Thank You For Moral Courage Justice System

Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida, SCOTUS Petition No.
12-7747

Neil Gillespie
1. Deputy Christopher E. Brown, Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office (HCSO), who
impeached Martha marionette judge Cook, her falsehood made in open court
September 28, 2010 that I elected to leave the final summary judgment hearing.
Martha Cook ordered me removed after receiving the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.
2. Major J ames Livingston, HCSO, Commander of Court Operations, who provided me a
letter J anuary 12, 2011 with Deputy Browns statement impeaching Martha Cook, a
marionette judge to Mr. Rodems. see U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit.
Here as filed in Petition No. 12-7747, http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/
3. Hon. Richard A. Nielsen, who rejected Mr. Rodems false legal argument to a claim
of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs and established res judicata, forever barring
Rodems falsehood from this case. See Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And
Strike, entered J anuary 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.
4. Hon. Pat Frank, Clerk of Court, Hillsborough Co., who refused for 6 months to obey
a sham order corruptly entered by marionette judge Cook banning my pro se pleadings.
5. Florida Bar Counsel William Lance Thompson, who opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C)
J une 28, 2004 on my complaint against William J . Cook. Unfortunately Tampa Chief
Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal improperly closed the file February 9,
2005 without finding misconduct, and has defended her wrong decision ever since.
6. Tampa attorney David M. Snyder who informed Mr. Rodems September 7, 2006 that
Mr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss, and Rodems counterclaim had
little chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution and privileged nature....
Mr. Snyder proposed settlement to Rodems, payment to me of $6,224.78, but he rejected.
7. Attorney Seldon Childers who determined September 17, 2009 that actual damages were
$7,143, not $6,224 as in my complaint; and $100,000 Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation.
8. Florida Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood, who opened TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
September 13, 2012 on my complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems. Tampa Chief
Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the file
without finding misconduct, by Bar Counsel Leonard Clarks letter May 14, 2013.
9. Florida Bar Counsel Theodore P, Littlewood, who opened TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
August 17, 2012 on my complaint against Eugene P. Castagliuolo. Tampa Chief Branch
Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the file without
finding misconduct, see her letter to me dated J une 13, 2013.
Thank You for Moral Courage in the J ustice System
http://www.scribd.com/doc/173453711/Thank-You
Thank You for Moral Courage in the Justice System
2

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
10. J ustice Clarence Thomas, granted Application No. 12A215 extended time to file until
December 10, 2012; consolidated 2 Eleventh Circuit Appeals, 12-11028 and 12-11213.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
11. Florida Bar Counsel J ames A G Davey, J r. who referred November 5, 2010 my complaint
against Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) to a local grievance committee that
dismissed; the ABA McKay Report calls local committees crony discipline components.
12. Michael Borseth, an independent court reporter who has faithfully made transcripts for
me, even when wrongly threatened with litigation by attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo.
13. Allison Raistrick, Clerks Indigent Screening Unit, appointed me counsel May 27, 2011
for a civil contempt hearing. Fla. J udge J ames Arnold relieved the public defender, held
the hearing ex parte, and corruptly ordered my arrest on Mr. Rodems false evidence.
14. Dr. Karin Huffer, ADA advocate. Mental health practitioner, author, and educator on
Legal Abuse Syndrome. See Dr. Huffers October 28, 2010 letter, As the litigation has
proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and testimonial access to the
court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways possible...
15. Attorney J effrey R. Shelquist, prepared for me an Assignment of Unliquidated Lawsuit
Damages that transferred to my mother a security interest in 05-CA-7205, protection
from a $11,500 sanction judgment concocted by Rodems and crony J udge J ames Barton.
J udge Bartons misconduct was rewarded with The Distinguished Judicial Service Award
in 2012 for launching the ONE Campaign, to encourage Florida lawyers to uphold their
oath of attorney to ...never...delay anyones cause for lucre or malice. Unfortunately
J udge Barton relinquished his position of trust as judge to Mr. Rodems in 05-CA-7205
where Barton presided, and permitted Rodems to delay my cause for lucre and malice.
16. Tampa Fire Rescue EMT Paramedic Robert Ladue and EMT Paramedic Dale Kelley
treated me J uly 12, 2010 at the Edgecomb Courthouse. A report of the call, incident
number 100035129, impeaches marionette judge Cooks written account of the
incident in her order filed J uly 30, 2010: Mr. Gillespie refused medical care from
emergency personnel when called by bailiffs and left the courthouse immediately after
learning that the conference was completed. Page 1, footnote 2, Notice of Case
Management Status and Order on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions.
17. Berryhill and Associates, Inc. court reporting, and Dempster-Berryhill Court Reporting.
To Thomasina Berryhill, Larry Murray, and associates for reporting an unpopular cause.
Neil J . Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari U.S. Supreme Court
Application No. 12-A215 granted by J ustice Thomas
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co. FL
3
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2013/06/david-rowland-misled-florida-ag-scotus.html
18. Diana R. Esposito, Chief-Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Florida, for honestly
providing incriminating documents in response to my records request. Yes, Ms. Esposito
might have done more sooner. However Ms. Espositos ultimate disclosure against
Floridas unjust and corrupt legal system is valued, redemptive, and thus acknowledged.
Public records show David A. Rowland, General Counsel for the Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit, Florida, concocted with others a fraud to falsely portray to Kenneth Wilson, Fla.
Asst. Attorney General, that I did not serve Mr. Rowland my petition per Supreme Court
Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he relied on Rowlands fraud, and did not submit a brief in
opposition due the Supreme Court J anuary 14, 2013. My letter to Mr. Wilson May 16,
2013 shows how the fraud worked, see Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/142305243/
Without a response, Florida Attorney General Pamela J o Bondi denied me due process
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court relies on opposition
briefs as part of its adversarial process to properly litigate and decide a petition. Floridas
opposition brief was due J anuary 14, 2013. AG Bondi did not respond for Florida, thus
no opposition brief was distributed for the Supreme Court Conference February 15, 2013.
Fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate government activity, is a
violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, a deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242,
and a conspiracy against my rights, 18 U.S.C. 241.
19. Attorney Woody Isom, who emailed me March 23, 2010 with evidence that impeached
his wife Claudia Rickert Isom, a trial judge in 05-CA-7205. J udge Claudia Isom perjured
herself in open court February 1, 2007 during conflict check hearing. J udge Isom failed
to disclose husband Woody Isom and J onathan Alpert were partners at Fowler-White.
The Alpert firms fee contract with me was the only one signed in the litigation. J udge
Isom was required to recuse; instead she made biased rulings in favor of Mr. Rodems.
J udge Isom also ruled contrary to her law essay, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics,
28 STETSON L. REV. 323 (1998) that favors intensive case management - not sanctions.
J udge Isom wrote, Perhaps the perceived backlash of cracking down on unprofessional
behavior is unrealistic for Florida's circuit judges who are elected officials. However, that
perception shapes the judicial response, even when responding theoretically at a
seminar. (p. 2, 2). So J udge Claudia Isom sanctions pro se people, not crony lawyers.
J udge Isoms misconduct was rewarded with the 2013 Distinguished J udicial Service
Award presented by Chief J ustice Ricky Polston J an. 31 at the Florida Supreme Court.
Links below to Petition No. 12-7747 on the J ustice Network blog
Left image: Evidence of a crisis in the practice of law in the state of
Florida. Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (r) to Scott Rothstein (l):
"Scott - You are amazing!" - Rothstein pled guilty to racketeering
and on J une 9, 2010 received a 50-year prison sentence.
4
20. Kirby Rainesburger, a Tampa Police lawyer, who concluded February 22, 2010 that
Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing to J udge Richard Nielsen in
his sworn affidavit as an exact quote language that clearly was not an exact quote of
Neil Gillespie. J udge Nielsen recused sua sponte after learning details of Mr. Rodemss
deception and intentional disruption of the tribunal by strategic maneuver to gain an
unfair litigation advantage. Unfortunately Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Susan
Bloemendaal once again excused Mr. Rodems misconduct in response to my complaint.
21. Deputy Roger Devall, U.S. Marshalls Service Tampa, J une 3, 2013 for stating during
our 2:00 PM telephone call that the U.S. Marshall will serve a federal complaint on
judges as provided by law. An Ocala Division deputy clerk denied this September 28,
2010 when I filed the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503. Deputy Devall also advised the Clerk
might not issue summons for judges. Transcript, Deputy Devall, J une 3, 2013, page 14:
DEPUTY DEVALL:
11 ...You might have issues getting summons --
12 summons issued by the Clerks court for Judges.
Florida judges and state employees were served pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P, Rule 4(d),
waiver of summons, a last ditch effort when the Clerk of Court will not issue summons.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/172064977/Thirteenth-J udicial-Circuit-Service-of-Process
22. J ames Worley, videographer, who filmed for me gratis the Thirteenth Circuit J udicial
Nominating Commission exit interviews J une 15, 2010. Also interviewer Shadira O.
Pressley, a student intern at the Connecticut School of Broadcasting, appeared gratis.
http://youtu.be/KtswMgV0lkE
My notes as a public observer to the J NC interviews J une 15, 2010 show the Commission has a
screening process to eliminate honest judicial applicants. During the interview, a Commission
member will ask if the applicant has seen in court any unprofessional behavior from a judge.
Applicants who respond with examples of bad judicial behavior they witnessed are not selected.
One applicant J une 15, 2010 responded that a judge said to a very pregnant woman words to the
effect Would you like this garbage can moved closer to you in case you have the baby? This
exchange was memorialized by email with the J NC Chair Pedro Bajo. I noted this and other
observations in several letters to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. The letters are posted on Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109845143/J NC-Interviews-J une-15-2010-Comments-to-Gov-Crist
I sometimes think that the problem at bottom is really a lack of respect by
lawyers for other people. - -
The Hon. Dennis J acobs, Chief J udge
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007)
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss6/4
5

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/middle-
class_dilemma_cant_afford_lawyers_cant_qualify_for_legal_aid
23. Sonja Mullerin v J ohn Hayter, et al., 1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ , United States District
Court, Northern District of Florida, Civil RICO, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961-68, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, Civil action for
deprivation of rights, against attorney J ohn Hayter, landlord J udith Yesha Brill, J udge
David Kreider, his J A Debbie Spivey, and J udge Denise Ferrero of Alachua County
Florida. This case shows the District Clerk would not issue summons for Florida judges.
The Plaintiff was previously an attorney licensed in Colorado but not licensed in Florida.
Mullerin v Hayter alleges a Florida state court operated as a corrupt RICO enterprise.
The Plaintiff alleged a Florida court deprived her of rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 through
a pattern of racketeering activity to benefit a local attorney and law firm that used the
court for asset stripping - to obtain fraudulent court orders requiring money or property
to be transferred from the true owners - persons targeted by the enterprise - to the law
firm and its clients. The suit alleges the Alachua County Florida court was not operated
in an effective and expeditious manner for which it was created by statute - but as a
corrupt RICO enterprise for the private benefit of the law firm and its clients.
Doc. 16. First Amended Complaint, Civil RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983, October 18, 2012.
Doc. 19. Motion for Order Directing Issuance of Summons, October 30, 2012.
Doc. 20. Letter to U.S. J udge Stephan P. Mickle, re summons, November 15, 2012.
Doc. 21. Order, Gary R. J ones, U.S. Magistrate J udge, in part...J anuary 15, 2013.
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 and of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Plaintiffs claims stem from state civil court proceedings involving a dispute with her
landlord. She contends that her landlord and her landlords attorney violated RICO by
using the courts to strip Plaintiff of her assets and that the attorney, three state court
judges, and a judicial assistant conspired to obstruct justice and violate Plaintiffs civil
rights. The state court proceedings were pending at the time Plaintiff filed her complaint.
Plaintiff requests damages, permanent injunctive relief, and attorneys fees....
Doc. 23. Order, dismissed w/o prejudice, U.S. Magistrate Gary J ones, March 4, 2013.
Sonja Mullerin was formerly known as Alison Sunny Maynard. Thanks Sunny!
A composite of documents in Mullerin v Hayter is posted on Scribd here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/163229364/Sonja-Mullerin-v-J ohn-Hayter-1-12-Cv-190
The whole system of justice in America is broken, Tribe
said. The entire legal system is largely structured to be
labyrinthine, inaccessible, unusable. - -
Larry Tribe, U.S. J ustice Department, Access to J ustice
Initiative, and Harvard Law School Professor
ABA J ournal, J uly 22, 2010 by Debra Cassens Weiss
6

