scotus, rule 8 notice, conduct unbecoming, ryan c rodems, 12-7747

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES____________________

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ET AL, - PETITIONERS

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS________________________

PETITIONER’S VERIFIED RULE 8 NOTICE OF

CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT

BY RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS

APPEARING FOR HIMSELF PRO SE AND BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.

IN PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

____________________

Submitted January 22, 2013

by

Neil J. Gillespie,

the petitioner appearing pro se, a nonlawyer,

adult man disabled with physical and mental impairments.

8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 854-7807Email: [email protected]

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all partiesto the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

___________________

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11213District Court no: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS

Civil rights and disability law.Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.

Plaintiff: (1)Neil J. Gillespie

Defendants: (10 + 5 individually)Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaClaudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 200042)James M. Barton, II, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 242640)David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 861987)Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, and individuallyBarker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 947652)The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)

___________________

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11028District Court no: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS

Civil rights and disability law, civil RICO, antitrust, commerce, estate claims.Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.

Plaintiffs: (2)Neil J. GillespieEstate of Penelope Gillespie (deceased)

Defendants: (4 + 1 individually)Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaJames M. Barton, II, Circuit Court Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)

_______________________

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF PARTIES ......................................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................iii

VERIFIED RULE 8 NOTICE OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBEROF THE BAR OF THIS COURT ..................................................................................................1

COLOR COPY OF MR. RODEMS’ WAVIER AS RECEIVED .............................................end

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

Complaint submitted January 4, 2013 to The Florida Bar, Ryan Christopher Rodems.

1

No. 12-7747

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

___________________________


CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT_____________________________

Neil J. Gillespie, under penalty of perjury, declares as follows:

1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This verification is

given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.

2. I am the Petitioner appearing pro se, a nonlawyer, adult man disabled with physical and

mental impairments. My Petition No. 12-7747 was submitted December 10, 2012.

3. Ryan Christopher Rodems (Mr. Rodems) is a member of the Bar of this Court who on

December 20, 2012 submitted a Waiver to file a response to the petition, on his behalf appearing

pro se, and for his law firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (BRC).

4. Misconduct and criminal acts committed by Mr. Rodems are at the heart of this Petition,

as set forth in my complaint to The Florida Bar submitted September 10, 2012 to ACAP, the

Attorney Consumer Assistance Program central intake in Tallahassee. Pursuant to Fla. Bar Rule

3-7.3(a) Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood reviewed my complaint against Mr. Rodems, and

determined that the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the Rules

Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline. Mr. Littlewood opened

disciplinary File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) pursuant to Fla. Bar Rule 3-7.3(b), notified Mr. Rodems

in writing, conducted an investigation, considered the response of Mr. Rodems, my rebuttal and

correspondence, and concluded the complaint warranted further consideration. On October 26,

2

2012 Mr. Littlewood advised Mr. Rodems by letter that the matter has been forwarded to The

Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office for consideration.

5. The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), my complaint, Mr. Rodems’ response, and

my rebuttal and correspondence appears in a separate volume appendix to Petition 12-7747.

6. Mr. Rodems engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court when he

attached, or caused to be attached, to his Waiver to file a response, a yellow “Post-it” note in the

upper right-hand corner that stated “Nellie’s Copy.” Mr. Rodems either intentionally misspelled

and misused my first name, or engaged in name-calling, conduct which violates a prior “court-

imposed prohibition of conduct” by Hillsborough Florida Judge Claudia Isom February 5, 2007

while presiding over Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. et al., no. 05-CA-7205.

7. When I opened the envelope received from Mr. Rodems in the mail December 24, 2012

and saw the harassing Post-it note attached to his Waiver, it immediately caused me substantial

emotional distress. I was intimidated by Mr. Rodems’ disruption of the proceedings. Mr. Rodems

previously disrupted Florida case no. 05-CA-7205 for strategic advantage, and directed, with

malice aforethought, a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disability,

intentionally inflicted on me severe emotional distress, and served no legitimate purpose.

8. On January 4, 2013 I complained again about Mr. Rodems’ misconduct to The Florida

Bar. A copy of the latest Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems appears in a separate volume

appendix to this notice. The complaint alleges the following misconduct on page one:

1. Mr. Rodems violated § 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. December 20, 2012 by attaching aharassing Post-it note to his Waiver to file a response in my petition for writ of certiorarito the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) No. 12-7747. (Exhibit 1). Mr.Rodems’ harassment violates a “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” by HillsboroughJudge Claudia Isom entered on the record in open court February 5, 2007. Therefore Mr.Rodems’ current harassment rises to the level of a criminal felony (3rd degree) offenseunder § 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. I also believe Mr. Rodems’ behavior is criminal obstruction

3

of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1), (2)(A), (C);(c)(2);(d)(1) and (2).Ethically Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rule 4-8.4(b) and (d).

2. Mr. Rodems is a lawyer in private practice who engaged in a type of“unauthorized” practice of law when he represented the State of Florida June 21, 2011 inmy federal lawsuit. Previously I complained in general terms that Mr. Rodems’representation of the State of Florida was improper. Recently I determined Mr. Rodemsviolated certain provisions of the Constitution and laws of Florida. Only the AttorneyGeneral of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action, Fla ConstArt IV § 4, and FS § 16.01. Mr. Rodems’ conduct is prejudicial to justice in violation ofBar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d). Mr. Rodems also intentionally mislead several federal judicialofficers in the performance of their duty in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d).

9. On January 17, 2013 I telephoned this Court three times about Mr. Rodems’ unbecoming

conduct, and other matters, as follows:

a. At 10:00 AM I called Clayton Higgins, case analyst, was greeted by his voicemail,

whereupon I left a voice message. I did not hear back from Mr. Higgins.

b. At 10:14 AM I called the Clerk of the Court and spoke with Robert, who eventually

transferred my call to Jeffrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases. The matter of Mr. Rodems was

unresolved, in part because I could not recall the name of Robert with whom I spoke.

c. At 10.33 AM I called Mr. Atkins back to provide information that I could not recall

during our earlier call. I was greeted by his voicemail, whereupon I left a voice message stating

that I previously spoke with Robert of the Clerk’s Office. I did not hear back from Mr. Atkins.

10. On information and belief, Respondents Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems &

Cook, P.A. have no legal interest in the outcome of this Petition, see my Rule 12.6 Notice to the

Clerk of the Court submitted January 22, 2013.

11. Rule 5.1, admission to the Bar of this Court, requires, among other things, that the applicant

“...must not have been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action pronounced or in effect during

that 3 year period; and must appear to the Court to be of good moral and professional character.”

Rule 5.4 requires “Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation: I,...., do solemnly

4

swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself

uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

12. Mr. Rodems has not conducted himself uprightly and according to law as set forth above.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rodems has “engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this

Court”, conduct proscribed by Rule 8.1, Disbarment and Disciplinary Action.

13. Mr. Rodems has a conflict with me as a former client in substantially related matters, see my

complaint submitted to the Florida Bar January 4, 2013 in the accompanying separate volume

appendix, and the Declaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems, which appears as Exhibit 2 to the

complaint. Also see The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), which appears in a separate

volume appendix to Petition 12-7747. Mr. Rodems’ conflict is prohibited by Fla. Bar Rules, and the

holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, an authority on

disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by U.S. Judge Kovachevich, and holds:

[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, andany doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion todisqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship andthat the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause ofaction. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for purposes ofdisqualification of counsel from later representing opposing party, a long-term orcomplicated relationship is not required, and court must focus on subjective expectationof client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be“substantially related” to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualifycounsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons wouldunderstand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship betweeninstant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm hadpreviously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law thatconfidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8]Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation ofopposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.

14. This Verified Notice made under Rule 8 is not a motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems, or a

supplemental brief, either or both of which may follow as needed, and as provided for by the

Rules of the Supreme Court.

15. A color copy of Mr. Rodems' Waiver as it arrived to me in the mail follows this page.

VERIFICATION: Under penalty ofperjury, I, NEIL J. GILLESPIE, declare that I have

read the foregoing, and the facts alleged therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

and belief.

Dated this 22nd day of January 2013.

5

4-~f;SPQs~ . ~~~-'-_ t:::,. - _

..

~ - P'TN!!Y BOW!!.

02 1P $ 000.45° • 0001623878 DEC 20 2012

• _---__---::=---,--------:=--~-_=___=_-:__=__-~~,,;;;;;;;;,;;;~.~.~.a.... ~~~~ !=~ ~ ~.~ Z ~fl ~ 0~~ 22. e. C':? Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA

501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1 11111I1111111111

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

34481355792 1"II"J"I,J"U,II""II"II"I,I"II"I",II,I""I,11,,1,'

January 22, 2013

Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543

RE: Petition No. 12-7747, G-illespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al.

Dear Clerk of the Court:

Please find enclosed for filing in Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari:

1. Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court, party interest; and Rule 29 Proof of Service

2. Rule 8 Notice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, verified, with separate volume appendix; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.

3. Separate volume appendix for Petition No. 12-7747; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved United States; State of Florida; Constitutionally questioned of certain Florida Statutes

Thank you.

Enclosures

cc: Jeffrey Atkins, Supervisor ofNew Cases cc: Counsel for the Respondents

No: 12-7747

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


VS.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL. - RESPONDENTS

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Neil J Gillespie, do swear or declare that on this date, January 22, 2013, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed PETITIONER'S VERIFIED RULE 8 NOTICE OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT BY RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS on each party to the above proceeding or that party's counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days. The separate volume appendix is provided in PDF on CD due Gillespie's indigence and disability.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

David A. Rowland, Court Counsel Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A. Legal Department 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E 800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (352) 375-5960 Telephone: (813) 272-6843

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd, suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 489-1001

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January 22, 2013.

Neil Gillespie

From: "UPS Quantum View" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:44 PMSubject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FNW94832551

Page 1 of 1

1/23/2013

UPS My Choice® can help you avoid missed home deliveries. Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J. Gillespie will notreply.

At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice is to confirm following shipment has been delivered.

