Top Banner
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE, CASE NO.: 12-11213-C Appellants/Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, et al. Respondents/Defendants. __________________________________/ Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co. Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability Accommodation Neil J. Gillespie, under oath, testifies as follows: 1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This affidavit is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated. 2. I am disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et. seq., and § 825.101(4), Florida Statutes. 3. I filed May 27, 2011 Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie in Hillsborough Circuit Court that shows I have Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Velopharyngeal Incompetence. I also have impaired hearing, especially under stress. 4. I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against AMSCOT Corporation (“Amscot”). Jonathan Alpert filed the Amscot lawsuit December 9, 1999 as partner of the firm Alpert,
104

Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Apr 18, 2015

Download

Documents

Judge Isom was dishonest when she failed to disclose a conflict with husband Woody Isom and Mr. Alpert. Judge Isom denied me justice under the color of law when she failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel as required by McPartland. Judge Isom denied me justice under the color of law when she failed to provide intensive case management as she advocated in her law review, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, and when she failed to abate the hearing February 5, 2006 until Mr. Bauer could be retained. The cost of Judge Isom’s dishonesty and denial of justice has been enormous to me, all the lawyers, and the court system. Judge Isom is a disgrace to the court and should be removed from office.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITNEIL J. GILLESPIE,ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,CASE NO.: 12-11213-CAppellants/Plaintiffs,vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-BTHIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,FLORIDA, et al.Respondents/Defendants.__________________________________/Affidavit of Neil J. GillespieConflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability AccommodationNeil J. Gillespie, under oath, testifies as follows:1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This affidavitis given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.2. I am disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42U.S.C. 12101 et seq., the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), theRehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq., and 825.101(4), Florida Statutes.3. I filed May 27, 2011 Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.Gillespie in Hillsborough Circuit Court that shows I have Depression, Post TraumaticStress Disorder (PTSD), Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, andVelopharyngeal Incompetence. I also have impaired hearing, especially under stress.4. I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot).Jonathan Alpert filed the Amscot lawsuit December 9, 1999 as partner of the firm Alpert,2Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. Substitute counsel Barker, Rodems & Cook,P.A. (BRC) and William J. Cook (Cook) represented me beginning December 12,2000. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. BRC and Cook appealed.5. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, andNeil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit.Amscot settled for business reasons before the appeal was decided. The Certificate ofInterested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1) attached to the JointStipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this Affidavit:Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.Amscot CorporationBarker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.Barker, Chris A., Esq.Cook, William J., Esq.Gillespie, NeilMacKechnie, IanRodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq.This stipulation was not provided to me by my former lawyers. I obtained it from theCourt in April 2006 with a records request. (Exhibit 1).6. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AAwith prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorneys fees. (Exhibit 2).7. BRC and Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot.Cook lied to me about a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on theclosing statement. (Exhibit 3). There was no such award. The $50,000 was actually partof the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned contingent fee agreement, or FloridaBar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was laterfound to be $7,143.68. I filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Cook for violationof ethics rules. The Florida Bar failed to properly adjudicate my complaint.38. On August 11, 2005 I sued, pro se, BRC and Cook to recover $6,224.78. The casewas caption was Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook,Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. BRC partner Ryan ChristopherRodems defended his firm BRC and law partner Cook.9. On January 13, 2006 Judge Richard A. Nielsen found by Order that I establisheda cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Cook. (Exhibit 4). Oninformation and belief, partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible forthe fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of theordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There was an actual conflict of interest in Mr.Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves in this case.10. On January 19, 2006, BRC and Cook countersued me for Libel over a letter Iwrote to Ian MacKechnie, president of Amscot, about the prior litigation.11. On February 4, 2006 I moved to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. Oninformation and belief, disqualification was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISIInv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatoryauthority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by JudgeKovachevich, U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida, Tampa Division:[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professionalimpropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must showexistence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters inpending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause ofaction. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, forpurposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposingparty, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and courtmust focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legaladvice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related4to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable personswould understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantialrelationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendantand issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs createdirrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential informationwas disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification ofeven one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation ofopposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.McPartland cites State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 75 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991), aFlorida Supreme Court case. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I foundMcPartland and other similar cases in 2010.12. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualifyhim and an argument ensued. During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech,and threatened me. Rodems said you will pay for writing a letter to Ian MacKechnie,president of Amscot. All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use exemptionof Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal HealthCare Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).13. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with a swornaffidavit under the penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of the Judge Nielsen inDefendants Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions. Mr. Rodems falselynamed Judge Nielsen in an exact quote attributed to me. Upon information and belief,it was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage.14. A voice recording of the call impeached Mr. Rodems sworn affidavit. KirbyRainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department, investigated the matter andwrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing5to the Court as an exact quote language that clearly was not an exact quote. Theinvestigation did not show any wrongdoing by me.15. Beginning on March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems has directed, with malice aforethought,a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disabilities, causedsubstantial emotional distress and served legitimate purpose.16. On March 20, 2006 I requested from Mr. Rodems pursuant to Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) settlement documents at the heart of the lawsuit. The documents were in disputeas to their existence or whether the documents were signed. (Exhibit 5).17. On March 27, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a hostile email in response to my BarRule 4-1.5(f)(5) request, with his typical false reference to threats of physical violence.(Exhibit 6). Mr. Rodems wrote:I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requestedhave been previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to yourinitial complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Given your threats of physicalviolence against me during our last telephone conversation, and given that youhave copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort to harass us.Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I wasadvised that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse ofthe rules by former clients, the most practical response would be to send thedocuments to you again. They are attached in pdf format. In the event you makethis request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format is not to yourliking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00p.m. to inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that wemay arrange to have security present.18. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard.Judge Richard Nielsen failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISIInv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware ofMcPartland. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c)when he failed to disclose McPartland to Judge Nielsen:661. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to thetribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to bedirectly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposingcounsel, in this instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v.ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legalauthority directly adverse to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp arejust two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and theTable of Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fullyinform the court on applicable law whether favorable or adverse to position ofclient so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination ofthe matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced bythis motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr. Rodems andBRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.Paragraph 61, Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan ChristopherRodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. July 9, 2010, also Exhibit 10 to the Complaintin U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.19. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment. It was setfor a hearing before Judge Nielsen August 1, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Rodems objected byemail the same day. I canceled the hearing with the intention of resetting the hearing, andhiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was never heard.20. On April 25, 2006 Mr. Rodems waited outside Judge Nielsens chambers to tauntme following a hearing. At the next hearing June 28, 2006 I requested protection from theCourt to prevent a reoccurrence. Judge Nielsen did not provide the requested protection:(Transcript, June 28, 2006, page 21, beginning at line 20)MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallwayand I dont want that to happen today.THE COURT: Well, you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and thenyou can decide what you want to do, sir.21. Initially I had a good working relationship with Judge Nielsen and his judicialassistant Myra Gomez. After Rodems stunt Judge Nielsen did not manage the7case lawfully, favored Defendants in rulings, responded to me sarcastically, andsanctioned me for failing to comply with Mr. Rodems discovery requests, even though Icomplied with the discovery requests to the best of my ability. I moved to disqualifyJudge Nielsen, which he denied, but recused himself sua sponte November 22, 2006.22. Upon information and believe, the right to bodily integrity and security of personincludes mental integrity, that is, freedom from mental and psychological abuse. Theright to safely pursue justice is a fundamental civil right that underscores a litigants rightnot to be subjected to physical, sexual, mental or emotional violence inside or outside thecourt, either by private attorneys or by judges and people acting on the part of the state.The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. Litigants in civil proceedingsmust be free from mental or emotional violence, which may be a form of torture, or theirConstitutionally protected rights, including due process, are rendered meaningless.23. My case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006.24. On December 3, 2006 I read a notice on Judge Isoms web page that advised thatthe judge had a number of relatives practicing law and If you feel there might be aconflict in your case based on the above information, please raise the issue so it can beresolved prior to me presiding over any matters concerning your case. One relativelisted was husband A. Woodson Woody Isom, Jr.. (Exhibit 7).25. On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict,and moved for disclosure of conflict with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any otherconflict of interest in this case. My motion noted the following possible conflicts:Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 bycheck to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002. (3, page 2)8Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002,and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002.(4, page 2)My motion informed Judge Isom of the significance of Jonathan Alpert to this case:Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protges and former law partners, and the contractthat forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook,P.A. (4, page 2)On January 5, 2007 I served Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict.26. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,Discovery, to reconsider a July 24, 2006 Order by Judge Richard Nielsen for discoverysanctions against me.27. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,Disqualify Counsel, to reconsider Judge Nielsen's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion toDisqualify Counsel (Mr. Rodems and BRC) entered May 12, 2006.28. On December 12th and December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems left voice mail messageson my cell phone. (Exhibit 8.4). Rodems called me cheap and other such:(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)24 I would also point out that the problem that25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probably more(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 7, beginning at line 1)1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're3 usual hours rates are for litigation like this,19. ..And then on top of all20. that you always fall back on your medical21. condition, which I have never seen any22. documentation of, that you always allude to that in23. your Court fillings. And quite frankly, you play24. the victim when it suits you and you play the925. advocate when it suits you29. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a five page letter of insults,including ridicule of mental illness: (Exhibit 8.3)I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by yourown poor choices in life. You also claim to have mental or psychologicalproblems, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior inthis case has been so abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions ofmental problems. (P1, 3)So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to paythe required hourly rates for representation. (P3, 2).30. On December 27, 2006 I responded to Mr. Rodems letter. (Exhibit 7.1).Dear Mr. Rodems,This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, andyour subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lostperspective in this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting yourdisqualification as counsel.As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theoriesare little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside thebounds of acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I havereferred them to the attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your namecalling, that I am a pro se litigant of dubious distinction, cheap, and othersuch, is harassment. Be advised that I received your telephone message while atthe oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, and was so upset that Ihad to cancel my appointment and leave.Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 inresponse to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created toidentify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse,mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers(Bar Rule 2-9.11).Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of JudgeNielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoingharassment of me. I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.,or a provider of your choice.10Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type ofcommunication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourselfaccordingly.31. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to Judge Isom about Mr. Rodems harassment ofme. (Exhibit 8). I provided Judge Isom a transcript of Rodems ranting phone message ofDecember 13, 2006. I provided Judge Isom a copy of Rodems five page diatribe to me ofDecember 13, 2006. (Exhibit 8.3).Dear Judge Isom,Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephonemessage of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his subsequent five pagediatribe of even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling,ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all isevidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lostperspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that ledto the recusal of Judge Nielsen.Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribeof wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodemscontacts the Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. ApparentlyMr. Rodems has been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from homeduring normal business hours. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line15). As stated before, I am concerned for his well-being and mine. I alsorequested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages andletters.32. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For An Order To CompelRyan Christopher Rodems To Stop Harassing Behavior. (Exhibit 9).33. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing Plaintiffs AmendedMotion for Disclosure of Conflict. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by MaryElizabeth Blazer and is part of the record. Judge Isom denied the existence of anyconflict. The transcript shows that Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husbandWoody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at the11law firm Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom andJonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.34. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom engaged in deception and dishonestyprejudicial to the administration of justice February 1, 2007 when she lied by omissionand failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partnersand shareholders at Fowler White:a. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their counselmight consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation todisclose relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v.Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006.b. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using thecommon law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband andwife are considered as one person and the relatives of one spouse byconsanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the same degree. State v.Wall, 41 Fla. 463.c. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealingswith a relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that ajudge's prejudice may bar a party from having his or her day in court. Thefunction of the trial court on motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to adetermination of the legal sufficiency of an affidavit, without reference to its truthand veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.d. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides a judge shalldisqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartialitymight reasonably be questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under thisrule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably bequestioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.The question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on thosematters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartialityrather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially.e. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethicalresponsibility of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code ofJud. Conduct, Canon 3.1235. In 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. Whileresearching accusations in one of Rodems harassing letters to me, I found an affidavitsigned by Jonathan Alpert in Alperts divorce case that stated in 3c: (Exhibit 10).I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, inlast fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically calledto Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;36. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed in an email to me that he practicedlaw with Jonathan Alpert. (Exhibit 11). Woody Isom wrote: He and I were shareholdersat Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.37. On February 5, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing in the case.a. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Denise L. Bradley, and is part ofthe record. Judge Isom considered the following matters:Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify CounselPlaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery (Sanctions)Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike CounterclaimThe Americans with Disabilities Act (ABA)On February 6, 2007 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter with two proposed Orders. (Exhibit 20)Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery (Sanctions)Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike CounterclaimNeither Order was signed by Judge Isom, and neither Order was entered into the record.These motions were not considered by any successor judge.b. Judge Isom did not rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, DisqualifyCounsel. The Court considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as shown in thetranscript, from page 22 through 40, which is presented as Exhibit 21, but then Mr.Rodems objected, as shown on pages 36-37 of the transcript, February 5, 2007:12 MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,13 Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into1314 earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he15 didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes16 say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be17 considered for any purposes by the court in any18 hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie19 for illegally recording the conversation.25 THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address1 the motion for reconsideration and the motion to2 disqualify today.(Note: Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department,investigated this matter and wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was notright and not accurate in representing to the Court as an exact quote languagethat clearly was not an exact quote. The investigation did not show anywrongdoing by me.)c. Judge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions. Uponinformation and belief, Judge Isom failed to follow her own law essay on discoverysanctions, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 12).Judge Isoms essay describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors intensive casemanagement for lawyers to avoid costly sanctions, because Florida judges are elected andneed the financial support of lawyers. Judge Isom acknowledged that lawyers behavebadly in court, and this bad behavior - which Judge Isom calls cutting up - is intendedto churn more fees for themselves. Judge Isom refused to provide me the same kind ofintensive case management to avoid sanctions. Judge Isom denied me the benefits of theservices, programs, or activities of the court, specifically mediation services:(Transcript, February 01, 2007, page 15, line 20)THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolvethis without litigation?MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.Judge Isom did not offer me mediation. Judge Isom let the sanction Order stand. Uponinformation and belief the sanction Order is contrary to the law on discovery:14Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to encouragethe settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d517 (Fla. 1996). The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedydetermination every action (In re Estes Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast DentalServices, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure thatjudgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd.Partnership v. Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and notupon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division ofAdministration, State Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2dDist. 1977). The sanction Order was later used by Judge James M. Barton to penalize me with a$11,550 sanction. Mr. Rodems used this sanction to extort a settlement from me.d. Judge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems counterclaim for libelagainst me. The counterclaim was a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to IanMacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are interested parties on theCertificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1). Myletter complained about the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation by BRC andCook. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have, but did not, disqualifyRodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems pursued vexatious litigation against methat began January 19, 2006 and continued through September 28, 2010, whereuponRodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I retained counsel todefend against the vexatious lawsuit and incurred over $33,000 in legal fees by attorneyRobert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for libel.e. Judge Isom conducted an ADA assessment of me during the February 5,2007 hearing. This matter is more fully described in Verified Notice of Filing DisabilityInformation of Neil J. Gillespie, submitted May 27, 2011 in Hillsborough County. (And15later filed in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala, case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc (Doc. 36),and case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc (Doc 15, Appendix 2). (Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even8 hearing you. But it sounded all right.9 THE COURT: What's is the nature of your10 disability?11 MR. GILLESPIE: It's depression and12 post-traumatic stress disorder.13 THE COURT: Are you under the care of a doctor?14 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.15 THE COURT: And do you have a disability rating16 with the Social Security Administration?17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge. In the early '90s,18 I'm going to say '93 or '94, I was judged disabled by19 Social Security. And I applied for vocational20 rehabilitation. And to make a long story short, I21 guess it was in about '98 or '99 I received a22 determination from vocational rehabilitation that my23 disability was so severe that I could not benefit from24 rehabilitation.25 I would say in the interim that they had prepared(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 46, beginning at line 1)1 a rehabilitation plan for me and they didn't want to2 implement it. And that's the reason that they gave for3 not implementing it. I brought that cause of action to4 the Barker, Rodems and Cook law firm and they reviewed5 that. And apparently they were in agreement with it6 because they decided not to represent me on that claim.7 And a copy of their letter denying that is part of my8 motion for punitive damages. You can read that letter.9 I think I have it here.After taking testimony about my disability, Judge Isom offered to abate the matterfor three months so I could find counsel, but Mr. Rodems objected. I retained attorneyRobert W. Bauer one month