: Mary Elizabeth
Notary Public
813-229-8225
Blazer
Berryhill & Associates, Inc.
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1225
Tampa, Florida 33602
3
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
C
2
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
~
Neil J. Gillespie, Pro Se
For the Defendants:
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
Barker Rodems & Cook
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
813-489-1001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
PRO C E E DIN G S
THE COURT: Gillespie; you guys are probably
going to take more than 15 -- more than 5 minutes.
So there's nobody here for Elecra and Wells Fargo.
Everybody else is canceled.
So -- my judicial assistant said that our 9:30
lS canceled, which is a 45-minute hearing.
Oh, yeah. Okay. So we'll start with yours
and then at 9:15, we'll break.
You guys are Gillespie, right?
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, ma'am.
TH.E COURT: All right. We'll break and do
anybody else that's appearing telephonically
because we've got a little cushion there at 9:30.
~
Okay. Mr. Gillespie.
MR. GILLESPIE: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
You have evidently just dropped off something
new this morning that I haven't had a chance to
look at.
MR. GILLESPIE: That does not pertain to
today.
THE COURT: It does not pertain to today?
MR. GILLESPIE: No. That's a courtesy copy of
a motion to compel discovery.
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
THE COURT: O k a y ~ And are you Mr. Rodems?
MR. RODEMS: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Okay. And, Madam Court Reporter,
your name?
THE COURT REPORTER: Mary Blazer.
THE COURT: Okay. So -- every time I turn
around I get something else on Gillespie. So let's
just take them in the order that they were set.
According to my docket we have a plaintiff's
amended motion for disclosure of conflict. And
that goes to me. It is not a motion to disqualify.
If it was a motion to disqualify, which was
verified or supported by affidavit, then I would
have had to rule on it, but since it's a request to
disclose as to political contributions, I did not
treat it as a motion to disqualify.
So under the Rules of Judicial Administration
if you want to file a motion to disqualify me, you
need to do it under the Rules of Judicial
Administration and then I'll treat it that way.
But please be advised that that has to be courtesy
copied to me so that I could rule on it on an
expeditious fashion. And it has to be either
verified, which means it's a notarized motion, or
2S it has to be supported by affidavit.
5
10
15
20
25
5
1
2
3
4
6
"7
8
9
11
12
13
~
14
1 6
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
And in doing so -- gosh, what is the name of
the case? If you'll look at the cases, there's a
case out of South Florida, probably about ten years
ago, in that time frame, that stands for the
proposition that political contributions in and of
themselves are not disqualifying. But I mean if
you want to allege other extra judicial type of
things, you're welcome to do so.
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. RODEMS: If I may, I have brought copies
of both of those cases.
THE COURT: What is it? It's not Toys R Us,
but it's something like that, isn't it?
MR. RODEMS: MacKenzie versus Super Kids
Bargain Store.
THE COURT: That's Super Kids Bargain Store.
All I could think of was Toys R Us. I knew it
wasn't Toys R Us.
MR. RODEMS: It's a Florida Supreme Court case
action. I'll be happy to give Mr. Gillespie a
copy.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RODEMS: That's, for the record, 565 So.2d
1332.
And I'm also gOlOg to give him Nathanson
~
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
versus Korvick, K-O-R-V-I-C-K, which is 577 So.2d
943, which also addresses that topic.
THE COURT: Yeah.
And in point in fact, even the fellow that I
ultimately was able to prevail over for when I ran
for office 17 years ago, I was only disqualified
from -- by preceding over his cases for three
years, and then only if he wanted me to. And ln
that instance he didn't want me to disqualify
myself because we had run a very clean campaign and
none of us had taken any personal shots at the
other's character or family or anything, so
Anyway, do the research and if you want to
file a true motion to disqualify, then I'll rule
upon it on an expeditious manner.
MR. GILLESPIE: All right. Judge, can I
speak?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you.
I'm not looking to disqualify you. I had read
the disclosure on your website and that prompted me
just to do a little checking with the campaign
contributions. I found a couple that were in
question. I'm aware of the law on that. So I'm
not asking you to be disqualified on that.
5
10
15
20
25
7
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
~
14
16
17
18
19
21
') ')
, ~ .. L
23
24
I just want to make sure, you know, we get a
fair trial here, a fair hearing. That was my
concern.
And I'm more concerned with part 2, and now
that we've addressed the issues 1n part 1. It has
to do with Mr. Rodems's -- which I believe is going
to be his intent to bring up some things from the
past. And I have a copy of this telephone call to
me. It's a copy for you. This is for you, Judge.
And if you could turn -- by the way, this call
was a call that Mr. Rodems placed and left on my
cellphone answering service on December the 13th.
And if you turn to page 7, that's where he makes
his reference.
And it goes -- the second paragraph, the
second sentence; and he says -- this is Mr. Rodems.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Off the record.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
THE COURT: Okay. Back on the record.
MR. GILLESPIE: So at that time Mr. Rodems
says, "And you also filed claims against the judge
1n Pinellas County."
And then he goes, "I suspect you're probably
drafting a complaint against me."
Without going through this whole phone message
~
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
that he left, this was just ad hominem abusive rant
is the only way to describe it, but I'm concerned
~
that he is going to want to bring this -- make this
part of the trial and -- or part of the
controversy. And I went through here describing
what he's referring to in this phone call.
And, in fact, I have the support of Governor
")
Bush on it. That would be Exhibit J. I'm sorry.
Exhibit 2 is a telephone message from the
Governor's office on that. And then Exhibit 3 lS a
letter from the Governor himself.
So -- and this -- this matter dates back to
1998, 1999. So he's really going way back in the
history to drudge up really what is a red herring.
~
And I'm concerned that it doesn't prejudice the
Court because there's been enough problem in this
case already, and I just want to avoid that at the
outset; otherwise, I am very confident in the Court
being able to handle this fairly.
THE COURT: Okay. So your concern about me
presiding over the case because of a transcript you
filed with the Court?
MR. GILLESPIE: Because of this matter that
Mr. Rodems is referring to which involved an
election complaint to the Florida Elections
~
1
2
3
4
5
15
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
25
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
Commission about a judge in Pinellas County in
1999.
THE COURT: Okay. So -- but obviously I
wouldn't know about this unless you filed it with
the Court, which you have.
MR. GILLESPIE: It's been filed. I mean
before -
THE COURT: So -- so -- but what does it have
to do with -- with Gillespie versus
Barker Rodems & Cook?
MR. GILLESPIE: It has nothing to do with it.
It should have nothing to do with it. Mr. Rodems,
for whatever reason, is bringing it into the case.
In fact, in his discovery -- he's asked about
it In his discovery and that would be in the motion
here, page 3.
THE COURT: Oh, you guys are coming back on
the 5th?
THE COURT: You're coming back on the 5th?
Oh, so we don't have to wade through
everything today and make sure everything lS
addressed.
How long do you have reserved on the 5th?
MR. RODEMS: I believe we have a total of
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
') c
LJ
~
three hours.
MR, GILLESPIE: Three hours.
MR. RODEMS: There are probably -- if I recall
correctly -- eight or nine different motions that
need to be addressed.
THE COURT: All right. Then for today then we
can do it in five minutes. In a nutshell, what's
the second half of the motion you set for today?
MR. GILLESPIE: Just to let the Court know
that Mr. Rodems is going to be or attempts is
attempting to blow this matter of an election
campaign complaint from 1999, bring that into this
complaint. And I want to just make sure that you
don't have a problem with it.
Because as a jUdge, I would think that that
would be something that you would be sensitive
about, even though it was resolved I think fairly
for all parties.
THE COURT: (Pause.)
Okay. Well, if you don't want me to be aware
of things that has been said exjudicially I mean
outside the courtroom setting, you don't have to
file transcripts like this. If you do want me to
be aw"are of them, which evidently this one you did
want me to be aware of it -- just ask them to hold.
11
1
2
3
4
~ )
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~
So I mean you filed this. As far as I'm
concerned is this going to be a nonJury or a
Jury trial?
MR. GILLESPIE: This one is going to jury
trial.
THE COURT: A Jury trial?
So especially in a jury trial situation, I
don't see how it would be relevant because it looks
like the comments made by counsel had more to do
with your -- he was speculating on why you might
have difficulty finding new counsel. And I don't
see that that would be something that would be
placed before a jury because normally an
attorney well, I just don't see how it would be
relevant to any issue before a jury.
MR. GILLESPIE: And it shouldn't be relevant,
Judge.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. GILLESPIE: I agree with you. But
Mr. Rodems is making it relevant.
And I'm just going to speculate for a moment,
that you're not real familiar with this case at
this point.
THE COURT: Well, I mean I - I review
everything that you - that you file and Mr. Rodems
5
10
15
20
25
12
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
~
1 4
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
files, but In terms of -- I review them in terms of
do I need to do something today on this. And like
I said with the one where you filed the notice of
conflict, it wasn't in the format where I needed to
act upon it.
MR. GILLESPIE: In other words, Judge, are you
aware that this case has been transferred from
another judge?
THE COURT: Yes, I do know that because the
clerk hand delivers them whenever they get
reassigned to another division.
MR. GILLESPIE: And the reason that it was
reassigned -
MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, at this point I
object. We're going far afield of what the motion
on the table is. His speculations about what I may
be doing or what may happen, it's not necessary for
resolving today's matters. And I really object to
him giving his spin on what he thinks lS happening
In this case so far.
THE COURT: All right. At this point, it is
9: 15. So I'm going to take a break from your case
and get the 9:15 -- the telephonics done.
(Recessed from 9:19 a.m. until 9:28 a.m.)
THE COURT: All right. So back to you guys.
C
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
- ,)
r'
~
What was the narrow thing we were doing today
since you're coming back for several hours on the
5th?
MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, what I wanted to know
was about the defendant Mr. Cook's $150 payment to
the Court's husband, and what other relationship he
might have.
THE COURT: We -- we don't have any social,
business or blood relationship with Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook, as far as I know, based upon what you
said, I've never even read a list of my husband's
contributors. Based upon your information I assume
Mr. Cook gave my husband a political contribution
when he ran for judge unsuccessfully a few years
ago.
MR. GILLESPIE: I see.
THE COURT: But we don't have any business,
social or family relationship with Mr. Cook.
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. GILLESPIE: And I just want the record to
reflect that I'm representing myself today out of
necessity. I would much rather have an attorney
here. And I'm still working on that. And I may
hear something today or tomorrow.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
IC
~ )
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: Okay. All right. So is there
anything else you needed?
MR. GILLESPIE: The only other matter would be
Mr. Rodems' attempt to bring into this hearing this
matter from 1998, 1999, and whether or not he'll be
permitted to do that, and if that would affect the
Court's view of me.
THE COURT: Okay. Like I said, if you don't
want to bring in this extraneous stuff, don't file
transcripts of it. And it would not -- if it's a
jury trial, the evidence will be what's legally
admissible and competent. And just based upon
reviewing that transcript, I don't I don't see
at this moment how it would be legally admissible
or competent. So, no, it wouldn't have any effect.
Judges hear stuff all the time that's not
relevant and they -- and they disregard it. For
instance, like in presiding over a motion to
suppress an illegal search or an illegal
confession, we preside over it, rule on it, and
then we disregard it in terms of what goes on later
on in the case. So judges, including myself, are
perfectly capable of disregarding irrelevant or
incompetent information when presiJing over a
matter.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
') ')
LL.
23
24
2
_J
,
~
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.
And with regard to his discovery questions
relating to that specific incident, he asked about
complaints to the Florida Election Commission, the
Judicial Qualifications Commission, none of which
have to do with his law firm's breach of contract
and fraud. Again, it's a red herring to bring
these items into the lawsuit. I guess we can
address those as part of the discovery?
THE COURT: The hearing on the 5th of
February?
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes. Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. If that's subject to a
motion to compel, then we'll address it on the 5th.
MR. GILLESPIE: All right. Thank you, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All Thank you very right.
much. Have a nice day.
MR. RODEMS: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to
mediation and tried to resolve this without
litigation?
MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll wait and see. You
said you think you have somebody else that's
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
') ,
,
<c J
considering representing you?
MR. GILLESPIE: I've been ln touch with the
Hillsborough County Bar Association.
THE COURT: Oh, the lawyer referral?
MR. GILLESPIE: Lawyer Referral Service.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GILLESPIE: And I've been getting what
would call -- well, here's the problem as I see it.
The lawyers are looking for cases that are worth
several hundred thousand dollars in damages, and
this case is below that. So it's -- a part of it
is a financial issue.
THE COURT: Well, it must be at least S15,000
or else you wouldn't be in circuit court.
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.
And the other matter is if -- if the -- the
Bar -- the referral service has about exhausted
what they can do. My next move would be to place
an ad in the newspaper and try and solicit counsel
that way.
THE COURT: Well, you could try Pinellas,
Pinellas isn't that far away, if they have a
referral service.
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, that's what Hillsborough
suggested.
I
5
10
15
20
25
17
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
~
14
1 6
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
~
THE COURT: Oh, they did?
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes. The problem is with
that, it's very inefficient going to one lawyer at
a time rather than putting it out there for
somebody to consider broadly. Because going at it
one lawyer at a time hasn't -- hasn't provided
anything.
The other -- one lawyer that was going to take
the case specifically was concerned that once the
lawyer filed an appearance, that because the
defendant is representing himself, that they're not
paying for legal fees, so they're just going to
churn the case over and over and run the bill up,
and then you wouldn't let the lawyer representing
me out of the case resulting in a high legal bill.
That was another concern. That lawyer described
that situation to me as involuntary servitude.
So
(Court laughing.)
-- that was -- that was a problem there.
THE COURT: Well, I don't I don 1 t know, but
in terms of your search for legal counsel, you
know, I can't give you any advice
MR. GILLESPIE: I understand.
THE COURT: beyond what the referral
5
10
15
20
25
18
C
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
1 6
17
18
1. 9
21
22
23
24
service has already given you so ...
MR. GILLESPIE: Than k you, LTudge.
THE COURT: Okay. See you guys on the 5th.
MR. RODEMS: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you, Madam Court Reporter.
(Concluded at 9:35 a.m.)
C
19
1
2
3
4
r'
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2

COURT CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA
I, MARY ELIZABETH BLAZER, certify that I was
authorized to and did stenographically report the
foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true
record.
Dated this 20th day of February, 2007.
l'"', ",' ,', '- "

943 [1 ] 6/2
9:06 [1 ] 1/22
9:15 [3] 3/9 12/22 12/23
9:19 a.m [1] 12/24
9:28 a.m [1 ] 12/24
9:30 [2] ]/6 3/14
9:35 a.m [1 ] 18/6
A
19/15
blood [1] 13/9
blow [1] .l 0 11]
both [1] ~ , / 1..L
breach [ 1 ] I. ' / l.-,
break [ 3 ] j / C, 3n 2 1.2 /2 2
bring [6] 7/7 8/3 10/12 14/4
111/9 15/7
bringing [1] 9/13
broadly [1] 17/5
brought [1] 5/10
Bush [1] 8/8
business [2] 13/9 13/17
but [11] 4/14 4/21 5/6 5/1.3
8/2 9/3 9/8 11/19 12/1 13/17
17/21
c
17/22
C

election [3]
[1]
0/ ,.:::::' lUI 11
8/25

corporation [1] 1/10 Elizabeth [3] 1/23 19/10 19/15
correctly [1] 10/4 else [6] 3/5 3/13 4/7 14/2
could [4] 4/22 5/17 7/10 16/21 15/25 16/14
counsel [4] 11/9 11/11 16/19
COUNTY [5] 1/1 7/22 9/1 16/3
1') / 8
couple [1] 6/23
court [12] ] 11 4/3 5/19 8/16
8/18 8/22 9/5 10/9 16/14
17/19 18/5 19/5
Court's [2] 13/614/7
courtesy [2] 3/24 4/21
Courthouse [1] 1/19
courtroom [1] 10/22
j-:c:..:u:..:s:..:;h:.=i;.::o.:;n'--'[.::1-'-]__.:::3.:.,./..::;1...,:4
o

damages [1] 16/10
DATE [1] 1/21
Dated [1] 19/14
dates [1] 8112
day [2] 15/18 19/14
December [1] 7/12
defendant [2] 13/5 17/11
Defendants [2] 1/11 2/6
delivers [1] 12/10
describe [1] 8/2
described [1] 17/16
describing [1] 8/5
4/18 G/g 6/14 6/20
disqualifying [1] 5/6
disregard [2] 14/17 14/21
disregarding [1] 14/23
division [3] 1/2 1/9 12/11
do [19] 3/12 4/19 5/8 6/13
6/22 7/6 9/9 9/11 9/12 9/24
10/7 10/23 11/9 12/2 12/2
12/9 14/6 15/6 16/18
do the [1] 6/13
docket [1] 4/9
does [3] 3f?1 3/23 9/8
doesn't [1] n/
doing [3] 5/1 12/17 13/1
dollars [1] 16/10
don't [15] g/Ll 10/14 10/20
L1/S 11111 11/14 13/8
D/17 14/8 14/9 14/13 14/13
17/21 17/21
done [1] 12 /2 3
drafting [1] 7/24
Drive [1] 2/8
dropped [1] 3/18
j-::d:.::r.=u:::d;;z.g,e=--"",,[
E
Edgecomb [ 1] 1 /19
effect [1) 14/15
eight [ 1] 1 () / 4
ei ther [1] 4/23
Elecra [1] 3/4
enough [1] 8/16
especially [1] 11/7
ESQUIRE [1] 2/7
even [ 3] 6/ 4 10 /1 7
every [1] 4/6
Everybody [1] 3/5
everything [3] 9/22
evidence [1] 14/11
evidently [2] 3/H:
Excuse [1] 7/17
exhausted [1] 16/17
13 /11
9/22 11/25
10/='4
Exhibit [3] 8/8 8/9 8/10
---l Exhibi t 2 [1] 8 /9
Exhibit 3 [2] 8/8 8/10
---jexjudicially [1] 10/21
expeditious [2] 4/23 6/15
extra [1] 5/7
extraneous [1] 14/9
I-
F
fact [3) 6/4 817 q /14
fair [2] '7/) 7/";.
fairly [2]
familiar [1] 11/2,'
family [2] 6/12 1311e'
far [5] 11/1 12/15 12/20
16/22
did [4] 4/15 10/24 17/1 19/11 Fargo [1] 3/4
didn t [1] 6/9 fashion [1] 4/23
different [1] 10/4 February [3] 1/21 15/11 19/14
difficulty [1] 11/11 fees [1] 17/12
disclose [1] 4/15 fellow [1] 6/4
disclosure [2] 4/10 6/21 few [1] 13/14
discovery [5] 3/25 9/14 9/15 file [5] 4/18 6/14 10/23 11/25
lS/2 15/9 14/9
discussion [1] 7/18 filed [7] 7/21 8/22 9/4 9/6
disqualified [2] 6/6 6/25 11/1 IN3 17!lO
disqualify [7] 4/11 4/12 4/16 files [1] LUI
financial [1] 1.6/ U
finding [1] iI/II
firm's [1] 15/6
five [1) 10/7
FLORIDA [9] 1/1 1/10 1/20 2 / 8
5/3 5/19 8/25 15/4 19/7
foregoing [1] 19/12
format [1] 12/4
found [1] 6/23
frame [1] 5/4
I '11 [ 3 ] 4 / ::' n ::' /20 h'" 14
G
gave [1] .I .c: / 1_'
George [1] l./t
Q
get [4] 4/7//11211012/23
getting [1] 1617
GILLESPIE [8] 1/7 2/3 3/2 3/10
3/15 4/7 5/20 9/9
give [3] 5/20 5/25 1 7 /23
given [1] 18/1
giving [1] 12/19
goes [4] 4/11 7/15 7/23 14/21
---1 going [16] 3/3 5 / 2 5 7 / 6 7 / 2 5
8/3 8/13 10/10 11/2 11/4
11/21 12/15 12/22 17/3 17/5
17/8
gone [ 1] 1':0 / 2 0
Good [2] 3/J6 3/1'
gosh [1] 5/1
-jhe'll [1] U ,I
13/10
got [1] J!l4
Governor [2] 8/'7 8/11
Governor's [1] 8/10
guess [1] 15/8
guys [6] 3/2 3/10 9/17 12/25
15/20 18/3
H
had [6] 3/19 4/14 6/10 6/11
6/20 11/9
half [1] 10/8
hand [1] 12 / 1(l
handle [1] 8 il q
happen [ 1] 1 2. / 17
happening [1] 12/1 Q
happy [1] 5/20
has [9] 4/21 4/23 4/25 7/5
9/11 10/21 12/7 16/17 18/1
hasn't [2] 17/6 17/6
have [25]
haven't [ 1] 3 / 1 9
he [12] 6/8 6/9 7/13 7/16 7/23
8/1 8/3 11/10 12/19 13/6
13/14 15/3
he's [3] 8/6:'1/1 3 0/14
hear [2] I-1/Jb
hearing [4] .-:/7 iI, 14/4 15/10
here [5] i/-4 7/2 <1/]6

