Transcript Judge Isom 1.30pm Feb 05 2007

8/13/2019 Transcript Judge Isom 1.30pm Feb 05 2007

1/84

123

45679

101112131415161718192021

22232425

1

.C

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITOF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN ND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J . GILLESPIEP l a i n t i f f Case No.: 05-7205

-v s -Divis ion: HBARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.A Flor ida Corporat ion

Defendant ./

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE: HONOR BLE CLAUDIA R ISOMCircu i t JudgeTAKEN AT: In ChambersHil lsborough County Courthouse

Tampa Flor idaDATE & TIME: February 5 2007

Commencing a t 1:30 p.m.REPORTED BY: Denise L. Bradley RPRNotary Publ ic

[ORIGIN LISTENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDEDCOMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION

Ber ryh i l l & Assoc ia tes Inc .


2/84

123

4567

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425

2

APPEARANCES:

On beha l f o f the P l a i n t i f f :

NEIL J GILLESPIEPro se l i t i g a n t8092 115th LoopOcala , Flor ida 34481

On beha l f of the Defendant :RYAN HRISTOPHER RODEMS ESQUIREBarker , Rodems Cook, P.A.400 North Ashley Drive , S u i t e 2100Tampa, Fl o r i d a 33602

Ber ryh i l l Associa tes , Inc .


3/84

5

10

15

20

25

3

123

4

789

11121314

16171819

21

2324

P R O C E E D I N G STHE COURT: All r i gh t . On the record . Would

everybody plea se in t roduce themselves fo r t he record ,s t a r t i n g with our cour t repor t e r .

THE REPORTER: My name i s Denise Bradley withB e r ry h i l l Court Reporters .

THE COURT: Okay. And for p l a i n t i f f .MR GILLESPIE: My name i s Neil G i l l e s p i e . I m

appear ing pro se .THE COURT: Okay. And for defense .MR RODEMS: Ryan Chr i s topher Rodems here on

beha l f o f defendants Barker, Rodems and Cook, P.A. andWill iam J . Cook.

THE COURT: Okay. And we ve got severa l th ings .The f i r s t th ing i s p l a i n t i f f s motion fo r order ofp ro t e c t i o n . Is t ha t st ll pending? Th a t s notsomething we addressed the othe r day?

MR GILLESPIE: The f i r s t th ing , in the mostrecen t o rde r in the most recent schedu l ing was an orderto show cause why Mr. Rodems should not be he ld incontempt of cour t .

THE COURT: Okay.MR GILLESPIE: But before we ge t i n t o t ha t ,

Judge - THE COURT: Well, no, I m j u s t look ing a t the

Ber ryh i l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .


4/84

123456789

101112131415161718192021

22

2425

4

docket . So i s the motion fo r o rd e r o f p ro t e c t i o n , hast ha t been addressed o r i s t h a t -

MR GILLESPIE: I t has not been addressed .THE COURT: Okay. All r i g h t . So t h a t s st ll

pending. Motion to dismiss and s t r i k e . I s t h a t yourmotion, Mr. Rodems, to dismiss and s t r i k e o r i s t yourmotion?

MR GILLESPIE: T h a t s my motion.THE COURT: All r i g h t . And t h a t s st ll pending?MR GILLESPIE: Yes. Yes, Judge .THE COURT: And motion to compel , i s t h a t your

motion?MR GILLESPIE: I th ink we each have a motion to

compel discovery .MR RODEMS: I do not have one s e t fo r h ea r i n g

today, Judge.THE COURT: All r i g h t . Okay. And what was the

o ther motion you s a id t h a t you had?MR GILLESPIE: There i s a motion to - - a motion

fo r an order to show cause.THE COURT: Is t h a t your motion fo r an orde r to

show cause?MR GILLESPIE: Yes, ma am.THE COURT: Okay. Order to show cause .MR GILLESPIE: Then the re were two motions fo r



5/84

5

10

15

20

25

5

1 r econs idera t ion .2 THE COURT: Two motions fo r r eco n s id e r a t i o n .3 MR GILLESPIE: Recons idera t ion on

4 d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f Mr. Rodems fo r h i s p r i o rr ep r e s en t a t i o n o f me and r econs idera t ion o f a discovery

6 order .7 THE COURT: Motion to d i sq u a l i fy . All r i g h t . So

t h e y r e a l l your motions, cor rec t , t ha t w e r e doing9 today, Mr. Gi l l e sp ie?

MR GILLESPIE: Judge, no. I b e l i ev e the11 defendan t has two motions here .12 THE COURT: All r i gh t . What are your motions?13 MR RODEMS: I have a d e f en d an t s amended motion14 fo r sanc t ions pursuan t to Sec t ion 57.105. That had

p re v i o u s l y been s e t before Judge Nie lsen . And then the16 second one i s a motion for an orde r to show cause why17 p l a i n t i f f should not be held in contempt o f co u r t . And18 t h a t was a lso previous ly s e t in f ron t o f Judge Niel sen .19 What I d o n t have i s t h i s motion fo r o rde r o f

p ro t e c t i o n . I d o n t see t h a t p l a i n t i f f s motion fo r21 orde r o f pro tec t ion . I d o n t see t h a t l i s t e d .22 THE COURT: Well , I m j u s t read ing o f f o f the

docket . And t ha t was ac tu a l l y the f i r s t th ing t ha t had24 been typed on t he re was p l a i n t i f f s motion fo r o rde r of

pro tec t ion .



6/84


7/84

5

10

15

20

25

7

I

1234

6789

11121314

16171819

21

2324

MR RODEMS: I don t have any problem with t ha tone going forward. We l l see how fa r t get s .

THE COURT: Okay.MR GILLESPIE: And the re were two motions t ha t

sen t to chambers on Friday. One has to do with hi ssummary judgment motion. Mr. Rodems i s objec t ing to mysummary judgment motion because he says d i scovery i snot complete . However he has f i l e d hi s own motion forf i na l summary judgment and motion for judgment on thep lead ings . He did t h i s u n i l a t e r a l l y . Di dn t con tac tme about a hear ing on the 15th . So I am moving tocont inue tha t on the same bas i s t ha t he i s objec t ing tomy summary judgment.

MR RODEMS: That has not been n o t i c e d forhear ing today. And given the number t ha t we have Iwould sugges t tha t not be taken up un less a l l themotions tha t are no t i ced for today have been disposedof and my motions as well .

MR GILLESPIE: There s a l so a motion here t ha taddresses p l a i n t i f f s motion fo r o rder t o compel RyanChris topher Rodems to s top h is ha rass ing behavior . Andt ha t needs to be addressed as wel l .

MR RODEMS: That also i s not no t i ced for todayand I d i d n t receive t ha t un t i l Friday . I would aga insugges t tha t not be taken up unless every th ing e l s e i s



8/84

12345678

101112131415161718192021222324

8

disposed of .MR GILLESPIE: Judge, i s there a reason why Mr.

Rodems c a n t address me as Mr. Gi l l esp ie? Do we haveto go through an en t i r e hear ing for t ha t?

THE COURT: I m sorry . How were you address ingMr. Gil lesp ie?

MR RODEMS: In the chambers of course I wouldaddress him as Mr. Gi l l esp ie . I haven t addressed hima t a l l today. I v e addressed a l l of my comments toyou.

THE COURT: Okay, f ine .MR GILLESPIE: He s been address ing me as e i t he r

Neil or Neily .THE COURT: Today dur ing the hear ing?MR GILLESPIE: No, on Thursday out in the

hal lway. And the purpose of it because I v e w r i t t e n tohim about t h i s and reques t tha t he not do it, and it sj u s t for the purpose of annoyance and harassment . Inthe a l t e rna t ive , I d o n t know i f he perhaps i s sayingt ha t because maybe he has some a f f e c t ion he wants toshow to me. But I m not i n t e r e s t e d i n t ha t . I be l ieveh e s marr ied and I wish he would keep those commentsfor h i s wife.

MR RODEMS: I th ink my wife would ob jec t i f Ic a l l e d her Neil or Neily .

Berryh i l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .


9/84


10/84

5

10

15

20

25

10

10

3

4

6789

11121314

1 6171819

21

22L

24

MR GILLESPIE: Thank you.THE COURT: That s for fu ture r e f e r en ce . And

s ince I j u s t sa id t ha t I would not hold it ag a in s t

e i t h e r o f you i f you ve been us ing something l i kenicknames in the pas t .

Okay. So l e t s t r y to ge t th rough what was s e tfor today. And you sa id your orde r o f p ro t e c t i o n hasnow been incorpora ted in to an order to show cause .

MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.THE COURT: So by doing the orde r to show cause

we could check two of them o f f o f our list. So whyd o n t you proceed with t ha t one.

MR GILLESPIE: All r igh t , Judge.MR RODEMS: Your Honor, before we begin , I

ob jec t to some evidence t h a t Mr. G i l l e sp i e has f i l e d inconnec t ion with t h i s motion. I d l i k e to be heard ont ha t before the Court cons iders the admiss ion o f it.

MR GILLESPIE: And, Judge, be foreTHE COURT: In terms of t h i s being an ev iden t i a ry

hear ing , I guess I ll rese rve on your motion s ince it snonjury . You can ra i se the ob jec t ion whenever he seeksto in t roduce it in to evidence today.

MR RODEMS: Well, he f i l ed it with t h i s motion .So before he begins h is motion I d l i ke to i de n t i f y thei s sues and make sure the record i s c l ea r .



11/84

5

10

15

20

25

11

123

4

6789

1112

14

16171819

21

222324

THE COURT: I m going to ask t h a t you wai t u n t i lhe o f f e r s something in to ev idence .

MR RODEMS: Okay.THE COURT: Go ahead, s i r .MR GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge . And b e fo re we

s t a r t on t h a t , I want the Cour t to know and it can beon the record t h a t I m appear ing today withou t alawyer , not by choice but because I v e not been ab le tof ind a lawyer wil l ing to t ake t h i s case . Also, Mr.Rodems fo rced t h i s hear ing today.

Back in December 2006 when I t o l d him I wanted towai t u n t i l I re t a ined counse l he became very angry . Hel e f t a r an t ing phone message for me on December 13th .He fo l lowed up t h a t ran t ing phone message with af ive-page d i a t r i b e of the same da te .

THE COURT: Okay. Now hold the phone. We redoing the order to show cause. This i s aboutschedu l ing which would have been a f t e r , I assume a f t e ryou f i l e d the order to show cause .

