Gillespie Rebuttal, Castagliuolo Response, Florida Bar Complaint, Sep-14-2012

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel September 14, 2012Attorney Consumer Assistance ProgramThe Florida Bar651 East Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL 32399-2300

Re: Eugene P Castagliuolo; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)

Dear Mr. Littlewood:

This is my rebuttal to Mr. Castagliuolo's response in the above captioned complaint1. Please keepin mind that I hired Mr. Castagliuolo to prepare me for, and attend, a court-ordered deposition2.I did not need the services of Mr. Castagliuolo to accept a “walkaway” settlement. Mr. Rodemsoffered a “walkaway” settlement on at lease six (6) separate prior occasions, see Plaintiff’s FirstAmended Complaint, Count 11, Abuse of Process, at ¶234, provided on request.

I. Evidence of Racketeering Activity

1. Mr. Castagliuolo admitted in his written response August 30, 2012 that Mr. Rodemsmade an unsolicited offer to assist Castagliuolo in any future Bar grievance from me. (p.3, ¶1):

“My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher “Chris" Rodems.Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The FloridaBar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer.”

This shows how the discipline process is compromised, in this case by Mr. Rodems, who’smisconduct is at the center of this matter. It suggests a pattern of racketeering activity whereadversaries know in advance how to position themselves to avoid discipline. In this case it mayhave caused Mr. Castagliuolo to work for the benefit of Mr. Rodems instead of me, his client.

2. Mr. Bauer3 sent me a letter dated August 24, 2012 stating that Mr. Rodems’ “SettlementAgreement and General Mutual Release” of June 21, 2011 does not bind him, it binds me. Theletter appears at Exhibit 1 to this rebuttal. This is the operative quote:

Mr. Rodem's (sic) release dated June 21, 2011 does not have any legal effect on theamount of money that is owed to this firm. Further, it does not bind this firm in any way.I (sic) does bind you - but not us.

I was shocked by Mr. Bauer’s statement, as Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to accept thissettlement. I do not understand how a settlement can only bind me. Castagliuolo never explainedthis to me. I believe this is further evidence that Mr. Castagliuolo worked against my interest. 1 I received Mr. Castagliuolo's response by email September 7, 2012 at 2:24 a.m. Mr. Castagliuolo is on my blockedemail list and his email was quarantined in my spam filter since it was sent by Castagliuolo September 4, 2012 at4:56 p.m. This is five days after the August 30, 2012 date on Mr. Castagliuolo’s response to you.2 This was a full deposition after the case was closed, after final summary judgment was entered in favor of Mr.Rodems’ law firm and partner, and while the case was on appeal in 2D10-5197.3 Mr. Castagliuolo presented evidence in his response concerning Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida BarLawyer Referral Service (LRS) who formerly represented me. I’ll address that evidence later in this rebuttal.

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel September 14, 2012Re: Eugene P Castagliuolo; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D) Page - 2

II. Mr. Castagliuolo Made the Decision to Settle June 21, 2011

3. Mr. Rodems asserted in U.S. District Court, case 5:10-cv-503, that Mr. Castagliuolomade the decision to settle, see Response to “Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie’s Motion To Strike Or SetAside Mr. Rodems’ Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action WithPrejudice” [DKT 33] (Doc. 40). Mr. Rodems wrote this at footnote 1: (relevant portion)

The settlement agreement was signed by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. Infact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie stated to his attorney, “I’ll defer to yourjudgment on this.” Gillespie’s attorney stated, “I’ve already given you judgment inprivate, and I’ll give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is an agreement youwant to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest.”

Page 1 of Mr. Rodems’ Response (Doc. 40). appears at Exhibit 2 to this rebuttal, and on PACER,Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1350.

The transcript of the June 21, 2011 deposition where Mr. Castagliuolo represented me shows hemade the decision for me to accept Mr. Rodems’ “Settlement Agreement and General MutualRelease”. The following is from a deposition excerpt, page 9 of 19 filed by Mr. Rodems asExhibit 1 to his Response at Doc. 40, Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40-1 Filed07/14/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID 1360. A copy appears at Exhibit 3 to this rebuttal.

14 MR. GILLESPIE: I'll defer to your15 judgment on this.16 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: I've already given17 you judgment in private, and I'll give it to18 you on the record. I think this is -- this is19 an agreement you want to enter into, and I20 think this is in your best interest.

This deposition excerpt is presented to impeach Mr. Castagliuolo’s response at Exhibit A, myemail of June 21, 2011 at 6.33 p.m. where I mistakenly believed I made the decision to settle.The deposition excerpt, submitted by Mr. Rodems to the court, establishes the fact of who madethe decision to settle: It was Mr. Castagliuolo. While I do not have independent memory ofwriting this email, it does appear on my computer, and shows how my disability manifests in theform of confusion. In addition, generally I was attempting to placate Mr. Castagliuolo and avoidhis explosive anger, which is evident in his response to you of August 30, 2012. Once I wasreleased from custody June 21, 2011 and had a meal, I realized the settlement was a mistake andpromptly disaffirmed the agreement by written notice to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo, andMajor James Livingston of the HCSO. This also shows I was under a delusion that Castagliuolowas providing me zealous advocacy. Castagliuolo’s loyalty was with the legal system, not me,specifically his loyalty to the 13th Judicial Circuit where he and his daughter practice law.

4. Mr. Rodems also asserted to the 2dDCA, case 2D10-5197, that Mr. Castagliuolo madethe decision to settle, see Appellees’ Response To Appellant’s Motion To Reinstate DismissedAppeal, submitted July 15, 2011. Mr. Rodems told the 2dDCA:


Appellant signed the Settlement Agreement and General Release before a notary public,while seated next to his attorney, and after consulting with his attorney. In fact, indeciding whether to sign it, Appellant stated to his attorney, "I'll defer to your judgmenton this." Gillespie's attorney stated, "I've already given you judgment in private, and I'llgive it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is an agreement you want to enter into,and I think it is in your best interest."

Mr. Rodems also asserted this falsehood to the 2dDCA in his opening paragraph: “On June 21,2011, Appellant Neil J. Gillespie voluntarily appeared, with his attorney, for a deposition in aidof execution relating to Appellees' Final Judgment...”. The record shows this was an improper,full deposition, post-final summary judgment which was on appeal in 2D10-5197. Once finaljudgment is entered, the need for discovery is over. Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP, 836 So.2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2003). A copy of Rodems’ 2dDCA Response is available.