later.16(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 46, beginning at line 10)10 THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of direction11 today, do you want to just stop everything and abate12 this proceeding for three months so that you can go out13 and try to find substitute counsel or --you know, I14 realize there's a counterclaim.15 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.16 THE COURT: But originally, at least, it was your17 lawsuit. So if you feel that you're at a disadvantage18 because of your lack of counsel, I guess I could abate19 it and give you additional time to try to find an20 attorney.21 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, we would oppose that.22 And let me tell you why.Mr. Rodems continued with a self serving diatribe and accused me of criminalextortion for trying to resolve this matter through the Florida Bar ACAP Program, andother such. Then Mr. Rodems made this accusation in open court:(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 49, beginning at line 12).12 [MR: RODEMS:] In any event, at every stage of the proceedings13 when Mr. Gillespie is about to be held accountable for14 his actions he cries that he's got a disability or he15 complains about the fact that he can't get a lawyer.16 The reason he can't get a lawyer is because he's not17 willing to pay a lawyer by the hour for the services he18 wants.And I responded: (Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 50, beginning at line 14).14 MR. GILLESPIE: I am willing to pay an attorney15 by the hour. I have sent a payment of $350 an hour to16 an attorney with the promise of a retainer if they17 would take the case. So Mr. Rodems calling me cheap18 and all of this name-calling and not willing to pay,19 that's not true. In fact, I offered Rick Mitzel who20 said the cost would be $200 an hour, I gladly offered21 to pay him $200 an hour. He wouldn't take the case.22 These lawyers don't want to litigate against this firm23 because they're aware of what this firm does and what24 they're capable of.1738. Judge Isom went against her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused toabate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to continue thelengthy hearing due to disability. I was too confused:(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even8 hearing you.39. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom misused and denied me judicialprocess under the color of law. Two days later on February 7, 2007 I gave noticeof voluntary dismissal (Exhibit 13) and submitted a motion for an order ofvoluntary dismissal. (Exhibit 14). Mr. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss hiscounterclaim. If Rodems did so, that would have ended the case February 7, 2007.40. On February 26, 2007 The Lawyer Referral Service of The Florida Bar providedme a referral to Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville (Florida Bar ID: 11058) for Libel &Slander. (Exhibit 15). I was not able to find counsel in Tampa. After reviewing my case,Mr. Bauer told me the jury would love to punish a slimy attorney. (Transcript,March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer encouraged me to reinstate my claims.41. Mr. Bauer reinstated my voluntarily-dismissed claims in Hillsborough County.Mr. Rodems appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA),Case No. 2D07-4530. The 2dDCA denied Mr. Rodems Petition for Writ of Certiorari,and held as follows: (Exhibit 22).PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix SuperMarkets, Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that whencounterclaim is pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint withoutorder of court).1842. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems sent threatening email to Mr. Bauer inMay 2007. Mr. Rodems objected to Mr. Bauers leave to amend, threatened Bauer withsanctions under 57.105, Fla. Stat., and reiterated his usual laundry list of alleged badacts against me, which had no bearing on the matter at hand. (Exhibit 16). Rodems wrote:I am serving the 57.105 motion today...we object to the motion for leave toamend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and youare flat wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked atRule 1.100(a)? I assume you are aware of the line of cases that hold that amislabeled pleading or motion is not a nullity. We'll send you a 57.105 motion,and you can decide how to proceed.Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for acourt appointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriatedefenses, the economic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQthe trial judges, appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and falsestatements about a judge in a letter to the court, threatening to slam me against thewall, and telling an insurance company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims),I am surprised you would rely on any portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.This example is representative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior.43. On August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an EmergencyHearing on garnishment before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work1 this out in a professional manner. It is my2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.Mr. Rodems' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated my disability to thepoint where I can no longer represent my at hearings. I become easily distracted andconfused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to representhimself. See Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA AccommodationRequest, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011.1944. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case. Mr. Bauersent me this email July 8, 2008 at 6.05PM stating in part:No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not beable to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame thesituation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. Ibelieve it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. Youhave had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much moredifficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can beavoided.See Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie filed September 18, 2010,Exhibit 10 to the Complaint in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc. I was denied access to court in my own case due to Rodems conflict and misconduct.45. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 13, 2008; it was granted October 1,2009. Mr. Bauer charged me $31,863 in legal fees. $12,650 remains unpaid.46. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate withEugene P. Castagliuolo (Florida Bar ID 104360) who represented me in June 2011. Mr.Rodems refused to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodilyattachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part Last but notleast, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional butunhappy message. (Exhibit 17). On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems anasshole in an email to me. (Exhibit 18). Castagliuolo wrote (in part): Based on what Iknow right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be dischargedin your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you. This example isrepresentative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo.47. There are now fifteen (15) additional related cases in this matter due to JudgeIsoms dishonesty and denial of justice. (Exhibit 19). Judge Isom was dishonest when shefailed to disclose a conflil;t with husband Woody Isom and Mr. Alpert. Judge Isom denied me justice under t ~ 1 e color of law when she failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel as required by McPartland. Judge Isom denied me justice under the color of law when she failed to provide intensive case management as she advocated in her law review, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, and when she failed to abate the hearing February 5, 2006 until Mr. Bauer could be retained. The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty and denial ofjustice has been enormous to me, all the lawyers, and the court system. FURTHER AFF]ANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Dated this 30th day of July 2012. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MARION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments in the State of Florida, appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, personally known to me or provided identification who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the above matters contained in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 30th day of July 2012. I ~ W ' CECIUA ROSENBERGER ..: ~ ~i: ~ Cormission # EE 191610 ~ ~ ~ 1 Expires m6, 2016 Notary Public, State of Florida "... !Ii Bonded Thru na,Flirt......800-315-7019 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was provided July 30, 2012 by email onlytoCatherineBarbaraChapman(catherine@guildaylaw.com).Guilday. Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A. 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200. 20 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITNEIL J. GILLESPIE,ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,CASE NO.: 12-11213-CAppellants/Plaintiffs,vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-BTHIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,FLORIDA, et al.Respondents/Defendants.