MR GILLESPIE: Yes.THE COURT: So let s j u s t do the orde r to show

cause now. And of course, had you wanted to t ake t h i so f f o f my docket , you could have. You cou ld havement ioned t h a t when you were here l a s t week t h a t youwanted to cance l t o d a y s hear ing s ince we have I th ink



12/84

5

10

15

20

25

12

1

34

6789

11121314

16171819

21

223

24

the en t i r e af te rnoon s e t as ide for t h i s case .So let s j u s t do what was se t . And in terms of

whether or not you t r i e d to cancel it and counse lobjec t ed , we re here now. Le t s t r y to use the t ime ina va luable way.

MR GILLESPIE: And I unders tand t ha t , Judge.The problem though has to do with two t h rea t s Mr.Rodems has made r e l a t i ve to these motions . On theorde r to show cause, t h i s involves a t ape recording ofh is conversa t ion . Mr. Rodems has th rea tened me with ac r imina l prosecut ion on t h a t for a fe lony cr ime. Andwith h i s countercla im for l i be l , t ha t counte rc la im a lsocon ta ins accusa t ions of c r imina l cr imina laccusa t ions of ex to r t ion .

So be ing t ha t two of h i s pos i t ions on t he sema t t e r s involve cr imina l ma t t e r s , I th ink it s in myb e s t i n t e r e s t to be represented by an a t to rney . Andt h a t s my concern on those two i t ems .

MR RODEMS: Your Honor, we ve never ob jec ted toMr. Gi l l esp ie being represented by an a t to rney .

MR GILLESPIE: Furthermore, s i r , if I could j u s tcon t inue because I wasn t f in i shed . Furthermore , as Ii nd ica ted on Thursday, Judge, I was still wai t ing tohear from severa l a t torneys whether they were going tor ep resen t me or not .



13/84

13

12345678

9

101112131415

161718192021

222324

In fac t , on Friday the f i rm of Morgan and Morganwhom I contac ted severa l t imes, and they still had notgo t ten back to me. I faxed them and reques t ed they

respond one way or the o ther . I faxed a copy to theCourt and also to Mr. Rodems. I v e never heard fromthem. So t he y r e not here . I ll j u s t t ake t h a t tomean t ha t t he y r e not rep re sen t ing me.

Another a t to rney t ha t - MR RODEMS: Your Honor, I o b jec t t o him going

through in the presence of the Court while we have al im i t ed amount of t ime a l l of these a t to rneys t ha t h e scon tac t ed . It s complete ly i r r e l e va n t to the motiont h a t s on the f loor a t t h i s po in t which i s h i s motionfor an order to show cause .

THE COURT: All r igh t , noted. Si r , if you want

to cance l your motion for o rder to show cause whyopposing counsel should not be he ld in i n d i r e c t c iv i lcontempt or i nd i r e c t cr imina l contempt, if you want tocance l your hear ing o r withdraw your motion, let s t a lkabout t ha t . I understand t ha t you ve been unable toge t s ubs t i t u t e counsel . But I would assume the orde rto show cause i s a nc i l l a ry to the under ly ing cause o fac t ion . So if it s j u s t something t ha t i s notnecessary to move t h i s case forward in terms o fr eso lv ing the under ly ing cause of ac t ion , then you

Ber ryh i l l & Assoc ia tes , Inc.


14/84

5

10

15

20

25

14

123

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21222324

could withdraw it or you could s t r ike it if you don twant to proceed on t ha t a t th i s t ime.

MR GILLESPIE: Well, r e a l l y t ha t order to show

cause i s pre t t y important because we re here todayalmost every i tem up for cons idera t ion i s because Mr.Rodems l i ed to Judge Nielsen and Judge Nie lsen had torecuse himself on h is own motion. So in a way theserecons idera t ions are here today because o f Mr. Rodemsly ing to the cour t , f i l i ng a fa l se ve r i f i ca t ion .

And also it s my unders tanding t ha t on t h i s orderto show cause tha t tha t i s something t ha t the s t a t ea t to rney can take up as wel l . It s way out o f myknowledge base and I have to de fe r to the Court . Buti s n t t ha t a pos s ib i l i t y?

THE COURT In terms of you f i l i n g a compla in twith the s t a t e a t to rne y s o f f i c e for t h e i rcons idera t ion , or Mr. Rodems f i l i n g a complaint wi ththe s t a t e a t to rne y s o f f i c e for t he i r cons idera t ion?

MR GILLESPIE: No, for you to t ake the no t i ceTHE COURT No, I do not f i l e compla in t s with the

s t a t e a t to rne y s o f f i c e . They have an in take d iv i s ion .I f you fee l t ha t you ve been the v ic t im o f amisdemeanor, you go to the s t a t e a t to r n e y s o f f i ce andf i l e a complaint . I f you fee l you ve been the v ic t imo f a felony, then you ca l l the law enforcement agency

Berryhi l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .


15/84

5

10

15

20

25

15

for the area in which you are loca ted where the crimea l l eged ly occurred and you f i l e a repor t with law

32

enforcement . And i f they th ink it has mer i t then they4 send it to the s t a t e a t to rne y ' s of f i ce .

But I do not process cr iminal compla in ts . The6 only th ings tha t I process i s i f I f ind out t ha t7 somebody has been the vic t im of c h i ld abuse then I have8 to repor t t ha t to the ch i ld abuse r eg i s t ry .9 MR GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. I t was my

unders tand ing t ha t on a cr imina l contempt t ha t t he re11 was a way tha t the s t a t e a t to rney could s t e p in .12 THE COURT: That ' s t rue . I have heard of - - i f I13 chose to proceed with a cr imina l proceed ing I could14 guess t heo re t i ca l l y t r a ns f e r the matter to county

cour t , assuming it was up to and inc lud ing f ive months16 and 29 days of i nca rce ra t ion for the punishment . But17 i f you wanted to f i l e a cr imina l complaint , t ha t was18 the process I was re fe r r ing to e a r l i e r .19 Okay. We're ge t t ing bogged down. What was the

na tu re of your cr imina l contempt?21 MR GILLESPIE: Well, it has to do with Mr.

Rodems' perjury before Judge Nie lsen . It s r ea l ly se t23 in motion a l l of the problems t ha t t h i s case has had24 s ince March the 6th of 2006. Had he not made t ha t

fa l se swearing he would not have pre jud iced the judge


I


16/84

123

456789

10111213141516171819202122

2425

16

aga ins t me and the judge would not have recused h imse l fand t h i s case would have been f a r moved a long now.

But t h i s law f i rm has a - - i s noto r ious fo r thesekinds of s tun t s , whether it s throwing cof fee insomeone s face in a media t ion or accus ing the o thers ide o f ex to r t ion , which they have done with me, t h i si s how they proceed. And once they have a l l of theseex t raneous charges up on the board , then they make ano f f e r to s e t t l e . And they say, wel l , w e l l drop t h i sif you drop t ha t . And t ha t to me i s not the p ra c t i c eo f law and I d o n t know what it i s .

But I m not capable o f prosecu t ing any th ing . I mbare ly ab le to get mysel f here today . So I th ink t h i si s something t ha t the s t a t e a t to rney g iven the g r av i t yo f t h i s and I brought some case law to show theimportance o f t r u th in these p roceed ings . I m going tohand a copy to Mr. Rodems, one fo r t he Court . And It h ink it s impor tan t t ha t we go through here becauseMr. Rodems on the record d i d n t unders tand why it wasimportant to be t r u th fu l in co u r t .

And Flor ida case law p ro h i b i t s lawyers frompresen t ing fa l se tes t imony o r evidence. And it s t a t e st ha t and it s c i t e d the re in e t t ~ e vs W i ~ ~ i a m sAnd it s t a t e s t h a t p e r p e t r a t i o n of a f raud i s ou ts idethe scope o f profe ss iona l duty o f an a t to rney and no



17/84

17

12

4567

89

101112131415

161718192021

22

24

p r i v i l e g e a t t aches to communicat ion between an a t to rneyand a c l i e n t with re spec t to t r an s ac t i o n s c o n s t i t u t i n gthe making o f a f a l se cla im fo r t h e p e rp e t r a t i o n o f a

f raud . And t h a t s what we have here .Mr Rodems made a f a l se v e r i f i c a t i o n to t h e judge

t e l l i n g Judge Nielsen t h a t t he re was going to be ana t t a c k in hi s chambers and t ha t t h e judge was going tobe in ju red . And a l l o f t ha t was nonsense because itwasn t what I s a i d and the tape r eco rd i n g o f t h eco n v e r s a t i o n proved t h a t s not what happened

And it goes on in Dodd vs The ~ o r i d Barreminds us the cour t s are dependent on members o f theb a r to p re s e n t t rue f ac t s o f each cause to en ab le t h ejudge or ju ry to decide the f ac t s to which the law maybe app l i ed . When an a t to rney a l lows f a l s e t e s t imo n yth e a t t o rn e y makes it impossible fo r the s c a l e s o fj u s t i c e to ba lance .

And t h a t s what we have h e re . It s r e a l l yimposs ib le to proceed wi th Mr Rodems because h e sdi shones t . He s l i e d to the co u r t and h e s l i e d to thecour t under oath , under the pena l ty o f p e r ju r y .

I m going to give you ano ther example I m goingto give Mr Rodems t h i s i s a l e t t e r he wrote toJudge Niel sen . I ll give him a copy o f t ha t . I llgive the Cour t a copy o f t h i s and a l s o a t r a n s c r i p t .

B e r ry h i l l Associa tes , Inc .


18/84

5

10

15

20

25

18

123

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21

2324

Here i s a t r ansc r i p t , s i r . And t h i s i s one fo r you,Judge. And t h i s i s Mr. Rodems October 12th, 2006l e t t e r to Judge Nielsen.

MR RODEMS: Your Honor, I ob jec t to the l e t t e rto Judge Nie lsen and t h i s t e lephone t r a n s c r i p t becauset h e y r e i r r e l e va n t .

MR GILLESPIE: Well, they are re l evan t becausethey show t ha t he was dishones t .

THE COURT: Okay. And i s the motion fo r order toshow cause have you now decided t ha t you want toproceed on your motion for order to show cause i n s t eadof f i l i n g cr imina l charges regarding the a l l egedper jury? Because it appears now t ha t you are o f fe r i n gevidence in suppor t of the order to show cause .

MR GILLESPIE: Well, t h i s i s evidence apar t fromt ha t j u s t with Mr. Rodems propens i ty to be dishones tj u s t as a mat te r of course in t h i s l awsu i t . Here hewrote to Judge Nielsen and sa id t ha t he t ransmi t t ed acopy o f an order to me and asked for my comment andhave not heard from him regard ing t h i s proposed order .This i s on the 12th. The day be fore we had a longconversa t ion about t h i s mat te r . And t h a t s what i smemorial ized in the t r ansc r i p t .