U.S. J udge J ames D. Whittemore, Middle District of Florida
Basic Federal Practice 2007 CLE - The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education
24. Thanks to Tom Miller, Program Administrator of The Florida Bars Continuing Legal
Education (CLE) program, for both the audio CD #0444C (of the live presentation of
Course #0444R - Basic Federal Practice) and permission to made a written transcript.
Comments, U.S. District J udge J ames D. Whittemore on the erosion of professionalism
Transcript, p. 23, #0444R - Basic Federal Practice 2007. [Mr. Alperts] coffee-throwing.
6 If you think that's the only example of
7 wayward lawyer conduct during depositions just get
8 on the internet and search around. It's just
9 hilarious some of the things that go on. There
10 have been fist fights in Tampa. There has been
11 coffee thrown across the table by one lawyer
12 against another in a Federal deposition room in the
13 Federal courthouse. There have been lawyers
14 clipping their nails during depositions. That kind
15 of conduct is reprehensible.
A Tampa Police Department report J une 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges
Mr. Alpert committed battery, F.S. 784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing
hot coffee on him. Mr. Levine was then a 68 year-old senior citizen. The report states:
The victim and defendant are both attorneys and were representing their clients
in a mediation hearing. The victim alleges that the defendant began yelling, and
intentionally threw the contents of a 20 oz. cup of hot coffee which struck him in
the chest staining his shirt. A request for prosecution was issued for battery.
Ryan Christopher Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report but failed to inform
me that my lawyer Mr. Alpert was named in the report for battery on Arnold Levine.
A composite of the above documents, with the CLE transcript, and a $5M defamation
lawsuit by Mr. Levine, is posed on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/170766008/
The coffee-throwing incident and Mr. Rodems professional failing to report the battery
to me is plead at 21-22 in my Complaint (Doc. 1), Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit, Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Doc. 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 10 of 39
25. Thanks to attorney J oryn J enkins, she met and informed me April 20, 2006 about the above.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 39
1
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 39
3
Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit is of a
substantial or controlling effect, which I intended to, but did not present with my petition March
18, 2013 due to disability related illness, discussed in Part 3. The petition contained 12 pages,
three pages less than the Rule 33.2(b) limit. I move to submit the three pages now.
U.S. v. Terry affirmed a jury conviction against former J udge Steven J . Terry of several
honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an
official from accepting things of value in return for official acts. 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).
In U.S. v. Terry, the government proved to a jury that Terry accepted from political
benefactor Frank Russo campaign donations, a thing of value, in return for official acts, improper
rulings on summary judgment. An FBI wiretap provided evidence of the crime. The government
proved that the defendant used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud another,
18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
In my case, Respondent J udge Martha J . Cook accepted campaign donations from
Respondent Ryan C. Rodems, and two of my former lawyers, his partners William J . Cook and
J onathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings on summary judgment, and civil contempt, during
ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.
Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major J ames Livingston, provided evidence the
Respondents falsified the record of the hearing. The Respondents used the mail to carry out their
scheme or artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
I only attended one of three hearings before J udge Cook September 28, 2010. The first
was my spoken motion to disqualify J udge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a 1983 civil rights and
From Petition No.
12-7747, Rule 21
Motion to amend,
received-SCOTUS
April 15, 2013, the
date of dismissal.
2
4
disability lawsuit. J udge Cook refused, accused me in open court of feigning disability, and
ordered Deputy Brown to remove me. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. required recusal
because the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be
constitutionally tolerable. The Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie attests to the above, and appears in
a separate volume appendix. (Also, trial record Doc. 58-2, Exhibit 14, response to show cause).
J udge Cook falsified the record that I elected to leave the hearing, in violation of F.S.
839.13(1) and 837.06. The transcript and errata sheet appear in a separate volume appendix.
J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the summary judgment hearing, and Mr. Rodems
complied with her instruction to create a record, which false testimony went unchallenged
because no one represented me. J udge Cook then granted summary judgment for Mr. Rodems,
and immediately signed, without reading, a six page order at Mr. Rodems request, one he
prepared in advance. [Appendix 1]. J udge Cook mailed me a conformed copy order in a postage
prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote
1
.
Next, J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the civil contempt hearing, again falsified the
record that I elected to leave in violation of F.S. 839.13(1), and found me guilty. Because this
was civil contempt, and not criminal contempt, appointment of counsel was not required under
Gideon v. Wainwright. (The defender was appointed May 27, 2011, but relieved by the court).
Two days later September 30, 2010 J udge Cook signed an improper order holding me in
civil contempt [Appendix 4], filed October 1, 2010. This is the same proposed order that Mr.
Rodems provided by mail
2
, and instructed J udge Cook to sign, together with postage paid

1
The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by order
J anuary 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5,
2010 I filed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of J udge Barton, but
J udge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time.
2
Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.
5
envelopes. [Appendix 5]. J udge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order
Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt states at footnote 1:
Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
During that hearing, Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return.
Fortunately Deputy Brown told his Commander, Major J ames Livingstion that I did not leave the
hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by J udge Cook. Major Livingstion
in turn provided me a letter dated J anuary 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B.
J udicial elections in Florida are different than those of other elected officials, and as
described in Terry. J udicial elections are nonpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial
office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified to seek
judicial office, there is pressure not to oppose a sitting judge. Lucy Morgan of the Tampa Bay
Times wrote May 2, 2008, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats: [Appendix 8].
...Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races in
the 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to a
review of election results over the past 12 years. J udges frequently escape opposition
because only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering a
judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges have
faced opposition, and only five have been defeated...
...For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide.
Twenty-three of those are open seats and will be contested. Of the 260 remaining seats,
only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and District
Court justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another term
since the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s...
As in Terry, J udge Cooks collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002 bid. See
Appendix 9 for the donation records of Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert - $100 each. An
honest services fraud agreement need not spell out which payments control which act, just that
J udge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.
Unfortunately, J udge Cook acted like Mr. Rodems marionette. Terry at p. 11.
Po. Box 3371
Phone(813)247-8000
www.hcso.tampa.jl.us David Gee, Sheriff
JoseDocobo, ChiefDeputy
Hillsborough County
Tampa, Florida 33601
January 12,2011
Mr.NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SWl1S
th
Loop
Ocala,Florida34481
DearMr. Gillespie:
InresponsetoyourletterdatedNovember13,2010,ImadecontactwithDeputy
ChristopherE. Brownconcerningyourrequestforanexplanationregardingwhyhe
escortedyououtof thecourthouseonSeptember28,2010afterahearingwithJudge
MarthaCook. DeputyBrownadvisedthattheJudgeorderedyoutoleaveaftera
disruptioninthecourtroom. Hestatedthathefollowedyoutothefrontdoorasyou
exitedthebuildingwithoutassistance. Otherthantheofficialrecordsmaintainedbythe
Court, IamnotawareofanyotherrecordsrelatedtothehearingbeforeJudgeCook.
Aswediscussedonthetelephonetoday,youexpressedsomeconcernoveryour
personalsafetywhileinthecourthousedueto adisabilityanddueto apotentialthreat
from opposingcounsel. Pleaseletmeknowthedateandtimeofyournextvisittothe
courthouseandwewilltakeactiontohelpensureasafeandorderlyvisit. Pleasefeel free
tocontactmewithanyadditionalquestionsorconcerns.
Sincerely,
JamesP. Livingston,Major
CourtOperationsDivision
2
-, \ ,
) Ii
....'-' , ....
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHETIllRTEENTHJUDICIALCmCUITOF
THESTATEOFFLORIDA,INANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,
CIVILDIVISION
NEILJ.GILLESPIE,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BARKER,RODEMS&COOK,P.A.,
aFloridaCorporation;andWILLIAM
J.COOK,
DEFENDANTS.
--------------_-----:/
ORDERONDEFENDANTS'MOTIONTODISMISSANDSTRIKE
TIDSCAUSEcameonforhearingonSeptember26,2005,uponDefendant's
MotiontoDismissandStrike,andcounselforthepartiesbeingpresentandhavingmade
argumentsandthecourthavingconsideredthePlaintiffsRebuttaltoDefendant'sMotion
toDismissandStrike. Defendant'sReplyto PlaintiffsRebuttaltoDefendant'sMotion
toDismissandStrikeandthePlaintiff'sSecondRebuttaltoDefendant'sMotionto
DismissandStrike,andthecourtbeingadvisedfullyinthepremises,itisthereupon,
ADJUDGEDasfollows:
1. Defendant'sMotiontoDismissandStrikeisgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart.
2. ThoseportionsofDefendant'sMotiontoDismissandStrikeseekingto
dismisstheComplaintaredenied. Defendantshallhavefifteendaysfromthedateof this
orderwithinwhichtofileresponsivepleadings.
DIVISION"F "
or, 36
-
//1-
3
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
RICHARD A. NIELSEN
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
or' 37
f _
/0 L.f-
BARKER,RODEMS& COOK
JlR()FESSIONALASSOCJAT'ION
A<T'fORNF:YSl\ TLl\W
C1UU$A.MRKER Tt.,.lt+pl...:me813/489... 1-(101
400NortltAshleyDrive. Suire Z100
KYANCllRlSTOMlEAROOEMS
MtOlimile 8' 1/489.. 1008
WIUJ.-\MJ. COOK
Tanlpa. r':lori(la 1,602
May31,.2011
'+.
HOllorablePatFrank
ClerkoftheCircuitCourt
ThirteenthJudicialCircuit
PostOfficeBox989
Tanlpa,Florida33601
Re: :NcilJ.Gillespiev. Barker,Rodems&Cook,P.A.,
a FI()ridaCorporation;andWilliam.J.Cook
No.: OS-CA-7205; I)ivision"J"
DearMs. Frank:
Iamcounselfor WilliamJ. CookandBarker,Rodems&Cook,P.A.incasenumber05-CA-7205.
011 Novetllber 15,2010,JudgeCc)ok c:utcrcdan Orderbarringthe J>laintin:Neil J. from
appearing pro se, and also directin.g the office not to accept any more filing from Mr.
Gillespie. Sincetllattime,theClerk'sofficehasacceptedanumberoffilingsfromMr.Gillespie.
Acopyof JudgeCook'sOrderisenclosed.
Would}'OUpleaseexplainwhyyourofficehasnotcomplied",ithJudgeCook'sOrder'?
RCRIso

Response and explanation to Mr. Rodems' question to Clerk of Court Pat Frank:

Goose-stepping and blindly "following orders" of fascists like Martha Cook went
out of fashion after the Nuremberg Trials.

Please take notice and govern yourself accordingly. - Neil Gillespie
4
THEFLORIDABAR
MAILINGADDRESS: PHYSICALADDRESS:
JOHNF.HARKNESS,JR. 5521 WESTSPRUCESTREET AIRPORTMARRIOTTHOTEL 813-875-9821
EXEClfflVEDIRECTOR SUITEC-49 SUITEC-49 www.fLABAR.ORG
TAMPA, FL33607-5958 TAMPA, FL33607-5958
June28,2004
WilliamJohn Cook, Esq.
Barker,Rodems&
300 W. PlattSt., Suite 150
Tampa,Florida 33602-2299
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintofNeil J. Gillespie
TFBNo. 2004-11, 734(13C)
DearMr. Cook:
Enclosed pleasefind acopyof Neil J. Gillespie's inquiry/complaintagainstyou. Please letmehaveyour
written positiononthemattersraised withinfifteen (15)daysand sendacopyofyourreplytothe
Complainant. Yourresponse is required pursuantto Rule4-8.4(g)andwill assistthisofficein determining
whetherthis isamatterto besenttoagrievancecommitteeand handledas for in Rule3-7.3,
RulesRegulatingThe FloridaBar. Rule4-8.4(g)providesthatawritten responseshall bemadewithin 15
daysofthedateof the initial written investigative inquiryby barcounsel,grievancecommittee,orboardof
governors.
Also, returnacompletedcopyoftheencloseddisclosureform as mandatedbyRule3-7.1(g), Rules
RegulatingTheFloridaBar.
Pursuantto Rule3-7.1(b), RulesRegulatingTheFloridaBar,any responsebyyou in theseproceedings
shall becomeapartof thepublicrecordofthis matterand thereby becomeaccessibletothepublicupon
theclosureofthecasebyBarcounseloruponafindingofno probablecause,probablecause,orminor
misconduct. Disclosureduringthe pendencyof an investigationmaybemadeonlyas tostatus if aspecific
inquiryconcer ingthis case is madeand if thismatteris generallyknowntobe in the publicdomain.
WLT/psp
Enclosures- CopyofInquiry/Complaintand DisclosureForm
cc: NeilJ. Gillespie
5
THEFLORIDABAR
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUITEC-49 SlllTE C-49
www.FLABAR.ORG
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
February9, 2005
Neil J. Gillespie
301 W. PlattSt.,#155
Tampa,Florida 33606
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintregardingWilliamJohnCook,Esq.
TFBNo. 2004-11,734(l3C)
DearMr. Gillespie:
Afterevaluatingyourcomplaintagainsttheabove-referencedattorney,wefind thatthereis
insufficientevidenceofaviolationoftheRulesRegulatingTheFloridaBartowarrantfurther
proceedings.
Mr. Gillespie,thebarhascarefullyreviewed all theinformationand documentsprovidedbyyou
and Mr. Cook. Baseduponthisreview, it is thebar'spositionthattheobjectiveevidenceis
insufficientto supportafindingofmisconductonbehalfofMr. Cook.
Theappellatecourtorderstatedthatthepartieswereto beartheirownattorney'sfees and costs.
TheobjectiveevidenceindicatesthatAmscotpaid$50,000.00to satisfytheclaimsfor fees and
costsoftheplaintiffs. It appears ratherthanAmscotpayingyou and theothertwoplaintiffsthe
moneytheysimplypaidthemoneyto the Mr. Cook'sfirm. In eithercase,Mr. Cookandhis firm
wereentitledto fees and costsfor servicesperformed. IfAmscothadnotpaidthefees directlyto
the firm, Mr. Cookandhis firm wouldhavehadto recovertheirfees and costsfrom you and the
othertwoplaintiffs. Ifthosefees and costshadnotbeenpaidin theirentirety,Mr. Cookand his
firm wouldhavehadcausetoproceedto seekthosefees andcoststhroughanylegal means
availableto them. Thebar'sreview ofthismatterfails to find sufficientevidenceto supporta
findingofmisconductin this regard.
Likewise,reviewofthecorrespondencefails to supportafinding Mr. Cookneglectedto provide
youwith informationsuchthatyou couldmakeinformeddecisionsin thiscase. Youhad
discussionswithMr. Cookregardingsettlement. Theevidenceindicates you wereactively
involvedinprovidinghimwithyourpositionregardingsettlement. Theevidenceindicatesthat
you wereinformedaboutthecaseand thestatusofthecasethroughoutMr. Cook's
representation. Thesettlementagreementwas fully disclosedto you and you agreedto settle.
Likewise,the settlementwas fully explainedto you andyou voluntarilysignedthesettlement
agreement.