III. Mr. Castagliuolo Fired June 9, 2011 - He Threatened Me, Refused Rule 4-1.16 Refund

5. I fired Mr. Castagliuolo June 9, 2011 at 12.44 p.m. after he became enraged over thenumber of documents I sent him. After termination of our agreement, Mr. Castagliuolo refusedto refund advance payment of a fee that had not been earned4. Castagliuolo emailed me themessage below June 9, 2011 at 12.51 p.m. A paper copy of the email appears at Exhibit 4.

Dear Mr. Gillespie:Under no circumstances will I be refunding any fee paid to me by you on Friday, June 3,2011. In that you have discharged me as your attorney, please do not contact me again byany manner whatsoever except through counsel.

Should you insist in contacting me again without the assistance of counsel, I shallimmediately report your contact to law enforcement and I shall prosecute you to the fullextent of the criminal law. I'm a former prosecutor, so If you think I'm bluffing, please tryme.

YOU HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED. CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.Eugene P. Castagliuolo

After June 9, 2011 I considered Mr. Castagliuolo unstable and potentially dangerous. Mystrategy for dealing with Castagliuolo was to use positive reinforcement, passive agreement,praise and giving small gifts, etc., in order to get through the deposition, and later rescind theimproperly-obtained settlement agreement. It was a flawed strategy, with no viable option.

6. My options on June 9, 2011 were severely limited, due to an active arrest warrant againstme. I was not in a position to go out and meet with other lawyers. I had to stay home with thedoor bolted and the windows covered. Also, I gave Mr. Castagliuolo $1,000 cash June 3, 2011,which represented over half my Social Security disability income. After paying water, electric, 4 Rule 4-1.16(3), lawyer discharged; comment: A client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time; upontermination, a lawyer should refund to the client any advance payment of a fee that has not been earned.


phone, and food bills, there was nothing left to hire another attorney. I am indigent and live fromone disability check to the next. I took Castagliuolo back5 after he apologized, shown in hisemail below sent June 9, 2011 at 1:16 p.m. Castagliuolo’s apology was sent 25 minutes after histhreatening email. The email appears at Exhibit 5.

Neil, I do NOT want to do battle with you, I do NOT battle with my clients. In 23+ yearsof doing this, I have had maybe 3 client complaints, and I prevailed on all 3 because all 3were found to be groundless.

As I told you when you hired me, I pride myself on getting along with my clients. Butyour manner is very hard to take. You are obsessed with this matter and you expect me toshare your obsession. Unfortunately, I cannot, because to do so would mean that I havelost my objectivity, and if I lose my objectivity, I will not be serving your best interests.

I want to get this guy off your back, but as you know well by now, the wheels of justicemove slowly. What's more, Rodems has not even extended me the professional courtesyof returning my telephone calls. So if you want me to help you, we'll have to do it anotherway. But it all starts with obtaining a copy of that writ.

It's totally your call, but there will be no refund whatsoever of any monies paid.Furthermore, I invite you to reply to this e-mail if you do so in a civil, professionalmanner.

The above email also shows Mr. Rodems was not cooperating: “What's more, Rodems has noteven extended me the professional courtesy of returning my telephone calls.” Mr. Rodems hasbeen the problem throughout this lawsuit, with me, with Mr. Bauer, and Mr. Castagliuolo.Rodems also purposely disrupted the tribunal to prejudice the judges against me in this case.

IV. Conflict and Non-Cooperation of Mr. Rodems - Central Problem, Cause of Bar Complaints

7. Mr. Rodems refused to provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily attachment,according to his email to Rodems June 9, 2011 at 12:46 p.m., see below, and at Exhibit 6.

Dear Mr. Rodems:I telephoned and e-mailed you on June 6, 2011 regarding the above-specified case. I alsospoke with your paralegal, Susan, on that same date, and again approximately 45 minutesago. I have not yet had the pleasure of your response.Perhaps I can make my request a lot more simple: I am requesting a copy of the writwhich apparently was docketed on June 1, 2011 (Mr. Gillespie has not received a copy ofsame). If you or your assistant would be so kind so as to attach a copy to an e-mail andshoot it over to me I would be most appreciative.

I am looking forward to your response. Thank you............Eugene

8. Mr. Castagliuolo wrote on page 2, ¶4 “Mr. Littlewood, Gillespie is well known to yourOffice as a “complainant.””. However Mr. Castagliuolo failed to mention that all my complaints 5I waited over 24 hours before responding to Castagliuolo, trying to think of a better alternative to taking him back,but could not think of anything. I took Castagliuolo back at June 10, 2011 at 2:25 p.m. with copies to Dr. Huffer,my brother, and other interested parties to document his unstable and potentially dangerous manner.


are related to the misconduct of Ryan Christopher Rodems. Mr. Castagliuolo himself failed toreport the misconduct of Mr. Rodems as required by Rule 4-8.3(a), such as Rodems’ refusal toprovide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily attachment.

Mr. Rodems’ improper representation of his law firm and partner against me, a former client onthe same or "substantially related" matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and theholding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, is the centralproblem in this matter and related Bar complaints. On Monday September 10, 2012 I submitted aBar complaint against Mr. Rodems to ACAP, and emailed a copy to you September 11, 2012.

V. Mr. Castagliuolo Failed to Provide Bankruptcy Protection

9. Prior to the friendly offer by “Chris” Rodems to Mr. Castagliuolo, “...that he would behappy to speak to The Florida Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me...”, Castagliuolo hadanother name for Mr. Rodems: “asshole Rodems”. Mr. Castagliuolo sent this email June 14,2011 at 7:46 p.m., suggesting bankruptcy protection. A copy of the email appears at Exhibit 7.

As for a new agreement, this is my suggestion. Give me another $1,000.00 on July 1, andI won't take another dime from you. Consider it a flat fee to get you out from under thiswrit (BUT WITHOUT entering an appearance in this state court case) and/or to file aChapter 7 bankruptcy for you. The only other things you would have to pay for if we gothe 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 atmost $80.00 (sometimes you can find a cheaper vendor). Based on what I know rightnow about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in yourChapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you.

