SCOTUS, Rule 8 Notice, Conduct Unbecoming, Ryan C Rodems, 12-7747

No: 12-7747
_______________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________
NEIL J . GILLESPIE, ET AL, - PETITIONERS
vs.
THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS
________________________
PETITIONERS VERIFIED RULE 8 NOTICE OF
CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT
BY RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS
APPEARING FOR HIMSELF PRO SE AND BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
IN PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
____________________
Submitted J anuary 22, 2013
by
Neil J . Gillespie,
the petitioner appearing pro se, a nonlawyer,
adult man disabled with physical and mental impairments.
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
ii
LIST OF PARTIES
All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties
to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:
___________________
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11213
District Court no: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS
Civil rights and disability law.
Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.
Plaintiff: (1)
Neil J . Gillespie
Defendants: (10 +5 individually)
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 200042)
J ames M. Barton, II, Circuit J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
Martha J . Cook, Circuit J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 242640)
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, and individually
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 947652)
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)
___________________
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11028
District Court no: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS
Civil rights and disability law, civil RICO, antitrust, commerce, estate claims.
Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.
Plaintiffs: (2)
Neil J . Gillespie
Estate of Penelope Gillespie (deceased)
Defendants: (4 +1 individually)
J ames M. Barton, II, Circuit Court J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)
_______________________
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF PARTIES ......................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................iii
VERIFIED RULE 8 NOTICE OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER
OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT ..................................................................................................1
COLOR COPY OF MR. RODEMS WAVIER AS RECEIVED .............................................end
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX
Complaint submitted J anuary 4, 2013 to The Florida Bar, Ryan Christopher Rodems.
1
No. 12-7747
IN THE
___________________________
_____________________________
Neil J . Gillespie, under penalty of perjury, declares as follows:
1. My name is Neil J . Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This verification is
given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.
2. I am the Petitioner appearing pro se, a nonlawyer, adult man disabled with physical and
mental impairments. My Petition No. 12-7747 was submitted December 10, 2012.
3. Ryan Christopher Rodems (Mr. Rodems) is a member of the Bar of this Court who on
December 20, 2012 submitted a Waiver to file a response to the petition, on his behalf appearing
pro se, and for his law firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (BRC).
4. Misconduct and criminal acts committed by Mr. Rodems are at the heart of this Petition,
as set forth in my complaint to The Florida Bar submitted September 10, 2012 to ACAP, the
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program central intake in Tallahassee. Pursuant to Fla. Bar Rule
3-7.3(a) Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood reviewed my complaint against Mr. Rodems, and
determined that the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline. Mr. Littlewood opened
disciplinary File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) pursuant to Fla. Bar Rule 3-7.3(b), notified Mr. Rodems
in writing, conducted an investigation, considered the response of Mr. Rodems, my rebuttal and
correspondence, and concluded the complaint warranted further consideration. On October 26,
2
2012 Mr. Littlewood advised Mr. Rodems by letter that the matter has been forwarded to The
Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office for consideration.
5. The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), my complaint, Mr. Rodems response, and
my rebuttal and correspondence appears in a separate volume appendix to Petition 12-7747.
6. Mr. Rodems engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court when he
attached, or caused to be attached, to his Waiver to file a response, a yellow Post-it note in the
upper right-hand corner that stated Nellies Copy. Mr. Rodems either intentionally misspelled
and misused my first name, or engaged in name-calling, conduct which violates a prior court-
imposed prohibition of conduct by Hillsborough Florida J udge Claudia Isom February 5, 2007
while presiding over Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. et al., no. 05-CA-7205.
7. When I opened the envelope received from Mr. Rodems in the mail December 24, 2012
and saw the harassing Post-it note attached to his Waiver, it immediately caused me substantial
emotional distress. I was intimidated by Mr. Rodems disruption of the proceedings. Mr. Rodems
previously disrupted Florida case no. 05-CA-7205 for strategic advantage, and directed, with
malice aforethought, a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disability,
intentionally inflicted on me severe emotional distress, and served no legitimate purpose.
8. On J anuary 4, 2013 I complained again about Mr. Rodems misconduct to The Florida
Bar. A copy of the latest Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems appears in a separate volume
appendix to this notice. The complaint alleges the following misconduct on page one:
1. Mr. Rodems violated 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. December 20, 2012 by attaching a
harassing Post-it note to his Waiver to file a response in my petition for writ of certiorari
to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) No. 12-7747. (Exhibit 1). Mr.
Rodems harassment violates a court-imposed prohibition of conduct by Hillsborough
J udge Claudia Isom entered on the record in open court February 5, 2007. Therefore Mr.
Rodems current harassment rises to the level of a criminal felony (3rd degree) offense
under 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. I also believe Mr. Rodems behavior is criminal obstruction
3
of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1), (2)(A), (C);(c)(2);(d)(1) and (2).
Ethically Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rule 4-8.4(b) and (d).
2. Mr. Rodems is a lawyer in private practice who engaged in a type of
unauthorized practice of law when he represented the State of Florida J une 21, 2011 in
my federal lawsuit. Previously I complained in general terms that Mr. Rodems
representation of the State of Florida was improper. Recently I determined Mr. Rodems
violated certain provisions of the Constitution and laws of Florida. Only the Attorney
General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action, Fla Const
Art IV 4, and FS 16.01. Mr. Rodems conduct is prejudicial to justice in violation of
Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d). Mr. Rodems also intentionally mislead several federal judicial
officers in the performance of their duty in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d).
9. On J anuary 17, 2013 I telephoned this Court three times about Mr. Rodems unbecoming
conduct, and other matters, as follows:
a. At 10:00 AM I called Clayton Higgins, case analyst, was greeted by his voicemail,
whereupon I left a voice message. I did not hear back from Mr. Higgins.
b. At 10:14 AM I called the Clerk of the Court and spoke with Robert, who eventually
transferred my call to J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases. The matter of Mr. Rodems was
unresolved, in part because I could not recall the name of Robert with whom I spoke.
c. At 10.33 AM I called Mr. Atkins back to provide information that I could not recall
during our earlier call. I was greeted by his voicemail, whereupon I left a voice message stating
that I previously spoke with Robert of the Clerks Office. I did not hear back from Mr. Atkins.
10. On information and belief, Respondents Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems &
Cook, P.A. have no legal interest in the outcome of this Petition, see my Rule 12.6 Notice to the
Clerk of the Court submitted J anuary 22, 2013.
11. Rule 5.1, admission to the Bar of this Court, requires, among other things, that the applicant
...must not have been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action pronounced or in effect during
that 3 year period; and must appear to the Court to be of good moral and professional character.
Rule 5.4 requires Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation: I,...., do solemnly
4
swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself
uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
12. Mr. Rodems has not conducted himself uprightly and according to law as set forth above.
Unfortunately, Mr. Rodems has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this
Court, conduct proscribed by Rule 8.1, Disbarment and Disciplinary Action.
13. Mr. Rodems has a conflict with me as a former client in substantially related matters, see my
complaint submitted to the Florida Bar J anuary 4, 2013 in the accompanying separate volume
appendix, and the Declaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems, which appears as Exhibit 2 to the
complaint. Also see The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), which appears in a separate
volume appendix to Petition 12-7747. Mr. Rodems conflict is prohibited by Fla. Bar Rules, and the
holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, an authority on
disqualification in Tampa since entered J une 30, 1995 by U.S. J udge Kovachevich, and holds:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and
any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to
disqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and
that the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for purposes of
disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing party, a long-term or
complicated relationship is not required, and court must focus on subjective expectation
of client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be
substantially related to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify
counsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons would
understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship between
instant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm had
previously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that
confidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8]
Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
14. This Verified Notice made under Rule 8 is not a motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems, or a
supplemental brief, either or both of which may follow as needed, and as provided for by the
Rules of the Supreme Court.
15. AcolorcopyofMr. Rodems' Waiverasitarrivedtome inthemailfollowsthispage.
VERIFICATION:Underpenaltyof perjury,I,NEILJ. GILLESPIE,declarethatIhave
readtheforegoing, andthefactsallegedthereinaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledge
andbelief.
Datedthis22nddayofJanuary2013.
5

.
t:::,. - _
..
- P'TN!!Y BOW!!.
02 1P $ 000.45
0001623878 DEC 20 2012

_---__ .... Z 22. e. C':?
Barker, Rodems&Cook, PA
501 EastKennedyBoulevard, Suite790
Tampa, Florida 33602
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1 11111I1111111111
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092 SW115thLoop
OcalaFlorida 34481
34481355792 1"II"J"I,J"U,II""II"II"I,I"II"I",II,I""I,11,,1,'
January22,2013
ClerkoftheCourt
SupremeCourtof theUnitedStates
1FirstStreet,NE
Washington,DC20543
RE: PetitionNo. 12-7747,G-illespiev. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,FL,etal.
DearClerkoftheCourt:
Pleasefindenclosedforfiling inPetitionNo. 12-7747forwritofcertiorari:
1. Rule 12.6NoticetotheClerkof theCourt,partyinterest;andRule29ProofofService
2. Rule 8 Notice, conduct unbecoming a memberof the Barof this Court, verified, with
separatevolumeappendix;andRule29ProofofService.
3. SeparatevolumeappendixforPetitionNo. 12-7747;andRule29ProofofService.
ConstitutionalandStatutoryProvisionsInvolved
UnitedStates;
StateofFlorida;
Constitutionallyquestionedof certainFloridaStatutes
Thankyou.
Enclosures
cc:JeffreyAtkins,Supervisorof NewCases
cc: CounselfortheRespondents
No: 12-7747
INTHE
SUPREMECOURTOF THEUNITEDSTATES
NEILJ. GILLESPIE,ETAL,- PETITIONERS
VS.
THIRTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT,FLORIDA,ETAL. - RESPONDENTS
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, NeilJGillespie,do swearordeclarethatonthisdate,January22,2013,asrequiredby
SupremeCourtRule29IhaveservedtheenclosedPETITIONER'SVERIFIEDRULE8
NOTICEOF CONDUCTUNBECOMINGAMEMBEROFTHEBAROFTHIS COURTBY
RYANCHRISTOPHERRODEMSoneachpartytotheaboveproceedingorthatparty's
counsel,andoneveryotherpersonrequiredtobeserved,bydeliverytoathird-partycommercial
carrierfordeliverywithin3calendardays.Theseparatevolumeappendixis providedinPDFon
CDdueGillespie'sindigenceanddisability.
Thenamesandaddressesof thoseservedareasfollows:
DavidA.Rowland,CourtCounsel RobertW. Bauer,AttorneyatLaw
ThirteenthJudicialCircuitOfFlorida LawOfficeofRobertW. Bauer,P.A.
LegalDepartment 2815NW 13thStreet,Suite200E
800E. TwiggsStreet,Suite603 Gainesville,Florida32609
Tampa,Florida33602 Telephone:(352)375-5960
Telephone:(813)272-6843
RyanChristopherRodems,AttorneyatLaw
Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A.
501 E. KennedyBlvd,suite790
Tampa,Florida33602
Telephone:(813)489-1001
Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoing istrueandcorrect.
ExecutedonJanuary22,2013.