So if he s not honest then it s going to beimpossible in my view to go forward with a dishones t

Ber ryh i l l & Assoc ia tes , Inc .

I


19/84

19

123

4567

9

101112131415

161718192021

222324

a t t o r n ey because ev e ry th in g in t h i s case h inges onhones ty from the o t h e r s ide . As t h i s case law remindsus, the cour t s are dependent on members o f the bar to

p re s e n t t rue fac t s in each cause to enab le j udge andj u r y to decide the f ac t s to which the law may beapp l i ed .

In my view Mr. Rodems needs to be d i s q u a l i f i e dfo r h is l ack o f candor and the o t h e r r ea s o n s . And oncehe i s d i sq u a l i f i e d and we get an hones t a t t o r n ey inh ere t h en maybe w e l l be ab le to proceed on some o ft h es e othe r ma t t e r s .

THE COURT: Okay. So now w e re moving from theo rd e r to show cause to your motion fo r r eco n s id e r a t i o n .Did you have - - had not Judge N ie l sen d en ied t h e motionto d i s q u a l i f y ? And you s a i d e a r l i e r t h i s a f t e rn o o n

t h a t you had two motions fo r r econs idera t ion , one wasthe motion to d i s q u a l i f y and the o t h e r one had to dowith the d i scovery motion.

MR GILLESPIE: Yes Judge.THE COURT: Okay. So did Judge N i e l s en do a

w r i t t en order denying t h e motion fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ?

I mean - - yeah denying the motion fo r recons ide ra t ion?MR GILLESPIE: No Judge.MR RODEMS: The two motions fo r r econs idera t ion

were f i l e d a f t e r Judge Nielsen recused h i ms e l f o f hi s



20/84

20

1

3

456789

101112131415

161718192021

222324

own vo l i t i on .THE COURT: Okay. So those a l l r i g h t . I m a

v ery I guess what I would c a l l l i ne a r person . Yous t a r t e d out on the o rder to show cause. You moved tosay ing t ha t you were going to f i l e c r imina l chargesi n s t ead of the o rder to show cause .

MR GILLESPIE: J u d g e - THE COURT: And now you re t a l k i n g about the

motion fo r recons ide ra t ion . And I gave you theoppor tun i ty to s t r i k e the hear ing today on the o rd e r toshow cause because you s a i d t h a t y o u r e still hoping tobe ab le to f ind an a t to rney . And I h a v e n t h ea rd a yeao r a nay from you. So do you want to proceed with theorde r to show cause today or do you want to s t r i k et h a t p a r t of your not i ce of hear ing in the hopes t h a ty o u l l ge t l ega l counsel?

MR GILLESPIE: Thank you Judge . And i itplea se s the Court I d o n t th ink t h a t I want to f i l ec r imina l charges aga ins t Mr. Rodems. I d o n t b e l i e v et h a t t h a t s my ob l iga t ion . I b e l i e v e t h a t t h a t ssomething for the s t a t e a t to rney to cons ide r , and hecan do t h a t from t h i s motion for an orde r to showcause. And I d o n t see why I need to be invo lved int ha t . I t would seem to me t ha t the Court shou ld haveenough i n t e r e s t in pe r ju ry before a judge t ha t l ed to



21/84

21

the j udge s recusal , tha t the Court would f ind t ha timpor tan t enough to t ake on t he i r own motion o r t h e i rown i n i t i a t i ve .

THE COURT: You d o n t unders tand the concept of acomplaining witness tha t the s t a t e a t t o r n e y s of f i c ehas an in take div is ion , and people a t to rneys reviewcompla in t s to see i f they have prosecutor ia l meri t?

MR GILLESPIE: I understand tha t , Judge butt h i s i s a d i f f e r e n t i ssue . This i s a contempt before a

judge during the proceedings. This i s n t a crimecommitted on the s t r e e t .

THE COURT: Okay. So in terms o f the order toshow cause I have the power to punish i n d i r e c tcr iminal contempt. I mean what you re saying i sokay. I have the inherent au thor i ty of the cour t to

punish i nd i r e c t cr imina l contempt i nd i rec t cr imina lcontempt d i rec t contempt tha t occurs in f ront me whichwould not be the case here because y o u r e saying t ha tt r e l a t e s to t h i s l e t t e r t ha t was w r i t t e n to Judge

Nie lsen . But t h a t s separa te and apar t from thecr iminal j u s t i ce system.

MR GILLESPIE: I understand tha t , somewhatJudge.

THE COURT: Okay. So i f you want to proceed wi thyour orde r to show cause and reques t cr iminal



22/84

22

123

6

7

89

101112131415

161718192021

22232425

sanc t ions , you can do t ha t in t h i s d iv i s ion . You d o n thave to have a separa te cause of ac t ion f i l e d wi th inc r imina l cour t .

MR GILLESPIE: And, Judge, i I were an a t to rneyand knew what I was doing I would do tha t , but t h a t sthe problem here . I m not an a t to rney . And I m notsure of the procedure . And I d o n t want to missdo t t ing an I and having t h i s th ing not be t akense r ious ly . Th a t s why I f e l t t ha t it was impor tan t tobe represented by an a t to rney and t h a t s what I'mt r y i n g to do.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, s ince I have severa lth ings scheduled for today, we re going to pass on theorder to show cause and move on to your motion forr econs idera t ion of Judge Nie l sen s den ia l of yourmotion to d i squa l i fy Mr. Rodems from rep resen t ing Iguess himse l f , h i s law f i rm and Mr. Cook, i s t ha tcor rec t?

MR RODEMS: Actual ly , Judge - THE COURT: All of those e n t i t i e s ?MR RODEMS: I only r ep resen t Mr. Cook and the

law f i rm. I m not a par ty to these proceedings .THE COURT: Oh, you only r ep resen t the law f i rm

and Mr. Cook. Is Mr. Cook still with your f i rm?MR RODEMS: Yes, ma am.



23/84

5

10

15

20

25

23

12J

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21?_

JL

24

THE COURT: Okay.MR RODEMS: He s my law p a r t n e r .THE COURT: Okay. So, a l l r i g h t , on your motion

fo r recons ide ra t ion , why should t h i s Court recons ide ro r rehea r the motion to d i squa l i fy counse l?

MR GILLESPIE: Judge, defense counse l has ad i r e c t c o n f l i c t of i n t e re s t with me, the p l a i n t i f f .And t h i s l awsu i t t u rns on a con t rac t which i s a t t achedto the complain t as Exhib i t 1. The c o n t r a c t t h e r e s

some h i s t o ry to the con t rac t because t was s ignedunder the prev ious law f i rm, Alper t , Barker , Rodems andCook And then t became Barker , Rodems & Cook andthey took the assignment of the c o n t r a c t .

They never s igned a new co n t r ac t and t h e r e s awhole mat te r about t ha t . But with regard to the re

i s a con t rac t t h a t forms the b as i s o f t h i s d i s p u t e .And t h a t con t rac t was dra f ted by the de fendan t s . Andnow t he y r e t ry ing to disavow t h a t same c on t r a c t . Andt h a t s proh ib i ted by the ru les . As a mat te r o f fac t , Ibrought the Flor ida S ta tu t e s Annotated and they di scusst ha t . And t h a t s under Rule 4-1 .9 , c o n f l i c t o fi n t e res t - fo rmer c l i en t .

I t says here , thus , a lawyer canno t proper ly seekto re sc ind on beha l f o f the new c l i e n t a c o n t r a c td ra f t ed on beha l f of the former c l i e n t .

Ber ryh i l l & Associa tes , Inc .


24/84

5

10

15

20

25

24

123

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21L L

24

And t h a t s what t he y r e doing here . They dra f t eda con t rac t on my behalf and now t h e y r e seeking toresc ind tha t con t rac t on behalf of t h e i r new c l i en t ,which i s themselves and Mr. Cook.

Also going in to the scope o f the mat te r , when alawyer has been d i rec t l y involved in a s p e c i f i ct r ansac t ion - - and the spec i f ic t r ansac t ion i s t h i scon t rac t - - subsequent rep resen ta t ion of o ther c l i en t swith mater i a l ly adverse i n t e r e s t i s c l e a r l y proh ib i t ed .

So a t one point they represented my i n t e r e s td i r e c t l y on the spec i f ic con t rac t . Now t h e y r e t ak inga mate r ia l ly adverse pos i t ion . And t h i s i s proh ib i t edaccording to Rule 4-1 .9 .

THE COURT: Okay. So they r ep resen ted you in al ega l t ransac t ion where you had a wri t ten employmentagreement with them i s tha t cor rec t?

MR GILLESPIE: Yes Judge.THE COURT: All r i gh t . So what was the scope of

the employment? What were they supposed to do for you?MR GILLESPIE: Well the con t rac t was a

cont ingent fee agreement.THE COURT: Okay. But what was the scope? What

were they supposed to do for you under t h i s cont ingentfee agreement?

MR GILLESPIE: Under the cont ingent fee



25/84

25

1 agreement they were rep re sen t ing the i n t e r e s t - it was2 a l awsu i t aga ins t the Amscot Corpora t ion . But t h i s

r ep r e s en t a t i o n con t rac t p r imar i ly de a l t with the4 r e l a t i o n sh i p between mysel f and the l awyers and how any5 proceeds were going to be divided.6 THE COURT: All r i gh t . So u l t i m a t e l y did they7 s e t t l e your l awsu i t o r d id you go to t r i a l ?8 MR GILLESPIE: There was a s e t t l emen t , Judge.9 THE COURT: T h ere s a se t t l emen t , okay. And did

10 you s ign a r e lease and a c los ing s ta tement?11 MR GILLESPIE: Yes and they were subsequen t ly12 found to be f raudulent .13 THE COURT: Okay. So i s your law f i rm holding14 se t t l emen t proceeds t ha t have not been d i s t r i bu t e d?15 MR RODEMS: No, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Okay. So did your law f i rm under take17 r ep r e s en t a t i o n of Mr. Gil lesp ie a f t e r Mr. Alpe r t had to18 r e t i r e from p r ac t i c in g law?19 MR RODEMS: No. Actua l ly what happened i I20 can g ive you j u s t a b r i e f h i s to ry , me Chr i s Walker and21 Bi l l Cook l e f t the law f i rm t ha t was then known as

Alper t , Barker Rodems Farant ino and Cook in 2000.23 When we l e f t and s t a r t e d our new f i rm Jonathan,24 Mr. Alper t , and a l l of us agreed t ha t we would con tac t

our c l i e n t s and see which ones wanted to s t a y with



26/84

26

12

4c

67

9

1011121

1415

161718192021

22L

2425

Mr. A lp e r t s remaining firm, which was going to berenamed Alper t and Farant ino, and which ones wanted toj o in Barker, Rodems and Cook. Mr. G i l l e s p i e e lec ted togo with Barker, Rodems and Cook.