Mr. Castagliuolo suggested bankruptcy in his email Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 10:44 p.m. which isavailable. Mr. Castagliuolo mentioned bankruptcy again in his email of June 15, 2011 at 10:33p.m., which appears as Exhibit 4 to my initial Bar complaint: “Then, in the next 60 days, you filea Chapter 7 bankruptcy (presuming this trust6 of yours which everyone's talking about doesn'tmean you don't qualify under the means test), and abracadabra, Rodems and this state courtlawsuit are history.” I told Mr. Castagliuolo of an Assignment of Unliquidated Lawsuit Proceeds(Exhibit 8) prepared in 2008 by attorney Jeffery Shelquist who did research and believed theassignment would survive my filing for bankruptcy, and allow the case to continue foradjudication on its merits. Mr. Castagliuolo would not discuss the Assignment with me.

6 As stated in my Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems, page 6, ¶3, Rodems lied about my income during a hearingbefore Judge James Arnold on Plaintiff’s Motion To Quash Writ of Bodily Attachment And To Rescind WarrantFor Plaintiff’s Arrest, where I was represented by Mr. Castagliuolo. Rodems told Judge Arnold “Mr. Gillespiereceives income from a trust”. Mr. Rodems’ statement to Judge Arnold is false because I do not receive incomefrom a trust. My income is from Social Security disability. No one receives income from the trust because the trustdoes not have any money. The only asset in the trust is my home valued at $85,584. The mortgage is $108,056. Thehome is ‘underwater’ with negative equity of -$22,532. The delinquent HOA fees are $6,902. A copy of TheGillespie Family Living Trust was filed September 20, 2011 with the District Court and is on PACER along withmy Affidavit of Indigency, Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Document 3 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 37PageID 76. I did not create the trust and do not know its purpose. The grantor trustees are all dead. No livingperson knows the purpose of the trust.


Mr. Castagliuolo also told Judge Arnold during a hearing June 16, 2011, tr. at page 9:

7 He's also a stroke away from a Chapter 78 bankruptcy. So, this thing could go away real9 quick. And that's all the more reason why I don't10 want him to sit in jail; so that I don't have to go11 to the jail and have him sign his bankruptcy12 petition and schedules.

In my initial Bar complaint I failed to specifically mention the bankruptcy plan suggested byMr. Castagliuolo due to my memory deficit disability. Do you need me to submit another Barcomplaint on this bankruptcy issue? Or can you consider the failed bankruptcy plan now?7

In any event, Mr. Castagliuolo’s bankruptcy offer, and the Assignment of Unliquidated LawsuitProceeds, are discussed in my Florida Supreme Court Petition, SC11-1622, and the supportingAffidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Representation by attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo, FL Bar ID no.104360, January 6, 2012. Both documents are cross-filed in my federal ADA and §1983 CivilRights lawsuit, case 5:10-cv-00503, Doc. 61 (affidavit) and Doc. 62 (Florida petition). This isalso a claim in my federal lawsuit for Civil RICO and Estate claims, see 5:11-cv-539, FirstAmended Complaint (Doc. 15), and Motion To Reconsider, Vacate or Modify (RICO), May 30,2012, U.S. District Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 12-11028-B.

VI. Mr. Castagliuolo Failed to Prepare For, Or Object To, A Full Deposition

10. On June 16, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo appeared on my behalf before Judge Arnold to arguePlaintiff’s Motion To Quash Writ of Bodily Attachment And To Rescind Warrant For Plaintiff’sArrest, which he submitted June 16, 2011, along with his Notice of Appearance8. Castagliuolo’smotion was just two pages9, the rest was “Exhibit A”, my letter to Mr. Rodems of June 25, 2010providing the following discovery responses, 15 pages altogether:

Exhibit 1. Responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories of September 2, 2008Exhibit 2. Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production submitted Sept. 2, 2008Exhibit 3. Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production submitted October 13, 2009Note: this request for production was made in violation of Judge Barton’s Order ofOctober 9, 2009: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above action be shall be stayedfor 60 Days to allow the Plaintiff to find replacement counsel. (relevant portion).Exhibit 4. Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production submitted June 1, 2010Exhibit 5. Responses to Defendants’ Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section56.29(2), Florida Statutes, submitted June 1, 2010.

7 In my previous Bar complaint against Mr. Bauer, the investigating member, Brian Kramer, told me by emailMarch 14, 2011 “It is not unusual that multiple complaints will be made by one individual against a particularlawyer. However, each complaint must be reviewed and the notice requirements of due process followed in order tothe complaint to be properly placed against a lawyer.” That is why I am asking you now.8 Mr. Castagliuolo exceeded the scope of his representation by entering his appearance.9 The complete motion is 19 pages, and too long to submit with this rebuttal, and is available upon request.


The record shows Judge Arnold demanded I attend a full deposition, not a deposition in aid ofexecution. Final summary judgment was entered September 28, 201010. Once final judgment isentered, the need for discovery is over. Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP, 836 So. 2d 1073 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2003). The record does not show any objection by Mr. Castagliuolo.

13 THE COURT: And, I -- at this point in time,14 his coming here is on a voluntary basis. If he15 comes in on a voluntary basis on Tuesday, he brings16 the documents, including the trust documents, which17 I'll review in camera -- okay -- and willing to sit18 for a deposition under oath, a full deposition19 under oath, then I'll take that all into20 consideration; and, and as far as I'm concerned, if21 he does produce the documents, he does sit for22 deposition, at that point in time, I'd be inclined23 to withdraw any pick-up order.24 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great, your Honor. Thank25 you.

Mr. Castagliuolo failed to review any of my responses in the above discovery, and his failure todo so had very significant consequences at the deposition because a number of my responseswere not proper, even though I believed them to be proper when submitted. For example, I madethe following response at least twenty (20) times in the above responses: “There is no list ofdocuments responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record whenthe record does not exist.” I believed this response was proper because previously Counsel DavidRowland of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit provided that response to my public records request.

I made this response to Mr. Rodems at least twenty (20) times and he did not object until thedeposition June 21, 2011. Mr. Castagliuolo agreed with Rodems June 21, 2011 that myresponses were not valid. (or whatever legal term applies). Mr. Castagliuolo failed to advise mePRIOR TO THE DEPOSITION that my response, “There is no list of documents responsive tothe request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist”was not correct. I made that response at least twenty (20) times as follows:

Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production, Sept. 2, 2008Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production, October 13, 2009Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants’ Deposition Duces Tecum, June 1, 2010Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants’ Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section56.29(2), Florida Statutes, June 1, 2010

10 Final summery judgment was on appeal in 2D10-5197, as was civil contempt entered September 30, 2010, alongwith the $11,550 sanction. A pro se motion was pending to stay the contempt ruling and writ of bodily attachment,filed April 23, 2011. When appeal jurisdiction has been invoked to review a final order or judgment, the appellatecourt may review the entire case in the lower court, including all issues preserved for review during the trial andpretrial proceedings. Rule 9.110(h) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes the appellate court to“review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice” of appeal. An appeal from a final order brings upfor review the correctness of all prior orders. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h). The appellate courts are authorized to reviewall interlocutory rulings and orders of the trial court in plenary appeals from final orders and judgments.