Neil Gillespie
From: "UPS Quantum View" <auto-notify@ups.com>
To: <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, J anuary 23, 2013 12:44 PM
Subject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FNW94832551
Page 1of 1
1/23/2013

UPS My Choice
can help you avoid
missed home
deliveries.

Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J . Gillespie will not
reply.
At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice is to confirm
following shipment has been delivered.
Important Delivery Information
Delivery Location: RECEIVER
Signed by: KOUROS
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
3035 V ST NE
WASHINGTON
DC
20018
US

____2@@2@@2loiZ4Qj____
Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW94832551
Delivery Date / Time: 23-J anuary-2013 / 12:22 PM
Number of Packages: 1
UPS Service: NEXT DAY AIR SAVER
Weight: 5.0 LBS

2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Servic
rights reserved.
For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy.
Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message.
For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS.

This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copy
use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately.
Privacy Notice
Contact UPS
Proof of Del i very
Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW94832551
Service: UPS Next Day Air Saver
Weight: 5.00 lbs
Shipped/Billed On: 01/22/2013
Delivered On: 01/23/2013 12:22 P.M.
Delivered To: WASHINGTON, DC, US
Signed By: KOUROS
Left At: Receiver
Print This Page
Close Window
Dear Customer,
This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 01/23/2013 1:30 P.M. ET
Close Window
UPS: Tracking Information http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Landove...
1 of 1 1/23/2013 1:30 PM
J anuary 22, 2013
Mr. J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
RE: Petition No. 12-7747, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, FL, et al.
Dear Mr. Atkins:
This is a follow-up to our telephone conversation J anuary 17, 2013. Please accept my sincere
apologies for any misunderstanding or confusion on my part. The telephone does not work well
for me in legal matters as it requires real-time communication, which is a problem involving
disability and my short-term or working memory deficit.
As shown on the enclosed copy of my letter to the Clerk of the Court, today I submitted the
following documents for filing in Petition No. 12-7747:
1. Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court, party interest; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.
2. Rule 8 Notice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, verified, with
separate volume appendix; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.
3. Separate Volume Appendix for Petition No. 12-7747; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.
My Rule 8 Notice of Mr. Rodems conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court
articulates better that I was able to describe to you on the phone. As set forth in my Rule 12.6
Notice to the Clerk of the Court, I do not believe Respondents Ryan Christopher Rodems or
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, have a legal party interest in the Petition. Please advise if I can
stop serving those two Respondents under Rule 29.
As shown in paragraph 9, Rule 8 Notice, I called the Court three times about Mr. Rodems
boorish behavior. Since I did not hear back from you, I proceeded as I believed appropriate.
9. On J anuary 17, 2013 I telephoned this Court three times about Mr. Rodems
unbecoming conduct, and other matters, as follows:
a. At 10:00 AM I called Clayton Higgins, case analyst, was greeted by his voicemail,
whereupon I left a voice message. I did not hear back from Mr. Higgins.
b. At 10:14 AM I called the Clerk of the Court and spoke with Robert, who eventually
transferred my call to J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases. The matter of Mr. Rodems
was unresolved, in part because I could not recall the name of Robert with whom I spoke.
Mr. J effrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases
Supreme Court of the United States J anuary 22, 2013
Page - 2
c. At 10.33 AM I called Mr. Atkins back to provide information that I could not recall
during our earlier call. I was greeted by his voicemail, whereupon I left a voice message
stating that I previously spoke with Robert of the Clerks Office. I did not hear back from
Mr. Atkins.
Enclosed is a CD with .wav files of the three calls, in case you want to review this matter. Due to
Mr. Rodems past telephone misconduct with me, 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. J efferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). One
party consent is also one of the Questions Presented in my Petition, see pages 29-30.
On November 27, 2012 at 3:17 PM I called the Court with a Rules question while preparing my
Petition. A lady who answered transferred my call to Mr. Higgins where I was greeted by
voicemail and left a message asking about the appendix. He did not call back, and that issue was
not resolved. Because the Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved in my Petition are
voluminous, that material went in a separate volume appendix, about which I had questions
concerning the content of the appendix and other such. I thought the answer might come
inadvertently in a response to the petition, but none were filed, so I took my best guess and
provided them today. A wav file of my November 27, 2012 call is also on the enclosed CD.
How can I make a request for a disability accommodation in the Supreme Court? What is the
specific procedure? I could not find this information on the Courts website.
I believe the federal judiciary is subject to The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et.
seq., and not The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., as set
forth in my disability letter to the Hon. William K. Suter August 28, 2012, which letter was
returned, and resubmitted with my Petition December 10, 2012. I do not have a response yet.
One accommodation I would request is an alternative means of communicating with the Court,
email instead of telephone calls. The other accommodation I would seek is an order of protection
against Mr. Rodems to prevent his unbecoming conduct directed at me.
You may not be aware, but Mr. Rodems has behaved unprofessionally with the attorneys who
formerly represented me, as shown in the record. Mr. Rodems has had a number of client and pro
se litigant complaints against him too. All of this is show in my rebuttal to his response in the
open Florida Bar case against him, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), which is found in a separate
volume appendix to the Petition. Accompanying this letter are the last five pages of my rebuttal
submitted to the Florida Bar October 16, 2012, to save you the time and effort of looking in the
separate volume appendix to the petition.
Please advise if you need additional disability information for me, beyond what is found in the
separate volume appendices to the Petition, including:
Mr.JeffreyAtkins, Supervisorof NewCases
Page- 3
SupremeCourtof theUnitedStates January22,2013
SEPARATEVOLUMEAPPENDICES,U.S. ELEVENTHCIRCUIT
MentalIntegrityasaFourteenthAmendmentLibertyInterest,August6,2012
ConsolidatedAmendedMotionForDisabilityAccommodationWaiverofConfidentiality
MotionforDeclaratoryJudgment- AppointGuardianAdLitem
Appendix 1, Appendix2,Appendix3
SEPARATEVOLUMEAPPENDICES,U.S. DISTRICTCOURT,Case5:11-cv-539
FirstAmendedComplaint(Doc. 15)
andseparatevolumesAppendix 1,Appendix2,Appendix3
See: Appendix2,"VerifiedNoticeofFilingDisabilityInformationof NeilJ. Gillespie"
DoesaJusticeruleonMotions to the Court, Rule21,oranon-judicialemployeeof theCourt?
Ormustamotionbesubmittedtoan individualJustice,Rule22,forajudicialruling?
Therehasbeenanegativechangeinmyfinancial situation.(Thisis anIFPpetition).On
SaturdayJanuary 12,2013 Iwasservedwithaforeclosure lawsuitonareversemortgageonmy
home.Respondingtothislawsuitwilltakeconsiderabletimeandeffort,althoughImadea
complainttoHUDinAugust2012thatiscurrentlyunderinvestigationbytheConsumer
FinancialProtectionBureau,whichwillbethebasisof myresponse.
Thankyouforyourconsideration.Iappreciateyourassistanceandeffortwithmypetition.
Enclosures
cc: CounselfortheRespondents,withenclosures.
(Notincludingthe.wavfile CD,fortheprivacyof theCourt).
Theodore P. Littlewood J r., Florida Bar Counsel
RE: Ryan C. Rodems TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) October 16, 2012
Page 27
I made an affidavit September 27, 2010 impeaching Martha Cook, along with treatment records
of me by Tampa Fire Rescue. I submitted my affidavit as Exhibit 13 to the Complaint in District
Court case 5:10-cv-503, but the District Clerk refused to put the document on the Courts
CM/ECF system. A copy of Gillespies affidavit is provided as Exhibit 21.
.
I made an affidavit September 27, 2010 on Martha Cooks refusal to consider the disqualification
of Mr. Rodems, and impeaching Martha Cooks Order of J uly 22, 2010 "Order Denying
Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. I submitted his affidavit as Exhibit 12 to the Complaint in
District Court case 5:10-cv-503, but the District Clerk refused to put the document on the Courts
CM/ECF system. A copy of my affidavit is provided as Exhibit 22.
The ADA Required Disqualification of Mr. Rodems
The ADA required the disqualification of Mr. Rodems in Hillsborough County. On February 12,
2010 Mr. Rodems filed Defendants Motion For An Order Determining Plaintiffs Entitlement
To Reasonable Modifications Under Title II Of The Americans With Disabilities Act. Using Mr.
Rodems motion as a basis for determining a reasonable ADA accommodation, Rodems
disqualification was appropriate. Beginning with footnote 1 of Mr. Rodems motion:
Under Title II of the ADA, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by
any such entity." 42 U.S.C. 12132. "A public entity shall make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary
to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate
that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,
program, or activity." 28 C.F.R. 35.130(7). "Public entity" includes "any State or local
government" and "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other
instrumentality of a State or States or local government ...." 42 U.S.C. 12131(1).
As set forth in my disability request, Mr. Rodems was the disability impediment to me and his
lawsuit. Even after I hired Mr. Bauer, the outrageous conduct of Mr. Rodems prevented me from
even attending a hearing. Later when I hired Mr. Castagliuolo, the outrageous conduct of Mr.
Rodems continued. Rodems refused to return calls to Mr. Castagliuolo, or even provide
Castagliuolo with a copy of the writ of bodily attachment. This was during a time when Deputy
Dunlap of the Marion County Sheriffs Office was pounding on my door day after day, trying to
arrest me. I lived in fear that Deputy Dunlap would smash down the door, and given my PTSD,
that may have resulted in a tragedy. Mr. Rodems put law enforcement in harms way for no
reason, other than to feed his need for revenge. At footnote 2 of Mr. Rodems motion:
Under Title II of the ADA, "[d]isability means, with respect to an individual, a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of
such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an
impairment." 28 C.F.R. 35.104. "The phrase physical or mental impairment" includes
"[a]ny mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain
Page 28
syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities." 28 C.F.R.
35.104. "The phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one's self,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and
working." 28 C.F.R. 35.104. A "qualified individual with a disability" is "an individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or
practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the
provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for
the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public
entity." 42 U.S.C. 12131(2).
As set forth in my disability request, I am disabled, have a record of impairment, and am
regarded as having such an impairment. Even Mr. Rodems agrees on this, and often sent me
letters or left phone messages such as this one December 13, 2006:
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.
As set forth in footnote 3 of Mr. Rodems motion:
If Plaintiff has a "disability," then the "reasonable modifications" he may request are
those necessary for him to meet "the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of
services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42
U.S.C. 12131(2).
As set forth in my disability request, the reasonable ADA modification was the disqualification
of Mr. Rodems, which was required under McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp.
1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. This accommodation would not have cost the court anything, other than
the cost of paper to enter the order of disqualification.
Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Robert Bauer - Full Nuclear Blast
Mr. Rodems failed to cooperate with counsel I retained, which caused such a disruption that
counsel was not able to zealously represent my interests. August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this
statement during a hearing before J udge 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.
Page 29
Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Eugene Castagliuolo
Mr. Castagliuolo Calls Rodems asshole
Mr. Rodems failed to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodily
attachment. In his email to me J une 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part Last but not
least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but
unhappy message.. On J une 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an asshole in an email
to me. Mr. 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.
Former Rodems Client Heike Albert, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB
Rodems Claims His Client Called Him a--hole"
A former client of Mr. Rodems, Heike Albert, contacted me unsolicited March 31, 2012 about
his misconduct in her federal lawsuit, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB.
Ms. Albert called ACAP on February 29, 2012, RFA#12-14,769 to discuss Rodems conduct.
Ms. Albert did not make a written Bar complaint. Instead Ms. Albert called and sent an email to
Gov. Rick Scott in opposition to Rodems for judge, according to an email she sent me.
Rodems moved to withdrawal as counsel, and argued irreconcilable differences April 4, 2012
before U.S. District J udge Honeywell, claiming Ms. Albert called him an a--hole.
Transcript, page 8
5 [MR. RODEMS] She sent me an email that said everything was fine, but
6 within 24 hours she sent an email to David Sanford. In that
7 email, she called me an a--hole. She said that I did not care
8 about my clients. She said that I did not care about her. She
9 said she felt I was going to pressure her into accepting a
10 settlement that she did not want to take. She said she was
11 pawned off on me, she didn't want me, it was not her choice,
12 and she asked Mr. Sanford to take over the case again.
I helped Ms. Albert find her case on PACER, as her counsel failed to provide her with some
documents in her lawsuit. Fortunately Ms. Albert found new counsel, and the case docket shows
Plaintiffs Notice of Settlement (Doc. 90) August 21, 2012. Ms. Albert found me thorough my
emergency motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems on Scribd.
Heike Albert contacted Gov. Scott about Mr. Rodems nomination by the J NC March 6, 2012,
according to her email April 11, 2012, 10:44 a.m.
Ok, I spoke to the Gov. office regarding Mr. Rodems and voiced my concerns. I
basically told them that a judge should not only know the law but also follow it.. and
