Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 49

J ohn F.

Harkness, Executive Director Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel

The Florida Bar Florida Bar Orlando Branch Office
651 East J efferson Street 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 Orlando, Florida 32801-1050
Email: jharkness@flabar.org Email: gcoaxum@flabar.org
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP292170236 VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291127044
Lori Holcomb, UPL Counsel, Unlicensed Patricia M. Moring, Chair
Practice Of Law Standing Committee Fifth Circuit UPL Committee
The Florida Bar, 651 East J efferson Street Moring & Moring, P.A.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 7655 W. Gulf To Lake Hwy. Suite 12
Email: lholcomb@flabar.org Crystal River, Florida 34429-7910
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP292442255 Email: pmoring@moringlaw.com
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290491867
May 21, 2014
RE: UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)
Dear Mr. Harkness, Ms. Coaxum, Ms. Holcomb, and Ms. Moring:
This is an additional reply to the UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5).
Wet-ink signed documents were provided to each of you. This reply provides new information,
and information inadvertently omitted. I plan to submit a rewrite of my February 5, 2014 reply to
UPL that will include this information, corrections submitted by email February 7, 2014, my
update by email February 11, 2014, and new issues not yet presented.
1. I am a Personal Representative of my mothers estate as defined by F.S. 198.01(2):
198.01(2) Personal representative means the executor, administrator, or curator of the
decedent, or, if there is no executor, administrator, or curator appointed, qualified, and
acting, then any person who is in the actual or constructive possession of any property
included in the gross estate of the decedent or any other person who is required to file a
return or pay the taxes due under any provision of this chapter. (underline added)
I have been a Personal Representative under F.S. 198.01(2) since September 16, 2009, as a
person, inter alia, who is in the actual or constructive possession of any property included in the
gross estate of the decedent. A copy of F.S. 198.01(2) is enclosed.
2. Enclosed is a paper UPL disclaimer for me and the justice network that appears online.
3. Enclosed is my notice of filing transcript of Krista J . Sterken, associate with Foley &
Lardner, LLP, Madison, Wisconsin, of her telephone call to me May 25, 2011 offering pro bono
representation contingent on a conflict check. The notice of filing transcript is 18 pages and
found on PACER in Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Doc. 49, and Doc. 49-1, Filed 09/30/11.
Exhibit 2 shows email and a PDF letter of Michael D. Leffel, partner, Foley & Lardner, LLP,
declining representation. Exhibit 3 shows a mailed letter of Mr. Leffel declining representation.
The letter does not show a conflict that would prohibit representation. Therefore a reasonable
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) Investigation May 21, 2014
of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5) Page -2
person might conclude that Mr. Rodems, or someone acting on Rodems behalf, or on behalf of
related interests, caused Mr. Leffel to withdrawal the offer of representation.
4. On J une 21, 2011 Ryan Christopher Rodems bribed [F.S. 838.015, 838.016, 838.022]
three Florida judges and state employees who were defendants in my federal civil rights and
disability lawsuit Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit et al., 5:10-cv-503-WTH-DAB-TBS,
USDC, MD Fla., Ocala Div. [See Docs. 32 & 51]. Rodems corruptly got a debt judgment for
attorney fees for responding to matters he himself created by breach of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, his conflict of interest with me, a former client of Rodems law firm, and his breach of
duty to avoid limitation on independent professional judgment.
5. Enclosed is my letter to the Florida Commission on Ethics, 21 pages, and 53 pages of
exhibits. The letter shows, inter alia, Mr. Rodems bribery [F.S. 838.015, 838.016, 838.022]
of three Florida judges and state employees who were defendants in my federal civil rights and
disability lawsuit. A copy was provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as shown.
6. The Florida Commission on Ethics announced an alleged settlement of my home
mortgage dispute in seven orders entered J anuary 29, 2014. Enclosed is my records request of
April 23, 2014 to Virlinda Doss, Executive Director, for a copy of the settlement agreement. A
copy of the records request was provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as shown.
A response by Ms. Doss was not fully readable because ink was smeared over a relevant portion
of the response letter. No records were provided. I plan to follow up with Ms. Doss ASAP.
7. I provided The Florida Bar notice of my disability February 20, 2007 in Complaint No.
11,162(13D) against Mr. Rodems, Exhibit H, see enclosed. (received February 22, 2007).