Important Delivery Information

Delivery Location: RECEIVER Signed by: KOUROS

Shipment Detail

Ship To: Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 3035 V ST NE WASHINGTON DC 20018 US

____2@@2@@2loiZ4Qj____

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW94832551Delivery Date / Time: 23-January-2013 / 12:22 PM

Number of Packages: 1UPS Service: NEXT DAY AIR SAVERWeight: 5.0 LBS

© 2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Servicrights reserved. For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy. Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message. For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS. This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copyuse of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. Privacy Notice Contact UPS

Proof of Delivery

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW94832551Service: UPS Next Day Air Saver®Weight: 5.00 lbsShipped/Billed On: 01/22/2013Delivered On: 01/23/2013 12:22 P.M.Delivered To: WASHINGTON, DC, USSigned By: KOUROSLeft At: Receiver

Print This Page

Close Window

Dear Customer,

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

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

UPS

Tracking results provided by UPS: 01/23/2013 1:30 P.M. ET

Close Window

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

1 of 1 1/23/2013 1:30 PM

January 22, 2013

Mr. Jeffrey Atkins, Supervisor of New CasesClerk of the CourtSupreme Court of the United States1 First Street, NEWashington, DC 20543

RE: Petition No. 12-7747, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al.

Dear Mr. Atkins:

This is a follow-up to our telephone conversation January 17, 2013. Please accept my sincereapologies for any misunderstanding or confusion on my part. The telephone does not work wellfor me in legal matters as it requires real-time communication, which is a problem involvingdisability and my short-term or working memory deficit.

As shown on the enclosed copy of my letter to the Clerk of the Court, today I submitted thefollowing documents for filing in Petition No. 12-7747:

1. Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court, party interest; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.

2. Rule 8 Notice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, verified, withseparate volume appendix; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.

3. Separate Volume Appendix for Petition No. 12-7747; and Rule 29 Proof of Service.

My Rule 8 Notice of Mr. Rodems’ conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Courtarticulates better that I was able to describe to you on the phone. As set forth in my Rule 12.6Notice to the Clerk of the Court, I do not believe Respondents Ryan Christopher Rodems orBarker, Rodems & Cook, PA, have a legal party interest in the Petition. Please advise if I canstop serving those two Respondents under Rule 29.

As shown in paragraph 9, Rule 8 Notice, I called the Court three times about Mr. Rodems’boorish behavior. Since I did not hear back from you, I proceeded as I believed appropriate.

9. On January 17, 2013 I telephoned this Court three times about Mr. Rodems’unbecoming conduct, and other matters, as follows:

a. At 10:00 AM I called Clayton Higgins, case analyst, was greeted by his voicemail,whereupon I left a voice message. I did not hear back from Mr. Higgins.

b. At 10:14 AM I called the Clerk of the Court and spoke with Robert, who eventuallytransferred my call to Jeffrey Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases. The matter of Mr. Rodemswas unresolved, in part because I could not recall the name of Robert with whom I spoke.

Mr. Jeffrey Atkins, Supervisor of New CasesSupreme Court of the United States January 22, 2013

Page - 2

c. At 10.33 AM I called Mr. Atkins back to provide information that I could not recallduring our earlier call. I was greeted by his voicemail, whereupon I left a voice messagestating that I previously spoke with Robert of the Clerk’s Office. I did not hear back fromMr. Atkins.

Enclosed is a CD with .wav files of the three calls, in case you want to review this matter. Due toMr. Rodems’ past telephone misconduct with me, all calls on home office business telephoneextension (352) 854-7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the businessuse exemption of Florida Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of RoyalHealth Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). Oneparty consent is also one of the Questions Presented in my Petition, see pages 29-30.

On November 27, 2012 at 3:17 PM I called the Court with a Rules question while preparing myPetition. A lady who answered transferred my call to Mr. Higgins where I was greeted byvoicemail and left a message asking about the appendix. He did not call back, and that issue wasnot resolved. Because the Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved in my Petition arevoluminous, that material went in a separate volume appendix, about which I had questionsconcerning the content of the appendix and other such. I thought the answer might comeinadvertently in a response to the petition, but none were filed, so I took my best guess andprovided them today. A wav file of my November 27, 2012 call is also on the enclosed CD.

How can I make a request for a disability accommodation in the Supreme Court? What is thespecific procedure? I could not find this information on the Court’s website.

I believe the federal judiciary is subject to The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et.seq., and not The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., as setforth in my disability letter to the Hon. William K. Suter August 28, 2012, which letter wasreturned, and resubmitted with my Petition December 10, 2012. I do not have a response yet.

One accommodation I would request is an alternative means of communicating with the Court,email instead of telephone calls. The other accommodation I would seek is an order of protectionagainst Mr. Rodems to prevent his unbecoming conduct directed at me.

You may not be aware, but Mr. Rodems has behaved unprofessionally with the attorneys whoformerly represented me, as shown in the record. Mr. Rodems has had a number of client and prose litigant complaints against him too. All of this is show in my rebuttal to his response in theopen Florida Bar case against him, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), which is found in a separatevolume appendix to the Petition. Accompanying this letter are the last five pages of my rebuttalsubmitted to the Florida Bar October 16, 2012, to save you the time and effort of looking in theseparate volume appendix to the petition.

Please advise if you need additional disability information for me, beyond what is found in theseparate volume appendices to the Petition, including:

Mr. Jeffrey Atkins, Supervisor ofNew Cases Page - 3 Supreme Court of the United States January 22, 2013

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES, U.S. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Mental Integrity as a Fourteenth Amendment Liberty Interest, August 6, 2012 Consolidated Amended Motion For Disability Accommodation Waiver of Confidentiality Motion for Declaratory Judgment - Appoint Guardian Ad Litem

Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, Case 5:11-cv-539

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) and separate volumes Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3

See: Appendix 2, "Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie"

Does a Justice rule on Motions to the Court, Rule 21, or a non-judicial employee of the Court? Or must a motion be submitted to an individual Justice, Rule 22, for a judicial ruling?

There has been a negative change in my financial situation. (This is an IFP petition). On Saturday January 12, 2013 I was served with a foreclosure lawsuit on a reverse mortgage on my home. Responding to this lawsuit will take considerable time and effort, although I made a complaint to HUD in August 2012 that is currently under investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will be the basis of my response.

Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate your assistance and effort with my petition.

Enclosures

cc: Counsel for the Respondents, with enclosures. (Not including the .wav file CD, for the privacy of the Court).

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Florida Bar CounselRE: Ryan C. Rodems TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) October 16, 2012

Page 27

I made an affidavit September 27, 2010 impeaching Martha Cook, along with treatment recordsof me by Tampa Fire Rescue. I submitted my affidavit as Exhibit 13 to the Complaint in DistrictCourt case 5:10-cv-503, but the District Clerk refused to put the document on the CourtsCM/ECF system. A copy of Gillespie’s affidavit is provided as Exhibit 21..I made an affidavit September 27, 2010 on Martha Cook’s refusal to consider the disqualificationof Mr. Rodems, and impeaching Martha Cook’s Order of July 22, 2010 "Order DenyingPlaintiffs Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA”. I submitted his affidavit as Exhibit 12 to the Complaint inDistrict Court case 5:10-cv-503, but the District Clerk refused to put the document on the CourtsCM/ECF system. A copy of my affidavit is provided as Exhibit 22.

The ADA Required Disqualification of Mr. Rodems

The ADA required the disqualification of Mr. Rodems in Hillsborough County. On February 12,2010 Mr. Rodems filed Defendant’s Motion For An Order Determining Plaintiff’s EntitlementTo Reasonable Modifications Under Title II Of The Americans With Disabilities Act. Using Mr.Rodems’ motion as a basis for determining a reasonable ADA accommodation, Rodems’disqualification was appropriate. Beginning with footnote 1 of Mr. Rodems’ motion:

Under Title II of the ADA, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason ofsuch disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of theservices, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination byany such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. "A public entity shall make reasonablemodifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessaryto avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstratethat making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,program, or activity." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(7). "Public entity" includes "any State or localgovernment" and "any department, agency, special purpose district, or otherinstrumentality of a State or States or local government ...." 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).

As set forth in my disability request, Mr. Rodems was the disability impediment to me and hislawsuit. Even after I hired Mr. Bauer, the outrageous conduct of Mr. Rodems prevented me fromeven attending a hearing. Later when I hired Mr. Castagliuolo, the outrageous conduct of Mr.Rodems continued. Rodems refused to return calls to Mr. Castagliuolo, or even provideCastagliuolo with a copy of the writ of bodily attachment. This was during a time when DeputyDunlap of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office was pounding on my door day after day, trying toarrest me. I lived in fear that Deputy Dunlap would smash down the door, and given my PTSD,that may have resulted in a tragedy. Mr. Rodems put law enforcement in harm’s way for noreason, other than to feed his need for revenge. At footnote 2 of Mr. Rodems’ motion:

Under Title II of the ADA, "[d]isability means, with respect to an individual, a physicalor mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities ofsuch individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such animpairment." 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. "The phrase physical or mental impairment" includes"[a]ny mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain


Page 28

syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities." 28 C.F.R. §35.104. "The phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one's self,performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, andworking." 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. A "qualified individual with a disability" is "an individualwith a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, orpractices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or theprovision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements forthe receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a publicentity." 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

As set forth in my disability request, I am disabled, have a record of impairment, and amregarded as having such an impairment. Even Mr. Rodems agrees on this, and often sent meletters or left phone messages such as this one December 13, 2006:

“I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has beenvictimized by your own poor choices in life. You also claim to havemental or psychological problems, of which I have never seendocumentation. However, your behavior in this case has been soabnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions ofmental problems.”

As set forth in footnote 3 of Mr. Rodems’ motion:

If Plaintiff has a "disability," then the "reasonable modifications" he may request arethose necessary for him to meet "the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt ofservices or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42U.S.C. § 12131(2).

As set forth in my disability request, the reasonable ADA modification was the disqualificationof Mr. Rodems, which was required under McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp.1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. This accommodation would not have cost the court anything, other thanthe cost of paper to enter the order of disqualification.

Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Robert Bauer - Full Nuclear Blast

Mr. Rodems failed to cooperate with counsel I retained, which caused such a disruption thatcounsel was not able to zealously represent my interests. August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made thisstatement during a hearing before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):

24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work1 this out in a professional manner. It is my2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.


Page 29

Mr. Rodems Failed to Cooperate With Counsel Eugene CastagliuoloMr. Castagliuolo Calls Rodems “asshole”

Mr. Rodems failed to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodilyattachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part “Last but notleast, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional butunhappy message.”. On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an “asshole” in an emailto me. Mr. Castagliuolo wrote (in part): “Based on what I know right now about your case, yourdebt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he wouldget NOTHING from you.”