Mr. Rodems clearly doesn't do either and that I would be forwarding the transcript
when I get it.
Page 30
Former Client Rita Pesci v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No. 2006-10,278(13D)
I spoke with Ms. Pesci by phone J anuary 7, 2010. Ms. Pesci told me about her experience with
Mr. Rodems representation:
...I found him to be a complete liar. He only did it for the money that he could
get. He didn't want to defend me in my case at all. He had never intended to. And
because there was a chance that he might lose, so rather than be aggressive and
fight the case he dropped me and filed a claim against my retirement fund...He
took a little over half of my retirement money...he placed a lien against what he
said was his bill...And my understanding was that he had taken this case and that
he would be paid if he won. But according to what he said, he didn't say
that...Yeah, this is this is how they get you...You know, I never had a thing
against lawyers until I actually dealt with one... when he started fighting me over
the fee, he would send things that were two and 300 pages long...And I remember
at one point telling him, I didn't care how much paper he sent them, that he had
defrauded me and he knew it... (Rita Pesci, former client of Mr. Rodems)
Ms. Rita M Pesci, 2045 Hunters Glen Dr., Dunedin, FL 34698-2838, (727) 736-8170.
Carl Montag v Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)
Mr. Montags complaint makes the following accusations, which I also experienced:
Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is not
short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing
party is pro se.
Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence
to Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to directly
communicate with Plaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, to
discuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along.
Every portal of communication was used to communicate with Attorney
Rodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and hand
delivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never would
discuss any detail of the case
Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and
improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to
Plaintiffs, etc.
Case law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the J udge &
Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve
lis Pendens.
Page 31
Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to be
treated with courtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that Attorney
Rodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions.
Mr. Montag said he plans to make another Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems.
Complaint RFA No. 12-15330 by Robert Cash Against Rodems
The complaint alleges that Mr. Rodems improperly used a counterclaim to make immaterial,
impertinent and scandalous accusations against Mr. Cash. The complaint further alleges that Mr.
Rodems provided no exhibits to substantiate the immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims.
By way of example, Mr. Rodems made this scandalous claim at paragraph 68, in his Answer,
Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaims, in Cash v. Rodgers, et al., case no. 12-CA-239,
Hillsborough County Circuit Court:
68. Additionally, Mr. Cash told the owner of Medco Data, LLC that the reason Mr. Cash
arrived late at the trade show was because Mr. Cash was "up all night doing coke off a
strippers tits."
The above quote is incredible. Without commenting on this particular case, it is not believable
that an employee would make this statement to an employer, or do so using the quote attributed.
The complaint of Mr. Cash appears to raise issues related to Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious Claims and
Contentions, Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal, Rule 3-4.3 The commission by a lawyer of
any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice.
Mr. Rodems made immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims about witness Eric Bischoff in
commenting on the WrestleReunion case after he lost a jury trial as plaintiffs counsel,
comments that also include accusations of sexual deviancy. This shows a tendency by Mr.
Rodems to make these kinds accusations about litigants.
The expert report Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was
not even called to testify by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured
himself in a deposition in late-J uly 2009 before running out and refusing to answer any
more questions regarding his serious problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the
Gold Club while the head of WCW.
Mr. Rodems comments about Mr. Bischoff are posted on the DOIWresetling.com website:
http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html
_____________________
I have known Mr. Rodems for over 12 years. In my view he has little actual legal ability. Instead
Mr. Rodems uses the rules of procedure in a perverse way, along with personal dishonesty and
professional misconduct intended to disrupt the tribunal to his advantage. Lying is a habit for
Rodems. He relies on crony judges to deny the due process rights opposing counsel and litigants
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Florida Bar Counsel Page 32
so he can score a "win" now and then, but his overall success rate is low. As such, Mr. Rodems
is little more than a bully and a rules troll.
Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this complaint is available upon request.
Many of the documents are on the federal court's CMIECF system and viewable on PACER,
including many state court documents filed in my federal cases, 5:10-cv-503 and 5:11-cv-539.
Additional documents are available online on Scribd and my on my website and blog.
An Appendix accompanies this rebuttal with a list of Exhibits. However all the Exhibits are not
included, because doing so would exceed forty-six (46) pages. This rebuttal with Appendix is 33
pages, which leaves 13 pages to include. Please advise if you want the Exhibits not provided. Of
course, there are many more documents available. Because the Bar improperly let Mr. Rodems
run unfettered for so many years, this matter is much more complicated than if the Bar, and in
particular, Ms. Bloemendaal, had properly adjudicated my complaints in the years 2004-2007.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Thank you for considering my rebuttal to Mr. Rodems' response dated September 17, 2012.
Enclosures
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems
501 E Kennedy Blvd. Suite 790
Tampa, FL 33602-5237
VIA U.P.S. Ground, Tracking No. lZ64589FP293605096
PS. In response to Mr. Rodems' reference to Cuba and Fidel Castro, the Tampa Port Authority
sent a delegation in 2003 that included Clerk of Court Pat Frank and Tampa attorney Dale
Bohner when they served on the TPA. (Exhibit 23). I am certain Fidel Castro is more honest than
Martha Cook, and Martha likely has some Cuban money in her bank, given her partner's
international background, and TWTE charges at ABN AMRO. I suggest reading my entire
motion rather than rely on Mr. Rodems self-serving misrepresentations. I was unable to find
anyone in Florida to serve as a judge ad litem.
According to World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2011, the United States ranked 21st among
66 countries it studied in assuring access to legal counsel. The U.s. did even worse when it came
to affording a lawyer, ranking 52nd. Legal counsel, and healthcare, is more affordable in Cuba.
No: 12-7747
_______________________
IN THE
____________________
NEIL J . GILLESPIE, ET AL, - PETITIONERS
vs.
THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS
________________________
BY RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
IN PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
________________________
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX
Complaint submitted J anuary 4, 2013 to The Florida Bar, Ryan Christopher Rodems.
Note: The 13 page complaint is presented here with all 12 exhibits shown on the
appendix, for a total of 60 pages. The 13 page complaint submitted to the Florida
Bar included an appendix and 11 pages of exhibits, for a total of 25 pages per Bar
rules, with the balance of the exhibits available upon request.
Proof of delivery to the Florida Bar J anuary 7, 2013 follows the complaint.
-------------------------------
----------------------------
TheFloridaBar
Inquiry/ComplaintForm
PARTONE (SeePage1,PARTONE- ComplainantInformation.):
YourName: NeilJ. Gillespie
Organization: n/a
Address: 8092SW115thLoop
City,State,ZipCode:_O_c_al_a....:;....,F_I_Q_ri_da_34_4_8_1 _
Telephone: (352)854-7807
E-mail: neilgillespie@mfi.net
ACAPReferenceNo.: none
Haveyoueverfiled acomplaintagainstamemberof TheFloridaBar: Yes fK No r
Ifyes, howmanycomplaintshaveyoufiled? Unknown,butalistof13 relatedcomplaintsisprovided.
Doesthiscomplaintpertaintoamattercurrentlyin litigation? Yes rx- No r
PARTTWO (SeePage1,PARTTWO-AttorneyInformation.):
Attorney'sName: RyanChristopherRodems
Address: 501 EKennedyBlvd.,Suite790
City, State,ZipCode: Tampa,Florida33602
Telephone: (813)489-1001
PARTTHREE (SeePage1,PARTTHREE- Facts/Allegations.): ThespecificthingorthingsI
amcomplainingaboutare:(attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary)
Pleaseseeaccompanyingcomplaintletterandappendixwithexhibits.
PARTFOUR(SeePage1,PARTFOUR- Witnesses.):Thewitnessesinsupportofmyallegationsare:
[seeattachedsheet].Pleaseseeaccompanyingcomplaintletterandappendixwithexhibits.
PARTFIVE(SeePage1, PART'FIVE- Signature.):Underpenaltiesof perjury,Ideclarethatthe
foregoingfactsaretrue,correctandcomplete.
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program J anuary 4, 2013
The Florida Bar
651 East J efferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 323992300
Complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID: 947652,
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602, telephone (813) 489-1001
This complaint concerns new misconduct by Mr. Rodems, and recently discovered violations of
law by Mr. Rodems. The Florida Bar opened file no. 2013-10,271 (13E) against Mr. Rodems
September 13, 2012 on my complaint submitted September 10, 2012.
New Misconduct and Recently Discovered Violations
Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. are
Respondents in SCOTUS petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari
1. Mr. Rodems violated 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. December 20, 2012 by attaching a harassing
Post-it note to his Waiver to file a response in my petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme
Court of the United States (SCOTUS) No. 12-7747. (Exhibit 1). Mr. Rodems harassment
violates a court-imposed prohibition of conduct by Hillsborough J udge Claudia Isom entered
on the record in open court February 5, 2007. Therefore Mr. Rodems current harassment rises to
the level of a criminal felony (3rd degree) offense under 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. I also believe
Mr. Rodems behavior is criminal obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1),
(2)(A), (C);(c)(2);(d)(1) and (2). Ethically Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rule 4-8.4(b) and (d).
2. Mr. Rodems is a lawyer in private practice who engaged in a type of unauthorized
practice of law when he represented the State of Florida J une 21, 2011 in my federal lawsuit.
Previously I complained in general terms that Mr. Rodems representation of the State of Florida
was improper. Recently I determined Mr. Rodems violated certain provisions of the Constitution
and laws of Florida. Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a
federal court action, Fla Const Art IV 4, and FS 16.01. Mr. Rodems conduct is prejudicial to
justice in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d). Mr. Rodems also intentionally mislead several
federal judicial officers in the performance of their duty in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d).
New Misconduct: Mr. Rodems Nellies Copy Intimidation and Harassment
Section 784.048(4) Fla. Stat., and 18 U.S.C. 1512
Violation of Bar Rules 4-8.4(b) and (d)
Mr. Rodems, with malice aforethought, attached a yellow Post-it note to his SCOTUS Waiver
in petition no. 12-7747 in the upper right-hand corner that stated Nellies Copy. (Exhibit 1).
Mr. Rodems either intentionally misspelled and misused my first name, or engaged in name-
calling, conduct which violates a prior court-imposed prohibition of conduct by Hillsborough
J udge Claudia Isom February 5, 2007 while presiding over Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems &
Cook, P.A. et al., no. 05-CA-7205. (Exhibit 6).
The Florida Bar, Attorney Consumer Assistance Program J anuary 4, 2013
Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Bar ID #947652 Page - 2
When I opened the envelope from Mr. Rodems December 24, 2012 and saw his harassing Post-it
note attached to the Waiver, it immediately caused me substantial emotional distress. I was
intimidated by Mr. Rodems disruption of the proceedings. Mr. Rodems previously disrupted
Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205 for strategic advantage, and directed, with malice aforethought, a
course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disability, and intentionally inflicted
severe emotional distress. In that case Mr. Rodems attached a Nellies Copy Post-it note to his
motion of April 1, 2010 to strike my motion to amend an ADA disability accommodation
request. A copy of Rodems harassing Nellies Copy Post-it note from 2010, and the first page
of his motion to which it was attached, appear in the Appendix as Exhibit 5.
1
Reference to Mr. Rodems 2010 Nellies Copy harassment also appears J uly 9, 2010 in
Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker,
Rodems & Cook, PA, on page 77, at paragraph 138b:
b. April 1, 2010 Rodems submitted Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs
Motion For Leave to Amend Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodation
of Neil J . Gillespie. When Gillespie received a copy of the pleading from Rodems, it
had a creepy post-it note attached to the pleading in a further effort to harass Gillespie.
Mr. Rodems SCOTUS Waiver (Exhibit 1) shows he signed and dated it December 20, 2012 and
provided a CC copy to me. The mailing envelope (Exhibit 1) shows a postmark of December
20, 2012, is addressed to me at my home address, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 3448,
and was received by me December 24, 2012. The return address is Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard., Suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602.
Mr. Rodems Nellies Copy Post-it note served no legitimate purpose on his SCOTUS Waiver
which indicates CC to Mr. Neil J . Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, FL 34481,
showing a copy was provided to me, and therefore a negating need for the Post-it note.
Mr. Rodems engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the
United States in violation of Rule 8, Supreme Court Rules, when he engaged in conduct directed at
me which caused substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose.
Previously I notified Mr. Rodems in Hillsborough case no. 05-CA-7205 by certified letter dated
to address me as Mr. Gillespie, a copy of which appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 7.
Unfortunately Mr. Rodems refused to address me as Mr. Gillespie, which resulted in J udge
Isoms court-imposed prohibition of conduct of February 5, 2007. The relevant transcript
pages appear in the Appendix at Exhibit 6 to this complaint, and show in part the following:
(Transcript, hearing before J udge Isom, February 5, 2007, page 8)
2 MR. GILLESPIE: J udge, is there a reason why Mr.
3 Rodems can't address me as Mr. Gillespie? Do we have
4 to go through an entire hearing for that?

