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

Neil Gillespie

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
Page 1: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,

CASE NO.: 12-11213-CAppellants/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,

Page 2: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

2

Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. Substitute counsel Barker, Rodems & Cook,

P.A. (“BRC”) and William J. Cook (“Cook”) represented me beginning December 12,

2000. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. BRC and Cook appealed.

5. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and

Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit.

Amscot settled for business reasons before the appeal was decided. The Certificate of

Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1) attached to the Joint

Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this Affidavit:

Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.Amscot 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 the

Court in April 2006 with a records request. (Exhibit 1).

6. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA

with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorney’s fees. (Exhibit 2).

7. BRC and Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot.

Cook lied to me about a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the

closing statement. (Exhibit 3). There was no such award. The $50,000 was actually part

of the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned contingent fee agreement, or Florida

Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was later

found to be $7,143.68. I filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Cook for violation

of ethics rules. The Florida Bar failed to properly adjudicate my complaint.

Page 3: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

3

8. On August 11, 2005 I sued, pro se, BRC and Cook to recover $6,224.78. The case

was caption was Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook,

Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. BRC partner Ryan Christopher

Rodems defended his firm BRC and law partner Cook.

9. On January 13, 2006 Judge Richard A. Nielsen found by Order that I established

a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Cook. (Exhibit 4). On

information and belief, partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for

the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the

ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There was an actual conflict of interest in Mr.

Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves in this case.

10. On January 19, 2006, BRC and Cook countersued me for Libel over a letter I

wrote to Ian MacKechnie, president of Amscot, about the prior litigation.

11. On February 4, 2006 I moved to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. On

information and belief, disqualification was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISI

Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory

authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge

Kovachevich, U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida, Tampa Division:

[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of 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 related”

Page 4: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

4

to 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), a

Florida Supreme Court case. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I found

McPartland and other similar cases in 2010.

12. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify

him and an argument ensued. During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech,

and threatened me. Rodems said “you will pay” for writing a letter to Ian MacKechnie,

president of Amscot. All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-

7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use exemption

of Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health

Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).

13. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with a sworn

affidavit under the penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of the Judge Nielsen in

“Defendants’ Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions”. Mr. Rodems falsely

named Judge Nielsen in an “exact quote” attributed to me. Upon information and belief,

it was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage.

14. A voice recording of the call impeached Mr. Rodems’ sworn affidavit. Kirby

Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department, investigated the matter and

wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing

Page 5: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

to the Court as an “exact quote” language that clearly was not an exact quote. The

investigation did not show any wrongdoing by me.

15. Beginning on March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems has directed, with malice aforethought,

a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disabilities, caused

substantial emotional distress and served legitimate purpose.

16. On March 20, 2006 I requested from Mr. Rodems pursuant to Bar Rule 4-

1.5(f)(5) settlement documents at the heart of the lawsuit. The documents were in dispute

as to their existence or whether the documents were signed. (Exhibit 5).

17. On March 27, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a hostile email in response to my Bar

Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) request, with his typical false reference to threats of physical violence.

(Exhibit 6). Mr. Rodems wrote:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items 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. ISI

Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of

McPartland. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c)

when he failed to disclose McPartland to Judge Nielsen:

Page 6: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

6

61. 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 Christopher

Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. July 9, 2010, also Exhibit 10 to the Complaint

in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.

19. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment. It was set

for a hearing before Judge Nielsen August 1, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Rodems objected by

email the same day. I canceled the hearing with the intention of resetting the hearing, and

hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was never heard.

20. On April 25, 2006 Mr. Rodems waited outside Judge Nielsen’s chambers to taunt

me following a hearing. At the next hearing June 28, 2006 I requested protection from the

Court to prevent a reoccurrence. Judge Nielsen did not provide the requested protection:

(Transcript, June 28, 2006, page 21, beginning at line 20)

MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallwayand I don’t 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 judicial

assistant Myra Gomez. After Rodems’ stunt Judge Nielsen did not manage the

Page 7: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

7

case lawfully, favored Defendants in rulings, responded to me sarcastically, and

sanctioned me for failing to comply with Mr. Rodems’ discovery requests, even though I

complied with the discovery requests to the best of my ability. I moved to disqualify

Judge Nielsen, which he denied, but recused himself sua sponte November 22, 2006.

22. Upon information and believe, the right to bodily integrity and security of person

includes mental integrity, that is, freedom from mental and psychological abuse. The

right to safely pursue justice is a fundamental civil right that underscores a litigant’s right

not to be subjected to physical, sexual, mental or emotional violence inside or outside the

court, either by private attorneys or by judges and people acting on the part of the state.

The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. Litigants in civil proceedings

must be free from mental or emotional violence, which may be a form of torture, or their

Constitutionally protected rights, including due process, are rendered meaningless.

23. My case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006.

24. On December 3, 2006 I read a notice on Judge Isom’s web page that advised that

the judge had a number of relatives practicing law and “If you feel there might be a

conflict in your case based on the above information, please raise the issue so it can be

resolved prior to me presiding over any matters concerning your case”. One relative

listed was husband A. Woodson “Woody” Isom, Jr.. (Exhibit 7).

25. On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict,

and moved for disclosure of conflict with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other

conflict of interest in this case. My motion noted the following possible conflicts:

“…Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 bycheck to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002.” (¶3, page 2)

Page 8: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

8

“…Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002,and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002.”(¶4, page 2)

My motion informed Judge Isom of the significance of Jonathan Alpert to this case:

“Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protégées 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 Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict.

26. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,

Discovery, to reconsider a July 24, 2006 Order by Judge Richard Nielsen for discovery

sanctions against me.

27. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,

Disqualify Counsel, to reconsider Judge Nielsen's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to

Disqualify Counsel (Mr. Rodems and BRC) entered May 12, 2006.

28. On December 12th and December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems left voice mail messages

on my cell phone. (Exhibit 8.4). Rodems called me “cheap” and other such:

(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)

24 I would also point out that the problem 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 the

Page 9: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

9

25. advocate when it suits you…

29. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a five page letter of insults,

including ridicule of mental illness: (Exhibit 8.3)

“I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by 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.

Page 10: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

10

Kindly 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 of

me. (Exhibit 8). I provided Judge Isom a transcript of Rodems’ ranting phone message of

December 13, 2006. I provided Judge Isom a copy of Rodems’ five page diatribe to me of

December 13, 2006. (Exhibit 8.3).

Dear Judge Isom,

Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting 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 Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order To Compel

Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop Harassing Behavior. (Exhibit 9).

33. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing Plaintiff’s Amended

Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Mary

Elizabeth Blazer and is part of the record. Judge Isom denied the existence of any

conflict. The transcript shows that Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husband

Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at the

Page 11: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

11

law firm Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and

Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.

34. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom engaged in deception and dishonesty

prejudicial to the administration of justice February 1, 2007 when she lied by omission

and failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners

and shareholders at Fowler White:

a. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their 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.

Page 12: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

12

35. In 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. While

researching accusations in one of Rodems’ harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit

signed by Jonathan Alpert in Alpert’s 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 practiced

law with Jonathan Alpert. (Exhibit 11). Woody Isom wrote: “He and I were shareholders

at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.”

37. On February 5, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing in the case.

a. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Denise L. Bradley, and is part of

the record. Judge Isom considered the following matters:

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify 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 Counterclaim

Neither Order was signed by Judge Isom, and neither Order was entered into the record.

These motions were not considered by any successor judge.

b. Judge Isom did not rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify

Counsel. The Court considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as shown in the

transcript, from page 22 through 40, which is presented as Exhibit 21, but then Mr.

Rodems objected, as shown on pages 36-37 of the transcript, February 5, 2007:

12 MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,13 Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into

Page 13: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

13

14 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. Upon

information and belief, Judge Isom failed to follow her own law essay on discovery

sanctions, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 12).

Judge Isom’s essay describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors intensive case

management for lawyers to avoid costly sanctions, because Florida judges are elected and

need the financial support of lawyers. Judge Isom acknowledged that lawyers behave

badly in court, and this bad behavior - which Judge Isom calls “cutting up” - is intended

to churn more fees for themselves. Judge Isom refused to provide me the same kind of

intensive case management to avoid sanctions. Judge Isom denied me the benefits of the

services, programs, or activities of the court, specifically mediation services:

(Transcript, February 01, 2007, page 15, line 20)

THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolvethis without litigation?MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.

Judge Isom did not offer me mediation. Judge Isom let the sanction Order stand. Upon

information and belief the sanction Order is contrary to the law on discovery:

Page 14: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

14

Pretrial 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 libel

against me. The counterclaim was a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to Ian

MacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are interested parties on the

Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1). My

letter complained about the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation by BRC and

Cook. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have, but did not, disqualify

Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,

890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems pursued vexatious litigation against me

that began January 19, 2006 and continued through September 28, 2010, whereupon

Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I retained counsel to

defend against the vexatious lawsuit and incurred over $33,000 in legal fees by attorney

Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for libel.

e. Judge Isom conducted an ADA assessment of me during the February 5,

2007 hearing. This matter is more fully described in Verified Notice of Filing Disability

Information of Neil J. Gillespie, submitted May 27, 2011 in Hillsborough County. (And

Page 15: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

15

later filed in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala, case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc (Doc. 36),

and case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc (Doc 15, Appendix 2).