Former Rodems Client Heike Albert, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DABRodems Claims His Client Called Him “a--hole"

A former client of Mr. Rodems, Heike Albert, contacted me unsolicited March 31, 2012 abouthis misconduct in her federal lawsuit, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB.Ms. Albert called ACAP on February 29, 2012, RFA# 12-14,769 to discuss Rodems’ conduct.Ms. Albert did not make a written Bar complaint. Instead Ms. Albert called and sent an email toGov. Rick Scott in opposition to Rodems for judge, according to an email she sent me.

Rodems moved to withdrawal as counsel, and argued “irreconcilable differences” April 4, 2012before U.S. District Judge Honeywell, claiming Ms. Albert called him an “a--hole”.

Transcript, page 8

5 [MR. RODEMS] She sent me an email that said everything was fine, but6 within 24 hours she sent an email to David Sanford. In that7 email, she called me an a--hole. She said that I did not care8 about my clients. She said that I did not care about her. She9 said she felt I was going to pressure her into accepting a10 settlement that she did not want to take. She said she was11 pawned off on me, she didn't want me, it was not her choice,12 and she asked Mr. Sanford to take over the case again.

I helped Ms. Albert find her case on PACER, as her counsel failed to provide her with somedocuments in her lawsuit. Fortunately Ms. Albert found new counsel, and the case docket showsPlaintiff’s Notice of Settlement (Doc. 90) August 21, 2012. Ms. Albert found me thorough myemergency motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems on Scribd.

Heike Albert contacted Gov. Scott about Mr. Rodems nomination by the JNC March 6, 2012,according to her email April 11, 2012, 10:44 a.m.

Ok, I spoke to the Gov. office regarding Mr. Rodems and voiced my concerns. Ibasically told them that a judge should not only know the law but also follow it.. andMr. Rodems clearly doesn't do either and that I would be forwarding the transcriptwhen I get it.


Page 30

Former Client Rita Pesci v. Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB No. 2006-10,278(13D)

I spoke with Ms. Pesci by phone January 7, 2010. Ms. Pesci told me about her experience withMr. Rodems’ representation:

“...I found him to be a complete liar. He only did it for the money that he couldget. He didn't want to defend me in my case at all. He had never intended to. Andbecause there was a chance that he might lose, so rather than be aggressive andfight the case he dropped me and filed a claim against my retirement fund...Hetook a little over half of my retirement money...he placed a lien against what hesaid was his bill...And my understanding was that he had taken this case and thathe would be paid if he won. But according to what he said, he didn't saythat...Yeah, this is this is how they get you...You know, I never had a thingagainst lawyers until I actually dealt with one... when he started fighting me overthe fee, he would send things that were two and 300 pages long...And I rememberat one point telling him, I didn't care how much paper he sent them, that he haddefrauded me and he knew it...” (Rita Pesci, former client of Mr. Rodems)

Ms. Rita M Pesci, 2045 Hunters Glen Dr., Dunedin, FL 34698-2838, (727) 736-8170.

Carl Montag v Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

Mr. Montag’s complaint makes the following accusations, which I also experienced:

• Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is notshort circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposingparty is pro se.

• Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondenceto Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to directlycommunicate with Plaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, todiscuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along.Every portal of communication was used to communicate with AttorneyRodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and handdelivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never woulddiscuss any detail of the case

• Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions andimproperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice toPlaintiffs, etc.

• Case law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge &Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolvelis Pendens.


Page 31

• Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to betreated with courtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that AttorneyRodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions.

Mr. Montag said he plans to make another Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems.

Complaint RFA No. 12-15330 by Robert Cash Against Rodems

The complaint alleges that Mr. Rodems improperly used a counterclaim to make immaterial,impertinent and scandalous accusations against Mr. Cash. The complaint further alleges that Mr.Rodems provided no exhibits to substantiate the immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims.

By way of example, Mr. Rodems made this scandalous claim at paragraph 68, in his Answer,Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaims, in Cash v. Rodgers, et al., case no. 12-CA-239,Hillsborough County Circuit Court:

68. Additionally, Mr. Cash told the owner of Medco Data, LLC that the reason Mr. Casharrived late at the trade show was because Mr. Cash was "up all night doing coke off astrippers tits."

The above quote is incredible. Without commenting on this particular case, it is not believablethat an employee would make this statement to an employer, or do so using the quote attributed.

The complaint of Mr. Cash appears to raise issues related to Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious Claims andContentions, Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal, Rule 3-4.3 The commission by a lawyer ofany act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice.

Mr. Rodems made immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims about witness Eric Bischoff incommenting on the WrestleReunion case after he lost a jury trial as plaintiff’s counsel,comments that also include accusations of sexual deviancy. This shows a tendency by Mr.Rodems to make these kinds accusations about litigants.

The expert report Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff wasnot even called to testify by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjuredhimself in a deposition in late-July 2009 before running out and refusing to answer anymore questions regarding his serious problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at theGold Club while the head of WCW.

Mr. Rodems comments about Mr. Bischoff are posted on the DOIWresetling.com website:http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html

_____________________

I have known Mr. Rodems for over 12 years. In my view he has little actual legal ability. InsteadMr. Rodems uses the rules of procedure in a perverse way, along with personal dishonesty andprofessional misconduct intended to disrupt the tribunal to his advantage. Lying is a habit forRodems. He relies on crony judges to deny the due process rights opposing counsel and litigants

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Florida Bar Counsel Page 32 RE: Ryan C. Rodems TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) October 16, 2012

so he can score a "win" now and then, but his overall success rate is low. As such, Mr. Rodems is little more than a bully and a rules troll.

Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this complaint is available upon request. Many of the documents are on the federal court's CMIECF system and viewable on PACER, including many state court documents filed in my federal cases, 5:10-cv-503 and 5:11-cv-539. Additional documents are available online on Scribd and my on my website and blog.

An Appendix accompanies this rebuttal with a list of Exhibits. However all the Exhibits are not included, because doing so would exceed forty-six (46) pages. This rebuttal with Appendix is 33 pages, which leaves 13 pages to include. Please advise if you want the Exhibits not provided. Of course, there are many more documents available. Because the Bar improperly let Mr. Rodems run unfettered for so many years, this matter is much more complicated than if the Bar, and in particular, Ms. Bloemendaal, had properly adjudicated my complaints in the years 2004-2007.

Under penalties ofperjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.

Thank you for considering my rebuttal to Mr. Rodems' response dated September 17, 2012.

Enclosures

cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems 501 E Kennedy Blvd. Suite 790 Tampa, FL 33602-5237 VIA U.P.S. Ground, Tracking No. lZ64589FP293605096

PS. In response to Mr. Rodems' reference to Cuba and Fidel Castro, the Tampa Port Authority sent a delegation in 2003 that included Clerk of Court Pat Frank and Tampa attorney Dale Bohner when they served on the TPA. (Exhibit 23). I am certain Fidel Castro is more honest than Martha Cook, and Martha likely has some Cuban money in her bank, given her partner's international background, and TWTE charges at ABN AMRO. I suggest reading my entire motion rather than rely on Mr. Rodems self-serving misrepresentations. I was unable to find anyone in Florida to serve as a judge ad litem.

According to World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2011, the United States ranked 21st among 66 countries it studied in assuring access to legal counsel. The U.s. did even worse when it came to affording a lawyer, ranking 52nd. Legal counsel, and healthcare, is more affordable in Cuba.

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES____________________


vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS________________________


CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT

BY RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS

IN PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI________________________

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

Complaint submitted January 4, 2013 to The Florida Bar, Ryan Christopher Rodems.

Note: The 13 page complaint is presented here with all 12 exhibits shown on theappendix, for a total of 60 pages. The 13 page complaint submitted to the FloridaBar included an appendix and 11 pages of exhibits, for a total of 25 pages per Barrules, with the balance of the exhibits available upon request.

Proof of delivery to the Florida Bar January 7, 2013 follows the complaint.

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

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

The Florida Bar Inquiry/Complaint Form

PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE - Complainant Information.):

Your Name: Neil J. Gillespie

Organization: n/a

Address: 8092 SW 115th Loop

City, State, Zip Code: _O_c_al_a....:;....,F_I_Q_ri_da_34_4_8_1 _

Telephone: (352) 854-7807

E-mail: [email protected]

ACAP Reference No.: none

Have you ever filed a complaint against a member of The Florida Bar: Yes fK No r If yes, how many complaints have you filed? Unknown, but a list of 13 related complaints is provided.

Does this complaint pertain to a matter currently in litigation? Yes rx- No r PART TWO (See Page 1, PART TWO -Attorney Information.):

Attorney's Name: Ryan Christopher Rodems

Address: 501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790

City, State, Zip Code: Tampa, Florida 33602

Telephone: (813) 489-1001

PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE - Facts/Allegations.): The specific thing or things I am complaining about are: (attach additional sheets as necessary)

Please see accompanying complaint letter and appendix with exhibits.

PART FOUR (See Page 1, PART FOUR- Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached sheet]. Please see accompanying complaint letter and appendix with exhibits.

PART FIVE (See Page 1, PART 'FIVE - Signature.): Under penalties ofperjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.

Attorney Consumer Assistance Program January 4, 2013The Florida Bar651 East Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL 32399·2300

Complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID: 947652,501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602, telephone (813) 489-1001

This complaint concerns new misconduct by Mr. Rodems, and recently discovered violations oflaw by Mr. Rodems. The Florida Bar opened file no. 2013-10,271 (13E) against Mr. RodemsSeptember 13, 2012 on my complaint submitted September 10, 2012.

New Misconduct and Recently Discovered Violations

Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. areRespondents in SCOTUS petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari

1. Mr. Rodems violated § 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. December 20, 2012 by attaching a harassingPost-it note to his Waiver to file a response in my petition for writ of certiorari to the SupremeCourt of the United States (SCOTUS) No. 12-7747. (Exhibit 1). Mr. Rodems’ harassmentviolates a “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” by Hillsborough Judge Claudia Isom enteredon the record in open court February 5, 2007. Therefore Mr. Rodems’ current harassment rises tothe level of a criminal felony (3rd degree) offense under § 784.048(4) Fla. Stat. I also believeMr. Rodems’ behavior is criminal obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1),(2)(A), (C);(c)(2);(d)(1) and (2). Ethically Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rule 4-8.4(b) and (d).