1
Mr. Rodems full motion is available upon request, and not provided here due to the Bars 25 page limit.
(Transcript, hearing before J udge Isom, February 5, 2007, page 9)
1 THE COURT: All right, back on the record. In
2 the context of this litigation please refer to each
3 other by your surnames so we won't have any question
4 about whether or not people are being professional.
5 Okay.
6 MR. GILLESPIE: And, J udge, would that go for
7 letters he sends me as well?
8 THE COURT: I said in the context of this
9 litigation. So if the letters have to do with this litigation
10 that would be encompassed in this.
Clearly Mr. Rodems SCOTUS Waiver has to do with this litigation and would therefore be
encompassed in J udge Isoms court-imposed prohibition of conduct of February 5, 2007.
Mr. Rodems consequently has committed felony criminal harassment under 784.048(4), Fla.
Stat. by attaching a Nellies Copy Post-it note to his SCOTUS Waiver December 20, 2012.
2
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties. (relevant portions)
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) Harass means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person
which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate
purpose.
(b) Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts
over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The
term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other
organized protests.

2
Mr. Rodems previous criminal harassment of me in violation 784.048 Fla. Stat. is extensively documented in
Hillsborough case no. 05-CA-7205. See Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J . Gillespie filed
May 27, 2011 that shows Rodems harassment under 784.048 is a serious problem in this matter. My ADA form
for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit signed February 18, 2010 specifies that Mr. Rodems is the problem relative to my
disability, see item 6, Special requests or anticipated problems (specify): I am harassed by Mr. Rodems in violation
of Fla. Stat. section 784.048. Mr. Rodems withheld this information from J udge Arnold during the ex parte hearing
May 3, 2011. My 108 page Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J . Gillespie was cross-filed J uly
7, 2011 in federal case 5:10-cv-503, which appears on PACER at the following docket entries:
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID 756
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-1 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 62 PageID 757
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-2 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 45 PageID 819
Professionally Mr. Rodems is known as an asshole (Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq., J une 14, 2011).
Rodems himself argued April 4, 2012 to U.S. District J udge Honeywell during a hearing on his motion to
withdrawal as counsel that a client called him an a--hole, see Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-
35DAB. The transcript is available upon request.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks
another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) A person who, ....after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the
subject person or that persons property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly
follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated
stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.
775.084.
(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she
has probable cause to believe has violated this section.
(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order
restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to
10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of
any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability
of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family
members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
18 U.S.C. 1512 - Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant
As a pro se petitioner in SCOTUS petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, I am also a witness
to, and unfortunately a victim of, Mr. Rodems unethical and criminal behavior since 2005 in
matters that give rise to the petition. As stated above in this Bar complaint:
When I opened the envelope from Mr. Rodems December 24, 2012 and saw his harassing
Post-it note attached to the Waiver, it immediately caused me substantial emotional
distress. I was intimidated by Mr. Rodems disruption of the proceedings. Mr. Rodems
previously disrupted Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205 for strategic advantage, and
directed, with malice aforethought, a course of harassing conduct toward me that
aggravated my disability, and intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress
3
.
Mr. Rodems intimidation has influenced or persuaded me to seriously consider dropping him
and his firm as Respondents to my petition so that I can proceed against the other Respondents

3
Markers of Mr. Rodems Misconduct Against Gillespie. Mr. Rodems intentionally inflicted emotional harm on
Gillespie that is utterly intolerable and goes beyond all bounds of civilized society:
(1) Mr. Rodems abused his power or position by using a position of dominance;
(2) Mr. Rodems took advantage of or emotionally harmed Gillespie who he
knows to be especially vulnerable from his law firms prior representation of Gillespie;
(3) Mr. Rodems repeated or continued acts that may be merely offensive and thus
tolerable when committed only once, when Gillespie could not avoid the outrageous
behavior by leaving, and thereby abandoning his claims. Even after Gillespie hired
counsel, Mr. Bauer refused to allow Gillespie to attend hearings because of Rodems.
(4) Mr. Rodems used his position of power to obtain a warrant for Gillespies
arrest, obtained by Rodems false testimony during several ex-parte hearings.
(5) In none of these instances are the parties in a position of equality; in each of these
instances Mr. Rodems used inequality to inflict severe emotional harm, and caused a
warrant to issue for Gillespies arrest, without regard for Gillespies interests.
without further intimidation. This happened on 5:10-cv-503, see Doc. 22, Plaintiffs Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal As To Defendants Rodems & BRC In Lieu Of Amended Complaint.
I served my petition in compliance with SCOTUS Rule 29 upon Mr. Rodems December 10,
2012, as counsel for himself and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Therefore Mr. Rodems criminal
harassment under 784.048(4), Fla. Stat., a third degree felony, made in conjunction with his
self-representation and the representation of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., is also criminal
obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1), (2)(A), (3);(c)(2);(d)(1) and (2).
18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1) and (2)(A), (3)
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another
person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person,
with intent to
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official
proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object,
from an official proceeding;
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or
judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense...
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2)
(c) Whoever corruptly
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or
attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 1512(d)(1) and (2)
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents,
or dissuades any person from
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the
commission or possible commission of a Federal offense...
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3
years, or both.
Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rules 4-8.4(b) and (d)
Ethically, Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rules 4-8.4(b) and (d):
Rule 4-8.4(b) committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness.
Rule 4-8.4(d), engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Background: Barker, Rodems & Cooks Unlawful 90% Contingent Fee in AMSCOT
Mr. Rodems is a founding partner of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., which firm previously
represented me in a lawsuit against the AMSCOT Corporation
4
(Amscot), according to the
Declaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems executed April 23, 2001 (Exhibit 2) which I recently
found on PACER here: Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 157
of 316 PageID 1048. Mr. Rodems Declaration is part of a 316 page Memorandum in Support
of Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 92). This document includes 40
pages of my discovery responses in Amscot
5
, information Mr. Rodems should have brought to
the attention of me and the Court in Hillsborough case no. 05-CA-7205. Instead Mr. Rodems
concealed this information, and obtained $11,550 in sanctions in part for my discovery errors,
for discovery that was essentially the same as submitted in the Amscot case by Rodems firm.
Barker, Rodems & Cook was substitute counsel in Amscot for Alpert, Barker, Rodems,
Ferrentino & Cook P.A., the firm that originally represented me. Amscot was a proposed class
action lawsuit alleging payday loans violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and usury
and deceptive trade practices under Florida law. Barker, Rodems & Cook previously represented
me in other payday loan cases and matters, disability matters, and other unrelated matters.
On August 1, 2001 the federal trial court entered an Order (Doc. 116) by District J udge Richard
Lazzara that dismissed the TILA claims with prejudice. The Court found all of the transactions
in the action occurred before the effective date of the applicable law, 65 Fed. Reg. 17129,
Regulation Z, promulgated pursuant to the TILA. U.S. District J udge Lazzara held in part:
After considering the arguments made and all the authorities now before it, the Court
finds that count I fails to allege a claim for relief under the TILA
6
. Moreover, any attempt
at stating a claim under the TILA would be futile. Having reached this conclusion, the
motion for class certification is now moot. (Doc. 116, pp. 3-4)
PACER, Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1340.
An appeal was filed, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT
Corporation, Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Prior to an appellate decision, Mr. Rodems and his partners William J . Cook and Chris A. Barker
breached their fiduciary duty to me and the other plaintiffs with a closing statement fraud as of
October 31, 2001 (Rule 4-1.5(f)(5))
7
and no signed contingent fee agreement (Rule 4-1.5(f)(2)).

