Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP298144629 & email to LClark@flabar.org Leonard E.

Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office 4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Suite 2580 Tampa, FL 33607

May 10, 2013

RE: Closure of complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Dear Mr. Clark: This is a request for a review of your decision to close my complaint without probable cause against Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), per your letter April 11, 2013. Mr. Rodems and his partners concocted a scheme and stole $7,143 from my settlement in the Amscot case, which theft and cover-up thereof you, Susan Bloemendaal, and other cronies of and through the Florida Bars Tampa Branch Office have not honestly or adequately prosecuted. You and The Florida Bar were advised April 14, 2013 that I disagreed with your decision, by and through my email to ABA President Bellows, copied to you, the ABA, The Florida Bar, Mr. Anderson for the Thirteenth Circuit JNC, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D. April 29, 2013 I emailed you a PDF copy of my final letter to Mr. Rodems, which letter repudiated your closure of my complaint, among other things. The email was provided to Florida Gov. Rick Scott, AG Pam Bondi, the ABA, The Florida Bar, Mr. Anderson for the Thirteenth Circuit JNC, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D. Unfortunately your decision to close my complaint, and the finding of no probable cause, is gratuitous and not supported by the record. The letter report does not respond to my allegations, and falsely states "Furthermore, many of the allegations related to alleged conduct that occurred in 2005 and 2006. Thus, these allegations are outside the Bar's time limitations to prosecute a case." This is absurd. My complaint alleged ongoing misconduct through 2013 by Mr. Rodems. References to earlier events were either in reply to Mr. Rodems or for historical context. While The Florida Bar claims no right of appeal, I request a review of your decision provided to me in your letter of April 11, 2013, which I received April 13, 2013, because the finding of no probable cause is in substantial conflict with the review of Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood of ACAP, the Attorney Consumer Assistance Program central intake in Tallahassee, Florida. Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood - ACAP Attorney Consumer Assistance Program - Tallahassee Pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(a) Mr. Littlewood reviewed my sworn complaint against Mr. Rodems submitted September 10, 2012. Mr. Littlewood determined as a result of his review that the alleged conduct by Mr. Rodems, if proven, would constitute a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline.

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 2

Mr. Littlewood decided to pursue an inquiry pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(b), and opened disciplinary File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) against Mr. Rodems with written notice to him September 13, 2012. Mr. Littlewoods letter informed Mr. Rodems Your response to this complaint is required under the provisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and is due in our office by September 28, 2012. Mr. Littlewood conducted an investigation which considered the following: My sworn complaint against Mr. Rodems, submitted September 10, 2012 The response by Mr. Rodems, submitted September 17, 2012 My rebuttal to Mr. Rodems response, submitted October 16, 2012 The addendum to my rebuttal, submitted October 22, 2012 Mr. Littlewoods investigation concluded that my complaint warranted further consideration. On October 26, 2012 Mr. Littlewood advised me and Mr. Rodems by letter that the matter had been forwarded to The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office for consideration. Mr. Littlewood should be commended for his professionalism in conducting the initial review as required and in compliance with The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The Florida Bar Tampa Branch Office - Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office is a crony local discipline component as describe by the American Bar Association McKay Report. Local components, such as local bar investigative committees, foster cronyism as well as prejudice against unpopular respondents. - ABA McKay Report Local discipline components are a fatal defect in The Florida Bars lawyer discipline system. Susan V. Bloemendaal is Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for the Tampa Branch Office, and was so in June 2004 when I first complained about the crooks at Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. Unfortunately Ms. Bloemendaal and other Tampa Bar cronies have not honestly or adequately prosecuted any complaint I have made related to the theft from me by Barker, Rodems & Cook, of $7,143 from my settlement in the Amscot case and the cover-up thereof. The Tampa Branch Office local discipline component cronies include: Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Troy Matthew Lovell, Tampa Branch Office Lead Attorney Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel Michael G. Stofer, Chair of the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D Sandra Fascell Diamond, Designated Reviewer