2. Mr. Rodems is a lawyer in private practice who engaged in a type of “unauthorized”practice of law when he represented the State of Florida June 21, 2011 in my federal lawsuit.Previously I complained in general terms that Mr. Rodems’ representation of the State of Floridawas improper. Recently I determined Mr. Rodems violated certain provisions of the Constitutionand laws of Florida. Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in afederal court action, Fla Const Art IV § 4, and FS § 16.01. Mr. Rodems’ conduct is prejudicial tojustice in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d). Mr. Rodems also intentionally mislead severalfederal judicial officers in the performance of their duty in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d).

New Misconduct: Mr. Rodems’ “Nellie’s Copy” Intimidation and HarassmentSection 784.048(4) Fla. Stat., and 18 U.S.C. § 1512

Violation of Bar Rules 4-8.4(b) and (d)

Mr. Rodems, with malice aforethought, attached a yellow “Post-it” note to his SCOTUS Waiverin petition no. 12-7747 in the upper right-hand corner that stated “Nellie’s Copy.” (Exhibit 1).Mr. Rodems either intentionally misspelled and misused my first name, or engaged in name-calling, conduct which violates a prior “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” by HillsboroughJudge Claudia Isom February 5, 2007 while presiding over Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems &Cook, P.A. et al., no. 05-CA-7205. (Exhibit 6).

The Florida Bar, Attorney Consumer Assistance Program January 4, 2013Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Bar ID #947652 Page - 2

When I opened the envelope from Mr. Rodems December 24, 2012 and saw his harassing Post-itnote attached to the Waiver, it immediately caused me substantial emotional distress. I wasintimidated by Mr. Rodems’ disruption of the proceedings. Mr. Rodems previously disruptedHillsborough case 05-CA-7205 for strategic advantage, and directed, with malice aforethought, acourse of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disability, and intentionally inflictedsevere emotional distress. In that case Mr. Rodems attached a “Nellie’s Copy” Post-it note to hismotion of April 1, 2010 to strike my motion to amend an ADA disability accommodationrequest. A copy of Rodems’ harassing “Nellie’s Copy” Post-it note from 2010, and the first pageof his motion to which it was attached, appear in the Appendix as Exhibit 5.1

Reference to Mr. Rodems’ 2010 “Nellie’s Copy” harassment also appears July 9, 2010 inEmergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker,Rodems & Cook, PA, on page 77, at paragraph 138b:

b. April 1, 2010 Rodems submitted Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s“Motion For Leave to Amend Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodationof Neil J. Gillespie”. When Gillespie received a copy of the pleading from Rodems, ithad a creepy post-it note attached to the pleading in a further effort to harass Gillespie.

Mr. Rodems’ SCOTUS Waiver (Exhibit 1) shows he signed and dated it December 20, 2012 andprovided a “CC” copy to me. The mailing envelope (Exhibit 1) shows a postmark of December20, 2012, is addressed to me at my home address, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 3448,and was received by me December 24, 2012. The return address is Barker, Rodems & Cook,P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard., Suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602.

Mr. Rodems’ “Nellie’s Copy” Post-it note served no legitimate purpose on his SCOTUS Waiverwhich indicates “CC” to “Mr. Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, FL 34481”,showing a copy was provided to me, and therefore a negating need for the Post-it note.

Mr. Rodems engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of theUnited States in violation of Rule 8, Supreme Court Rules, when he engaged in conduct directed atme which caused substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose.

Previously I notified Mr. Rodems in Hillsborough case no. 05-CA-7205 by certified letter datedto address me as “Mr. Gillespie”, a copy of which appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 7.Unfortunately Mr. Rodems refused to address me as “Mr. Gillespie”, which resulted in JudgeIsom’s “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” of February 5, 2007. The relevant transcriptpages appear in the Appendix at Exhibit 6 to this complaint, and show in part the following:

(Transcript, hearing before Judge Isom, February 5, 2007, page 8)2 MR. GILLESPIE: Judge, is there a reason why Mr.3 Rodems can't address me as Mr. Gillespie? Do we have4 to go through an entire hearing for that?

1 Mr. Rodems’ full motion is available upon request, and not provided here due to the Bar’s 25 page limit.


(Transcript, hearing before Judge Isom, February 5, 2007, page 9)

1 THE COURT: All right, back on the record. In2 the context of this litigation please refer to each3 other by your surnames so we won't have any question4 about whether or not people are being professional.5 Okay.6 MR. GILLESPIE: And, Judge, would that go for7 letters he sends me as well?8 THE COURT: I said in the context of this9 litigation. So if the letters have to do with this litigation10 that would be encompassed in this.

Clearly Mr. Rodems’ SCOTUS Waiver has “to do with this litigation” and would therefore beencompassed in Judge Isom’s “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” of February 5, 2007.

Mr. Rodems consequently has committed felony criminal harassment under § 784.048(4), Fla.Stat. by attaching a “Nellie’s Copy” Post-it note to his SCOTUS Waiver December 20, 2012.2

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties. (relevant portions)(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific personwhich causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimatepurpose.(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of actsover a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. Theterm does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or otherorganized protests.

2 Mr. Rodems’ previous criminal harassment of me in violation § 784.048 Fla. Stat. is extensively documented inHillsborough case no. 05-CA-7205. See Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie filedMay 27, 2011 that shows Rodems’ harassment under § 784.048 is a serious problem in this matter. My ADA formfor the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit signed February 18, 2010 specifies that Mr. Rodems is the problem relative to mydisability, see item 6, Special requests or anticipated problems (specify): “I am harassed by Mr. Rodems in violationof Fla. Stat. section 784.048.” Mr. Rodems withheld this information from Judge Arnold during the ex parte hearingMay 3, 2011. My 108 page Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie was cross-filed July7, 2011 in federal case 5:10-cv-503, which appears on PACER at the following docket entries:

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID 756Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-1 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 62 PageID 757Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-2 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 45 PageID 819

Professionally Mr. Rodems is known as an “asshole” (Email of Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq., June 14, 2011).Rodems’ himself argued April 4, 2012 to U.S. District Judge Honeywell during a hearing on his motion towithdrawal as counsel that a client called him an “a--hole”, see Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB. The transcript is available upon request.


(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalksanother person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.(4) A person who, ....after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward thesubject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedlyfollows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravatedstalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.775.084.(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or shehas probable cause to believe has violated this section.(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an orderrestraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length ofany such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probabilityof future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her familymembers or individuals closely associated with the victim.

18 U.S.C. § 1512 - Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant

As a pro se petitioner in SCOTUS petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, I am also a witnessto, and unfortunately a victim of, Mr. Rodems’ unethical and criminal behavior since 2005 inmatters that give rise to the petition. As stated above in this Bar complaint:

When I opened the envelope from Mr. Rodems December 24, 2012 and saw his harassingPost-it note attached to the Waiver, it immediately caused me substantial emotionaldistress. I was intimidated by Mr. Rodems’ disruption of the proceedings. Mr. Rodemspreviously disrupted Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205 for strategic advantage, anddirected, with malice aforethought, a course of harassing conduct toward me thataggravated my disability, and intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress3.

Mr. Rodems’ intimidation has influenced or persuaded me to seriously consider dropping himand his firm as Respondents to my petition so that I can proceed against the other Respondents

3 Markers of Mr. Rodems’ Misconduct Against Gillespie. Mr. Rodems intentionally inflicted emotional harm onGillespie that is utterly intolerable and goes beyond all bounds of civilized society:(1) Mr. Rodems abused his power or position by using a position of dominance;(2) Mr. Rodems took advantage of or emotionally harmed Gillespie who heknows to be especially vulnerable from his law firm’s prior representation of Gillespie;(3) Mr. Rodems repeated or continued acts that may be merely offensive and thustolerable when committed only once, when Gillespie could not avoid the outrageousbehavior by leaving, and thereby abandoning his claims. Even after Gillespie hiredcounsel, Mr. Bauer refused to allow Gillespie to attend hearings because of Rodems.(4) Mr. Rodems used his position of power to obtain a warrant for Gillespie’sarrest, obtained by Rodems’ false testimony during several ex-parte hearings.(5) In none of these instances are the parties in a position of equality; in each of theseinstances Mr. Rodems used inequality to inflict severe emotional harm, and caused awarrant to issue for Gillespie’s arrest, without regard for Gillespie’s interests.


without further intimidation. This happened on 5:10-cv-503, see Doc. 22, Plaintiff’s Notice ofVoluntary Dismissal As To Defendants Rodems & BRC In Lieu Of Amended Complaint.

I served my petition in compliance with SCOTUS Rule 29 upon Mr. Rodems December 10,2012, as counsel for himself and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Therefore Mr. Rodems’ criminalharassment under § 784.048(4), Fla. Stat., a third degree felony, made in conjunction with hisself-representation and the representation of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., is also criminalobstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1), (2)(A), (3);(c)(2);(d)(1) and (2).

18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1) and (2)(A), (3)(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades anotherperson, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person,with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an officialproceeding;(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object,from an official proceeding;

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer orjudge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possiblecommission of a Federal offense...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2)(c) Whoever corruptly—

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, orattempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(d)(1) and (2)(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents,or dissuades any person from—

(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States thecommission or possible commission of a Federal offense... or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3years, or both.

Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rules 4-8.4(b) and (d)

Ethically, Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rules 4-8.4(b) and (d):

Rule 4-8.4(b) committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness.Rule 4-8.4(d), engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.


Background: Barker, Rodems & Cook’s Unlawful 90% Contingent Fee in AMSCOT

Mr. Rodems is a founding partner of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., which firm previouslyrepresented me in a lawsuit against the AMSCOT Corporation4 (“Amscot”), according to theDeclaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems executed April 23, 2001 (Exhibit 2) which I recentlyfound on PACER here: Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 157of 316 PageID 1048. Mr. Rodems’ Declaration is part of a 316 page Memorandum in Supportof Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 92). This document includes 40pages of my discovery responses in Amscot5, information Mr. Rodems should have brought tothe attention of me and the Court in Hillsborough case no. 05-CA-7205. Instead Mr. Rodemsconcealed this information, and obtained $11,550 in sanctions in part for my discovery errors,for discovery that was essentially the same as submitted in the Amscot case by Rodems’ firm.

Barker, Rodems & Cook was substitute counsel in Amscot for Alpert, Barker, Rodems,Ferrentino & Cook P.A., the firm that originally represented me. Amscot was a proposed classaction lawsuit alleging payday loans violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and usuryand deceptive trade practices under Florida law. Barker, Rodems & Cook previously representedme in other payday loan cases and matters, disability matters, and other unrelated matters.