here's [1] 16/8
herring [2] 8/14 15/7
high [1] 17/15
HILLSBOROUGH [4] 1/1 16/3 16/24
19/8
him [2] 5/25 12/19
himself [2] 8/11 17/11
his [9] 6/7 7/7 7/14 9/14 9/15
12/16 12/19 15/2 15/6
history [1]
hold [1]
hominem [1) :::: 1-1
Honor [6] 3/lb S/9 12/14 13/19
15/23
HONORABLE [1] 1/18
hours [3] 10/1 10/2 13/2
how [4] 9/24 11/8 11/14 14/14
huh [ 1] 13/20
hundred [1] 16/10
husband [2] 13/6 13/13
husband's [1] 13/11
I
I'm [13] 6/24 6':;:'4
-- ;" -l ;, _ :.,:" H ;-;,. j 1 I /.i. 1 1 ,.. 1
I .-: " _:., I." '. _'. I.' / .. ,;
I've [3 1 1 {/ 11 I b / :.:. 1t.' , -,
if [19] 4/12 4/18 5/2 5/6 5/10
6/8 b/13 7/]0 7/13 10/3 10/20
10/23 14/6 14/8 14/10 15/13
16/16 16/16 16/22
illegal [2] 14/19 14/19
in [43]
incident [1] 15/3
including [1] 14/22
incompetent [1] 14/24
inefficient [1] 17/3
information [2] 13/12 14/24
instance [2] (,/G 1- .' If::;
intent [1]''''
into [4]i/L; JO/I.:i 14/4 15/8
involuntary (1] 17/]"7
I matters [1] 12/18 obviously [1] 9/3
r- [4] 5/10 12/16 12/17 13/24 off [3] 3/18 7/17 7/18
involved [1] 8/24 me [16] 4/11 4/18 4/22 6/8 6/9 Off-the-record [lJ 7/18
irrelevant [1] 14/23 6/21 7/9 7/17 7/24 8//0 10/20 office [2] 6/(C, 8/10
is [33] 10/23 ]0/25 H/7 17/17 Oh [5] ,I:' 9/J7 "/21 16/4 17/J
isn't [2] /l. 3 16/22 mean [5] 5/6 9/6 l 0/21 11/ 1 Okay [16] 3 J /.l5 /l ,] i3 '1/6
150M [1] 1/18 11 /24 -" IJ <.:} 8/2 (I 9/3 1 n/20 14!l 14/8
issue [2] 11 / 15 16/12 means [1] 4/24 15/13 1:,/17 151;:4 16/6 1;',/3
issues [1] 7/5 mediation [1] 15/21 on [28]
it [54] message [2] 7/25 8/9 once [1] 17/9
it's [12] 4/144/245/125/13 might [2] 1l/10 13/7 one [6] 10/24 1l/4 12/3 17/3
5/197/0, 9/6 12/1714/10 15/7 minute [1] 3/7 17/6 17/8
16/1117/3 minutes [2] 3/3 10/7 only [4] 6/66/88/214/3
items [1] 15/8 moment [2] II / 21 14/14 or [ 17] 4 /13 4 /24 6/12 6/12
[4] 3/3 3/3 7/4 11/9 8/4 10/4 10/10 11/2 12/17
r- [3] 3/16 3/17 3/19 13/9 13/18 13/25 14/5 14/15
judge [16] 1/186/167/97/21 motion [13] 3/254/104/11 14/1914/2316/14
9/1 :I 0 /15 11/1 7 12/6 12/8 4/12 4/16 4/18 4 /24 6/14 9/15 order [1] 4 / fi
13/4 13/14 15/1 15112 15119 10/8 12/15 14/18 15/1'1 other [6] ',Ii 12/6 13/6 14/3
18/2 18/4 motions [1] 10/'! Il,/lt
judges [2] 14/1614/22 move [1] 16/l!:: other's [1]
judicial [6] 111 3/6 4/17 4/19 Mr. [18] 3/15 4/l 5/20 7/6 otherwise [1]
'i/7 7/11 7/16 7/20 8/24 9/12 our [1] 3/6
jury [7] 111 3 11 / 4 11 / 6 11 /7 10/1 0 11/20 II /25 13 / 5 13/9 out [4] 5/3 13 /2 2 17 / 4 ] 7/15
11/13 11/15 14/11 13/10 13/13 13/18 14/4 outset [1] 8/18
just [14] 31184/86/227/1 Mr. Cook [4] 13/913/1013/13 outside [1] 10/22
(1/1 8/1 7 1 0 / 9 10/13 10/25 13/18 over [ 8] 6/5 6/7 8/2 1 14 / 18
11 /14 11 /2 1 13/21 14/12 17/12 Mr. Cook's [1] 13 / 5 1 4 /20 14 /24 1 7 /13 17/13
K Mr. Gillespie [2] 3/15 5/20 P
r-----------:----------tMr. Rodems [9] 4/1 7/ II 7/16
K-O-R-V-1-C-K [1] 6/1 7/20 8/24 9/12 10/10 11/20 P.A [1] 1/10
Kids [2] 5/145/16 11125 page [2] 7/13 q/16
knew [1] 5/ 1 7 Mr. Rodems' [1] 14 /4 page 3 [ 1] q / 1 t;
know [8] 7 / 1 9/4 10/9 12/9 Mr. Rodems' s [ 1] -/ / 6 page 7 [ 1] 7 / J J
13/413/1017/2117/23 much [2] 13/23 paragraph [1] 7/15
FK:.::oc=r.:.-vc=i.:::c::..:k_'..[=-1"-]_""6:..../.::;,1 ----tmust [1] 16/13 part [6] 7/'1 7/5 8/4 8/4 15/Q
my [7] 3/6 4/9 7/2 7/11 13/11 16/11
L
13/13 16/18 parties [1] 10/18
later [1] 14/21 myself [3] 6/1013/2214/22 past [1] 7/8
laughing [1] 17 /19 [1] Pause 1 0 /19
1aw.[2] 6/24 15/6 r- [1] 17/12
lawsuit [1] 15/8 name [2] 4/4 5/1 payment [1] 13/5
lawyer [8] 16/416/517/3 17/6 narrow [1] 13/1 perfectly [1] 14/23
17/817/1017/1417/16 Nathanson [1] 5/25 permitted [1] 14/6
lawyers [1] 16/9 necessary [1] 12/17 personal [1] 6/11
least [1] 16/13 necessity [1] 13/23 pertain [2] 3/21 3/23
left [2] 7/118/1 need [3] 4/1910/512/2 phone [2] 7/258/6
legal [3] 17/12 17/15 17/22 needed [2] 12/4 14/2 Pinellas [4] '7/22 QIl 16/21
legally [2] 14/1114/14 NEIL [2] 1/7 2/3 16/22
let [2] 10/9 17/14 never [1] 13/11 place [1] 16/18
let's [1] 4/7 new [2] 3/19 llill placed [2] 7/11 11/13
letter [1] n/ 11 newspaper [1] 16/19 Plaintiff [2] 11 8 2/7.
like [6] 10/23 11/9 12/2 next [1] 16/18 plaintiff's [1] 4/9
14/8 14 /18 nice [1] 15/18 please [1] 4121
list [1] 13/11 nine [1] 10/4 point [4] 6/4 11/23 12!l4
litigation [1] 15/22 no [4] 1/8 3/24 14/15 15/23 12/21
little [2] 3/14 6/22 nobody [1] 3/4 political [3] 4/15 5/5 13/13
long [1] 9/24 none [2] 6/11 15/5 preceding [1] 6/7
look [2] 3/20 5/2 nonjury [1] 11/2 prejudice [1] 8/15
looking [2] 6/2016/9 normally [1] 11/13 preside [1] 14/20
[1] 2/8 presiding [3] 8121 14/18 14/24
M not [14] 3121 3/23 4/11 4/15 prevail [1] b/"
5 / 6 5 /12 6/20 U 5 J 11 n Pro [1] ;:: I
rna' am [3] 3/11 IJ /2 <) /19 12117 14/5 14 110 14 /l 6 17111 probably [4 J 3 U. 5/3 'j n:. 10/3
MacKenzie [1) 5/14 notarized [1] 4/24 problem [5] 10114 16
i
8
Madam [2] 4/3 18/5 Notary [1] l/23 17/2 17/20
made [1] 11/9 nothing [2] 9/11 9/12 proceedings [2] ] Ill:) 1:1/1::'
make [4] 7/1 8/3 9/22 10/13 notice [1] 12/3 prompted [1] 6/2]
makes [1] 7/13 now [1] 7/4 proposition [1] 5/5
making [1] 1112 0 1=-,,-]_l=..O:::...:..../7.:.....- -jprovided [1) 17/6
manner [1] 6/15 Public [1] 1/23
Mary [4] 1/23 4/5 19/10 19/15 I-0 -lputting [1] 17/4
matter [7] S/12 8/23 10/11 object [2] 12/15 12/18
11J13 IIJ/5 14/25 16/16
Q shots [1] 6/11
1------------------..,should [1] 9/12
question [1] 6/24 shouldn't [1] 11/16
[2] 4/14 13/2
R situation [2] 11/7 17/17
I--------------------iso [31]
ran [2] 6/5 13/14 So.2d [2] 5/23 6/1
rant [1] 8/1 social [2] 13/8 13/18
rather [2] 13/23 17 / 4 solici t [1] 1 6/19
read [2] 6/20 13 /11 some [1] 7/7
real [1] 11/22 somebody [2] 15/25 17/5
really [3] 8/13 8/14 12/18 something [7] 3/18 4/7 5/13
reason [2] 9/13 12/12 10/16 11/12 12/2 13/25
reassigned [2] 12/11 12/13 sorry [1] 8/8
recall [1] 10/3 South [1] 5/3
Recessed [1] 12/24 speak [1] 6/17
record [6] 5/23 7/17 7/18 7/19 specific [1] 15/3
13/2J. 19/13 specifically [1] 17/9
red [2] 8/14 15/7 speculate [1] 11/21
reference [1] 7/14 speculating [1] 11/10
referral [5] 16/4 16/5 16/17 speculations [1] 12/16
'1 f) / :2."\ 17 /25 spin [ 1] 12/19
referring [2] 8/6 8/24 stands [1] 5/4
reflect [1] 13/22 start [1] 3/8
regard [1] 1512 STATE [2] 1/1 19/7
relating [1] 15/3 stenographically [1] l q /11
relationship [3] 13/6 13/9 still [1] 13/24
13/18 Store [2] 5/15 5/16
relevant [5] 11/8 11/15 11/16 stuff [2] 14/9 14/16
11/20 14/17 subject [1] 15/13
report [1] 19/11 suggested [1] 16/25
REPORTED [1] 1/23 Suite [1] 2/8
Reporter [2] 4/3 18/5 Super [2] 5/14 5/16
representing [4] 13/22 16/1 support [1] 8/7
17/ 11 17 / 14 supported [2] 4 /13 4 /25
request [1] 4/14 suppress [1] 14/19
research [1] 6/13 Supreme [1] 5/19
reserved [1] 9/24 sure [3] 7/1 9/22 10/13
think [4] 5/17 10/17
15/25
thinks [1] 12/19
THIRTEENTH [1] 1/1
this [37]
those [2] 5/11 15/9
though [1] 10/17
thousand [1] 16/10
three [3] 6/7 10/1 10/2
through [3] 7/25 8/5 9/21
time [7] 1/21 4/6 5/4 7/20
14/16 17/4 17/6
today [9] 3/22 3/23 9/22 10/6
10/8 12/2 13/1 13/22 13/25
today's [1] 12/18
tomorrow [1] 13/25
topic [1] 6/2
total [1] 9/25
touch [ 1 ] 1 6/2
Toys [3] 5/12 5/17 5/18
transcript [4] 1/16 8/21 14/13
19/12
transcripts [2] 10/23 14/10
transferred [1] 12/7
treat [2] 4/16 4/20
trial [7] 7n. }1 / 4 l J /3 .I
11 / 6 11 / -7 .1 II / 11
tried [1] 15/21
true [2 ] 6/14 1 9 /12
try [2] 16/19 16/21
turn [3] 4 / 6 7 / 1 0 7 /13
tvoe [1] 5/7
u
Uh [ 1 ] 13/20
Uh-huh [1] 13/20
ultimately [1] 6/5
under [2] 4/17 4 /19
resolve [1] 15/21 [1] 17/24
resolved [1] 10/17 T unless [1] 9/4
resolving [1] 12/18 I- --lunsuccessfully [1] 13/14
resulting [1] 17/15 table [1] 12/16 until [1] 12/24
review [2] 11 /24 12 / 1 .take [4] 3/3 4 / 8 12/22 17 / 8 up [3] 7 / 7 8/ 1 4 1"7 / 13
reviewing [1] 14/13 taken [2] 1/19 6/11 upon [5] 6/15 12/5 13/10 13/12
right [10] 3/10 3/12 5/22 6/16 Tampa [2] 1/20 2/8 14/12
10/6 12/21 12/25 14/1 15/15 telephone [2] 7/8 8/9 us [4] 5/12 5/17 5/18 6/11
1 /1 7 telephonically [1] 3/13
v
RODEMS [13] 1/102/7 2/7 4/1 telephonics [1] 12/23
7/117/167/208/249/109/12 ten [1] 5/3 verified [2] 4/134/24
10/]0 11/20 11/25 terms [4] 12/1 12/1 14/21 versus [3] 5/146/1 9/9
Rodems' [1] 14/4 17/22 very [4] 6/10 8/18 15/17 17/3
Rodems 's [ 1 ] 7 / 6 than [3] 3/3 3/3 17 / 4 _
rule [ 4 ] 4 /14 4 /22 6/14 1 4 /20 Thank [10] 5/9 6/1 9 13 /1 9 15 /1 W
Rules [2] ,1/17 4/19 15/15 15/17 15/19 18/:' 18/4 1- _
run [2] 6/ 10 17 / 13 18 ,I wade [ 1 ] " / 2 ]
f=R.:.:Y:::.AN:::-... [.=.1-'..]_=L.:..../....:.7 --i that [71] wai t [1] l / l. 4
that's [9] 3/13 3/?4 5/16 5/23 want [13] 4/18 5/7 6/9 6/1J
s
7/13 14/16 15/13 15/25 16/24 7/1 8/3 8/17 10/13 10/20
said [6] 3/6 10/21 12/3 13/11 them [5] 4/8 10/24 10/25 12/1 10/23 10/25 13/21 14/9
1'1 15/25 12/10 wanted [2] b/8 13/4
says [2] 7/167/21 themselves [1] 5/6 was [19] 4/124/125/176/5
Se [1] 2/3 then [ 12 ] 3 / 9 4 / 13 4 /2 0 6 / 8 6 / 6 7 / 2 7 /11 8/1 10 /1 7 II /1 0
search [2] 14/19 17/22 6/14 7/23 8/10 10/6 10/6 12/12 13/1 13/5 17/8 17/9
second [3] 7/15 7/16 10/8 14/21 15/14 17/14 17/16 17/20 17/20 19/10
see [8] 11/8 11/12 11/14 13/16 there [5] 3/14 10/3 14/1 17/4 wasn't [2] 5/18 12/4
]4/13 15/24 16/8 18/3 17 /20 way [ 5 ] 4 /20 7 /1 0 8 /2 8/13
sensitive [1] 10/16 there's [3] 3/4 5/2 8/1 6 1 6 /20
sentence [1] 7/16 these [1] 15/8 we [13] 4 ! q (-) /1 0 7/l 9/71 Q n:;
service [5]7/12 16/5 16/17 they [7] 4 /8 12 /10 1 4 /17 1 4 / 17 1 0 / 6 ] 3 / 1 1 3/ R 1 3/8 13/17
16/23 18/1 16/18 16/22 17/1 J4/20 14/21
servi tude [1] 17/17 they're [ 2 ] 17 /11 17!l 2 we'll [ 5 ] :3 / 8 3 I 9 3 I 1511 4
set [2] 4/8 10/8 thing [1] 13/1
setting [1] 10/22 things [3] 5/8 7/7 10/21 We're [1] 12 !.I. 5
several [2] 13/2 16/10 we've [ 2 ] 3/ L4 7 / 5
w
[1] 6/21
welcome [1] 5/8
well [7] 10/20 11/14 11/24
16/A 16/13 16/21 17/21
Wells [1] 3/4
went [1] 8/5
were [3] 4/8 6/23 13/1
what [ 18 ] 5/1 5 /12 8 / 6 8 /1 4
9/8 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/19
13/1 13/4 13/6 13/10 14/21
]6/7 16/18 16/24 17/25
what's [ 2 ] 10 17 14 /11
whatever [1] 9/13
when [3] 6/5 13/14 14/24
whenever [1] 12/10
where [3] 7/13 12/3 12/4
whether [1] 14 /
[10] 3/7 4/12 4/24 b/1
6/2 7/G 8/24 9/5 10/24 15/5
whole [1] 7 /2 5
why [1] 11/10
[1] 14/11
WILLIAM [1] 1/10
[2] 7/25 15/21
words [ 1 ] 12 / 6
[1] 13/24
worth [1] 16/9
would [17] 4/13 8/8 9/15 10/15
1U/16 10/16 11/8 11/12 11/12
]1/14 13/23 14/3 14/6 14/10
14/14 16/8 16/18
wouldn't [ 4] 9/4 1 4 11 5 1 6/ ] 4
17/14
y
yeah [3] 3/8 6/3 11/18
years [4] 5/3 6/6 6/8 13/14
Yes [10] 3/11 4/2 6/18 9/19
12/9 15/12 15/12 16/15 16/24
17 /2
you [61]
you'll [1] 5/2
you're [5] S/8 7/23 9/20 11/22
U/2
your [13] 3/J6 4/4 5/
Q
6/21
H/20 Ll/10 12/14 12/22 13/12
15/23 1/122
yours [1] 3/8
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIR1'EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH <=OUNTY, FLORIDA
,1. GILLESPIE,
PlailltitI, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
RECEIVED AND FILED
RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: H
a corporatioll; WILLIAM
FEB 1 3 2007
J.
Defelldants.
/
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
}:>laintifTpro se, Neil J. Gillespie, ll10ves to disqualify the Honorable Clalldia R.
ISOl1l as judge ill this action pursuant to Rule 2.160(d)(1), Fla. R. Jlld. Admin. Plaintiff
fears tllat he will not receive a fair trial because of specifically described prejudice or bias
of tIle jLH.. ige. TIle specific groullds in support of this motion are: (Note: Transcripts of
hearings on Febrllary 1, and February 5, 2007, have been ordered but not received, alld tllis
nl0tioll contains Plaintiff's recollection pending the transcripts).
1. Judge ISOlTI IleaI'd Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict on
]"l 2007. TIle Judge was prejudiced by sonle of the infoffilation presented. Whell
Plaintiff asked ifhe could expect to receive a fair trial and llearings, Judge ISOITI was
unable to answer in the affirnlative, and only mentioned that tllis was a jllry trial. Jury trial
notwithstanding, Judge ISOlTI must make many ruling in this lllatter, alld Plaintiff believes
he will ll0t receive fair treatment.
4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
2. Jlldge Isonl has largely ignored Plaintiffs exercise of diligence to obtain coullsel.
Judge ISOlTI forced Plaintiff to participate in a hearing on Febrllary 5., 2007 without
counsel., to his great detriment. In fact, Judge Isom laughed at Plaintiffs dilenlilla in open
court Whetl he told the Court that prospective counsel said taking this case would lil<ely
anlount to ""illvoluntary servitude" because Defendants are lawyers who have tIle capacity
to litigate at lnininlal expellSe., and the Court would not eXCllse counsel once Plailltiff
could no 1011ger afford to pay, because everyone has finite resources. Judge ISOlll also
stated on tIle record that one of the attorneys referred to Plaintiff as coullsel in this case.,
Pat Dekle, practices lnedical111alpractice, not contract law, suggesting the Hillsborougll
County Bar Association is providing Plaintiff with the wrong referrals for this case. Judge
Isom said Plaintiff should contact other lawyer refenal services in 8t. Petersburg alld
Clearwater., but did not provide the time needed to do so.
3. Jlldge Isom also refllsed to provide Plaintiffwitll an Americans witll Disability
Act aCC0111l110dation 11e needs to participate in the proceedillgs. That accomlTIodation is
tIle tinle Plailltiff lleeds to filld counsel. The Court under Judge Nielsen illitiated a plan
relative to the exercise of diligellce to obtain counsel, but Judge Isom has llnilaterally
abandolled that plan.