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 3

Florida Bar President Gwynne A. Young was one of three Florida Bar Board of Governors for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit who reviewed this discipline matter in 2007, along with Timon V. Sullivan and William Kalish. Current Board of Governors for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit are: William J. Schifino Jr., Burr & Forman, LLP Lansing Charles Scriven, Quarles & Brady, LLP Margaret Diane Mathews, Akerman Senterfitt Michael S. Hooker, Phelps Dunbar, LLP Florida Bar Governors Authority and Responsibility Rule 18.1. Responsibility of board of governors Among its other duties, the board of governors is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Rules of Discipline and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 33.2. Board of governors of The Florida Bar (a) Responsibility of Board. The board is assigned the responsibility of maintaining high ethical standards among the members of The Florida Bar. The board shall supervise and conduct disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the provisions of these rules. Breach of Confidentiality, Rule 3-7.1 Mr. Clark, you responded March 13, 2013 to my records request, in part by writing this case is still pending and under The Florida Bar Rules is confidential. However appears by that date you already decided my complaint(s), and informed Messrs. Rodems and Castagliuolo1 each of a finding of no probable cause. Mr. Castagliuolo notified me of your decision by email February 6, 2013. Mr. Rodems reported to the JNC that my complaint was being dismissed as unfounded, according to a statement by Rodems on his application for judge: Mr. Gillespie filed a second grievance in 2012, raising many of the same complaints, and I have been advised by Leonard Clark, Esquire of the Florida Bar that it is being dismissed as unfounded. (JNC application of Mr. Rodems, February 1, 2013, Page 19, Exhibit 2) On March 26, 2013 I wrote Gwynne Young, President of The Florida Bar, and asked: Ms. Young, to whom does confidentiality apply in a pending case? Why do respondents have access to Bar Counsel and confidential information that is denied to complainants?

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

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 4

As of today Ms. Young has not responded. Mr. Clark, to whom does confidentiality apply in a pending case? Why do respondents have access to Bar Counsel and confidential information that is denied to complainants? Mr. Clark, I reviewed your letter of April 16, 2013, responsive to my records request, and the records, and found nothing about your decision to dismiss the case as unfounded as reported by Mr. Rodems to the JNC in his application submitted February 1, 2013. How and when did you advise Mr. Rodems about your decision? This is what you wrote April 16, 2013: The following is The Florida Bar's response to your public records request dated April 14, 2013. From review of our file, all public records have been forwarded to you except for emails between Mr. Rodems and myself dated March 26, 2013, April 10, 2013 and April 11, 2013. You have received all other documents in the public portion of our file, excluding documents, letters and emails that you have previously sent to The Florida Bar. Mr. Rodems wrote February 1, 2013 in his JNC application that you advised him my complaint was being dismissed as unfounded, which notification predates emails between Mr. Rodems and yourself dated March 26, 2013, April 10, 2013 and April 11, 2013. Did you telephone or meet with Mr. Rodems on or before February 1, 2013 and advise him that my complaint was being dismissed as unfounded? If so, please explain how and why you decided to breach confidentiality. In the alternative, perhaps Mr. Rodems simply lied to the JNC on his application for judge. Unfortunately lying is a habit for Mr. Rodems. Closure letter April 11, 2013 of Bar Counsel Leonard E. Clark Not responsive to allegations against Mr. Rodems Mr. Clark, your closure letter to me April 11, 2013 and accompanying documents failed to respond to the following allegations in my complaint against Mr. Rodems. The allegations are presented by date of Mr. Rodems misconduct to impeach this statement in the determination by Bar Counsel and Committee Chair, Rule 3-7.3(d). Specifically, many of the issues raised by Mr. Gillespie have been previously addressed and rejected by the Bar and by the courts. Furthermore, many of the allegations related to alleged conduct that occurred in 2005 and 2006. The following misconduct occurred after the closure of my Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems in 2007. Mr. Rodems was proposed as, but not made, a defendant in Hillsborough case 05-CA7205, so there is no adjudication for him in that case. The Florida Supreme Court found it had no jurisdiction in SC11-1622, so there is no adjudication for him in that case. In the U.S. District Court, case 5:10-cv-503, the complaint was not served, so there is no adjudication for him in that case, which I gave notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) October 29, 2010 for Mr. Rodems and his firm. In U.S. Supreme Court Petition No. 12-7747, Mr. Rodems and his firm did not have a real party interest, see my Rule 12.6 Notice submitted January 22, 2013.

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 5

Therefore you, the Florida Bars Tampa Branch Office, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, failed to consider the following meritorious allegations against Mr. Rodems: From my sworn complaint against Mr. Rodems, submitted September 10, 2012 MR. RODEMS UNETHICAL REPRESENTATION AGAINST ME, A FORMER CLIENT ONGOING THROUGH APRIL 15, 2013 1. Ongoing ethics violation by Mr. Rodems through 2012 (and after, in 2013) his conflict with me as a former client of his three-partner firm, the prohibition against litigating against a former client on the same or substantially related matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 41.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases. This violation is the most significant, and resulted in Mr. Rodems subsequent misconduct throughout this entire matter, up to and including my Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, rehearing denied April 15, 2013. Mr. Rodems continued harassing me after the petition was done and closed, to include unwanted email April 19, 2013. McPartland has been a mandatory authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by U.S. Judge Kovachevich. McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995: [1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court must focus on subjective expectation of 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 disqualify counsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law. Mr. Rodems improperly represented his law firm and partner against me in 16 cases (Exhibit 1), misconduct intended to cover-up fraud and other wrongdoing against me by his partner and law firm. No other lawyer outside this firm could have ethically presented the same defense without violating Bar rules, because Mr. Rodems defense is merely perpetration of the original fraud.