4
Clement, Blomefield and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, USDC, M.D.Fla., Tampa Div.
5
Designated as Exhibit F, Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 111 of 316 PageID 1002
6
As to the remaining two state-law claims for usury and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA), the Court finds it inappropriate to exercise its pendent jurisdiction.
7
The closing statement prepared and signed by Mr. Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001 failed to disclose or
itemize $3,580.67 in costs and expenses, and failed to reflect $2,544.79 paid to J onathan Alpert, Esq. Mr. Cooks
failure to disclose or itemize a total of $6,125.45 in expenses under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) was done in furtherance of his
fraud against his clients. Mr. Cook maintains he was not required to disclose or itemize under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5)
because AMSCOT Corporation separately paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their
Mr. Rodems and his partners concocted a fraudulent scheme where they stole $50,000 from the
total recovery as a claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs. Rodems and his
partners were not satisfied earning a 45% contingent fee, they wanted double that amount - 90%!
The claim to $50,000.00 for court-awarded fees and costs was later determined false. There
were no court-awarded fees in this case, and any claim to fees was extinguished res judicata
when the TILA claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the dismissal was not overturned on
appeal. The case settled either for business reasons, or in a side deal with Amscots counsel.
The closing statement fraud was a scheme by Mr. Rodems and his partners to evade the terms of
the unsigned contingent fee agreement, and payment to me of $9,143, my lawful share of the
$56,000 total recovery. Instead Barker, Rodems & Cook paid me $2,000. Likewise with the
other two plaintiffs, Mr. Clement and Ms. Blomefield. This scheme resulted in $21,431 unjust
enrichment for Messrs. Barker, Rodems and Cook who took over 90% of the Amscot total
recovery for themselves through fraud and breach of contract/fiduciary duty against their clients.
On J une 12, 2003 I contacted The Florida Bar through ACAP after discovering the fraud, see
RFA 03-18867. In response Mr. Rodems and his partners concocted an accusation of felony
extortion against me for using ACAP and attempting to settle this matter prior to a formal Bar
complaint made in 2004. Mr. Rodems also accused me of felony extortion for using ACAP in a
vexatious libel counterclaim against me in 05-CA-7205, but tellingly not to law enforcement.
On August 11, 2005 I sued pro se Mr. Rodems firm and partner to recover $6,224.78
8
stolen by
them after the Bar dismissed my 2004 complaint, and prior to the expiration of the statute of
limitations, see Neil J . Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J . Cook, case no.
05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. Mr. Rodems represented his firm against me.
On J anuary 13, 2006 I prevailed on Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike, and established a
cause of action for fraud and breach of contract. Hillsborough J udge Richard Nielsen rejected
Mr. Rodems misleading legal argument to a $50,000 claim against AMSCOT for court-
awarded fees and costs and this case was essentially decided in my favor. In response to
certain defeat, Mr. Rodems filed a vexatious libel counterclaim against me. Mr. Rodems also
disrupted the tribunal for strategic advantage, see TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) for my open
complaint Mr. Rodems and additional details. This complaint was provided as evidence in a
separate volume appendix to my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.
On February 26, 2007 The Florida Bar referred Robert W. Bauer to me through the Lawyer
Referral Service (LRS). Mr. Bauer incompetently represented me, and engaged in RICO
racketeering activity with Mr. Rodems to undermine my Bar complaint(s) and civil litigation in
05-CA-7205 and 5:10-cv-503 through violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct including:

claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs. But the claim to $50,000.00 for court-awarded fees
and costs was later determined false. It appears Mr. Alpert paid most of the costs and fees in this action; the
subsequent problem is self-dealing by substitute counsel Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
8
Florida attorney Seldon J . Childers later determined that the amount stolen was $7,143, see Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint, filed pro se May 5, 2010 with permission of J udge Barton.
Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Rule 4-8.3(a), reporting misconduct of other lawyers.
See RFA No. 13-7675 submitted October 31, 2012 and denied November 9, 2012. Subsequently
this complaint was submitted for pendent jurisdiction in SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747.
On J une 3, 2011 I retained Eugene P. Castagliuolo to prepare for, and represent me at a court-
ordered deposition. Following entry of an order for my arrest improperly obtained ex parte by
Mr. Rodems on a writ of bodily attachment, I voluntarily appeared for the deposition J une 21,
2011 at the George E. Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa, but that turned out to be a trap to coerce
a settlement from me while in custody, see TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D) for my open complaint
against Mr. Castagliuolo. In his response August 30, 2012, Castagliuolo admitted that Rodems
made an unsolicited offer to intervene and engage in RICO racketeering activity to undermine
any future bar complaint I might make against Castagliuolo. Complaint 2013-10,162 (6D) was
provided as evidence in my SCOTUS petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.
Mr. Rodems engaged in misconduct with J udge Claudia Isom February 5, 2007 to conceal a
conflict of interest between husband Woody Isom who practiced law with my former attorney in
the Amscot case, J onathan Alpert, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct including:
Rule 4-8.4(f), a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct
that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
Rule 4-8.3(b) Mr. Rodems had a duty to report J udge Isoms misconduct.
The Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) denied by letter dated October 10, 2012
in J QC Docket No. 12385, my complaint against J udge Claudia Isom. In his letter denying the
complaint, J QC General Counsel Michael Schneider wrote in part:
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 J udicial Conduct
warranting further action by the Commission but are matters for review solely through
the court system.
Therefore I submitted J QC Docket No. 12385 with my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 for
pendent jurisdiction because the same allegations of judicial misconduct in the J QC complaint
form the basis of allegations in my SCOTUS petition, and the J QC has indicated these matters
are for review solely through the court system. The SCOTUS is the head of the court system.
Mr. Rodems engaged in misconduct with Hillsborough J udge Martha Cook, including falsifying
the record of a hearing September 28, 2010 on final summary judgment, and civil contempt with
writ of bodily attachment, to show I elected to leave the hearing, when in fact J udge Cook
ordered me removed by the bailiff after I provided her a copy of the complaint in 5:10-cv-503.
Thankfully the bailiff, Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputy Christopher E. Brown, told his
Commander, Major J ames Livingston, that J udge Cook ordered me removed. Mr. Rodems used
the ex parte hearing in furtherance of obtaining under color of law entry of an order for my
arrest, and in doing so violated the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct including:
Rule 4-8.4(f), a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct
that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
Rule 4-8.3(b) Mr. Rodems had a duty to report J udge Cooks misconduct.
The J QC denied by letter dated J anuary 7, 2011 Docket 10495, my complaint against J udge
Martha Cook. Five days later I received on J anuary 12, 2011 a letter from Maj. J ames Livingston
with the statement of Deputy Christopher E. Brown that impeached J udge Cooks record that I
elected to leave the hearing September 28, 2010. I resubmitted the complaint to the J QC with
Maj. Livinstons letter on November 26, 2012. I submitted the November 26, 2012 J QC - J udge
Cook complaint with my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 for pendent jurisdiction because the
same allegations of judicial misconduct in the J QC complaint form the basis of allegations in my
petition, and the J QC previously wrote that the concerns you have expressed are not violations
of the Code of Conduct warranting further action by the Commission.
Misconduct by Mr. Rodems and his partners William Cook and Chris A. Barker in the AMSCOT
case is substantially related
9
to this Bar complaint, another open complaint against Rodems, File
No. 2013-10,271 (13E), twenty (20) related legal proceedings (Exhibit 3), twelve (12) additional
substantially related Bar complaints (Exhibit 4), and SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747.
Recently Discovered Violations
Mr. Rodems Unauthorized Practice of Law June 21, 2011
Improper Representation of the State of Florida in Federal Litigation
Mr. Rodems submitted Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With
Prejudice (Doc. 32) J une 21, 2011 in my federal ADA and civil rights case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-
TBS-WTH. Mr. Rodems motion, which appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 8, states:
On J une 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J . Cook. See Exhibit "1".
Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