4. At the hearing of February 5, 2007, Plaintiff was ullable to proceed by tIle time 11is
1110tion to reconsider tIle discovery order was heard. The hearing had gone 011 for over
two hours and Plaintiffs disability prevented hilTI from proceeding any fl1l11ler. Judge
IS0I11" s solution was to simply proceed without Plaintiff, with predictable reslI1ts - Judge
ISOll1 ruled against hitTI.
Page - 2 of3
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, CASE NO.: OS-CA-720S
The undersigned movant certifies that the motion and the movant's statements are
made in good faith.
l
. / ~ ~ / ( , < > / l G:0 /;7
.- ..../
. ,,- 0 ~ . . , .
. / : G{llespi'e,Jila11YU( pro se
092 SW ..lfS
1h
Loop /
Telephone: (3S2) 502-8409
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and the
facts stated in it are true.
Page - 3 of3
---------------
NEILJ J.
Plailltiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: H
J.
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW,
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
] . Litigant's right to ilnpartial judge. The importance of the duty of rel1dering a
righteous judgll1ent is tilat of doing it in such a manner as would raise 110 suspiciol1 of the
and integrity of the judge. State ex reI. Arnold v. Revels, 113 So.2d 218, Fla.App.
I Dist.,1959. Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of all
in1lJartialjudge, (Mathew v. State, 837 So.2d 1167, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003.) alld tIle law
intends tllat 110 jlldge will preside in a case in which he or she is not wholly free,
disinterested, impartial, and independent. State v. Steele, 348 So.2d 398, Fla.App. 1977.
When a judge enters iIltO the proceedings and becolnes a participant, a slladow is cast
upon judiciallleutrality so tilat his or ller disqualification is required. Evans v. State, 831
So.2c1 808, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2002.
l'he COl1ditions requiring the disqualification of the judge to act in that paliicular
case are prescribed by statute. 38.02 Fla. Stat. The basic tel1et for tIle disqualification of
Gillespie v. Barker., Rodems & Cook, PA, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
ajudge is tllat ajudge must satisfy the appearance ofjustice. Hewitt v. State, 839 So.2d
763, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003. TIle question of disqualificatioll focuses on those nlatters
fronl which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the
jlldge's perception of his or her ability to act fairly and inlpartially. Wargo v. Wargo., 669
So.2d 1123, Fla.App..4 Dist.,1996.
TIle telll1 "recusal" is most often used to signify a voluntary action to remove
oneself as a jlldge; 110wever, tIle term "disqualification" refers to the process by whicll a
litigant lllay seek to relll0ve a judge from a particular case. Sunle v. State, 773 So.2d 600,
Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2000.
Question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on those matters fronl
whicll a litigal1t lnay reasonably question ajudge's impartiality rather tllan the jlldge's
perception of his ability to act fairly and inlpartially. West's F.S.A. Code of Jud. Condllct.,
CanoI13(E)(1), Stevens v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples., 919 So.2d 713 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). Question of disqualification of a trial judge focllses on
those nlatters [roin wllich a litigant may reasonably questioll a judge's inlpartiality ratller
than the court's own perception of its ability to act fairly and impartially. West's F.S.A.
38.10, Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So.2d 214, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2005 rell'g dellied,
(Feb. 17,2005).
2. Sllfficiellcy of motion or affidavit of prejudice. A motion to disqualify nlust Sl10W
that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because: (1) of a
specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; Fla. R. Jud. Adlnin., Rule 2.160
(d)(l). Generally, tIle critical determination in deciding tIle legal sufficiency of a nlotion
to disqualify has been whether the facts alleged would prompt a reasonably prudent
Page - 2 of6
person to fear 11e or she wOltld not receive a fair trial, Barllhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836
Fla.,2002. If a nlotion to recuse is technically sufficient and the facts alleged therein also
would pr0111pt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he or she could not get a fair alld
i111partial trial from the judge, the motion is legally Sllfficient and should be granted.
( ~ o l e 1 1 1 a n v. State, 866 So.2d 209, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2004. The motion to disqllalify ajudge
sholLld contain facts germane to the judge's undlle bias, prejudice, or synlpathy.
Cllcullberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087, Fla.,2004.
Whether a Illotion to disqualify a judge is legally sufticiellt reqllires a
deter111ination as to whether the alleged facts would create in a reasollably prudellt perSOll
a well-foul1ded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Fla. R. Jlld. Adlnill., Rule
2.160 (t), Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, Fla.,2005, as revised on denial of rell'g,
(Jan. 19'1 2006). The prinlary consideration in determining whether nlotion to disqllalify
trial judge should be granted is whether the facts alleged, if true, would place a reasollably
prudent perSOll in fear of not receiving a fair alld impartial trial. Arbelaez v. State, 898
So.2d 25, Fla.,2005, reh'g denied, (Mar. 18, 2005). A motion for disqualificatioll 11luSt be
granted if tile alleged facts would cause a reasonably prudent person to 11ave a well
founded fear tllat he/slle would 110t receive a fair and impartial trial. Jam v. Jarp, 919
So.2d 6] 4, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2006. The test a trial COllrt nl11st use in deterl11inillg whether
a 111otioll to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient is whether the facts alleged would place
a reasonably prudent perSOll in fear of not receiving a fair and ilnpartial trial. Scott v.
State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2005, reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005). The motion to
disqualify ajlldge 11111St be well-founded and contain facts gernlal1e to tIle jlldge's undue
Page - 3 of 6
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodenls & Cook, PA, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
bias"prejlldice, or syillpathy. Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2005, rel1'g
denied" (Sept. 2, 2005).
DisqllaliJicatiol1 is required when litigants demonstrate reasollable, well-grounded
fear tllat tlley will not receive fair al1d impartial trial, or that judge has pre-judged case.
Willial11S v. Balcll, 897 So.2d 498, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2005.
3. Tinle for filing nlotion; waiver of objection. A motion to disqllality shall be filed
within a reasonable time 110t to exceed 10 days after discovery of tIle facts COl1stitllting the
grounds for the nlotion and shall be promptly presented to tIle court for all il1lmediate
ruling. Fla. R. JlId. Adl11in., Rule 2.160(e). Althollgh a petition to disqualify a judge is not
tinlely filed, extraordillary circunlstances nlay warrant the grant of an untinlely nlotiol1 to
recuse. Klapper-Barrett v. Nurell, 742 So.2d 851, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,] 999.
4. Judicial detenl1il1ation of il1itial nlotion. The judge against whom all initial
1l10tion to disqualify us directed shall deternline only the legal sufficiency if the motion an
shall not pass on tIle truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Judicial Adnlin. 2.160(t). No otller
reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not tale issue with tIle
nlotiol1. Fla. R. Jlldicial Admin. 2.160(f). Accordingly, ajlldge may not rlIle on tIle truth
of the facts alleged or address the substantive issues raised by tIle motion but lTIay 01lly
deternTine the legal sufficiency of the 1110tion. Knarich v. State, 866 So.2d 165 (Fla. Dist.
et. App. 2d Dist. 2004). In determining whether the allegations that movant willl10t
receive a fair trial so as to disqualify a judge are sufficient, the facts alleged Inust be taken
as true (Frellgel v. Frengel, 880 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2004), and nlust be viewed
fronl tIle Illovant's perspective. Siegel v. State, 861 So.2d 90, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003.
Page - 4 of6
Gillespie v. Rodems & Cook, PA, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
Case law forbids trial judges to refute facts set forth in a motion to disqualify., and
their doing so will result in judicial disqualification irrespective of tile facial slrfficiency
of the underlying claim. Brinson v. State, 789 So.2d 1125, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2001. A trial
judge's attel11pt to refute charges of partiality thus exceeds the scope of inquiry on a
111otion to disqllalify and alone establishes grounds for disqualification. J & J Indllstries,
Inc. v. Carpet Sl10wcase of Tampa Bay, Inc., 723 So.2d 281, Fla.App. 2 Dist.., 1998.
Whether tIle illotion is legally sufficient is a pure question of law; it follows that the
proper standard of review is the de novo standard (Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600
f'la.App. 1 Dist..,2000) and an order denying a motion to disqualify a trial judge is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. King v. State, 840 So.2d 1 Fla..,2003.
Once a nlotion for disqualification has been filed, no further action can be takell by the
trial court, even if the trial couli is not aware of the pending nl0tion. Brown v. State
863 So.2d Fla.App. 1 A judge presented with a nl0tion to disqllalify
hiJll- or herself nlust rule upon the sufficiency of the motion immediately al1d may not
consider other Inatters before considering the disqualification motion. Brown v. State
863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist..,2004. The court is required to rule ilnnlediately on the
l1l0tion to disqualify the even tll0Ugh the nl0vant does not request a llearing.
Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063, Fla.,2000. The rule places tIle burden on
the judge to rule ilnnlediately, tIle tTIovant is not required to nudge tIle judge 110r petitiol1
for a writ of Inandall1us. G.e. v. Department of Children and 804 So.2d 525
Fla.App. 5 Dist..,2002.
I{ESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13
th
day 2007.
Page - 5 of6
___.-"OOj _/ .. /'
// /.' /.
,.-;.'/ / /,/ //
J e,
Neil)/. PlaIntiff
8092 SW 11'Sth Loop
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
The undersigned certifies that a copy hereof has been furnished to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Attorneys for Defendants, 400
North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, by hand this 13
th
day of
February, 2007. ..___----/ / /.',/ ....
r
O
C // '
.?,!;. 0' //., Ii!
O espfi
Y
";'.
Page - 6 of6
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, Case No. OS-CA7205
Division H
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida
Corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
_________________
COURT ORDER OF RECUSAL AND
DIRECTING CLERK TO REASSIGN TO NEW DIVISION
THIS CAUSE came before the court on the plaintiff's motion to disqualify judge.
Although the motion is procedurally sufficient, is it insufficient as a matter of law in that
it appears to have been filed in response to adverse rulings of the court. At the same
time, however, the plaintiff has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his cause leaving
pending a counterclaim filed by the defendants. In an abundance of caution and in an
effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms of the
plaintiffs future court appearances, the court on the court's own motion on the matter of
disqualification has determined that reassignment is appropriate in this cause. The court
having reviewed the file and pleadings filed therein, does hereby enter this order of
recusal, it is therefore,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED the undersigned circuit judge hereby recuses
Division H, the division over which she currently presides, from all matters which may
arise in the future concerning the above-styled cause.
The Clerk of Court is directly to randomly reassign this matter by blind rotation
pursuant to the established administrative procedures and certify below the division to
which this case is reassigned.
DONE AND ORDERED February 13, 2007, in Tampa, Hillsborough County,
Florida.
Riel(tJrt 3S0Ht_
Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge
- 1
5
Case No. OS-CA-00842
Division H
CERTIFICATION OF REASSIGNMENT
Pursuant to the established administrative procedures, I certify that the above-caption
case has been randomly reassigned to Division _
PAT FRANK
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
________________, Deputy Clerk
(signature)
(date)
Copies Provided:
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Tampa, FL 33602
- 2
-.....-.... .. ... _----- -----
" R. ISOM
CIRCUIT JUDGE
e
UJ
012H16207880
TIfiRTEENTH IUDICIAL CIRCUIT w(f)
HiLLSBOROUGH CoUNTY CouRTIlOUSE
. .-:
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602-4025