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 6

Mr. Rodems representation of his law firm consisted of his presenting false testimony on behalf of his firm and partner, while harassing me and committing new fraud on the court. Under Florida law the question is not whether Mr. Rodems may be a witness but, whether he "ought" to be a witness. Proper test for disqualification of counsel is whether counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[l] Matter of Doughty, 51 B.R. 36. Disqualification is required when counsel "ought" to appear as a witness. [3] Florida Realty Inc. v. General Development Corp., 459 F.Supp. 781. Rodems ought to be a witness on his affidavit of Mar 6, 2006. See Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Judge Cook falsified Order, Rodems disqualif, September 27, 2010. Also on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105438019/Affidavit-of-Neil-J-Gillespie-Judge-Cook-FalsifiedOrder-Rodems-Disqualif-Sep-27-2010 MR. RODEMS VEXTATIOUS LITIGATON THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 2. Ongoing revenge litigation by Mr. Rodems through September 28, 2010, a vexatious libel counterclaim in Hillsborough Co. case 05-CA-7205, over a letter I wrote to Amscot, about the litigation and a closed Bar complaint. On September 28, 2010 Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I incurred $31,863 in legal fees to attorney Robert W. Bauer, a referral February 26, 2007 from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service to defend the libel suit. Unfortunately Mr. Bauer did not actively defend the libel counterclaim, and appears to have collaborated with Mr. Rodems, contrary to Bauers fiduciary duty to me, his client. Unfortunately no judge considered, or ruled upon, the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel in his vexatious libel counterclaim against me. Mr. Rodems should have been disqualified because my letter to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, was substantially related to the prior litigation and a related Bar complaint. MR. RODEMS UNETHICAL COLLABORATION TO UNDERMINE MY COUNSEL, MR. CASTAGLIUOLO Reported to The Florida Bar by Mr. Castagliuolo August 30, 2012 3. Mr. Castagliuolo admitted August 30, 2012 in a written response to Mr. Littlewood, Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10,162 (6D), that Mr. Rodems made an unsolicited offer to Castagliuolo to assist him in any future Bar grievance from me. From page 3, 1: My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher Chris" Rodems. Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The Florida Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer. 4. This shows the discipline process is compromised, here by Mr. Rodems, whos misconduct is at the center of this matter. It suggests a pattern of racketeering activity where adversaries know in advance how to position themselves to avoid discipline. In this case it caused Mr. Castagliuolo to work for the benefit of Mr. Rodems instead of me, his client.

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office
LYING IS A HABIT FOR MR. RODEMS Lack of cantor before the tribunal through January 2012

May 10, 2013 Page - 7

5. Lying is a habit for Mr. Rodems, and he is guilty of ongoing misconduct through at least June 21, 2011 related to lack of candor, which rules and standards are contained in a publication by The Florida Bar Ethics Department entitled Candor Toward The Tribunal. Mr. Rodems is guilty of ongoing dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice through at least June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems also knowingly disparaged, humiliated, and discriminated against me on the basis of disability throughout the litigation that ended June 21, 2011 in Hillsborough County. Mr. Rodems partner William Cook, and his firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, previously consulted with me on disability and the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR. The following is my laymans understanding of Mr. Rodems misconduct and crimes, and the applicable Florida Bar Rule. Rule 3-4.3 The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline. Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent. Rule 4-1.6(b) requires a lawyer to reveal information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime. Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2) substantial risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the lawyer's responsibilities to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems. See Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-RyanChristopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010 Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client. (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal information relating to the representation about the client. Mr. Rodems firm and law partner represented me the Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and consulted with me on disability matters with Florida DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 8

Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so. Mr. Rodems has an imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William Cook previously represented me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010. Rule 4-1.16 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law. Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. (i.e., Vexatious libel claim, later voluntarily dismissed) Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal, (a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyers client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (b) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. (c) Ex Parte Proceedings. In an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. (d) Extent of Lawyer's Duties. The duties stated in this rule continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6. Rule 4-3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, A lawyer shall not:

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 9

(a) A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding... (b) prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness to testify falsely. (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal... (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; (g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter; or Rule 4-3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal (a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge.... (b) Communication with Judge or Official. In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge. (c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. Rule 4-8.4(a) Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act Rule 4-8.4(c) Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation Rule 4-8.4(d) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice The Florida Bars Ethics Department Information Packet Candor Toward the Tribunal notes: To permit or assist a client or other witness to testify falsely is prohibited by section 837.02, Florida Statutes (1991), which makes perjury in an official proceeding a felony, and by section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1991), which proscribes aiding, abetting, or counseling commission of a felony. (page 6, 4) Florida caselaw prohibits lawyers from presenting false testimony or evidence. Kneale v. Williams, 30 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration of a fraud is outside the scope of the professional duty of an attorney and no privilege attaches to communication between an attorney and a client with respect to transactions constituting the making of a false claim or the perpetration of a fraud. Dodd v. The Florida Bar, 118 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1960), reminds us that "the courts are . . . dependent on members of the bar to . . . present the true facts of each cause . . . to enable the judge or the jury to [decide the facts] to which the law may be applied. When an attorney . . . allows false testimony . . . [the attorney] . . . makes it impossible for the scales [of justice] to balance." See The Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1981), and The Fla. Bar v. Simons, 391 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1980). (page 6, 5) Ex parte proceedings. Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting 1 side of the matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary injunction, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 10

to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision. (pages 6-7) Specific misconduct of Mr. Rodems in 2011 6. June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems improperly extorted a settlement from me during a coercive confinement at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa, held without disability accommodation. From 5, Florida Supreme Court petition SC11-1622, January 9, 2012: 5. At the direction of Judge Arnold I voluntarily appeared June 21, 2011 for a deposition at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa to purge the contempt and rescind the arrest warrant, but that turned out to be a trap to force a walk-away settlement agreement in the lawsuits. Upon my arrival at the courthouse, I was taken into custody and involuntarily confined by two Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputies, Deputy Randy Olding and Deputy Larry Berg. I was denied accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Federal Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq. After being held in custody during the deposition for over four (4) hours without a lunch break, or the usual mid-day meal provided to a prisoner, I became confused and disoriented. The record (A.4.1.125) shows that I was so impaired that I could not make a decision to sign the agreement. My counsel Eugene Castagliuolo (A.7), whom I hired from Craigslist a couple weeks earlier, made the decision to settle because judges have mud on their shoes. I signed the agreement while confused and in a diminished state. Castagliuolo disobeyed my prior written and verbal instructions not to accept a walk-away settlement agreement. Once I was released from custody and had a meal, I realized the settlement was a mistake and promptly disaffirmed the agreement by written notice to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo and Major James Livingston of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office. (A.2.1.2-3). 7. June 16, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied about my income during a hearing before Judge James Arnold on Plaintiffs Motion To Quash Writ of Bodily Attachment And To Rescind Warrant For Plaintiffs Arrest, where I was represented by Mr. Castagliuolo. I was subject to an arrest warrant and did not attend the hearing. Castagliuolo informed the court I would sit in jail for two weeks if arrested before transfer from Marion to Hillsborough Co. Rodems refused to allow 60 days to attend a deposition with counsel. Mr. Rodems lied about my income to Judge Arnold. Transcript, page 7: 8 [MR. RODEMS] Mr. Gillespie receives income from a trust. Transcript, page 13: 21 MR. RODEMS: There is one matter, Judge. And 22 I'm just trying to head off a problem in the past. 23 Mr. Gillespie is trying very hard not to show 24 to me the trust documents, where he gets income. Mr. Rodems statement to Judge Arnold is false because I do not receive income from a trust. My income is from Social Security disability. No one receives income from the trust because the

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 11

trust does not have any money. The trust has no assets other than my home, valued at $78,000 and currently in foreclosure, and underwater by about $30,000. A copy of The Gillespie Family Living Trust was filed September 20, 2011 with the District Court and is on PACER along with my Affidavit of Indigency, Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Document 3 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 37 PageID 76. I did not create the trust and do not know its purpose. The grantor trustees are all dead. No living person knows the purpose of the trust. MR. RODEMS FAILURE TO COOPERATE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL THROUGH JUNE 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems unnecessarily put law enforcement at risk in June 2011 8. June 3, 2011 through June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems refused to provide upon request of my attorney Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily attachment. 9. June 1, 2011 through June 21, 2011 For twenty-one days, law enforcement tried to arrest me. On June 3, 2011, upon receipt of my monthly disability payment, I hired Mr. Castagliuolo off Craigslist to represent me at the court-ordered deposition. Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with Mr. Castagliuolo, or provide him a copy of a writ of bodily attachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo stated in part Last but not least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but unhappy message. On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an asshole in an email to me: Based on what I know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you. This example is representative of Mr. Rodems uncooperative behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo. Ex parte Hearings: Civil Contempt, Writ of Bodily Attachment, Arrest Warrant 10. September 28, 2010 to June 1, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied to Judge Martha Cook, and Judge James Arnold, during 3 ex-parte hearings, and obtained a warrant for my arrest on a writ of bodily attachment for civil contempt. The hearings before Judge Arnold in 2011 were after the case was closed and on appeal of Final Summary Judgment in 2D10-5197. I have mental impairments and disability. I can no longer represent myself due to intentional infliction of severe emotional distress by Mr. Rodems, a course of harassing conduct since March 2006. Florida Bar Rule 4-1.14 Comment - Rules of procedure in litigation generally provide that minors or persons suffering mental disability shall be represented by a guardian or next friend if they do not have a general guardian. (I do not have a general guardian) I also filed the following and provided Judge James Arnold courtesy copies May 27, 2011: May 27, 2011 letter to Judge Arnold informing him that Rodems lied at earlier hearings, and that I cannot represent myself. This letter was cross-filed in the District Court and is on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 35 Filed 07/07/11.