9
As defined by McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.
Fortunately U.S. District J udge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant Mr. Rodems motion, and now I
know why: Only the Florida Attorney General may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. My attorney at the time, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, failed to inform me, and it appears certain
that he and Mr. Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of my rights
guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida. The
Florida Bar opened complaint no. 2013-10,162 (6D) against Mr. Castagliuolo August 17, 2012.
As set forth in my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747, by September 2010 I needed the assistance and
protection of an Article III federal judge in Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205 due to Mr. Rodems
extreme misconduct representing his firm against me, a former client on the same or substantially
related matter in violation of Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases. See 2013-10,271 (13E).
On the morning of September 28, 2010 I filed by hand delivery to the U.S. District Clerk in
Ocala, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District
of Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. My Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-cv-
00503 pled violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rights
under section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit, Hillsborough case no 05-CA-7205 commenced five
years earlier to recover the money stolen from me by Rodems his partners in the Amscot lawsuit.
Unfortunately things got worse in the Florida case. Shortly after I filed my federal lawsuit J udge
Martha Cook held me in civil contempt with writ of bodily attachment during an ex parte hearing,
where she made a false record that I elected to leave. Mr. Rodems aided and abetted that fraud.
Fortunately the bailiff, Deputy C.E. Brown, told his commander that J udge Cook ordered me to
leave after I provided J udge Cook a copy of the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503 filed hours before.
Mr. Rodems got a warrant to arrest me on the pretext of a court-ordered deposition after the case
was closed and on appeal in 2D10-5197. In 2008 J udge J ames Barton awarded $11,550 to
Rodems in attorney-fee sanctions, blaming me for Rodems earlier misconduct and disruption of
the tribunal. Later I was incompetently represented by Robert W. Bauer, at a cost of $31,863.
Mr. Bauer was a referral from the Florida Bars Lawyer Referral Service. See TFB No. 2011-
00,073 (8B) J uly 15, 2010 and RFA No. 13-7675 October 31, 2012, denied November 9, 2012,
and submitted to the SCOTUS for pendent jurisdiction in petition no. 12-7747. It appears certain
that Mr. Bauer and Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of my
rights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.
The public defender was appointed to me J une 1, 2011 at a civil contempt hearing, but the judge
relieved the defender at the hearing and immediately entered an order to arrest me. For twenty-
one days law enforcement sought to arrest me while I was at home with the blinds closed
working on appeal 2D10-5179. Day after day Marion County Sheriff Deputies came pounding
on my door looking for me. On J une 3, 2011 I hired attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo off
Craigslist to prepare for the deposition, but that was a disaster. I voluntarily appeared J une 21,
2011 for the deposition but that was a trap to force a coercive custody settlement, which I
promptly rescinded. Castagliuolo also failed to disclose that his daughter is a public defender.
Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlement
agreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I was
unlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Florida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the Florida
Attorney General can represent the State of Florida, which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:
Claudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)
J ames M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
Martha J . Cook, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to
appoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorney
to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.
Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:
16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:
(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or
criminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in the
Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.
The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.
(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the office
of the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutor
shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of
criminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a
related transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or more
judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed
by the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicial
nominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.
Unfortunately Mr. Rodems mislead in violation of Rule 11, F.R.C.P., the following three federal
judicial officers in the performance of their duty in case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH.
United States District J udge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge,
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 - present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398)
The Florida Bar, Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Bar ID #947652
January 4, 2013
Page - 12
United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893)
Presided in case 5: 10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to July-29-2011
United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269)
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 July-29-2011 to February-27-2012
Mr. Rodems again violated his duty under Rule lIon July 14, 2011 when submitted (Doc. 40)
Response to "Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie's Motion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems' Notice of
Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice" [DKT 331, which
appears in the Appendix as Exhibit 9. Mr. Rodems wrote in part:
Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract - the settlement agreement Gillespie
asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of
Florida and therefore he cannot represent the State of Florida in federal litigation. Moreover,
U.S. Magistrate Judge h o ~ s Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that the proper method of
challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700
F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). The Order appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 10.
Therefore I filed a Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) which appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 11.
The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems
Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). The first
Question Presented (of 15) in SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 is the following:
1. Can a Florida lawyer in private practice usurp the authority of an Article III federal judge
in a federal civil rights and disability lawsuit, by improperly representing the State of Florida
during a coercive custody of the disabled and mentally impaired petitioner to force a settlement,
and assign the petitioner's claims against the State of Florida to himself and his law partners,
then move to dismiss the federal lawsuit with prejudice on behalf of the State of Florida?
The answer is no. Only the Florida Attorney General can represent the State of Florida in federal
litigation. Mr. Rodems should be disbarred from the practice of law for life for his misconduct.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
VIA U.S.P. Tracking No. lZ64589FP290125299
Appendix - Complaint Against Ryan Christopher Rodems - J anuary 4, 2013
All the following Exhibits are available. In compliance with the Florida Bars 25 page limit on
submissions, only the Exhibits checked below are provided with the initial complaint.
Exhibit 1 Waiver of Mr. Rodems, SCOTUS Petition No. 12-7747 - Nellie's Copy Dec-20-2012
Exhibit 2 Declaration of Mr. Rodems, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v AMSCOT Corporation
Exhibit 3 20 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al., 05-CA-007205
Exhibit 4 List of Florida Bar complaints substantially related to Ryan Christopher Rodems
Exhibit 5 Mr. Rodems Defendants motion strike Plaintiff's ADA - Nellie's Copy - Apr-10-2010
Exhibit 6 Transcript pp 8-10, J udge Isoms court-imposed prohibition of conduct Feb-05-2007
Exhibit 7 Gillespies letter to Mr. Rodems request Mr. Gillespie not name-calling, Dec-22-2006
Exhibit 8 Rodems Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32)
Exhibit 9 Rodems Response to Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespies Motion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr.
Rodems Notice of Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With
Prejudice [DKT 33] (Doc. 40) in 5:10-cv-503, J uly 14, 2011.
Exhibit 10 Order in 5:10-cv-503 by U.S. Magistrate J udge Thomas B. Smith, October 6, 2011 (Doc. 51)
Exhibit 11 Notice of Objection in 5:10-cv-503 by Gillespie, J anuary 12, 2012 (Doc. 63).
Exhibit 12 Order of Dismissal in 5:10-cv-503 by the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Feb-27-2012 (Doc. 64)
WAIVEI1
Supreme CourtCase No.-'.:.-12:.-- 7-'.:.-7_47 _
Neil1. Gillespie v. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etal.
(Petitioner) (Respondent)
I DO NOT INTEND TO FILE A RESPONSE tothepetitionfor awritofcertiorariunlessoneisrequested
bythe Court.
Please check one ofthefollowing boxes:
oPlease entermy appearance as Counsel ofRecord for all respondents.
tzI There are multiple respondents, and I do not represent all respondents. Please enter my
appearance as Counsel ofRecordfor thefollowing respondent(s):
RyanChristopherRodems; and, Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A.
I certify that I am a member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Court of the United States (Please explain if
yourname has

Date: December20,2012
(Type orprint) Name RyanChristopherRodems
!Ill Mr. 0 Ms. 0 Mrs. oMiss
Firm Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A.
Address 501 EastKennedyBoulevard,Suite790
City & StateTampa,Florida Zip 33602
Phone 813/489-1001
A COPY OF THIS FORM MUST BE SENTTO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL OR TO PETITIONER
IF PRO SE. PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THE NAME(S) OF THE RECIPIENT(S) OF A COpy
OF THIS FORM. NO ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED.
SEE REVERSE FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF A CASE ON THE
DOCKET.
CC: Mr. Neil1. Gillespie, 8092SW115thLoop,Ocala,FL34481
1

.
t:::,. - _
..
- P'TN!!Y BOW!!.
02 1P $ 000.45
0001623878 DEC 20 2012

_---__ .... Z 22. e. C':?
Barker, Rodems&Cook, PA
501 EastKennedyBoulevard, Suite790
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1 11111I1111111111
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092 SW115thLoop
OcalaFlorida 34481
34481355792 1"II"J"I,J"U,II""II"II"I,I"II"I",II,I""I,11,,1,'
1
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 157 of 316 PageID 1048
2
20 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
RCR - denotes cases where Ryan Christopher Rodems represented his firm and partner against former client Gillespie
1.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 to
J un-21-2011, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009).
2.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, J an-19-2006
to Sep-28-2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)
3.RCR 2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
4.RCR 2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
5.RCR 2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
6. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
7. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove J udge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
8. RCR 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, J udge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
9. RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
10.RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
11.RCR Federal Ct. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA (closed, appeal)
12. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth J ud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, 1983, ADA, etc.
13. C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth J ud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, 1983, ADA, etc.
14.RCR C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA, (closed, appeal)
15.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, J ustice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
16.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, J ustice Thomas J une 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
17.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 review Fla.Sup.Ct. case no. SC11-1622,
Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time.
18.RCR SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to J ustice Thomas, docketed August 13, 2012, No. 12A215
Granted Sep-13th; Time extended to file to December 10, 2012, C.A.11 12-11028, 12-11213
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Original Case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT, December 8, 1999
20. Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp, August 20, 2001
3
Florida Bar ethics complaints substantially related to Ryan Christopher Rodems*
*Partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence of
another partner when the later acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney.
Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965).
1. William J . Cook RFA No. 03-18867 J une 12, 2003 (ACAP Central)
2. William J . Cook TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C) J une 7, 2004 (Tampa Branch)
3. William J . Cook TFB No. 2006-11,194 (13D) March 6, 2006 (Tampa Branch)
4. William J . Cook TFB No. 2007-10,004 (13D) J une 27, 2006 (Tampa Branch)
5. Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D) February 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
6. Chris A. Barker TFB No. 2007-11,792(13A) J une 18, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
7. Ryan Christopher Rodems File not opened/no number J une 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
8. Troy Matthew Lovell File not opened/no number J une 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
9. Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) J uly 15, 2010 (ACAP Central)
10. Seldon J . Childers RFA No. 11-4718 August 25, 2010 (ACAP Central)
11. Eugene P. Castagliuolo TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D) August 17, 2012 (ACAP Central)
12. Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Sep-13, 2012 (ACAP Central)
13. Robert W. Bauer RFA No. 13-7675 October 31, 2012 (ACAP Central); denied Nov-09-12;
submitted to the SCOTUS for pendent jurisdiction in petition no. 12-7747.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995 has been a mandatory
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered J une 30, 1995 by J udge Kovachevich:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and any
doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to disqualify
counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of action. [3] In determining
whether attorney-client relationship existed, for purposes of disqualification of counsel from
later representing opposing party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and
court must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] For
matters in prior representation to be substantially related to present representation for purposes
of motion to disqualify counsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable
persons would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship
between instant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm had
previously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that
confidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of opposing party necessitates
disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
4
INTHECmCUITCOURTOFTHETHIRTEENTHJUDICIALCmCUIT
INANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,FLORIDA
GENERALCIVILDIVISION
NEILJ.GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs. CaseNo.: 05CA7205
Division: F
BARKER,RODEMS& COOK,P.A.,
aFloridacorporation;andWILLIAM
J.COOK,
Defendants.
---------------',
DEFENDANTS'MOTIONTOSTRIKEPLAINTIFF'S"MOTIONFORLEAVE
TOAMENDAMERICANSWITHDISABILITYACT(ADA)
ACCOMMODATIONOFNEILJ.GILLESPIE"
DefendantsBarker,Rodems& Cook,P.A. andWilliamJ. CookmovetostrikePlaintiffNeilJ.
Gillespie's"MotionforLeavetoAmendAmericanswithDisabilityAct(ADA)Accommodationof Neil
J. Gillespie,"pursuanttoFla.R. Civ.P. 1.140(f),andasgroundsthereforwouldstate:
I. FloridaRuleof CivilProcedure1.140(f)providesthat''thecourtmaystrikeredundant,
immaterial,impertinent,orscan, March29,2010,
PlaintiffNeilJ.Gillespieserved DisabilityAct(ADA)
AccommodationofNeilJ. Gilles rial andimpertinent
information.
2. Themotion i t ~ acesinvolvingan
attorneybythenameof Jonathan larriageproceeding.
Gillespie'smotionattachesmotior aentsthathave
nothingtodowiththecaseatbar.
3. Gillespie'sbasisf( ----.0 UJJ" llHurmattonregardingMr.Alpertisto"answer"the
undersigned's"oftenexpressedconcernthatPlaintiffhastakeninconsistentpositionsregardingtheADA
accommodationandbeingabletorepresenthimself." (Plaintiffsmotionforleave,~ 6). Accordingto
5
6
7
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 600
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,
Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants.
____________________________________/

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIES MOTION TO STRIKE OR SET
ASIDE MR. RODEMS NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AND MOTION
FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT 33]

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. Dkt 32, Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the
Assignees moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt 32.
Gillespie now moves this Court to set aside the settlement agreement reached wherein he
assigned the claims in this action to Assignees. Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion,
and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract -- the
settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
1

1
Notwithstanding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gillespies recitation of the
events surrounding the settlement are belied by the record. The settlement agreement was signed
by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie
stated to his attorney, Ill defer to your judgment on this. Gillespies attorney stated, Ive
already given you judgment in private, and Ill give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is
an agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest. (Exhibit 1). Gillespie
now claims that he signed under duress, lacked informed consent, and asserts other reasons it
should be set aside, none of which are supported by the record of the settlement conference.
9
2

The Court should deny Gillespies motion and grant the Assignees motion to dismiss the action,
Dkt 32.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14
th
day of July, 2011.