Then the case proceeded to se t t l emen t i f I r eca l lc or r e c t ly . And Mr. Gi l l esp ie s igned the c los ings ta tement and a re l ease and rece ived a l l o f his money.

THE COURT: And the money was disbursed?MR RODEMS: Yes.THE COURT: So i s th i s lawsui t then a l ega l

malpract ice ac t ion?MR RODEMS: No. He s claiming t ha t he went back

and looked a t it agaln and f igured out a d i f f e ren t wayt ha t he th inks he should have been paid ins tead of whathe agreed to in the clos ing s ta tement and what heagreed to in the re lease and what he d i r e c t e d us to do.

MR GILLESPIE: I would ob jec t to t ha t .THE COURT: So t h i s i s then a cont rac t ac t ion .MR GILLESPIE: It s a con t rac t ac t ion .MR RODEMS: He s al leg ing t ha t we breached our

contingency fee con t rac t . Tha t s what h e s a l leg ing .The prev ious lawsui t agains t Arnscot involved the Truthin Lending Act , the federa l s t a tu t e deal ing withrequirements with lenders .

THE COURT: Okay.



27/84

27

12

456789

101112131415

161718192021

222324

MR GILLESPIE: Your HonorTHE COURT: So in terms o f t h i s l awsu i t then your

f i rm would be witnesses in the case . So did JudgeNiel sen -

MR RODEMS: Oh, yeah he cons idered a l l o f t ha t ,Judge.

THE COURT: Did he cons ider the fac t t ha t youguys would be witnesses in the case?

MR GILLESPIE: I f t plea se the Cour t Judge .MR RODEMS: May I f in i sh , Your Honor. We had a

hear ing i n f ron t o f Judge Niel sen . And I a t t a ch ed thet r a n s c r i p t of t ha t hear ing to a l e t t e r and s en t t ha t toyou. Every th ing t h a t Mr. G i l l e s p i e has j u s trep re sen ted to you was fu l ly addressed in f ron t o fJudge Niel sen .

MR GILLESPIE: I t was not .MR RODEMS: We went through the 4-1 .9 argument .

We went through the f ac t t ha t Mr. G i l l e sp i e s a i d Imight be a witness . We went through a l l o f t ha t . Anda f t e r having heard a l l o f t ha t , Judge Nie lsen den iedh is motion to d i s q u a l i f y . And t h a t s why I f i l e d thet r a n s c r i p t because t h i s motion fo r r eco n s id e r a t i o n i snothing more than him t ry ing to ge t a second b i t e a tthe app le a f t e r a l l o f the repugnant t h ings he sa idabout Judge Nielsen in h is motion to d i s qua l i f y .



28/84

5

10

15

20

25

28

1

3

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21

2324

MR GILLESPIE: I object to t ha t . This man l i edbe fore Judge Nielsen. I d i d n ' t say anything repugnantabout the judge.

MR RODEMS: Well, t he re ' s l e t t e r s in the cour tf i l e

MR GILLESPIE: Your Honor, if it p leases theCourt, I can help the Court unders tand what Mr. Rodemsi s t r y i n g how he ' s t ry ing to mis lead the Court now.

THE COURT: No. I j u s t want to know in terms ofyour motion for recons idera t ion what ' s new o r d i f fe ren tor add i t iona l case law.

MR GILLESPIE: What 's d i f fe ren t hereTHE COURT: Why should it be recons idered .MR GILLESPIE: What 's d i f fe ren t here , Judge,

tu rns on and you have put your hand r i gh t on it Weare t a lk ing about the con t rac t between myself and thedefendant . That i s the i s sue in hand.

What Judge Nielsen did and it was a verys l e i gh t of hand accompanied by the defendants here .They turned it in to t h i s was not the same mat te rbecause it was a mat te r of t r u th in l ending law. Anddon ' t know whether tha t was i n t e n t iona l by him o r hewas j u s t misled by Mr. Rodems. The i s sue a t hand i snot a t ru t h in lending cla im. The mat te r a t hand i sthe representa t ion cont rac t .


I


29/84

123

456789

101112131415161718192021

22

2425

29

Real ly the re a re two p a r a l l e l i s sues runn ing inthe r e p re s e n t a t i o n , the p r i o r r ep r e s en t a t i o n . That wast h e i r r ep r e s en t a t i o n o f me on t r u t h in l end ing andt h e i r r e p re s e n t a t i o n o f me between the law f i rm andmysel f . And t h a t s what w e re t a l k i n g abou t . That wasnot cons idered l a s t t ime. What was co n s i d e red l a s tt ime was whether the t r u t h in l end ing c la im was thei s s u e . And it c l e a r l y wasn t .

THE COURT: Okay. All r i gh t .

MR GILLESPIE: And I t h i n k the r eco rd shows t h a tif you look a t it I m look ing for t h e t r a n s c r i p t ,Judge t h a t was prov ided by Mr. Rodems.

THE COURT: Okay. All r i gh t . Looking a t t h a tt r a n s c r i p t on page t en t a lks about t ime l in e s s , t h a tunder the motion to d i s q u a l i f y I guess t h e y r e say ingt h a t you f i l e d t h e motion s ix to e ig h t months a f t e r thel i t i g a t i o n began.

MR GILLESPIE: Actua l ly , the first speak ingmotion I made was to have him d i s q u a l i f i e d . We d o n thave a t r a n s c r i p t of t h a t hear ing . So t h a t s notaccura t e . That was back in September .

THE COURT: Did you s ign the c lo s in g s ta tement onb e h a l f o f the law f i rm?

MR RODEMS: No Mr. Cook did , Your Honor.THE COURT: Mr. Cook did?



30/84

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 MR RODEMS: Yes.2 THE COURT: Did you a t t e n d t h e med ia t io n o r3 s e t t l e m e n t confe rence o r any th ing r eg a rd i n g t h i s case?

4 MR RODEMS: Your Honor I d i d n t have any th ingto do with the Amscot case a t a l l o t h e r t h an t h e

6 t y p i ca l normal th ings t h a t p a r t n e r s would say to each7 o t h e r in the ha l lway o r a t lunch. I d i d n t handle the8 l i t i g a t i o n . I d o n t r e c a l l having any p a r t i c i p a t i o n in9 the case a t a l l . I c e r t a i n l y d i d n t a t t e n d any

med ia t io n s o r involve myse l f in t h e s e t t l e m e n t o r the11 r e l ea s e s o r any of the s t r a t eg y dec i s ions , n o th in g l i k e12 t h a t .13 MR GILLESPIE: Judge whether o r not he was14 d i r e c t l y i nvo lved i s immater ia l . T h e re s an imputed

d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n .

16 MR RODEMS: Judge i y o u l l l ook on page t en we17 a l s o t a l k e d about the case o f e r i ~ ~ o vs i g h ~ e y 18 which i s a t 797 So.2d 1288.19 THE COURT: Okay. L e t s go o f f the record .

want to j u s t review t h i s t r a n s c r i p t .21 MR RODEMS: Okay. Your Honor i we have j u s t a

moment may I be excused?23 THE COURT: Yes.24 MR RODEMS: I j u s t need a moment.

THE COURT: Yes.



31/84

5

10

15

20

25

31

J

23

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21

22L

24

Pause in the proceedings . )THE COURT: Okay, back on the record . I v e now

had an oppor tuni ty to re f resh my r eco l l ec t i on . Ibel ieve we used t h i s same t r ansc r i p t e a r l i e r inr e l a t i ons h ip to the hear ing . I v e now had a chance toreview it again .

So you fee l t ha t in terms o f your motion forrecons idera t ion t ha t there was add i t iona l informat iontha t was not presented to Judge Nielsen t ha t would beimportant to t h i s decis ion?

MR GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if you look a t pagef ive of the t ranscr ip t , t h i s i s where Judge Nielsen i sques t ioning . This begins on page f ive , l i ne seven.The Court: Well, see then there was one c l a r i f i c a t i o nI had. And you ac tua l ly j u s t read the por t ion of itHe made re fe rence to the same or a s u b s t a n t i a l l ys imi la r mat te r to the present controversy . And he askswhat I m re fe r r ing to . I answer: Amscot Corpora t ion .

And t h i s i s where it gets t r i cky . Yes, it wasthe Amscot l awsui t , but it wasn t the t r u th in lendingpor t ion of the Amscot lawsui t . I t was the cont ingentfee con t rac t between the p l a i n t i f f and the defendant .

And i f you go down fu r the r the judge asked: Andthe act ion was brought in federa l cour t?

And I responded: Yes, Judge.

Berryhi l l Assoc ia tes , Inc.


32/84

32

123

456789

10111213141 0o J

161718192021.. ..

L L

232425

And he asked again: Is t h i s the mat te r t h a tyou re r e f e r r ing to t h a t s s u b s t a n t i a l l y s imi la r?

And I answer: Yes.And then Mr. Rodems responds to t ha t fu r t h e r down

the page on page s ix . And Mr. Rodems s t a t e s beginningon l i ne 14: The mat te r t ha t defendan t s r ep resen ted Mr.G i l l e sp i e on was a Truth in Lending Act c la im f i l ed inthe federa l cour t involving the i s sues of the Rule4 -1 .9 .

And Mr. Rodems goes on a t the bot tom o f page s ixbeginning on l i ne 23, So the case t h a t Mr. G i l l e sp i ea l l eges i s s ubs t a n t i a l l y the same or s im i l a r invo lved aclaim by Mr. Gil lesp ie aga ins t Arnscot, a corpora t ion ,involving a l leged v io la t ions of Mr. G i ll e s p i e s r i gh t sunder the Truth in Lending Act. This l awsu i t invo lvesd i f f e r e n t pa r t i e s , d i f f e r e n t fac t s and d i f f e r e n t l ega li s sues .

And t h i s i s where t h i s mat te r tu rns very s u b t lybecause what Mr. Rodems sa id the re was c or r e c t . Butt h a t s not what t h i s cur ren t l awsui t i s about . We renot ques t ioning the Truth in Lending Act o r what Arnscotd id . We re ques t ioning the con t rac t t h a t i s betweenmyself and the defendants . And it s the same par t i e s ,the same f ac t s and the same l ega l i s su e s . And t ha t i swhere Judge Nie lsen e i the r missed t h i s or d i d n t



33/84

5

10

15

20

25

33

1

34

6789

11121314

16171819

21

22

24

cons ider it proper ly .My motion for r econs idera t ion beginn ing on page

t h ree discusses the f ine po in t s of a l l of t h i s withre fe rences .