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 12

May 24, 2011 I filed Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation Request, and Memorandum of Law in 05-CA-7205, cross-filed in the District Court and is on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 37 Filed 07/07/11 (449 pages). May 27, 2011 I filed Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie in 05CA-7205. Dr. Huffers report is found at Exhibit 1 therein. Cross-filed in District Court on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11. 11. June 1, 2011. The public defender was appointed to represent me September 27, 2011, but Judge Arnold relieved the public defender, and I had no counsel. Judge Arnold proceeded with the hearing ex parte and issued a warrant for my arrest at the demand of Mr. Rodems. 12. May 3, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied during an ex parte hearing before Judge James Arnold demanding my arrest on a writ of bodily attachment. Mr. Rodems lied about my cooperation to attend a deposition. Rodems also lied about my disability, and failed to tell Judge Arnold that I must be represented by counsel at a deposition due to Mr. Rodems past behavior, such as making a false affidavit against me March 6, 2006, and his intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, see Plaintiffs Amended Accommodation Request (ADA) Mar-05-2006. I cannot have unmoderated contact with Mr. Rodems because of his antics and the imbalance of power between us. Rodems also made this false statement to Judge Arnold: Transcript, page 9 20 There is no possibility that Mr. Gillespie is 21 going to voluntarily show up for a deposition. This is false. In my letter to Mr. Rodems November 8, 2010 I provided three dates where I would appear: Wednesday November 10, 2010, Thursday November 11, 2010, Friday November 12, 2010. I filed this letter with the Clerk November 8, 2010. Mr. Rodems Filed False Information In Court Pleading November 3, 2010 13. November 3, 2010. Mr. Rodems filed false information with the court in his Response To Plaintiffs Emergency Motion To Disqualify Judge Martha J. Cook And Amended Motion For An Order To Show Cause As To Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Prohibited From Henceforth Appearing Pro Se. Mr. Rodems stated on page 2 The transcript shows that Plaintiff elected to leave [the hearing]; in fact Judge Cook ordered me removed from the hearing. The bailiff who removed me, HCSO Deputy Christopher E. Brown, impeached Judge Cooks assertion that I left voluntarily. HCSO Major James Livingston put Deputy Browns statement in a letter to me dated January 12, 2011 on Hillsborough County Sheriff Office letterhead, and it appears as Exhibit E to the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie of April 25, 2011. Judge Cook ordered me removed after I provided her the Complaint in my federal ADA and 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, 5:10-cv-503. Mr. Rodems also stated in his pleading that I concocted illness during a hearing July 12, 2010. This is false. I became ill and was treated by Tampa Fire Rescue, as shown by treatment records, and described in Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment of Counsel, ADA Accommodation Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011, see 37, 43-49. From 44:

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 13

44. Gillespie suffered a panic attack July 12, 2010 during a hearing. The Court excused Gillespie from the hearing. Deputies of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office saw Gillespie was in distress and offered assistance. Tampa Fire Rescue was called. Corporal Gibson was by Gillespies side and walked him to the lobby of courthouse where he waited for the paramedics. Tampa Fire Rescue arrived and Gillespie received medical attention at 10:42 AM by EMT Paramedic Robert Ladue and EMT Paramedic Dale Kelley. Later Gillespie obtained a report of the call, incident number 100035129. (Exhibit 35). The narrative section states found 54yom sitting in courthouse with tight throat secondary to stress from court appearance. The impressions section states abdominal pain/problems. The nature of call at scene section states Resp problem. See Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Judge Martha J. Cook ,falsified record of Gillespie's panic attack; ADA, October 28, 2010. (Exhibit 32). Ex Parte Hearings: Final Summary Judgment, and Civil Contempt, September 28, 2010 14. September 28, 2010. Mr. Rodems collaborated with Judge Cook during hearings on Final Summary Judgment, and Civil Contempt, and created a false record to show that I left the hearing voluntarily, when in fact Judge Cook ordered me removed by the bailiff after I provided her the Complaint in my federal ADA and 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al., 5:10-cv-503, U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. Judge Cook continued the hearings ex parte after ordering me removed by the bailiff, ruled against me, then lied about my removal in a contempt order September 30, 2010. It was a classic Star Chamber proceeding. Thankfully the bailiff who removed me, HCSO Deputy Christopher E. Brown, impeached Judge Cooks assertion that I left voluntarily. HCSO Major James Livingston put Deputy Browns statement in a letter dated January 12, 2011, and appears as Exhibit E to the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie April 25, 2011. Rodems has an ongoing duty to correct the record. A transcript of the hearing on Final Summary Judgment shows Mr. Rodems did not comply with Rule 4-3.3(c), and did not inform the tribunal of all material facts known to him to enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts were adverse. Rodems stated: Pages 5-6 [MR. RODEMS] The following facts that are in my motion