On August 1, 2001 the federal trial court entered an Order (Doc. 116) by District Judge RichardLazzara that dismissed the TILA claims with prejudice. The Court found all of the transactionsin the action occurred before the effective date of the applicable law, 65 Fed. Reg. 17129,Regulation Z, promulgated pursuant to the TILA. U.S. District Judge Lazzara held in part:

After considering the arguments made and all the authorities now before it, the Courtfinds that count I fails to allege a claim for relief under the TILA6. Moreover, any attemptat stating a claim under the TILA would be futile. Having reached this conclusion, themotion for class certification is now moot. (Doc. 116, pp. 3-4)

PACER, Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1340.

An appeal was filed, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOTCorporation, Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prior to an appellate decision, Mr. Rodems and his partners William J. Cook and Chris A. Barkerbreached their fiduciary duty to me and the other plaintiffs with a closing statement fraud as ofOctober 31, 2001 (Rule 4-1.5(f)(5))7 and no signed contingent fee agreement (Rule 4-1.5(f)(2)). 4 Clement, Blomefield and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, USDC, M.D.Fla., Tampa Div.5 Designated as Exhibit F, Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 111 of 316 PageID 10026 As to the remaining two state-law claims for usury and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair TradePractices Act (FDUTPA), the Court finds it inappropriate to exercise its pendent jurisdiction.7 The closing statement prepared and signed by Mr. Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001 failed to disclose oritemize $3,580.67 in costs and expenses, and failed to reflect $2,544.79 paid to Jonathan Alpert, Esq. Mr. Cook’sfailure to disclose or itemize a total of $6,125.45 in expenses under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) was done in furtherance of hisfraud against his clients. Mr. Cook maintains he was not required to disclose or itemize under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5)because “AMSCOT Corporation separately paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their


Mr. Rodems and his partners concocted a fraudulent scheme where they stole $50,000 from thetotal recovery as a “claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs”. Rodems and hispartners were not satisfied earning a 45% contingent fee, they wanted double that amount - 90%!

The “claim” to $50,000.00 for “court-awarded fees and costs” was later determined false. Therewere no court-awarded fees in this case, and any “claim” to fees was extinguished res judicatawhen the TILA claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the dismissal was not overturned onappeal. The case settled either for business reasons, or in a side deal with Amscot’s counsel.

The closing statement fraud was a scheme by Mr. Rodems and his partners to evade the terms ofthe unsigned contingent fee agreement, and payment to me of $9,143, my lawful share of the$56,000 total recovery. Instead Barker, Rodems & Cook paid me $2,000. Likewise with theother two plaintiffs, Mr. Clement and Ms. Blomefield. This scheme resulted in $21,431 unjustenrichment for Messrs. Barker, Rodems and Cook who took over 90% of the Amscot totalrecovery for themselves through fraud and breach of contract/fiduciary duty against their clients.

On June 12, 2003 I contacted The Florida Bar through ACAP after discovering the fraud, seeRFA 03-18867. In response Mr. Rodems and his partners concocted an accusation of felonyextortion against me for using ACAP and attempting to settle this matter prior to a formal Barcomplaint made in 2004. Mr. Rodems also accused me of felony extortion for using ACAP in avexatious libel counterclaim against me in 05-CA-7205, but tellingly not to law enforcement.

On August 11, 2005 I sued pro se Mr. Rodems’ firm and partner to recover $6,224.788 stolen bythem after the Bar dismissed my 2004 complaint, and prior to the expiration of the statute oflimitations, see Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J. Cook, case no.05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. Mr. Rodems represented his firm against me.

On January 13, 2006 I prevailed on Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike, and established acause of action for fraud and breach of contract. Hillsborough Judge Richard Nielsen rejectedMr. Rodems’ misleading legal argument to a $50,000 “claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs” and this case was essentially decided in my favor. In response tocertain defeat, Mr. Rodems filed a vexatious libel counterclaim against me. Mr. Rodems alsodisrupted the tribunal for strategic advantage, see TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) for my opencomplaint Mr. Rodems and additional details. This complaint was provided as evidence in aseparate volume appendix to my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.

On February 26, 2007 The Florida Bar referred Robert W. Bauer to me through the LawyerReferral Service (LRS). Mr. Bauer incompetently represented me, and engaged in RICOracketeering activity with Mr. Rodems to undermine my Bar complaint(s) and civil litigation in05-CA-7205 and 5:10-cv-503 through violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct including:

claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs.” But the “claim” to $50,000.00 for “court-awarded feesand costs” was later determined false. It appears Mr. Alpert paid most of the costs and fees in this action; thesubsequent problem is self-dealing by substitute counsel Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.8 Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers later determined that the amount stolen was $7,143, see Plaintiff’s FirstAmended Complaint, filed pro se May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton.


Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.Rule 4-8.3(a), reporting misconduct of other lawyers.

See RFA No. 13-7675 submitted October 31, 2012 and denied November 9, 2012. Subsequentlythis complaint was submitted for pendent jurisdiction in SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747.

On June 3, 2011 I retained Eugene P. Castagliuolo to prepare for, and represent me at a court-ordered deposition. Following entry of an order for my arrest improperly obtained ex parte byMr. Rodems on a writ of bodily attachment, I voluntarily appeared for the deposition June 21,2011 at the George E. Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa, but that turned out to be a trap to coercea settlement from me while in custody, see TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D) for my open complaintagainst Mr. Castagliuolo. In his response August 30, 2012, Castagliuolo admitted that Rodemsmade an unsolicited offer to intervene and engage in RICO racketeering activity to undermineany future bar complaint I might make against Castagliuolo. Complaint 2013-10,162 (6D) wasprovided as evidence in my SCOTUS petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.

Mr. Rodems engaged in misconduct with Judge Claudia Isom February 5, 2007 to conceal aconflict of interest between husband Woody Isom who practiced law with my former attorney inthe Amscot case, Jonathan Alpert, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct including:

Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.Rule 4-8.4(f), a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conductthat is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.Rule 4-8.3(b) Mr. Rodems had a duty to report Judge Isom’s misconduct.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) denied by letter dated October 10, 2012in JQC Docket No. 12385, my complaint against Judge Claudia Isom. In his letter denying thecomplaint, JQC General Counsel Michael Schneider wrote in part:

The Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above matter and hasdetermined, at its meeting held on Friday, October 5, 2012, that the concerns you haveexpressed are not allegations involving a breach of the Code of Judicial Conductwarranting further action by the Commission but are matters for review solely throughthe court system.

Therefore I submitted JQC Docket No. 12385 with my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 forpendent jurisdiction because the same allegations of judicial misconduct in the JQC complaintform the basis of allegations in my SCOTUS petition, and the JQC has indicated these mattersare “for review solely through the court system.” The SCOTUS is the head of the court system.

Mr. Rodems engaged in misconduct with Hillsborough Judge Martha Cook, including falsifyingthe record of a hearing September 28, 2010 on final summary judgment, and civil contempt with


writ of bodily attachment, to show I “elected to leave” the hearing, when in fact Judge Cookordered me removed by the bailiff after I provided her a copy of the complaint in 5:10-cv-503.Thankfully the bailiff, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputy Christopher E. Brown, told hisCommander, Major James Livingston, that Judge Cook ordered me removed. Mr. Rodems usedthe ex parte hearing in furtherance of obtaining under color of law entry of an order for myarrest, and in doing so violated the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct including:

Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.Rule 4-8.4(f), a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conductthat is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.Rule 4-8.3(b) Mr. Rodems had a duty to report Judge Cook’s misconduct.

The JQC denied by letter dated January 7, 2011 Docket 10495, my complaint against JudgeMartha Cook. Five days later I received on January 12, 2011 a letter from Maj. James Livingstonwith the statement of Deputy Christopher E. Brown that impeached Judge Cook’s record that I“elected to leave” the hearing September 28, 2010. I resubmitted the complaint to the JQC withMaj. Livinston’s letter on November 26, 2012. I submitted the November 26, 2012 JQC - JudgeCook complaint with my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 for pendent jurisdiction because thesame allegations of judicial misconduct in the JQC complaint form the basis of allegations in mypetition, and the JQC previously wrote that “the concerns you have expressed are not violationsof the Code of Conduct warranting further action by the Commission.”

Misconduct by Mr. Rodems and his partners William Cook and Chris A. Barker in the AMSCOTcase is substantially related9 to this Bar complaint, another open complaint against Rodems, FileNo. 2013-10,271 (13E), twenty (20) related legal proceedings (Exhibit 3), twelve (12) additionalsubstantially related Bar complaints (Exhibit 4), and SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747.

Recently Discovered ViolationsMr. Rodems’ “Unauthorized” Practice of Law June 21, 2011

Improper Representation of the State of Florida in Federal Litigation

Mr. Rodems submitted Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal WithPrejudice (Doc. 32) June 21, 2011 in my federal ADA and civil rights case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. Mr. Rodems’ motion, which appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 8, states:

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to RyanChristopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. See Exhibit "1".

Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice,pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

9 As defined by McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.


Fortunately U.S. District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant Mr. Rodems’ motion, and now Iknow why: Only the Florida Attorney General may represent the State of Florida in a federal courtaction. My attorney at the time, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, failed to inform me, and it appears certainthat he and Mr. Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of my rightsguaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida. TheFlorida Bar opened complaint no. 2013-10,162 (6D) against Mr. Castagliuolo August 17, 2012.

As set forth in my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747, by September 2010 I needed the assistance andprotection of an Article III federal judge in Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205 due to Mr. Rodems’extreme misconduct representing his firm against me, a former client on the same or substantiallyrelated matter in violation of Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISIInv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases. See 2013-10,271 (13E).

On the morning of September 28, 2010 I filed by hand delivery to the U.S. District Clerk inOcala, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle Districtof Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. My Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-cv-00503 pled violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rightsunder section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit, Hillsborough case no 05-CA-7205 commenced fiveyears earlier to recover the money stolen from me by Rodems his partners in the Amscot lawsuit.

Unfortunately things got worse in the Florida case. Shortly after I filed my federal lawsuit JudgeMartha Cook held me in civil contempt with writ of bodily attachment during an ex parte hearing,where she made a false record that I “elected to leave”. Mr. Rodems aided and abetted that fraud.Fortunately the bailiff, Deputy C.E. Brown, told his commander that Judge Cook ordered me toleave after I provided Judge Cook a copy of the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503 filed hours before.