Bar counsel Troy Matthew Lovell wrongly closed the complaint May 15, 2007 contrary to Bar
Rule 3-7.3(a) because bar counsel determined the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a
violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline, and
Mr. Lovell opened TFB No. 11,162(13D) against Mr. Rodems.
Mr. Lovell knew that J udge Richard Nielsen ruled against Rodemss motion to dismiss and
strike J anuary 13, 2006, see exhibit C to the bar complaint, Order on Defendants Motion to
Dismiss and Strike. The Order established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract for
me against Mr. Rodems, Defendants William Cook (partner) and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA.
Mr. Rodems at this point also had personal responsibility, because partners engaged in the
practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later
acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v.
Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965).
Mr. Lovell personally knew J udge Nielsen, and worked for the judge in private practice as an
associate at Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, PA, J une 1998 - August 1992, according to Mr. Lovells
application to the J NC February 5, 2013. Mr. Lovell could have called J udge Nielsen if he had
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) Investigation May 21, 2014
of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5) Page -3
questions, or referred to 356 pages of exhibits I provided in Complaint TFB No. 11,162(13D).
Mr. Lovell did not even request a response from Mr. Rodems, contrary to Bar Rules.
Bar Complaint TFB No. 11,162(13D) against Ryan Christopher Rodems, ID no.: 947652
List of Exhibits - 356 pages, available on request.
24 pages A. My Complaint for Breach of Contract and Fraud, filed August 11, 2005.
2 pages B. Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Strike. This was Mr. Rodems first
appearance in this lawsuit, August 29, 2005.
2 pages C. Order by J udge Richard A. Nielsen finding a cause of action for Breach of
Contract and Fraud against Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J . Cook,
J anuary 13, 2006.
11 pages D. Retaliatory Libel counterclaim by Ryan Christopher Rodems, J anuary
19, 2006, against Neil J . Gillespie, with allegations of criminal extortion, for a
letter I wrote Amscot Corp. about a Bar compliant. Libel Counterclaim contained
in Mr. Rodems Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim.
217 pages E. Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72
Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits. This documents my relationship with
Mr. Rodems law firm, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
11pages F. Transcript of my March 3, 2006, telephone conversation with Mr. Rodems
where he threatened to reveal my confidential client information,
and where he misquoted me in his verification to the Court.
84 pages G. Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit For An Order To Show Cause Why
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court
And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law. This document, with an audio tape of
the pertinent conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to J udge Nielsen about
me, under oath, which led to J udge Nielsens recusal.
5 pages H. Plaintiffs Accommodation Request, Americans With Disabilities Act,
shows that Mr. Rodems used information about my disability against me,
information he learned from his law firms prior representation of me.
8. Finally, enclosed is a letter from the U.S. Postal Service, Tony J oy, Manager, Consumer
& Industry Contact, North Florida District, October 1, 2012 that states in relevant part:
It is your responsibility to retrieve items requiring a signature from Yours Truly, same as
you would have in the past. Unclaimed accountable items will be returned once time
limits are exhausted in accordance with mail handling requirements.
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) Investigation May 21,2014
of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5) Page-4
The U.S. Postal Service does not serve nlY area with a Postal Branch. Instead, the Postal Service
established a CPU, a Contract Post Office, independently owned and operated by non Postal
Service employees. Countryside CPU, a.k.a. Yours Truly Gift and Card, serves my area.
On May 1,2012 a worker at this CPU assaulted me [F.S. 748.011(1)]. The response by the
Postal Service was insufficient. This is a matter for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
involves my civil rights, disability, stigma, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the
Postal Clause of the United States Constitution, and 18 USC Chapter 83 Postal Service.
Unfortunately I have a speech impediment and congenital craniofacial deformity, a stigma
exposing me to hate crimes (18 USC 249), depravation of civil rights (42 USC 1983), and serves
as entertainment or comical relief for people like the CPU staff, and Mr. Rodems. I am happy
that Bar President Eugene Pettis publicized his experience with a speech impediment, reported
by The Florida Bar Journal, Volume 87, No.7, by Jan Pudlow July/August, 2013: "Eugene K.