(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)

6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head 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 matter

for three months so I could find counsel, but Mr. Rodems objected. I retained attorney

Robert W. Bauer one month later.

Page 16: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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 criminal

extortion for trying to resolve this matter through the Florida Bar ACAP Program, and

other such. Then Mr. Rodems made this accusation in open court:

(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 49, beginning at line 12).

12 [MR: RODEMS:] In any event, at every stage of the 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.

Page 17: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

17

38. Judge Isom went against her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused to

abate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to continue the

lengthy hearing due to disability. I was too confused:

(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 judicial

process under the color of law. Two days later on February 7, 2007 I gave notice

of voluntary dismissal (Exhibit 13) and submitted a motion for an order of

voluntary dismissal. (Exhibit 14). Mr. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his

counterclaim. If Rodems did so, that would have ended the case February 7, 2007.

40. On February 26, 2007 The Lawyer Referral Service of The Florida Bar provided

me a referral to Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville (Florida Bar ID: 11058) for Libel &

Slander. (Exhibit 15). I was not able to find counsel in Tampa. After reviewing my case,

Mr. Bauer told me “…the jury would love to punish a slimy attorney.” (Transcript,

March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer encouraged me to reinstate my claims.

41. Mr. Bauer reinstated my voluntarily-dismissed claims in Hillsborough County.

Mr. Rodems appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA),

Case No. 2D07-4530. The 2dDCA denied Mr. Rodems’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari,

and held as follows: (Exhibit 22).

PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix 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).

Page 18: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

18

42. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems sent threatening email to Mr. Bauer in

May 2007. Mr. Rodems objected to Mr. Bauer’s leave to amend, threatened Bauer with

sanctions under § 57.105, Fla. Stat., and reiterated his usual laundry list of alleged bad

acts against me, which had no bearing on the matter at hand. (Exhibit 16). Rodems wrote:

I am serving the 57.105 motion today...we object to the motion for leave 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 Emergency

Hearing 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 the

point where I can no longer represent my at hearings. I become easily distracted and

confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent

himself. See Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation

Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011.

Page 19: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

19

44. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case. Mr. Bauer

sent me this email July 8, 2008 at 6.05PM stating in part:

“No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not 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 Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie filed September 18, 2010,

Exhibit 10 to the Complaint in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.

I was denied access to court in my own case due to Rodems conflict and misconduct.

45. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 13, 2008; it was granted October 1,

2009. Mr. Bauer charged me $31,863 in legal fees. $12,650 remains unpaid.

46. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with

Eugene P. Castagliuolo (Florida Bar ID 104360) who represented me in June 2011. Mr.

Rodems refused to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodily

attachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part “Last but not

least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but

unhappy message.” (Exhibit 17). On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an

“asshole” in an email to me. (Exhibit 18). Castagliuolo wrote (in part): “Based on what I

know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged

in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you.” This example is

representative of Mr. Rodems’ boorish behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo.

47. There are now fifteen (15) additional related cases in this matter due to Judge

Isom’s dishonesty and denial of justice. (Exhibit 19). Judge Isom was dishonest when she

Page 20: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

failed to disclose a conflil;t with husband Woody Isom and Mr. Alpert. Judge Isom

denied me justice under t~1e 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([email protected]).Guilday.

Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A. 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200.

20

Page 21: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,

CASE NO.: 12-11213-CAppellants/Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B

THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,FLORIDA, et al.

Respondents/Defendants.__________________________________/

APPENDIX

To the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie

Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.

Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability Accommodation

Exhibit 1 Certificate of Interested Persons, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, Nov-06-2011

Exhibit 2 Final Order, Appeal 01-14761-AA, C.A.11, December 7, 2001

Exhibit 3 Closing Statement, Amscot - BRC and Cook, November 1, 2001

Exhibit 4 Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike, January 13, 2006

Exhibit 5 Gillespie letter to Mr. Rodems, Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), March 20, 2006

Exhibit 6 Email of Mr. Rodems to Gillespie, “threats of physical violence”, Mar-27-2006

Exhibit 7 Website Notice About Conflict, Judge Claudia R. Isom, December 6, 2006

Exhibit 8 Gillespie letter to Judge Isom, Re: Harassment by Mr. Rodems, Dec-27-2006

Exhibit 9 Gillespie’s Motion for an Order to Stop Rodems’ Harassment, Deb-02-2007

Exhibit 10 Affidavit of Jonathan Alpert, Sep-11-2003, Re: law partner Woody Isom

Exhibit 11 Email of Woody Isom to Gillespie, March 23, 2010, Re: law partner J. Alpert

Page 22: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Exhibit 12 Judge Isom, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323

Exhibit 13 Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 05-CA-7205, February 7, 2007

Exhibit 14 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal, February 7, 2007

Exhibit 15 The Florida Bar LRS referral to Robert W. Bauer, February 26, 2007

Exhibit 16 Threatening Email of Mr. Rodems to Robert W. Bauer, May 3, 2007

Exhibit 17 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, June 10, 2011, Re: Rodems

Exhibit 18 Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo to Gillespie, June 14, 2011, Re: Rodems

Exhibit 19 18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205

Exhibit 20 Mr. Rodems cover letter and proposed Orders for Judge Isom, February 6, 2007

Exhibit 21 Transcript, Hearing before Judge Isom, February 5, 2007, pages 1-3 and 11-40

Exhibit 22 Order, Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2D07-4530

Page 23: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

CASE l-IO .. 01-14761~····""

EUGENE R. CLEMENT, GAY ANN BLOME FIELD , and NEIL GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Appellants,

i ~ ~

1 I,'.~ 1I I ~

v.

AMSCOT CORPORATION,

Appellee. ______________, 1

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

The Parties, by and th_ou(Jh tI-leir undersigrled counsel, ha·v~.. flg

amicably resolved this matter, pursuant to Federal Rule of

A~I)pel1ate Procedure 42 (b) move for dismissal with prejtldice ""to: th

each party bearing its own attorn~s' fees and costs.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ~ day of November, 2001.

BA~KER; RODEMS & COOK, P~A4 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 ~)uite 150 Sllite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33606 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 489-1001 (TEL) (813) 273-5000 (TE"L) (813) 489-1008 (FAX) (t~J3) 273-5145 (F~AX)

Z.:\.t to rrle :i5 for Appe 11 ant ~3 ..~tt~~~jrneys for Appellee

1

Page 24: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and

Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-1, counsel for the Appellants certify

that the following persons and entities have an interest in the

outcome of this case.

Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.

Alpert & Ferrentino, P.A.

Amscot Corporation

Anthony, John A., Esq.

Barker, 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.

Page 25: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

o o rO\..)\:\1 ~OF 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 ofAppeals 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.

S?~p~. ~ak~ enclosure

Page 26: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

I

'~A0182 040171ORIGI~

(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~I~ -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, " ~

• • • •,,' "

• • • •

Page 27: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

..

·ATLANTP<.GA 303

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS _ •... '. "•. _.r.... "_ .."•...., _".'_ 16" 44 ~~, (::'!~ '1r:~\ r#·t..<. .;·;:'-~ ..~:.lt~ y .lt1~. . ",...ELEVENTH CIRCUIT , ~....."....,,;r:lI!

_ ..~l'!\.""'~••.. • • "W~OFFICE OF THE CLERK ....- .~ - .__.

56 FORSYTH STREET. N.W. 04i18i2006

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 Mailed From 3.0303

US POSTAGE ~ ~ OFFICIAL BUSINESS \

PENALlY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300t

t " :j ol

~

o Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115 tho Loop Ocala, FL. 34481

3448 i +::::=5:£·7 111/1,.1,,/,I.. " ,,1111/ 11,,11,,/ ,Ill"1/1,,, 11,1,,1//.11,.1,'

p

Page 28: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 121 Filed 12/10/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1363

2

Page 29: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

i

BARKER, RODEl\'1S & COOK, P.A. CLOSIN'C STATEMENT

Style of Case: Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomelleld, and As of: October 31, 2001 Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation.

Our File No.: 99.4766

ATTORNEYS' FEES $ 50,000.00 & COSTS

PAYMENTS TO CLIENTS

EUGENE R. CLEMENT $ 2,000.00 GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD 2,000.00 NEIL GILLESPIE 2,000.00

TOTAL $ 56,000.00 .I

In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that ANISCOT Corporation separately paid my attomeys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for court­awarded fees and costs. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy of the fully executed Release and Settlement Agreement dated October 30, 2001.

3

Page 30: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

-, \ ,) Ii .... '-' , ....

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,

CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

PLAINTIFF,

vs.

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,

DEFENDANTS.

--------------_-----:/

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made

arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion

to Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion

to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,

ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to

dismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this

order within which to file responsive pleadings.

DIVISION" F "

or, 36

- //1­

4

Page 31: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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 Tampa, Florida 33606

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

or' 37 f _

Page 32: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Neil J. Gillespie

8092 SW 115111 Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 854-7807

VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT ARTICLE NO.: 7005257000004274 1994

March 20, 2006

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

Dear Mr. Resems,

This request is made pursuant to Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Kindly provide the following:

1. A copy of the executed closing statement of October 31, 2001, reflecting an itemization of all costs and expenses in the Amscot litigation, together with the amount of fee received by each participating lawyer or law firm; and

2. A copy ofthe executed contingent fee contract in the Amscot case. This includes the executed Statement of Client's Rights as well as an Acknowledgment regarding the investigation of my claim. These three documents encompass the entire agreement between me and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (See Class Representation Contract, page 3).

Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) requires that each participating lawyer shall retain a copy of the written fee contract and closing statement for 6 years after execution of the closing statement. Any contingent fee contract and closing statement shall be available for inspection at reasonable times by the client, by any other person upon judicial order, or by the appropriate disciplinary agency. This is a request for a copy of the documents in lieu of an inspection. In the alternative I will make an inspection. Please indicate how you wish to proceed. You may contact me by email [email protected].

Sincerely,

~/Z'h?~k-Neil J. Gilt{spie .

5

Page 33: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Page 1 ofl ,­

~~C_.ciiiio_m _

From: "Chris Rodems" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 6:05 PM Attach: Docs responsive to NJG letter of 3-20-6.pdf Subject: Your document request - March 20, 2006

Dear Neil:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requested have been previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to your initial complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Given your threats of physical violence against me during our last telephone conversation, and given that you have copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort to harass us. Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I was advised that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse of the rules by former clients, the most practical response would be to send the documents to you again. They are attached in pdf format. In the event you make this request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format is not to your liking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that we may arrange to have security present.

Sincerely,

Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 E-mail: [email protected]

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 attorney­client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

3/28/2006

6

Page 34: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

l'age 1 or 1Thirteenth Judicial Circuit - The Honorable Claudia R. 1som - Notice of Conflict

General CiVil, Division H 800 E. TWiggs St., Room 513 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 272-6972

NOTICE FROM THE COURT

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT JUDGE ISOM HAS THE FOLLOWING RELATIVES PRACTICING LAW OR INVOLVED IN LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES

IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA Husband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner.

Brother, Dale J.. Rickert, who is a shareholder in the Law Firm of Dale J. Rickert.

Sister-in-Law, Janice Matson Rickert, who is an associate with the Law Firm of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., in the "Health Care Litigation Group".

f you feel the . t be a conflict in your case based on the abm information, ease raise the issue 0 it can be resolved prior to n

(;residing over any matters concerning your case.

Thank you, Claudia Rickert Isom Circuit Judge

Home • DIVISIons 0 t:l1e Courts • Judges· Directory • Leg;)1 • Admlnlstrllb~ Offll:e at t:l1e (

Geneml Informa on • MediCI Center • Job lIsbngs • Lmks • Search 10 2DO~ I et!1Ilh d td Lrcu

http://www.fljud13.org/judgeisom_notice.htm12/3/2006

7

Page 35: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 11Sth Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 502-8409

December 27,2006

The Honorable Claudia R. Isom Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Circuit Court, Division H 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 513 Tampa, Florida 33602

RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 2005 CA 7205, Division H

Dear Judge Isom,

Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodenls' ranting telephone message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy ofhis subsequent five page diatribe of even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling, ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all is evidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lost perspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen.

Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribe of wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodems contacts the Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. Apparently Mr. Rodenls has been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from home during normal business hOllrs. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line 15). As stated before, I anl concerned for his well-being and mine. I also requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters.

Thank you.

Enclosures cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney for Defendants

8

Page 36: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 502-8409

December 27, 2006

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H

Dear Mr. Rodems,

This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, and your subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lost perspective in this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting your disqualification as counsel.

As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theories are little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside the bounds of acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I have referred them to the attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your name calling, that I am a "pro se litigant of dubious distinction", "cheap", and other such, is harassment. Be advised that I received your telephone message while at the oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, and was so upset that I had to cancel my appointment and leave.

Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:

Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in response to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created to identify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse, mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers (Bar Rule 2-9.11). FLA is independent of The Florida Bar, although it does receive funding from that organization. Paramount to FLA is the protection of confidentiality for those attorneys who contact FLA for help. Confidentiality in voluntary cases is protected by a written contract with The Florida Bar which guarantees the confidentiality of FLA records, as well as by Bar Rule 3-7.1(i), Chap. 397.482-486, F.S., and other state and federal regulations. Judges, attorneys, law students, and support personnel who seek the assistance of FLA need not worry that FLA will report them to the Bar, the Board of Bar Examiners, or their

8.1

Page 37: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

I •

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Page - 2 Gillespie v. Barker, case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H Decenlber 27, 2006 , . employer. Information is shared with these entities only if the participating individual signs a waiver of confidentiality. FLA's primary purpose is to assist the impaired attorney in his or her recovery. (The preceding paragraph is from the Florida Bar's web site).

Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoing harassment of me. I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., or a provider of your choice.

Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type of communication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

-'-. /)/./P:~p''//-~ ~ ./ /' {&? /'"\.~{ ~l J. Gillere / /. ?//

Enclosure: Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006

cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom, w/enclosures Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006 Copy of Mr. Rodems' five page letter dated December 13, 2006

Page 38: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115lh Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 502-8409

US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT Article No. 7005 3110 0003 7395 1887

December 22, 2006

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H

Dear Mr. Rodems,

Kindly take notice that we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie". I have made this request to you several times, in writing, and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understand the problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do not understand your difficulty. Let me remind you that I am ten years your senior, which only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie".

As for your immature, childish remark left on my voice mail, your statement that because the greeting on my voice mail says "Hi,this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get back to you", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use my first name, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in this lawsuit. It also calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A).

I am providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it in the record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will question you about this matter, to give the Court and the jury some idea about how unprofessional you are, and to provide a glimpse into the nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.

Please address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.

Sincer: y, ~/

/ ,. /'/ .,

.// ~/ ;/.-:/ <-51'" ..' . ," ./(;';./1_____ ~~,IL/ .i·/.~z.fl-/.

/ ell J. GIlIe.spiel" / t. //

cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom enclosure, page 5, transcript ofMr. Rodems' phone message of Dec-13-06

8.2

Page 39: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone 813/489·1001400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS Facsimile 813/489·1008WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602

December 13, 2006

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Dear Neil:

As you know, I called you on Decelnber 12, 2006 to schedule hearings before Judge Isoln on February 7,2007. You did not answer, so I left you a voice Inail. Later that afternoon, you sent a letter to Ine by facsilnile. In it, you clailn to be unavailable Febluary 7 and that you "hope to have representation within 30 days." You have Illade that assertion for several months now, without retaining counsel, and I cannot delay this proceeding any further on your unfulfilled prolnises of retaining counsel. You also state in your letter that I have "threatened the lawyers that were helping" you, which is completely unfounded. I will address that issue below.

Judge ISOI11 has all day on February 5, 2007 open, and we could resolve all pending motions, excel)t for your ITIotion for sUlnmary judgtnent, on that date. I left you a voice mail on this today.

As has Judge Nielsen, I have endured for severallnonths now disparaging remarks from you, false allegations, attacks on my credibility and otherwise boorish behavior. I have not responded to Illuch of it because I recognize that you are a bitter lnan Wll0 apparently has been victilnized by your own poor choices in life. You also claim to have ITIental or psychological problelns, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so abnonnal that I would not disagree with your assertions of Inental problems. I have lnaintained courtesy in every tneeting with you, including a wann senti111ent following a hearing -- only to be accused after that of "taunting" you.

I intend to continue treating you with the saIne dignity and respect as I would opposing counsel in any other case; however, I have First AInendInent rights, too. I aln not obligated to accept your false statelnents, disparaging relnarks, attacks on IUy credibility and the other tactics you have used in this case. I want to ensure that you understand IUy position, and so I find it necessary now to write to COlTect the record.

8.3

Page 40: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie December 13,2006 Page 2

As for your claims that I "threatened the lawyers" that is simply false. I forwarded bye-mail portions of your October 18, 2006 to Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Buchholz and Mr. Snyder, and stated "Neil Gillespie has filed a letter with Judge Richard Nielsen, and has attributed comments to the three of you. As an officer of the Court, I believe I have a duty to advise you of this. Please review pages 8-10 of the attached letter. Should any of you desire the complete document, with attachments, please advise." I have received no reply. In fact, the first confirmation that my letter had been received by these three attorneys was your December 12 facsimile letter.

Let me explain why I sent the portions of the letter to them. Your tactic of naming these three lawyers as people you had spoken to, and then attributing statements to them anonymously and en masse is very damaging to them professionally. I sent the portions of the October 18, 2006 letter to them so that they could review it and do whatever they felt necessary.

I also sent it to them because I questioned the veracity of your letter. I considered four possibilities about the statements you attributed to them anonymously: First, you may be lying. Second, you may be taking some or all of the statements out of context. Third, you may be paraphrasing and changing the meaning of the actual statements. Fourth, one or all of these attorneys may have never said anything to you, but were being used by you to endorse statements that you would later use to attempt to recuse Judge Nielsen.

I also disagree that my actions have hanned your ability to hire counsel. The primary problem is that your case is weak. You are essentially claiming in this action that our law finn breached its contract with you by not paying you a portion of the attomeys' fees earned in the Amscot case. Every attorney knows -- or should know -- that the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the caselaw prohibit splitting attorneys' fees with a nonlawyer.

It is also clear by reviewing the Closing Statement and your letters to us that you knew that Amscot was paying all of your attorneys' fees and that you would not have to pay any pOliion of your settlement for attorneys' fees and costs. In this case, you received 100% of your settlement, not 60%, and Amscot paid all of your attorneys' fees and costs.