While you do not agree with Mr. Cook's interpretation of the law and the damages you were
allowed to recover under the Truth In Lending Act, the evidence provided is insufficient to
support a finding Mr. Cook's representation was not competent. Moreover, Mr. Cook was able
to get you double the amount he believes you were entitled to under the law.
The objective evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Cook acted to mislead you
during his representation. Further the objective evidence is insufficient to support a finding that
he coerced you in any way to enter into a settlement. Finally, the objective evidence is
insufficient to support a finding that the $50,000.00 attorney fee in this case was some sort of
"payoff' entered into by Mr. Cook and Amscot's attorney.
Accordingly, our file in this matter is now closed. The records regarding this Inquiry/Complaint
will be destroyed one (1) year from today. Our disposition of your complaint has no effect on
any legal remedy that you may have.
Sincerely,
Susan V. Bloemendaal
Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel
SVB/psp
cc: William John Cook, Esq.
LAwOFFICEOF
DAVIDM.SNYDER
PROFESSIONALASSOCIATiON
ArrORNEY& COUNSELORATLAw
SUITEFOUR
1810 SOUTHMACDILLAVENUE ADMITIEDINFLORIDAANDNEWYORK
TAMPA,FLORIDA 33629-5960 CERTIFIEDMEDIATOR
TELEPHONE (813)258-4501 U.S. DISTRICTCOURT. M.D.FLA.
FACSIMILE (813)258-4402 CIRCUITANDCOUNTYCJVIL
E-MAIL:DMSNYDER@DM5-LAW.COM N.A.S.D.ARBITRATOR& MEDIATOR
September7,2006
RyanC. Rodems
Barker,Rodems& Cook, P.A.
300WPlattSt,Suite 150
TampaFL33606
Re: Gillespiev. Barker,Rodems& Cook, P.A., etc., CaseNo. 05-7205
CircuitCourt, HillsboroughCounty, Florida
DearMr. Rodems:
Neil Gillespiehasengagedthisfirm toassisthimwiththeabove-styled
action.
Mr. Gillespie'sclaimhassurviveda motiontodismiss. Defendant's
counterclaimfor defamation,whileitmayhavestateda causeofactionatthe
outset,haslittlechanceofultimatesuccessgiventhelimiteddistributionand
privilegednatureofthepublicationcomplainedof. See e.g. Nodar v. Galbreath,
462So. 2d803(Fla. 1984).
Mr. Gillespiehasauthorizedmetoproposesettlementofallclaims
betweenhimandBarker, Rodems& Cook, P.A., Mr. Cook, andthefirm's
officers, directors, employees,agents, successorsandassigns,for paymentto
Mr. Gillespieof$6,224.78,exchangeofmutualgeneralreleases,anddismissal
withprejudiceoftheabove-styledlawsuit,whicheachpartytobearhis/itsown
costsandattorneys'fees.
WWW.DMS..LAW.COM
6
Ryan C. Rodems
September 7,2006. Page 2
Please contact me at your convenience if you have questions or
comments. Thank you for your prompt consideration of and response to this
offer, which expires at 5 p.m., September 17, 2006.
Very truly yours,
L;i. Snyder
DMS
Encl
cc: Neil Gillespie
WWW.DMS-LAW.COM
BARKER,RODEMS& COOK
PROFESSIONALASSOCIAnON
ATrORNEYS AT LAW
CHRtS A. BARKER.
R.YAN CHR.ISTOPHER RODEMS
WILLIAM J. COOK
400NorthAshleyDrive,Suite2100
Tampa,Florida33602
Telephone813/489 1001
Facsimile 813/489 1008
September14,2006
DavidM. Snyder,Esquire
Law OfficeofDavidM. Snyder
1810SouthMacDillAvenue,Suite4
Tampa,Florida 33629-5960
Re: NellJ.Gillespiev.Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A.,
aFloridaCorporation;andWilliamJ.Cook
CaseNo.: 05-CA-7205;Division"F"
OurFileNo. 2005.5422
DearMr. Snyder:
Ihaveandthankyouforyourletterof September7,2006. Yourofferisrejected.
Wewouldagree,however,toawalk away. Thatis,eachpartydismissesallclaimswithprejudice,
eachpartytobearhisoritsownattorneys'feesandcosts.
Yourletterissomewhatambiguousonyourrole;ifyouintendtoappearascounselofrecord,Iask
thatyousubmitaNoticeof Appearance.
Sincerely,
(
...../
RyanChristopherRodems
RCRlso
Oc t. 5. 2006 11: 58AM
No. 0200 P. 1
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROPESSIONAL ASSOCIAnON
ATIOINEYS AT LAW
CHItII A. BAllil
IYAN CHllilTOPHl1t aODIMS
WI1.LIAM ]. COOl;
400 North Alhley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa. Florida 3 ~
Tch:plaullG 81 )/419.. 1001
'lc,lmUa 813/489 .. 1008
Ootober S, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE ONLY 813-258-4402
David M. Snyder, Esquire
Law Office ofDavid M. Snyder
1810 South MacDill Avenue, Suite 4
Tampa, Florida 33629-5960
Re: NeD J. GlUllpie v. Barker, RodelDl Ie Cook, P.A.,
Florida Corporation; IDd William I. Cook
Cue No.: 05-CA-7205; DivilioD "F"
Our FIle No. 2005.5422
Dear Mr. Snyder:
To clarifyt our offer to settle is 88 follows: (1) We will dismiss our claims with prejudice,
Gillespie dismisses his with prejudice, and neither side will pay the other any money; and, (2)
Gillespie agrees to sign a general release to be prepared by us; and, (3) Gillespie must aaree to
appear in court to announce the settlement and submit to questioniDa from me regarding the
voluntlrineu ofbis settlement; and, (4) Gillespie must aaree to hire and pay a court reporter to
transcribe the settlement hearing.
The offer is open until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 6, 2006 and must be accepted in writing
received in this office before the deadline by faclimilo or hand delivery with your or his signature.
Ryan Christopher Rodema
R.CRlso
LAwOFFICEOF
DAVIDM.SNYDER
PROFESSIONALASSOCIATION
AlTORNEY&COUNSELORATLAw
SUIlEFOUR
1810SOlTTHMACDlu. AVENUE
ADMITTEDINFLoRIDAANDNEWYORK
TAMPA.FLORIDA 33629-5960 CERTlF1EDMEDIATOR
TELEPHONE (813)25&4501 U.S.DISTRICTCOURT.M.D.FLA.
FACSIMILE (813)25&4402 CIRCUITANDCOUNTYCIVIL
E-MAIL:DMSNYDERttoMSUW.COM NAS.D.ARBITRATORaMEDIATOR
October5,2006
RyanC. Rodems
Barker,Rodems&Cook,P.A.
300WPlattSt,Suite 150
TampaFL33606
Re: Gillespiev. Barker,Rodems&Cook, P.A., etc.,CaseNo. 05-7205
CircuitCourt,HillsboroughCounty,Florida
DearMr.Rodems:
IhaveyourOctober5,2006letter. ThisfirmnolongerrepresentsNeil
Gillespie. Ihaveforwardedyourlettertohimandyoumaycontacthim
directly.
Verytrulyyours,
.(' Q---..------
DavidM.Snyder C?-;)
DMS
Encl
cc: NeilGillespie
WWW.DMSi..AW.COM

TEL 866.996.6104 Attorney at Law Jeff Childers
FAX 407.209.3870
URL www.smartbizlaw.com

Sixth Street Executive Center
1330 NW 6
th
Street, Suite C
Gainesville, FL 32601
37 North Orange Ave., Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32801
jchilders@smartbizlaw.com
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
RE: Economic Analysis Spreadsheet
Dear Neil,
In this letter, I will explain my thoughts and assumptions relative to the economic
analysis of your case, as represented by the spreadsheet which you should have received
contemporaneously with this letter.
The spreadsheet concludes that the cases return on investment is negative.
There are four columns. The Item column represents either a potential recovery,
which increases the net value of the case, or a projected cost, which decreases the net value of the
case. Costs can be either hard costs such as attorneys fees and court costs, or soft costs such
as the cost of litigation-related illnesses and emotional harms. The Amount column represents
the best estimate of the actual recovery or cost for the category. The Prob% column represents
the probability of achieving the recovery or incurring the cost. The Eco Value column
represents the economic value of the item, i.e. the projected amount times the probability the
amount will actually be recovered or incurred.
Next I will discuss each individual item.
Actual Damages.
1
I calculated actual damages as follows. The award of $56,000 was
reduced by 45%, the amount a jury would likely allow the Defendants for their contingent fee.
This figure is based on the unexecuted contract attached to the Complaint. Furthermore, the
Bar allows that attorneys may pay actual costs before application of the contingent fee. Accepting
the costs as recited in the Complaint, the award is reduced by $6,125.46. Next, the amount is

1
The Complaint calculates actual damages a little differently. I went with my figures because they are more
favorable (and I believe, correct).
7
Page 2 of 5

divided by three to obtain the amount that should have been paid to the Plaintiff, and further
reduced by the $2,000 that was already paid to Plaintiff. I.e.:
Actual Award $56,000 $56,000
-Costs -$6,125.46 $49,874
- 45% Contingent Fee -$22,443 $27,431
- 2/3 due to the 2 other clients -$18,286 $9,143
- $2,000 already paid -$2,000 $7,143
==============
Total Actual Damages $7,143.00
2

Thus, as you can see, the maximum recoverable actual damages in this case are likely to
be $7,143. Next, the spreadsheet adjusts the maximum actual damage figure by the probability
of prevailing, which I calculated as 51%, or just more likely than not. Of course, these estimates
are largely subjective. I would have calculated the chance of prevailing on the merits as 75% at
the outset of the case, but given the cases history and the events which have transpired since
inception, I am forced to reduce the probability of succeeding on the merits to 51%. Thus, the
economic value of the actual damages in this case is $3,643.00.
Punitive Damages. As you know, punitive damages are more difficult to obtain. There
are both legal and factual barriers to pleading and proving punitive damages.
3
The Defendants
may convince the court that punitive damages were not plead properly or are not available in
this case, in which event the jury is not permitted to consider punitive damages. Also, punitive
damages are granted up to three times actual damages, and there is no guarantee that a jury
would award the full treble damage amount. Still, I used treble damages, which is a maximum
recoverable amount of $21,431. Furthermore, any punitive damages award can be overruled by
the judge, and appealed separately. Therefore, the probability of succeeding with punitive
damages is accounted for as half of the probability of succeeding with actual damages, or 25%.
Therefore, the economic value of the punitive damages at this point in the case is only $5,357.00.

2
As you can see, I did an independent calculation of damages, which amount was very close to your own figures.
3
In fact, on January 13, 2006, the court ordered the demands for punitive damages to be stricken from the
Complaint, so, actually, no current demand for punitive damages exists (presumably it might be re-plead in an
amended complaint). Also, to the extent that the suit succeeds on a breach of contract and not tort claim, punitive
damages are excluded. Farnsworth, Contracts, 12.3, at 157 (3d ed. 1999) ("Punitive damages should not be
awarded for breach of contract because they will encourage performance when breach would be socially more
desirable.").
Page 3 of 5

Award of Attorneys Fees. Under the American Rule, each party must pay its own
attorneys fees and costs. Unless an exception is granted by agreement between the parties or by
statute, there is no provision for the prevailing party to recover its fees and costs. The un-
executed representation contract attached to the Complaint contains no provision for attorneys
fees. I am aware of no other such agreement or statute that would apply in this case, beyond a
bare equitable appeal to the court. The spreadsheet therefore allows for no recovery from the
Defendants of fees and costs.
Subtotal, Forecast Recovery. Thus, the maximum recovery at 100%, i.e. full certainty of
succeeding in the litigation as to both actual and punitive damages, is $28,574. However,
adjusted for the probability of succeeding on the merits at this point in the case, the maximum
economic recovery is only $9,001.
Bauers Outstanding Fees. Mr. Bauer has a claim to his fees of $12,517.41, at least as of
the most current invoice that I was provided. On the one hand, he may have difficulty proving
his entitlement to the fees, due to some evidence that an attempt was made to renegotiate the
contract to a contingency basis. However, since that evidence is not conclusive and represents a
triable issue of fact, the probability of incurring additional costs to litigate the fees issues offsets
the reduction in probability that Mr. Bauer can recover them. Furthermore, generally speaking,
most ethical attorneys would require the Plaintiff to resolve the fees issue with predecessor
counsel before agreeing to take the case (as I would). Thus, there will be pressure to pay the fees
or come to an amicable settlement. Accepting Bauers figures, the economic cost of the
outstanding fees to Mr. Bauer at this point in the case is $12,517.41.
New Attorneys Fees. A new attorney would be required to litigate the case through
trial. Given the extensive history of the case, some non-trivial cost would be incurred in
reviewing and understanding the almost four-year history of this litigation (8 hrs). Then,
amendment of the complaint (4 hrs), response to various outstanding motions and issues
including the garnishment and counter-claims (26 hrs), preparation for trial on the substantive
issues and defenses (30 hrs), and the trial itself (30 hrs) will require substantial attorney time. At
an estimated $250 per hour, for 98 estimated attorney hours (loosely including paralegal time,
costs etc as part of the hours estimate), the fee for completing the case would be $24,500. Note
that any new attorney would have to consider the highly aggressive and acrimonious nature of
this particular litigation. This cost to complete the case is certain to be incurred, accounted
therefore at 100% probability. The economic value of this cost is $24,500.
4