/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 947652
Attorney for Assignees
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790
Telephone: (813) 489-1001
Fax: (813) 489-1008
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
filed using the Courts CM/ECF filing system, which will send an electronic notice of filing to:
Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The
Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer and anyone else registered to receive
such filings. No other defendant has been served.
/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems

1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
DIVISION: G
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
/

DEPOSITION
EXCERPT OF: NEIL J. GILLESPIE

TAKEN BY: Counsel for Defendants/
Counter-Plaintiffs

DATE: June 21, 2011

TIME: 10:38 a.m. to 3:02 p.m.

PLACE: Hillsborough County Courthouse
Fifth Floor
800 East Twiggs Street
Tampa, Florida

REPORTED BY: Kimberly Himes
Notary Public
State of Florida at Large
RICHARD LEE REPORTING
(813) 229-1588
TAMPA: email: rlr@richardleereporting.comST. PETERSBURG:
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2060 535 Central Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33602 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40-1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1352
2
APPEARANCES:
EUGENE P. CASTAGLIUOLO, ESQUIRE
Castagliuolo Law Group, P.A.
3111 West Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard
Tampa Bay Park, LakePointe 2, Suite 100
Appeared for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant;

Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Suite 2100
400 North Ashley Drive
Tampa, Florida 33602.
Appeared for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

ALSO PRESENT:
HONORABLE JAMES D. ARNOLD

3
1 The excerpt, from the deposition, upon oral
2 examination, of NEIL J. GILLESPIE, taken on the 21st
3 day of June, 2011, at Hillsborough County
4 Courthouse, Fifth Floor, 800 East Twiggs Street,
5 Tampa, Florida, beginning at 10:38 a.m., before
6 Kimberly Himes, Notary Public in and for the State
7 of Florida at Large.
8 * * * * * *
9 P R O C E E D I N G S
10 (Beginning of requested excerpt.)
11 (Recess from 1:41 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.)
12 MR. RODEMS: Back on the record.
13 Let me tell you what -- obviously, the
14 written terms are going to govern, but let me
15 tell you what this agreement means to me if
16 it's signed. This lawsuit in the Thirteenth
17 Circuit, we will issue a satisfaction of
18 judgment and dismiss this action with
19 prejudice.
20 Mr. Gillespie will be responsible for
21 dismissing with prejudice the appeal in the
22 Second DCA. And we will contact the court in
23 Marion County and dismiss that action, and
24 then all claims will be gone.
25 I can assure you that we have no
4
1 interest nor would we have any claims against
2 Mr. Gillespie, because this release covers
3 everything from the beginning of the world
4 through June 21st of 2011 at the moment that
5 this is signed, which means that tomorrow we
6 could not sue Mr. Gillespie for anything that
7 he did in the past.
8 Now, obviously, going forward, if, you
9 know, Mr. Gillespie accidentally runs over my
10 mailbox three weeks from now, I could sue him
11 for that. If Mr. Gillespie defames me in the
12 future, if I defame Mr. Gillespie in the
13 future, we would have claims against each
14 other. But for anything that took place prior
15 to the moment we sign this document, that's
16 forever gone. That's what this release means
17 to me.
18 I only put Chris Barker signing for the
19 firm, because we only need one officer for the
20 firm to bind the firm. If Mr. Gillespie would
21 feel better if I announced individually and as
22 an officer of the law firm, I would do that.
23 We could handwrite it in so that we don't
24 have to take the time and go get this retyped.
25 Handwrite it in for Mr. Cook. I can assure
5
1 you that you will have a copy fully executed
2 by Mr. Barker and Mr. Cook before the end of
3 the day.
4 And like I said, the obligations for the
5 parties would be we would file a satisfaction
6 of judgment and record it and notify the
7 state that the judgment has been satisfied.
8 Mr. Gillespie would have an obligation
9 to notify the Second District Court of Appeal
10 that the appeal is dismissed. We would notify
11 the Thirteenth Circuit that the appeal is
12 dismissed. We would notify the Middle
13 District of Florida that we've been
14 assigned that claims, and that we're
15 dismissing that with prejudice.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: And what about the --
17 your libel claim against me that you dismissed
18 without prejudice?
19 MR. RODEMS: That's -- that would be
20 settled and resolved, because that's a claim
21 that accrued or occurred or events that formed
22 the basis of it occurred prior to June 21st of
23 2011. So this -- what I'm saying is:
24 Mr. Gillespie, if you sign this document and I
25 sign this document, the slate -- the slate is
6
1 wiped clean between us.
2 Now, I'm not going to go out and run a
3 website with your name or your picture on it,
4 and I would expect that you would want to not
5 have any more claims with me, which means I
6 would expect you to take the information down
7 from your website that regards our firm.
8 If you want to have true peace with us,
9 I think you should consider scouring that
10 website and taking everything out of it that
11 involves this litigation. That's your choice.
12 But if you're -- you know, if you are looking
13 for a true resolution and certainty that we are
14 never going to cross swords again, proverbially
15 speaking, that would be what I would recommend,
16 but it's up to you. I can't tell you what to
17 do. I'm not your boss, but I can assure you
18 that unless you do something after June 21st,
19 2011 to affect me or my law or my partners,
20 there will be no further litigation for
21 anything that's happened prior to today.
22 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I hear that as him
23 saying that tomorrow -- if we sign this today,
24 then tomorrow he could or might sue me over
25 the website.
7
1 MR. RODEMS: No, sir. No, sir. I am
2 telling you now --
3 MR. GILLESPIE: That's what I heard.
4 MR. RODEMS: I'm telling you now that
5 anything that occurred before today would be
6 gone. I can't tell you to take everything off
7 your website, but I'll give you a week. If
8 you can take -- and -- and this court reporter
9 is taking this down, so this is an agreement
10 binding between you and me. My oral word; my
11 duties as an officer of the court.
12 If within seven calendar days from June
13 21st you remove every word about me and my
14 law firm and my partners from your website,
15 there will be no further actions. We'll be
16 done with each other.
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, would that mean
18 direct words, or -- what if I want to talk
19 about Mr. Bauer?
20 MR. RODEMS: I don't represent him.
21 That's between you and him. I only -- I have
22 two concerns, Mr. Gillespie. One is that this
23 ends against me and my two partners and my law
24 firm. And, two, that this ends against the
25 Thirteenth Circuit. Now, I don't -- they
8
1 don't owe me anything, but I want that over
2 with. There's been -- it's gone on long
3 enough.
4 So short of that, you can say whatever
5 you want about Mr. Bauer. That's between you
6 and him, not between me. I'm not his --
7 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, but that involves
8 your firm and this lawsuit. I have nothing to
9 talk about Mr. Bauer other than this lawsuit,
10 really.
11 MR. RODEMS: Well, there's no way I can
12 tell you, Mr. Gillespie, that -- that anything
13 you do in the future wouldn't create a
14 problem, but I can assure you that I'm not
15 looking to sign this agreement today and jam
16 you up with more litigation tomorrow.
17 So I give you my word that within seven
18 days if you take down my picture, my law
19 firm's picture, and all the stuff relating to
20 me and my two partners --
21 MR. GILLESPIE: That might be a better
22 way to do this, to get an idea of what he
23 wants done from me after today.
24 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: He just told you he
25 wants everything -- any references --
9
1 photograph references or other references to
2 his -- him or his firm or his partners, he
3 wants down. I don't know how he can make it
4 much more simpler than that.
5 MR. RODEMS: And I'm not looking for a
6 situation -- I'm not looking for a situation
7 to invent a way to sue you again. I'm looking
8 for a way for you to go on with your life and
9 me and my partners to go on with our life.
10 That's all I'm looking for. So we can make
11 hand changes to that document, but what I'm
12 not willing to do is to delay this anymore.
13 This needs to be done.
14 MR. GILLESPIE: I'll defer to your
15 judgment on this.
16 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: I've already given
17 you judgment in private, and I'll give it to
18 you on the record. I think this is -- this is
19 an agreement you want to enter into, and I
20 think this is in your best interest.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, will you then see
22 that whatever changes need to be made are
23 made?
24 MR. RODEMS: No, I'm ready to sign it
25 right now.
10
1 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Well, the only
2 changes we're going to do is we're going to
3 add these words to both of these gentlemen's
4 names.
5 MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh. Will I get the
6 return of these documents?
7 MR. RODEMS: Return of what documents?
8 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Can he have his
9 discovery back?
10 MR. RODEMS: Sure. Here's what --
11 here's what happens. The court reporter is a
12 notary. I'm going to write in "Individually
13 and as an officer of and on behalf of Barker,
14 Rodems & Cook, P.A." under my name and under
15 Bill's name. You and I are going to sign it
16 now. She's going to notarize it.
17 I'm -- you're going to get a copy. I'm
18 going to take a copy back to the office. I'm
19 going to get my partners to sign it, notarize
20 it, and then you're going to get a fully
21 executed copy.
22 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great.
23 MR. RODEMS: I'm going to prepare for
24 you a notice of dismissal with prejudice for
25 the appeal, which I'll email to you. Which if
11
1 Mr. Gillespie authorizes you, you can sign it,
2 and we can send it to the Second DCA. If he
3 wants to dismiss it himself, that's fine.
4 I'll get a satisfaction of judgment issued to
5 you and recorded, and -- and that's how it
6 will go.
7 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, there's another
8 issue.
9 MR. RODEMS: Okay.
10 MR. GILLESPIE: And it might be a
11 substantial one. Judge Cook, apparently, put
12 my confidential disability information in the
13 court file last year, and that was discovered
14 during this appeal process. So I guess to
15 counter --
16 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Is that case still
17 active that you're talking about?
18 MR. GILLESPIE: It's this case.
19 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Oh, okay. I thought
20 you were talking about Judge Cook, and
21 I thought that was a different case.
22 MR. GILLESPIE: No.
23 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: But if it's this
24 case, just file a motion. We'll file a motion
25 to have that taken out of the --
12
1 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, here's --
2 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: -- court file and
3 destroyed.
4 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, here's what's
5 happened since then, because opposing counsel
6 kept complaining that he didn't have this
7 information --
8 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: By "opposing
9 counsel," do you mean Mr. Rodems?
10 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm trying not to -- not
11 to aggravate the situation here.
12 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay. I'm just
13 trying to understand.
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Oh, okay. Sorry about
15 that. Mr. Rodems kept complaining that he was
16 entitled to this information when all other
17 sources said he wasn't, and in an effort to
18 move that issue forward, I put the information
19 on the record just last month -- the end of
20 last month.
21 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: You filed something
22 with that?
23 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.
24 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Is that what you're
25 saying?
13
2 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Well, we'll do a
3 motion to get it out of the record. And I'm
4 sure if Mr. Rodems has a copy of it in his
5 file, he'll relinquish it to you.
6 MR. RODEMS: I won't oppose any motion
7 to anything having to do with resolving your
8 concerns about the disability information.
9 And, you know, I mean, whatever -- whatever
10 you need.
11 I'm sure that if we went over to Judge
12 Arnold right now and said, "Judge, we've
13 reached an agreement, and we'd like to dismiss
14 the case, but Mr. Gillespie would like to have
15 the court seal any documents relating to his
16 disability," I'm sure the Court would probably
17 entertain that motion right now.
18 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: You could have it
19 purged, too. I've had stuff purged before.
20 MR. GILLESPIE: Well --
21 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: And he'll instruct
22 the clerk to destroy it.
23 MR. GILLESPIE: I want to do it now,
24 because now is the time that we're dealing
25 this.
14
1 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay.
2 MR. RODEMS: Why don't we --
3 MR. GILLESPIE: And I can make a
4 handwritten notice. I mean, there is a -- May
5 27th, 2011. And Judge Cook put that
6 information in the file, I believe, June 21st,
7 2010. And there were some earlier ones
8 inadvertently put in by myself in February
9 2007 and early March 2007.
10 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: And what are you --
11 what is it that you're worried about that this
12 is out there?
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Just --
14 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Is this something
15 else where you --
16 MR. GILLESPIE: This is -- this is an
17 example. And I'm not trying to inflame the
18 situation, but this information was in the
19 file, and Mr. Rodems took copies of it and
20 started giving it to other people outside of
21 this case.
22 MR. RODEMS: Honestly, I don't know what
23 you are referring to. I'm --
24 MR. GILLESPIE: Mr. Bajo of the
25 Thirteenth Circuit JNC. He had nothing to do
15
1 with this case.
2 MR. RODEMS: Well, I mean, the only
3 thing I can tell you is that I wrote letters
4 to him. I don't think I provided to him any
5 documents.
7 MR. RODEMS: The only documents I would
8 have provided to him would have been court
9 filings, so --
10 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, those are court
11 filings.
12 MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well, I mean, if
13 there's something in a court filing --
14 MR. GILLESPIE: If there's something in
15 a court filing, it's got to come out, because
16 you just heard his position.
17 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Can we go off the
18 record, please?
20 MR. RODEMS: The settlement agreement
21 has been signed and notarized by you for me
22 and Mr. Gillespie.
23 THE REPORTER: Yes.
24 MR. RODEMS: By agreement, we agreed
25 that Exhibit 4 would be given back to
16
1 Mr. Gillespie. So we're in agreement. Is
2 that correct, Mr. C?
3 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Yes, sir.
4 MR. RODEMS: Okay. And then what we'd
5 like to do is, if we can, go over to Judge
6 Arnold and advise him that the parties are
7 dismissing the case with prejudice and get
8 that on the record, and --
9 (Cell phone ringing.)
10 MR. RODEMS: This is my partner.
12 (Honorable James D. Arnold entered the
13 room.)
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, Chris Rodems on
16 behalf of the Defendants. The parties have
17 reached a settlement agreement, and we have
18 executed it. Mr. Gillespie and I have
19 executed it. I'll be having my two partners
20 execute it this afternoon, but we wanted to
21 announce on the record before Your Honor that
22 this action is being dismissed with prejudice
23 with each party to bear its own attorneys'
24 fees and costs. Is that correct, Mr. --
25 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: That's a correct
17
1 representation, Your Honor. The only other
2 concern would be the writ of bodily attachment
3 and arrest warrant that are still
4 outstanding.
5 THE COURT: And discovery was produced?
6 MR. RODEMS: Yes, sir.
7 THE COURT: And the deposition was
8 taken?
9 MR. RODEMS: We have reached an
10 agreement that by settling the case, all of
11 Mr. Gillespie's requirements were met.
12 THE COURT: All right. I'll rescind the
13 warrant.
14 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: And, Judge, educate
15 me. It's been years since I was a prosecutor.
16 How would we get word out to the various law
17 enforcement authorities so that --
18 THE COURT: First of all, I'm going to
19 sign the warrant -- or sign the rescission
20 today.
21 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Oh, okay.
22 Beautiful.
23 THE COURT: Okay? The sheriff's office
24 will be informed. They will inform Marion
25 County. The order will go into the system
18
1 rescinding it, and I'll be glad to give you
2 and your client a conformed copy of it.
3 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great. Thank you,
4 Your Honor.
5 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.
6 MR. RODEMS: And, Your Honor, one other
7 thing. I will be preparing a satisfaction of
8 judgment, which I will distribute directly to
9 Mr. C regarding the judgment that was entered
10 by Judge Barton several years ago. And my
11 legal assistant is bringing over a notice of
12 dismissal for Mr. Gillespie to sign with the
13 Second District Court of Appeal. And then I
14 think there will also be a formal joint
15 stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of
16 this action with each party to bear its own
17 attorneys' fees and costs. But those are the
18 things that we need to complete to finalize
19 the settlement, and we thank you for your
20 patience today.
21 THE COURT: Relative to one other
22 concern your client had about something that
23 was filed with the clerk, once the case is
24 dismissed with prejudice, it will -- it will
25 go over into storage, and it won't be
19
1 available.
2 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great, Your Honor.
3 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.
4 I appreciate that.
5 THE COURT: Anything further?
6 MR. RODEMS: No, sir. Thank you.
7 THE COURT: With that in mind, I'll sign
8 the order. And if you gentlemen will wait
9 around, you will get your conformed copies,
10 and we'll make the appropriate calls to the
11 sheriff's office.
12 MR. RODEMS: Yes, sir.
13 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Do you want to use my
14 order, Judge, or are you going to draft your
15 own?
16 THE COURT: No, I did my own.
17 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay. Thank you.
18 (At 3:02 p.m., the proceedings were
19 concluded.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10DAB
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies Motion to Strike or
Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of
Action with Prejudice and Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and
General Mutual Release (Doc. 33).
When Mr. Gillespie instituted this lawsuit he included as defendants the law firm
of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (the Firm) and attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems
(Doc. 1). Mr. Gillespie sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 13)
but he chose instead to voluntarily dismiss his claims against the Firm and Mr. Rodems
(Doc. 22). Upon receipt of Mr. Gillespies notice of voluntary dismissal the Court
directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing all claims against the Firm and Mr.
Rodems without prejudice (Doc. 25). The Judgment was entered on November 23,
2010 (Doc. 26).
On June 21, 2011, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker and William J.
Cook (the Assignees), filed their Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for
Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (the Notice) (Doc. 32). Attached to the Notice is a
10
document entitled Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release (the
Settlement Agreement) (Id.). The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Mr.
Gillespie, the Assignees and the Firm. In the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Gillespie
assigned all claims pending or which could have been brought, based on the
allegations of [Mr. Gillespie], against any person or entity, without limitation, in [this
case]. In return, he received the satisfaction of a judgment.
Mr. Gillespie has motioned this Court to strike or set aside both the Notice and
the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 33). The Assignees served a response to the motion
in which they dispute certain facts alleged by Mr. Gillespie, assert that he does not have
standing to bring his motion to strike and they say this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction (Doc. 40).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that [t]he court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter. (Emphasis supplied). The only pleadings allowed are: (1) a
complaint; (2) the answer to the complaint; (3) the answer to a counterclaim; (4) the
answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party
complaint; and (7) if the Court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.
Because the Notice and Settlement Agreement are not pleadings they are not subject
to a motion to strike. McNair v. Monsanto Co., 279 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1298 (M.D. Ga.
2003)(motion to strike is only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the
pleadings.); Merritt v. Hubb Intern. Southwest Agency Ltd., 2011 WL 4026651, *2
(N.D. Ga. 2011)(motion to strike declaration held procedurally improper because Rule
12(f) only applies to pleadings.); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Belu, 2009
2
WL 2848995, *3 (N.D. Ga. 2009)(explaining that Rule 12(f) only applies to pleadings);
and Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988)(noting
that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection).
Therefore, Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies Motion to Strike or Set Aside Mr. Rodems
Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice and
Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release (Doc.
33) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on the 6 day of October, 2011.
th
Copies furnished to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Counsel of Record
3
11
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
-vs- Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10TBS
THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint against eleven (11)
Defendants which, by its title, purports to state a claim under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq., as well as various violations of his
constitutional rights.
1
(Doc. 1). The Complaint is due to be dismissed for several reasons.
First, the Plaintiff has never effected service of summons on any of the Defendants,
or complied with any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second, the Complaint
consists of 39 pages of rambling, largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Third, the Complaint fails to allege the basis for the
Courts subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) the parties are
clearly all citizens of Florida and therefore not diverse, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any
1
The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two (2) of the Defendants, Barker
Rodems & Cook, P.A., and Ryan Christopher Rodems, on October 29, 2010 (Docs. 22, 25-26).
12
intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. And fourth, it appears that the Plaintiff has assigned all of
his claims in this case to Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and
William J . Cook, who have moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(2). (See Doc. 32).
2
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,
terminate all pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 27th day of February, 2012.
Copies to: Counsel of Record
Neil J . Gillespie, pro se
2
The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlement
agreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, executed
under duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However, the core of the
settlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of various matters
pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have been executed as part
of a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court is the appropriate judicial
body with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the validity and/or enforceability of the
settlement agreement and assignment. This Court will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction)
entertain any disputes within the purview of the settlement agreement unless and until the state
court enters a judgment declaring the settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
2