No one has ever rendered an opinion that your case has any merit. You misunderstood the meaning of a denial of a motion to dismiss. It is not a comment on the merits. In fact, the Court is required to accept all of your allegations as true. That requirement disappears after the motion to dismiss is resolved. Now, you are required to prove your specious allegations. Any rational attomey looking at this situation would not take this case on a contingency fee basis and would instead require you to pay them by the hour.

You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court filings, are unwilling to pay an attomey fairly for the work that would need to be done. In fact, you even moved the Court to have an

Page 41: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Mr. Neil J. G'illespie Decclnbcr 13, 2006 Page 3

attorl1ey appointed for you at the government's expense. Of course, there is no provision under the ADA for appointlnent of counsel, but the fact tl1at you believe the government should foot the bill for you to file baseless lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases.

So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rates for representation. Yet, you have had no problem paying filing fees for this baseless lawsuit, the court reporters to transcribe hearings and our telephone calls, and for the frivolous appeal of the discovery order.

Another lnajor probleln, I gather, in hiring attorneys is your extortion of your fonner attorneys by threatening to file a Florida Bar complaint if they do not split portions of their earned fees with you. In fact, you have filed three grievances against Bill Cook in connection with this lnatter -- all of which were dislnissed, meaning your allegations were unfounded. Rhetorically, why would an attorney wish to represent you given your past actions against other attorneys?

Additionally, any reasonable attorney would find your conduct in this case to be reprehensible.

1. You have routinely violated tIle Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, only to clailll that pro se litigants are entitled to special treatlnent. At every hearing, I recall Judge Nielsen had to advise you to follow the procedural rules and protocol. As I have pointed out with citations of authority, the law in Florida is clear: You are expected to follow the rules of procedure, and you are not entitled to special treatment. When I have cited tIle law to you, you have told lne not to do so.

2. You threatened to "slaIn lne up against the wall." After that, I had to request a bailiff to attend the hearings. You claimed I "taunted" you when, after a hearing, I wished you well.

3. You have recorded a telephone conversation without lny pennission. I aSSUlne your research skills have led you to the statutes and caselaw 011 recording telephone conversation without pennission. In fact, you only filed a portion of the transcript of our very first telephone conversation and we both know why: You never told lne you were recording it.

4. You represented to the Cou11 tllat I "threatened" you, and the COlnlnent on which you based it was lny COffilnent to you that your libeling of lny clients was unnecessary, and that act would cause you to have to pay. Which, it will. You have accused lne of perjury.

Page 42: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie Decetnber 13, 2006 Page 4

5. You have filed defenses to the counterclailTI that are nonsensical, and yet you claimed to be well-qualified to represent yourself when I moved for sanctions and asked the Court to require you to hire counsel.

6. You took a contradictory position and moved to have an attorney appointed for you because you were not qualified or able to represent yourself, citing your disability, without proof, and a federal law that does not even address the appointlnent of counsel in a civil action. In one hearing, when Judge Nielsen asked you for authority, you replied with words to the effect tllat you have no training in the law. You have portrayed yourself as the victim wIlen it suits you and the able advocate when it suits you.

7. You failed to respond to discovery, forcing me to file a motion to cOInpel, which was granted. You refused to cOInply with that Order, filed a frivolous appeal, which was dismissed, and then petitioned for writ of certiorari, which was also disInissed.

8. WIlen I filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause on the discovery Order, you claimed to be pursuing coverage of the counterclaim by an insurance COInpany. You asked for a continuance of the hearing on that basis. We contacted the insurer's claims adjuster and negotiated a very favorable settlement for you of tIle counterclaim, and when you found out, you withdrew the claim, thereby preventing the counterclaim from being resolved.

9. Facing an imIninent hearing on your contumacious disregard for the Court's July 24, 2006 discovery Order after your appeal of it was denied, you decided to "judge shop" and attacked Judge Nielsen to force him to recuse himself. In doing so, you cited unrelated, irrelevant issues and atteInpted to bait hinl witll disparagi11g and caustic relnarks, even though he was polite and respectful towards you at all tilnes, allowed you to sublnit additional argulnent when you caIne to the first hearing unprepared, and gave you additional tilne to find an attorney when we were scheduled to hear on October 4, 2006 your defiance of the July 24, 2006 discovery Order. No good deed goes unpunished, rigllt?

You succeeded in having Judge Nielsen step down. There is no effective process for challenging his recusal or having a Court rule on the motive of your Inotioll to disqualify hiIn, but if you were an attorney, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar would require Ine to file a bJTievance alld you would likely have faced severe sanctions.

Page 43: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie Decell1ber 13, 2006 Page 5

Neil, we offered to settle with you without pursuing our right to attorneys' fees and costs, as ordered by Judge Nielsen in the July 24,2006 Order. You rejected it. We offered to settle the coullterclailTI with your insurer. You withdrew the insurance claim. You are spending a lot of 1110ney on filing fees, court reporter fees, and gasoline to hand-deliver motions and whatnot. It appears you want your day in court, so to speak. Judge Isom has all day on February 5,2007 open. I urge you to a!:,Tfee to set the hearings on that date. We can then tTIove forward and bring this case to resolution.

I hope tl1is clarifies lIlY position oIllnatters, and I look forward to workillg with )lOU.

RCRIso

Page 44: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

D IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN THE STATE OF FlORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSB)OC)UGH COUNTY

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff,

Case No. 05-7205 -vs­

D.ivision: "Hn

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. A Florida Corporation, WILLIAM J. COOK,

Defendants. -----------------------------/

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE RECORDING

RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below

DATE & TIME: December 12 & 13, 2006

TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth Court Reporte.r ·Notary Public

(ORIGINAL (COpy

Hichael J. Borseth Court Reporter/Legal Transcription

(813) 598-2703

8.4

Page 45: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

2 D 1 APPEARANCES:

2 For the Plaintiff:

NBIL J. GU,TaSPD3 8092 SW 115t.h Loop Ocala, Florida 344814 (352) 854-7807

5

6 For the Defendants:

7 RYAN CllRIftOPBBR IQ)BMS I UQUmB

8 .Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive

9 Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

10 (813) 489-1001

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 46: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

3 D 1 * * * * * * * * * *

2 AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHING: -­ this

3 message -­

4 MR. RC>OEMS: Hi Neil, it's Chris Rodems. It's

5 Tuesday, February 7th at about 10:10 in the

6 morning. I have called JUdge 1som' s chambers this

7 morning to find some hearing time for the motions

8 that we're covering and they have offered

9 Februa.ry 7, 2007, at 10 a .m. for two hours. If

10 you're available that day we can start with the two

11 motions for reconsideration or rehearing that you

12 filed. And then depending on her rUling go into

13 the motions that a.re pending that we file·d. And

14 that would be the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and

15 Strike Counterclai~ -- 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_

Page 47: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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.

Page 48: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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.br·uary 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

Page 49: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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

Page 50: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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

Page 51: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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

Page 52: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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 ~ro 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.

Page 53: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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

Page 54: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

,.. ....... - .• ,v

...~~ ........

C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E

STATE OF FLORIDA

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

Page 55: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

--------------

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

9

Page 56: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

first name "Neil" or "Neily". Plaintiff requested Mr. Rodems not to do this, by certified

letter dated December 22, 2006, but Rodems persists. (Exhibit 1). If Mr. Rodems invokes

"Neily" as a term of love and endearment, Plaintiff states he is not interested in man-love,

and considers Mr. Rodems' overture an unwanted sexual advance.

3. Mr. Rodems has engaged in name-calling directed at Plaintiff, specifically

calling Plaintiff "cheap". Plaintiff views this as an ethnic insult derogatory to his Scots­

Irish heritage. In a five-page diatribe dated December, 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems wrote that

" ...you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rate for representation."

(Rodems' letter, Dec-13-06, p.3, ~1). Mr. Rodems is insinuating that Plaintiff wants a

lawyer "Scot-free". In a ranting telephone message of even date, Mr. Rodems again called

Plaintiff "cheap". This is what Mr. Rodems said: "I would also point out that the problem

that you're having in retaining counsel is probably more likely related to the fact that you

are cheap and you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're usual hours rates are for

litigation like this ... ". And again in his letter of December 13,2006, Mr. Rodems made a

very broad, damming statem_ent: "You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court

filings, are unwilling to pay an attorney fairly for the work that would need to be done. In

fact, you even moved the Court to have an attorney appointed for you at the government's

expense. Of course, there is no provision under the ADA for appointment of counsel, but

the fact that you believe the government should foot the bill for you to file baseless

lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases." (Rodems'

letter, Dec-13-06, p.2, ~7). Again, Mr. Rodems is making an ethic slur against Plaintiff's

Scots-Irish background. In the instant case, Mr. Rodems will be liable for attorneys' fees

and costs pursuant to §768.79 Florida Statutes when Plaintiff prevails.

Page - 2 of3

Page 57: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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, ~3). 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 /' /,// k~. _ ~4 ~C'l' ________

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/::~/'""y~":~~. /h ,~/?;;:;~__­

J. Gill p·e /,. ..,/

Page - 3 of3

Page 58: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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

I~yan 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 & Cool<, P.A.

l>lease address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely.,

©©~\f Neil J. Gillespie

cc: 'fhe l~lonorable Claudia R. Isom enclosure., page 5, transcript of Mr. Rodems' phone n1essage ofDec-13-06 EXHIBIT

1

Page 59: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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 am a party in that lawsuit styled Alpert v. Alpert, Case No. 29-2001-DR-4977-C.