4
It is unlikely a new attorney will offer a discounted, flat-rate, or contingency fee to take this case. The Defendants
have shown there is NO likelihood of a positive-cash settlement. Thus, there is no possible reward offsetting the
risks posed by this case. The only conceivable basis for a new attorney to proceed would be on a strict time and
materials basis with a substantial up-front retainer.
Page 4 of 5

Cost to Litigate Appeal. Based on their litigious behavior to date, the Defendants in this
case are almost certain to appeal any favorable ruling. Thus the spreadsheet reflects a
probability of 99% that any favorable verdict would be appealed. An average state-court appeal
is typically valued at $25,000, making the economic cost of this item $24,750.
Unpaid Judgment to Rodeems. Defendants are entitled to collect on their judgment for
sanctions in the amount of $11,550. As I understand the present status, some $400-$600 were
garnished by the bank and are awaiting an order of the court for release. If Plaintiff prevails at
trial, it is likely any award will be setoff by this amount if it is not already paid. Thus, 100%
probability the entire cost will be incurred, economic value $11,550.
Subtotal, Projected Costs. The total projected costs, which will likely be incurred
whether or not Plaintiff prevails, are $73,317.41. This amount should be considered the direct costs
avoided by ceasing litigation at this point. I note that the smallest cost in this category, the Unpaid
Judgment, eliminates almost entirely the projected recovery.
Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and
emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome, the
book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the non-
pecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate the physical
and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both short and long-term
effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time invested in the case but also by
loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this
figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards.
There is 100% probability these costs will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
Net Value of Case. The net value of the case is calculated on the spreadsheet by netting
all the projected costs of litigation from the projected economic recovery. In this case, the
spreadsheet calculates that the net value of the case is negative $164,316.
In summary, even if the figures are manipulated in the most favorable way, such as by
raising the probability of succeeding with actual and punitive damages to 100%, erasing Mr.
Bauers attorneys fees, forecasting that no appeal would be filed, and waiving the emotional
and physical costs to Plaintiff, the case still would still be in the red by over $7,000
((7,143+21,431)-24,500-11,550). The assumptions that the costs would be limited in this way are,
obviously, unrealistically optimistic.

Page 5 of 5

The issue to my mind, therefore, is how to exit the case with the lowest possible cost.
Please see my letter regarding a recommended course of action for my suggestions in this
regard.

Respectfully,

Jeff Childers
THEFLORIDABAR
651 EASTJEFFERSONSTREET
JOHNF.HARKNESS,JR. TALLAHASSEE,FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
September13,2012
Mr. RyanChristopherRodems
Barker
501 EKennedyBlvdSte790
Tampa,FL33602-5237
Re: ComplaintbyNeilJ. GillespieagainstRyanChristopherRodems
TheFloridaBarFileNo. 2013-10,271 (13E)
DearMr. Rodems:
Enclosed is a copy ofan inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the
above referenced complainant(s). Your response to this complaint is required under the
provisionsofRule 4-8.4(g), Rules ofProfessional Conductofthe Rules Regulating The Florida
Bar,andisdueinourofficebySeptember28,2012. Responsesshouldnotexceed25 pagesal1d
may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to
providea writtenresponseto thiscomplaintis initselfaviolationofRule4-8.4(g). Pleasenote
that any correspondence must be sent through the u.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
You arefurther requiredtofurnish thecomplainantwitha completecopyofyourwritten
response,includinganydocumentssubmittedtherewith.
Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules ofDiscipline, any reports, correspondence,
papers, recordings and/ortranscripts ofhearings received from eitheryou orthe complainant(s)
shall become a part ofthe public record inthis matterand thus accessible to the public upon a
disposition ofthis file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the
status ofproceedings during the pendency ofan investigation, ifa specific inquiry is made and
thematteris deemedto beinthepublicdomain. PursuanttoRule 3-7.1(f),RulesofDiscipline,
you are further required to complete and retllm the enclosed Certificate ofDisclosure form.
Furtller, please notify this office, in writing, ofany pending civil, criminal, or administrative
litigationwhichpertainsto thisgrievance. Pleasenotethatthisis acontinuingobligationshould
newlitigationdevelopduringthependencyof thismatter.
8
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
September 13, 2012
Page Two
Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and
the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your
response.
Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,
Notice - Mailing Instructions)
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
THEFLORIDABAR
JOHNF.HARKNESS,JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
October26,2012
Mr. RyanChristopherRodems
Barker
501 EKennedyBlvdSte790
Tanlpa,FL33602-5237
TheFloridaBarFileNo. 2013-10,271 (13E)
DearMr. Rodems:
Theabove- referencedmatterhasbeenforwardedtoTheFloridaBar'sTampaBranchOfficefor
consideration. Youmayexpecttohearfrom BarCounsel(inthatoffice)inthenearfuture.
Sincerely,
TheodoreP. LittlewoodJr., BarCounsel
AttorneyConsumerAssistanceProgram
ACAPHotline866-352-0707
cc: Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
TheFloridaBar
TanlpaBranchOffice
4200 GeorgeJ.BeanParkway,Suite2580
JohnF.Harkness,Jr.
Tampa,Florida33607-1496
(813)875-9821
ExecutiveDirector www.FLORIDABAR.org
June14,2013
J\fr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115thLoop
Ocala,FL34481
TheFloridaBarFileNo. 2013-10,271 (6D)
DearMr. Gillespie:
OnMay13,2013,Ireceivedaletterfrom yourequestingareviewofthedecisionto closeyour
complaintagainstMr. Rodems. Pursuantto yourrequest,onMay14,2013,Ireferredthematter
to theDesignatedReviewer, SandraDianl0nd.Thatreviewprocesshasnowbeencompletedand
itisthedecisionofMs. Diamondthatthefile shallremainclosed. Accordingly,pursuantto the
Bar'srecordsretentionsclledule,thecomputerrecordandfile willbedisposedof oneyearfrom
thedateofclosing.
Sincerelyyours,
LeonardEvansClark
BarCounsel
LEC/lec
cc: Mr. RyanCllristopherRodems
KennethLawrenceMarvin, StaffCounsel
THEFLORIDABAR
JOHNF.HARKNESS,JR. TALLAHASSEE,FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
August 17,2012
Mr. EugenePCastagliuolo
801 WestBayDrSte301
Largo,FL33770-3223
Re: ComplaintbyNeilJ. GillespieagainstEugenePCastagliuolo
TheFloridaBarFileNo. 2013-10,162(6D)
DearMr. Castagliuolo:
Enclosed is a copy ofan inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the
above referenced complainant(s). YOllr response to this complaint is reqllired under the
provisionsofRule 4-8.4(g), Rules ofProfessiol1al Conductofthe Rules Regulating The Florida
Bar, and is due in our office by August31, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages and
may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to
provideawrittenresponseto thiscomplaintis initselfa violationofRule4-8.4(g). Pleasenote
that any correspondence must be sent through the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
You arefurtherrequiredto furnish thecomplainantwith a completecopy ofyourwritten
response,includinganydocumentssubmittedtherewith.
Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules ofDisciplil1e, any reports, correspondence,
papers, recordings and/ortranscripts ofhearings received from eitheryou orthe complainant(s)
shall become a partofthe public record in this matter and thus accessibleto the public upon a
disposition ofthis file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the
status ofproceedings during the pendency ofan investigation, ifa specific inquiry is made and
the matteris deemedto be inthe publicdomain. Pursuantto Rule 3-7.1(f), RulesofDiscipline,
you are further required to complete and return the enclosed Certificate ofDisclosure form.
Further, please notify this office, in writing, ofany pending civil, criminal, or administrative
litigationwhichpertainstothisgrievance. Pleasenotethatthisisacontinuingobligationshould
newlitigationdevelopduringthependencyof thismatter.
9
Mr. Eugene P Castagliuolo
August 17, 2012
Page Two
Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and
the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your
response.
Sincerely,
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,
Notice - Mailing Instructions)
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
THEFLORIDABAR
JOHNF.HARKNESS,JR. TALLAHASSEE,FL32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
October25,2012
Mr. EugenePCastagliuolo
CASTAGLIUOLOLAW
801 WestBayDrSte301
Largo, FL33770-3223
Re: ComplaintbyNeilJ. GillespieagainstEugenePCastagliuolo
DearMr. Castagliuolo:
Theabove- referencedmatterhasbeenforwardedto TheFloridaBar'sTampaBranchOfficefor
consideration. Youmayexpecttohearfrom BarCounsel(inthatoffice)inthenearfuture.
Sincerely,
TheodoreP. LittlewoodJr., BarCounsel
AttorneyConsumerAssistanceProgram
ACAPHotline866-352-0707
cc: Mr.NeilJ. Gillespie
TheFloridaBar
TampaBranchOffice
4200GeorgeJ.BeanParkway,Suite2580
JohnF.Harkness,Jr.
(813)875-9821
ExecutiveDirector www.FLORIDABAR.org
June13,2013
Mr.NeilJ. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115thLoop
Ocala,FL34481
Re: ComplaintbyNeilJ. GillespieagainstEugeneP. Castagliuolo
DearMr. Gillespie:
I.amin receipt ofyour correspondencerequesting a review ofMr. Clark'sdecision to closethe
above-referenced file. I am Mr. Clark's supervisor, and pursuant to BarpolicyI havereviewed
,the fileandthe:documentsprovidedbyyou andbyMr. Castagliuolo. Ihavealso consideredthe
arguments-raisedbyyou..
One ofthe considerations bar counsel must weigh in deciding whether to close a file is the
weight ofavailable evidence. Should the Barseek to discipline a lawyer, Supreme Court rules
require "clear and convincing" evidence that there has been a violation ofone or more ofthe
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as,
"evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the factfinder to come to a
clear conviction, without hesitancy, ofthe truth ofthe precise facts in issue." This burden of
proofisheavierthanthatwhichisrequiredinaciviltrial.
After considering all ofyour allegations together with the available evidence, I am persuaded
thatMr. Clark'sdecisionwasappropriate. Ourfilewillthereforeremainclosed.
Sincerely,
SusanVarnerBloemendaal
DisciplineCounsel'.
SYB/sb
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
OfficeoftheClerk
Washington,DC 20543-0001
WilliamK. Suter
ClerkoftheCourt
(202) 479-3011
September13, 2012
Mr. NeilJ.Gillespie
8092 SW115thLoop
Ocala,FL 34481
Re: NeilJ.Gillespie
v. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etale
ApplicationNo. 12A215
DearMr. Gillespie:
Theapplicationfor anextensionoftimewithinwhichtofile a petition
for a writofcertiorariintheabove-entitledcasehasbeenpresentedto
JusticeThomas,whoonSeptember13, 2012extendedtlletimetoand
includingDecember10, 2012.
Thisletterhasbeensenttothosedesignatedontheattached
notificationlist.
Sincerely,
WilliamK. Suter,Clerk
CaseAnalyst
:ayton iggin7J;r, / It
10
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
OfficeoftheClerk
Washington,DC 20543-0001
WilliamK. Suter
Clerkofthe Court
(202) 479-3011
NOTIFICATIONLIST
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala, FL 34481
Clerk
UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfor theEleventhCircuit
56 ForsythStreet,N.W.
Atlanta,GA 30303