The above is shown on the deposition transcript, which I paid to have transcribed, and is 137pages long, plus 72 pages of exhibits. My errata sheet, submitted September 9, 2011 as VerifiedCorrections And Amendments By Witness Neil J. Gillespie To Transcript Of Proceedings June21, 2011, consists of 18 pages, plus 85 pages of exhibits, including threatening email sent byRodems to Mr. Castagliuolo less than 24 hours before the deposition. (copy of Mr. Rodemsthreatening email on request). All of this was filed in the U.S. District Court, 5:10-cv-503, onSeptember 9, 2011, see Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie’s Notice of Filing Transcript of ProceedingsJune 21, 2011, and on PACER at Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 47 Filed09/09/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1411. Only the two page notice of filing appears on PACER.

The following exchange beginning on page 111 shows my confusion with this issue:

11 Q All right. Paragraph 2 requested that12 you bring each and every document that you received13 from the trustee of the Gillespie Family Living14 Trust Agreement dated February 10th, 1997. Are15 there any responsive documents?16 A Well, I objected to that. Without17 waiving the objection, there's no list of documents18 responsive to the request, and the rules do not19 require the creation of a record when the record20 does not exist.

The following exchange continuing on page 114 shows my confusion with this issue:

2 A Well, as it says, I don't have a list of3 documents responsive to that request.4 Q Well, I'm not asking for a list. I'm5 asking for the actual documents. That's what I want6 to inspect, the actual documents. Now, if there are7 none, then --

The following exchange continuing on page 115 shows my confusion with this issue:

1 Q Is there any reason that you haven't2 produced today those emails?3 A Because I don't have a list of them.4 Q Well, I didn't ask for a list. I asked5 to see the actual documents.6 A Well, I wouldn't know where to go for the7 documents without a list.8 Q What is this list you're referring to?9 A If there's no list of documents10 responsive, the rules don't require the creation of11 a record when a record does not exist.12 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Let me just have a13 word, please.14 Mr. Castagliuolo and the witness15 conferred off the record.)


At this point Mr. Castagliuolo told me that my response was not correct. This is the first time heinformed me of my error. This exchange on page 116 shows the basis for my mistaken belief:

4 So I'm -- I'm not sure what you5 understood a list to be. I don't know where you got6 that information. I don't know what you looked at7 for that.8 A Mr. Rowland from this court.9 Q Okay. Well, I don't know what10 Mr. Rowland may have told you, but he certainly was11 not your attorney, and you are not -- you should not12 have gone to a court's representative and asked for13 legal advice, and I'm -- I'm not privy to those14 conversations, so I don't know what was said or what15 was not said. But my request is for documents which

Mr. Rodems is correct, I should not have gone to a court’s representative. That is why I retainedMr. Castagliuolo to prepare me for, and attend this deposition. But Mr. Castagliuolo did notprepare me for the deposition, and he may not have even read my discovery responses, or if hedid read them, he did not understand the problem, erroneous responses made twenty (20) times.At this point the deposition went off track and never recovered, and was doomed to failure.

VII. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Consent to Record Telephone Conversations

11. Mr. Castagliuolo consented to a recorded telephone conversation June 16, 2011, at 12:35p.m., his call to me following a hearing with Judge Arnold earlier that day. A transcript andaudio file is available and shows that Mr. Castagliuolo is unconcerned when he hears theTelephone Recording Announcer state “This call is being recorded for quality assurancepurposes.” This is presented to impeach Exhibits E and F, Castagliuolo’s claim that he neverconsented to a recorded call, or that he finds it “unacceptable and repugnant”.

This call shows Mr. Castagliuolo trying to get out of his obligation to attend the deposition June21, 2011; later in the call he wants me to take a “walk-away” deal, which I rejected:

Transcript, phone call June 16, 2011, pages 6-725 [MR. CASTAGLIUOLO] You know, you and I are going to have to1 decide how we're going to proceed if you're going2 to just go to this thing by yourself on Tuesday or3 you want me there with you.4 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm not going anywhere5 near a Court without counsel.6 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay, well --7 MR. GILLESPIE: I mean, that's been the issue8 all along. I have no problem giving him a9 deposition, giving him papers, whatever. However,10 because he has a conflict in this and because of


11 his past history, any time I'm alone with him after12 the fact he conjures up and starts churning out an13 affidavit and all this other nonsense.

Transcript, phone call June 16, 2011, Page 115 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: So I guess I'm still in the6 case. And --7 MR. GILLESPIE: And I appreciate that.8 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: It seems like our9 relationship changes on a daily basis, sometimes10 twice a day. But that's okay.

This last sentence shows an ongoing problem with Mr. Castagliuolo, lack of focus. How can ourrelationship be changing on a “daily basis, sometimes twice a day”? What is he talking about? Ihired him to prepare me for, and attend a deposition. Period. Apparently there is another agendagoing on with Mr. Castagliuolo, either within his own mind, known only to him, or a conspiracywith Mr. Rodems to force a “walk-away” settlement, which I rejected during this call.

VIII. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Renewed Threat of Lawsuit Under “Florida’s Wiretapping Laws”

12. Mr. Castagliuolo misunderstands the difference between wiretapping and one or twoparty consent. Wiretapping is the covert monitoring or recording of telephone conversations by athird party, usually government or law enforcement, see Telephone tapping, Wikipendiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping

“Under the law of the United States and most state laws, there is nothing illegal about one of theparties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to berecorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However the telephone recording lawsin most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while 12 states requireboth parties to be aware. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a callthat the conversation is being recorded.”

Florida is two party consent, but I record under Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-PilotLife Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991), see my August 1, 2012 letter to AG Pam Bondi.Florida’s two party consent recording law conflicts with 14th Amendment equal protection withone party consent states, and will be argued in my petition for writ of certiorari to the SCOTUS.