2. I make the following statements in this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge.

3. I have reasonable and well-founded fear that I will not receive a fair trial in Hillsborough County, Circuit Court, Division C, where the above-captioned suit is pending on account ofthe prejudice Judge Monica Sierra ofthat Court has against me for the following facts and reasons:

a. Judge Sierra has refused for over five months to set a hearing on my Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and has instead set for hearing all pending motions on September 11, 2003 for two hours, including some ten (10) Motions for Contempt of Court that have been filed against me due to Judge Sierra's refusal to set an earlier hearing;

b. Judge Sierra has shown by her sua sponte ruling, not raised by counsel, refusing to complete the record on appeal, that she is even intent on denying me my appellate rights. In fact, both lawyers have agreed that not only did Judge Sierra have the jurisdiction to rule on the Motion, which she decided

10

Page 60: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that her•

ruling was erroneous.

c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody 1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;

d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for it.

e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response.

f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute Section 38.10 at that time.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Subscribed and sworn to before me thO Alpert who is personally known to me.

ll-..JJayof ~ ,2003 by Jonathan L.

Notary Public

Page 61: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Neil Gillespie

From: "Woody Isom" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:35 PMSubject: Re: Jonathan Alpert

Page 1 of 1

4/16/2012

He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.

A. Woodson Isom, Jr. Attorney Merlin Law Group, P.A. 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 229-1000 Fax: (813) 229-3692 Web: www.merlinlawgroup.com

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachment immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the content to any person. Thank you.

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> To: Woody Isom Sent: Tue Mar 23 16:15:25 2010 Subject: Jonathan 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 don’t hear from you I will assume the affidavit is correct and that you were in fact a law partner of Mr. Alpert.

Thank you.

Neil Gillespie

11

Page 62: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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 am a party in that lawsuit styled Alpert 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

Page 63: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

on her own without any suggestion of counsel that she did not, but that her•

ruling was erroneous.

c. I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody 1som, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;

d. In the conduct of these proceedings, the method and timing thereof, Judge Sierra has shown bias or prejudice so that I can not get a fair trial in front of Judge Sierra because she is detennined to prevent me from timely exercising my appellate rights and also from receiving a fair trial as ten (10) contempt motions and Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion For Temporary Reduction In Alimony can not possibly be heard in conjunction with one another, particularly in the two hours which Judge Sierra has scheduled for it.

e. I believe that Judge Sierra is biased against me as she has shown by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct ofthe proceedings that the such bias and prejudice against me exists I belive that Judge Sierra prepared her April contempt order against me before my lawyer had even filed a response, even though Judge Sierra gave my lawyer permission to file a response.

f. Judge Sierra at the hearing on September 11, 2003, further demonstrated and evinced her bias and prejudice by her facial expressions, demeanor, and conduct and the cumulative effect of her prejudicial conduct only became sufficiently manifest so as to warrant disqualification under Florida Statute Section 38.10 at that time.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Subscribed and sworn to before me thO Alpert who is personally known to me.

ll-..JJayof ~ ,2003 by Jonathan L.

Notary Public

Page 64: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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 4

5/20/2010http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=31...

12

Page 65: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

28 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 4

5/20/2010http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=31...

Page 66: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

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 4

5/20/2010http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=31...

Page 67: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

--------------

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. Gill~Spie~ ~Plaintlf{ 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 / :;

/-;/.' /';J~,.. ,~/".., ... ,//;, ~! ,/' ,-;~o' /;1' ~

t' '/.'" /,/ /'-,--- -- ­. /';1 ../ /?C . -­

J. Gill~ie' ,/

13

Page 68: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

IN 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.

BARKER~ 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 j~~J"//»;; fJ2«~.!',' / /' // ' /

/ // ///, /-.;'..r ~./ ~.c£ . ~ _~.-..~

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 ~~/t:.':/~. 'i C.' /'///"~'7/ /~~ L.-.......----­

:" j/ ' " ./."

14

Page 69: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

The Florida Bar's Online Lawyer Referral Service Page 1 of2

PrintZlble Versiono o g

-. Lawyer Referral Service Referral Confirmation

PLEASE PRINT AND BRING THIS CONFIRMATION FORM WITH YOU TO THE LAWYER'S OFFICE. sf 7. c~ 7

/ll1~Mj·

Robert W. Bauer 2815 NW 13th St Ste 200E

You have been referred to: 3?~fH:::------­

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

15

Page 70: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Robert W. Bauer

From: Ryan C. Rodems [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10: 19 AM To: [email protected] 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. H·t'~·ha-s"'been"·Errit-ered·~··t:ha-l<letiged·befo::t€r·t.neseco'rid'-:-I5l:A:ahcl

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 counterclaims.~amserving 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: [email protected]

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:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:11 AM To: Ryan C. Rodems Cc: 'Neil Gillespie' Subject: RE: Gillespie hearings

I'm sorry if there has been some confusion, but I believed I had responded to your inquiry about discovery. When we first spoke I advised over the phone that I fully intended to comply with the discovery demands as required by the court. You informed me that I would be afforded whatever time I needed to get up to speed in the case. If you have a deadline for discovery I would be happy to comply with that. However, it seems reasonable to first deal with the outstanding motions so that it can be determined if discover is required at all.

I did responded in my email that I would contact you Tuesday. I apologize that I was not able to do so until Wednesday morning. I did not think it would be a problem. However, I felt that the courtesy email copy of the memorandum clearly complied with your request for clarification as to our position on the future of the case. If you have any further questions please feel free to call.

I am available for any of the 7/3, 7/5 or 7/16 dates at 9:30. Please advise how much time will be set aside.

have read rule 1.100(a) and you will note that the wording of it does not even allow for a counter-claim - actually by implication it bars a counterclaim. It only allows for an answer to a counterclaim - but not the counterclaim itself. However, clearly

1

I

16

Page 71: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

counterclaims are allowed. ~ admit that a counter-countercla~m 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:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:59 AM To: Robert W. Bauer Subject: Gillespie hearings

Robert:

We are still awaiting to hear from you on when we can set our hearings. Based on your earlier e-mail, I expected to hear from you by Tuesday. I did receive the transmittal of the memorandum/motion yesterday.

I think you need to reconsider the memorandum/motion. We object to the motion for leave to amend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and you are flat wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked at Rule 1.100(a)? I assume you are awarf of the line of cases that hold that a mislabeled pleading or motion is not a nullity. VWe'll send you a 57.105 motion, and you can decide how to proceed.

Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for a court­appointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriate defenses, the econom.ic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQ the trial judges, appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and false statements about a judge in a letter to the court, threatening to slam me against the wall, and telling an insurance company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims), I am surprised you would rely on any portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.

I also again urge you to address the discovery issue. This is at least the third time I have raised it with you, and you have not responded. Gillespie has not answered the discovery Judge Nielsen ordered compelled almost a year ago. Although you have not moved to DQ the trial judges twice -- Gillespie was responsible for that and you did not improvidently appeal the discovery order -- also Gillespie's doing -- you took the case as is. You are now responsible for complying with the court's order.

Sincerely,

Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 E-mail: [email protected]

NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication

2

Page 72: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Neil Gillespie

From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:43 PMSubject: Re: communication

Page 1 of 6

9/9/2011

when I try to click on the HCSO's link, I get the following message:Sorry, our systems are too busy to service your request. Similarly, when I telephoned them my call went into a "black hole" and was never picked up in the Warrants Unit. Last but not least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but unhappy message. Try to come up with some more money (preferably $1,000 but at least $750). Then, next week, I will file a motion to vacate the writ. I will call the clerk on Monday, and if the file is available for me to view, then I will attempt to get down there on Monday or Tuesday to view the file myself. The good news is that the HCSO seems to be so overwhelmed that they are most probably placing all civil warrants on the back burner. So you have my game plan, now try to borrow some money and stay home this weekend. Eugene www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A. 2451 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, Florida 33759 (727) 712-3333 Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC §§ 101-1330).

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (and any associated files) from Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A. is for the sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original message. --- On Fri, 6/10/11, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> Subject: Re: communication To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>

17

Page 73: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Page 1 of2

Neil Gillespie

From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]> To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfionet> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:46 PM Subject: Re: your call earlier "love made m}' ]JetlCe ~vi,h the lO/"ti. 1°111 55 .vears-olll hut.feellike 85. /°/11 lIt the ellll (~f'the line."

Sorry it's taken me longer than I thought to get back to you.

This kind of talk isn't good Neil. You're not at the end of the line until you're at the end of the line. And I don't see you being any closer to the end than I am.

As for a new agreement, this is my suggestion. Give me another $1,000.00 on July 1, and I won't take another dime from you. Consider it a flat fee to get you out from under this writ (BUT WITHOUT entering an appearance in this state court case) and/or to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for you. The only other things you would have to pay for if we go the bankruptcy route(and these are NOT my fees, they are costs) is the filing fee of $299.00, a credit report fee of $30.00, and the credit counseling fee(s) which will be at most $80.00 (sometimes you can find a cheaper vendor). Based on what I know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you.