.. : Q)
t

v.

Ell
11\
0:2,"!-1/2007
\II -"&I
l
irii

n.u::
Ii" : - Mailed From 33602
US POSTAGE
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
\ 1.. 11 .. 1"1,1 ..11 ..111 ..11"11.,1.1.. 11,,1",11,1,",1,11.,1,1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
Appellants/Plaintiffs,
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.
__________________________________/
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
Neil J. Gillespie, under oath, testifies as follows:
1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This affidavit
is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.
2. I am disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq., the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq., and 825.101(4), Florida Statutes.
3. I filed May 27, 2011 Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.
Gillespie in Hillsborough Circuit Court that shows I have Depression, Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD), Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, and
Velopharyngeal Incompetence. I also have impaired hearing, especially under stress.
4. I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot).
Jonathan Alpert filed the Amscot lawsuit December 9, 1999 as partner of the firm Alpert,
6
2
Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. Substitute counsel Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. (BRC) and William J. Cook (Cook) represented me beginning December 12,
2000. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. BRC and Cook appealed.
5. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and
Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit.
Amscot settled for business reasons before the appeal was decided. The Certificate of
Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1) attached to the Joint
Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this Affidavit:
Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.
Amscot Corporation
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Barker, Chris A., Esq.
Cook, William J., Esq.
Gillespie, Neil
MacKechnie, Ian
Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq.
This stipulation was not provided to me by my former lawyers. I obtained it from the
Court in April 2006 with a records request. (Exhibit 1).
6. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA
with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorneys fees. (Exhibit 2).
7. BRC and Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot.
Cook lied to me about a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the
closing statement. (Exhibit 3). There was no such award. The $50,000 was actually part
of the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned contingent fee agreement, or Florida
Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was later
found to be $7,143.68. I filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Cook for violation
of ethics rules. The Florida Bar failed to properly adjudicate my complaint.
3
8. On August 11, 2005 I sued, pro se, BRC and Cook to recover $6,224.78. The case
was caption was Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook,
Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. BRC partner Ryan Christopher
Rodems defended his firm BRC and law partner Cook.
9. On January 13, 2006 Judge Richard A. Nielsen found by Order that I established
a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Cook. (Exhibit 4). On
information and belief, partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for
the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the
ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There was an actual conflict of interest in Mr.
Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves in this case.
10. On January 19, 2006, BRC and Cook countersued me for Libel over a letter I
wrote to Ian MacKechnie, president of Amscot, about the prior litigation.
11. On February 4, 2006 I moved to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. On
information and belief, disqualification was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge
Kovachevich, U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida, Tampa Division:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of 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
4
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.
McPartland cites State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 75 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991), a
Florida Supreme Court case. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I found
McPartland and other similar cases in 2010.
12. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify
him and an argument ensued. During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech,
and threatened me. Rodems said you will pay for writing a letter to Ian MacKechnie,
president of Amscot. All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-
7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use exemption
of Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health
Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
13. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with a sworn
affidavit under the penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of the Judge Nielsen in
Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions. Mr. Rodems falsely
named Judge Nielsen in an exact quote attributed to me. Upon information and belief,
it was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage.
14. A voice recording of the call impeached Mr. Rodems sworn affidavit. Kirby
Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department, investigated the matter and
wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing
5
to the Court as an exact quote language that clearly was not an exact quote. The
investigation did not show any wrongdoing by me.
15. Beginning on March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems has directed, with malice aforethought,
a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disabilities, caused
substantial emotional distress and served legitimate purpose.
16. On March 20, 2006 I requested from Mr. Rodems pursuant to Bar Rule 4-
1.5(f)(5) settlement documents at the heart of the lawsuit. The documents were in dispute
as to their existence or whether the documents were signed. (Exhibit 5).
17. On March 27, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a hostile email in response to my Bar
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) request, with his typical false reference to threats of physical violence.
(Exhibit 6). Mr. Rodems wrote:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requested
have been previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to your
initial complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Given your threats of physical
violence against me during our last telephone conversation, and given that you
have copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort to harass us.
Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I was
advised that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse of
the rules by former clients, the most practical response would be to send the
documents to you again. They are attached in pdf format. In the event you make
this request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format is not to your
liking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. to inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that we
may arrange to have security present.
18. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard.
Judge Richard Nielsen failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of
McPartland. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c)
when he failed to disclose McPartland to Judge Nielsen:
6
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to 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.
Paragraph 61, Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. July 9, 2010, also Exhibit 10 to the Complaint
in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
19. On April 25, 2006 I filed 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 the hearing, and
hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was never heard.
20. On April 25, 2006 Mr. Rodems waited outside Judge Nielsens chambers to taunt
me following a hearing. At the next hearing June 28, 2006 I requested protection from the
Court to prevent a reoccurrence. Judge Nielsen did not provide the requested protection:
(Transcript, June 28, 2006, page 21, beginning at line 20)
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.
Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallway
and I dont want that to happen today.
THE COURT: Well, you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and then
you can decide what you want to do, sir.
21. Initially I had a good working relationship with Judge Nielsen and his judicial
assistant Myra Gomez. After Rodems stunt Judge Nielsen did not manage the
7
case lawfully, favored Defendants in rulings, responded to me sarcastically, and
sanctioned me for failing to comply with Mr. Rodems discovery requests, even though I
complied with the discovery requests to the best of my ability. I moved to disqualify
Judge Nielsen, which he denied, but recused himself sua sponte November 22, 2006.
22. Upon information and believe, the right to bodily integrity and security of person
includes mental integrity, that is, freedom from mental and psychological abuse. The
right to safely pursue justice is a fundamental civil right that underscores a litigants right
not to be subjected to physical, sexual, mental or emotional violence inside or outside the
court, either by private attorneys or by judges and people acting on the part of the state.
The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. Litigants in civil proceedings
must be free from mental or emotional violence, which may be a form of torture, or their
Constitutionally protected rights, including due process, are rendered meaningless.
23. My case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006.
24. On December 3, 2006 I read a notice on Judge Isoms web page that advised that
the judge had a number of relatives practicing law and If you feel there might be a
conflict in your case based on the above information, please raise the issue so it can be
resolved prior to me presiding over any matters concerning your case. One relative
listed was husband A. Woodson Woody Isom, Jr.. (Exhibit 7).
25. On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict,
and moved for disclosure of conflict with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other
conflict of interest in this case. My motion noted the following possible conflicts:
Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 by
check to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002. (3, page 2)
8
Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002,
and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002.
(4, page 2)
My motion informed Judge Isom of the significance of Jonathan Alpert to this case:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's 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.
26. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Discovery, to reconsider a July 24, 2006 Order by Judge Richard Nielsen for discovery
sanctions against me.
27. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Disqualify Counsel, to reconsider Judge Nielsen's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to
Disqualify Counsel (Mr. Rodems and BRC) entered May 12, 2006.
28. On December 12th and December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems left voice mail messages
on my cell phone. (Exhibit 8.4). Rodems called me cheap and other such:
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)
24 I would also point out that the problem that
25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probably more
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 7, beginning at line 1)
1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap 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
9
25. advocate when it suits you
29. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a five page letter of insults,
including ridicule of mental illness: (Exhibit 8.3)
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by 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).
30. On December 27, 2006 I responded to Mr. Rodems letter. (Exhibit 7.1).
Dear Mr. Rodems,
This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, and
your subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lost
perspective in this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting your
disqualification as counsel.
As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theories
are little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside the
bounds of acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I have
referred them to the attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your name
calling, that I am a pro se litigant of dubious distinction, cheap, and other
such, is harassment. Be advised that I received your telephone message while at
the oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, and was so upset that I
had to cancel my appointment and leave.
Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in
response to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created to
identify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse,
mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers
(Bar Rule 2-9.11).
Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of Judge
Nielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoing
harassment of me. I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.,
or a provider of your choice.
10
Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type of
communication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourself
accordingly.
31. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to Judge Isom about Mr. Rodems harassment of
me. (Exhibit 8). I provided Judge Isom a transcript of Rodems ranting phone message of
December 13, 2006. I provided Judge Isom a copy of Rodems five page diatribe to me of
December 13, 2006. (Exhibit 8.3).
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephone
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.
32. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For An Order To Compel
Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop Harassing Behavior. (Exhibit 9).
33. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing Plaintiffs Amended
Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Mary
Elizabeth Blazer and is part of the record. Judge Isom denied the existence of any
conflict. The transcript shows that Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husband
Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at the
11
law firm Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and
Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.
34. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom engaged in deception and dishonesty
prejudicial to the administration of justice February 1, 2007 when she lied by omission
and failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners
and shareholders at Fowler White:
a. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their counsel
might consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to
disclose relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v.
Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006.
b. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the
common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and
wife are considered as one person and the relatives of one spouse by
consanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the same degree. State v.
Wall, 41 Fla. 463.
c. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings
with a relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that a
judge's prejudice may bar a party from having his or her day in court. The
function of the trial court on motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to a
determination of the legal sufficiency of an affidavit, without reference to its truth
and veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
d. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides a judge shall
disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under this
rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.
The question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on those
matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality
rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially.
e. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethical
responsibility of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code of
Jud. Conduct, Canon 3.
12
35. In 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. While
researching accusations in one of Rodems harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit
signed by Jonathan Alpert in Alperts divorce case that stated in 3c: (Exhibit 10).
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;
36. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed in an email to me that he practiced
law with Jonathan Alpert. (Exhibit 11). Woody Isom wrote: He and I were shareholders
at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.
37. On February 5, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing in the case.
a. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Denise L. Bradley, and is part of
the record. Judge Isom considered the following matters:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify Counsel
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery (Sanctions)
Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ABA)
On February 6, 2007 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter with two proposed Orders. (Exhibit 20)
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery (Sanctions)
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim
Neither Order was signed by Judge Isom, and neither Order was entered into the record.
These motions were not considered by any successor judge.
b. Judge Isom did not rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify
Counsel. The Court considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as shown in the
transcript, from page 22 through 40, which is presented as Exhibit 21, but then Mr.
Rodems objected, as shown on pages 36-37 of the transcript, February 5, 2007:
12 MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,
13 Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into
13
14 earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he
15 didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes
16 say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be
17 considered for any purposes by the court in any
18 hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie
19 for illegally recording the conversation.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address
1 the motion for reconsideration and the motion to
2 disqualify today.
(Note: Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department,
investigated this matter and wrote February 22, 2010 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 any
wrongdoing by me.)
c. Judge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions. Upon
information and belief, Judge Isom failed to follow her own law essay on discovery
sanctions, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 12).
Judge Isoms essay describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors intensive case
management for lawyers to avoid costly sanctions, because Florida judges are elected and
need the financial support of lawyers. Judge Isom acknowledged that lawyers behave
badly in court, and this bad behavior - which Judge Isom calls cutting up - is intended
to churn more fees for themselves. Judge Isom refused to provide me the same kind of
intensive case management to avoid sanctions. Judge Isom denied me the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of the court, specifically mediation services:
(Transcript, February 01, 2007, page 15, line 20)
THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolve
this without litigation?
MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
Judge Isom did not offer me mediation. Judge Isom let the sanction Order stand. Upon
information and belief the sanction Order is contrary to the law on discovery:
14
Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to 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 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d
Dist. 1977).
The sanction Order was later used by Judge James M. Barton to penalize me with a
$11,550 sanction. Mr. Rodems used this sanction to extort a settlement from me.
d. Judge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems counterclaim for libel
against me. The counterclaim was a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to Ian
MacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are interested parties on the
Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1). My
letter complained about the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation by BRC and
Cook. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have, but did not, disqualify
Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems pursued vexatious litigation against me
that began January 19, 2006 and continued through September 28, 2010, whereupon
Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I retained counsel to
defend against the vexatious lawsuit and incurred over $33,000 in legal fees by attorney
Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for libel.
e. Judge Isom conducted an ADA assessment of me during the February 5,
2007 hearing. This matter is more fully described in Verified Notice of Filing Disability
Information of Neil J. Gillespie, submitted May 27, 2011 in Hillsborough County. (And
15
later filed in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala, case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc (Doc. 36),
and case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc (Doc 15, Appendix 2).
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is
7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even
8 hearing you. But it sounded all right.
9 THE COURT: What's is the nature of your
10 disability?
11 MR. GILLESPIE: It's depression and
12 post-traumatic stress disorder.
13 THE COURT: Are you under the care of a doctor?
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.
15 THE COURT: And do you have a disability rating
16 with the Social Security Administration?
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge. In the early '90s,
18 I'm going to say '93 or '94, I was judged disabled by
19 Social Security. And I applied for vocational
20 rehabilitation. And to make a long story short, I
21 guess it was in about '98 or '99 I received a
22 determination from vocational rehabilitation that my
23 disability was so severe that I could not benefit from
24 rehabilitation.
25 I would say in the interim that they had prepared
1 a rehabilitation plan for me and they didn't want to
2 implement it. And that's the reason that they gave for
3 not implementing it. I brought that cause of action to
4 the Barker, Rodems and Cook law firm and they reviewed
5 that. And apparently they were in agreement with it
6 because they decided not to represent me on that claim.
7 And a copy of their letter denying that is part of my
8 motion for punitive damages. You can read that letter.
9 I think I have it here.
After taking testimony about my disability, Judge Isom offered to abate the matter
for three months so I could find counsel, but Mr. Rodems objected. I retained attorney
Robert W. Bauer one month later.
16
10 THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of direction
11 today, do you want to just stop everything and abate
12 this proceeding for three months so that you can go out
13 and try to find substitute counsel or --you know, I
14 realize there's a counterclaim.
15 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.
16 THE COURT: But originally, at least, it was your
17 lawsuit. So if you feel that you're at a disadvantage
18 because of your lack of counsel, I guess I could abate
19 it and give you additional time to try to find an
20 attorney.
21 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, we would oppose that.
22 And let me tell you why.
Mr. Rodems continued with a self serving diatribe and accused me of criminal
extortion for trying to resolve this matter through the Florida Bar ACAP Program, and
other such. Then Mr. Rodems made this accusation in open court:
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 49, beginning at line 12).
12 [MR: RODEMS:] In any event, at every stage of the proceedings
13 when Mr. Gillespie is about to be held accountable for
14 his actions he cries that he's got a disability or he
15 complains about the fact that he can't get a lawyer.
16 The reason he can't get a lawyer is because he's not
17 willing to pay a lawyer by the hour for the services he
18 wants.
And I responded: (Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 50, beginning at line 14).
14 MR. GILLESPIE: I am willing to pay an attorney
15 by the hour. I have sent a payment of $350 an hour to
16 an attorney with the promise of a retainer if they
17 would take the case. So Mr. Rodems calling me cheap
18 and all of this name-calling and not willing to pay,
19 that's not true. In fact, I offered Rick Mitzel who
20 said the cost would be $200 an hour, I gladly offered
21 to pay him $200 an hour. He wouldn't take the case.
22 These lawyers don't want to litigate against this firm
23 because they're aware of what this firm does and what
24 they're capable of.
17
38. Judge Isom went against her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused to
abate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to continue the
lengthy hearing due to disability. I was too confused:
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is
7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even
8 hearing you.
39. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom misused and denied me judicial
process under the color of law. Two days later on February 7, 2007 I gave notice
of voluntary dismissal (Exhibit 13) and submitted a motion for an order of
voluntary dismissal. (Exhibit 14). Mr. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his
counterclaim. If Rodems did so, that would have ended the case February 7, 2007.
40. On February 26, 2007 The Lawyer Referral Service of The Florida Bar provided
me a referral to Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville (Florida Bar ID: 11058) for Libel &
Slander. (Exhibit 15). I was not able to find counsel in Tampa. After reviewing my case,
Mr. Bauer told me the jury would love to punish a slimy attorney. (Transcript,
March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer encouraged me to reinstate my claims.
41. Mr. Bauer reinstated my voluntarily-dismissed claims in Hillsborough County.
Mr. Rodems appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA),
Case No. 2D07-4530. The 2dDCA denied Mr. Rodems Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
and held as follows: (Exhibit 22).
PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix 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).
18
42. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems sent threatening email to Mr. Bauer in
May 2007. Mr. Rodems objected to Mr. Bauers leave to amend, threatened Bauer with
sanctions under 57.105, Fla. Stat., and reiterated his usual laundry list of alleged bad
acts against me, which had no bearing on the matter at hand. (Exhibit 16). Rodems wrote:
I am serving the 57.105 motion today...we object to the motion for leave to
amend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and you
are flat wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked at
Rule 1.100(a)? I assume you are aware of the line of cases that hold that a
mislabeled pleading or motion is not a nullity. We'll send you a 57.105 motion,
and you can decide how to proceed.
Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for a
court appointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriate
defenses, the economic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQ
the trial judges, appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and false
statements about a judge in a letter to the court, threatening to slam me against the
wall, and telling an insurance company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims),
I am surprised you would rely on any portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.
This example is representative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior.
43. On August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an Emergency
Hearing on garnishment before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a 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' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated my disability to the
point where I can no longer represent my at hearings. I become easily distracted and
confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent
himself. See Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011.
19
44. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case. Mr. Bauer
sent me this email July 8, 2008 at 6.05PM stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not 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.
See Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie filed September 18, 2010,
Exhibit 10 to the Complaint in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
I was denied access to court in my own case due to Rodems conflict and misconduct.
45. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 13, 2008; it was granted October 1,
2009. Mr. Bauer charged me $31,863 in legal fees. $12,650 remains unpaid.
46. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with
Eugene P. Castagliuolo (Florida Bar ID 104360) who represented me in June 2011. Mr.
Rodems refused to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodily
attachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part Last but not
least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but
unhappy message. (Exhibit 17). On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an
asshole in an email to me. (Exhibit 18). Castagliuolo wrote (in part): Based on what I
know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged
in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you. This example is
representative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo.
47. There are now fifteen (15) additional related cases in this matter due to Judge
Isoms dishonesty and denial of justice. (Exhibit 19). Judge Isom was dishonest when she
failed to disclose a conflil;t with husband Woody Isom and Mr. Alpert. Judge Isom
denied me justice under t ~ 1 e color of law when she failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems and
BRC as counsel as required by McPartland. Judge Isom denied me justice under the color
of law when she failed to provide intensive case management as she advocated in her law
review, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, and when she failed to abate the hearing
February 5, 2006 until Mr. Bauer could be retained. The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty
and denial ofjustice has been enormous to me, all the lawyers, and the court system.
FURTHER AFF]ANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated this 30th day of July 2012.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments
in the State of Florida, appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, personally known to me or provided
identification who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the above matters
contained in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 30th day of July 2012.
I ~ W ' CECIUA ROSENBERGER ..: ~ ~
i: ~ Cormission # EE 191610
~ ~
~ 1 Expires m6, 2016
Notary Public, State of Florida
"... !Ii Bonded Thru na,Flirt......800-315-7019
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was provided July 30, 2012 by
email onlytoCatherineBarbaraChapman(catherine@guildaylaw.com).Guilday.
Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A. 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200.
20
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
Appellants/Plaintiffs,
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.
__________________________________/
APPENDIX
To the 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
Exhibit 1 Certificate of Interested Persons, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, Nov-06-2011
Exhibit 2 Final Order, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, December 7, 2001
Exhibit 3 Closing Statement, Amscot - BRC and Cook, November 1, 2001
Exhibit 4 Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike, January 13, 2006
Exhibit 5 Gillespie letter to Mr. Rodems, Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), March 20, 2006
Exhibit 6 Email of Mr. Rodems to Gillespie, threats of physical violence, Mar-27-2006
Exhibit 7 Website Notice About Conflict, Judge Claudia R. Isom, December 6, 2006
Exhibit 8 Gillespie letter to Judge Isom, Re: Harassment by Mr. Rodems, Dec-27-2006
Exhibit 9 Gillespies Motion for an Order to Stop Rodems Harassment, Deb-02-2007
Exhibit 10 Affidavit of Jonathan Alpert, Sep-11-2003, Re: law partner Woody Isom
Exhibit 11 Email of Woody Isom to Gillespie, March 23, 2010, Re: law partner J. Alpert
Exhibit 12 Judge Isom, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323
Exhibit 13 Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 05-CA-7205, February 7, 2007
Exhibit 14 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal, February 7, 2007
Exhibit 15 The Florida Bar LRS referral to Robert W. Bauer, February 26, 2007
Exhibit 16 Threatening Email of Mr. Rodems to Robert W. Bauer, May 3, 2007
Exhibit 17 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, June 10, 2011, Re: Rodems
Exhibit 18 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, June 14, 2011, Re: Rodems
Exhibit 19 18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
Exhibit 20 Mr. Rodems cover letter and proposed Orders for Judge Isom, February 6, 2007
Exhibit 21 Transcript, Hearing before Judge Isom, February 5, 2007, pages 1-3 and 11-40
Exhibit 22 Order, Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2D07-4530
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
CASE l-IO ..
EUGENE R. CLEMENT,
GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD , and
NEIL GILLESPIE, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated,
Appellants,
i

1

1
I
I

v.
AMSCOT CORPORATION,
Appellee.
______________, 1
JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
The Parties, by and th_ou(Jh tI-leir undersigrled counsel, .. flg
amicably resolved this matter, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Procedure 42 (b) move for dismissal with prejtldice ""to: th
each party bearing its own fees and costs.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of November, 2001.
RODEMS & COOK, Gray, Harris, Bobinson,
Shackleford, Farrior
WILLIAM J. CO K, ESQUIRE R. FERNANDEZ, ES
Florida Bar No. 986194 Florida Bar No. 008 5
300 West Platt Street 501 E. Kennedy Blvd
150 Sllite 1400
Tampa, Florida 33606 Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 489-1001 (TEL) (813) 273-5000 (TE"L)
(813) 489-1008 (FAX) 273-5145
Z.:\.t to rrle :i5 for Appe 11ant .. for Appellee
1
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and
Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-1, counsel for the Appellants certify
that the following persons and entities have an interest in the
outcome of this case.
Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.
Alpert & Ferrentino, P.A.
Amscot Corporation
Anthony, John A., Esq.
Barker, Chris A., Esq.
Blomefield, Gay Ann
Clement, Eugene R.
Cook, William J., Esq.
Gillespie, Neil
Gray, Harris, Robinson, Shackleford, Farrior, P.A.
Lazzara, The Honorable Richard A.
United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida
MacKechnie, Ian
Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq.
o
o
rO\..)\:\1 APp/ .
v REC. IVED ..,.
Cj' CLERK '{ \
:::;' tP"
Neil J. Gillespie
APR 0 4 2006
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
/'
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
March 30, 2006
Daniel Richardson, Deputy Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303-2289
Telephone: (404) 335-6100
RE: Clement V. Amscot Corporation, Appeal No. 01-14761-AA
$45.00 Retrieval Fee Enclosed
Dear Mr. Richardson,
Enclosed is payment of $45.00 to Clerk of the Court to retrieve the above
captioned case for copying, as we discussed by telephone on March 29,2006,
Upon retrieval of the file, kindly call me with the total number of pages so that I
can send you the 50 cents per page for the cost of copying.
Thank you.

enclosure
I
040171

(Rev. 1lU89)
.'
o
RECEIPT FclllvMENT
". "
- UNITED STATED COURT OF APPEAL:S
for the
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
o
'"
'"

'"
o
13' ! I

GENERAL AND SPECIAL FUND
0869PL PLRA Filing Fees
086900 Docketing Fees
322340 Sales of Publications & Opinions
322350 Copy Fees
322360 Miscellaneous Fees
(Includes Certifi tion Fee)
510000 Fees for Judicial ervices
ACCOUNT AMOUNT
0869PL
086900
322340
510000
322350
322360
TOTAL $
Mail

-0 Rail
All checks, money orders, drafts, etc. are accepted subject to collection. Full credit will not be
given until the negotiable i t has een ac . cia' itution on which it
was drawn.