THE COURT: Where i s the sec t ion about a lawyeras witness? Because I know it t a lks i n the re aboutyou re permit ted to be a witness i f you re being suedor you re suing your former c l i en t s . Seems l i ke t ha tmight be

MR RODEMS: There i s a prov is ion of the RulesRegulat ing the Flor ida Bar t ha t au thor izes ana t to rney -

THE COURT: Right . So it seems l i ke tha t wouldbe re levant to t h i s discuss ion because in t h i s case , i fI unders tand cor rec t ly , the p l a i n t i f f i s suing h i sformer law f i rm.

MR GILLESPIE: Judge, In my motion forrecons idera t ion I d o n t ra i se tha t i s sue o f them beinga witness , of them being an advocate .

THE COURT: I m j u s t saying t ha t i you look a t4-3 .7 , a lawyer as witness , it t a lks about the scenar iowhere a lawyer may be an advocate a t a t r i a l in whichthe lawyer i s l i ke l y to be a witness where thetes t imony r e l a t e s to the na ture and value of l ega lse rv ices rendered In the case . And by ext rapola t ion it



34/84

5

10

15

20

25

34

1234

6789

11121314

16171819

21

22J

24

would seem t ha t t h a t s of ass i s t ance in dete rminingwhether or not Judge Nielsen made a c or r e c t decis ion .

MR GILLESPIE: Well, tha t notwiths tanding, itsays when a lawyer has been d i r e c t l y involved in aspec i f i c t ransac t ion subsequent rep resen ta t ion of o therc l i en t s with mater i a l ly adverse i n t e r e s t s i s c l ea r l yproh ib i t ed . In other words, the defendants areproh ib i t ed from represent ing themselves .

However, they could t e s t i f y about t h i s i theywere represented by another counse l . But they c a n tr ep resen t themselves on t h i s . So, yes, they can givet es t imony. They j u s t can t give t es t imony whilet hey re represent ing themselves on t h i s mat te r .

And it also t a lks about i f the l awyer s ownconduct in the t ransac t ion i s in se r ious ques t ionwhich it i s it may be d i f f i c u l t or imposs ible for alawyer to give the c l i en t detached advice . And t h a t swhat we have here. I t a lso goes on to say a s u i tcharg ing fraud en t a i l s c onf l i c t to a degree notinvolved in a su i t for declara tory judgment concernings t a t u t o ry i n t e rp r e t a t i on .

I f the pleases the Court , I can give you West sFlor ida Sta tu tes annotated which I m reading from.Would you care to look a t th i s , Judge.

THE COURT: I have it in the law l i b r a ry across



35/84

35

the ha l l . And in point of fac t , I r e c e n t ly reviewed t0 in connect ion with a d i f f e r e n t case where t he re had

been a motion to d i squa l i fy counse l .Based upon my review of Rule 4-1 .7 , 4-1 .8 , 4-1 .9 ,

4-1.10, and t h i s l a t e r one I was t a lk ing about , 4-3 .7 ,I d o n t hear anything new in your argument today t ha tJudge Nielsen over looked or f a i l e d to address wheneverhe ru led on your motion previous ly .

MR GILLESPIE: Well, I st ll have more of t h i smotion to go through.0

THE COURT: Okay. All r i gh t . Please cont inue .1MR GILLESPIE: So i s what you re saying, Judge,2

t ha t you considered t ha t he was cor rec t in t ha t po in t3of law? 14

THE COURT: I 'm j u s t saying looking a t th e5t r a n s c r i p t t looks l i ke in terms of new informat ion6

17 I 'm looking to see what s changed. I s the re a r ecen tru l ing in the supreme cour t? Is t he re something t ha t8

19 was not argued a t tha t t ime or case law t ha t wasmate r ia l ly r e levan t to the case tha t was not ava i l ab le0to counsel a t the t ime t ha t Judge Nie lsen ru led upon1

22 the motion? You know, in terms o f a motion forrecons idera t ion I 'm looking for some i n fo rma t ion t ha t3would have been overlooked by him or perhaps4

25 mis in te rp re ted by him which would seem to be the t h rus t

Berryh i l l & Assoc ia tes , Inc.


36/84

123456789

101112131415161718192021

222324

36

of your arguments thus f a r .MR GILLESPIE: Well, one t h ing t ha t he did not

cons ider , an a t to rney can be d i s qua l i f i e d i he i sopposing a former c l i en t from whom he rece ivedconf iden t i a l informat ion. And t h a t s what we havehere . Judge Nie lsen did not cons ider t ha t . And Mr.Rodems has a l ready threa tened to use some o f t ha tc o n f i d e n t i a l informat ion aga ins t me. And i you tu rnto page f ive of the p l a i n t i f f s motion forrecons idera t ion t h e r e s t h i s i s t aken from thet r a n s c r i p t of a conversa t ion .

MR RODEMS: You know, I o b jec t a t t h i s po in t ,Your Honor, because t h i s i s what we were g e t t i n g i n toe a r l i e r . This i s a te lephone conve rsa t ion t ha t hed i d n t ge t my consent to record . And Flor ida s t a t u t e ssay t ha t t ha t conversa t ion i s i l l e g a l and cannot becons idered for any purposes by the cour t in anyhear ing , except for a hear ing prosecu t ing Mr. Gi l l esp iefor i l l e g a l l y recording the conve rsa t ion .

MR GILLESPIE: Well, t h a t s not t r ue . Andt h a t s se t fo r th in my motion for an order to showcause with s u f f i c i e n t case law why t h a t record ing wast rue . And t h i s i s - - I m going to r e i t e r a t e my reques tt ha t I be represented by an a t to rney because now he i sth rea ten ing me in open cour t with a cr imina l



37/84

5

10

15

20

25

37

1 p ro s ecu t i o n .2 A l l t h in g s go back to t h i s , Judge, which i s why3 we s h o u l d n t have even begun t h i s h e a r i n g t oda y because4 he i s going to o b j ec t and t h r e a t e n me wi t h c r i mi n a l

p ro s ecu t i o n . And I need to have an a t t o r n ey . Now I6 have made accommodations to have t h a t done. I v e t aken7 s t e p s today to have an a dve r t i s e m e n t p l aced in the st8 Pe te r sb u rg Times and a paper he r e in Tampa t h a t i s9 f a m i l i a r wi th t h i s rep re sen ta t ion , t h e C r e a t i v e

Loaf ing , has done an a r t i c l e about me and Mr. Cook and11 h i s r e p re s e n t a t i o n o f me.12 And I r e a l l y t h in k t h a t because o f Mr. Rodems13 p ro p en s i t y t o keep t h r ea t en i n g me wi t h c r i m i n a l a c t s14 and c r i mi n a l v i o l a t i o n s t h a t I need to have an

a t t o rn e y .

16 TH COURT: I gave you t he o p p o r t u n i t y e a r l y on1 7 to s t r i k e your o rd e r to show cause . Now w e r e j u s t18 t a l k i n g about t he motion fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . So i s it19 n eces sa ry to r e fe ren ce t he t r a n s c r i p t o f t h a t t e l e phone

c a l l i n o rd e r t o argue your motion fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ?21 MR. GILLESPIE: I d o n t know how to answer t h a t

22 f rom a l e g a l s t an d p o in t because I am not an a t t o rn e y .And I want an a t t o rn ey because you j u s t he a r d him

24 t h r e a t e n me wi th a c r imin a l p ro s ecu t i o n .TH COURT: Okay. So w e r e going to not ad d res s

B e r ry h i l l A sso c ia t e s , In c .


38/84

38

123

456789

101112131415

161718192021

222324

the mDtion fo r recons ide ra t ion and the motion tod i sq u a l i fy today. What about the motion fo rr econs idera t ion fo r the d i scovery motion?

MR GILLESPIE: Well, Judge - THE COURT: Do you need to re fe rence t ha t

t r a n s c r i p t fo r the motion for r eco n s id e r a t i o n of thediscovery motion?

MR GILLESPIE: Judge, we can go on with t h i s ,but it s p a r t of t h i s motion. What y o u r e say ing i st ha t I have - - I m be ing p r o h ib i t ed from exc lud ing par to f t h i s motion. And I d o n t see how it can bee f f e c t ive .

THE COURT: I m j u s t say ing , I m responding toyour s ta tement t ha t you d o n t want to presen t any th ingtoday withou t the b en e f i t o f l eg a l counse l because o fyour concern for the comment made by counse l about theuse o f t ha t t r a ns c r ip t of a t e lephone c a l l . I s the re


39/84

5

10

15

20

25

39

12

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21

222324

glimpse in to what went on behind closed doors - - t h i sman i s a l i a r . And it s in black and whi te . And ofcourse he doesn t want it to come i n to the hear ing . Ofcourse not .

THE COURT: All r igh t . Do you have any motionstha t we can cons ider today t ha t don t re fe rence -

MR GILLESPIE: Well, Judge, if it p leases theCourt, I m ge t t ing confused here . I have a spec i f i cr e fe rence here where he threatened to use a spec i f i cp iece of pr io r knowledge. But the law s t a t e s tha tt h a t s not even necessary. The ru les s t a t e t ha t j u s tthe ex is tence of pr io r rep resen ta t ion the re i s apresumption t ha t pr iv i l eged informat ion was disc losed .And Judge Nielsen d i d n t cons ider t ha t . And t h a t s animportant pa r t of t h i s motion to d i s qua l i f y . I have ithere . I m t ry ing to f ind it. There i s a presumption.

Are you f ami l i a r with tha t , Judge?THE COURT: Yes, I m very fami l i a r with it. That

was the bas i s - - you know, I was re fe renc ing a recentmotion tha t was brought to disqua l i fy t r i a l counse l .And t ha t was the bas i s for t ha t ru l ing . Th a t s the onet ha t I reviewed a l l of the annota t ions and pub l i ca t ionsyou brought with you today r e fe renc ing t ha t s i t ua t i on .

MR GILLESPIE: Well, Judge Nie lsen did notcons ider whether conf iden t i a l informat ion was



40/84

5

10

15

20

25

40

d i s c lo s ed . And the ru le - - I c a n t f ind it here r i gh tnow - - but the ru le s t a t e s t ha t it s presumed t ha t ithappened and t ha t t h a t s a b as i s for d i squa l i f i ca t i on .