Take care, I'll be asleep in an hour, but I will be calling Judge Arnold's chambers first thing tomorrow.

www.CastaqliuoloLawGroup.com www,Fi/inaSankruptcvlnTampa.com

Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A. 2451 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, Florida 33759

(727) 712-3333

Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC §§ 101-1330).

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message(andanyassociatedfiles)fromCastagliuoloLawGroup.P A. is for the sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure: distribution, or other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original

message.

--- On Tue, 6/14/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@]mfinet> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> Subject: your call earlier To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 3:58 PM

7/19/2011

18

Page 74: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205

1. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Hillsborough County,Florida (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009)

2. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, January 19, 2006 -September 28, 2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)

Cases in the Second District Court of Appeal, Florida

3. Case No. 06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

4. Case No. 07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)

5. Case No. 08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, § 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)

6. Case No. 10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

7. Case No. 10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

8. Case No. 11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

Cases in the Supreme Court of Florida

9. Case No. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

10. Case No. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

Cases in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division

11. Case No. 10-cv-00503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)

12. Case No. 11-cv00539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)

Cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

13. Case No. 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA(Gillespie pro se) (closed)

14. Case No. 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA(Gillespie pro se) (active)

19

Page 75: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States

15. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858

16. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858

Original Litigation

17. Case No. 01-14761-AA, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOTCorporation, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed August 20, 2001

18. Case No. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, class action complaint inUnited States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, filed December 9, 1999

Related links on The Justice Network

http://yousue.org/litigation/

http://yousue.org/the-florida-bar/

http://yousue.org/13th-judicial-circuit-hillsborough-co-florida/

http://yousue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/

http://yousue.org/turner-v-rogers/

http://www.yousue.org/jnc-judicial-nominating-commission/

http://www.yousue.org/jqc-judicial-qualifications-commission/

http://www.yousue.org/circuit-court-judge-martha-j-cook/

http://yousue.org/ryan-christopher-rodems/

Page 76: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone B13/4B9~100 1400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS Facsimile B13/4B9~100B WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602

February 6, 2007

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

Following Judge Isom's rulings of February 5, 2007 on your motion to reconsider discovery and your motion to dismiss the counterclaims, enclosed please find two proposed orders. I will transmit these orders to the Judge on Monday, February 12, 2007. If you have any objections, please feel free to write to me.

Sincerely,

Ryan Christopher Rodems

Enclosures RCR/so

20

Page 77: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

--------------

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 Division: H

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,

Defendants. I

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - DISCOVERY

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Monday, February 5, 2007 on "Plaintiffs

Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery," and the proceedings having been read and considered,

counsel and Plaintiff having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the

premises, it is

ORDERED that "Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery" is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of February, 2007.

copies to:

Claudia R. Isom Circuit Judge

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire Neil J. Gillespie, pro se

Page 78: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

--------------

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 Division: H

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,

Defendants. I

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Monday, February 5,2007 on Plaintiffs

Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim, and the proceedings having been read and

considered, counsel and Plaintiff having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised

in the premises, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim is DENIED.

Plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date that this Order is signed within which to answer the

counterclaims.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of February, 2007.

copies to:

Claudia R. Isom Circuit Judge

Ryan CI1fistopher Rodems, Esquire Neil J. Gillespie, pro se

Page 79: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

.,JC

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 05-7205

-vs-Division: H

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., A Florida Corporation

Defendant.

-----------------------------/

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE: HONORABLE CLAUDIA R. ISOM Circuit Judge

TAKEN AT: In Chambers Hillsborough County Courthouse Tampa, Florida

DATE & TIME: February 5, 2007 Commencing at 1:30 p.m.

REPORTED BY: Denise L. Bradley, RPR Notary Public

[ORIGINALI STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

21

Page 80: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

NEIL J. GILLESPIE (Pro se litigant) 8092 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

On behalf of the Defendant:

RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 81: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

3

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

PRO C E E DIN G S

THE COURT: All right. On the record. Would

everybody please introduce themselves for the record,

starting with our court reporter.

THE REPORTER: My name is Denise Bradley with

Berryhill Court Reporters.

THE COURT: Okay. And for plaintiff.

MR. GILLESPIE: My name is Neil Gillespie. I'm

appearing pro se.

THE COURT: Okay. And for defense.

MR. RODEMS: Ryan Christopher Rodems here on

behalf of defendants Barker, Rodems and Cook, P.A. and

William J. Cook.

THE COURT: Okay. And we've got several things.

The first thing is plaintiff's motion for order of

protection. Is that still pending? That's not

something we addressed the other day?

MR. GILLESPIE: The first thing, in the most

recent order in the most recent scheduling was an order

to show cause why Mr. Rodems should not be held in

contempt of court.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GILLESPIE: But before we get into that,

Judge -­

THE COURT: Well, no, I'm just looking at the

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 82: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

22

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

sanctions, you can do that in this division. You don't

have to have a separate cause of action filed within

criminal court.

MR. GILLESPIE: And, Judge, if I were an attorney

and knew what I was doing I would do that, but that's

the problem here. I'm not an attorney. And I'm not

sure of the procedure. And I don't want to miss

dotting an "I" and having this thing not be taken

seriously. That's why I felt that it was important to

be represented by an attorney and that's what I'm

trying to do.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, since I have several

things scheduled for today, we're going to pass on the

order to show cause and move on to your motion for

reconsideration of Judge Nielsen's denial of your

motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems from representing I

guess himself, his law firm and Mr. Cook, is that

correct?

MR. RODEMS: Actually, Judge -­

THE COURT: All of those entities?

MR. RODEMS: I only represent Mr. Cook and the

law firm. I'm not a party to these proceedings.

THE COURT: Oh, you only represent the law firm

and Mr. Cook. Is Mr. Cook still with your firm?

MR. RODEMS: Yes, ma'am.

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 83: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

23

1

2

J J

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

?0_L

0J LJ

24

,

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. RODEMS: He's my law partner.

THE COURT: Okay. So, all right, on your motion

for reconsideration, why should this Court reconsider

or rehear the motion to disqualify counsel?

MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, defense counsel has a

direct conflict of interest with me, the plaintiff.

And this lawsuit turns on a contract which is attached

to the complaint as Exhibit 1. The contract -- there's

some history to the contract because it was signed

under the previous law firm, Alpert, Barker, Rodems and

Cook. And then it became Barker, Rodems & Cook and

they took the assignment of the contract.

They never signed a new contract and there's a

whole matter about that. But with regard to -- there

is a contract that forms the basis of this dispute.

And that contract was drafted by the defendants. And

now they're trying to disavow that same contract. And

that's prohibited by the rules. As a matter of fact, I

brought the Florida Statutes Annotated and they discuss

that. And that's under Rule 4-1.9, conflict of

interest-former client.

It says here, thus, a lawyer cannot properly seek

to rescind on behalf of the new client a contract

drafted on behalf of the former client.

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 84: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

24

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

~ 14

16

17

18

19

21

~~ L.L

~~ ~J

24

And that's what they're doing here. They drafted

a contract on my behalf and now they're seeking to

rescind that contract on behalf of their new client,

which is themselves and Mr. Cook.

Also, going into the scope of the matter, when a

lawyer has been directly involved in a specific

transaction -- and the specific transaction is this

contract -- subsequent representation of other clients

with materially adverse interest is clearly prohibited.

So at one point they represented my interest

directly on the specific contract. Now they're taking

a materially adverse position. And this is prohibited

according to Rule 4-1.9.

THE COURT: Okay. So they represented you in a

legal transaction where you had a written employment

agreement with them, is that correct?

MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. So what was the scope of

the employment? What were they supposed to do for you?

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, the contract was a

contingent fee agreement.

THE COURT: Okay. But what was the scope? What

were they supposed to do for you under this contingent

fee agreement?

MR. GILLESPIE: Under the contingent fee

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 85: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

25

1 agreement they were representing the interest -­ it was

2 a lawsuit against the Amscot Corporation. But this

J J representation contract primarily dealt with the

4 relationship between myself and the lawyers and how any

5 proceeds were going to be divided.

6 THE COURT: All right. So ultimately did they

7 settle your lawsuit or did you go to trial?

8 MR. GILLESPIE: There was a settlement, Judge.

9 THE COURT: There's a settlement, okay. And did

10 you sign a release and a closing statement?

11 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, and they were subsequently

12 found to be fraudulent.

13 THE COURT: Okay. So is your law firm holding

14 settlement proceeds that have not been distributed?

15 MR. RODEMS: No, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Okay. So did your law firm undertake

17 representation of Mr. Gillespie after Mr. Alpert had to

18 retire from practicing law?

19 MR. RODEMS: No. Actually what happened, if I

20 can give you just a brief history, me, Chris Walker and

21 Bill Cook left the law firm that was then known as

2~L Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Farantino and Cook in 2000.

23 When we left and started our new firm, Jonathan,

24 Mr. Alpert, and all of us agreed that we would contact

, ~5 our clients and see which ones wanted to stay with

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 86: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

26

1

2

~ J

4

cJ

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 OJJ

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

0~ LJ

24

25

~

Mr. Alpert's remaining firm, which was going to be

renamed Alpert and Farantino, and which ones wanted to

join Barker, Rodems and Cook. Mr. Gillespie elected to

go with Barker, Rodems and Cook.