IX. Timing of This Complaint

13. In response to Mr. Castagliuolo’s question as to the timing of this complaint,Castagliuolo himself set the wheels in motion with his email to me of July 25, 2012 where hethreatened to sue me and court reporter Michael Borseth under chapter 934 Florida Statutes. Myinitial complaint shows Mr. Castagliuolo has a long history of sending me threatening email. Inthe past I either ignored him, or responded by letter as concisely as possible, but clearly that wasnot working. This time he also threatened Mr. Borseth. Castagliuolo concluded his email of July25th with this threat: “You've been warned. My lawsuit is drafted and ready to go. Your move.”


Given the seriousness of Mr. Castagliuolo’s threat, and his unstable and potentially dangerousnature, I thought it best to report his threat directly to the Florida Attorney General, with copiesto Michael Cohen of Florida Lawyers Assistance, and Paul Hill and Ken Marvin of the Bar. Myletter to the AG was sent August 1, 2012. On August 10, 2012 I received an email response fromSamantha Santana of the Florida AG’s office, who said “Please follow up with The Bar directlyfor further assistance.” I filed my Bar complaint the next day. Again, in the past I tried to ignoreMr. Castagliuolo, but that is no longer working.

X. Specific Denial of Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit A-G Responses

A. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit A. Denied. Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to settle, notme, see paragraph 3 above. My email of June 21, 2011 at 6:33 p.m. shows I mistakenly believedthat I made the decision to settle, and that I am confused. It also shows I am unhappy with thesettlement. Since Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to settle, it goes to follow that I would beunhappy with him once I figured out the scam.

B. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit B. Denied. Once again, Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision tosettle, not me, see paragraph 3 above. My email of June 22, 2011 at 3:12 p.m. shows I amunhappy with the settlement, and attached a draft copy of my Motion To Set Aside: SettlementAgreement, Notice Of Dismissal With Prejudice 2dDCA, and Joint Stipulation For DismissalWith Prejudice 13th Circuit. Again, since Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to settle, it goes tofollow that I would be unhappy with him once I figured out the scam. This shows I am confused,and still suffering the effects of living in a “bunker” for 21 days while sheriff’s officers huntedme day after day, pounding on my door. This is what Castagliuolo told Judge Arnold:

Transcript, June 16, 2011, page 45 [MR. CASTAGLIUOLO] I really believe that he6 has had the fear of God put in him with regard to7 being arrested.8 He's called me when the sheriff's officer was9 knocking on his door and calling me by cell at the10 same time. I spoke to that sheriff's officer. The11 sheriff's officer said, if we pick him up, he's12 going to sit in the Marion County Jail for two13 weeks before Hillsborough even thinks of coming14 over to get him.

Mr. Castagliuolo’s scam was over June 29, 2011 when by chance I looked on PACER in myfederal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit 5:10-cv-503 and saw Mr. Rodems’ Notice Of AssignmentOf Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice (Doc. 32) filed June 21, 2011.The next day I filed a motion to strike (Doc. 33), based on my motion to set aside describedabove. I wrote this June 30, 2011 about Mr. Castagliuolo in ¶¶ 3-4, and 31:

3. The settlement made by Gillespie while in custody of the Hillsborough CountySheriffs Office (HCSO) on civil contempt ordered by Circuit Judge James D. Arnold atthe Edgecomb Courthouse must be set aside, and is void or voidable, for fraud, duress,mistake, undue influence, adhesion, lack of informed consent, disability or incapacity,


sleep depravation, malpractice or negligence by jailers, threats, intimidation, yelling, andother improper conduct by opposing counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems, and breach ofduty by Gillespie’s former counsel, Eugene P. Castagliuolo.

4. As such there was no manifestation of mutual assent, a "meeting of the minds", oragreement to the terms of the settlement. Rather, Gillespie was impaired by disability andsleep depravation and threatened while in custody of the HSCO and agreed to act to getout of custody. Gillespie’s former counsel, Mr. Castagliuolo, breached his professionalduty to Gillespie. The settlement agreement, prepared in advance by Mr. Rodems, is amirror of Rodems’ manifestation of mutual assent, not the manifestation of assent byGillespie who was forced or induced to assent to the terms of the contract while disabled,in custody of the HCSO, and counsel who breached his duty. Therefore, the mutualmeeting of the minds "in truth" does not exist. Since there is no mutual meeting of theminds there can be no settlement, and the settlement is void or voidable.

31. Gillespie never knowingly agreed to assign any claims in Gillespie v. ThirteenthJudicial Circuit, Florida, et al., Case No. 5:10-cv-00503, US District Court, MD Florida,Ocala Division. Mr. Castagliuolo did not discuss or explain what the assignment meant.Gillespie only learned about the assignment late Wednesday night, June 29, 2011 whilelooking at the case docket on PACER. Mr. Rodems never served a copy of the Notice ofAssignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice as required.

You can read the document on PACER here: Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 33Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 33 PageID 604

Also on June 30, 2011 I filed Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie’s Notice Regarding Attorney Eugene P.Castagliuolo, Florida Bar ID #104360, on PACER here: Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DABDocument 34 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 736. At ¶2 I wrote: “Mr. Castagliuolo ishereby terminated immediately as counsel for Neil J. Gillespie in the case described in paragraph1, and any other actions or disputes.” At ¶3 I wrote: “Mr. Castagliuolo breached his professionalduty to Gillespie.”. I wrote this at ¶¶ 6-7:

6. Prior to the deposition Gillespie instructed Mr. Castagliuolo not to accept a“walk-away” Settlement Agreement And General Mutual Release offered by Rodems.Gillespie did not agree to the settlement. Mr. Castagliuolo disobeyed Gillespie’s writteninstructions not to accept the “walk-away” settlement offered by Mr. Rodems.

7. Mr. Castagliuolo represented Gillespie June 21, 2011 at a deposition by Rodemsat the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa in the litigation described in paragraph 1.Castagliuolo failed to prepare Gillespie for the deposition as agreed. Sometime during thedeposition, if not sooner, Mr. Castagliuolo stopped representing the interest of Gillespie.Among other things, Mr. Castagliuolo failed to explain the “walk-away” SettlementAgreement And General Mutual Release to Gillespie so he could make an informedchoice, and other such.

I had no intention to pay Mr. Castagliuolo ANYTHING after June 30, 2011.


C. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit C. Denied. This is a false statement because I gave the DVD11

(not a CD) to Castagliuolo on June 21, 2011 around 10:15 a.m. in the Edgecomb Courthouse justprior to the deposition, not “In or around July 2011”. It was positive reinforcement to help keep himfocused on representing me. The falsity of Mr. Castagliuolo’s statement is proven in his “ExhibitB”, page two, his email sent June 22, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. where he wrote: “Thank you very muchfor the book and CD's” (sic). This shows the CD (DVD) was not sent “In or around July 2011”.

D. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit D. Denied. This is a false statement because I gave the book12

to Castagliuolo on June 21, 2011 around 10:15 a.m. in the Edgecomb Courthouse just prior to thedeposition, not “In or around July 2011”. It was positive reinforcement to help keep him focusedon representing me. The falsity of Mr. Castagliuolo statement is proven in his “Exhibit B”, pagetwo, his email sent June 22, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. where he wrote: “Thank you very much for thebook and CD's” (sic). This shows the book was not sent “In or around July 2011”.

E. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit E. Denied. This Bar complaint is at the direction of theFlorida Office of Attorney General. On August 10, 2012 I received an email from SamanthaSantana of the AG’s office13 who wrote “Please follow up with The Bar directly for furtherassistance.” I filed this Bar complaint the next day. My reasons for recording calls are describedin my August 1, 2012 letter to Florida AG Pam Bondi, not for “some obscure reason” asCastagliuolo claimed. On December 30, 2009 I filed in case 05-CA-7205 Plaintiff’s Notice ofTelephone Recording, that states at paragraph 1: “All calls on plaintiff's home office businesstelephone extension are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business useexemption of Florida Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4Xa)(1) and the holding of RoyalHealth Care Servs., Inc. v. Jeffirson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).” This isdue in large part to harassing phone calls from Mr. Rodems, and his false affidavit of our March3, 2006 phone call. On June 9, 2011 at 10:41 a.m. I notified Mr. Castagliuolo by email tocommunicate by email if he declined my usual practice of recording. Exhibit 9 is a copy of theemail. I did not agree not to record him. Mr. Castagliuolo had no expectation of privacy.Mr. Castagliuolo also consented to being recorded June 16, 2011, see paragraph 11 above.

F. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit F. Denied, see my letter to Florida AG Pam Bondi August 1,2012. In addition, I notified Mr. Castagliuolo by email to communicate by email if he declinedmy usual practice of recording. Exhibit 9 is a copy of the email. I did not agree not torecord him. Mr. Castagliuolo had no expectation of privacy. On December 30, 2009 I filed incase 05-CA-7205 Plaintiff’s Notice of Telephone Recording, see above paragraph. Castagliuoloalso consented to being recorded June 16, 2011, see paragraph 11 above.

G. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Exhibit G. Mr. Bauer’s response letter contains false and misleadingstatements; another complaint is needed. Investigating member Brian Kramer emailed me March14, 2011 “It is not unusual that multiple complaints will be made by one individual against aparticular lawyer. However, each complaint must be reviewed and the notice requirements of dueprocess followed in order to the complaint to be properly placed against a lawyer.”

11 This is a video DVD of Dr. Huffer speaking about Legal Abuse. I make copies and give them away freely.12 “Whores: Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment” by Larry Klayman; I give books away freely.13 The AG was very helpful, and provided copies of all my past communication since 2007 at no charge.


Mr. Bauer has many unhappy clients, some have contacted me, see First Amended Complaint(Doc. 15), U.S. District Court, 5:11-cv-539, ¶¶ 51a-d. Some of Bauer’s unhappy clients includeDr. Angela Woodhull, Anna Hodges, Phillip Strauss (TFB File No.: 2012-00,146 (8B)), andJames and Betty DeCoursey (TFB File No. 2012-00,054(8b)). Also see “Bad Boy Robert Bauer -More Unhappy Clients!” http://www.nosue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/

XI. Request to Treat Mr. Castagliuolo’s Failure to Deny as Admissions

14. In his response dated August 30, 2012, Mr. Castagliuolo does not appear to deny any ofthe specific accusations in my Bar complaint. Therefore I request the Bar treat his failure to denyas admissions. Quite frankly, Mr. Castagliuolo’s response looks like the unhinged ranting of alunatic. It does not appear that he can assist himself, let alone clients. If another attorney hadsubmitted that response on behalf of Mr. Castagliuolo, I’m pretty sure it would be malpractice.

The following is my layman’s understanding of Mr. Castagliuolo Bar Rule violations:

Rule 4-1.1, lacked competence to prepare for, and represent me during a deposition.Rule 4-1.2(a), failed to abide by my decision not to accept walk-away agreement. “A lawyershall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter.”Rule 4-1.2(c), exceeded scope of representation by entering appearance, accepting a settlement.Rule 4-1.3, failed to act with diligence, failed to prepare for the deposition, failed to providezealous representation, failed to do bankruptcy, no settlement efforts to benefit me, no ADA.Rule 4-1.4(b) failed to explain the “Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release” June 21,2011 to me. “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit theclient to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” Mr. Bauer’s letter of August 24,2012 informed me that “Mr. Rodem's release dated June 21,2011 does not have any legal effecton the amount of money that is owed to this firm. Further, it does not bind this firm in any way. I(sic) does bind you -but not us.” Castagliuolo failed to tell me that the agreement only binds me.Rule 4-1.7(d) Lawyers Related by Blood. Mr. Castagliuolo failed to inform me that his daughter,Maria Castagliuolo, is a lawyer employed by the public defender (PD), 13th Circuit previouslyappointed to represent me. The PD was hostile to me and my cause, see the Affidavit of NeilGillespie on Castagliuolo’s representation, Doc. 61, 5:10-cv-503. Soon after, daughter Maria waspromoted in her job with the PD as a result of her father’s settlement benefiting the 13th Circuit.Rule 4-1.16 (a) a lawyer must decline or terminate representation when;

(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability torepresent the client; In his response Mr. Castagliuolo did not deny having mental problems;Castagliuolo’s own “health issues” email of June 15, 2011where he requested 60 days tocomplete the deposition shows he was too impaired to represent me. (Exhibit 4/Bar complaint).

(3) the lawyer is discharged; I fired Mr. Castagliuolo June 9, 2011, he refused refund ofadvance payment of a fee not earned; Rule Comment: A client has a right to discharge a lawyerat any time...upon termination of representation, a lawyer should refund to the client any advancepayment of a fee that has not been earned. The fee was not earned when I fired Castagliuolo.


Mr. Castagliuolo’s response shows extreme prejudice toward my disabilities. Castagliuolo doesnot dispute the fact that he failed to see that reasonable disability accommodations were in place,such as taking a lunch break, monitoring my vital signs, and monitoring diabetes blood sugar.