4 Judge, I 'm going to need some t ime to composemyself . The other mat te r t ha t we h av en t di scussed i s

6 how my d i s a b i l i t y impacts the a b i l i t y to r ep r e s en t7 myself . We haven t got ten i n to t ha t . I v e offe red to8 have a hear ing on t ha t . And t h i s i s a problem.9 THE COURT: I see t h a t you had t a lked to Judge

Niel sen about whether o r not a c i v i l judge has any11 a b i l i t y or funds with which to appo in t pr iva t e counsel .12 Was t ha t an ADA i s sue with him?13 MR GILLESPIE: I r a i sed t ha t i s su e . And l e t me14 j u s t say on the record t ha t I 'm not look ing for someone

to pay the lawyer. I would be happy if the Court would16 appoint someone and I ll pay him.17 THE COURT: On an hour ly bas i s? Did you go18 through the Hillsborough County Bar A sso c i a t io n s19 lawyer r e f e r r a l se rvice? Didn t you say you had

a l ready t r i e d t ha t avenue?21 MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge, and I have the22 r e s u l t s from tha t . And Mr. Rodems had d iscuss ion on23 t h a t e a r l i e r today.24 THE COURT: What do you mean? The only

d iscuss ion I remember you mentioning t ha t you had not



41/84

41

C 210

456789

101112131415

161718192021

222324?C_

go t ten a response from a law f i rm Morgan and Morgant ha t you had t a lked about e a r l i e r . But in terms of theHi l l sborough County Bar A s s o c i a t i o n s lawyer r e f e r r a lse rv ice , you did ava i l yourse l f o f t ha t?

MR GILLESPIE: Yes, and I have a f i na lde te rmina t ion from them t ha t says t ha t I have exhaustedt h e i r re sources . I m going to t e l l you what happened.This i s from memory. I wrote to the Hil l sboroughCounty Bar Lawyer Referra l Service . They prov ided ar e f e r r a l to a Rick Mitze l . Mr. Mitze l sa i d t ha t hed o e sn t do t h i s kind of work and t ha t he r e f e r r e d me toa Mr. Dekle.

THE COURT: Pat Dekle?MR GILLESPIE: Pat Dekle. Mr. Pat Dekle was

away on an extended vaca t ion and wouldn t be back int ime.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dekle d o e sn t do con t rac twork I d o n t th ink . His primary s pe c i a l t y i s medicalmalprac t i ce l i t i g a t i o n . So my unders tand ing i s t ha tyou - - t h i s i s a con t rac t ac t ion .

MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge. And I t e l l t h a t tothe bar and they keep giving me lawyers formalp rac t i ce . Tha t s the problem t he re . Mr. Dekle,even while I fol lowed up with a l e t t e r to him sayingt ha t whenever you get back from vaca t ion I want to see

Ber ryh i l l & Assoc ia tes , Inc .


42/84

5

10

15

20

25

42

you, he ' s j u s t ignor ing t ha t . So what I t ake t ha t tomean i s t h a t ' s j u s t a s t ray , a l ead to ge t me o fft rack .

4 Then Mr. Mitze l re fe r red me to Morgan and Morgan.They haven ' t responded. Then the bar r e f e r r e d me to

6 Steven Ig l e s i a s . I have h is rep ly he re . He says t h a t7 he doesn ' t take any r ep resen ta t ion where a pro se8 p l a i n t i f f has s t a r t e d the l awsu i t . And I have t ha t9 from him here . Would you care to see t ha t , Judge?

THE COURT: No, I be l ieve you.11 MR GILLESPIE: I ' ve a l so been in touch with12 Morris and Widman. I was f i r s t in touch with them back13 in 2005. They sa id t h a t the case d i d n ' t involve a

s u f f i c i e n t amount of damages to j u s t i f y t h e i rinvolvement . I wrote to them again and they j u s t s a id

16

14

t ha t they can ' t accep t t h i s rep resen ta t ion . I got t h i s17 l a s t week. A copy for you. This i s a copy fo r Mr.18 Rodems with bo th l e t t e r s , the one from 2005 and the one19 from now.

THE COURT: But Mr. Widman, does Mr. Widman do21 a t to rney malprac t i ce cases?22 MR GILLESPIE: I was r e f e r r e d to him.L THE COURT: I th ink perhaps the people y o u ' r e24 t a lk ing to , you ' re not t e l l i n g them what you ' r e t e l l i n g

me because what you ' re t e l l i n g me i s I want an a t to rney



43/84

43

12

456789

10111213141516171819202122_oJ

240CL

to l i t i g a t e a fee cont rac t between me and my formercounsel and I m wi l l ing to pay them on an hour ly bas i s .Is tha t what you re t e l l i ng me today?

MR GILLESPIE: I ve wri t t en - - t h a t s what I v ewri t t en to the Hillsborough County Bar. And I m goingto show you my l e t t e r .

THE COURT: This has to do with a t to rneymalprac t ice .

MR GILLESPIE: This i s my January 5th l e t t e r toPat Bishop, the lawyer r e fe r r a l coord ina to r o f theHil lsborough County Bar Associa t ion . I wri t e i n heret ha t t h i s i s a cause o f ac t ion for f raud and breach ofcont rac t .

THE COURT: Oh, okay. Well, the f raud would bewhy t hey r e giv ing you at torneys t ha t do malp rac t i cethen.

MR GILLESPIE: And here I broke it down for heron January 13th even more c lea r ly . And it s - - I s pe l lout the f ive issues why I need an a t to rney .

MR RODEMS: Do you have copies of the documentsyou r e giving to the Judge for me, Mr. Gil lesp ie?

MR GILLESPIE: I don t th ink I have a copy oft ha t document. I would be happy to show it to you.Let me read it in to the record.

MR RODEMS: I don t want you to read it in to the

Berryhi l l Associa tes , Inc.


44/84

5

10

15

20

44

1 r eco rd un l es s the Judge wants t read i n t o the record .MR GILLESPIE: Well , I would l i k e to r ead t

i n t o the record .

4 MR RODEMS: Okay.MR GILLESPIE: I v e s e t for th f ive a reas of law

6 t ha t I needed help with. Number one, f raud pe rpe t r a t e d7 by a lawyer and a law f i rm on t h e i r c l i e n t . Two,8 breach of con t r ac t by a lawyer and law f i rm aga ins t the9 c l i e n t . Number th ree , counte rc la im of l i b e l by a

lawyer and a law f i rm aga ins t t h e i r c l i e n t over a11 l e t t e r about a bar complain t . Number four , f a m i l i a r i t y12 with Chapter 934 Flor ida Sta tu t e s , s e c u r i t y of13 communicat ions. I m j u s t going to cu t t of f r i gh t14 t he re . And Number 5, a lawyer t h a t s a va i l a b l e for a

hear ing on February the 5th. So I d o n t know how much16 more s pec i f i c I could be.17 THE COURT: Yeah, I thought t ha t l a s t one was18 e s pe c i a l l y s pec i f i c .J 9 MR GILLESPIE: Here you go, s i r .

THE COURT: And what s more, t needs to be a21 lawyer who s ava i l ab le to a t t end a hear ing . Okay. So22 in terms of d i r e c t i on today, you know, we s t a r t e d out

wi th the order to show cause. We moved to the motion21 for r econs ide ra t ion . And now we re t a l k ing about how

you fee l t ha t you would be pre jud i ced by proceeding on



45/84

5

10

15

20

25

45

any of your motions today because you ' r e not an2 a t t o r n ey and you f ee l t ha t t h e r e ' s an advantage to

having an a t to rney rep re sen t you, e s pe c i a l l y in regards

4

J

to those motions t ha t I j u s t re fe renced . I s t h a tco r r ec t ?

6 MR GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head i s7 swimming to the poin t where I 'm having a hard t ime even8 hear ing you. But it sounded a l l r i gh t .9 THE COURT: What 's i s the na tu re o f your

d i sab i l i t y?11 MR GILLESPIE: It s depress ion and12 pos t - t r aumat ic s t r e s s d iso rder .13 THE COURT: Are you under the ca re o f a docto r?14 MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: And do you have a d i s a b i l i t y r a t i ng16 with the Socia l Secur i ty Admin is t ra t ion?17 MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge. In the e a r ly '90s ,18 I 'm going to say '93 or ' 94, I was judged d i s ab l ed by19 Soc ia l Secur i ty . And I appl ied for voca t iona l

r ehab i l i t a t i on . And to make a long s to ry shor t , I21 guess it was in about '98 or '99 I rece ived a22 de te rmina t ion from voca t iona l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n t h a t my23 d i s a b i l i t y was so severe t ha t I could not be ne f i t from24 r ehab i l i t a t i on .

I would say in the i n t e r im t ha t they had prepared

Ber ryh i l l & Assoc ia tes , Inc.


46/84

46

12

456789

1011121 31415

161718192021L L

24~

a r ehab i l i t a t i on plan for me and they d i d n t want toimplement it And t h a t s the reason t ha t they gave fornot implementing it I brought tha t cause o f ac t ion tothe Barker Rodems and Cook law f i rm and they reviewedt ha t . And apparent ly they were in agreement with itbecause they decided not to represen t me on t ha t claim.And a copy of t he i r l e t t e r denying t ha t i s par t of mymotion for pun i t ive damages. You can read t ha t l e t t e r .I th ink I have it here .

THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of d i rec t i ontoday do you want to jus t s top everyth ing and aba tet h i s proceeding for three months so t ha t you can go outand t r y to f ind s ubs t i t u t e c o u n s e l o r - you know Ir e a l iz e t h e r e s a counterclaim.

MR RODEMS: Yes Judge.THE COURT: But or ig ina l ly , a t l e a s t , it was your

l awsu i t . So i f you fee l tha t you re a t a disadvantagebecause of your lack of counsel I guess I could abateit and give you add i t iona l t ime to t r y to f ind ana t to rney .

MR RODEMS: Your Honor we would oppose t ha t .And l e t me t e l l you why. Mr. Gil le sp ie f i l ed th i sact ion . He chose to f i l e t h i s ac t ion . He f i l ed ita f t e r he contac ted our law f irm and sa id if we d i d n tpay him money he was going to f i l e a bar gr ievance. We

Berryhi l l Assoc ia tes , Inc.


47/84

23

456789

101112131415

161718192021

22232425

47

d i d n t pay him money. He f i l e d a ba r g r i evance .MR GILLESPIE: I ob jec t .MR RODEMS: I would l i k e an oppor tun i ty to

speak, Your Honor. I v e been pa t i e n t whi le he c a l l e dme l i a r and othe r names. He s had the f l o o r fo r muchof the hear ing . I f the Cour t i s going to e n t e r t a i n amotion to aba te the proceedings I d l i k e to be heard .