Then the case proceeded to settlement if I recall

correctly. And Mr. Gillespie signed the closing

statement and a release and received all of his money.

THE COURT: And the money was disbursed?

MR. RODEMS: Yes.

THE COURT: So is this lawsuit then a legal

malpractice action?

MR. RODEMS: No. He's claiming that he went back

and looked at it agaln and figured out a different way

that he thinks he should have been paid instead of what

he agreed to in the closing statement and what he

agreed to in the release and what he directed us to do.

MR. GILLESPIE: I would object to that.

THE COURT: So this is then a contract action.

MR. GILLESPIE: It's a contract action.

MR. RODEMS: He's alleging that we breached our

contingency fee contract. That's what he's alleging.

The previous lawsuit against Arnscot involved the Truth

in Lending Act, the federal statute dealing with

requirements with lenders.

THE COURT: Okay.

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 87: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

27

1

2

J J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor

THE COURT: So in terms of this lawsuit then your

firm would be witnesses in the case. So did Judge

Nielsen -­

MR. RODEMS: Oh, yeah, he considered all of that,

Judge.

THE COURT: Did he consider the fact that you

guys would be witnesses in the case?

MR. GILLESPIE: If it please the Court, Judge.

MR. RODEMS: May I finish, Your Honor. We had a

hearing in front of Judge Nielsen. And I attached the

transcript of that hearing to a letter and sent that to

you. Everything that Mr. Gillespie has just

represented to you was fully addressed in front of

Judge Nielsen.

MR. GILLESPIE: It was not.

MR. RODEMS: We went through the 4-1.9 argument.

We went through the fact that Mr. Gillespie said I

might be a witness. We went through all of that. And

after having heard all of that, Judge Nielsen denied

his motion to disqualify. And that's why I filed the

transcript because this motion for reconsideration is

nothing more than him trying to get a second bite at

the apple after all of the repugnant things he said

about Judge Nielsen in his motion to disqualify.

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 88: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

28

1

~ L

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

~~ L~

23

24

~

MR. GILLESPIE: I object to that. This man lied

before Judge Nielsen. I didn't say anything repugnant

about the judge.

MR. RODEMS: Well, there's letters in the court

file

MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, if it pleases the

Court, I can help the Court understand what Mr. Rodems

is trying -- how he's trying to mislead the Court now.

THE COURT: No. I just want to know in terms of

your motion for reconsideration what's new or different

or additional case law.

MR. GILLESPIE: What's different here -­

THE COURT: Why should it be reconsidered.

MR. GILLESPIE: What's different here, Judge,

turns on and you have put your hand right on it. We

are talking about the contract between myself and the

defendant. That is the issue in hand.

What Judge Nielsen did -- and it was a very

sleight of hand accompanied by the defendants here.

They turned it into -- this was not the same matter

because it was a matter of truth in lending law. And

don't know whether that was intentional by him or he

was just misled by Mr. Rodems. The issue at hand is

not a truth in lending claim. The matter at hand is

the representation contract.

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

I

Page 89: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Really there are two parallel issues running in

the representation, the prior representation. That was

their representation of me on truth in lending and

their representation of me between the law firm and

myself. And that's what we're talking about. That was

not considered last time. What was considered last

time was whether the truth in lending claim was the

issue. And it clearly wasn't.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MR. GILLESPIE: And I think the record shows that

if you look at it. I'm looking for the transcript,

Judge, that was provided by Mr. Rodems.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Looking at that

transcript on page ten talks about timeliness, that

under the motion to disqualify I guess they're saying

that you filed the motion six to eight months after the

litigation began.

MR. GILLESPIE: Actually, the first speaking

motion I made was to have him disqualified. We don't

have a transcript of that hearing. So that's not

accurate. That was back in September.

THE COURT: Did you sign the closing statement on

behalf of the law firm?

MR. RODEMS: No, Mr. Cook did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cook did?

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 90: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 MR. RODEMS: Yes.

2 THE COURT: Did you attend the mediation or

3 settlement conference or anything regarding this case?

4 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, I didn't have anything

to do with the Amscot case at all other than the

6 typical normal things that partners would say to each

7 other in the hallway or at lunch. I didn't handle the

8 litigation. I don't recall having any participation in

9 the case at all. I certainly didn't attend any

mediations or involve myself in the settlement or the

11 releases or any of the strategy decisions, nothing like

12 that.

13 MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, whether or not he was

14 directly involved is immaterial. There's an imputed

disqualification.

16 MR. RODEMS: Judge, if you'll look on page ten we

17 also talked about the case of Ceri~~o vs. High~ey

18 which is at 797 So.2d 1288.

19 THE COURT: Okay. Let's go off the record. I

want to just review this transcript.

21 MR. RODEMS: Okay. Your Honor, if we have just a

moment may I be excused?

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. RODEMS: I just need a moment.

THE COURT: Yes.

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 91: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

31

J.

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

~ 14

16

17

18

19

21

22

~~ LJ

24

(Pause in the proceedings.)

THE COURT: Okay, back on the record. I've now

had an opportunity to refresh my recollection. I

believe we used this same transcript earlier in

relationship to the hearing. I've now had a chance to

review it again.

So you feel that in terms of your motion for

reconsideration that there was additional information

that was not presented to Judge Nielsen that would be

important to this decision?

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if you look at page

five of the transcript, this is where Judge Nielsen is

questioning. This begins on page five, line seven.

The Court: Well, see then there was one clarification

I had. And you actually just read the portion of it.

He made reference to the same or a substantially

similar matter to the present controversy. And he asks

what I'm referring to. I answer: Amscot Corporation.

And this is where it gets tricky. Yes, it was

the Amscot lawsuit, but it wasn't the truth in lending

portion of the Amscot lawsuit. It was the contingent

fee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

And if you go down further the judge asked: And

the action was brought in federal court?

And I responded: Yes, Judge.

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 92: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

~ 14

1 (0o::J

16

17

18

19

20

21

,..,,.., L.L.

23

24

25

~

And he asked again: Is this the matter that

you're referring to that's substantially similar?

And I answer: Yes.

And then Mr. Rodems responds to that further down

the page on page six. And Mr. Rodems states beginning

on line 14: The matter that defendants represented Mr.

Gillespie on was a Truth in Lending Act claim filed in

the federal court involving the issues of the Rule

4-1.9.

And Mr. Rodems goes on at the bottom of page six

beginning on line 23, So the case that Mr. Gillespie

alleges is substantially the same or similar involved a

claim by Mr. Gillespie against Arnscot, a corporation,

involving alleged violations of Mr. Gillespie's rights

under the Truth in Lending Act. This lawsuit involves

different parties, different facts and different legal

issues.

And this is where this matter turns very subtly

because what Mr. Rodems said there was correct. But

that's not what this current lawsuit is about. We're

not questioning the Truth in Lending Act or what Arnscot

did. We're questioning the contract that is between

myself and the defendants. And it's the same parties,

the same facts and the same legal issues. And that is

where Judge Nielsen either missed this or didn't

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 93: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

33

1

~ L

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

)"~~

24

~

consider it properly.

My motion for reconsideration beginning on page

three discusses the fine points of all of this with

references.

THE COURT: Where is the section about a lawyer

as witness? Because I know it talks in there about

you're permitted to be a witness if you're being sued

or you're suing your former clients. Seems like that

might be

MR. RODEMS: There is a provision of the Rules

Regulating the Florida Bar that authorizes an

attorney -­

THE COURT: Right. So it seems like that would

be relevant to this discussion because in this case, if

I understand correctly, the plaintiff is suing his

former law firm.

MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, In my motion for

reconsideration I don't raise that issue of them being

a witness, of them being an advocate.

THE COURT: I'm just saying that if you look at

4-3.7, a lawyer as witness, it talks about the scenario

where a lawyer may be an advocate at a trial in which

the lawyer is likely to be a witness where the

testimony relates to the nature and value of legal

services rendered In the case. And by extrapolation it

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 94: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

34

1

~ 2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

?J__.J

24

would seem that that's of assistance in determining

whether or not Judge Nielsen made a correct decision.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, that notwithstanding, it

says when a lawyer has been directly involved in a

specific transaction subsequent representation of other

clients with materially adverse interests is clearly

prohibited. In other words, the defendants are

prohibited from representing themselves.

However, they could testify about this if they

were represented by another counsel. But they can't

represent themselves on this. So, yes, they can give

testimony. They just can't give testimony while

they're representing themselves on this matter.

And it also talks about if the lawyer's own

conduct in the transaction is in serious question

which it is -- it may be difficult or impossible for a

lawyer to give the client detached advice. And that's

what we have here. It also goes on to say a suit

charging fraud entails conflict to a degree not

involved in a suit for declaratory judgment concerning

statutory interpretation.

If the pleases the Court, I can give you West's

Florida Statutes annotated which I'm reading from.

Would you care to look at this, Judge.