I, "

,,' "

..
ATLANTP<.GA 303
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS _ ... '. ". _.r.... "_ .. "...., _".'_
44
r#t..<. .. y
. ",...
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT , ....."....,,;r:lI!
_ .. ..

OFFICE OF THE CLERK ....- - .__.
56 FORSYTH STREET. N.W.
04i18i2006
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
Mailed From 3.0303
US POSTAGE

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
\
PENALlY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300
t
t
"
:j
ol

o
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 tho Loop
Ocala, FL. 34481
3448i +::::=5:7 111/1,.1,,/,I.. " ,,1111/ 11,,11,,/ ,Ill"1/1,,, 11,1,,1//.11,.1,'
p
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 121 Filed 12/10/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1363
2
i
BARKER, RODEl\'1S & COOK, P.A.
CLOSIN'C STATEMENT
Style of Case: Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomelleld, and As of: October 31, 2001
Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation.
Our File No.: 99.4766
ATTORNEYS' FEES $ 50,000.00
& COSTS
PAYMENTS TO CLIENTS
EUGENE R. CLEMENT $ 2,000.00
GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD 2,000.00
NEIL GILLESPIE 2,000.00
TOTAL $ 56,000.00
. I
In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that ANISCOT Corporation separately paid
my attomeys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for 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.
3
-, \ ,
) Ii
....'-' , ....
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
DEFENDANTS.
--------------_-----:/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made
arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,
ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.
2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to
dismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this
order within which to file responsive pleadings.
DIVISION" F "
or, 36
-
//1
4
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
RICHARD A. NIELSEN
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
or' 37
f _

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
111
Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
ARTICLE NO.: 7005257000004274 1994
March 20, 2006
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Dear Mr. Resems,
This request is made pursuant to Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), Rules of Professional Conduct,
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Kindly provide the following:
1. A copy of the executed closing statement of October 31, 2001, reflecting an
itemization of all costs and expenses in the Amscot litigation, together with the amount of
fee received by each participating lawyer or law firm; and
2. A copy ofthe executed contingent fee contract in the Amscot case. This includes
the executed Statement of Client's Rights as well as an Acknowledgment regarding the
investigation of my claim. These three documents encompass the entire agreement between
me and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (See Class Representation Contract, page 3).
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) requires that each participating lawyer shall retain a copy of the
written fee contract and closing statement for 6 years after execution of the closing
statement. Any contingent fee contract and closing statement shall be available for
inspection at reasonable times by the client, by any other person upon judicial order, or by
the appropriate disciplinary agency. This is a request for a copy of the documents in lieu
of an inspection. In the alternative I will make an inspection. Please indicate how you
wish to proceed. You may contact me by email atNeiIGillespie@PeoplePC.com.
Sincerely,
~ / Z ' h ? ~ k -
Neil J. Gilt{spie .
5
Page 1 ofl
,
~ ~ C _ . c i i i i o _ m _
From: "Chris Rodems" <rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com>
To: <NeiIGillespie@PeoplePC.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 6:05 PM
Attach: Docs responsive to NJG letter of 3-20-6.pdf
Subject: Your document request - March 20, 2006
Dear Neil:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requested have been
previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to your initial complaint filed with the
Florida Bar. Given your threats of physical violence against me during our last telephone
conversation, and given that you have copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort
to harass us. Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I was advised
that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse of the rules by former
clients, the most practical response would be to send the documents to you again. They are attached
in pdf format. In the event you make this request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format
is not to your liking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to
inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that we may arrange to have security
present.
Sincerely,
813/489-1001
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com
NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney
client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended
recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any
physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
3/28/2006
6
l'age 1 or 1
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit - The Honorable Claudia R. 1som - Notice of Conflict
General CiVil, Division H
800 E. TWiggs St., Room 513
(813) 272-6972
NOTICE FROM THE COURT
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT JUDGE ISOM
HAS THE FOLLOWING RELATIVES PRACTICING LAW
OR INVOLVED IN LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES
IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA
Husband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner.
Brother, Dale J.. Rickert, who is a shareholder in the Law Firm of
Dale J. Rickert.
Sister-in-Law, Janice Matson Rickert, who is an associate with
the Law Firm of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., in the "Health
Care Litigation Group".
f you feel the . t be a conflict in your case based on the abm
information, ease raise the issue 0 it can be resolved prior to n
(;
residing over any matters concerning your case.
Thank you,
Claudia Rickert Isom
Circuit Judge
Home DIVISIons 0 t:l1e Courts Judges Directory Leg;)1 Offll:e at t:l1e (
Geneml Informa on MediCI Center Job lIsbngs Lmks Search
10 I et!1Ilh d td Lrcu
http://www.fljud13.org/judgeisom_notice.htm12/3/2006
7
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 27,2006
The Honorable Claudia R. Isom
Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court, Division H
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 513
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 2005 CA 7205, Division H
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodenls' ranting telephone
message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy 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. Rodenls has
been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from home during normal business
hOllrs. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line 15). As stated before, I anl
concerned for his well-being and mine. I also requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending
me ad hominem abusive messages and letters.
Thank you.
Enclosures
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney for Defendants
8
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 27, 2006
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Dear Mr. Rodems,
This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, and
your subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lost perspective in
this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting your disqualification as counsel.
As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theories
are little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside the bounds of
acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I have referred them to the
attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your name calling, that I am a "pro se
litigant of dubious distinction", "cheap", and other such, is harassment. Be advised that I
received your telephone message while at the oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in
Gainesville, and was so upset that I had to cancel my appointment and leave.
Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in
response to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created to identify
and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse, mental health, or
other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers (Bar Rule 2-9.11). FLA is
independent of The Florida Bar, although it does receive funding from that organization.
Paramount to FLA is the protection of confidentiality for those attorneys who contact
FLA for help. Confidentiality in voluntary cases is protected by a written contract with
The Florida Bar which guarantees the confidentiality of FLA records, as well as by Bar
Rule 3-7.1(i), Chap. 397.482-486, F.S., and other state and federal regulations. Judges,
attorneys, law students, and support personnel who seek the assistance of FLA need not
worry that FLA will report them to the Bar, the Board of Bar Examiners, or their
8.1
I
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Page - 2
Gillespie v. Barker, case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H Decenlber 27, 2006
, .
employer. Information is shared with these entities only if the participating individual
signs a waiver of confidentiality. FLA's primary purpose is to assist the impaired attorney
in his or her recovery. (The preceding paragraph is from the Florida Bar's web site).
Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of Judge
Nielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoing harassment of me.
I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., or a provider of your choice.
Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type of
communication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
- ' - . /)/./P : ~ p ' '//
- ~ ~ ./ /' {&? /'"\.
~
{ ~ l J. Gillere / /. ?//
Enclosure: Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006
cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom, w/enclosures
Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006
Copy of Mr. Rodems' five page letter dated December 13, 2006
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
lh
Loop
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No. 7005 3110 0003 7395 1887
December 22, 2006
Dear Mr. Rodems,
Kindly take notice that we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you
address me as "Mr. Gillespie". I have made this request to you several times, in writing,
and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understand the
problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do
not understand your difficulty. Let me remind you that I am ten years your senior, which
only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie".
As for your immature, childish remark left on my voice mail, your statement that
because the greeting on my voice mail says "Hi,this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get
back to you", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use my first
name, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in this lawsuit. It also
calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A).
I am providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it in the
record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will question you about this matter, to
give the Court and the jury some idea about how unprofessional you are, and to provide a
glimpse into the nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Please address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.
Sincer: y,