No. 12A215
Title:
Neil J . Gillespie, Applicant
v.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, et al.
Docketed: August 31, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-11028, 12-11213)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.
Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2012.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Peti ti oner:
Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807
Ocala, FL 34481
Party name: Neil J . Gillespie
Docket for 12A215 http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
THEFLORIDABAR
TALLAHASSEE BRANCHOFFICE
JOHNF.HARKNESS,JR. 651 EASTJEFFERSONSTREET
(850)561-5845
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORC
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR
TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA32399-2300
November5,2010
MelissaJayMurphy,Chair
EighthJudicialCircuitGrievanceCommittee"B"
P.O. Box357399
Gainesville,FL 32635-7399
Re: RobertW. Bauer;TheFloridaBarFileNo. 2011-00,073(8B)
ComplaintbyNeilGillespie
DearMs. Murphy:
Please assign the enclosed complaint to a grievance committee member for investigation. For
your convenience, enclosed is a Notice ofAssignment ofInvestigating Member and/or Panel
Form.
The documents will soonbeposted to the Grievance Committee Webpagefor the Committee's
convenience. Asalways,if Icanbeof furtherassistance,pleasedonothesitatetocontactme.
Sincerely,
4,{;.IJ O+eyI t
JamesA.G. Davey,Jr.
BarCounsel
Enclosures
cc: RobertW. Bauer,Respondent
NeilGillespie,Complainant
11
IN RE: Recorded Telephone Conversation
between Neil J. Gillespie
and Krista J. Sterken.
-------------------------/
RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below
DATE & TIME: May 25th, 2011
11:55 a.m.
TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporter
(ORIGINAL " )
(COpy )
Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporter/Legal Transcription
(813) 598-2703
12
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHETHIRTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT
INANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,FLORIDA
GENERALCIVILDIVISION
NEILJ. GILLESPIE,
CASENUMBER:05-CA-7205
Plaintiff,
DIVISION:J
VS.
BARKER,RODEMS& COOK,P.A.,
aFloridacorporation;WILLIAM1. COOK
Defendants.
______________---e
l
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
COMES NOW, the undersigned on behalfofthe Office ofthe Public Defender, to seek
clarificationofa Clerk'sDetenninationdatedMay27, 2011, attachedheretoasExhibitA, allegedly
appointingthe Office ofthe Public Defenderon behalfoftheplaintiff, Neil Gillespie, in thiscause
baseduponthefollowing:
I. AnApplicationfor Criminal Indigent Status and Clerk'sDetenninationattached
hereto as Exhibit A purports to appoint the Office ofthe Public Defender to represent the
plaintiffinthiscause.
2. Itappears from the docketinthiscausethatNeil Gillespie is theplaintiffinthis
causeandthatheisbeforetheCourtbaseduponanOrdertoShowCause.
3. Section27.51, FloridaStatutes, setsforththeduties ofthePublicDefender. The
dutiesofthePublicDefenderunderSection27.5I (b)(3), FloridaStatutes,providethatthePublic
beliefthattheplaintiffinthiscause,NeilGillespie,isfacinganactionforcriminalcontempt.
I
13
WHEREFORE. the undersigned seeks to clarify with the Court the applicability ofthe
Application for Criminal Indigent Status and Clerk's Detenninationas evidenced inExhibit A,
attachedhereto.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy ofthe foregoing motion has been furnished to Neil
Gillespie, 8092 SW 115
th
Loop, Ocala, FL 34481, Ryan C. Rodems, Esq. ofBarker,Rodems &
Cook,P.A.,400NorthAsWeyDrive,Suite2100,Tampa,FL 33602,andtoRichardL. Coleman,
Esq., P.O. Box 5437, Valdosta, GA 31603, by hand orU.S. mail delivery, this 1
st
day ofJune,
2011.
Mi acock
FloridaBar# 0303682
PostOfficeBox 172910
(813)272-5980
(813)272-5588(fax)
peacock@pdI3.state.f1.us
Ikm
2
IN THECIRCUIT/COUNTYCOURTOFTHETHIRTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT
IN AND FORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.
STATEOF FLORIDA vs. t1-e.. \ LQJ I\ t
Defendant/MinorChild .
/" APPLICATION FORCRIMINALINDIGENTSTATUS
IAA SEEKINGTHEAPPOINTMENTOFTHEPUBLICDEFENDER .
OR
IHAVEAPRIVATEATIORNEYORAM SELF-REPRESENTEDANDSEEK DETERMINATIONOF INDIGENCESTATUS FOR COSTS
NoticetoApplicant: The provision ofapublicdefenderlcourtappointedlawyerand costs/dueprocessservicesare notfree. AjUdgmentand lienmaybeimposedagains.tallrealor
personalpropertyyouown to payforlegalandotherservicesprovidedon yourbehalforon behalfofthe personforwhomyou are making thisapplication. Thereisa$50.00feefQr each
application filed. If the application fee is not paid to the Clerli of the Court within 7days, it will be added to any oosts that may be assessed against you atthe oonclusionofthiscase. If
you are aparent/guardianmakingthisaffidaviton behalfofaminorortax-dependentadult,the information contained inthisapplicationmustincludeyourincomeandassets.
1. IhaveUdependents.(Do not incl!,hildren not living at home and do not include a working spouse or yourself.) .
2. 1haveatakehomeincomeof$ paid ()weekly ()bi-weekly ( )semi-monthly ()monthly()yearly
(Take home inoome equals salary, wages, bon;;ies, commissions, allowances, overtime, tips and similar payments, minus deductions required by law and other court-ordered
support payments)
3. Ihaveotherinco.mepaid ()weekly() ( )yearly: (Circle "Yes" and fill in the amount ifyouhave this kind of inoome, otherwise
Social5ecurilybenefits es $-1-1---- No Veterans'benefit............................... Yes $,------I(!9i.
Unemploymentoompensation................. s$ Child suppor!orotherregularsupport .. I
UnionFunds Yes $ . 0 fromfamilymembers/spouse...... . Yes $ . .
Workersoompensation : Yes $ I RentalincOme................................. Yes $
. .Retirement/pensions Yes $ . Dividendsorinterest.. :............. Yes $
Trustsorgifts Yes $ 0 Otherkindsofinoomenotonthelis!...... Yes.$
, I h,w """""" 0 No' 'No' U" ... :=l
Yes $
moneymarketaccounts Yes $ "Equity meansvalue minus loans. Also
"Equityin MotorVehiclesIBoatsi In an interest in such property.
Othertangibleproperty.................. I No Ust the address of this property: . '.
Us! the year/make/model and tag#: I Address ---,_
. r "lgtb- Y;cf City, State,Zip .."
I ....' : ... '" CountyofResidence Z
5. I have atotal amount of liabilitiesand debts in the amount of lf7; W
6. Ireceive: (Circle "Yes"or "No?
Ul
TemP9raryAssistanceforNeedyFamilies-CashAssistance :... "Als
Poverty-relatedveterans'benefits.................................................................................................................................................... Yes
SupplementalsecurityInoome(551) :............................ Yes CJ'I"""
7. Ihavebeenreleasedonbailintheamountof$ Cash __Surety __ Posted by: Self __ Family __ Other
Apersenwho knowinglyprovidesfalse informationtotheclerkortheoourtin seeking adeterminationofindigentstatusunders. 27.52,F.5.,oommitsamisdemeanorofthefirstdegree,
punishableasprovided in s. 775.082, F.S.,ors. 775.083,F.S. IattestthattheinformationIhave providedonthisApplicationistrueandaccuratetothebestofmy
knowledge. ./ _//------..:...
Signedthis A7 day of .Mil! ,2olL -r',,?/. _/"
Sig
DateofBirth S pIC; ,- PrintFull L al Name
. . /?1-;'}J / <)A . r"/ .r.ao. Address '
Driver'slicenseorIDnumberU VII State,Zip'
Phonel1umber
CLERK'SDETERMINATION
V-;;::ed ntheinf rmation'in thisApplication, Ihavedeterminedtheapplicanttobe ( )NotIndigent
P blicDef nderisherebyappointedtothecase listedaboveuntilrelieved bythe Court.
M' ,. (
-D1te
)
...------ ... -_..
ClerkoftheCircuitCourt
Thisfonnwascompletedwiththeassistanceof
__Clerk/DeputyClerk/Otherauthorizedperson
APPLICANTS FOUND NOTINDIGENTMAY"SEEKREVIEWBYASKING fORA HEARINGTIME, Signhereifyouwantthejudge
toreviewtheclerk'sdecisionofnotindigent
06/18/10
EXHIBIT "A"
-------------
INANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,STATEOFFLORIDA
GENERALCIVILDIVISION
NEILJ. GILLESPIE, CASENUMBER.:05-CA-7205
Plaintiff,
DIVISION: J
v.
BARKER,RODEMS& COOK,P.A.,
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J.
COOK
Defendants.
/
ORDERRELIEVINGTHEOFFICEOFTHEPUBLICDEFENDEROFTHE
THIRTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUITFROMREPRESENTATION
OFPLAINTIFFNEILGILLESPIE
THIS CAUSEhavingcometo beheard onthe Motion ofthe Office ofthe PublicDefender
for Clarificationandthe Courtbeingfully advised in the premises does herebyrelievethe Office of
thePublicDefenderof theThirteenthJudicialCircuitfromrepresentationoftheplaintiffinthiscause
as there is no lawful basisforthe appointmentofthe Office ofthe Public Defenderto representthe
plaintiffinthecausecurrentlybeforetheCourt.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida on this __day of
June,2011.
HONORABLEJAMESD.ARNOLD
CIRCUITCOURTJUDGE
THIRTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT
HILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,FLORIDA
Copiesfurnishedto:
--'----'--Neil-GilJ'spi,8092-SW-l-lS
th
.. B__ .... -- .. .. -- .... m --- u.. .. .. -- - ..
RyanC.Rodems,Barker,Rodems& Cook,400NorthAshleyDr., Ste.2100,Tampa,FL33602
RichardL. Coleman,Esq.,P.O.Box5437,Valdosta,GA31603
MikePeacock,Officeof thePublicDefender
/km
ORIGINAL
- 1 2Ull
!:'..
CIRCUIT JUDGE
INANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,FLORIDA
GENERALCIVIL
NEILJ.GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, Case No. OS-CA-720S
Vs. Division: "J"
BARKER,RODEMS & COOK,P.A,
A Floridacorporation; WILLIAMJ.
COOK,
Defendants.
---------_./
ORDERRESCINDINGWRITOFBODILYATTACHMENT
THISCAUSEhaving come before the Court on June 21, 2011 and the Plaintiff,
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, having complied by volunteering to appear and producing all
documents under the Deposition Duces Tecum and the court being otherwise being fully
advised in the premises, it is therefore
ORDEREDANDADJUDGEDthat this Court's Writ of Bodily Attachment of
NEIL J. GILLESPIE of June 1,2011, is hereby rescinded.
DONEANDORDEREDin Chambers, at Tampa, Florida, Hillsborough County,
Florida, this __ day of June, 2011.
JAMES D. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge
Copies furnished to:
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop ORIGINALSIGNEO
Ocala, FL. 34481
~ 'l t 2011
JAMES D. ARNOLO'
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
400 North Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL. 33602
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082
ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist
Counseling and Forensic Psychology
3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www.lvaallc.com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and
testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways
possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the J udge and
now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with
arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
14
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my
medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly
being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of
bullies to sort out a legal problem.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of J ustice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of J ustice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than
two years.
NEIL J GILLESPIE
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
ASSIGNMENTOFUNLIQUIDATEDLAWSUITPROCEEDS
Neil J. Gillespie (hereinafter"Assignor") assigns and transfers to PenelopeM. Gillespie
(hereinafter "Assignee"), for her use and benefit, a security interest in all rights of Neil J.
Gillespie to receive any proceeds in the case ofNeil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A., HillsboroughCountyCircuitCourtCaseNumber05-CA-7205. Thecauseofaction itself
is retained by NeilJ. Gillespie and onlythe right to the litigation proceeds is hereby assigned.
NeilJ. Gillespieretainstherightofactionandretainscompletecontroloverthehandlingandthe
management ofthe lawsuit, including the right to make any and all decisions regarding the
lawsuitandanydecisionsregardingsettlementofthelawsuit.
DATEDthis_........ __ I...... rl--7Y dayofNovember,2008.
A!M... k2
1
1, ~ ~
DATE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this19.- day ofNovember, 2008, by
NeilJ. Gillespe, who ispersonallyknown..tomeorhas produced as
identification.
k s ~ ~ ~
t1AL o..e.1LLld La t--J ~
Print,TypeorStampNameofNotary
MyCommissionExpires: J v oe." "I II
.__ -._... __ _ _ .
DAVID R. ELlSPERMANN. CLERK OfCOURT MARION COUNTY
DATE: 03/31/2009 11:58:27 AM
FILE #: 2009026691 OR BK 05177 PG 0547
RECORDING FEES 10.00
Book5177/Page547 CFN#2009026691 Page1of 1
15
Page #1
Incident Number:100035129; Incident Date: 7/12/2010; Patient: Gillespie, Neil
Printed By: MOLfNA, LAURA Admin Asst (000) on 7/27/2010 7:49:45 AM
TAMPA FIRERESCUE(EMSID: 2911; FDID: 03072) .....
808 ZackSt.
Tampa, FL33602-
(813)274-7005 x
TAMPA FIRE RESCUE Incident Date: 07/12/2010
Incident Number: 100035129 Patient 1 of 1
RESCUE 1 shift: B
GILLESPIE, NEIL 54 YEAR OLD, MALE
PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Depression, Diabetic, Hypertension
ALLERGIES: None ;
MEDICATIONS: unknown pt doesnt know names;
ASSESSMENT: 10:42
Patient Conscious.
No External Hemorrhage Noted; Mucous Membrane Normal
central Body Color Normal
Extremities Normal
WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS (Airway, Breathing Quality, Accessory Muscle
chest Rise, Radial pulse, skin Temp, skin Moisture, skin Turgor,
Refill, pupil size and Reaction)
Use,
cap
ALS Assessment Done to rule out NOC at Dispatch.
SECONDARY ASSESSMENT - INJURY:
CHEST - No Injury:. Left breath sounds are clear to auscultation.
Right breath sounds are clear to auscultation. Breath sounds are
equal. Heart sounds: Normal.
NARRATIVE:
R1 found 54yom sitting in courthouse. pt a&ox3, skin w&d, pt cc tight
throat secondary to stress from court appearance pt states, lungs
clear bi-lat, sa02 100%, pt blood sugar 179mg/dl, vitals as shown in
flow sheet section, monitor shows sinus rhythm w/ no ectopy noted, pt
denies being in any pn, secondary found no acute findings, advise pt
multo times to be transported to hospital pt refuses transport and
states he would rather go to his Dr. pt signed refusal and advise to
call back ifany issues occur w/ full understanding.
TREATMENT:
10:42 pulse:120 Regular and Rapid Resp:16 Respiratory
Effort:Normal BP:148/96 Rhythm:NSR Sa02:100% (on Room Air)
Blood Sugar:179 Ectopy:No GCS:4 Spontaneous; 5 Oriented; 6 obeys
= 15 Responsiveness:Alert painseverity:O
10:42 sao2, successful, 1 attempt, LADUE, ROBERT EMT-Paramedic
(PMD514678) (unchanged) (100 room air)
10:43 Blood Glucose, KELLEY, DALE EMT-Paramedic (PMD49960)
(unchanged) (179mg/dl)
10:44 ECG 4 Lead, successful, 1 attempt, ENGINE 1 (unchanged) (nsr
w/ no ectopy)
10:48 Pulse:110 Not Assessed Resp:16 Respiratory
Effort:Normal BP:153/86 Rhythm:NSR Sa02:100% (on Room Air)
Ectopy:No GCS:4 Spontaneous; 5 oriented; 6 obeys =15
Responsiveness:Alert painseverity:O
No Venous Access
No Medications Done
IMPRESSION:
primary Impression: Other secondary Impression: unknown Other
Impressions: Abdominal pain / problems
INCIDENT INFORMATION:
Incident location: 0000800 TWIGGS ST E Tampa, Hillsborough, FL 33602
16
Page#2
IncidentNumber:100035129; IncidentDate: 7/12/2010; Patient: Gillespie, Neil
Printed By: MOLINA, LAURAAdminAsst(000)on 7/27/20107:49:45 AM
TAMPA FIRE RESCUE(EMSID: 2911; FDID: 03072)
808 Zack8t.
Tampa, FL 33602-
(813)274-7005 x
Nature of call as dispatched: chest Pain Nature of call at scene:
Resp Problem (Anatomic Location: Not Known) (organ system: Not
Known) (primary symptom: None) (Other symptom: Not Known)
(condition code: other)
Disposition: Non-Transport Evaluation only
Type of exposure on this run: None
07/12/2010 10:36:35 call Received
07/12/2010 10:37:24 Dispatched
07/12/2010 10:38:50 Depart
07/12/2010 10:39:51 Arrive Location
07/12/2010 10:40:00 Patient Contact
07/12/2010 10:40:00 Assume patient Care
07/12/2010 10:56:31 Available
Response to scene: Lights and sirens
Lead Crew Member: LADUE, ROBERT EMT-Paramedic (PMD514678)
Crew Member 2: KELLEY, DALE EMT-Paramedic (PMD49960)
ASSISTING:
ENGINE 1,
PATIENT:
GILLESPIE, NEIL DOB: 03/19/1956 54 YEARS OLD.
white, Male, 285 lbs
8092 sw 115th LOOP
ocala, FL 34481-
SSN#: 160-52-5117
BILLING INFORMATION:
work Related: NO
Next of Ki n Name:, 0 Address: City: State: zip: phone:
SSN:
NFIRS:
Exposure #: 000 Incident Type: 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle
accident with injury Action Taken: 32 provide basic life support
(BLS)
N None
property Use: 599 Business office
RESPONDING UNITS:
suppression [Apparatus:1 personnel:4]
EMS [Apparatus:1 personnel:2]
Other [Apparatus:O personnel:0]
Includes no mutual aid resources.
Human Factors Involved: N None
Other Factors Involved: N None
Impression: 00 Other condition of Patient: 2 Remained same
Census Tract:
Page#3
IncidentNumber:100035129; Incident Date: 7/12/20 I0; Patient: Gillespie,Neil
Printed By: MOLINA, LAURAAdmin Asst (000)on7/2712010 7:49:45 AM
TAMPAFIRERESCUE(EMSID: 2911; FDID: 03072)
808ZackSt.
Tampa, FL33602-
(813)274-7005 x
SIGNATURES:
signed By: LADUE, ROBERT EMT-paramedic (PMD514678)
Last Modified By: MILLER, LILAH Admin Asst. (000) on 7/23/2010 1:46:04
PM
***** Addendum / Data Correction Added by: MILLER, LILAH Admin Asst.
(000) on 7/23/2010 1:46:07 PM *****
(-) : 141000
124(+): Last Modified By: MILLER, LILAH Admin Asst. (000) on 7/23/2010
1:46:04
125 (+): PM
,
;' \.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
CASE NO. 05-CA-007205
----------------------------------------x
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
and Di vi-sion::t: G,....:>
r= ~
r-- c:;::)
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
ttl 0
C")t,P c->
A Florida Corporation, and
:Eo --i
C"):;c N
WILLIAM J. COOK, ~
_c_
N
.4c>
C")::r: -0
Defendants. :20 ~
----------------------------------------x -- -
r-.-I .'
:< s:-
'"11 N
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE MARTHA J. COOK r-
PLACE: Hillsborough County Courthouse
800 East Twiggs Street
DATE: September 28, 2010
TIME: 11:04 a.m. - 11:28 a.m.
REPORTED BY: Robbie E. Darling
Court Reporter
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT
Pages 1 - 26
DEMPSTER, BERRYHILL &ASSOCIATES
1875 NORTH BELCHER ROAD, SUITE 102
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33765
(727) 725-9157
ORIGINAL
17
PAMBONDI
ATTORNEYGENERAL
STATEOFFLORIDA
OFFICEOFTIlEATTORNEYGENERAL
GeneralCivilLitigation- TampaBureau
501 EastKennedyBlvd.,Suite1100
Tampa,FL33602
Phone(813)233-2880 Fax(813)233-2886
httD:llwww.myfloridlllegaLcom
INVOICE
To: NeilJ. Gillespie
8092S.W. 115
th
Loop
Date: April26,2013
Ocala,Florida 34481
PublicRecordsRequest: OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralfIle onSupremeCourtofthe
U.S.,Casenumber12-7747
CopiesofDocunlents @$0.15percopies 323 pages
$48.45
Postage $ 7.45
TOTALAMOUNTDUE $55.90
MakeallcheckspayabletoOfficeof theAttorneyGeneralandmailtoaboveaddress. IfYOllhaveany
questionsconcerningthisinvoice,contactValerieWillifordatvalerie.williford@myfloridalega1.com.
Acopyofthefile willbesentuponreceiptofpayment.
~ ~ d $'55.QO
rnJo :tt=109 ~ q 23;2-
5), !:WI'3
AnAffinnativeActionlEqualOpportunityEmployer
18
VIAV.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294728738 April 15,2013
andEmailtoDiana.Esposito@myfloridalega1.com
DianaR. Esposito
Chief-AssistantAttorneyGeneral
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
501 EastKennedyBlvd.,Suite 1100
Tampa,FL33602
RE: PublicRecordsRequest
SCOTVSPetitionNo. 12-7747,G-illespiev. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,Florida, etal.
DearChief-AssistantAttorneyGeneralEsposito:
ThankyouforyourletterofFebruary18,2013 (copyenclosed)inresponsetomypublicrecords
requestintheabovecaptionedPetitionNo. 12-7747,whereyouwrote:
Pursuantto 119.071(l)(d)(l.)and(2.),FloridaStatutes,theOfficeof theAttorney
Generalassertsanexemptiontoproducingtherequestedrecordsduetothefactthatthe
requestedrecordswerepreparedbyanattorneyorattheattorney'sexpressdirection,and
reflectmentalimpressions,conclusions,litigationstrategies,orlegaltheoriesofthe
attorneyortheagency,andwerepreparedexclusivelyforlitigationandarethusexempt
fromdisclosureuntiltheconclusionofthelitigation,includingappellateproceedings
TodaytheSupremeCourtdeniedmypetitionforrehearing,concludingthelitigation,whichwas
afinal appellateproceeding.Acopyof theonlinecasedocketisenclosed.
Thisisarequestforallrecords,includingemail,regardingSCOTVSPetitionNo. 12-7747andany
party,includingbutnotlimitedto,thestateofFlorida,statecourt(s),statejudicialofficer(s),state
counsel(s),stateemployee(s),andofficer(s)ofthestatecourtsuchasMr. RodemsandMr. Bauer.
Youmayrespondbyemailorbyletterto myaddressbelow.
Thankyouinadvanceforyourcooperation.
Telephone: (352)854-7807
Enlail:neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures
OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERAL
DianaR.Esposito
Chief-AssistantAttorneyGeneral
Tampa,FL33602
Phone(813)233-2880 Fax(813) 233-2886
diana.esposito@myjloridalegal.com
PAMBONDI
ATTORNEYGENERAL
STATEOFFLORIDA
February18,2013
NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW115
th
Loop
Ocala,FL 34481
Re: PublicRecordRequestof January25,2013
DearMr. Gillespie:
Pursuantto 119.071(1)(d)(I.)and(2.),FloridaStatutes,theOfficeof theAttorney
Generalassertsanexemptiontoproducingtherequestedrecordsdueto thefactthatthe
requestedrecordswerepreparedbyanattorneyorattheattorney'sexpressdirection,and
reflectmentalimpressions,conclusions,litigationstrategies,orlegaltheoriesof the
attorneyortheagency,andwerepreparedexclusivelyforlitigationandarethusexempt
fromdisclosureuntiltheconclusionof thelitigation,includingappellateproceedings.
DRE