THE COURT: I have it in the law library across

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 95: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

35

the hall. And in point of fact, I recently reviewed it1

0 in connection with a different case where there hadL

J been a motion to disqualify counsel.J

Based upon my review of Rule 4-1.7, 4-1.8, 4-1.9,4

r­ 4-1.10, and this later one I was talking about, 4-3.7,J

I don't hear anything new in your argument today that6

Judge Nielsen overlooked or failed to address whenever7

he ruled on your motion previously.8

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I still have more of this9

motion to go through.10

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Please continue.11

MR. GILLESPIE: So is what you're saying, Judge,12

that you considered that he was correct in that point13

of law?~ 14

THE COURT: I'm just saying looking at the15

transcript it looks like in terms of new information16

17 I'm looking to see what's changed. Is there a recent

ruling in the supreme court? Is there something that18

19 was not argued at that time or case law that was

materially relevant to the case that was not available20

to counsel at the time that Judge Nielsen ruled upon21

22 the motion? You know, in terms of a motion for

reconsideration I'm looking for some information that23

would have been overlooked by him or perhaps24

25 misinterpreted by him which would seem to be the thrust

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 96: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

of your arguments thus far.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, one thing that he did not

consider, an attorney can be disqualified if he is

opposing a former client from whom he received

confidential information. And that's what we have

here. Judge Nielsen did not consider that. And Mr.

Rodems has already threatened to use some of that

confidential information against me. And if you turn

to page five of the plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration there's -- this is taken from the

transcript of a conversation.

MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,

Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into

earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he

didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes

say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be

considered for any purposes by the court in any

hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie

for illegally recording the conversation.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, that's not true. And

that's set forth in my motion for an order to show

cause with sufficient case law why that recording was

true. And this is -- I'm going to reiterate my request

that I be represented by an attorney because now he is

threatening me in open court with a criminal

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 97: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

37

1 prosecution.

2 All things go back to this, Judge, which is why

3 we shouldn't have even begun this hearing today because

4 he is going to object and threaten me with criminal

prosecution. And I need to have an attorney. Now I

6 have made accommodations to have that done. I've taken

7 steps today to have an advertisement placed in the st.

8 Petersburg Times and a paper here in Tampa that is

9 familiar with this representation, the Creative

Loafing, has done an article about me and Mr. Cook and

11 his representation of me.

12 And I really think that because of Mr. Rodems'

13 propensity to keep threatening me with criminal acts

14 and criminal violations that I need to have an

attorney.

16 THE COURT: I gave you the opportunity early on

1 '7 to strike your order to show cause. Now we're just

18 talking about the motion for reconsideration. So is it

19 necessary to reference the transcript of that telephone

call in order to argue your motion for reconsideration?

21 MR. GILLESPIE: I don't know how to answer that

22 from a legal standpoint because I am not an attorney.

And I want an attorney because you just heard him

24 threaten me with a criminal prosecution.

THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 98: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

the mDtion for reconsideration and the motion to

disqualify today. What about the motion for

reconsideration for the discovery motion?

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge -­

THE COURT: Do you need to reference that

transcript for the motion for reconsideration of the

discovery motion?

MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, we can go on with this,

but it's part of this motion. What you're saying is

that I have -- I'm being prohibited from excluding part

of this motion. And I don't see how it can be

effective.

THE COURT: I'm just saying, I'm responding to

your statement that you don't want to present anything

today without the benefit of legal counsel because of

your concern for the comment made by counsel about the

use of that transcript of a telephone call. Is there

<anything today that you can consider that doesn't have

to do with the transcript of that telephone call?

MR. GILLESPIE: Not really, Judge, because it all

boils down to his dishonesty. And if we would have a

transcript of our conversations from the first time

met them there wouldn't be a lawsuit here. But we

don't and that's the problem.

This one instance that we do have just a fleeting

Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

I

Page 99: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

39

1

~ 2

J J

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

glimpse into what went on behind closed doors -- this

man is a liar. And it's in black and white. And of

course he doesn't want it to come into the hearing. Of

course not.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any motions

that we can consider today that don't reference -­

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if it pleases the

Court, I'm getting confused here. I have a specific

reference here where he threatened to use a specific

piece of prior knowledge. But the law states that

that's not even necessary. The rules state that just

the existence of prior representation there is a

presumption that privileged information was disclosed.

And Judge Nielsen didn't consider that. And that's an

important part of this motion to disqualify. I have it

here. I'm trying to find it. There is a presumption.

Are you familiar with that, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes, I'm very familiar with it. That

was the basis -- you know, I was referencing a recent

motion that was brought to disqualify trial counsel.

And that was the basis for that ruling. That's the one

that I reviewed all of the annotations and publications

you brought with you today referencing that situation.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Judge Nielsen did not

consider whether confidential information was

~ Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 100: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

5

10

15

20

25

40

disclosed. And the rule -- I can't find it here right1

~ now -- but the rule states that it's presumed that it2

~ happened and that that's a basis for disqualification.

4

J

Judge, I'm going to need some time to compose

myself. The other matter that we haven't discussed is

6 how my disability impacts the ability to represent

7 myself. We haven't gotten into that. I've offered to

8 have a hearing on that. And this is a problem.

9 THE COURT: I see that you had talked to Judge

Nielsen about whether or not a civil judge has any

11 ability or funds with which to appoint private counsel.

12 Was that an ADA issue with him?

13 MR. GILLESPIE: I raised that issue. And let me

14 just say on the record that I'm not looking for someone

to pay the lawyer. I would be happy if the Court would

16 appoint someone and I'll pay him.

17 THE COURT: On an hourly basis? Did you go

18 through the Hillsborough County Bar Association's

19 lawyer referral service? Didn't you say you had

already tried that avenue?

21 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge, and I have the

22 results from that. And Mr. Rodems had discussion on

23 that earlier today.

24 THE COURT: What do you mean? The only

discussion I remember you mentioning that you had not

~ Berryhill & Associates, Inc.

Page 101: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., ) a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. ) COpyCOOK, )

) FYI Only Petitioners, ) )

v. ) Case No. 2D07-4530 )

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ) )

No Aetion Respondent. ) Necessary

--------------)

Opinion filed February 8, 2008.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; James M. Barton, II, JUdge.

Ryan Christopher Rodems of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioners.

Robert W. Bauer, Gainesville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix Super Markets,

Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that when counterclaim is

pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint without order of court).

WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

22

Page 102: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

July 30, 2012

John Ley, Clerk of Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit 56 Forsyth St., N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 •

Appeal Nos. 12-11213-C and 12-11028-B

Dear Mr. Ley:

Earlier today I filed in the District Court a Motion To Apply Funds Toward Filing Fees, in support of IFP fee waiver. A copy was mailed today to the Circuit Court by first class mail. A second courtesy copy is enclosed here.

I believe the ruling on this motion affects all pro se filers who are denied e-filing.

Please find enclosed for filing Affidavit ofNeil J. Gillespie, with Appendix, Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co., submitted in support of Consolidated Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation.

On July 27, 2012 I wrote you that my Consolidated Amended Motionfor Disability Accommodation would be submitted today, but it has been delayed due to disability and declining health. I plan to submit my disability request by Friday August 3, 2012.

I regret any inconvenience caused to the Court by my delay.

Thank you for your consideration.

SincereIr, . .~ ~ ~

, \/,1 ~~.f/ ' . .f'd· .,/,~ t ;0

092 SW 5th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Enclosures

Page 103: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Drop-Of f Package Receipt: 1 of 1 THIS IS NOT A SHIPPING LABEL. PLEASE SAVE FOR YOUR RECORDS.

DROP-OFF LOCATION: The UPS Store #5520

DROP-OFF DATE/TIME:Man 30 Jul 2012 4:14 PM

11100 SW 93 COURT RD STE 10 ESTIMATED PICKUP DATE:

(352) 402-0099 UPS (Air) Man 30 Jul 2012 1 pkg

CUSTOMER: Not Provided ID Type: ~ot Provided TOTAL PACKAGES: 1 pkg

TRACKING NUMBER CARRIER & SERVICE wt(lbs) 1Z64589FNW91169622 UPS Next Day Saver 1.600

indicates that the information for each package has been transmitted to each carrier's data systell. "rhis receipt is not confirmation that the carrier has picked up the packages. To ver ify when and if a package has been picked up. enter one of the following Neb addresses in your broNser and enter the tracking numbers 1 isted above.

http://theupsstore.co. (select Tracking. then enter Tracking II) http://Illbe.co. (select Tracking. then enter Tracking II)

You acknowledge that the shipment services provided by The UPS Store 115520 for the I isted packages are subject to and governed by each Car r ier Agree.ent. if app 1icab Ie. the Rates and Service Guide for each car r ier. and the tariff' in effect at the tille of ship.ent.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME. OPEN AHOUSE ACCOUNT TODAY. BENEFITS INCLUDE MONTHLY BILLING AND GROUP AUTHORIZATION.

Powered by iShip( t.)

07/30/2012 01: 35 PM Pacific Time

Page 104: Affidavit Conflict Not Disclosed Judge Claudia Isom

Proof of Delivery

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW91169622Service: UPS Next Day Air Saver®Weight: 2.00 lbsShipped/Billed On: 07/30/2012Delivered On: 07/31/2012 10:42 A.M.Delivered To: ATLANTA, GA, USSigned By: ONEILLeft At: Front Desk

Print This Page

Close Window

Dear Customer,

This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

UPS

Tracking results provided by UPS: 08/10/2012 10:07 A.M. ET

Close Window

UPS: Tracking Information http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Atlanta .̂..

1 of 1 8/10/2012 10:07 AM