Neil Gillespie
From: "UPS Quantum View" <auto-notify@ups.com>
To: <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Monday, J anuary 07, 2013 10:33 AM
Subject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FP290125299
Page 1of 1
1/21/2013

UPS My Choice
can help you avoid
missed home
deliveries.

Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J . Gillespie will not
reply.
At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice is to confirm
following shipment has been delivered.
Important Delivery Information
Delivery Location: MAIL ROOM
Signed by: J CONNEL
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
Attorney Consumer Assistance Progra
The Florida Bar
651 E J EFFERSON ST
TALLAHASSEE
FL
32399
US

____2@@2@@2OoluKbm____
Tracking Number: 1Z64589FP290125299
Delivery Date / Time: 07-J anuary-2013 / 10:06 AM
Number of Packages: 1
UPS Service: GROUND
Weight: 1.0 LBS

2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Servic
rights reserved.
For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy.
Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message.
For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS.

This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copy
use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately.
Privacy Notice
Contact UPS
Proof of Del i very
Tracking Number: 1Z64589FP290125299
Service: UPS Ground
Weight: 1.00 lb
Shipped/Billed On: 01/04/2013
Delivered On: 01/07/2013 10:06 A.M.
Delivered To: TALLAHASSEE, FL, US
Signed By: J CONNEL
Left At: Mail Room
Print This Page
Close Window
Dear Customer,
This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
UPS
Tracking results provided by UPS: 01/07/2013 10:52 A.M. ET
Close Window
UPS: Tracking Information http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Tallahass...
1 of 1 1/7/2013 10:52 AM

SCOTUS, Rule 8 Notice, Conduct Unbecoming, Ryan C Rodems, 12-7747

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

SCOTUS, Rule 8 Notice, Conduct Unbecoming, Ryan C Rodems, 12-7747

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

No: 12-7747

S-ar putea să vă placă și