__________________________________/APPENDIXTo the Affidavit of Neil J. GillespieConflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability AccommodationExhibit 1 Certificate of Interested Persons, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, Nov-06-2011Exhibit 2 Final Order, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, December 7, 2001Exhibit 3 Closing Statement, Amscot - BRC and Cook, November 1, 2001Exhibit 4 Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike, January 13, 2006Exhibit 5 Gillespie letter to Mr. Rodems, Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), March 20, 2006Exhibit 6 Email of Mr. Rodems to Gillespie, threats of physical violence, Mar-27-2006Exhibit 7 Website Notice About Conflict, Judge Claudia R. Isom, December 6, 2006Exhibit 8 Gillespie letter to Judge Isom, Re: Harassment by Mr. Rodems, Dec-27-2006Exhibit 9 Gillespies Motion for an Order to Stop Rodems Harassment, Deb-02-2007Exhibit 10 Affidavit of Jonathan Alpert, Sep-11-2003, Re: law partner Woody IsomExhibit 11 Email of Woody Isom to Gillespie, March 23, 2010, Re: law partner J. AlpertExhibit 12 Judge Isom, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323Exhibit 13 Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 05-CA-7205, February 7, 2007Exhibit 14 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal, February 7, 2007Exhibit 15 The Florida Bar LRS referral to Robert W. Bauer, February 26, 2007Exhibit 16 Threatening Email of Mr. Rodems to Robert W. Bauer, May 3, 2007Exhibit 17 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, June 10, 2011, Re: RodemsExhibit 18 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, June 14, 2011, Re: RodemsExhibit 19 18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205Exhibit 20 Mr. Rodems cover letter and proposed Orders for Judge Isom, February 6, 2007Exhibit 21 Transcript, Hearing before Judge Isom, February 5, 2007, pages 1-3 and 11-40Exhibit 22 Order, Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2D07-4530IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE l-IO .. EUGENE R. CLEMENT, GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD , and NEIL GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellants, i 1 1I I v. AMSCOT CORPORATION, Appellee. ______________, 1 JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE The Parties, by and th_ou(Jh tI-leir undersigrled counsel, .. flg amicably resolved this matter, pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 42 (b) move for dismissal with prejtldice ""to: th each party bearing its own fees and costs. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of November, 2001. RODEMS & COOK, Gray, Harris, Bobinson, Shackleford, Farrior WILLIAM J. CO K, ESQUIRE R. FERNANDEZ, ES Florida Bar No. 986194 Florida Bar No. 008 5 300 West Platt Street 501 E. Kennedy Blvd 150 Sllite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33606 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 489-1001 (TEL) (813) 273-5000 (TE"L) (813) 489-1008 (FAX) 273-5145 Z.:\.t to rrle :i5 for Appe 11ant .. for Appellee 1CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-1, counsel for the Appellants certify that the following persons and entities have an interest in the outcome of this case. Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq. Alpert & Ferrentino, P.A. Amscot Corporation Anthony, John A., Esq. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Barker, Chris A., Esq. Blomefield, Gay Ann Clement, Eugene R. Cook, William J., Esq. Gillespie, Neil Gray, Harris, Robinson, Shackleford, Farrior, P.A. Lazzara, The Honorable Richard A. United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida MacKechnie, Ian Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq. o o rO\..)\:\1 APp/ . v REC. IVED ..,.Cj' CLERK '{ \ :::;' tP" Neil J. Gillespie APR 0 4 2006 8092 SW 115th Loop /' Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 March 30, 2006 Daniel Richardson, Deputy Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303-2289 Telephone: (404) 335-6100 RE: Clement V. Amscot Corporation, Appeal No. 01-14761-AA $45.00 Retrieval Fee Enclosed Dear Mr. Richardson, Enclosed is payment of $45.00 to Clerk of the Court to retrieve the above captioned case for copying, as we discussed by telephone on March 29,2006, Upon retrieval of the file, kindly call me with the total number of pages so that I can send you the 50 cents per page for the cost of copying. Thank you. enclosure I 040171 (Rev. 1lU89).'o RECEIPT FclllvMENT". " - UNITED STATED COURT OF APPEAL:S for the ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ATLANTA, GEORGIA o'" '" '" o 13' ! I GENERAL AND SPECIAL FUND 0869PL PLRA Filing Fees 086900 Docketing Fees 322340 Sales of Publications & Opinions 322350 Copy Fees 322360 Miscellaneous Fees (Includes Certifi tion Fee) 510000 Fees for Judicial ervices ACCOUNT AMOUNT 0869PL 086900 322340 510000 322350 322360 TOTAL $ Mail -0 Rail All checks, money orders, drafts, etc. are accepted subject to collection. Full credit will not be given until the negotiable i t has een ac . cia' itution on which it was drawn. I, " ,,' " .. ATLANTPOEMS: Hi Neil, it's Chris Rodems. It's 5 Tuesday, February 7th at about 10:10 in the 6 morning. I have called JUdge 1som' s chambers this 7 morning to find some hearing time for the motions 8 that we're covering and they have offered 9 Februa.ry 7, 2007, at 10 a .m. for two hours. If 10 you're available that day we can start with the two 11 motions for reconsideration or rehearing that you 12 filed. And then depending on her rUling go into 13 the motions that a.re pending that we filed. And 14 that would be the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and 15 Strike -- Counterclatm, dated 16 Fe.bruary 8th, 2006 - actually, that's your motion, 17 that hasn't been finished. 18 As you reca.ll, JUdge Nielsen started hearing 19 it on Apri.l 25th, 2006, and made rUlings on 20 portions of it but did not finish it. So we would 21 need to discuss with JUdge Isom whether she 'wishes .22 to adopt his partial rUlings or hear the thing from 23 the begi.nning. In the event that she wishes to 24 hear it from the beginning we should be ready to 25 argue it from the beginning_ 4 D 1 The other two motions that we have pending are 2 Defendant '5 Motion - Amended Motion for Sanction.s 3 pursuant to Section 57.105 that was filed on 4 Ma.y 3rd, 2006. And then Defendant t s Motion for 5 Order to Show Cause why parties should not be held 6 in contempt of Court, which was dated August 25th 7 of 2006. 8 So if you're available on February 7th, for 9 two hours beginning at ten a.m., we can hear all of 10 those motions. The office number is 813-489-1001. 11 And if you could call me back as soon as possible 12 and let me know, I p.romised the Judge's judicial 13 assistant, Joyce, that I would call her back 14 probably today one way or the other. 15 So I look forward to hea.ring from you. I m 16 out of the office now. If you have caller 10 t.his 17 is actually my home phone I'm call.ing you from and 18 I will be here for a little bit longer this 19 morning. But if you could call me back at the 20 office and leave me a message, 813-489-1001. And I 21 look .forward to hearing from you. Thank you Neil. 22 Bye-bye. 23 AUTOMA.TED ANSWERING MA.CHING: To replay this 24 message press 1. To delete press 7. To return the 25 message sender's call press 8. To save press 9. 5 D 1 For more options press 6. 2 (Whereupon, the above message was 3 concluded. ) 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 MR. RODEMS: Hi Neil, it's Chris Rodems. It s 6 about ten 0 1 clock on Wednesday, December 13th and 7 I'm following up from your fax yesterday. By the 8 way, you're greeting says; hi, this is Neil, leave 9 me a message and I 1 11 get back to you. So that's 10 what I'm doing. 11 Judge 180m does have February 5th ava.ilable 12 all day. So we can cover all of the motions at 13 that time. I understand you're not available on 14 Fe.bruary 7th, so let me know of your availabi.lity 15 on February 5th. 16 What I cannot do is wait to schedule hearing.s 17 on your claims that you're going to hire counsel. 18 You have been saying this since October, and you 19 have done nothing. You had plenty of time to hire 20 counsel. I know that you have talked to a numbe.r 21 of counsel, because you say so every time you file 22 a court pleading. 23 I also disagree with your fax in that it says 24 that I threatened lawyers that were helping you. I 25 ha:ve not even spoken to any of the lawyers about 6 D 1 your case ever. What I did do is I sent to those 2 three lawyers that you claimed made al.l of these 3 disparaging and despicable conments about Judge -4 Nielsen, I sent them a copy of the letter that you 5 filed in the court file in which you att.ributed 6 anonj1InOus statements to the three of them. Because 7 as an Officer of the Court and as a Member of the 8 Bar, I do think that they are entitled to know when 9 someone is out there spreading statements 10 attributed to them to the Judges, to be very 11 damaging on somebody' s career to have someone I.ike 12 you, a pro se litigant of dubious distinction, 13 spreading claims that these attorneys have made 14 disparaging conments about the Judge. I thought 15 they were entitled to know. That's why I sent them 16 that letter. 17 Obviously, if any of the three of them feel 18 they need to correct your statements or deny 19 attribute - the statements you attribute to them, 20 they're free to do that. But I have had no 21 discussions with them and I do have the E-Mail that 22 I sent to them. And your cla.im that I threatened 23 them is just another fabrication on your part. 24 I would also point out that the problem that 25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probab.ly more 0 7 1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and 2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're 3 usual hours rates are for litigat.ion like this, or 4 the fact that your history of filing Bar grieva.nces 5 against attorneys is well known. 