are undisputed.
All the facts Mr. Rodems presented were, in fact, disputed. See Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment filed April 25, 2006, and Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint submitted May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton. Mr. Rodems did not inform the Court that he lied October 30, 2007 to Judge Barton when he testified that I signed a contingent fee agreement with BRC, when in fact I did not sign one. His falsehood was the basis of earlier favorable judgments. A transcript of the hearing on Civil Contempt shows Mr. Rodems did not comply with Rule 43.3(c), and did not inform the tribunal of all material facts known to him to enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts were adverse. Mr. Rodems failed to correct

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 14

the record when Judge Cook lied and said that I leave the hearing voluntarily (p.19, lines 8-11). Mr. Rodems failed to inform the Court that his representation of his firm and partner was contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland; Rodems failed to inform the Court that I was entitled to ADA disability accommodation at a deposition. 15. July 20, 2010. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, No Signed Contingent Fee Agreement with BRC, filed July 20, 2010 and swears that I did not sign a contingent fee contract with BRC. Mr. Rodems Full Nuclear Blast, Harassment - Unfairness to Opposing Party or Counsel 17. August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an Emergency Hearing on garnishment before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24): 24 25 1 2 3 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work this out in a professional manner. It is my mistake for sitting back and giving him the opportunity to take this full blast attack.

Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal as counsel October 13, 2008. The motion was granted a year later October 1, 2009. The case was inactive for a year. I was unrepresented thereafter. 18. September 17, 2010. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Mr. Bauer prohibited me from attending hearings due to Mr. Rodems full nuclear blast approach harassment, filed September 18, 2010. 19. Mr. Rodems' full nuclear blast approach was unprofessional as stated by Mr. Bauer, and was a tort, the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress on me. Mr. Rodems full nuclear blast approach has aggravated my disability to the point where I can no longer represent myself at hearings. I become easily distracted and confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent himself. I retained Dr. Karin Huffer as my ADA disability advocate. Dr. Huffer prepared a disability report for me in February 2010 which the court essentially ignored. On October 28, 2010 Dr. Huffer wrote a letter stating I had been denied disability accommodations and improperly threatened with arrest. (page 1 2). See Exhibit 3. As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the Judge and now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. Dr. Huffer also wrote He is left with permanent secondary wounds. (page 2). Also:

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 15

It is against my medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of bullies to sort out a legal problem. (page 2, 1) Additional Affidavits, Notices, Motions of Rodems Fraud and Misconduct Filed in 05-CA-7205 20. 21. July 27, 2010. Notice of Fraud on the Court by Ryan C. Rodems, Discovery. July 26, 2010, Mr. Rodems filed Motion For Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Prohibited From Henceforth Appearing Pro Se. To deny me access to court. June 28, 2010. Motion to Strike Mr. Rodems Improperly Notarized Affidavit of Mr. Cook. Rodems notarized the affidavit of his law partner to garnish my funds, contrary to notary law. June 17, 2010. Sworn Notice of Mr. Rodems Fraud on the Court, re: Coordinating Hearing June 14, 2010. Motion For Order of Protection, cancel deposition, Stay pending ADA ruling. May 5, 2010. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Mr. Rodems as a Defendant personally. February 22, 2010, Perjury Complaint against Mr. Rodems to Tampa Police, re: his Motion For Bailiff and Sanctions, March 6, 2006; outcome: Rodems not right, not accurate. February 19, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, ADA Disability. January 5, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, Harassment. December 15, 2009. Motion To Hold Mr. Rodems in Contempt, Violated Stay Order Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. 5:10-cv-503 30. In 5:10-cv-503, Mr. Rodems misconduct was so bad that I dismissed him and BRC under Rule 41 September 29, 2010. Mr. Rodems misconduct in violation of Rule 11(b) is found at Doc. 58 Plaintiffs Response To Order To Show Cause, beginning on page 28, 19. In pleadings Mr. Rodems told the Court that my Complaint was filed AFTER the state court disposed of all my claims, which is false; my Complaint was filed BEFORE the claims were adjudicated. Rodems also told the Court that I sued the four judges in the state court action. This is false, I did not sue Judge Richard Nielson because he too was duped by Rodems false affidavit of March 6, 2006. 31. On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems gave notice of assignment of claims, and moved for dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), but that was not granted. U.S. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges dismissed the case without prejudice on other grounds and noted Rodems assignment. (Order, Doc. 64.). Judge Hodges rejected Mr. Rodems and did not reward his misconduct.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29.