The record shows there were at least two ex parte hearings during the deposition, where I wasnot present before the judge. The ex parte hearings were not transcribed either, even though acourt reporter was present. Mr. Castagliuolo was visibly shaken when he returned, and looked asthough he may have been threatened. All he said to me was “judges have mud on their shoes”.Mr. Castagliuolo has not explained what he meant by that comment in his response to the Bar.

Mr. Castagliuolo failed to answer why he repeatedly falsely accused me of criminal acts. Or whyhe claims to be a former prosecutor while making these threats. On July 1, 2011 Castagliuolothreatened criminal prosecution under section 812.012(6)(b), Fla. Stat., and section 772.11 Fla.Stat. (2011) for allegedly obtaining professional services by false pretenses. But attorneyDanialle Riggins of Ocala advised me that I did not violate any criminal statutes. On August 5,2011 Mr. Castagliuolo demanded $3,000 because “my Civil Theft claim against you has beenperfected”. Again, attorney Riggins advised Castagliuolo’s threat was not legitimate.

XII. The Justice Network - NoSue.org

15. Mr. Castagliuolo is misinformed about my Justice Network website, which is a publicservice, and part of my therapy as a survivor of legal injustice. For example, a former client ofMr. Rodems, Heike Albert, contacted me unsolicited March 31, 2012 about his conduct in herfederal lawsuit, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB. Rodems moved towithdrawal as counsel, and argued “irreconcilable differences” April 4, 2012 before U.S. DistrictJudge Honeywell, claiming Ms. Albert called him an “asshole”. (Transcript of Mr. Rodems’testimony upon request). I helped Ms. Albert find her case on PACER, as her counsel failed toprovide her with documents in her case. Fortunately Ms. Albert found new counsel, and the casedocket shows Plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement (Doc. 90) August 21, 2012. Ms. Albert found methorough my emergency motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems on Scribd. I sent Ms. Albert a DVD ofDr. Huffer & Legal Abuse Syndrome, courtesy of the Justice Network. This is just one example.

Two years ago I launched the Justice Network with the domain name "YouSue.org". This namewas chosen in the spirit of YouTube, the video-sharing website that empowered ordinary peopleto produce and share video. The official Justice Network Internet address is now NoSue.org.This reflects the sad truth that for most Americans the justice system is broken, just a parody ofjustice. My advice is to avoid American courts. Your life, health and wealth is at risk.

XIII. Mr. Castagliuolo’s Personal Insults and False Accusations Related to Disability

16. Mr. Castagliuolo’s response of August 30, 2012 makes a number of gratuitous personalinsults and false accusations against me related to disability. I deny Mr. Castagliuolo’s assertions,and suggest this is further evidence of misconduct. According to his August 30, 2012 response,Mr. Castagliuolo’s false accusations go beyond the scope of this Bar inquiry. Castagliuoloindicated that he sent a copy of his Bar response to the Office of the Inspector General, SocialSecurity Disability Administration. Social Security disability is my only source of income, and Mr.

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel September 14, 2012 Re: Eugene P Castagliuolo; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D) Page - 16

Castagliuolo is wrongfully attempting to interfere with my benefits through the Bar complaint process. In my view Castagliuolo' s conduct is a violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4{d) "A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowing:y, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants ...on any basis, including, but not limited to ... disability ....".

I may file a separate Bar complaint against Mr. Castagliuolo for misconduct related to my disability and his attempt to disrupt my benefits through a Bar complaint response. Please advise.

In evaluating my disability and ability to work, consider what U.S. District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges wrote about my COlnplaint in 5: 10-cv-503, in Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) Feb-27-12:

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint...conslsts of 39 pages of rambling, largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).... Plaintiffhas'not alleged any intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction. (relevant portion)

Also, the Supreme Court ofF!orida denied/dismissed my petition in case SCII-1622 by Order March 12, 2012, and held (relevant portion) "To the extent the petitioner seeks any additional relief, the petition is dismissed as facially insufficient." I basically agreed in my Conclusion, ~71:

This inadequate, flawed petition is the best I can do today under the burden of mental illness and disability. .If I had another couple weeks this petition could be improved. It took a long time for me to figure out a strategy. In a whale of a case like this I spent considerable time tlli~king about how to take the first bite. (relevant portion)

One problem that cause so mach delay 14 was my depression over Mr. Castagliuolo's betrayal, and how to present his betrayal to the Court. I finally decided and m3de January 6, 2012 an affidavit of Mr. Castagliuolo'~ representation which consolidated ari enormous amount of evidence into a usable docum'ent. After the Court's decision on March 12, 2012, I moved for reconsideration March 19, 2012 on a single issue, to rescind the walk-away settlement, citing Mr. Rodems improper representation of his law firm and law partner against me, a former client in a "substantially related" matter, with five pages of evidence, case "law and Bar Rules showing that Rodems should have been disqualified as counsel April 25, 2006. On March 22, 2012 I filed an addendum to include things forgotten in my motion for reconsideration. All this shows that my disability affects my abil~y to work, and impeaches Mr. Castagliuolo's disability diatribe.

Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this rebuttal is available upon request. Under penalties 0J4f.I declare ~hat the for~going facts are true, correct and complete. Thank you. perj~~,

Sincerely,· . Neil J. Gil spie, 2 W 11)th oop, Ocala, Florida 34481 . Enclosures, ExhibIts 1-9; cc: Eugene Castagliuolo via UPS, tracking no. lZ64589FP290808202.

..

14 The Florida Supreme Court gnlnt~"d me leave to file the petition August 22, 2011; I obtained several time extensions and filed the petition January 9, 2012.

The Law Offices of

Robert W. Bauer, P.A. 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E, Gainesville, FL 32609

www.bauerlegal.com

Phone: Fax:

(352)375.5960 (352)337.2518

August 24, 2012

Mr. Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 11 5th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Re: Case # 05-CA-007205 - 060703

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

I am in receipt of your August 17, 2012 letter requesting your file. Mr. Rodem's release dated June 21,2011 does not have any legal effect on the amount of money that is owed to this finn. Further, it does not bind this finn in any way. I does bind you - but not us.

We continue to exercise our charging lien. If you wish to contact me at the number listed above I would be happy to discuss resolving the lien in manner that is acceptable to all parties.

Robert W. Bauer, Esq.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

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

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants.

____________________________________/

RESPONSE TO “PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR SET

ASIDE MR. RODEMS’ NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AND MOTION

FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE” [DKT 33]

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan

Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. Dkt 32, Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the

Assignees moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt 32.