6 That you threatened to file three against Bill 7 Cook in this case, all three of which were denied 8 out of hand. And you also filed claims against a 9 Judge in Pinellas County. And I suspect that 10 you're probably drafting a complaint against me 11 right now as we speak for, you know, my zealous 12 represent.ation of my clients, which I know you 13 dontt agree with. 14 They also are aware of the statements that you 15 have made aga.inst Judge Nielsen, obviously, since 16 this is a public record now your .lette.rs that you 17 filed in October and the motion that you filed to 18 disqua.lify him. And quite frankly, the letters are 19 so bizarre and. filled with ju.st despicable 20 allegations unrelated to the case, that I suspect 21 that they don't want to have anything to do with 22 you because they question your veracity and your 23 credibility. I certainly do. But I think that 24 that more than likely explains the reasons that 25 youtre not retaining counsel, not the fact that I 8 D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sent them a one-line letter that said; here's the letter that Bill Gillespie filed, you probably should take a look at it, as an Officer of the Court, of course. So there has 'been no effective threatening of anybody. I 1 ve never threatened you at any time. You keep saying this in all of your Court filings. But what you keep referring back to is my statement to you that because of your defamation of my clients that you will pay. And Ultimately, in the end, I believe that that will be the case. I believe that you will have to pay because yo'u canno't just go around and defame people without expecting to be held accountable for that. And that' s all that we have ever tried to do is a.sk you to honor the agreement that you made and to act decently. And in.stead, what we always seem to receive fram you are grievances, complaints, scandalous allegations. And then on top of all that you alway.s fall back on your medical condition, which I have never seen any documentation of, that you always allude to that in your Court filing.s. And quite frankly, you play the victim when it suits you and you play the advocate when it suits you and you try to double 9 D 1 deal against people all the time. Your mi.sdea.lings 2 and your mult.iple lawsuits over the years certainly 3 support that. 4 If you would care to ta.lk about any of this I 5 would be more than happy to talk to you about it. 6 We will have a chance to inquire about all of this 7 when we get to take your deposition. But I _.8 AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHING: To replay this 9 message press 1. To delete press 7. To return the 10 message sender's call press 8. To save press 9. 11 For more options press 6. 12 ~ r o replay this message press 1. To delete 13 press 7. To return the message sender's call press 14 8. To save press 9. For more options press 6. 15 To replay this message press 1. To delete 16 p.ress 7. To return the message sender '5 call press 17 8 . To save press 9. For mo.re options press 6. 18 Main menu. To listen to your messages press 19 1. To send a message press 2.. To create a 20 greeting press 3. For more box options press 4. 21 For all security press 5. For help press O. 22 Main menu. To listen to your messages press 23 1. To send a message press 2. To create a 24 greeting press 3. For more box options press 4. 25 For password security press 5. For help press O. 10 D 1 Main menu. T'o listen to your messages press 2 1. To send a message press 2. To create a 3 greeting press 3. For more box options press 4. -4 For password security press 5. For help press O. 5 Thank you for using T-Mobile Voice Mail. Goodbye. 6 (Whereupon, 7 concluded. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the above message was 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425,.. ....... - . ,v ...~ ~ ........C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH If Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Hillsborough County, 00 HEREBY CERTIEY, that I was authorized to and did transcribe a tape/CD recording of the proceedings and evidence in the above-styled cause, as stated in the caption hereto, and that the foregoing pages constitute an accurate transcription of the tape recording of said proceedings and evidence, to the best of my ability. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I tlave hereunto set my hand in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of Florida, this 17 December 2006. MICHAEL J. BORSETH, Court Reporter --------------IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205 vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: H a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK, Defendants. /PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS TO STOP HARASSING BEHAVIOR Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves the Court for an Order compelling Ryan Christopher Rodems to stop his ongoing harassing behavior directed at him, and as grounds therefor would state: 1. Ryan Christopher Rodems made a false verification against Plaintiff in Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff and for Sanctions submitted March 6, 2006. It was a stunt that backfired when a tape recording proved Mr. Rodems lied under oath to gain an advantage over Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems' perjury led to the recusal of the Honorable Richard A. Nielsen and embarrassed the Court. While these stunts may be commonplace for lawyers of Mr. Rodems' ilk, they are very upsetting to normal people. Currently there is a motion before the Court to show cause why Mr. Rodems should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. 2. In an ongoing effort to annoy, offend, and harass Plaintiff, Mr. Rodems refuses to address him by his surname, "Mr. Gillespie", and instead calls Plaintiff by his Page - 1 of3 9first name "Neil" or "Neily". Plaintiff requested Mr. Rodems not to do this, by certified letter dated December 22, 2006, but Rodems persists. (Exhibit 1). If Mr. Rodems invokes "Neily" as a term of love and endearment, Plaintiff states he is not interested in man-love, and considers Mr. Rodems' overture an unwanted sexual advance. 3. Mr. Rodems has engaged in name-calling directed at Plaintiff, specifically calling Plaintiff "cheap". Plaintiff views this as an ethnic insult derogatory to his ScotsIrish heritage. In a five-page diatribe dated December, 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems wrote that "... you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rate for representation." (Rodems' letter, Dec-13-06, p.3, ~ 1 ) . Mr. Rodems is insinuating that Plaintiff wants a lawyer "Scot-free". In a ranting telephone message of even date, Mr. Rodems again called Plaintiff "cheap". This is what Mr. Rodems said: "I would also point out that the problem that you're having in retaining counsel is probably more likely related to the fact that you are cheap and you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're usual hours rates are for litigation like this... ". And again in his letter of December 13,2006, Mr. Rodems made a very broad, damming statem_ent: "You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court filings, are unwilling to pay an attorney fairly for the work that would need to be done. In fact, you even moved the Court to have an attorney appointed for you at the government's expense. Of course, there is no provision under the ADA for appointment of counsel, but the fact that you believe the government should foot the bill for you to file baseless lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases." (Rodems' letter, Dec-13-06, p.2, ~ 7 ) . Again, Mr. Rodems is making an ethic slur against Plaintiff's Scots-Irish background. In the instant case, Mr. Rodems will be liable for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 768.79 Florida Statutes when Plaintiff prevails. Page - 2 of3 4. In addition to ethnic slurs, Mr. Rodems has engaged in name-calling throughout this litigation, including this from his five-page diatribe: " ... 1recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own poor choices in life." (Rodems' letter, l)ec-13-06, p.1, Mr. Rodems appears to be projecting his own fears, like his poor choice when he decided to lie to Judge Nielsen in his false, perjurious verification of March 6, 2006. Mr. Rodems also called Plaintiff a "pro se litigant of dubious distinction". (Rodems' phone message, Dec-13-06, p.6, line 12). In fact, Mr. Rodems is only jealous because Plaintiff recently prevailed as a pro se litigant against HSBC Bank in federal court (Gillespie v. HSBC, 5:05-cv-362-0c-10GRJ), and has been able to move the instant case along despite his dirty tricks, name-calling, and harassment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an Order requiring Mr. Rodems to address him as "Mr. Gillespie", to stop engaging in ethic slurs, and cease and desist all ad hominem abusive messages and letters. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day of February, 2007. ':---h // ()7. .,/.-:7 /' /,// _ ________ e . GilleSpie, Plaint . 8692 SW t15th Loop' Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 502-8409 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by fax and US mail to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 2nd day of February, 2007. -,,}o ... /'....