Mr. Rodems got a warrant to arrest me on the pretext of a court-ordered deposition after the casewas closed and on appeal in 2D10-5197. In 2008 Judge James Barton awarded $11,550 toRodems in attorney-fee sanctions, blaming me for Rodems’ earlier misconduct and disruption ofthe tribunal. Later I was incompetently represented by Robert W. Bauer, at a cost of $31,863.Mr. Bauer was a referral from the Florida Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service. See TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) July 15, 2010 and RFA No. 13-7675 October 31, 2012, denied November 9, 2012,and submitted to the SCOTUS for pendent jurisdiction in petition no. 12-7747. It appears certainthat Mr. Bauer and Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of myrights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.

The public defender was appointed to me June 1, 2011 at a civil contempt hearing, but the judgerelieved the defender at the hearing and immediately entered an order to arrest me. For twenty-one days law enforcement sought to arrest me while I was at home with the blinds closedworking on appeal 2D10-5179. Day after day Marion County Sheriff Deputies came poundingon my door looking for me. On June 3, 2011 I hired attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo offCraigslist to prepare for the deposition, but that was a disaster. I voluntarily appeared June 21,2011 for the deposition but that was a trap to force a “coercive custody” settlement, which Ipromptly rescinded. Castagliuolo also failed to disclose that his daughter is a public defender.


Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlementagreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I wasunlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth Judicial CircuitFlorida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the FloridaAttorney General can represent the State of Florida, which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaClaudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)James M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)Martha J. Cook, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida

State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority toappoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:

Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal courtaction. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorneyto represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).

Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:

16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil orcriminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in theSupreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.

The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.—

(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the officeof the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutorshall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations ofcriminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of arelated transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or morejudicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointedby the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicialnominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.

Unfortunately Mr. Rodems mislead in violation of Rule 11, F.R.C.P., the following three federaljudicial officers in the performance of their duty in case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH.

United States District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge,Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 - present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398)

The Florida Bar, Attorney Consumer Assistance Program Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Bar ID #947652

January 4, 2013 Page - 12

United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893) Presided in case 5: 10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to July-29-20 11

United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269) Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 July-29-2011 to February-27-2012

Mr. Rodems again violated his duty under Rule lIon July 14, 2011 when submitted (Doc. 40) Response to "PlaintiffNeil 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 331, which appears in the Appendix as Exhibit 9. Mr. Rodems wrote in part:

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.

Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of Florida and therefore he cannot represent the State of Florida in federal litigation. Moreover, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tho~as Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice ofobjection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). The Order appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 10. Therefore I filed a Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) which appears in the Appendix at Exhibit 11.

The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). The first Question Presented (of 15) in SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747 is the following:

1. Can a Florida lawyer in private practice usurp the authority of an Article III federal judge in a federal civil rights and disability lawsuit, by improperly representing the State of Florida during a coercive custody of the disabled and mentally impaired petitioner to force a settlement, and assign the petitioner's claims against the State of Florida to himself and his law partners, then move to dismiss the federal lawsuit with prejudice on behalf of the State of Florida?

The answer is no. Only the Florida Attorney General can represent the State of Florida in federal litigation. Mr. Rodems should be disbarred from the practice of law for life for his misconduct.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.

VIA U.S.P. Tracking No. lZ64589FP290125299

Appendix - Complaint Against Ryan Christopher Rodems - January 4, 2013

All the following Exhibits are available. In compliance with the Florida Bar’s 25 page limit onsubmissions, only the Exhibits checked below are provided with the initial complaint.

Exhibit 1 Waiver of Mr. Rodems, SCOTUS Petition No. 12-7747 - “Nellie's Copy” Dec-20-2012

Exhibit 2 Declaration of Mr. Rodems, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v AMSCOT Corporation

Exhibit 3 20 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al., 05-CA-007205

Exhibit 4 List of Florida Bar complaints substantially related to Ryan Christopher Rodems

Exhibit 5 Mr. Rodems’ Defendants motion strike Plaintiff's ADA - “Nellie's Copy” - Apr-10-2010

Exhibit 6 Transcript pp 8-10, Judge Isom’s “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” Feb-05-2007

Exhibit 7 Gillespie’s letter to Mr. Rodems request “Mr. Gillespie” not name-calling, Dec-22-2006

Exhibit 8 Rodems’ Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32)

Exhibit 9 Rodems’ 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 WithPrejudice” [DKT 33] (Doc. 40) in 5:10-cv-503, July 14, 2011.

Exhibit 10 Order in 5:10-cv-503 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith, October 6, 2011 (Doc. 51)

Exhibit 11 Notice of Objection in 5:10-cv-503 by Gillespie, January 12, 2012 (Doc. 63).

Exhibit 12 Order of Dismissal in 5:10-cv-503 by the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Feb-27-2012 (Doc. 64)

WAIVEI1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Supreme Court Case No.-'.:.-12:.-- 7-'.:.-7_47 _

Neil 1. Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, et al.

(Petitioner) (Respondent)

I DO NOT INTEND TO FILE A RESPONSE to the petition for a writ of certiorari unless one is requested by the Court.

Please check one of the following boxes:

o Please enter my appearance as Counsel of Record for all respondents.

tzI There are multiple respondents, and I do not represent all respondents. Please enter my appearance as Counsel of Record for the following respondent(s):

Ryan Christopher Rodems; and, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.

I certify that I am a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States (Please explain if

your name has Jlmn~~~oyJ Slgnature~-b-£\-_~-=....>~-------------------Date: December 20,2012

(Type or print) Name Ryan Christopher Rodems !Ill Mr. 0 Ms. 0 Mrs. o Miss

Firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.

Address 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790

City & State Tampa, Florida Zip 33602

Phone 813/489-1001

A COPY OF THIS FORM MUST BE SENT TO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL OR TO PETITIONER IF PRO SE. PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THE NAME(S) OF THE RECIPIENT(S) OF A COpy OF THIS FORM. NO ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED.

SEE REVERSE FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF A CASE ON THE DOCKET.

CC: Mr. Neil 1. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, FL 34481

1

4-~f;SPQs~ . ~~~-'-_ t:::,. - _

..

~ - P'TN!!Y BOW!!.

02 1P $ 000.45° • 0001623878 DEC 20 2012

• _---__---::=---,--------:=--~-_=___=_-:__=__-~~,,;;;;;;;;,;;;~.~.~.a.... ~~~~ !=~ ~ ~.~ Z ~fl ~ 0~~ 22. e. C':? Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA

501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1 11111I1111111111

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

34481355792 1"II"J"I,J"U,II""II"II"I,I"II"I",II,I""I,11,,1,'

1

Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 157 of 316 PageID 1048

2

20 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205RCR - denotes cases where Ryan Christopher Rodems represented his firm and partner against former client Gillespie

1.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 toJun-21-2011, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009).

2.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, Jan-19-2006to Sep-28-2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)

3.RCR 2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

4.RCR 2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)

5.RCR 2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, § 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)

6. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

7. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

8. RCR 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

9. RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

10.RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

11.RCR Federal Ct. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA (closed, appeal)

12. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, §1983, ADA, etc.

13. C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, §1983, ADA, etc.

14.RCR C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA, (closed, appeal)

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

16.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858

17.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 review Fla.Sup.Ct. case no. SC11-1622,Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time.

18.RCR SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas, docketed August 13, 2012, No. 12A215Granted Sep-13th; Time extended to file to December 10, 2012, C.A.11 12-11028, 12-11213

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19. Original Case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT, December 8, 1999

20. Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp, August 20, 2001

3

Florida Bar ethics complaints substantially related to Ryan Christopher Rodems*

*Partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence ofanother partner when the later acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney.Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965).

1. William J. Cook RFA No. 03-18867 June 12, 2003 (ACAP Central)

2. William J. Cook TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C) June 7, 2004 (Tampa Branch)

3. William J. Cook TFB No. 2006-11,194 (13D) March 6, 2006 (Tampa Branch)

4. William J. Cook TFB No. 2007-10,004 (13D) June 27, 2006 (Tampa Branch)

5. Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D) February 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)

6. Chris A. Barker TFB No. 2007-11,792(13A) June 18, 2007 (Tampa Branch)

7. Ryan Christopher Rodems File not opened/no number June 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)

8. Troy Matthew Lovell File not opened/no number June 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)

9. Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) July 15, 2010 (ACAP Central)

10. Seldon J. Childers RFA No. 11-4718 August 25, 2010 (ACAP Central)

11. Eugene P. Castagliuolo TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D) August 17, 2012 (ACAP Central)

12. Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Sep-13, 2012 (ACAP Central)

13. Robert W. Bauer RFA No. 13-7675 October 31, 2012 (ACAP Central); denied Nov-09-12;submitted to the SCOTUS for pendent jurisdiction in petition no. 12-7747.

McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995 has been a mandatoryauthority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich:

[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and anydoubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to disqualifycounsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters inpending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of action. [3] In determiningwhether attorney-client relationship existed, for purposes of disqualification of counsel fromlater representing opposing party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, andcourt must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] Formatters in prior representation to be “substantially related” to present representation for purposesof motion to disqualify counsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonablepersons would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationshipbetween instant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm hadpreviously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law thatconfidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification ofeven one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of opposing party necessitatesdisqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.

4

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

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 Division: F

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

Defendants.

---------------', DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO AMEND AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) ACCOMMODATION OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE"

Defendants Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook move to strike PlaintiffNeil J.

Gillespie's "Motion for Leave to Amend Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Accommodation ofNeil

J. Gillespie," pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(f), and as grounds therefor would state:

I. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(f) provides that ''the court may strike redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, or scan, March 29, 2010,

PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie served Disability Act (ADA)

Accommodation ofNeil J. Gilles rial and impertinent

information.

2. The motion recit~ aces involving an

attorney by the name ofJonathan larriage proceeding.

Gillespie's motion attaches motior aents that have

nothing to do with the case at bar.

3. Gillespie's basis f( ----.•••0 UJJ" llHurmatton regarding Mr. Alpert is to "answer" the

undersigned's "often expressed concern that Plaintiff has taken inconsistent positions regarding the ADA

accommodation and being able to represent himself." (Plaintiffs motion for leave, ~ 6). According to

5

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 35 Filed 07/07/11 Page 11 of 15 PageID 751

6


7

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 600

8

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.


9

2

The Court should deny Gillespie’s motion and grant the Assignees motion to dismiss the action,

Dkt 32.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th

day of July, 2011.