No. 12-7747
Title:
Neil J . Gillespie, Petitioner
v.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit of Florida, et al.
Docketed: December 14, 2012
Linked with 12A215
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-11028-B)
Decision Date: J uly 13, 2012
Rule 12.4
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.
Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2012.
Dec 10 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis filed. (Response due J anuary 14, 2013)
Dec 20 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. to respond filed.
J an 24 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Feb 13 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie filed. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2013 Petition DENIED.
Mar 18 2013 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Mar 27 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
Apr 15 2013 Rehearing DENIED.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Peti ti oner:
Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807
Ocala, FL 34481
neilgillespie@mfi.net
Party name: Neil J . Gillespie
Attorneys for Respondents:
Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (813)-489-1001
Docket for 12-7747 http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-77...
1 of 2 4/15/2013 12:23 PM
Counsel of Record 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
Tampa, FL 33602
Party name: Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Docket for 12-7747 http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-77...
2 of 2 4/15/2013 12:23 PM
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 May 16, 2013
and kenneth.wilson@myfloridalegal.com
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa
Office of the Attorney General
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States
Dear Mr. Wilson:
So sorry to see you got duped by court counsel David Rowland and paralegal Sandra Burge, who
misrepresented to you that I did not provide Mr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. That
must explain why the petition was not among the 323 pages of public records provided by your
office that arrived here in Ocala May 9, 2013 in response to my records request.
An email (Exhibit 1) from Mr. Rowlands paralegal Sandra Burge to Chief Assistant Attorney
General Diana R. Esposito 12/20/2012 at 12:51 PM, Cc to David Rowland and Chris Nauman,
advanced this material falsehood, which Ms. Esposito sent to you, Cc to Amanda Cavanaugh:
The Plaintiff's Notice of Filing the petition for writ of certiorari was received in the Legal
Department's Office on 12/18/12 is attached as well as the Court's docket indicating a
response is due, if needed, by J anuary 14, 2013. Neither a copy of the petition nor
"separate Volume Appendices" accompanied the Notice.
A letter (Exhibit 2) emailed by you J anuary 8, 2013 repeated the falsehood back to Mr. Rowland:
While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition....
On December 10, 2012 I served Mr. Rowland per Rule 29, proof of service, the following:
1. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States,
2. Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
3. Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
4. Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.
5. My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking 1Z64589FP297520287 shows delivery December 11, 2012
at 10:55 AM to the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 34481.
FYI, all UPS ground shipping within Florida is delivered next day, unless shipped on Friday.
The UPS proof of delivery for 1Z64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows DAVIS at
the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature D. Davis. A seven
(7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General May 16, 2013
Office of the Attorney General Page - 2
The document referred to by Ms. Burge in her deceptive email to Ms. Esposito was a Rule 12.3
notice, and notice of waiver to file a response, delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM to the
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit. Unfortunately Ms. Burge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Nauman failed to
inform you that my petition was delivered a week earlier, December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM.
The Thirteenth Circuit gang further mislead you by providing you my December 10, 2012 cover
letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court which they date-stamped December 18, 2012, when this
letter was in fact a second courtesy copy of the one received by Rowland December 11, 2012 but
does not appear date-stamped as such in the records your office provided me May 9, 2013.
Enclosed you will find evidence showing I served by UPS the Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of
waiver to Mr. Rowland December 17, 2012 tracking no. 1Z64589FP291778029, which was
delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, to the Courts address, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa,
Florida. The UPS proof of delivery shows DAVIS at the front desk signed for the delivery. A
composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 4).
The Supreme Court sent me three (s) sets of Rule 12.3 notices, and notices of waiver to file a
response, December 14, 2013 after my petition was docketed, with instructions for notifying
opposing counsel(s) that the case was docketed. (Exhibit 5).
You have my sympathy for any embarrassment caused by the deception of Mr. Rowland and his
accomplices, that caused an inaccurate letter to issue from the Office of the Attorney General
falsely implying I did not provide a copy of my petition to Mr. Rowland. (Exhibit 2).
Enclosed you will find my records request to Mr. Rowland intended to correct the record. If and
when I get an accurate response back, I will provide you the correct date-stamped petition for
inclusion in the record showing it was received by Mr. Rowland December 11, 2012.
Until then you can find Petition No. 12-7747 online at the link below. Thank you.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
cc: Gov. Rick Scott, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290544836
cc: Attorney General Pam Bondi, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294245643
Email to: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list; Mr.
Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth
Circuit BOG, David Rowland, K. Christopher Nauman, Sandra Burge.
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297024724 (Gov. Scott) May 24, 2013
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296600737 (AG Bondi)
Governor Rick Scott Attorney General Pam Bondi
Office of Governor Rick Scott Office of Attorney General
State of Florida, The Capitol State of Florida
400 S. Monroe St. The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States
Dear Governor Scott and Attorney General Bondi:
Please find enclosed copies of Petition No. 12-7747. Unfortunately David Rowland, General
Counsel for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al., mislead Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General, when Mr. Rowland misrepresented that I did not provide him a copy of
Petition No. 12-7747. Enclosed is a copy of my letter (only) to Mr. Wilson of May 16, 2013.
Also enclosed is my public records request (only) to Mr. Rowland, which so far he has not
responded to, or acknowledged. In lieu of the date-stamped petition from Mr. Rowland, I have
provided separately to each of you a computer copy of Petition No. 12-7747. If Mr. Rowland
ever provides the date-stamped petition I requested from him, I will provide you each a copy.
Unfortunately the Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, found
in the enclosed two-page AG Case #Tampa Monitor, is not factually accurate. I attribute the
errors to Mr. Rowlands falsehoods to Ms. Esposito and Mr. Wilson about the petition.
I will respond directly to Ms. Esposito about the Synopsis of Major Issues in the AG Case
#Tampa Monitor, to accurately inform and correct the record in Petition No. 12-7747.
Thank you for considering this matter affecting Floridas consumers of legal and court services.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
Cc: Diana R. Esposito, Chief-Assistant Attorney General, 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33602, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297792743; and email.
Cc email: ABA service list; the Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit
J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth Circuit BOG; David Roland, et al.
AG Case#Tampa Monitor- Page 1
AG #Tampa Monitor
ActiveCase
Neil_v. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etal
venue
Currentcourt{s): u.s.Sup. Court
Courtnumber: No. 12-7747 (rinked12A215)(11th 12-11028-8)
Judge: SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
OfficeoftheClerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001
JudicialContacts: WilliamK. Suter,ClerkoftheCourt
202-479-3011
Originatingcounty: Hillsborough
staffing
Lead counsel: KennethWilson
Unit: Potential
Location: Tampa
Appeal:
synopsis
Category: ADA, Civil Rights
Majorissues: Plaintiffsued hisformerattorneyand lawfirm inthe13th
judicialCircuitCourt. Helostby summaryjudgment. Henow
bringsthisclaimagainsthisformerattorneyand lawfirmandall
thejudgeswhohad anyinvolvementinhis 13thJudicialCircuit
Case. Notably,hehad untilOctober29,2010tofilean
amendedcomplaintandhasnotdoneso. Hefiledavoluntary
dismissalastohisformerattorneyand lawfirm. TheJudges
andthe 13thJudicialCircuithavenotbeenserved.
Constitutionalissue: None
Challenged
statute/constitutional
provision/code:
Multi-Stateissue: Yes e No
ReliefSought/Economic
Impact:
casehistory
Yearcaseopened: 2012
Databaseentry: 09/27/2012
Mostrecentactivity
(mmldd/yy):
12/18/2012
Natureofmostrecent
activity:
NoticeofPetitionforaWritofCertiorariwasfiledon 12/10/12
andplacedondocket12/14/12. Briefisoppositionisdue
--.-,1/14/13
Outcome:
Additionalparties
Additionalparties:
Amicusactivity:
Additionalcasenumbers
Lowercourt
OAG- 048
AG Case#Tampa Monitor- Page2
number:
Contract AOOOO
number:
LOAnumber:
Agency Judicial
represented:
Risk RiskClaimCategory:
Management: RiskClaimNumber:
RiskExaminer:
Phone:
Otherrepresentation
AG attorneyspreviously DianaEsposito
assignedtothiscase:
Opposingcounsel ProSe
category:
Opposingcounsel Neil J. Btl_I
name(s): 8092SW115thLoop
Ocala, FL34481
352-854-7807
Othercounsel incase:
Specialcomments
Casedocket
1. Application Granted By Justice Thomas Extending The Time To File
Until December 10, 2012
09/13/12 entered (Thomas)
09/17/12 filed
09/26/12 retrieved
2. Proof of Service [David A. Rowland, Court Counsel]
12/10/12 served
3. Notice of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on 12/10/12
and placed on docket 12/14/12. Brief is opposition is due Monday
1/14/13
12/18/12 received by court counsel
Authorhistory
Informationin thisrecordhasbeenfiled by:
LauraMartin(09/27/201203:16:26PM), DianaEsposito(12/20/201201:53:45PM), KennethWilson(12/20/2012
02:42:13PM), ValerieWilliford(12/28/2012 10:48:19AM)
OAG- 047
PAMBONDI
ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEOFFLORIDA
'JF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DianaR.Esposito
AttorneyGeneral
Tampa,FL33602
Phone(813) 233-2880 Fax(813)233-2886
d;ana.esposito@mYfloridalegal.com
September27,2012
David Rowland
General Counsel
AdministrativeOfficeof theCourts
ThirteenthJudicialCircuitof Florida
800EastTwiggs Street,Suite603
Tampa,Florida 33602
Re: Neil Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit et al.
CaseNo.: 5:10-cv-503-0c-lOTBS
(previously5:1O-cv-503-0C-1O-DAB)
U.S.Courtof Appeals- 11
th
Circuit 12-11028-B
u.s.SupremeCourtApplication#12A215
DearAttorneyRowland:
As you know, I've been monitoring the above matter wherein the 13
th
Judicial Circuit
Court defendants were never served. Mr. Gillespie's claim was dismissed and he took
two frivolous appealstothe 11th CircuitoftheU.S. CourtofAppealsinAtlanta,Georgia.
Both ofthose appeals were dismissed and on August 13, 2012, Mr. Gillespie filed with
the U.S. Supreme Court requesting an extensionoftime to submit a petition for writ of
certiorari. On September 17, 2012, the Court granted same. I imagine, once filed, his
petition will bedismissed relatively quickly. I will continue to monitorthe matter until
there is certainfinality.