Pettis - First African-American President of The Florida Bar", see page one, enclosed.
"When Eugene Pettis was a little boy, a speech impedinlent smacked a "K" sound at the
start of every word."
"Neighbors would tell the other Pettis kids: "Go get your brother," because they wanted
to hear Eugene talk for comical entertainment."
On July 15,2013 I wrote Mr. Pettis in support. (enclosed). Mr. Pettis knows firsthand the stigma
of a speech impediment, and how that stigma might deny a person his or her civil rights.
On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodenls telephoned at hotne, as counsel for his firnl in 05-CA-7205,
harassing me about "dental work", providing unwelcome commentary on how I speak, and a
misplaced lecture for me to "study the rules and regulations of the Florida Bar". (enclosed).
I believe the U.S. Postal Service has a Constitutional obligation to build a Postal Brach in my
area, and I plan to get that Postal Brach built so I can get my mail without insult or assault. I no
longer patronize Yours Truly CPU; items needing a signature are returned per Mr. Joy's letter.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Journal HOME
The Florida Bar
Advertising Rates Submission Guidelines Archives Subscribe News
July/August, 2013 Volume 87, No. 7
Eugene K. Pettis First African-American President of The Florida Bar
by Jan Pudlow
Page 8
When Eugene Pettis was a little
boy, a speech impediment
smacked a K sound at the
start of every word.
Neighbors would tell the other
Pettis kids: Go get your
brother, because they wanted
to hear Eugene talk for comical
Lifelong friend and neighbor
Lockey Anderson remembers
Eugene called her Kockey;
her dad Joe, Koe; and her
mother Shirley, Kirley.
They laughed, and little Eugene
laughed with them.
But his first-grade teacher wasnt laughing. When school officials said Eugene had to wait until the second
grade to receive speech therapy, his first-grade teacher insisted: No, hes getting help this year.
Not only did Eugene get into the speech program as a first-grader, he can still remember the green and
beige books his mother would lecture him on every night at the dining room table, pronouncing word after
word until that K sound vanished.
The neighbors still remember it as if it were yesterday. And now I make a living talking, Pettis said
laughing. Who would have thought that?
Years later, after building a reputation as a successful civil trial lawyer, commanding the attention of jurors
with his deep, sonorous voice, Pettis invited that first-grade teacher, along with his kindergarten teacher,
high school basketball coach, and a few other special mentors to his home just to say thanks.
Life had turned out pretty good for me, and I could look back with clarity and see that those six people,
along with many others, had a hand in that, Pettis said. While I was blessed with a great family, Ive also
been blessed with an even greater community of people.
Now the 52-year-old, co-founding partner at Haliczer, Pettis & Schwamm in Ft. Lauderdale and Orlando
becomes The Florida Bars first African-American president. He credits God and his strong mother for
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/J N/J NJ ournal01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/f0d5f1137bde69d085257b900053be2f!OpenDocument
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FNY91890624 J uly 15, 2013
Mr. Eugene K. Pettis
President, The Florida Bar
Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm, P.A.
100 SE 3rd Avenue, Seventh Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-0015
Dear Bar President Pettis:
Congratulations on your installation as 65th President of The Florida Bar J une 28 at the Annual
Convention. The Florida Bar is now fully integrated as Mr. Allen noted on the video of your
invocation, with you taking office as the first African-American Florida Bar President.
Your personal story is inspiring. I wish you success as President. Thank you for sharing your
personal struggles published in The Florida Bar J ournal. Your disclosure of once having a
speech impediment hits home for me. My speech impediment is velopharyngeal inadequacy,
caused by a cleft palate, which impairment unfortunately persists despite a lifetime of treatment.
Please accept the following to commemorate your achievement, and bear witness in the present.
Breach of Peace, Portraits of the 1961 Mississippi Freedom Riders, by Eric Etheridge, is a
historical account of the struggle for equality by African-Americans for rights denied under
the color of law. The photos and mug shots show a diverse group of Americans in that moral
fight. The reverse dust jacket shows more mug shots of those arrested while Freedom Riding.
The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007), an essay by the Hon. Dennis
J acobs, Chief J udge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Also enclosed is a copy
of my letter to J udge J acobs, that reads in part...