/ ,. /'/

.// ;/.-:/ <-51'" ..'
. ," ./(;';./1_____
.
/ ell J. GIlIe.spiel" /
t. //
cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom
enclosure, page 5, transcript ofMr. Rodems' phone message of Dec-13-06
8.2
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
Telephone 813/4891001
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/4891008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
December 13, 2006
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Dear Neil:
As you know, I called you on Decelnber 12, 2006 to schedule hearings before Judge Isoln on
February 7,2007. You did not answer, so I left you a voice Inail. Later that afternoon, you sent a
letter to Ine by facsilnile. In it, you clailn to be unavailable Febluary 7 and that you "hope to have
representation within 30 days." You have Illade that assertion for several months now, without
retaining counsel, and I cannot delay this proceeding any further on your unfulfilled prolnises of
retaining counsel. You also state in your letter that I have "threatened the lawyers that were
helping" you, which is completely unfounded. I will address that issue below.
Judge ISOI11 has all day on February 5, 2007 open, and we could resolve all pending motions,
excel)t for your ITIotion for sUlnmary judgtnent, on that date. I left you a voice mail on this today.
As has Judge Nielsen, I have endured for severallnonths now disparaging remarks from you, false
allegations, attacks on my credibility and otherwise boorish behavior. I have not responded to
Illuch of it because I recognize that you are a bitter lnan Wll0 apparently has been victilnized by
your own poor choices in life. You also claim to have ITIental or psychological problelns, of which
I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so abnonnal that I
would not disagree with your assertions of Inental problems. I have lnaintained courtesy in every
tneeting with you, including a wann senti111ent following a hearing -- only to be accused after that
of "taunting" you.
I intend to continue treating you with the saIne dignity and respect as I would opposing counsel in
any other case; however, I have First AInendInent rights, too. I aln not obligated to accept your
false statelnents, disparaging relnarks, attacks on IUy credibility and the other tactics you have used
in this case. I want to ensure that you understand IUy position, and so I find it necessary now to
write to COlTect the record.
8.3
December 13,2006
Page 2
As for your claims that I "threatened the lawyers" that is simply false. I forwarded bye-mail
portions of your October 18, 2006 to Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Buchholz and Mr. Snyder, and stated "Neil
Gillespie has filed a letter with Judge Richard Nielsen, and has attributed comments to the three of
you. As an officer of the Court, I believe I have a duty to advise you of this. Please review pages
8-10 of the attached letter. Should any of you desire the complete document, with attachments,
please advise." I have received no reply. In fact, the first confirmation that my letter had been
received by these three attorneys was your December 12 facsimile letter.
Let me explain why I sent the portions of the letter to them. Your tactic of naming these three
lawyers as people you had spoken to, and then attributing statements to them anonymously and en
masse is very damaging to them professionally. I sent the portions of the October 18, 2006 letter
to them so that they could review it and do whatever they felt necessary.
I also sent it to them because I questioned the veracity of your letter. I considered four possibilities
about the statements you attributed to them anonymously: First, you may be lying. Second, you
may be taking some or all of the statements out of context. Third, you may be paraphrasing and
changing the meaning of the actual statements. Fourth, one or all of these attorneys may have
never said anything to you, but were being used by you to endorse statements that you would later
use to attempt to recuse Judge Nielsen.
I also disagree that my actions have hanned your ability to hire counsel. The primary problem is
that your case is weak. You are essentially claiming in this action that our law finn breached its
contract with you by not paying you a portion of the attomeys' fees earned in the Amscot case.
Every attorney knows -- or should know -- that the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the
caselaw prohibit splitting attorneys' fees with a nonlawyer.
It is also clear by reviewing the Closing Statement and your letters to us that you knew that
Amscot was paying all of your attorneys' fees and that you would not have to pay any pOliion of
your settlement for attorneys' fees and costs. In this case, you received 100% of your settlement,
not 60%, and Amscot paid all of your attorneys' fees and costs.
No one has ever rendered an opinion that your case has any merit. You misunderstood the
meaning of a denial of a motion to dismiss. It is not a comment on the merits. In fact, the Court is
required to accept all of your allegations as true. That requirement disappears after the motion to
dismiss is resolved. Now, you are required to prove your specious allegations. Any rational
attomey looking at this situation would not take this case on a contingency fee basis and would
instead require you to pay them by the hour.
You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court filings, are unwilling to pay an attomey
fairly for the work that would need to be done. In fact, you even moved the Court to have an
Mr. Neil J. G'illespie
Decclnbcr 13, 2006
Page 3
attorl1ey appointed for you at the government's expense. Of course, there is no provision under the
ADA for appointlnent of counsel, but the fact tl1at you believe the government should foot the bill
for you to file baseless lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases.
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the required
hourly rates for representation. Yet, you have had no problem paying filing fees for this baseless
lawsuit, the court reporters to transcribe hearings and our telephone calls, and for the frivolous
appeal of the discovery order.
Another lnajor probleln, I gather, in hiring attorneys is your extortion of your fonner attorneys by
threatening to file a Florida Bar complaint if they do not split portions of their earned fees with
you. In fact, you have filed three grievances against Bill Cook in connection with this lnatter -- all
of which were dislnissed, meaning your allegations were unfounded. Rhetorically, why would an
attorney wish to represent you given your past actions against other attorneys?
Additionally, any reasonable attorney would find your conduct in this case to be reprehensible.
1. You have routinely violated tIle Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, only to clailll that
pro se litigants are entitled to special treatlnent. At every hearing, I recall Judge
Nielsen had to advise you to follow the procedural rules and protocol. As I have
pointed out with citations of authority, the law in Florida is clear: You are expected
to follow the rules of procedure, and you are not entitled to special treatment.
When I have cited tIle law to you, you have told lne not to do so.
2. You threatened to "slaIn lne up against the wall." After that, I had to request a
bailiff to attend the hearings. You claimed I "taunted" you when, after a hearing, I
wished you well.
3. You have recorded a telephone conversation without lny pennission. I aSSUlne your
research skills have led you to the statutes and caselaw 011 recording telephone
conversation without pennission. In fact, you only filed a portion of the transcript
of our very first telephone conversation and we both know why: You never told lne
you were recording it.
4. You represented to the Cou11 tllat I "threatened" you, and the COlnlnent on which
you based it was lny COffilnent to you that your libeling of lny clients was
unnecessary, and that act would cause you to have to pay. Which, it will. You
have accused lne of perjury.
Decetnber 13, 2006
Page 4
5. You have filed defenses to the counterclailTI that are nonsensical, and yet you
claimed to be well-qualified to represent yourself when I moved for sanctions and
asked the Court to require you to hire counsel.
6. You took a contradictory position and moved to have an attorney appointed for you
because you were not qualified or able to represent yourself, citing your disability,
without proof, and a federal law that does not even address the appointlnent of
counsel in a civil action. In one hearing, when Judge Nielsen asked you for
authority, you replied with words to the effect tllat you have no training in the law.
You have portrayed yourself as the victim wIlen it suits you and the able advocate
when it suits you.
7. You failed to respond to discovery, forcing me to file a motion to cOInpel, which
was granted. You refused to cOInply with that Order, filed a frivolous appeal,
which was dismissed, and then petitioned for writ of certiorari, which was also
disInissed.
8. WIlen I filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause on the discovery Order, you
claimed to be pursuing coverage of the counterclaim by an insurance COInpany.
You asked for a continuance of the hearing on that basis. We contacted the
insurer's claims adjuster and negotiated a very favorable settlement for you of tIle
counterclaim, and when you found out, you withdrew the claim, thereby preventing
the counterclaim from being resolved.
9. Facing an imIninent hearing on your contumacious disregard for the Court's July
24, 2006 discovery Order after your appeal of it was denied, you decided to "judge
shop" and attacked Judge Nielsen to force him to recuse himself. In doing so, you
cited unrelated, irrelevant issues and atteInpted to bait hinl witll disparagi11g and
caustic relnarks, even though he was polite and respectful towards you at all tilnes,
allowed you to sublnit additional argulnent when you caIne to the first hearing
unprepared, and gave you additional tilne to find an attorney when we were
scheduled to hear on October 4, 2006 your defiance of the July 24, 2006 discovery
Order. No good deed goes unpunished, rigllt?
You succeeded in having Judge Nielsen step down. There is no effective process
for challenging his recusal or having a Court rule on the motive of your Inotioll to
disqualify hiIn, but if you were an attorney, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
would require Ine to file a bJTievance alld you would likely have faced severe
sanctions.
Decell1ber 13, 2006
Page 5
Neil, we offered to settle with you without pursuing our right to attorneys' fees and costs, as
ordered by Judge Nielsen in the July 24,2006 Order. You rejected it. We offered to settle the
coullterclailTI with your insurer. You withdrew the insurance claim. You are spending a lot of
1110ney on filing fees, court reporter fees, and gasoline to hand-deliver motions and whatnot. It
appears you want your day in court, so to speak. Judge Isom has all day on February 5,2007 open.
I urge you to a!:,Tfee to set the hearings on that date. We can then tTIove forward and bring this case
to resolution.
I hope tl1is clarifies lIlY position oIllnatters, and I look forward to workillg with )lOU.
RCRIso
D
IN THE STATE OF FlORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSB)OC)UGH COUNTY
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-7205
-vs
D.ivision: "H
n
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
A Florida Corporation,
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
-----------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE RECORDING
RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below
DATE & TIME: December 12 & 13, 2006
TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporte.r
Notary Public
(ORIGINAL
(COpy
Hichael J. Borseth
Court Reporter/Legal Transcription
(813) 598-2703
8.4
2
D
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Plaintiff:
NBIL J. GU,TaSPD 3
8092 SW 115t.h Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481 4
(352) 854-7807
5
6
For the Defendants:
7
RYAN CllRIftOPBBR IQ)BMSI UQUmB
8 .Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive
9 Suite 2100
10 (813) 489-1001
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
D
1
* * * * * * * * * *
2 AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHING: - this
3 message -
4 MR. RC>OEMS: Hi Neil, it's Chris Rodems. It's
5 Tuesday, February 7th at about 10:10 in the
6 morning. I have called JUdge 1som' s chambers this
7 morning to find some hearing time for the motions
8 that we're covering and they have offered
9 Februa.ry 7, 2007, at 10 a .m. for two hours. If
10 you're available that day we can start with the two
11 motions for reconsideration or rehearing that you
12 filed. And then depending on her rUling go into
13 the motions that a.re pending that we filed. And
14 that would be the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and
15 Strike -- Counterclatm, dated
16 Fe.bruary 8th, 2006 - actually, that's your motion,
17 that hasn't been finished.
18 As you reca.ll, JUdge Nielsen started hearing
19 it on Apri.l 25th, 2006, and made rUlings on
20 portions of it but did not finish it. So we would
21 need to discuss with JUdge Isom whether she 'wishes
.22 to adopt his partial rUlings or hear the thing from
23 the begi.nning. In the event that she wishes to
24 hear it from the beginning we should be ready to
25 argue it from the beginning_
4
D
1 The other two motions that we have pending are
2 Defendant '5 Motion - Amended Motion for Sanction.s
3 pursuant to Section 57.105 that was filed on
4 Ma.y 3rd, 2006. And then Defendant t s Motion for
5 Order to Show Cause why parties should not be held
6 in contempt of Court, which was dated August 25th
7 of 2006.
8 So if you're available on February 7th, for
9 two hours beginning at ten a.m., we can hear all of
10 those motions. The office number is 813-489-1001.
11 And if you could call me back as soon as possible
12 and let me know, I p.romised the Judge's judicial
13 assistant, Joyce, that I would call her back
14 probably today one way or the other.
15 So I look forward to hea.ring from you. I m
16 out of the office now. If you have caller 10 t.his
17 is actually my home phone I'm call.ing you from and
18 I will be here for a little bit longer this
19 morning. But if you could call me back at the
20 office and leave me a message, 813-489-1001. And I
21 look .forward to hearing from you. Thank you Neil.
22 Bye-bye.
23 AUTOMA.TED ANSWERING MA.CHING: To replay this
24 message press 1. To delete press 7. To return the
25 message sender's call press 8. To save press 9.
5
D
1 For more options press 6.
2 (Whereupon, the above message was
3 concluded. )
4
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5 MR. RODEMS: Hi Neil, it's Chris Rodems. It s
6 about ten 0
1
clock on Wednesday, December 13th and
7 I'm following up from your fax yesterday. By the
8 way, you're greeting says; hi, this is Neil, leave
9 me a message and I
1
11 get back to you. So that's
10 what I'm doing.
11 Judge 180m does have February 5th ava.ilable
12 all day. So we can cover all of the motions at
13 that time. I understand you're not available on
14 Fe.bruary 7th, so let me know of your availabi.lity
15 on February 5th.
16 What I cannot do is wait to schedule hearing.s
17 on your claims that you're going to hire counsel.
18 You have been saying this since October, and you
19 have done nothing. You had plenty of time to hire
20 counsel. I know that you have talked to a numbe.r
21 of counsel, because you say so every time you file
22 a court pleading.
23 I also disagree with your fax in that it says
24 that I threatened lawyers that were helping you. I
25 ha:ve not even spoken to any of the lawyers about
6
D
1 your case ever. What I did do is I sent to those
2 three lawyers that you claimed made al.l of these
3 disparaging and despicable conments about Judge
-4 Nielsen, I sent them a copy of the letter that you
5 filed in the court file in which you att.ributed
6 anonj1InOus statements to the three of them. Because
7 as an Officer of the Court and as a Member of the
8 Bar, I do think that they are entitled to know when
9 someone is out there spreading statements
10 attributed to them to the Judges, to be very
11 damaging on somebody' s career to have someone I.ike
12 you, a pro se litigant of dubious distinction,
13 spreading claims that these attorneys have made
14 disparaging conments about the Judge. I thought
15 they were entitled to know. That's why I sent them
16 that letter.
17 Obviously, if any of the three of them feel
18 they need to correct your statements or deny
19 attribute - the statements you attribute to them,
20 they're free to do that. But I have had no
21 discussions with them and I do have the E-Mail that
22 I sent to them. And your cla.im that I threatened
23 them is just another fabrication on your part.
24 I would also point out that the problem that
25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probab.ly more
0
7
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 litigat.ion like this, or
4 the fact that your history of filing Bar grieva.nces
5 against attorneys is well known.
6 That you threatened to file three against Bill
7 Cook in this case, all three of which were denied
8 out of hand. And you also filed claims against a
9 Judge in Pinellas County. And I suspect that
10 you're probably drafting a complaint against me
11 right now as we speak for, you know, my zealous
12 represent.ation of my clients, which I know you
13 dontt agree with.
14 They also are aware of the statements that you
15 have made aga.inst Judge Nielsen, obviously, since
16 this is a public record now your .lette.rs that you
17 filed in October and the motion that you filed to
18 disqua.lify him. And quite frankly, the letters are
19 so bizarre and. filled with ju.st despicable
20 allegations unrelated to the case, that I suspect
21 that they don't want to have anything to do with
22 you because they question your veracity and your
23 credibility. I certainly do. But I think that
24 that more than likely explains the reasons that
25 youtre not retaining counsel, not the fact that I
8
D
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
sent them a one-line letter that said; here's the
letter that Bill Gillespie filed, you probably
should take a look at it, as an Officer of the
Court, of course.
So there has 'been no effective threatening of
anybody. I 1 ve never threatened you at any time.
You keep saying this in all of your Court filings.
But what you keep referring back to is my statement
to you that because of your defamation of my
clients that you will pay. And Ultimately, in the
end, I believe that that will be the case. I
believe that you will have to pay because yo'u
canno't just go around and defame people without
expecting to be held accountable for that. And
that' s all that we have ever tried to do is a.sk you
to honor the agreement that you made and to act
decently. And in.stead, what we always seem to
receive fram you are grievances, complaints,
scandalous allegations. And then on top of all
that you alway.s fall back on your medical
condition, which I have never seen any
documentation of, that you always allude to that in
your Court filing.s. And quite frankly, you play
the victim when it suits you and you play the
advocate when it suits you and you try to double
9
D
1 deal against people all the time. Your mi.sdea.lings
2 and your mult.iple lawsuits over the years certainly
3 support that.
4 If you would care to ta.lk about any of this I
5 would be more than happy to talk to you about it.
6 We will have a chance to inquire about all of this
7 when we get to take your deposition. But I _.
8 AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHING: To replay this
9 message press 1. To delete press 7. To return the
10 message sender's call press 8. To save press 9.
11 For more options press 6.
12 ~ r o replay this message press 1. To delete
13 press 7. To return the message sender's call press
14 8. To save press 9. For more options press 6.
15 To replay this message press 1. To delete
16 p.ress 7. To return the message sender '5 call press
17 8 . To save press 9. For mo.re options press 6.
18 Main menu. To listen to your messages press
19 1. To send a message press 2.. To create a
20 greeting press 3. For more box options press 4.
21 For all security press 5. For help press O.
22 Main menu. To listen to your messages press
23 1. To send a message press 2. To create a
25 For password security press 5. For help press O.
10
D
1 Main menu. T'o listen to your messages press
2 1. To send a message press 2. To create a
-4 For password security press 5. For help press O.
5 Thank you for using T-Mobile Voice Mail. Goodbye.
6 (Whereupon,
7 concluded. )
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the above message was
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
,.. ....... - . ,v
...~ ~ ........
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E
STATE OF FLORIDA
If Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter
for the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for
Hillsborough County, 00 HEREBY CERTIEY, that I was
authorized to and did transcribe a tape/CD recording of
the proceedings and evidence in the above-styled cause,
as stated in the caption hereto, and that the foregoing
pages constitute an accurate transcription of the tape
recording of said proceedings and evidence, to the best
of my ability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I tlave hereunto set my hand
in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of
Florida, this 17 December 2006.
MICHAEL J. BORSETH, Court Reporter
--------------
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
J. COOK,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS TO STOP HARASSING BEHAVIOR
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves the Court for an Order compelling Ryan
Christopher Rodems to stop his ongoing harassing behavior directed at him, and as
grounds therefor would state:
1. Ryan Christopher Rodems made a false verification against Plaintiff in
Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff and for Sanctions submitted March 6, 2006. It
was a stunt that backfired when a tape recording proved Mr. Rodems lied under oath to
gain an advantage over Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems' perjury led to the recusal of the Honorable
Richard A. Nielsen and embarrassed the Court. While these stunts may be commonplace
for lawyers of Mr. Rodems' ilk, they are very upsetting to normal people. Currently
there is a motion before the Court to show cause why Mr. Rodems should not be held in
criminal contempt for perjury.
2. In an ongoing effort to annoy, offend, and harass Plaintiff, Mr. Rodems
refuses to address him by his surname, "Mr. Gillespie", and instead calls Plaintiff by his
Page - 1 of3
9
first name "Neil" or "Neily". Plaintiff requested Mr. Rodems not to do this, by certified
letter dated December 22, 2006, but Rodems persists. (Exhibit 1). If Mr. Rodems invokes
"Neily" as a term of love and endearment, Plaintiff states he is not interested in man-love,
and considers Mr. Rodems' overture an unwanted sexual advance.
3. Mr. Rodems has engaged in name-calling directed at Plaintiff, specifically
calling Plaintiff "cheap". Plaintiff views this as an ethnic insult derogatory to his Scots
Irish heritage. In a five-page diatribe dated December, 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems wrote that
"... you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rate for representation."
(Rodems' letter, Dec-13-06, p.3, ~ 1 ) . Mr. Rodems is insinuating that Plaintiff wants a
lawyer "Scot-free". In a ranting telephone message of even date, Mr. Rodems again called
Plaintiff "cheap". This is what Mr. Rodems said: "I would also point out that the problem
that you're having in retaining counsel is probably more likely related to the fact that you
are cheap and you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're usual hours rates are for
litigation like this... ". And again in his letter of December 13,2006, Mr. Rodems made a
very broad, damming statem_ent: "You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court
filings, are unwilling to pay an attorney fairly for the work that would need to be done. In
fact, you even moved the Court to have an attorney appointed for you at the government's
expense. Of course, there is no provision under the ADA for appointment of counsel, but
the fact that you believe the government should foot the bill for you to file baseless
lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases." (Rodems'
letter, Dec-13-06, p.2, ~ 7 ) . Again, Mr. Rodems is making an ethic slur against Plaintiff's
Scots-Irish background. In the instant case, Mr. Rodems will be liable for attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to 768.79 Florida Statutes when Plaintiff prevails.
Page - 2 of3
4. In addition to ethnic slurs, Mr. Rodems has engaged in name-calling
throughout this litigation, including this from his five-page diatribe: " ... 1recognize that
you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own poor choices in
life." (Rodems' letter, l)ec-13-06, p.1, Mr. Rodems appears to be projecting his own
fears, like his poor choice when he decided to lie to Judge Nielsen in his false, perjurious
verification of March 6, 2006. Mr. Rodems also called Plaintiff a "pro se litigant of
dubious distinction". (Rodems' phone message, Dec-13-06, p.6, line 12). In fact, Mr.
Rodems is only jealous because Plaintiff recently prevailed as a pro se litigant against
HSBC Bank in federal court (Gillespie v. HSBC, 5:05-cv-362-0c-10GRJ), and has been
able to move the instant case along despite his dirty tricks, name-calling, and harassment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an Order requiring
Mr. Rodems to address him as "Mr. Gillespie", to stop engaging in ethic slurs, and cease
and desist all ad hominem abusive messages and letters.
nd
day of February, 2007.
':---h // ()7.
.,/.-:7 /' /,// _
________
e . GilleSpie, Plaint .
8692 SW t15
th
Loop'
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by fax and
US mail to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400
North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 2
nd
-,,}
o ... /'..../
//;7
/h __
J. Gill pe /,.
..,/
Page - 3 of3
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala., Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
lJS CERrrIF'IED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No. 7005 3110 0003 7395 1887
l)ecember 22, 2006
Christopher Rodems, Attorlley at Law
13arker, "Rodems & Cook, P.A.
rratnpa, f'lorida 33602
[)ear Mr. Rodems,
Kindly take notice tllat we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you
address l1le as lOlOMr. Gillespie"". I have made this request to you several times, in writing,
and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understalld the
problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do
not lltlderstand yo"ur difficulty. Let me remind you that I atn ten years YOllr senior, which
only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie".
As for your immature, childisll remark left on lny voice mail, your statement tllat
because tlle greeting on my voice mail says "Hi, this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get
back to YOll", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use IllY first
natTIe, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in tllis lawsuit. It also
calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A).
I al11 providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it ill the
record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will questioll you about tllis lnatter, to
give tIle C:ou11 and the jury some idea about how ul1professional you are, and to provide a
glinlpse itltO tIle nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Cool<, P.A.
l>lease address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely.,

Neil J. Gillespie
cc: 'fhe Claudia R. Isom
enclosure., page 5, transcript of Mr. Rodems' phone n1essage ofDec-13-06
EXHIBIT
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
FAMILY LAW DIVISION

IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF
JONATHAN ALPERT,

Former Husband Case No.: 29-2001-DR-4977-C
ELIZABETH ALPERT,
RECeIVED
Former Wife.
---------------,/
SEP 11 2003
.CLERK OFCIRCUITCOURT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)ss.:
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH )
AFFIDAVIT
Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared Jonathan L. Alpert, personally
known to me, who upon being duly sworn deposed upon oath as follows:
1. Myname is Jonathan L. Alpert and I ama partyin that lawsuit styledAlpert v. Alpert,
Case No. 29-2001-DR-4977-C.
2. I make the following statements in this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge.
3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trial in
Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on
account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierra ofthat Court has against me for the following facts and
reasons:
a. Judge Sierra has refused for over five months to set a hearing on my Motion
to Stay Pending Appeal, and has instead set for hearing all pending motions
on September 11, 2003 for two hours, including some ten (10) Motions for
Contempt of Court that have been filed against me due to Judge Sierra's
refusal to set an earlier hearing;
b. Judge Sierra has shown by her sua sponte ruling, not raised by counsel,
refusing to complete the record on appeal, that she is even intent on denying
me my appellate rights. In fact, both lawyers have agreed that not only did
Judge Sierra have the jurisdiction to rule on the Motion, which she decided
10
on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that her
ruling was erroneous.

c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody
1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been
specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by
Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;
d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge
Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of
Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising
my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt
motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary
Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one
another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for
it.
e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial
expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and
prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April
contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even
though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response.
f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and
evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and
conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became
sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute
Section 38.10 at that time.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thO
Alpert who is personally known to me.
ll-..JJayof ~ ,2003 by Jonathan L.
Notary Public

Neil Gillespie
From: "Woody Isom" <AWoodsonIsomJr@merlinlawgroup.com>
To: <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Jonathan Alpert
Page 1 of 1
4/16/2012
He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.

A. Woodson Isom, Jr.
Attorney
Merlin Law Group, P.A.
777 S. Harbour Island Blvd.
Suite 950
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (813) 229-1000
Fax: (813) 229-3692
Web: www.merlinlawgroup.com
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any
attachment immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor
disclose all or any part of the content to any person.
Thank you.

Fr om: Neil Gillespie < neilgillespie@mfi.net >
To: Woody I som
Sent : Tue Mar 23 16: 15: 25 2010
Subj ect : Jonat han Alpert
Mr. Isom,
While researching a disability issue claimed by Jonathan Alpert, I found his affidavit of September 11,
2003 naming you as his former law partner (paragraph "c").
Is that true, where you a law partner with Mr. Alpert? A PDF of the affidavit is attached.
If I dont hear from you I will assume the affidavit is correct and that you were in fact a law partner of Mr.
Alpert.
Thank you.
Neil Gillespie
11
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
FAMILY LAW DIVISION

IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF
JONATHAN ALPERT,

Former Husband Case No.: 29-2001-DR-4977-C
ELIZABETH ALPERT,
RECeIVED
Former Wife.
---------------,/
SEP 11 2003
.CLERK OFCIRCUITCOURT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)ss.:
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH )
AFFIDAVIT
Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared Jonathan L. Alpert, personally
known to me, who upon being duly sworn deposed upon oath as follows:
1. Myname is Jonathan L. Alpert and I ama partyin that lawsuit styledAlpert v. Alpert,
Case No. 29-2001-DR-4977-C.
2. I make the following statements in this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge.
3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trial in
Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on
account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierra ofthat Court has against me for the following facts and
reasons:
a. Judge Sierra has refused for over five months to set a hearing on my Motion
to Stay Pending Appeal, and has instead set for hearing all pending motions
on September 11, 2003 for two hours, including some ten (10) Motions for
Contempt of Court that have been filed against me due to Judge Sierra's
refusal to set an earlier hearing;
b. Judge Sierra has shown by her sua sponte ruling, not raised by counsel,
refusing to complete the record on appeal, that she is even intent on denying
me my appellate rights. In fact, both lawyers have agreed that not only did
Judge Sierra have the jurisdiction to rule on the Motion, which she decided
on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that her
ruling was erroneous.

c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody
1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been
specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by
Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;
d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge
Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of
Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising
my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt
motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary
Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one
another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for
it.
e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial
expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and
prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April
contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even
though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response.
f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and
evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and
conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became
sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute
Section 38.10 at that time.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thO
Alpert who is personally known to me.
ll-..JJayof ~ ,2003 by Jonathan L.
Notary Public

28 STETLR 323 Page 1
28 Stetson L. Rev. 323

Stetson Law Review
Fall, 1998

Essay

*323 PROFESSIONALISM AND LITIGATION ETHICS

Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom [FNa1]

Copyright (c) 1998 by Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom

My first assignment as a newly elected circuit judge was to the family law division. Although I considered
myself to be an experienced trial attorney, I was somewhat naive about my role as a judge presiding over discov-
ery issues. I assumed that the attorneys assigned to my division would know the rules of procedure and the local
rules of courtesy. I also assumed that, being knowledgeable, they would comply in good faith with these provi-
sions. I soon learned that attorneys who were entirely pleasant and sociable creatures when I was counted among
their numbers, assumed a much different role when advocating for litigants.