DianaR. Esposito
AssistantAttorneyGeneral
DRE
Enclosures:
? DocketSheetfrom U.S. SupremeCourtindicatingApplicationfiled
LetterofSeptember13,2012from the U.S. SupremeCourttoMr. Gillespie
Grantinghisapplication forextensionoftime
OAG - 033

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

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

From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
To: Woody Isom
Sent: Tue Mar 23 16:15:25 2010
Subject: J onathan Alpert
Mr. Isom,
While researching a disability issue claimed by J onathan Alpert, I found his affidavit of September 11,
2003 naming you as his former law partner (paragraph "c").
Is that true, where you a law partner with Mr. Alpert? A PDF of the affidavit is attached.
If I dont hear from you I will assume the affidavit is correct and that you were in fact a law partner of Mr.
Alpert.
Thank you.
Neil Gillespie
19
INTHECIRCUITCOURTFORIDLLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,FLORIDA
FAMILYLAWDIVISION
INRE:THEMARRIAGEOF
JONATHANALPERT,
FormerHusband CaseNo.: 29-2001-DR-4977-C

ELIZABETHALPERT,
RECeIVED
FormerWife.
---------------,/
SEP 11 2003
.CLERK OFCIRCUITCOURT
STATEOFFLORIDA )
)ss.:
COUNTYOFHILLSBOROUGH )
AFFIDAVIT
Before me theundersigned authoritypersonallyappeared Jonathan L. Alpert, personally
knownto me,whouponbeingdulysworndeposeduponoathas follows:
1. Myname is JonathanL. Alpert and I ama partyin that lawsuit styledAlpertv. Alpert,
CaseNo. 29-2001-DR-4977-C.
2. ImakethefollowingstatementsinthisAffidavitofmyownpersonalknowledge.
3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trialin
Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on
account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierraofthat Court has against me for the following factsand
reasons:
a. JudgeSierrahasrefusedforoverfivemonthstosetahearingonmyMotion
toStayPendingAppeal,andhasinsteadsetforhearingallpendingmotions
onSeptember11,2003 fortwohours,includingsometen(10)Motionsfor
Contempt ofCourt thathave been filed againstme due to Judge Sierra's
refusalto setanearlierhearing;
b. Judge Sierra has shown byhersua sponte ruling, not raised bycounsel,
refusingtocompletetherecordonappeal,thatsheisevenintentondenying
memyappellaterights. Infact, bothlawyershaveagreedthatnotonlydid
JudgeSierrahavethejurisdictiontoruleontheMotion,whichshedecided
onherownwithoutanysuggestionofcounselthatshedidnot,butthather
rulingwaserroneous.
c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, myformer law partnerWoody
1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been
specificallycalledto Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" preparedby
ElizabethAlpert'scounsel;
d. In theconductoftheseproceedings, themethodandtimingthereof,Judge
SierrahasshownbiasorprejudicesothatI cannotgetafairtrialinfrontof
JudgeSierrabecausesheisdetenninedtopreventmefromtimelyexercising
myappellaterights andalsofromreceivingafairtrialas ten(10)contempt
motions andMotionTo StayPendingAppeal andMotionForTemporary
Reduction In Alimonycan notpossiblybeheard in conjunctionwithone
another,particularlyinthetwohourswhichJudgeSierrahasscheduledfor
it.
e. I believethatJudgeSierraisbiasedagainstmeasshehasshownbyherfacial
expressions,demeanor,andconductoftheproceedingsthatthesuchbiasand
prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April
contemptorderagainstmebeforemylawyerhadevenfiledaresponse,even
thoughJudgeSierragavemylawyerpermissiontofile aresponse.
f. JudgeSierraatthehearingonSeptember11,2003,furtherdemonstratedand
evinced her bias and prejudice byher facial expressions, demeanor, and
conductandthecumulative effect ofherprejudicial conductonlybecame
sufficientlymanifestsoas towarrantdisqualificationunderFloridaStatute
Section38.10 atthattime.
Furtheraffiantsayethnot.
SubscribedandsworntobeforemethO
Alpertwhoispersonallyknownto me.
ll-..JJayof ,2003byJonathanL.
NotaryPublic
* 1998, Claudia Rickert Isom. All rights reserved. Circuit Judge, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 1991Present; B.S.Ed., University of Iowa, 1972; J.D.,
Florida State University, 1975; Vice-Chair and member, Florida Bar Standing Committee
on Professionalism; Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 19791982;
District VI Legal Counsel, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
19841986; Shareholder, Isom, Pingel and Isom-Rickert, P.A., 19861990.
PROFESSIONALISM AND LITIGATION ETHICS
Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom
*
My first assignment as a newly elected circuit judge was to the
family law division. Although I considered myself to be an experi-
enced trial attorney, I was somewhat naive about my role as a judge
presiding over discovery issues. I assumed that the attorneys as-
signed to my division would know the rules of procedure and the
local rules of courtesy. I also assumed that, being knowledgeable,
they would comply in good faith with these provisions. I soon
learned that attorneys who were entirely pleasant and sociable crea-
tures when I was counted among their numbers, assumed a much
different role when advocating for litigants.
For example, take Harvey M. (not his real name). Harvey and I
had bantered for years, having many common interests. Perhaps
this familiarity gave rise to, while not contempt, a certain lackadai-
sical attitude about complying with case management and pretrial
orders. Harvey challenged me to establish my judicial prerogative
and assist him in achieving goals not of his own making.
A common assumption regarding family law is that clients re-
ceive the quality of legal representation that they deserve. However,
my time in the family law division has convinced me that this is not
necessarily true. Often times, a case that has wallowed along, seem-
ingly hung up in endless depositions and discovery problems, be-
comes instantly capable of resolution by bringing all parties together
in the context of a pretrial conference. Apparently, some attorneys
feel that cutting up is a large part of what their clients expect
them to do. When this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial
court's ability to effectively bring cases to resolution, the judge must
get involved to assist the process.
Recently, the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges con-
324 Stetson Law Review [Vol. XXVIII
1. See ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES:
PROFESSIONALISM PROBLEM SOLVING (1998).
2. See JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR AND
CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGES 1998 HANDBOOK 89 (1998).
ducted an educational seminar designed to guide circuit judges in
appropriately responding to unprofessional and unethical behavior.
1
Various scenarios were presented on video, after which the judges
voted on what they felt would be the appropriate court response. A
surprising number of judges voted to impose sanctions or report
unethical behavior to the Florida Bar Grievance Section. However,
the most common response was to do nothing or to privately counsel
the offending attorney.
A common theme at meetings of the Florida Bar Standing
Committee on Professionalism is that, while attorneys can aspire to
greater professionalism, the courts can be a bully pulpit to encour-
age professional behavior. Perhaps the perceived backlash of crack-
ing down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's cir-
cuit judges who are elected officials. However, that perception
shapes the judicial response, even when responding theoretically at
a seminar.
The Joint Committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida
Bar and the Conferences of Circuit and County Court Judges' 1998
Handbook on Discovery Practice admonishes trial judges to fully
appreciate their broad powers to end discovery abuses and the 1998
Handbook reassuringly states that the appellate courts will sustain
the trial court's authority if it is exercised in a procedurally correct
manner.
2
Once again, this rallying cry ignores the reality of our
situation.
As a new judge, the lessons urged by bar leadership have been a
matter of trial and error (pun intended). Harvey quickly established
his reputation, not as a fellow member of my legal community, but
as a problematic litigator whose behavior had to be controlled and
modified by court order for the legal process to smoothly progress.
For example, hearing time was made available to address discovery
issues, very specific orders were entered regarding who was to do
what, when, and how, verbal commitments were elicited on the re-
cord about document production and interrogatory responses, in an
attempt to avoid additional hearings. Cases involving Harvey were,
by necessity, intensely case managed.
1998] Litigation Ethics 325
Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive case
management. Attorneys may perceive that the court is trying to
prevent them from earning additional attorney fees by streamlining
the process. However, clients rarely complain once they realize that
the underlying purpose is to bring the case to timely resolution.
In Harvey's case, extreme tools reporting Harvey to the Flor-
ida Bar, striking responses, striking witnesses, imposing financial
sanctions, and conducting contempt hearings were never impli-
cated. What did happen was that Harvey trained me to be a better
judge by showing me how, in a nonconfrontational manner, I could
effectively case manage Harvey and similar counsel without having
to take off the gloves.
Fortunately, not every litigator requires the case management
skills of a Harvey situation. Most attorneys are well-intentioned,
have a legitimate interest in pursuing discovery efficiently, and do
not seek to unnecessarily delay the resolution of a case. What a re-
lief it is to have a case with opposing counsel who are both of this
school of thought.
New attorneys, or attorneys who are appearing in front of a
judge for the first time, must remember that their reputation is
primarily built on the judge's personal experiences with them. No
bench book exists with a list of which attorneys are trustworthy
professionals and which are not. Instead, the individual judge keeps
a mental catalog of experiences. For example, does this attorney
routinely generate complaints from opposing counsel in other cases
about not clearing depositions with their office? Is this attorney
often the subject of motions to compel? Can this attorney be trusted
when he tells you that the responses to interrogatories are in the
mail? Once a negative reputation has been established with the
court, an attorney's job will be much more challenging in establish-
ing credibility with the court. And certainly, with so many issues up
to the court's discretion, an attorney's reputation as trustworthy and
ethical is of utmost importance.
And, what about Harvey? Do his clients suffer? Of course they
do. But, with effective case management and an experienced judi-
ciary, the damage and delay caused by the Harveys of this world can
be minimized while still allowing clients the freedom to choose their
own counsel.
CITYOFTAMPA
PamIorio,Mayor
POLIc;EDEPARTMENT
JaneCastor
ChiefofPolice
February22,2010
NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW115
th
Loop
Ocala,FL34481
Re: PerjuryComplaint
DearMr.Gillespie:
IhavereceivedthematerialyousentmerelatingtoyourperjurycomplaintagainstRyan
C. Rodems. Afterreviewingthematerial,jtappearsthattheperjuryinvolves-theconflict
between,two oneofwhichis oralstatementyourecordedelectronically,
theotheristheswornwrittenm<;>tion ofRodemsinwhichhepurportstoquoteyouroral
statementforthebenefitof thecourt. Youroriginalstatementmadeduringatelephonecallto
Rodemswas:
"Solistenyoulittle,whatever,youraiseanythingyouwant,Iwill
seeyouonthe25
th
andIwillslamyouagainstthewalllike1did
before."
Thesignificanceof the25
th
thisstatementis that youand.Rodemswerescheduled.to.
.. . attend inJudgeNielsen'schambersonthatdate. Inpurportingtoquoteyourabo've
statementin thecourt,Rodemswrote:
"Atthispointintheconversation,Plaintiffstated-- andthisisan
exactquote-- 'IamgoingtoslamyouupagainstthewallinJudge
Nielsen'schambers.'"
Clearly,thetwostatementsarenotidentical. 1thinkyouwillagreethatthe"slamyou
againstthewall"portionsof therespectivestatenlentsarevirtuallythesame. Thedifferencein
thestatementsliesinthefactthatintheoriginalyouactuallystated"Iwillseeyouonthe25
th
"
andinRodems' renditionhe "inJudgeNielsen'schambers." Becauseyoubothknewthat
yourmeetingonthe25
th
wouldbe,in.JudgeNielsen'schambers,thedifferenceinlanguageis
411 N. FranklinStreet Tampa,Florida 33602 (813)276-3200
TarnpaEiav
www.tampagov.net/police
20
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
February 22,2010
Page two
indisputable but not material, that is, it did not substantially change the meaning of the original
statement. See the definition of "material matter" in Florida Statute Section 837.011(3)(2009).
Additionally, Rodems informed the court in general terms of the portion of your conversation
concerning whether you were speaking metaphorically or literally when you indicated you would
slam him against the wall at the hearing. This fact further undercuts any finding that Rodems
was intentionally misleading the court.
I'm not suggesting that Mr. Rodems was right or accurate in representing to the court as
an "exact quote" language that clearly was not an exact quote. I'm only concluding that his
misrepresentation does not, in my judgment, rise to the level of criminal perjury. No further
action is contemplated by this agency at this time.
Sincerely,
KCR/jak
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala., Florida 34481
March 11, 2010
VIA EXPRESS MAIL
Mr. Kirby Rainsberger, Police Legal Advisor
Tampa Police Department
One Police Center
411 N. Franklin Street
RE: perjury complaint
Dear Mr. Rainsberger:
Thank you for your letter dated February 22, 2010. You succinctly framed the issues in
this difficult matter and I appreciate your effort. You established that Mr. Rodems was
not right or accurate in representing to the court as an "exact quote" language that clearly
was not an exact quote. You also concluded that his misrepresentation does not, in your
judgment, rise to the level of criminal perjury. However current Florida case law supports
a finding of criminal perjury against Mr. Rodems.
As you suggested, I considered the definition of "material matter" in Florida Statues
section 837.011(3)(2009). According to the statute "Material matter" means any subject,
regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could affect the course
or outcome ofthe proceeding. Whether a matter is material in a given factual situation is
a question of law.
Placing the name of Judge Nielsen into an "exact quote" attributed to me "could affect
the course or outcome ofthe proceeding" because ofthe personal nature of one's name,
especially the name of the presiding judge. In this case it has affected the proceedings.
You wrote that we "both knew that your meeting on the 25
th
would be in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." This is not true. I am not a lawyer and assumed the hearing would be held in
open court. There was only one prior hearing in this case and I attended it telephonically
from Ocala. Therefore I did not know the hearing would be "in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." As to my "exact quote" - I said "like I did before" - which refers to the
September 25
th
telephonic hearing where I prevailed. So there is no significance to the
25
th
in my statement because that portion of the quote is not in question or material.
The following Florida case law supports a finding of perjury against Mr. Rodems because
it meets the defmition of"material matter" in section 837.011(3) Florida Statutes (2009).
1. Materiality is not element of crime of perjury, but rather is a threshold issue that the
court must determine prior to trial, as with any other preliminary matter. State v. Ellis,
723 So.2d 187 (1998), rehearing denied.
Mr.KirbyRainsberger,PoliceLegalAdvisor Page- 2
TampaPoliceDepartment March11,2010
2.Misrepresentationswhichtendtobolstercredibilityof awitness,whethersuccessfulor
not,areregardedas"material"forpurposesofsupportingaperjuryconviction.Klinev.
State,App. 1Dist,444So.2d1102(1984),petitionforreviewdenied451 So.2d849
3.Misrepresentationswhichtendtobolsterthecredibilityof witness,whethertheyare
successfulornot,havethatpotentialandareregardedas"material"forpurposesof
perjuryconviction.Sollerv. State,App.5Dist.,666So.2d992(1996).
4.Representationis"material"underperjurystatuteif ithasmerepotentialtoaffect
resolutionof mainorsecondaryissuebeforecourt.Sollerv. State,App.5Dist.,666
So.2d992(1996).
IlearnedonFebruary24,2010thatMr.Rodemsrepeatedhisperjuryinaletterdated
December28,2009toPedroF.Bajo,Chairofthe13
th
CircuitJNC,andattachedacopy
of hisverifiedpleadingtotheletteras"Exhibit4".(copyenclosed).Mr.Rodemsdidthis
tobolsterhiscredibilitylikeinthelawsuit.ThisiswhatMr.Rodemswroteonpage2:
"[Mr.Gillespie] Threatenedto"slam"me"againstthewall;"asaresult,Irequestedthata
bailiff bepresentatallhearings.(Exhibit"4").Asaprecaution,IalsoscheduledMr.
Gillespie'sdepositioninabuildingrequiringvisitorstopassthroughametaldetector;"
ClearlyMr.Rodemsisreferringtoanactualassault,notametaphor.Mr.Rodemshas
perjuredhimself toMr.Bajo,theJNC,andultimatelytheGovernor.
Mr.Rodems'letterispartoftheJNCfilethatwassenttoMr.RobertR.Wheeler,
GeneralCounseltotheExecutiveOfficeof theGovernor. Sincethelettermaybe
consideredbytheGovernorinevaluatingMr.Rodemsforappointmentasjudge,Ibelieve
thismatternow concernsthebusinessandcitizensoftheStateof Florida.
I can appreciate the backlash that could occurifyou were toforward a chargeof perjury
againstMr.Rodemstothestateattorneyforprosecution.TheTampalegalcommunity
very close nit.And I am painfully awareof the repercussionsof challenging wrongdoing
bythislawfrrm. Perhapsthismattershouldbereferredtoanoutsideauthority.
Thankyouagainforyourattentiontothisverydifficultmatter.
Sincerely,
'.
cc:Mr.Rob rt R. Wheeler,GeneralCounsel,ExecutiveOfficeof theGovernor
Mr.PedroF. Bajo,Jr.,Chair,ThirteenthJudicialCircuitJNC
TheHonorableJamesM.Barton,II,CircuitCourtJudge,ThirteenthJudicialCircuit
14
DEPUTY DEVALL: As long as you have their
addresses and names, that shouldn't be an issue.
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, they're Judges, so I'm
sure you have the names.
DEPUTY DEVALL: Well, then you need to
check -- well, you need to be careful and check --
make sure you check Federal local rules, although
these aren't subpoenas that you're getting, so that
may not be -- I would probably speak to an attorney
then, because I can't speak to the legal aspect of
it. You might have issues getting summons --
summons issued by the Clerks court for Judges.
MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh. They're Judges and
other officials, like an ADA Coordinator and a
General Counsel --
DEPUTY DEVALL: Okay.
MR. GILLESPIE: -- down in the Thirteenth
Circuit.
DEPUTY DEVALL: Again, for stuff like that you
will probably need to speak to an attorney to see
how that works.
MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah, I have spoken to
attorneys. Okay. That is not the answer.
DEPUTY DEVALL: Well, sir, that is the only
answer that I can give you. As far as just
Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporter/Legal Transcription
(813) 598-2703
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21

Neil Gillespie
From: "Pedro Bajo" <pedro.bajo@bajocuva.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, J uly 01, 2010 8:08 PM
Subject: RE: see attached letter to Rick Folio
Page 1of 4
9/16/2010
Dear Mr. Gillespie

I recall the question and the answer, but I do not recall who asked the question or
which court was referred to by Ms. Hooper. I am sorry that I cannot be more help in
that regard.

Pedro

Pedro F. Bajo, Jr., Esq.
Bajo Cuva, P.A.
100 N. Tampa Street
Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
813-443-2199 (telephone)
813-443-2193 (fax)
813-785-6653 (cell)
pedro.bajo@bajocuva.com

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]
Sent: Thursday, J uly 01, 2010 1:00 PM
To: Pedro Bajo
Subject: Re: see attached letter to Rick Figlio

Dear Mr. Bajo,
Thanks, appreciate your response. I have another question about the interviews on J une 15, one
committee member asked applicant Carolle Hooper if she had seen any behavior from a judge in
court that was unprofessional.
The applicant responded that one judge said to a woman who was obviously pregnant and about
to give birth, words to the effect "would you like this garbage can moved closer to you in case
you have the baby?" The judge was referring to a trash can in the courtroom.
I plan to include this in my comments to Gov. Crist (without identifying Ms. Hooper) and want
22
to know if you recall which committee member asked the question (great question) and if you recall in
what kind of court this allegedly occurred, i.e. criminal, family, etc. or any of the circumstances about
the matter or statement? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil Gillespie
----- Original Message -----
From: Pedro Bajo
To: Neil Gillespie
Sent: Wednesday, J une 30, 2010 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: see attached letter to Rick Figlio

Mr. Gillespie

You are correct that the three listed members were not able to attend.

Pedro

Pedro F. Bajo, Jr., Esq.
Bajo Cuva, P.A.
100 N. Tampa Street
Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
813-443-2199 (telephone)
813-443-2193 (fax)
813-785-6653 (cell)
pedro.bajo@bajocuva.com

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net]
Sent: Tuesday, J une 29, 2010 6:30 PM
To: Pedro Bajo
Subject: Re: see attached letter to Rick Figlio

Dear Mr. Bajo,
Thank you for the information about the amended press release. Going over my notes from the
interviews of J une 15, 2010, I show three members missing, Mr. Barker, Mr. Gerecke and Ms. Wilcox,
is that right? As noted in my letter to Rick Figlio today, I plan to submit a letter in opposition to Mr.
Rodems for judge based on the information learned by my attendance at the interviews. I want the
Page 2of 4
9/16/2010
Case 1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ Document 19 Filed 10/30/12 Page 1 of 3
23
Case 1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ Document 19-1 Filed 10/30/12 Page 1 of 1
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
December 30,2008
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Mr. Gillespie:
After consulting with The Florida Bar legal staff, your request to prepare a written
transcript of the audio CD #0444C (of the live presentation of Course #0444R - Basic
Federal Practice) has been approved.
Sincerely,
Tom Miller
Program Administrator
24

Thank You For Moral Courage Justice System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thank You For Moral Courage Justice System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida, SCOTUS Petition No.

FormerHusband CaseNo.: 29-2001-DR-4977-C

You might also like