Thank you for taking the time to publish The Secret Life of Judges. Your words are
refreshing, especially page 2861, paragraph 4, I sometimes think that the problem at
bottom is really a lack of respect by lawyers for other people.
Recently I cited The Secret Life of Judges in a supplemental brief to the Supreme Court of
the United States, copy enclosed. Unfortunately my pro se Petition No. 12-7747 for writ
of certiorari was denied February 19, 2013, but I plan to submit a petition for rehearing.
Should you revisit this topic in another writing, consider what is happening at The
Florida Bar, and perhaps other state regulatory bars in America. The ambient bias is
disrupted in a way that suggests infringement on the U.S. Const. art. I, 10, clause 1,
contracts, No State shall...grant any Title of Nobility [Esquire]. When Florida grants a
license to practice law, it is essentially granting a title of nobility, Esquire, one that
trumps the both the state and federal judiciary.
Eugene K. Pettis, President J uly 15, 2013
The Florida Bar Page - 2
A pocket edition of the Constitution of the United States, and Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately, our supreme law has not protected all equally. Notably, the Founding Fathers
who owned human slaves as chattel property, while concurrently declaring all men are
created equal, denied those slaves the very rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
promised by the Constitution. The denial of rights under color of law is still a problem today.
A transcript of Amy Bach on the Syracuse Law YouTube Channel discussing her book
Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court. http://youtu.be/4ug8lXPExeo
AMY BACH: I wrote this book and it's about
places in America where there has been a collapse
of the adversarial system. And what I mean by that
is that the lawyers stopped checking each other in
the ways that they're supposed to. And the result
is, is that ordinary people are hurt on a daily basis.
There is this adversarial system in America
and it's the prosecutor and defense attorney and
neutral judge up above, but when it doesn't work
they're not checking each other and they all line
up together. They're all like an arrow. They're
all moving towards something, but it's not justice.
They're not doing the adversarial protections that
they're -- they're not protecting the people that
they're supposed to be protecting.
Unfortunately The Florida Bar is in crisis. The Florida Bars slogan - Protecting Rights,
Pursuing J ustice, Promoting Professionalism - is undercut by The Bars own survey found in
the Hawkins Commission on Review of the Discipline System, completed May 2012. I urge you
to embrace J udge J acobss message in The Secret Lives of Judges as you proceed.
You can build on the justice legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, J r., which struggle is informed by
your unique experience, including an inexcusable beating at Sunland Park Elementary School.
Mr. Pettis, I challenge you to a Presidency of Excellence, and not a vacuous presidency of the
past giving predictable speeches. The success of The Florida Bar in your hands. Godspeed.
- original signed Neil J. Gillespie -
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Cc: Eugene K. Pettis, President, The Florida Bar, 651 E. J efferson Street, Tallahassee, FL
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FNY91897038, with enclosures.

UF could not maintain Dr. Kusiaks photo of my CPCF J ournal, unoperated adult
my speech obturator oral-nasal fistula, 1985 J uly 1992, Vol. 29 No.4, page 371
Mr. Rodems breached his duty to avoid a limitation on independent professional judgment, violated
Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10; McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995
Transcript, March 3, 2006, page 6
4 MR. GILLESPIE: Now, you call here and just
5 marched into a tirade of insults.
6 MR. RODEMS: No, actually I haven't insulted
7 you at all. I've never said anything about you. I
8 just said that you don't really know the law
9 because you don't know how to practice law.
Transcript, March 3, 2006, page 7
24 MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a
25 car so that you could get the cash rebate to get
Transcript, March 3, 2006, page 8
1 some dental work done? We're going to get to the
2 discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really
3 happen?
5 MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that
6 you could get the cash rebate to get some dental
7 work done?
8 MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need
9 to be disqualified.
10 MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I
11 know that? Because I know that to be a fact?
12 MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from
13 your previous representation of me.
14 MR. RODEMS: Well, you know, see that's --
15 MR. GILLESPIE: If it is -- if it's a fact,
16 anyway.
17 MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and
18 regulations of the Florida Bar because when you
19 make --
20 MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a
21 car so I would have something to drive. I don't
22 know why you buy cars, but that's why I bought it.
Transcript, March 3, 2006, page 9
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well, I just want to be
20 clear because I understand that in talking with you
21 it's very important to be precise because you don't
22 really have a good command of the language that,
23 you know, lawyers speak.