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems Regarding Disability Ongoing misconduct through April 19, 2013

May 10, 2013 Page - 16

Rule 4-8.4(d), A lawyer shall not engage in conduct...prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigantson any basis, including, but not limited to disability. 32. Mr. Rodemss strategy has been ongoing through 2013 to inflict severe emotional distress on me who he knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, in an effort to deny me due process of law, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct, conflict of interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In March 2001 I consulted with Mr. Cook and BRC on disability and DVR in DLES case no: 98066-DVR. Mr. Rodems knows from that time that I am disabled with physical and mental impairments that substantially limit my life activities. The Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DRV) determined that my disability was too severe for rehabilitation services to result in employment. Currently I am indigent, a 57 year-old single man, law-abiding, college educated, and a former business owner. Social Security determined I was totally disabled in 1994. I have a record of impairment since birth. I am also regarded by others as being impaired. The record shows I suffer from depression, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), diabetes type II adult onset, traumatic brain injury (TBI), velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI), craniofacial disorder, and impaired hearing. On August 6, 2012 with leave of the U.S. Court of Appeals, I submitted Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation. This shows disqualification of Mr. Rodems was required under the ADA. The Motion and Appendixes 1-3 are posted on Scribd, 251 pages, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11. From my rebuttal to Mr. Rodems response, submitted October 16, 2012 33. Unfortunately I am out of time and cannot present this information here and now, but reserve the right to do so later. From the addendum to my rebuttal, submitted October 22, 2012 34. Unfortunately I am out of time and cannot present this information here and now, but reserve the right to do so later. Conclusion Tellingly, no one from The Florida Bar called me, interviewed me, or discussed with me any allegations during the Bars so-called investigation of my complaint. Apparently the Bar did not assign an investigating member in this complaint. No one asked me for any documents or other information. Your contact with me was administrative in nature, not investigative. Michael

Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office

May 10, 2013 Page - 17

G. Stofer, Chair of the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, did not contact me about the allegations in my complaint. Sandra Fascell Diamond, the Designated Reviewer, did not contact me about the investigation of my complaint. Therefore I conclude the Florida Bars investigation of my complaint against Mr. Rodems was not a legitimate inquiry. In other words, the Florida Bar whitewashed my complaint to protect Mr. Rodems and his crooked partners, as in the past. The foregoing is a request for a review of your decision to close my complaint without probable cause against Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), your letter April 11, 2013. This also serves as a record of Floridas failure to adequately protect consumers of legal and court services, its failure to properly regulate lawyers, law firms, the practice of law, and state judicial officers, affecting interstate commerce. Sincerely

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net cc by email: Florida Gov. Rick Scott, AG Pam Bondi, ABA service list; the Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth Circuit BOG. Enclosures: Email April 14, 2013 to ABA President Bellows, cc the ABA, The Florida Bar, Mr. Anderson for the Thirteenth Circuit JNC, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D. Email April 29, 2013 with copy of final letter to Mr. Rodems, provided to Florida Gov. Rick Scott, AG Pam Bondi, the ABA, The Florida Bar, Mr. Anderson for the Thirteenth Circuit JNC, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D.

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


RCR - 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 to Jun-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-19-2006 to 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. 13. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA (closed, appeal) C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Estate claims, Civil RICO (closed, appeal)

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) Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, 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 August 13, 2012 docketed August 31, 2012, No. 12A215 extend the time to file a petition for a writ, C.A.11, cases, 12-11028-B and 12-11213-C

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19. 20. Original case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corp. class action Dec-09, 1999 Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp, filed August 20, 2001