THE COURT: Okay. On t h a t i s sue p lease respond.MR RODEMS: Okay. He f i l e d t h i s l awsu i t a f t e r

we d i d n t pay him money and a f t e r f i l i n g the ba rgr ievance . That was on August 15 th o f 2005. This casehas dragged a long now. We are wel l i n to 2007 now. InOctober we had a hear ing i n f ron t o f Judge Niel sen onan order to show cause because Mr. G i l l e sp i e hadv i o l a t e d the c o u r t s discovery order .

He came in t h a t proceeding and he sa i d to theJudge, I have an insurance company t h a t s going tocover my countercla im. They re going to prov idecounse l to me. And I would l i k e a con t inuance on t h a tba s i s . And Judge Nielsen denied the ADA a t t o rn e ybecause t h e r e s no provis ion under f edera l o r s t a t e lawfo r t h a t and sa id I m going to give you two weeks, Mr.Gi l l esp ie , un t i l the 18th o f October to l e t us knowwhat you in tend to do with your a t t o r n ey .

Meanwhile, Mr. Gil lesp ie found out t ha t h i s



48/84

5

10

15

20

25

8

10

J

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21

22J

24

insurance company was prepared to t ake over thedefense . We had contact and the insurance company wasi n t e re s t ed in resolv ing t ha t counte rc la im with our lawf i rm. When Mr. Gil lesp ie found out about t ha t hei n s t ruc t e d the insurance company to cease d i scuss ingwith us and he withdrew his claim. So t ha tcounte rc la im i s pending today only because Mr.Gil le sp ie i n s t ruc ted tha t insurance company not todefend the act ion and not to s e t t l e the c la im.

MR GILLESPIE: That s not t rue .MR RODEMS: I m sorry . At t ha t po in t he then

f i l ed a motion agains t Judge Nielsen, which i f he wasan a t to rney a t law would warrant my would requ i re meto f i l e something with the Flor ida Bar it was soheinous . Judge Nielsen denied

MR GILLESPIE: I ob jec t . Judge, h e sspecu la t ing on act ions tha t i f I were an a t to rney .It s wholly inappropr ia te . I m not an a t torney . Ihave no asp i ra t ions to be one.

THE COURT: Okay, but you do need to be qu ie tbecause he has the f loor . Let him f i n i sh h i sp resen ta t ion .

MR GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.MR RODEMS: At tha t po in t , when he c ou ldn t get

an ADA a t to rney and when he c o u l d n t manipula te the



49/84

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

49

insurance company in to giv ing him an a t t o r n ey i n theway t h a t he wanted which was to ca r r y the case fo rhim he then f i l e d t h i s motion aga ins t Judge Niel senwhich was denied to recuse Judge Nie lsen . I t wasl e ga l ly i n s u f f i c i e n t . I t was den ied .

However with what Mr. G i l l e s p i e had s a id inl e t t e r s to the cour t and with in t h a t motion it wouldnot s u r p r i s e me al though I d o n t have t he b a s i sbecause Judge Nielsen has not revea led it it wouldnot s u r p r i s e me i t h a t d i d n t form the b a s i s o f JudgeN ie l s en s s tepp ing down.

In any event , a t every s tage o f the proceed ingswhen Mr. Gil lesp ie i s about to be he ld accoun tab le fo rh i s ac t ions he c r i e s t h a t h e s got a d i s a b i l i t y o r hecompla ins about the f ac t t ha t he c a n t ge t a lawyer.The reason he c a n t ge t a lawyer i s because h e s notw i l l i n g to pay a lawyer by the hour fo r the s e r v i ce s hewants .

y c l i e n t s are a t t h i s poin t i n t o t h i s case nowfo r over a year and a ha l f . They want to have t h i scase reso lved . To discuss aba t ing it fo r 90 days sot ha t he can do what h e s been doing fo r t he l a s t t h reemonths which i s saying he was going t o ge t an a t to rneyand manipu la t ing the cour t in to g i v i n g him one qu i tef rank ly i s j u s t something t h a t my c l i e n t s would not



50/84

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

50

eve r agree to .We need to have t h i s case moved fo rward . We need

t hese motions t h a t are on t h i s docket now t h a t havet aken us months to ge t schedu led , we need to have t he seheard and we need r e so l u t i o n s . We have a hea r ingschedu led on February 15th on a motion fo r judgment onthe p lead ings . That d o e sn t invo lve any i s su e s o fd i scove ry . I t j u s t invo lves the compla in t t h a t Mr.G i l l e s p i e f i l ed . And when t ha t mot ion i s heard , t h i scas e w i l l be disposed of a t t ha t po i n t . We would l i ket h i s to be done. We would l i ke t h i s to move forward .

MR GILLESPIE: May I respond to t ha t , Judge?THE COURT: Okay.MR GILLESPIE: I am w i l l i n g to pay an a t t o r n e y

by the hour . I have sen t a payment o f 350 an hour toan a t t o r n e y with the promise o f a r e t a i n e r i theywould t ake the case . So Mr. Rodems c a l l i n g me cheapand a l l o f t h i s name-ca l l ing and not wi l l i ng to pay,t h a t s no t t rue . In f ac t , I of fe red Rick M itze l whosa i d the cos t would be 200 an hour , I g l a d l y o f f e r e dto pay him 200 an hour . He wouldn t t ake the case .These lawyers d o n t want to l i t i g a t e a g a i n s t t h i s f i rmbecause t h e y r e aware of what t h i s f i rm does and whatt h e y r e capab le of .

Now as f a r as Judge N i e l se n s r e c u sa l , t h a t stems

B e r r y h i l l Assoc ia t e s , I nc .


51/84

123456789

101112131415161718192021

22232425

51

back to Mr. Rodems f i l i n g a p e r ju r io u s v e r i f i c a t i o nwith th e j udge . And it took some t ime b e fo re the Judgebecame aware o f it But he bears t h a t so le ly , h i sr e sp o n s i b i l i t y . He was under no o b l i g a t i o n to f i l et h a t f a l s e s ta tement . But he did . He made t h edec i s ion to do t ha t . Now he has to l i v e w i th th econsequences o f it

And as fo r the insurance company, I would welcomet h e i n su ran ce company to rep re sen t me on t h i s . Theyd i d n t want to do t h a t . They wanted to make him anuisance payment and I w as n t going to ag ree tot h a t - - for a couple thousand do l l a r s . T h a t s t h et r u t h o f it

Now, I have a l e t t e r here from Barker , Rodems andCook about voca t iona l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . I d l i k e to showit to the Court . This f i rm r ev iewed it Andap p a ren t l y they agree . They knew when they t ook me asa c l i e n t t ha t I have a d i s a b i l i t y and it was a severed i s a b i l i t y .

THE COURT: You re showing t h i s to me fo r t h epurpose o f demonst ra t ing t ha t t h e i r law f i rm reviewed ap o s s i b l e c la im t ha t you had regard ing voca t iona lr e h a b i l i t a t i o n

MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.THE COURT: and chose not to r ep r e s en t you in



52/84

123

45

22232425

161718192021

15

12

678

91011

1314

52

t ha t mat ter?MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.THE COURT: That s March 27th, 2001?MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.THE COURT: Okay. So noted.MR GILLESPIE: I would l ike to show t h i s to Mr.

Rodems.MR RODEMS: I d o n t need to see it. Thank you.THE COURT: Okay. All r i gh t . But the bot tom

l i ne i s on the o rder to show cause it d o e s n t seem l i kehe wants to proceed today. On the motion forrecons idera t ion it doesn t seem l i ke he wants toproceed today. So s ince t he y r e h i s motions I fee luncomfor table fo rc ing him with proceeding today.

Do you have motions t ha t we could proceed ontoday?

MR RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor. He has f i l ed amotion to dismiss and s t r i ke our counte rc la im. It shis motion. We ve not iced it for hear ing today. Infac t , we not iced seven d i f fe ren t th ings for hear ingtoday, many o f which Mr. Gi l l esp ie a l so not iced . Andthe reason we not iced them i s because we d i d n t wantMr. Gi l l esp ie a t the l a s t minute to cance l h i s no t iceof hear ing because we re looking to move t h i s caseforward and ge t some reso lu t ion .



53/84

5

10

15

20

25

53

1234

6789

11121314

16171819

21

L

24

Every t ime I turn around Your Honor I m g e t t i n gano ther l e t t e r from Mr. G i l l e s p i e and unnamed sourcesaccus ing me o f pe r ju ry , accus ing me o f o th e r t h in g s .I m g e t t i n g plead ings and othe r documents f i l e d withthe co u r t . And qui t e f rankly , none of the se haveany th ing to do with t h i s l awsu i t . The only way t h a tt h i s man i s going to s top doing t h a t i s fo r t h i s caseto resolve i t s e l f .

And so h e s f i l e d a motion to dismiss and s t r i k eour countercla im. As soon as the Court r eso lves t ha tand we move forward on t ha t , we can have an answer tot ha t . We can dispose of t h a t as wel l . But a t t h i spo in t , I r e a l i z e t h a t it s h is motion but it s beenpending for months and months and months.

As r ecen t ly as a week ago he withdrew v i r t u a l l y90 percent , I would say of the bases fo r h i s motion tod i smiss our counterc la im l eav ing us with on ly twowhether it s t a t e s a cause o f ac t ion or no t . And JudgeNielsen has a l ready ru l ed on those . We a l r e a d y had af u l l hear ing on t ha t .

MR GILLESPIE: We haven t had a fu l l h ea r i n g on

t ha t .MR RODEMS: I f I may withou t i n t e r ru p t i o n ,

plea se , Your Honor. When we had a h ea r i n g on h i smotion to dismiss and s t r i k e co u n t e rc l a i ms . I t was



54/84

1234567

8

9

101112131415

161718192021

22232425

54

much l i k e t oday . We had two hours s e t a s i d e . Wed i d n t ge t to complete t h a t mot ion . We d i d n t ge t tocomplete it a l l . But t h e r e s a f u l l t r a n s c r i p t o f

t hose p o r t i o n s of the motion t h a t Judge N i e l s e n ru l edon. And I b e l i e v e t h a t was f i l e d with t he Court by meas wel l .