Rev. ]-8]
Notll prairllssofcaslI. complications. chanilllIn dlaposls
condition on dlscharill.Instructions to patlllnt
GILLESPIE, Neil #74123
The patient is a 29 year old white male referred by Dr. Carver
who is status post left unilateral 'Class IV lip and palate repair
at approximately age two years old. He is unclear about the details
of the degree of his defects, the surgical procedures, who performed
this, or exactly where it was done. Apparently, after the initial
bout of surgeries to repair the lip and hard and soft palate, he had
no further surgical intervention. He had no ongoing follow-up for
this problem. At approximately age 13 to 14 years old, he underwent
orthodontic treatment at Temple University Hospital's Dental School
and this ultimately resulted in the placement of a retainer with a
prosthetic left lateral incisor. He has worn this since that time.
He notices drainage of food into the left nasal floor. His left and
right nostrils are opened, although the left is somewhat stuffy and
His main concerns upon presentation are related to the persistent
cleft in the left alveolus, the draining fistula, and the possibility
of foregoing the need fOD a prosthetic device. In addition, however,
it is obvious on confronting the patient that he has a moderate amount
of nasal deformity, flattening of the left side in the premaxillary
region, and lip distortion, particularly at the vermilion. In
addition, the patient has a significantly hypernasal speech pattern
with ~ v o u s velopharyngeal incompetence.
On physical examination beginning externally, the patient has
a slightly large nose with a small dorsal hump. The size of the nose
is slightly larger than proportional to his face, although not
exaggeratedly so. The right alar dome is full. The left alar
cartilage is posteriorly and laterally displaced and somewhat
hypoplastic compared to the left side. The left alar base is
also laterally displaced. The nostril sill is flattened, and there
is an obvious fistula between the distal nasal floor and the oral
cavity. The left columella, likewise, is somewhat hypoplastic and
twisted. The upper lip scar is well healed and appears to be a
LeMesurier or Tennison-Randall type repair. The upper lip tubercle
is preserved, but the vermilion border is somewhat irregular.
Length appears, however, to be satisfactory. There is a-lateral
orbicularis bulge of the left upper lip. Internally, there is a wide
cleft of the left alveolar ridge at the level of the lateral incisor
with a fistula into the nasal floor. This runs posteriorly and nearly
to the end of the secondary palate. The soft palate has a linear scar.
it is very short, and there is lateral movement but no central movement
of note.

Page Two .
My impression and recommendation to the patient generated
three specific areas of interest. One relates to the scar revision
of his upper nose and the relationships of his nasal tip, nose,
and secondary deformities in this area. The second area of interest
in importance is the alveolar cleft with the naso-oral fistula.
The third area is the palate with obvious velopharyngeal incompetence
and a foreshort and scarred palate.
My initial recommendations will be that the patient undergo
orthodontic evaluation. I will arrange for him to see Dr. Rosario
Mayro for evaluation as well as x-rays to assess his occlusal
relationships. It also should be noted that he, in general, had
a fairly satisfactory occlusal relationship.with some lateral collapse
and crossbite on the minor segment on the left and evaluate his
adequacy as a candidate for bone I think he would
qualify. Subsequent to this, I will have him see Dr. Harvey Rosen
concerning the actual surgical procedure and also he will be seen by
Miss Marilyn Cohen, a speech pathologist with special interest in
patients having cleft lip and palate for an evaluation concerning
feasibility of posteropharyngeal flap in a patient of this age group.
Concerning the external revisions, this can be accomplished concerning
the upper lip, possibly at the same time as the fistula closure with
orlllcularis redirection, a revision of the nostril sill and the
lateral alar base, and also possibly tip rhinoplasty or this can
be accomplished at a later date with a formal rhinoplasty in concert
with other procedures. In addition, the vermilion border should be
repaired. This can be done by Z-plasty technique.
The patient, therefore, will be seen by the consultants and a
general plan with timing'for surgery, etc., will be made. We will
arrange to make these arrangements and follow-up with the patient.
No letter.
econstructive Surgery
ep s1ak,

October 1, 2012
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
Ocala, FL 34481-3567
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
I received your letter dated September 17, 2012.