/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 947652

Attorney for Assignees

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.

501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790

Tampa, Florida 33602

Telephone: (813) 489-1001

Fax: (813) 489-1008

E-mail: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

filed using the Court’s CM/ECF filing system, which will send an electronic notice of filing to:

Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, [email protected], counsel for Defendants The

Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer and anyone else registered to receive

such filings. No other defendant has been served.

/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE


1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205 vs. DIVISION: G BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. /

DEPOSITION EXCERPT OF: NEIL J. GILLESPIE TAKEN BY: Counsel for Defendants/ Counter-Plaintiffs DATE: June 21, 2011 TIME: 10:38 a.m. to 3:02 p.m. PLACE: Hillsborough County Courthouse Fifth Floor 800 East Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida REPORTED BY: Kimberly Himes Notary Public State of Florida at Large

RICHARD LEE REPORTING (813) 229-1588 TAMPA: email: [email protected]. PETERSBURG: 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2060 535 Central Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40-1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1352

2 APPEARANCES:

EUGENE P. CASTAGLIUOLO, ESQUIRE Castagliuolo Law Group, P.A. 3111 West Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard Tampa Bay Park, LakePointe 2, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33607 Appeared for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant; RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Suite 2100 400 North Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602. Appeared for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ALSO PRESENT:

HONORABLE JAMES D. ARNOLD


3

1 The excerpt, from the deposition, upon oral

2 examination, of NEIL J. GILLESPIE, taken on the 21st

3 day of June, 2011, at Hillsborough County

4 Courthouse, Fifth Floor, 800 East Twiggs Street,

5 Tampa, Florida, beginning at 10:38 a.m., before

6 Kimberly Himes, Notary Public in and for the State

7 of Florida at Large.

8 * * * * * *

9 P R O C E E D I N G S

10 (Beginning of requested excerpt.)

11 (Recess from 1:41 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.)

12 MR. RODEMS: Back on the record.

13 Let me tell you what -- obviously, the

14 written terms are going to govern, but let me

15 tell you what this agreement means to me if

16 it's signed. This lawsuit in the Thirteenth

17 Circuit, we will issue a satisfaction of

18 judgment and dismiss this action with

19 prejudice.

20 Mr. Gillespie will be responsible for

21 dismissing with prejudice the appeal in the

22 Second DCA. And we will contact the court in

23 Marion County and dismiss that action, and

24 then all claims will be gone.

25 I can assure you that we have no


4

1 interest nor would we have any claims against

2 Mr. Gillespie, because this release covers

3 everything from the beginning of the world

4 through June 21st of 2011 at the moment that

5 this is signed, which means that tomorrow we

6 could not sue Mr. Gillespie for anything that

7 he did in the past.

8 Now, obviously, going forward, if, you

9 know, Mr. Gillespie accidentally runs over my

10 mailbox three weeks from now, I could sue him

11 for that. If Mr. Gillespie defames me in the

12 future, if I defame Mr. Gillespie in the

13 future, we would have claims against each

14 other. But for anything that took place prior

15 to the moment we sign this document, that's

16 forever gone. That's what this release means

17 to me.

18 I only put Chris Barker signing for the

19 firm, because we only need one officer for the

20 firm to bind the firm. If Mr. Gillespie would

21 feel better if I announced individually and as

22 an officer of the law firm, I would do that.

23 We could handwrite it in so that we don't

24 have to take the time and go get this retyped.

25 Handwrite it in for Mr. Cook. I can assure


5

1 you that you will have a copy fully executed

2 by Mr. Barker and Mr. Cook before the end of

3 the day.

4 And like I said, the obligations for the

5 parties would be we would file a satisfaction

6 of judgment and record it and notify the

7 state that the judgment has been satisfied.

8 Mr. Gillespie would have an obligation

9 to notify the Second District Court of Appeal

10 that the appeal is dismissed. We would notify

11 the Thirteenth Circuit that the appeal is

12 dismissed. We would notify the Middle

13 District of Florida that we've been

14 assigned that claims, and that we're

15 dismissing that with prejudice.

16 MR. GILLESPIE: And what about the --

17 your libel claim against me that you dismissed

18 without prejudice?

19 MR. RODEMS: That's -- that would be

20 settled and resolved, because that's a claim

21 that accrued or occurred or events that formed

22 the basis of it occurred prior to June 21st of

23 2011. So this -- what I'm saying is:

24 Mr. Gillespie, if you sign this document and I

25 sign this document, the slate -- the slate is


6

1 wiped clean between us.

2 Now, I'm not going to go out and run a

3 website with your name or your picture on it,

4 and I would expect that you would want to not

5 have any more claims with me, which means I

6 would expect you to take the information down

7 from your website that regards our firm.

8 If you want to have true peace with us,

9 I think you should consider scouring that

10 website and taking everything out of it that

11 involves this litigation. That's your choice.

12 But if you're -- you know, if you are looking

13 for a true resolution and certainty that we are

14 never going to cross swords again, proverbially

15 speaking, that would be what I would recommend,

16 but it's up to you. I can't tell you what to

17 do. I'm not your boss, but I can assure you

18 that unless you do something after June 21st,

19 2011 to affect me or my law or my partners,

20 there will be no further litigation for

21 anything that's happened prior to today.

22 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I hear that as him

23 saying that tomorrow -- if we sign this today,

24 then tomorrow he could or might sue me over

25 the website.


7

1 MR. RODEMS: No, sir. No, sir. I am

2 telling you now --

3 MR. GILLESPIE: That's what I heard.

4 MR. RODEMS: I'm telling you now that

5 anything that occurred before today would be

6 gone. I can't tell you to take everything off

7 your website, but I'll give you a week. If

8 you can take -- and -- and this court reporter

9 is taking this down, so this is an agreement

10 binding between you and me. My oral word; my

11 duties as an officer of the court.

12 If within seven calendar days from June

13 21st you remove every word about me and my

14 law firm and my partners from your website,

15 there will be no further actions. We'll be

16 done with each other.

17 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, would that mean

18 direct words, or -- what if I want to talk

19 about Mr. Bauer?

20 MR. RODEMS: I don't represent him.

21 That's between you and him. I only -- I have

22 two concerns, Mr. Gillespie. One is that this

23 ends against me and my two partners and my law

24 firm. And, two, that this ends against the

25 Thirteenth Circuit. Now, I don't -- they


8

1 don't owe me anything, but I want that over

2 with. There's been -- it's gone on long

3 enough.

4 So short of that, you can say whatever

5 you want about Mr. Bauer. That's between you

6 and him, not between me. I'm not his --

7 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, but that involves

8 your firm and this lawsuit. I have nothing to

9 talk about Mr. Bauer other than this lawsuit,

10 really.

11 MR. RODEMS: Well, there's no way I can

12 tell you, Mr. Gillespie, that -- that anything

13 you do in the future wouldn't create a

14 problem, but I can assure you that I'm not

15 looking to sign this agreement today and jam

16 you up with more litigation tomorrow.

17 So I give you my word that within seven

18 days if you take down my picture, my law

19 firm's picture, and all the stuff relating to

20 me and my two partners --

21 MR. GILLESPIE: That might be a better

22 way to do this, to get an idea of what he

23 wants done from me after today.

24 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: He just told you he

25 wants everything -- any references --


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.


10

1 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Well, the only

2 changes we're going to do is we're going to

3 add these words to both of these gentlemen's

4 names.

5 MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh. Will I get the

6 return of these documents?

7 MR. RODEMS: Return of what documents?

8 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Can he have his

9 discovery back?

10 MR. RODEMS: Sure. Here's what --

11 here's what happens. The court reporter is a

12 notary. I'm going to write in "Individually

13 and as an officer of and on behalf of Barker,

14 Rodems & Cook, P.A." under my name and under

15 Bill's name. You and I are going to sign it

16 now. She's going to notarize it.

17 I'm -- you're going to get a copy. I'm

18 going to take a copy back to the office. I'm

19 going to get my partners to sign it, notarize

20 it, and then you're going to get a fully

21 executed copy.

22 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great.

23 MR. RODEMS: I'm going to prepare for

24 you a notice of dismissal with prejudice for

25 the appeal, which I'll email to you. Which if


11

1 Mr. Gillespie authorizes you, you can sign it,

2 and we can send it to the Second DCA. If he

3 wants to dismiss it himself, that's fine.

4 I'll get a satisfaction of judgment issued to

5 you and recorded, and -- and that's how it

6 will go.

7 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, there's another

8 issue.

9 MR. RODEMS: Okay.

10 MR. GILLESPIE: And it might be a

11 substantial one. Judge Cook, apparently, put

12 my confidential disability information in the

13 court file last year, and that was discovered

14 during this appeal process. So I guess to

15 counter --

16 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Is that case still

17 active that you're talking about?

18 MR. GILLESPIE: It's this case.

19 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Oh, okay. I thought

20 you were talking about Judge Cook, and

21 I thought that was a different case.

22 MR. GILLESPIE: No.

23 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: But if it's this

24 case, just file a motion. We'll file a motion

25 to have that taken out of the --


12

1 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, here's --

2 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: -- court file and

3 destroyed.

4 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, here's what's

5 happened since then, because opposing counsel

6 kept complaining that he didn't have this

7 information --

8 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: By "opposing

9 counsel," do you mean Mr. Rodems?

10 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm trying not to -- not

11 to aggravate the situation here.

12 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay. I'm just

13 trying to understand.

14 MR. GILLESPIE: Oh, okay. Sorry about

15 that. Mr. Rodems kept complaining that he was

16 entitled to this information when all other

17 sources said he wasn't, and in an effort to

18 move that issue forward, I put the information

19 on the record just last month -- the end of

20 last month.

21 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: You filed something

22 with that?

23 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.

24 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Is that what you're

25 saying?


13


2 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Well, we'll do a

3 motion to get it out of the record. And I'm

4 sure if Mr. Rodems has a copy of it in his

5 file, he'll relinquish it to you.

6 MR. RODEMS: I won't oppose any motion

7 to anything having to do with resolving your

8 concerns about the disability information.

9 And, you know, I mean, whatever -- whatever

10 you need.

11 I'm sure that if we went over to Judge

12 Arnold right now and said, "Judge, we've

13 reached an agreement, and we'd like to dismiss

14 the case, but Mr. Gillespie would like to have

15 the court seal any documents relating to his

16 disability," I'm sure the Court would probably

17 entertain that motion right now.

18 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: You could have it

19 purged, too. I've had stuff purged before.