Page 1 of 2

Neil Gillespie
From: To: Cc: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net> "Leonard E Clark" <LClark@flabar.org> "Gov. Rick Scott" <Rick.Scott@eog.myflorida.com>; "AG Pam Bondi" <pam.bondi@myfloridalegal.com>; "Laurel G Bellows" <lbellows@bellowspc.com>; "James R. Silkenat" <jsilkenat@sandw.com>; "Ellyn Rosen" <Ellyn.Rosen@americanbar.org>; "Myles Lynk" <Myles.Lynk@asu.edu>; "Joseph Bluemel" <jbluemel@hamsfork.net>; "Nancy Cohen" <ncohen@mcpclaw.com>; "Dolores Dorsainvil" <DorsainvilD@dcobc.org>; "Linda Gosnell" <lindagosnell1@gmail.com>; "James Hill" <jhill@zkslaw.com>; "James A Kawachika" <JAK@opglaw.com>; "Amy Lin Meyerson" <amy@almesq.com>; "Cleaveland Miller" <cmiller@semmes.com>; "Eugene Keith Pettis" <epettis@hpslegal.com>; "Gwynne Alice Young" <gyoung@carltonfields.com>; "James N Watson" <jwatson@flabar.org>; "Jeffrey Carter Andersen" <candersen@bushross.com>; "John F Harkness" <jharkness@flabar.org>; "John Thomas Berry" <jberry@flabar.org>; "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <kmarvin@flabar.org>; "Leonard E Clark" <LClark@flabar.org>; "Paul F Hill" <phill@flabar.org>; "Susan Varner Bloemendaal" <sbloemen@flabar.org>; "Theodore P Littlewood" <tlittlew@flabar.org>; "William W Wilhelm" <wwilhelm@flabar.org>; "Gregory Harrison Fisher" <fishlaw@gte.net>; "Belinda Barndollar Lazzara" <blazzara@mslo-law.com>; "Maribeth L. Wetzel" <beth@goldmanwetzel.com>; "Michael G Stofer" <mstofer@deaconandmoulds.com>; "Sandra Fascell Diamond" <sdiamond@wdclaw.com>; "William J Schifino" <wschifino@burr.com>; "Margaret Diane Mathews" <margaret.mathews@akerman.com>; "Lansing Charles Scriven" <lansing.scriven@quarles.com>; "Michael S Hooker" <michael.hooker@phelps.com> Friday, May 10, 2013 6:11 PM Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel, request for a review TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E).pdf Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel, request for a review TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)

Sent: Attach: Subject:

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP298144629 & email to LClark@flabar.org Leonard E. Clark, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office 4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Suite 2580 Tampa, FL 33607 RE: Closure of complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Dear Mr. Clark: Attached you will find my comprehensive 18 page request for a review of your decision to close my complaint without probable cause against Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), per your letter April 11, 2013. You and The Florida Bar were advised April 14, 2013 that I disagreed with your decision, by and through my email to ABA President Bellows, copied to you, the ABA, The Florida Bar, Mr. Anderson for the Thirteenth Circuit JNC, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D". April 29, 2013 I emailed you a PDF copy of my final letter to Mr. Rodems, which letter repudiated your closure of my complaint, among other things. The email was provided to Florida Gov. Rick Scott, AG Pam Bondi, the ABA, The Florida Bar, Mr. Anderson for the Thirteenth Circuit JNC, and the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D". Unfortunately your decision to close my complaint, and the finding of no probable cause, is gratuitous and not supported by the record. The letter report does not respond to my allegations, and falsely states "Furthermore, many of the allegations related to alleged conduct that occurred

5/10/2013

Page 2 of 2

in 2005 and 2006. Thus, these allegations are outside the Bar's time limitations to prosecute a case." This is absurd. My complaint alleged ongoing misconduct through 2012 by Mr. Rodems.(Ongoing misconduct that continued through April 19, 2013) While The Florida Bar claims no right of appeal, I request a review of your decision provided to me in your letter of April 11, 2013, which I received April 13, 2013, because the finding of no probable cause is in substantial conflict with the review of Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood of ACAP, the Attorney Consumer Assistance Program central intake in Tallahassee, Florida. Tellingly, no one from The Florida Bar called me, interviewed me, or discussed with me any allegations during the Bars so-called "investigation" of my complaint. Apparently the Bar did not assign an investigating member in this complaint. No one asked me for any documents or other information. Your contact with me was administrative in nature, not investigative. Michael G. Stofer, Chair of the Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D", did not contact me about the allegations in my complaint. Sandra Fascell Diamond, the Designated Reviewer, did not contact me about the investigation of my complaint. Therefore I conclude the Florida Bars investigation of my complaint against Mr. Rodems was not a legitimate inquiry. In other words, the Florida Bar whitewashed my complaint to protect Mr. Rodems and his crooked partners, as in the past. This also serves as a record of Floridas failure to adequately protect consumers of legal and court services, its failure to properly regulate lawyers, law firms, the practice of law, and state judicial officers, affecting interstate commerce. Sincerely, Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net cc by email: Florida Gov. Rick Scott, AG Pam Bondi, ABA service list; the Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D", Thirteenth Circuit BOG.

5/10/2013

Похожие интересы