Gillespie now moves this Court to set aside the settlement agreement reached wherein he

assigned the claims in this action to Assignees. Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion,

and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract -- the

settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.1

1 Notwithstanding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gillespie’s recitation of the

events surrounding the settlement are belied by the record. The settlement agreement was signed

by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie

stated to his attorney, “I’ll defer to your judgment on this.” Gillespie’s attorney stated, “I’ve

already given you judgment in private, and I’ll give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is

an agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest.” (Exhibit 1). Gillespie

now claims that he signed under duress, lacked informed consent, and asserts other reasons it

should be “set aside,” none of which are supported by the record of the settlement conference.

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1350

2

9

1 photograph references or other references to

2 his -- him or his firm or his partners, he

3 wants down. I don't know how he can make it

4 much more simpler than that.

5 MR. RODEMS: And I'm not looking for a

6 situation -- I'm not looking for a situation

7 to invent a way to sue you again. I'm looking

8 for a way for you to go on with your life and

9 me and my partners to go on with our life.

10 That's all I'm looking for. So we can make

11 hand changes to that document, but what I'm

12 not willing to do is to delay this anymore.

13 This needs to be done.

14 MR. GILLESPIE: I'll defer to your

15 judgment on this.

16 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: I've already given

17 you judgment in private, and I'll give it to

18 you on the record. I think this is -- this is

19 an agreement you want to enter into, and I

20 think this is in your best interest.

21 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, will you then see

22 that whatever changes need to be made are

23 made?

24 MR. RODEMS: No, I'm ready to sign it

25 right now.

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40-1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID 1360

3

Neil Gillespie

From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:51 PMSubject: Re: communication

Page 1 of 3

9/11/2012

Dear Mr. Gillespie: Under no circumstances will I be refunding any fee paid to me by you on Friday, June 3, 2011. In that you have discharged me as your attorney, please do not contact me again by any manner whatsoever except through counsel. Should you insist in contacting me again without the assistance of counsel, I shall immediately report your contact to law enforcement and I shall prosecute you to the full extent of the criminal law. I'm a former prosecutor, so If you think I'm bluffing, please try me. YOU HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED. CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. Eugene P. Castagliuolo 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 Thu, 6/9/11, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> Subject: Re: communication To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 9, 2011, 12:44 PM Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A. 2451 McMullen Booth Road Clearwater, Florida 33759

4

Neil Gillespie

From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:16 PMSubject: Re: communication

Page 1 of 3

9/11/2012

Neil, I do NOT want to do battle with you, I do NOT battle with my clients. In 23+ years of doing this, I have had maybe 3 client complaints, and I prevailed on all 3 because all 3 were found to be groundless. As I told you when you hired me, I pride myself on getting along with my clients. But your manner is very hard to take. You are obsessed with this matter and you expect me to share your obsession. Unfortunately, I cannot, because to do so would mean that I have lost my objectivity, and if I lose my objectivity, I will not be serving your best interests. I want to get this guy off your back, but as you know well by now, the wheels of justice move slowly. What's more, Rodems has not even extended me the professional courtesy of returning my telephone calls. So if you want me to help you, we'll have to do it another way. But it all starts with obtaining a copy of that writ. It's totally your call, but there will be no refund whatsoever of any monies paid. Furthermore, I invite you to reply to this e-mail if you do so in a civil, professional manner. Thank you. 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 Thu, 6/9/11, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> Subject: Re: communication To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 9, 2011, 12:44 PM

5

Neil Gillespie

From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:46 PMSubject: 13th Circuit Court Case # 05-CA-007205 (Second Request)

Page 1 of 1

9/11/2012

Dear Mr. Rodems: I telephoned and e-mailed you on June 6, 2011 regarding the above-specified case. I also spoke with your paralegal, Susan, on that same date, and again approximately 45 minutes ago. I have not yet had the pleasure of your response. Perhaps I can make my request a lot more simple: I am requesting a copy of the writ which apparently was docketed on June 1, 2011 (Mr. Gillespie has not received a copy of same). If you or your assistant would be so kind so as to attach a copy to an e-mail and shoot it over to me I would be most appreciative. I am looking forward to your response. Thank you............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.

6

Neil Gillespie

From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:46 PMSubject: Re: your call earlier

Page 1 of 2

7/19/2011

"I’ve made my peace with the lord. I’m 55 years-old but feel like 85. I’m at the end of 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.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 Tue, 6/14/11, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> 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

NEIL J GILLESPIE 8092 SW 115TH LOOP OCALA, FL 34481

ASSIGNMENT OF UNLIQUIDATED LAWSUIT PROCEEDS

Neil J. Gillespie (hereinafter "Assignor") assigns and transfers to Penelope M. Gillespie (hereinafter "Assignee"), for her use and benefit, a security interest in all rights of Neil J. Gillespie to receive any proceeds in the case of Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Hillsborough County Circuit Court Case Number 05-CA-7205. The cause of action itself is retained by Neil J. Gillespie and only the right to the litigation proceeds is hereby assigned. Neil J. Gillespie retains the right of action and retains complete control over the handling and the management of the lawsuit, including the right to make any and all decisions regarding the lawsuit and any decisions regarding settlement of the lawsuit.

DATED this_........ __I......rl--7Y day of November, 2008.

A!M... k2 11, ~~ DATE

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19.- day of November, 2008, by Neil J. Gillespe, who is personally known..to me or has produced as identification.

1ks~f~~ t1 AL o..e.1LLld La t--J ~ Print, Type or Stamp Name of Notary

My Commission Expires: J v oe." ~ "I ~ II

.__ -._ •...• __ _ _ . DAVID R. ELlSPERMANN. CLERK Of COURT MARION COUNTY

DATE: 03/31/2009 11:58:27 AM

FILE #: 2009026691 OR BK 05177 PG 0547

RECORDING FEES 10.00

Book5177/Page547 CFN#2009026691 Page 1 of 1

8

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:41 AMSubject: communication

Page 1 of 1

7/31/2012

Eugene,

In response to your brief phone call this morning wherein you declined my usual practice of recording, in the alternative please communicate by email. You said you would call me on my cell phone, but I can’t hear well on a cell phone and limit its use to emergencies. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Neil Gillespie

9

Gillespie Rebuttal, Castagliuolo Response, Florida Bar Complaint, Sep-14-2012

Documents

united states

credit counseling

initial bar

social security

ryan christopher

general mutual

final summary

florida bar