20 MR. GILLESPIE: Well --

21 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: And he'll instruct

22 the clerk to destroy it.

23 MR. GILLESPIE: I want to do it now,

24 because now is the time that we're dealing

25 this.


14

1 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay.

2 MR. RODEMS: Why don't we --

3 MR. GILLESPIE: And I can make a

4 handwritten notice. I mean, there is a -- May

5 27th, 2011. And Judge Cook put that

6 information in the file, I believe, June 21st,

7 2010. And there were some earlier ones

8 inadvertently put in by myself in February

9 2007 and early March 2007.

10 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: And what are you --

11 what is it that you're worried about that this

12 is out there?

13 MR. GILLESPIE: Just --

14 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Is this something

15 else where you --

16 MR. GILLESPIE: This is -- this is an

17 example. And I'm not trying to inflame the

18 situation, but this information was in the

19 file, and Mr. Rodems took copies of it and

20 started giving it to other people outside of

21 this case.

22 MR. RODEMS: Honestly, I don't know what

23 you are referring to. I'm --

24 MR. GILLESPIE: Mr. Bajo of the

25 Thirteenth Circuit JNC. He had nothing to do


15

1 with this case.

2 MR. RODEMS: Well, I mean, the only

3 thing I can tell you is that I wrote letters

4 to him. I don't think I provided to him any

5 documents.


7 MR. RODEMS: The only documents I would

8 have provided to him would have been court

9 filings, so --

10 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, those are court

11 filings.

12 MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well, I mean, if

13 there's something in a court filing --

14 MR. GILLESPIE: If there's something in

15 a court filing, it's got to come out, because

16 you just heard his position.

17 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Can we go off the

18 record, please?


20 MR. RODEMS: The settlement agreement

21 has been signed and notarized by you for me

22 and Mr. Gillespie.

23 THE REPORTER: Yes.

24 MR. RODEMS: By agreement, we agreed

25 that Exhibit 4 would be given back to


16

1 Mr. Gillespie. So we're in agreement. Is

2 that correct, Mr. C?

3 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Yes, sir.

4 MR. RODEMS: Okay. And then what we'd

5 like to do is, if we can, go over to Judge

6 Arnold and advise him that the parties are

7 dismissing the case with prejudice and get

8 that on the record, and --

9 (Cell phone ringing.)

10 MR. RODEMS: This is my partner.


12 (Honorable James D. Arnold entered the

13 room.)

14 THE COURT: Okay.

15 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, Chris Rodems on

16 behalf of the Defendants. The parties have

17 reached a settlement agreement, and we have

18 executed it. Mr. Gillespie and I have

19 executed it. I'll be having my two partners

20 execute it this afternoon, but we wanted to

21 announce on the record before Your Honor that

22 this action is being dismissed with prejudice

23 with each party to bear its own attorneys'

24 fees and costs. Is that correct, Mr. --

25 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: That's a correct


17

1 representation, Your Honor. The only other

2 concern would be the writ of bodily attachment

3 and arrest warrant that are still

4 outstanding.

5 THE COURT: And discovery was produced?

6 MR. RODEMS: Yes, sir.

7 THE COURT: And the deposition was

8 taken?

9 MR. RODEMS: We have reached an

10 agreement that by settling the case, all of

11 Mr. Gillespie's requirements were met.

12 THE COURT: All right. I'll rescind the

13 warrant.

14 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: And, Judge, educate

15 me. It's been years since I was a prosecutor.

16 How would we get word out to the various law

17 enforcement authorities so that --

18 THE COURT: First of all, I'm going to

19 sign the warrant -- or sign the rescission

20 today.

21 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Oh, okay.

22 Beautiful.

23 THE COURT: Okay? The sheriff's office

24 will be informed. They will inform Marion

25 County. The order will go into the system


18

1 rescinding it, and I'll be glad to give you

2 and your client a conformed copy of it.

3 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great. Thank you,

4 Your Honor.

5 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.

6 MR. RODEMS: And, Your Honor, one other

7 thing. I will be preparing a satisfaction of

8 judgment, which I will distribute directly to

9 Mr. C regarding the judgment that was entered

10 by Judge Barton several years ago. And my

11 legal assistant is bringing over a notice of

12 dismissal for Mr. Gillespie to sign with the

13 Second District Court of Appeal. And then I

14 think there will also be a formal joint

15 stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of

16 this action with each party to bear its own

17 attorneys' fees and costs. But those are the

18 things that we need to complete to finalize

19 the settlement, and we thank you for your

20 patience today.

21 THE COURT: Relative to one other

22 concern your client had about something that

23 was filed with the clerk, once the case is

24 dismissed with prejudice, it will -- it will

25 go over into storage, and it won't be


19

1 available.

2 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great, Your Honor.

3 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.

4 I appreciate that.

5 THE COURT: Anything further?

6 MR. RODEMS: No, sir. Thank you.

7 THE COURT: With that in mind, I'll sign

8 the order. And if you gentlemen will wait

9 around, you will get your conformed copies,

10 and we'll make the appropriate calls to the

11 sheriff's office.

12 MR. RODEMS: Yes, sir.

13 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Do you want to use my

14 order, Judge, or are you going to draft your

15 own?

16 THE COURT: No, I did my own.

17 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay. Thank you.

18 (At 3:02 p.m., the proceedings were

19 concluded.)

20

21

22

23

24

25


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10DAB

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,et al.,

Defendants.______________________________________

ORDER

Pending before the Court is pro se 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 and Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and

General Mutual Release (Doc. 33).

When Mr. Gillespie instituted this lawsuit he included as defendants the law firm

of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (the “Firm”) and attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems

(Doc. 1). Mr. Gillespie sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 13)

but he chose instead to voluntarily dismiss his claims against the Firm and Mr. Rodems

(Doc. 22). Upon receipt of Mr. Gillespie’s notice of voluntary dismissal the Court

directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing all claims against the Firm and Mr.

Rodems without prejudice (Doc. 25). The Judgment was entered on November 23,

2010 (Doc. 26).

On June 21, 2011, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker and William J.

Cook (the “Assignees”), filed their Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for

Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (the “Notice”) (Doc. 32). Attached to the Notice is a


10

document entitled “Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release” (the

“Settlement Agreement”) (Id.). The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Mr.

Gillespie, the Assignees and the Firm. In the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Gillespie

assigned “all claims pending or which could have been brought, based on the

allegations of [Mr. Gillespie], against any person or entity, without limitation, in [this

case].” In return, he received the satisfaction of a judgment.

Mr. Gillespie has motioned this Court to strike or set aside both the Notice and

the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 33). The Assignees served a response to the motion

in which they dispute certain facts alleged by Mr. Gillespie, assert that he does not have

standing to bring his motion to strike and they say this Court does not have subject

matter jurisdiction (Doc. 40).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that “[t]he court may strike from a

pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

scandalous matter.” (Emphasis supplied). The only pleadings allowed are: (1) a

complaint; (2) the answer to the complaint; (3) the answer to a counterclaim; (4) the

answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party

complaint; and (7) if the Court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.

Because the Notice and Settlement Agreement are not pleadings they are not subject

to a motion to strike. McNair v. Monsanto Co., 279 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1298 (M.D. Ga.

2003)(“motion to strike is only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the

pleadings.”); Merritt v. Hubb Intern. Southwest Agency Ltd., 2011 WL 4026651, *2

(N.D. Ga. 2011)(motion to strike declaration held procedurally improper because Rule

12(f) only applies to pleadings.); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Belu, 2009

2


WL 2848995, *3 (N.D. Ga. 2009)(explaining that Rule 12(f) only applies to pleadings);

and Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988)(noting

that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection).

Therefore, 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 and

Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release (Doc.

33) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on the 6 day of October, 2011.th

Copies furnished to:

Neil J. GillespieCounsel of Record

3



11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

-vs- Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10TBS

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.______________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint against eleven (11)

Defendants which, by its title, purports to state a claim under the Americans With

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq., as well as various violations of his

constitutional rights.1 (Doc. 1). The Complaint is due to be dismissed for several reasons.

First, the Plaintiff has never effected service of summons on any of the Defendants,

or complied with any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second, the Complaint

consists 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). Third, the Complaint fails to allege the basis for the

Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) – the parties are

clearly all citizens of Florida and therefore not diverse, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any

1The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two (2) of the Defendants, BarkerRodems & Cook, P.A., and Ryan Christopher Rodems, on October 29, 2010 (Docs. 22, 25-26).


12

intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. And fourth, it appears that the Plaintiff has assigned all of

his claims in this case to Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and

William J. Cook, who have moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(2). (See Doc. 32).2

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s

Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,

terminate all pending motions, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 27th day of February, 2012.

Copies to: Counsel of RecordNeil J. Gillespie, pro se

2The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlementagreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, executedunder duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However, the core of thesettlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of various matterspending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have been executed as partof a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court is the appropriate judicialbody with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the validity and/or enforceability of thesettlement agreement and assignment. This Court will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction) entertain any disputes within the purview of the settlement agreement unless and until the statecourt enters a judgment declaring the settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).

2


Neil Gillespie

From: "UPS Quantum View" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 10:33 AMSubject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FP290125299

Page 1 of 1

1/21/2013

UPS My Choice® can help you avoid missed home deliveries. Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J. Gillespie will notreply.

At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice is to confirm following shipment has been delivered.

Important Delivery Information

Delivery Location: MAIL ROOM Signed by: J CONNEL

Shipment Detail

Ship To: Attorney Consumer Assistance Progra The Florida Bar 651 E JEFFERSON ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 US

____2@@2@@2OoluKbm____

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FP290125299Delivery Date / Time: 07-January-2013 / 10:06 AM

Number of Packages: 1UPS Service: GROUNDWeight: 1.0 LBS

© 2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Servicrights reserved. For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy. Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message. For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS. This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copyuse of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. Privacy Notice Contact UPS

Proof of Delivery

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FP290125299Service: UPS GroundWeight: 1.00 lbShipped/Billed On: 01/04/2013Delivered On: 01/07/2013 10:06 A.M.Delivered To: TALLAHASSEE, FL, USSigned By: J CONNELLeft At: Mail Room

Print This Page

Close Window

Dear Customer,

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

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

UPS

Tracking results provided by UPS: 01/07/2013 10:52 A.M. ET

Close Window

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

1 of 1 1/7/2013 10:52 AM

scotus, rule 8 notice, conduct unbecoming, ryan c rodems, 12-7747

Documents