For example, take Harvey M. (not his real name). Harvey and I had bantered for years, having many com-
mon interests. Perhaps this familiarity gave rise to, while not contempt, a certain lackadaisical attitude about
complying with case management and pretrial orders. Harvey challenged me to establish my judicial prerogative
and assist him in achieving goals not of his own making.

A common assumption regarding family law is that clients receive the quality of legal representation that
they deserve. However, my time in the family law division has convinced me that this is not necessarily true.
Often times, a case that has wallowed along, seemingly hung up in endless depositions and discovery problems,
becomes instantly capable of resolution by bringing all parties together in the context of a pretrial conference.
Apparently, some attorneys feel that cutting up is a large part of what their clients expect them to do. When
this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectively bring cases to resolution, the judge
must get involved to assist the process.

Recently, the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges conducted an educational seminar designed to
guide circuit judges in appropriately responding to unprofessional and unethical behavior. [FN1] Various scen-
arios were presented on video, after which the *324 judges voted on what they felt would be the appropriate
court response. A surprising number of judges voted to impose sanctions or report unethical behavior to the
Florida Bar Grievance Section. However, the most common response was to do nothing or to privately counsel
the offending attorney.

A common theme at meetings of the Florida Bar Standing Committee on Professionalism is that, while attor-
neys can aspire to greater professionalism, the courts can be a bully pulpit to encourage professional behavior.
Perhaps the perceived backlash of cracking down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's circuit
judges who are elected officials. However, that perception shapes the judicial response, even when responding
theoretically at a seminar.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2 of 4
5/20/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=31...
12
The Joint Committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar and the Conferences of Circuit and
County Court Judges' 1998 Handbook on Discovery Practice admonishes trial judges to fully appreciate their
broad powers to end discovery abuses and the 1998 Handbook reassuringly states that the appellate courts will
sustain the trial court's authority if it is exercised in a procedurally correct manner. [FN2] Once again, this rally-
ing cry ignores the reality of our situation.

As a new judge, the lessons urged by bar leadership have been a matter of trial and error (pun intended).
Harvey quickly established his reputation, not as a fellow member of my legal community, but as a problematic
litigator whose behavior had to be controlled and modified by court order for the legal process to smoothly pro-
gress. For example, hearing time was made available to address discovery issues, very specific orders were
entered regarding who was to do what, when, and how, verbal commitments were elicited on the record about
document production and interrogatory responses, in an attempt to avoid additional hearings. Cases involving
Harvey were, by necessity, intensely case managed.

Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive case management. Attorneys may perceive that the
court is trying to prevent them from earning additional attorney fees by streamlining the process. However, cli-
ents rarely complain once they realize that the underlying purpose is to bring the case to timely resolution.

In Harvey's case, extreme tools--reporting Harvey to the Florida*325 Bar, striking responses, striking wit-
nesses, imposing financial sanctions, and conducting contempt hearings-- were never implicated. What did hap-
pen was that Harvey trained me to be a better judge by showing me how, in a nonconfrontational manner, I
could effectively case manage Harvey and similar counsel without having to take off the gloves.

Fortunately, not every litigator requires the case management skills of a Harvey situation. Most attorneys are
well-intentioned, have a legitimate interest in pursuing discovery efficiently, and do not seek to unnecessarily
delay the resolution of a case. What a relief it is to have a case with opposing counsel who are both of this
school of thought.

New attorneys, or attorneys who are appearing in front of a judge for the first time, must remember that their
reputation is primarily built on the judge's personal experiences with them. No bench book exists with a list of
which attorneys are trustworthy professionals and which are not. Instead, the individual judge keeps a mental
catalog of experiences. For example, does this attorney routinely generate complaints from opposing counsel in
other cases about not clearing depositions with their office? Is this attorney often the subject of motions to com-
pel? Can this attorney be trusted when he tells you that the responses to interrogatories are in the mail? Once a
negative reputation has been established with the court, an attorney's job will be much more challenging in es-
tablishing credibility with the court. And certainly, with so many issues up to the court's discretion, an attorney's
reputation as trustworthy and ethical is of utmost importance.

And, what about Harvey? Do his clients suffer? Of course they do. But, with effective case management and
an experienced judiciary, the damage and delay caused by the Harveys of this world can be minimized while
still allowing clients the freedom to choose their own counsel.

[FNa1]. Circuit Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 1991-Present; B.S.Ed., University of Iowa,
1972; J.D., Florida State University, 1975; Vice-Chair and member, Florida Bar Standing Committee on Profes-
sionalism; Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 1979-1982; District VI Legal Counsel, Florida

Page 3 of 4
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1984-1986; Shareholder, Isom, Pingel and Isom-Rickert,
P.A., 1986-1990.

[FN1]. See ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES: PRO-
FESSIONALISM PROBLEM SOLVING (1998).

[FN2]. See JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR AND
CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGES 1998 HANDBOOK 8-9 (1998).

END OF DOCUMENT

Page 4 of 4
--------------
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plailltiff: CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
J. COOK,
Defendants.
/
PLAINITFF'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
TO: Ryan Cllristopher RodelTIs
YOU ARE NOTIFED that plaintitfpro se dismisses this action without prejlldice
pursuant to Rule 1.420(a). Defendants' counterclaim can remain for adjudicatioll.
th
il J. pro'-se
r8092 SW {15
th
Loop
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing 11as been furnished by fax alld
US mail to Ryan CI1fistopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400
North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tan1pa, Florida 33602, this 7
th
day of Febrllary, 2007.
---.-----j / :;
/-;/.' .. /" .., ...
,//;, ,/' /;1'
t' '/.'" /,/ /'-,--- --
. /';1 ../ /?C. -
J.
,/
13
IN THE CIRCIJIT COIJRT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE. NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: H
J. COOK,
Defendants.
/
PLAINITFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff pro se moves the Court for an Order of voluntary dismissal of this action
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 1.420(a)(2). Defendants' counterclaim can remain for
adjudication.
th
'''-'-'-''f .J
//;;
',' / /' // ' /
/ // // /, /-.;'..r
. ..
eil J. Gi)lespi I, Plaintijf'pro se
092 SW IIS
th
Loop /
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley
Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 7
th
day 2007. /')
/-". /5('/ I . 'i C.' /'
L.-.......----
:" j/ ' " ./."
14
The Florida Bar's Online Lawyer Referral Service Page 1 of2
PrintZlble Version o
o g
-. Lawyer Referral Service
Referral Confirmation
PLEASE PRINT AND BRING THIS CONFIRMATION FORM WITH YOU TO THE LAWYER'S
OFFICE. sf 7. 7

Robert W. Bauer
2815 NW 13th St Ste 200E
You have been referred to:

:::------
Gainesville FL 32609-2865
PH: (352) 3755960
FOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF LAW: Ubel & Slander
THE LAWYERS ON THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE A HALF
HOUR OFFICE CONSULTATION FOR NO MORE THAN $25.00. PLEASE CALL THE LAWYER'S OFFICE TO
MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. THE LAWYER WILL NOT CONTACT YOU. PLEASE REMEMBER TO INFORM THE
OFFICE THAT YOU WERE REFERRED BY THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE.
TO HELP YOU PREPARE FOR YOUR CONSULTATION, PLEASE CONSIDER READING THE FOLLOWING FLORIDA
BAR CONSUMER PAMPHLETS:
YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO HIRE THE LAWYER.
THE LAWYER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO TAKE YOUR CASE.
YOU MUST CONTACT THE REFERRED LAWYER BEFORE MAKING ANOTHER REFERRAL REQUEST.
Your lawyer was selected based on the information provided below:
You requested a lawyer who is licensed in: Florida and willing to work in, but not located in a specfic county
What county: Marion
We have several attonery panels, please select the panel you need: Regular
What area of law do you need an attonery for? Libel & Slander
Do you have a special language requirement?
Must the attorney be willing to make a Jail call? No
Personal Information: Nell Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala FL 34481
35218547807
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVPGM/LROnline.nsf/All/CVJTYADWFN6TFL3?OpenDocwnent 2/26/2007
15
Robert W. Bauer
From: Ryan C. Rodems [rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10: 19 AM
To: rwb@bauerlegal.com
Subject: RE: Gillespie hearings
Robert:
So that there is no misunderstanding, we do not agree to any delays in compliance with the
July 24, 2006 discovery order.
again before Judge Isom.
We will notice our hearings on one of the agreed dates, and notice will be sent ASAP.
Rule 1.170 addresses serving the 57.105 motion today.
Sincerely,
813/489-1001
NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected
by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use
by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
-----Original Message----
From: Robert W. Bauer [mailto:rwb@bauerlegal.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:11 AM
To: Ryan C. Rodems
Cc: 'Neil Gillespie'
Subject: RE: Gillespie hearings
I'm sorry if there has been some confusion, but I believed I had responded to your inquiry
about discovery. When we first spoke I advised over the phone that I fully intended to
comply with the discovery demands as required by the court. You informed me that I would
be afforded whatever time I needed to get up to speed in the case. If you have a deadline
for discovery I would be happy to comply with that. However, it seems reasonable to first
deal with the outstanding motions so that it can be determined if discover is required at
all.
I did responded in my email that I would contact you Tuesday. I apologize that I was not
able to do so until Wednesday morning. I did not think it would be a problem. However, I
felt that the courtesy email copy of the memorandum clearly complied with your request for
clarification as to our position on the future of the case. If you have any further
questions please feel free to call.
I am available for any of the 7/3, 7/5 or 7/16 dates at 9:30. Please advise how much time
will be set aside.
have read rule 1.100(a) and you will note that the wording of it does not even allow for
a counter-claim - actually by implication it bars a counterclaim. It only allows for an
answer to a counterclaim - but not the counterclaim itself. However, clearly
1
I
16
counterclaims are allowed. admit that a is a strange pleading.
You will note that I attempted to make that point in my memorandum. In the interest of
cooperation I will be happy to rename the counter-counter claim just a counter claim if
that would satisfy your concerns.
As a professional courtesy I would appreciate if you would clearly spell out your reasons
as to why you believe I have erred in my motion prior to you filing for 57.105 sanctions.
Such threats are not conducive to this case moving forward in a collegial and professional
manner.
As to the 57.105 issue itself - I am sure that you are aware that such sanctions are only
available when there is no colorable argument at all. My motion states an argument with
cases and reasoning to support it. I have carefully reviewed the cases to insure that I
have not misquoted their holdings. I believe this greatly surpasses the bar for a
frivolous lawsuit.
I thank you in advance for your thoughtful attention to this matter.
Respectfully
Robert W. Bauer, Esq.
-----Original Message----
From: Ryan C. Rodems [mailto:rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:59 AM
To: Robert W. Bauer
Subject: Gillespie hearings
Robert:
We are still awaiting to hear from you on when we can set our hearings.
Based on your earlier e-mail, I expected to hear from you by Tuesday. I did receive the
transmittal of the memorandum/motion yesterday.
I think you need to reconsider the memorandum/motion. We object to the motion for leave
to amend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and you are flat
wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked at Rule 1.100(a)? I
assume you are awarf of the line of cases that hold that a mislabeled pleading or motion
is not a nullity. VWe'll send you a 57.105 motion, and you can decide how to proceed.
Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for a court
appointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriate defenses, the
econom.ic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQ the trial judges,
appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and false statements about a judge in a
letter to the court, threatening to slam me against the wall, and telling an insurance
company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims), I am surprised you would rely on any
portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.
I also again urge you to address the discovery issue. This is at least the third time I
have raised it with you, and you have not responded. Gillespie has not answered the
discovery Judge Nielsen ordered compelled almost a year ago. Although you have not moved
to DQ the trial judges twice -- Gillespie was responsible for that and you did not
improvidently appeal the discovery order -- also Gillespie's doing -- you took the case as
is. You are now responsible for complying with the court's order.
Sincerely,
813/489-1001
NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication
2

Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: communication
Page 1 of 6
9/9/2011
when I try to click on the HCSO's link, I get the following message:
Sorry, our systems are too busy to service your request.

Similarly, when I telephoned them my call went into a "black hole" and was never picked up in
the Warrants Unit.

Last but not least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional
but unhappy message.

Try to come up with some more money (preferably $1,000 but at least $750). Then, next week, I
will file a motion to vacate the writ. I will call the clerk on Monday, and if the file is available
for me to view, then I will attempt to get down there on Monday or Tuesday to view the file
myself.

The good news is that the HCSO seems to be so overwhelmed that they are most probably
placing all civil warrants on the back burner.

So you have my game plan, now try to borrow some money and stay home this weekend.