///;7 /h __J. Gill pe /,. ..,/ Page - 3 of3 Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala., Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 502-8409 lJS CERrrIF'IED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT Article No. 7005 3110 0003 7395 1887 l)ecember 22, 2006 Christopher Rodems, Attorlley at Law 13arker, "Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 rratnpa, f'lorida 33602 RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H [)ear Mr. Rodems, Kindly take notice tllat we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you address l1le as lOlOMr. Gillespie"". I have made this request to you several times, in writing, and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understalld the problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do not lltlderstand yo"ur difficulty. Let me remind you that I atn ten years YOllr senior, which only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie". As for your immature, childisll remark left on lny voice mail, your statement tllat because tlle greeting on my voice mail says "Hi, this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get back to YOll", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use IllY first natTIe, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in tllis lawsuit. It also calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A). I al11 providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it ill the record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will questioll you about tllis lnatter, to give tIle C:ou11 and the jury some idea about how ul1professional you are, and to provide a glinlpse itltO tIle nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Coollease address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly. Sincerely., Neil J. Gillespie cc: 'fhe Claudia R. Isom enclosure., page 5, transcript of Mr. Rodems' phone n1essage ofDec-13-06 EXHIBIT 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA FAMILY LAW DIVISION IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF JONATHAN ALPERT, Former Husband Case No.: 29-2001-DR-4977-C ELIZABETH ALPERT, RECeIVED Former Wife. ---------------,/ SEP 11 2003 .CLERK OFCIRCUITCOURT STATE OF FLORIDA ) )ss.: COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH ) AFFIDAVIT Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared Jonathan L. Alpert, personally known to me, who upon being duly sworn deposed upon oath as follows: 1. Myname is Jonathan L. Alpert and I ama partyin that lawsuit styledAlpert v. Alpert, Case No. 29-2001-DR-4977-C. 2. I make the following statements in this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge. 3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trial in Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierra ofthat Court has against me for the following facts and reasons: a. Judge Sierra has refused for over five months to set a hearing on my Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and has instead set for hearing all pending motions on September 11, 2003 for two hours, including some ten (10) Motions for Contempt of Court that have been filed against me due to Judge Sierra's refusal to set an earlier hearing; b. Judge Sierra has shown by her sua sponte ruling, not raised by counsel, refusing to complete the record on appeal, that she is even intent on denying me my appellate rights. In fact, both lawyers have agreed that not only did Judge Sierra have the jurisdiction to rule on the Motion, which she decided 10on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that herruling was erroneous. c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody 1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel; d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for it. e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response. f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute Section 38.10 at that time. Further affiant sayeth not. Subscribed and sworn to before me thO Alpert who is personally known to me. ll-..JJayof ~ ,2003 by Jonathan L. Notary Public Neil Gillespie From: "Woody Isom" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:35 PMSubject: Re: Jonathan AlpertPage 1 of 14/16/2012He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985. A. Woodson Isom, Jr. Attorney Merlin Law Group, P.A. 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 229-1000 Fax: (813) 229-3692 Web: www.merlinlawgroup.com PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachment immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the content to any person. Thank you. Fr om: Neil Gillespie < neilgillespie@mfi.net > To: Woody I som Sent : Tue Mar 23 16: 15: 25 2010 Subj ect : Jonat han Alpert Mr. Isom, While researching a disability issue claimed by Jonathan Alpert, I found his affidavit of September 11, 2003 naming you as his former law partner (paragraph "c"). Is that true, where you a law partner with Mr. Alpert? A PDF of the affidavit is attached. If I dont hear from you I will assume the affidavit is correct and that you were in fact a law partner of Mr. Alpert. Thank you. Neil Gillespie 11IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA FAMILY LAW DIVISION IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF JONATHAN ALPERT, Former Husband Case No.: 29-2001-DR-4977-C ELIZABETH ALPERT, RECeIVED Former Wife. ---------------,/ SEP 11 2003 .CLERK OFCIRCUITCOURT STATE OF FLORIDA ) )ss.: COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH ) AFFIDAVIT Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared Jonathan L. Alpert, personally known to me, who upon being duly sworn deposed upon oath as follows: 1. Myname is Jonathan L. Alpert and I ama partyin that lawsuit styledAlpert v. Alpert, Case No. 29-2001-DR-4977-C. 2. I make the following statements in this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge. 3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trial in Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierra ofthat Court has against me for the following facts and reasons: a. Judge Sierra has refused for over five months to set a hearing on my Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and has instead set for hearing all pending motions on September 11, 2003 for two hours, including some ten (10) Motions for Contempt of Court that have been filed against me due to Judge Sierra's refusal to set an earlier hearing; b. Judge Sierra has shown by her sua sponte ruling, not raised by counsel, refusing to complete the record on appeal, that she is even intent on denying me my appellate rights. In fact, both lawyers have agreed that not only did Judge Sierra have the jurisdiction to rule on the Motion, which she decided on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that herruling was erroneous. c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody 1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel; d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for it. e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response. f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute Section 38.10 at that time. Further affiant sayeth not. Subscribed and sworn to before me thO Alpert who is personally known to me. ll-..JJayof ~ ,2003 by Jonathan L. Notary Public 28 STETLR 323 Page 128 Stetson L. Rev. 323 Stetson Law Review Fall, 1998 Essay *323 PROFESSIONALISM AND LITIGATION ETHICS Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom [FNa1] Copyright (c) 1998 by Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom My first assignment as a newly elected circuit judge was to the family law division. Although I consideredmyself to be an experienced trial attorney, I was somewhat naive about my role as a judge presiding over discov-ery issues. I assumed that the attorneys assigned to my division would know the rules of procedure and the localrules of courtesy. I also assumed that, being knowledgeable, they would comply in good faith with these provi-sions. I soon learned that attorneys who were entirely pleasant and sociable creatures when I was counted amongtheir numbers, assumed a much different role when advocating for litigants. For example, take Harvey M. (not his real name). Harvey and I had bantered for years, having many com-mon interests. Perhaps this familiarity gave rise to, while not contempt, a certain lackadaisical attitude aboutcomplying with case management and pretrial orders. Harvey challenged me to establish my judicial prerogativeand assist him in achieving goals not of his own making. A common assumption regarding family law is that clients receive the quality of legal representation thatthey deserve. However, my time in the family law division has convinced me that this is not necessarily true.Often times, a case that has wallowed along, seemingly hung up in endless depositions and discovery problems,becomes instantly capable of resolution by bringing all parties together in the context of a pretrial conference.Apparently, some attorneys feel that cutting up is a large part of what their clients expect them to do. Whenthis litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectively bring cases to resolution, the judgemust get involved to assist the process. Recently, the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges conducted an educational seminar designed toguide circuit judges in appropriately responding to unprofessional and unethical behavior. [FN1] Various scen-arios were presented on video, after which the *324 judges voted on what they felt would be the appropriatecourt response. A surprising number of judges voted to impose sanctions or report unethical behavior to theFlorida Bar Grievance Section. However, the most common response was to do nothing or to privately counselthe offending attorney. A common theme at meetings of the Florida Bar Standing Committee on Professionalism is that, while attor-neys can aspire to greater professionalism, the courts can be a bully pulpit to encourage professional behavior.Perhaps the perceived backlash of cracking down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's circuitjudges who are elected officials. However, that perception shapes the judicial response, even when respondingtheoretically at a seminar. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 of 45/20/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=31...1228 STETLR 323 Page 228 Stetson L. Rev. 323 The Joint Committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar and the Conferences of Circuit andCounty Court Judges' 1998 Handbook on Discovery Practice admonishes trial judges to fully appreciate theirbroad powers to end discovery abuses and the 1998 Handbook reassuringly states that the appellate courts willsustain the trial court's authority if it is exercised in a procedurally correct manner. [FN2] Once again, this rally-ing cry ignores the reality of our situation. As a new judge, the lessons urged by bar leadership have been a matter of trial and error (pun intended).Harvey quickly established his reputation, not as a fellow member of my legal community, but as a problematiclitigator whose behavior had to be controlled and modified by court order for the legal process to smoothly pro-gress. For example, hearing time was made available to address discovery issues, very specific orders wereentered regarding who was to do what, when, and how, verbal commitments were elicited on the record aboutdocument production and interrogatory responses, in an attempt to avoid additional hearings. Cases involvingHarvey were, by necessity, intensely case managed. Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive case management. Attorneys may perceive that thecourt is trying to prevent them from earning additional attorney fees by streamlining the process. However, cli-ents rarely complain once they realize that the underlying purpose is to bring the case to timely resolution. In Harvey's case, extreme tools--reporting Harvey to the Florida*325 Bar, striking responses, striking wit-nesses, imposing financial sanctions, and conducting contempt hearings-- were never implicated. What did hap-pen was that Harvey trained me to be a better judge by showing me how, in a nonconfrontational manner, Icould effectively case manage Harvey and similar counsel without having to take off the gloves. Fortunately, not every litigator requires the case management skills of a Harvey situation. Most attorneys arewell-intentioned, have a legitimate interest in pursuing discovery efficiently, and do not seek to unnecessarilydelay the resolution of a case. What a relief it is to have a case with opposing counsel who are both of thisschool of thought. New attorneys, or attorneys who are appearing in front of a judge for the first time, must remember that theirreputation is primarily built on the judge's personal experiences with them. No bench book exists with a list ofwhich attorneys are trustworthy professionals and which are not. Instead, the individual judge keeps a mentalcatalog of experiences. For example, does this attorney routinely generate complaints from opposing counsel inother cases about not clearing depositions with their office? Is this attorney often the subject of motions to com-pel? Can this attorney be trusted when he tells you that the responses to interrogatories are in the mail? Once anegative reputation has been established with the court, an attorney's job will be much more challenging in es-tablishing credibility with the court. And certainly, with so many issues up to the court's discretion, an attorney'sreputation as trustworthy and ethical is of utmost importance. And, what about Harvey? Do his clients suffer? Of course they do. But, with effective case management andan experienced judiciary, the damage and delay caused by the Harveys of this world can be minimized whilestill allowing clients the freedom to choose their own counsel. [FNa1]. Circuit Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 1991-Present; B.S.Ed., University of Iowa,1972; J.D., Florida State University, 1975; Vice-Chair and member, Florida Bar Standing Committee on Profes-sionalism; Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 1979-1982; District VI Legal Counsel, Florida 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 3 of 45/20/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=31...28 STETLR 323 Page 328 Stetson L. Rev. 323 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1984-1986; Shareholder, Isom, Pingel and Isom-Rickert,P.A., 1986-1990. [FN1]. See ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES: PRO-FESSIONALISM PROBLEM SOLVING (1998). [FN2]. See JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR ANDCONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGES 1998 HANDBOOK 8-9 (1998). 28 Stetson L. Rev. 323 END OF DOCUMENT 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 4 of 45/20/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=31...--------------IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plailltiff: CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205 vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: H a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK, Defendants. /PLAINITFF'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL TO: Ryan Cllristopher RodelTIs YOU ARE NOTIFED that plaintitfpro se dismisses this action without prejlldice pursuant to Rule 1.420(a). Defendants' counterclaim can remain for adjudicatioll. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of February, 2007. il J. pro'-se r8092 SW {15th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 502-8409 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing 11as been furnished by fax alld US mail to Ryan CI1fistopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tan1pa, Florida 33602, this 7th day of Febrllary, 2007. ---.-----j / :; /-;/.' .. /" .., ...,//;, ,/' /;1' t' '/.'" /,/ /'-,--- --. /';1 ../ /?C. -J. ,/ 13IN THE CIRCIJIT COIJRT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, CASE. NO.: 05-CA-7205 vs. RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: H a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK, Defendants. / PLAINITFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Plaintiff pro se moves the Court for an Order of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 1.420(a)(2). Defendants' counterclaim can remain for adjudication. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of February, 2007. '''-'-'-''f .J //;; ',' / /' // ' / / // // /, /-.;'..r . .. eil J. Gi)lespi I, Plaintijf'pro se 092 SW IISth Loop / Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 502-8409 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by US mail to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 7th day 2007. /') /-". /5('/ I . 'i C.' /' L.-.......----:" j/ ' " ./." 14The Florida Bar's Online Lawyer Referral Service Page 1 of2 PrintZlble Version o o g -. Lawyer Referral Service Referral Confirmation PLEASE PRINT AND BRING THIS CONFIRMATION FORM WITH YOU TO THE LAWYER'S OFFICE. sf 7. 7 Robert W. Bauer 2815 NW 13th St Ste 200E You have been referred to: :::------Gainesville FL 32609-2865 PH: (352) 3755960 FOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF LAW: Ubel & Slander THE LAWYERS ON THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE A HALFHOUR OFFICE CONSULTATION FOR NO MORE THAN $25.00. PLEASE CALL THE LAWYER'S OFFICE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. THE LAWYER WILL NOT CONTACT YOU. PLEASE REMEMBER TO INFORM THE OFFICE THAT YOU WERE REFERRED BY THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE. TO HELP YOU PREPARE FOR YOUR CONSULTATION, PLEASE CONSIDER READING THE FOLLOWING FLORIDA BAR CONSUMER PAMPHLETS: YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO HIRE THE LAWYER. THE LAWYER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO TAKE YOUR CASE. YOU MUST CONTACT THE REFERRED LAWYER BEFORE MAKING ANOTHER REFERRAL REQUEST. Your lawyer was selected based on the information provided below: You requested a lawyer who is licensed in: Florida and willing to work in, but not located in a specfic county What county: Marion We have several attonery panels, please select the panel you need: Regular What area of law do you need an attonery for? Libel & Slander Do you have a special language requirement? Must the attorney be willing to make a Jail call? No Personal Information: Nell Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala FL 34481 35218547807 http://www.floridabar.org/DIVPGM/LROnline.nsf/All/CVJTYADWFN6TFL3?OpenDocwnent 2/26/2007 15Robert W. Bauer From: Ryan C. Rodems [rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10: 19 AM To: rwb@bauerlegal.com Subject: RE: Gillespie hearings Robert: So that there is no misunderstanding, we do not agree to any delays in compliance with the July 24, 2006 discovery order. again before Judge Isom. We will notice our hearings on one of the agreed dates, and notice will be sent ASAP. Rule 1.170 addresses serving the 57.105 motion today. Sincerely, Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. -----Original Message----From: Robert W. Bauer [mailto:rwb@bauerlegal.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:11 AM To: Ryan C. Rodems Cc: 'Neil Gillespie' Subject: RE: Gillespie hearings I'm sorry if there has been some confusion, but I believed I had responded to your inquiry about discovery. When we first spoke I advised over the phone that I fully intended to comply with the discovery demands as required by the court. You informed me that I would be afforded whatever time I needed to get up to speed in the case. If you have a deadline for discovery I would be happy to comply with that. However, it seems reasonable to first deal with the outstanding motions so that it can be determined if discover is required at all. I did responded in my email that I would contact you Tuesday. I apologize that I was not able to do so until Wednesday morning. I did not think it would be a problem. However, I felt that the courtesy email copy of the memorandum clearly complied with your request for clarification as to our position on the future of the case. If you have any further questions please feel free to call. I am available for any of the 7/3, 7/5 or 7/16 dates at 9:30. Please advise how much time will be set aside. have read rule 1.100(a) and you will note that the wording of it does not even allow for a counter-claim - actually by implication it bars a counterclaim. It only allows for an answer to a counterclaim - but not the counterclaim itself. However, clearly 1 I 16counterclaims are allowed. admit that a is a strange pleading. You will note that I attempted to make that point in my memorandum. In the interest of cooperation I will be happy to rename the counter-counter claim just a counter claim if that would satisfy your concerns. As a professional courtesy I would appreciate if you would clearly spell out your reasons as to why you believe I have erred in my motion prior to you filing for 57.105 sanctions. Such threats are not conducive to this case moving forward in a collegial and professional manner. As to the 57.105 issue itself - I am sure that you are aware that such sanctions are only available when there is no colorable argument at all. My motion states an argument with cases and reasoning to support it. I have carefully reviewed the cases to insure that I have not misquoted their holdings. I believe this greatly surpasses the bar for a frivolous lawsuit. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful attention to this matter. Respectfully Robert W. Bauer, Esq. -----Original Message----From: Ryan C. Rodems [mailto:rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:59 AM To: Robert W. Bauer Subject: Gillespie hearings Robert: We a