In any even t , Judge Nielsen r u l e d on a v a r i e t y o ft h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by Mr. G i l l e sp i e bu t c o u l d n t ge t tothem all. And he s a i d y o u l l have to r e s e t t h i s a t a

l a t e r d a t e . And I be l i eve t h i s was in A p r i l o f 2006.So it s been s ince Apri l o f 2006 t ha t w e v e been t r y i n gto ge t back in f ron t o f t he cour t on t h a t mot ion . Buta l l o f t he se in t e rven ing th ings done by Mr. G i l l e s p i ehave happened in t h e i n t e r im . So we would l i k e to goforward on t h a t today.

We would a l so l i k e to go forward on our amendedmotion fo r sanc t ions pursuan t to S e c t i o n 57.105addre ss ing t ha t motion . And then w e d l i k e to gofo rward on our mot ion fo r an orde r to show cau se whyp l a i n t i f f shou ld no t be he ld in contempt o f c o u r t fo rf a i l i n g to comply with Judge N i e l s e n s Ju ly 24 th , 2006

d i scove ry o rde r , which Mr. G i l l e sp i e appea led to the2nd DC and which was d ismissed . And which Mr.G i l l e sp i e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n for w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i wi ththe 2nd DC and t h a t was a l so d i sm issed .

B e r r y h i l l Assoc ia t e s , I nc .


55/84

5

10

15

20

25

55

MR GILLESPIE: Can I respond to t ha t , Judge?2 THE COURT: Okay. Well going back to what Judge3 Nie l sen has a l ready ru led on Judge Nie lsen in t h i s4 t r a n s c r i p t did ask t ha t an order be prepa red on what

was accompl ished on Apri l the 25th. And he sa i d t ha t6 he had ru l ed on paragraphs I guess one two and t h r ee .7 So did you give him an order?8 MR RODEMS: No, Your Honor. And the reason I9 d i d n t i s because e i the r I d i d n t unde r s tand t ha t he

wanted a p a r t i a l order or I was under the impress ion11 t ha t we would be r e s e t t i ng the balance o f t a t a12 reasonable t ime the rea f te r . And days t u rned i n t o weeks13 and weeks turned in to months. In any event , I did not14 submit a proposed order on h is p a r t i a l f ind ings and

p a r t i a l r u l i n g s .16 MR GILLESPIE: And Judge t h e r e was no orde r on17 the p a r t i a l f indings . And r i g h t a f t e r t h a t I f i l e d a18 motion for recons ide ra t ion on the pa r t t ha t was done19 because he found the cause of ac t i o n ag a in s t Barker

Rodems and Cook which was not ment ioned in the l e t t e r .21 So t h i s was j u s t complete ly a wrong d ec i s i o n t he re .22 Nonetheless I have to go back to March 6th when

Mr. Rodems threw a monkey wrench in to t he se e n t i r e7 4 proceed ings with h is f a l s e ver i f i ca t i on .

MR RODEMS: I t was not a f a l s e v e r i f i c a t i o n .



56/84

5

10

15

20

25

56

C 12J

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21

22L

24

Mr. G i l l e s p i e had threa tened to slam me aga ins t thewal l .

MR GILLESPIE: I did not .MR RODEMS: Yes, you did .MR GILLESPIE: We have a t ape record ing . Why

d o n t we play t ha t t ape record ing? Wil l you agree toplaying t ha t t ape recording r i gh t now, s i r , and en t e rt h a t i n to the record?

MR RODEMS: No, I won t . It s an i l l e g a lrecording.

MR GILLESPIE: Okay. He won t because itimpeaches what he j u s t sa id . And t h i s i s why need ana t t o r n ey . And t h i s countercla im has an accusa t ion of acrime in it, of ex to r t ion , because I fo l lowed thed i r e c t i o n s of the Flor ida Bar and c a l l e d him o r sen thim a l e t t e r about a se t t l ement . Th a t s a l l I wasdoing was fo l lowing the d i rec t ions of the Flor ida Bar.

This i s why I m having t roub le f ind ing someone togo aga ins t him because they can make t h e i r two, th reehundred d o l l a r s an hour without t h i s kind o faggrava t ion .

THE COURT: Okay. So Judge Niel sen ru led onparagraphs one, two and t h ree which i s ev idenced byt h i s t r ansc r i p t . And then you sa i d t h a t a f t e r t h a t youf i l e d a motion fo r recons ide ra t ion o f t ha t ru l i n g as



57/84

1234567

8

9

101112131415

161718192021

22232425

57

wel l?MR GILLESPIE: Of the por t ion t ha t found the

cause of ac t ion aga ins t Barker, Rodems and Cook becauset h e y r e not even mentioned in the l e t t e r . But, Judge,I responded to t he i r motion 57.105 fo r sanc t ions bywithdrawing a l l of the othe r cla ims.

And I would say t ha t the only reason I a s se r t e dthose cla ims i s because they were the c la ims t ha t t h i slaw f i rm asse r ted agains t my motion. So t h a t s where I

got it from. They asse r ted those c la ims aga ins t mycomplaint . And I j u s t used and by the way, theyd i d n t preva i l on any of them. And I j u s t took thesame defenses and turned them around on them.

And when I t r i e d , when I c a l l e d Mr. Rodems tospeak to him about it t h a t s when he engaged me in

argument . He cu t me o f f on every sentence , wouldn tl e t me t a lk . And a t tha t poin t nothing was done aboutit But I have r e c t i f i e d t ha t .

And t h a t motion 57.105 for sanc t ions should bedismissed because the only cla im, the only defense I ma s s e r t i ng i s t h i s does not e s t a b l i s h a cause o f ac t ion .So I t h ink we can dismiss t ha t p o r t i o n o f it r i g h t now.There s no reason for t ha t motion fo r sanc t ions .

THE COURT: Okay. So the f i r s t ground was it wasnot t imely because it was a compulsory counte rc la im.



58/84

8

12

3

456

7

89

101112131415

16171819)021

232425

So t h a t s the f i r s t i tem t h a t he ru l ed on.MR RODEMS: T h a t s co r r ec t , Your Honor.MR GILLESPIE: But only aga ins t one o f the

d efen d an t s as I r e c a l l . And t h a t would be the lawf i rm. I d o n t th ink we had go t t en to any th ing aboutMr. Cook i nd iv idua l ly .

THE COURT: Okay. So paragraph one o f yourmotion to dismiss was denied on page 18 o f t h i st r a n s c r i p t from the Apri l 25th 2006. That i s c l e a r inhere , okay.

MR GILLESPIE: Judge I th ink t h a t e n t i r e motionshou ld be dis r ega rded because w e r e hav ing a newhea r ing on it I mean t h a t -

MR RODEMS: You withdrew the c l a im .MR GILLESPIE: That f ind ing by Judge Nie l sen

t h ink i s moot a t t h i s po in t .THE COURT: Did you withdraw the e n t i r e motion to

dismiss o r j u s t every th ing a f t e r t h ree?MR RODEMS: Mr. G i l l e s p i e on January 26th o f

t h i s year withdrew a l l the c la ims t h a t Judge Nie l senden ied back on Apri l 25th o f 2006.

MR GILLESPIE: And some t h a t he d i d n t ge t toand a l l of the ones aga ins t Mr. Cock.

THE COURT: Okay. So one two and th ree a remoot.

B e r ry h i l l Assoc ia te s , I nc .

I


59/84

23

456789

10

12131415161718192021

232425

59

MR RODEMS: Moot as f a r as the motion todismiss . Not moot as fa r as the sanc t ions a reconcerned. But on the motion to d i smiss one and twoare moot because he withdrew them and Judge Niel sendenied them. The same i s t rue fo r paragraphs four andf ive . And same i s t rue for paragraph seven, paragraphe ig h t well , I m so r ry . I m not sure I m going ino rde r he re .

MR GILLESPIE: udge -

MR RODEMS: Yes, I am. Paragraph seven andparagraph e igh t and paragraph nine . Mr. G i l l e sp i ewithdrew every paragraph of h is motion to dismissexcep t fo r t h ree and s ix .

THE COURT: And t h ree Judge Niel sen den ied .MR RODEMS: And t h ree Judge Niel sen den ied .THE COURT: Okay.MR RODEMS: So t ha t r e a l l y only l eaves , unless

y o u r e going to recons ider what Judge Nie lsen denied ,paragraph t h ree t h a t i s , t ha t on ly l eaves paragraph s ixto be heard today on the motion to d i smiss .

THE COURT: Let me j u s t look and see what hesa id .

MR GILLESPIE: And Judge, on paragraph t h r eef i l ed a motion to recons ider t ha t because t h e i r named o e sn t even appear in the l e t t e r . And t w a s n t -


I


60/84

5

10

15

20

25

60

1 it s not even in there . So I don ' t know how he couldreach tha t conclusion. It s s imply not in the re .

3 would add, Judge, t ha t4 THE COURT: Wait, wait , please . I 'm reading

th i s .6 MR GILLESPIE: Pardon me, Judge.7 THE COURT: Do you have the l e t t e r t ha t Judge8 Nielsen was looking a t when he ru led on paragraph9 three?

MR RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor, i f I can get the11 answer and counterclaim. Give me j u s t a moment.12 MR GILLESPIE: Judge, the Flor ida Bar has i ssued13 an advisory opinion about those kinds of l e t t e r s . And

they sen t me case law for use In defense . It sabso lu te ly p r iv i leged because it concerns a bar

16

14

complaint . And I d i dn ' t say anything about the17 complaint un t i l a f t e r the complaint was c losed . And18 tha t i s a mat te r of publ ic record .19 And the case c i t a t i on - - I have it here

somewhere. And the case i s Tobkin vs Jarboe 7121 So.2d 975. Mr. Marvin, the d i r e c to r of lawyer

regula t ion , provided tha t c i t a t ion to me. And23 bas i ca l l y it says t ha t a person cannot be sued for24 defamation i f a complainant , which would be me, doesn ' t

make any publ ic comment un t i l a f t e r a decis ion has been

Berryhi l l & Assoc ia tes , Inc .


61/84

5

10

15

20

25

61

1 made in t h e case . And t h a t s what happened. The2 dec i s ion t h a t was made if it s a f ind ing o f no3 probab le cause , t h a t w i l l se rv e to exonera te the

4 compla in t about t ha t lawyer .Well they d i d n t even get a f i n d i n g o f no

6 probab le cause . They r ece iv ed a f ind ing o f7 i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence , objec t ive ev idence . It s a8 d i f f e r e n t lower s tandard t han t ha t . And I have t h a t9 h ere if I can f ind it.

So t h i s e n t i r e l e t t e r t h a t h e s w r i t t e n i s not11 a c t i o n

Transcript Judge Isom 1.30pm Feb 05 2007

Documents