Eugene

www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com

Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
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 Fri, 6/10/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Subject: Re: communication
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
17
Page 1 of2
Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfionet>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: your call earlier
"love made m}' ]JetlCe the lO/"ti. 1111 55 .vears-olll hut.feellike 85. //11 lIt the ellll 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.CastaqliuoloLawGroup.com www,Fi/inaSankruptcvlnTampa.com
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, Florida 33759
(727) 712-3333
Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC
101-1330).
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message(andanyassociatedfiles)fromCastagliuoloLawGroup.P A. is for the sole use of the intended
recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure: distribution, or
other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original
message.
--- On Tue, 6/14/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@]mfinet> wrote:
From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Subject: your call earlier
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attomeyepc@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 3:58 PM
7/19/2011
18
18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
1. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Hillsborough County,
Florida (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009)
2. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, January 19, 2006 -
September 28, 2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)
Cases in the Second District Court of Appeal, Florida
3. Case No. 06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
4. Case No. 07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
5. Case No. 08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
6. Case No. 10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
7. Case No. 10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
8. Case No. 11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
Cases in the Supreme Court of Florida
9. Case No. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
10. Case No. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
Cases in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division
11. Case No. 10-cv-00503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA
(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)
12. Case No. 11-cv00539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA
(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)
Cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
13. Case No. 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA
(Gillespie pro se) (closed)
14. Case No. 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA
(Gillespie pro se) (active)
19
Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States
15. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
16. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
Original Litigation
17. Case No. 01-14761-AA, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT
Corporation, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed August 20, 2001
18. Case No. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, class action complaint in
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, filed December 9, 1999
Related links on The Justice Network
http://yousue.org/litigation/
http://yousue.org/the-florida-bar/
http://yousue.org/13th-judicial-circuit-hillsborough-co-florida/
http://yousue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/
http://yousue.org/turner-v-rogers/
http://www.yousue.org/jnc-judicial-nominating-commission/
http://www.yousue.org/jqc-judicial-qualifications-commission/
http://www.yousue.org/circuit-court-judge-martha-j-cook/
http://yousue.org/ryan-christopher-rodems/
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone B 1 3 / 4 B 9 ~ 100 1
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile B 1 3 / 4 B 9 ~ 100B
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
February 6, 2007
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Following Judge Isom's rulings of February 5, 2007 on your motion to reconsider discovery and
your motion to dismiss the counterclaims, enclosed please find two proposed orders. I will
transmit these orders to the Judge on Monday, February 12, 2007. If you have any objections,
please feel free to write to me.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
RCR/so
20
--------------
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 05CA7205
Division: H
a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
I
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - DISCOVERY
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Monday, February 5, 2007 on "Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery," and the proceedings having been read and considered,
counsel and Plaintiff having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, it is
ORDERED that "Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery" is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of February, 2007.
copies to:
Claudia R. Isom
Circuit Judge
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se
--------------
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 05CA7205
Division: H
a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
I
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Monday, February 5,2007 on Plaintiffs
Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim, and the proceedings having been read and
considered, counsel and Plaintiff having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised
in the premises, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim is DENIED.
Plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date that this Order is signed within which to answer the
counterclaims.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of February, 2007.
copies to:
Claudia R. Isom
Circuit Judge
Ryan CI1fistopher Rodems, Esquire
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
.
,
J
C
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 05-7205
-vs-
Division: H
A Florida Corporation
Defendant.
-----------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE: HONORABLE CLAUDIA R. ISOM
Circuit Judge
TAKEN AT: In Chambers
Hillsborough County Courthouse
Tampa, Florida
DATE & TIME: February 5, 2007
Commencing at 1:30 p.m.
REPORTED BY: Denise L. Bradley, RPR
Notary Public
[ORIGINALI
STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED
COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
(Pro se litigant)
8092 115th Loop
On behalf of the Defendant:
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
5
10
15
20
25
3
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
23
24
PRO C E E DIN G S
THE COURT: All right. On the record. Would
everybody please introduce themselves for the record,
starting with our court reporter.
THE REPORTER: My name is Denise Bradley with
Berryhill Court Reporters.
THE COURT: Okay. And for plaintiff.
MR. GILLESPIE: My name is Neil Gillespie. I'm
appearing pro se.
THE COURT: Okay. And for defense.
MR. RODEMS: Ryan Christopher Rodems here on
behalf of defendants Barker, Rodems and Cook, P.A. and
William J. Cook.
THE COURT: Okay. And we've got several things.
The first thing is plaintiff's motion for order of
protection. Is that still pending? That's not
something we addressed the other day?
MR. GILLESPIE: The first thing, in the most
recent order in the most recent scheduling was an order
to show cause why Mr. Rodems should not be held in
contempt of court.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GILLESPIE: But before we get into that,
Judge -
THE COURT: Well, no, I'm just looking at the
22
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sanctions, you can do that in this division. You don't
have to have a separate cause of action filed within
criminal court.
MR. GILLESPIE: And, Judge, if I were an attorney
and knew what I was doing I would do that, but that's
the problem here. I'm not an attorney. And I'm not
sure of the procedure. And I don't want to miss
dotting an "I" and having this thing not be taken
seriously. That's why I felt that it was important to
be represented by an attorney and that's what I'm
trying to do.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, since I have several
things scheduled for today, we're going to pass on the
order to show cause and move on to your motion for
reconsideration of Judge Nielsen's denial of your
motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems from representing I
guess himself, his law firm and Mr. Cook, is that
correct?
MR. RODEMS: Actually, Judge -
THE COURT: All of those entities?
MR. RODEMS: I only represent Mr. Cook and the
law firm. I'm not a party to these proceedings.
THE COURT: Oh, you only represent the law firm
and Mr. Cook. Is Mr. Cook still with your firm?
5
10
15
20
25
23
1
2
J
J
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
?0
_L
0J
LJ
24
,
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RODEMS: He's my law partner.
THE COURT: Okay. So, all right, on your motion
for reconsideration, why should this Court reconsider
or rehear the motion to disqualify counsel?
MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, defense counsel has a
direct conflict of interest with me, the plaintiff.
And this lawsuit turns on a contract which is attached
to the complaint as Exhibit 1. The contract -- there's
some history to the contract because it was signed
under the previous law firm, Alpert, Barker, Rodems and
Cook. And then it became Barker, Rodems & Cook and
they took the assignment of the contract.
They never signed a new contract and there's a
whole matter about that. But with regard to -- there
is a contract that forms the basis of this dispute.
And that contract was drafted by the defendants. And
now they're trying to disavow that same contract. And
that's prohibited by the rules. As a matter of fact, I
brought the Florida Statutes Annotated and they discuss
that. And that's under Rule 4-1.9, conflict of
interest-former client.
It says here, thus, a lawyer cannot properly seek
to rescind on behalf of the new client a contract
drafted on behalf of the former client.
5
10
15
20
25
24
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
~
14
16
17
18
19
21
~ ~
L.L
~ ~
~ J
24
And that's what they're doing here. They drafted
a contract on my behalf and now they're seeking to
rescind that contract on behalf of their new client,
which is themselves and Mr. Cook.
Also, going into the scope of the matter, when a
lawyer has been directly involved in a specific
transaction -- and the specific transaction is this
contract -- subsequent representation of other clients
with materially adverse interest is clearly prohibited.
So at one point they represented my interest
directly on the specific contract. Now they're taking
a materially adverse position. And this is prohibited
according to Rule 4-1.9.
THE COURT: Okay. So they represented you in a
legal transaction where you had a written employment
agreement with them, is that correct?
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. So what was the scope of
the employment? What were they supposed to do for you?
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, the contract was a
contingent fee agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. But what was the scope? What
were they supposed to do for you under this contingent
fee agreement?
MR. GILLESPIE: Under the contingent fee
25
1 agreement they were representing the interest - it was
2 a lawsuit against the Amscot Corporation. But this
J
J representation contract primarily dealt with the
4 relationship between myself and the lawyers and how any
5 proceeds were going to be divided.
6 THE COURT: All right. So ultimately did they
7 settle your lawsuit or did you go to trial?
8 MR. GILLESPIE: There was a settlement, Judge.
9 THE COURT: There's a settlement, okay. And did
10 you sign a release and a closing statement?
11 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, and they were subsequently
12 found to be fraudulent.
13 THE COURT: Okay. So is your law firm holding
14 settlement proceeds that have not been distributed?
15 MR. RODEMS: No, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Okay. So did your law firm undertake
17 representation of Mr. Gillespie after Mr. Alpert had to
18 retire from practicing law?
19 MR. RODEMS: No. Actually what happened, if I
20 can give you just a brief history, me, Chris Walker and
21 Bill Cook left the law firm that was then known as
2 ~
L Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Farantino and Cook in 2000.
23 When we left and started our new firm, Jonathan,
24 Mr. Alpert, and all of us agreed that we would contact
,
~ 5 our clients and see which ones wanted to stay with
26
1
2
~
J
4
c
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 OJ
J
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0 ~
LJ
24
25
~
Mr. Alpert's remaining firm, which was going to be
renamed Alpert and Farantino, and which ones wanted to
join Barker, Rodems and Cook. Mr. Gillespie elected to
go with Barker, Rodems and Cook.
Then the case proceeded to settlement if I recall
correctly. And Mr. Gillespie signed the closing
statement and a release and received all of his money.
THE COURT: And the money was disbursed?
MR. RODEMS: Yes.
THE COURT: So is this lawsuit then a legal
malpractice action?
MR. RODEMS: No. He's claiming that he went back
and looked at it agaln and figured out a different way
that he thinks he should have been paid instead of what
he agreed to in the closing statement and what he
agreed to in the release and what he directed us to do.
MR. GILLESPIE: I would object to that.
THE COURT: So this is then a contract action.
MR. GILLESPIE: It's a contract action.
MR. RODEMS: He's alleging that we breached our
contingency fee contract. That's what he's alleging.
The previous lawsuit against Arnscot involved the Truth
in Lending Act, the federal statute dealing with
requirements with lenders.
THE COURT: Okay.
27
1
2
J
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor
THE COURT: So in terms of this lawsuit then your
firm would be witnesses in the case. So did Judge
Nielsen -
MR. RODEMS: Oh, yeah, he considered all of that,
Judge.
THE COURT: Did he consider the fact that you
guys would be witnesses in the case?
MR. GILLESPIE: If it please the Court, Judge.
MR. RODEMS: May I finish, Your Honor. We had a
hearing in front of Judge Nielsen. And I attached the
transcript of that hearing to a letter and sent that to
you. Everything that Mr. Gillespie has just
represented to you was fully addressed in front of
Judge Nielsen.
MR. GILLESPIE: It was not.
MR. RODEMS: We went through the 4-1.9 argument.
We went through the fact that Mr. Gillespie said I
might be a witness. We went through all of that. And
after having heard all of that, Judge Nielsen denied
his motion to disqualify. And that's why I filed the
transcript because this motion for reconsideration is
nothing more than him trying to get a second bite at
the apple after all of the repugnant things he said
about Judge Nielsen in his motion to disqualify.
5
10
15
20
25
28
1
~
L
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
~ ~
L ~
23
24
~
MR. GILLESPIE: I object to that. This man lied
before Judge Nielsen. I didn't say anything repugnant
about the judge.
MR. RODEMS: Well, there's letters in the court
file
MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, if it pleases the
Court, I can help the Court understand what Mr. Rodems
is trying -- how he's trying to mislead the Court now.
THE COURT: No. I just want to know in terms of
your motion for reconsideration what's new or different
or additional case law.
MR. GILLESPIE: What's different here -
THE COURT: Why should it be reconsidered.
MR. GILLESPIE: What's different here, Judge,
turns on and you have put your hand right on it. We
are talking about the contract between myself and the
defendant. That is the issue in hand.
What Judge Nielsen did -- and it was a very
sleight of hand accompanied by the defendants here.
They turned it into -- this was not the same matter
because it was a matter of truth in lending law. And
don't know whether that was intentional by him or he
was just misled by Mr. Rodems. The issue at hand is
not a truth in lending claim. The matter at hand is
the representation contract.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Really there are two parallel issues running in
the representation, the prior representation. That was
their representation of me on truth in lending and
their representation of me between the law firm and
myself. And that's what we're talking about. That was
not considered last time. What was considered last
time was whether the truth in lending claim was the
issue. And it clearly wasn't.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. GILLESPIE: And I think the record shows that
if you look at it. I'm looking for the transcript,
Judge, that was provided by Mr. Rodems.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Looking at that
transcript on page ten talks about timeliness, that
under the motion to disqualify I guess they're saying
that you filed the motion six to eight months after the
litigation began.
MR. GILLESPIE: Actually, the first speaking
motion I made was to have him disqualified. We don't
have a transcript of that hearing. So that's not
accurate. That was back in September.
THE COURT: Did you sign the closing statement on
behalf of the law firm?
MR. RODEMS: No, Mr. Cook did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cook did?
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 MR. RODEMS: Yes.
2 THE COURT: Did you attend the mediation or
3 settlement conference or anything regarding this case?
4 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, I didn't have anything
to do with the Amscot case at all other than the
6 typical normal things that partners would say to each
7 other in the hallway or at lunch. I didn't handle the
8 litigation. I don't recall having any participation in
9 the case at all. I certainly didn't attend any
mediations or involve myself in the settlement or the
11 releases or any of the strategy decisions, nothing like
12 that.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, whether or not he was
14 directly involved is immaterial. There's an imputed
disqualification.
16 MR. RODEMS: Judge, if you'll look on page ten we
17 also talked about the case of vs.
18 which is at 797 So.2d 1288.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Let's go off the record. I
want to just review this transcript.
21 MR. RODEMS: Okay. Your Honor, if we have just a
moment may I be excused?
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 MR. RODEMS: I just need a moment.
THE COURT: Yes.
5
10
15
20
25
31
J.
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
~
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
~ ~
LJ
24
(Pause in the proceedings.)
THE COURT: Okay, back on the record. I've now
had an opportunity to refresh my recollection. I
believe we used this same transcript earlier in
relationship to the hearing. I've now had a chance to
review it again.
So you feel that in terms of your motion for
reconsideration that there was additional information
that was not presented to Judge Nielsen that would be
important to this decision?
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if you look at page
five of the transcript, this is where Judge Nielsen is
questioning. This begins on page five, line seven.
The Court: Well, see then there was one clarification
I had. And you actually just read the portion of it.
He made reference to the same or a substantially
similar matter to the present controversy. And he asks
what I'm referring to. I answer: Amscot Corporation.
And this is where it gets tricky. Yes, it was
the Amscot lawsuit, but it wasn't the truth in lending
portion of the Amscot lawsuit. It was the contingent
fee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
And if you go down further the judge asked: And
the action was brought in federal court?
And I responded: Yes, Judge.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
1 (0
o::J
16
17
18
19
20
21
,..,,..,
L.L.
23
24
25
~
And he asked again: Is this the matter that
you're referring to that's substantially similar?
And I answer: Yes.
And then Mr. Rodems responds to that further down
the page on page six. And Mr. Rodems states beginning
on line 14: The matter that defendants represented Mr.
Gillespie on was a Truth in Lending Act claim filed in
the federal court involving the issues of the Rule
4-1.9.
And Mr. Rodems goes on at the bottom of page six
beginning on line 23, So the case that Mr. Gillespie
alleges is substantially the same or similar involved a
claim by Mr. Gillespie against Arnscot, a corporation,
involving alleged violations of Mr. Gillespie's rights
under the Truth in Lending Act. This lawsuit involves
different parties, different facts and different legal
issues.
And this is where this matter turns very subtly
because what Mr. Rodems said there was correct. But
that's not what this current lawsuit is about. We're
not questioning the Truth in Lending Act or what Arnscot
did. We're questioning the contract that is between
myself and the defendants. And it's the same parties,
the same facts and the same legal issues. And that is
where Judge Nielsen either missed this or didn't
5
10
15
20
25
33
1
~
L
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
)"
~ ~
24
~
consider it properly.
My motion for reconsideration beginning on page
three discusses the fine points of all of this with
references.
THE COURT: Where is the section about a lawyer
as witness? Because I know it talks in there about
you're permitted to be a witness if you're being sued
or you're suing your former clients. Seems like that
might be
MR. RODEMS: There is a provision of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar that authorizes an
attorney -
THE COURT: Right. So it seems like that would
be relevant to this discussion because in this case, if
I understand correctly, the plaintiff is suing his
former law firm.
MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, In my motion for
reconsideration I don't raise that issue of them being
a witness, of them being an advocate.
THE COURT: I'm just saying that if you look at
4-3.7, a lawyer as witness, it talks about the scenario
where a lawyer may be an advocate at a trial in which
the lawyer is likely to be a witness where the
testimony relates to the nature and value of legal
services rendered In the case. And by extrapolation it
5
10
15
20
25
34
1
~
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
?J
__.J
24
would seem that that's of assistance in determining
whether or not Judge Nielsen made a correct decision.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, that notwithstanding, it
says when a lawyer has been directly involved in a
specific transaction subsequent representation of other
clients with materially adverse interests is clearly
prohibited. In other words, the defendants are
prohibited from representing themselves.
However, they could testify about this if they
were represented by another counsel. But they can't
represent themselves on this. So, yes, they can give
testimony. They just can't give testimony while
they're representing themselves on this matter.
And it also talks about if the lawyer's own
conduct in the transaction is in serious question
which it is -- it may be difficult or impossible for a
lawyer to give the client detached advice. And that's
what we have here. It also goes on to say a suit
charging fraud entails conflict to a degree not
involved in a suit for declaratory judgment concerning
statutory interpretation.
If the pleases the Court, I can give you West's
Florida Statutes annotated which I'm reading from.
Would you care to look at this, Judge.
THE COURT: I have it in the law library across
35
the hall. And in point of fact, I recently reviewed it 1
0
in connection with a different case where there had L
J
been a motion to disqualify counsel. J
Based upon my review of Rule 4-1.7, 4-1.8, 4-1.9, 4
r
4-1.10, and this later one I was talking about, 4-3.7, J
I don't hear anything new in your argument today that 6
Judge Nielsen overlooked or failed to address whenever 7
he ruled on your motion previously. 8
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I still have more of this 9
motion to go through. 10
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Please continue. 11
MR. GILLESPIE: So is what you're saying, Judge, 12
that you considered that he was correct in that point 13
of law?
~
14
THE COURT: I'm just saying looking at the 15
transcript it looks like in terms of new information 16
17 I'm looking to see what's changed. Is there a recent
ruling in the supreme court? Is there something that 18
19 was not argued at that time or case law that was
materially relevant to the case that was not available 20
to counsel at the time that Judge Nielsen ruled upon 21
22 the motion? You know, in terms of a motion for
reconsideration I'm looking for some information that 23
would have been overlooked by him or perhaps 24
25 misinterpreted by him which would seem to be the thrust
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
of your arguments thus far.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, one thing that he did not
consider, an attorney can be disqualified if he is
opposing a former client from whom he received
confidential information. And that's what we have
here. Judge Nielsen did not consider that. And Mr.
Rodems has already threatened to use some of that
confidential information against me. And if you turn
to page five of the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration there's -- this is taken from the
transcript of a conversation.
MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,
Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into
earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he
didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes
say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be
considered for any purposes by the court in any
hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie
for illegally recording the conversation.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, that's not true. And
that's set forth in my motion for an order to show
cause with sufficient case law why that recording was
true. And this is -- I'm going to reiterate my request
that I be represented by an attorney because now he is
threatening me in open court with a criminal
5
10
15
20
25
37
1 prosecution.
2
All things go back to this, Judge, which is why
3 we shouldn't have even begun this hearing today because
4 he is going to object and threaten me with criminal
prosecution. And I need to have an attorney. Now I
6 have made accommodations to have that done. I've taken
7 steps today to have an advertisement placed in the st.
8 Petersburg Times and a paper here in Tampa that is
9 familiar with this representation, the Creative
Loafing, has done an article about me and Mr. Cook and
11 his representation of me.
12 And I really think that because of Mr. Rodems'
13 propensity to keep threatening me with criminal acts
14 and criminal violations that I need to have an
attorney.
16 THE COURT: I gave you the opportunity early on
1 '7 to strike your order to show cause. Now we're just
18 talking about the motion for reconsideration. So is it
19 necessary to reference the transcript of that telephone
call in order to argue your motion for reconsideration?
21 MR. GILLESPIE: I don't know how to answer that
22 from a legal standpoint because I am not an attorney.
And I want an attorney because you just heard him
24 threaten me with a criminal prosecution.
THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the mDtion for reconsideration and the motion to
disqualify today. What about the motion for
reconsideration for the discovery motion?
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge -
THE COURT: Do you need to reference that
transcript for the motion for reconsideration of the
discovery motion?
MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, we can go on with this,
but it's part of this motion. What you're saying is
that I have -- I'm being prohibited from excluding part
of this motion. And I don't see how it can be
effective.
THE COURT: I'm just saying, I'm responding to
your statement that you don't want to present anything
today without the benefit of legal counsel because of
your concern for the comment made by counsel about the
use of that transcript of a telephone call. Is there
<anything today that you can consider that doesn't have
to do with the transcript of that telephone call?
MR. GILLESPIE: Not really, Judge, because it all
boils down to his dishonesty. And if we would have a
transcript of our conversations from the first time
met them there wouldn't be a lawsuit here. But we
don't and that's the problem.
This one instance that we do have just a fleeting
I
5
10
15
20
25
39
1
~
2
J
J
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
glimpse into what went on behind closed doors -- this
man is a liar. And it's in black and white. And of
course he doesn't want it to come into the hearing. Of
course not.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any motions
that we can consider today that don't reference -
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if it pleases the
Court, I'm getting confused here. I have a specific
reference here where he threatened to use a specific
piece of prior knowledge. But the law states that
that's not even necessary. The rules state that just
the existence of prior representation there is a
presumption that privileged information was disclosed.
And Judge Nielsen didn't consider that. And that's an
important part of this motion to disqualify. I have it
here. I'm trying to find it. There is a presumption.
Are you familiar with that, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes, I'm very familiar with it. That
was the basis -- you know, I was referencing a recent
motion that was brought to disqualify trial counsel.
And that was the basis for that ruling. That's the one
that I reviewed all of the annotations and publications
you brought with you today referencing that situation.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge Nielsen did not
consider whether confidential information was
~
5
10
15
20
25
40
disclosed. And the rule -- I can't find it here right 1
~
now -- but the rule states that it's presumed that it 2
~
happened and that that's a basis for disqualification.
4
J
Judge, I'm going to need some time to compose
myself. The other matter that we haven't discussed is
6 how my disability impacts the ability to represent
7 myself. We haven't gotten into that. I've offered to
8 have a hearing on that. And this is a problem.
9 THE COURT: I see that you had talked to Judge
Nielsen about whether or not a civil judge has any
11 ability or funds with which to appoint private counsel.
12 Was that an ADA issue with him?
13 MR. GILLESPIE: I raised that issue. And let me
14 just say on the record that I'm not looking for someone
to pay the lawyer. I would be happy if the Court would
16 appoint someone and I'll pay him.
17 THE COURT: On an hourly basis? Did you go
18 through the Hillsborough County Bar Association's
19 lawyer referral service? Didn't you say you had
already tried that avenue?
21 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge, and I have the
22 results from that. And Mr. Rodems had discussion on
23 that earlier today.
24 THE COURT: What do you mean? The only
discussion I remember you mentioning that you had not
~
,

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., )
a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. )
COpy
COOK, )
)
FYI Only
Petitioners, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D07-4530
)
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, )
)
No Aetion
Respondent. )
Necessary
--------------)
Opinion filed February 8, 2008.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit
Court for Hillsborough County; James M.
Barton, II, JUdge.
Ryan Christopher Rodems of Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A., Tampa, for
Petitioners.
Robert W. Bauer, Gainesville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix Super Markets,
Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that when counterclaim is
pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint without order of court).
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE,
Concur.
22

JQC Complaint No. No 12385 Judge Claudia Rickert Isom

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

JQC Complaint No. No 12385 Judge Claudia Rickert Isom

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

STATE OF FLORIDA

JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION

FAMILY LAW DIVISION

ruling was erroneous.

FAMILY LAW DIVISION

ruling was erroneous.

S-ar putea să vă placă și