Please accept my sincere apology for not providing you with a clear understanding of who is currently
acting as the Ocala Postmaster. Kevin Atkinson is the acting Postmaster (a.k.a. Officer-In-Charge) for
the Ocala Post Office. As shared in my previous correspondence to you, Mr. Atkinson conducted a
review of the Countryside Contract Postal Unit (CPU).
I again have confirmed through Mr. Atkinson that the CPU is under new ownership. Andrew and
Therese Solli, as he understands, purchased the CPU from Koni Updyke.
It is your responsibility to retrieve items requiring a signature from Yours TrUly, same as you would have
in the past. Unclaimed accountable items will be returned once time limits are exhausted in accordance
with mail handling requirements.

Tony Joy
FAX: 904/858-6521
Disclaimer - Justice Network - Neil J Gillespie
Information on this blog or website is a free public service. While the information on this site
deals with legal issues, it does not constitute legal advice. If you have specific questions related
to information available on this site, you are encouraged to consult an attorney who can
investigate the particular circumstances of your situation.
Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and our reliance on information provided by
outside sources, this website does not warranty or guarantee the accuracy or availability of the
content on this site or on other sites to which we link.
In no event will this website be held liable to any party for any damages arising in any way out
of the availability, use, reliance on or inability to use this website or any information provided by
or through this website, or for any claim attributable to errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in,
or destructive properties of any information provided by or through, this website.
Note: My disclaimer relies upon the substance of disclaimer of The Florida Bar:
Neil J. Gillespie: Justice Network blog
1. Does not give legal advice. http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/
2. Not a lawyer. Neil Gillespie Scribd
3. Not an attorney. http://www.scribd.com/ngillespie
4. Not licensed to practice law. Justice Network website
5. Did not go to law school. http://www.nosue.org/
The J ustice Network website address is now NoSue.org, and NoSueorg.blogspot. This reflects a
sad truth for many Americans that the justice system is broken, just a parody of justice.
Reform American courts or avoid them. Your life, health and wealth is at risk. But dont just
take my word, read what the experts say in stories posted here. For more law news, see the
American Bar Association (ABA) Law News Now J ournal http://www.abajournal.com/
The J ustice Network is engaged in advocacy, education, news
gathering & dissemination, and helping people fight injustice.
This blog is part of my therapy as a survivor of legal injustice.
In 2010 I started the J ustice Network with the domain name
YouSue.org, chosen in the spirit of YouTube, the video-sharing site
that empowered ordinary people to produce and share video, and
changed the world.
Through my old website I met folks from around the country. Some
of their stories are profiled there. Many believe that Americas
justice system is broken.

Select Year:
The 2013 Florida Statutes
Title XIV
Chapter 198
View Entire Chapter
198.01 Definitions.When used in this chapter the term, phrase or word:
(1) Department means the Department of Revenue.
(2) Personal representative means the executor, administrator, or curator of the decedent, or, if there is
no executor, administrator, or curator appointed, qualified, and acting, then any person who is in the actual or
constructive possession of any property included in the gross estate of the decedent or any other person who is
required to file a return or pay the taxes due under any provision of this chapter.
(3) Person means persons, corporations, associations, joint stock companies, and business trusts.
(4) Transfer shall be taken to include the passing of property or any interest therein, in possession or
enjoyment, present or future, by inheritance, descent, devise, succession, bequest, grant, deed, bargain, sale,
gift, or appointment in the manner herein described.
(5) Decedent shall include the testator, intestate, grantor, bargainor, vendor, or donor.
(6) Resident means a natural person domiciled in the state.
(7) Nonresident means a natural person domiciled without the state.
(8) Gross estate means the gross estate as determined under the provisions of the applicable federal
revenue act.
(9) Net estate means the net estate as determined under the provisions of the applicable federal
revenue act.
(10) Tangible personal property means corporeal personal property, including money.
(11) Intangible personal property means incorporeal personal property including deposits in banks,
negotiable instruments, mortgages, debts, receivables, shares of stock, bonds, notes, credits, evidences of an
interest in property, evidences of debt and choses in action generally.
(12) United States when used in a geographical sense includes only the 50 states and the District of
(13) Generation-skipping transfer means every transfer subject to the federal generation-skipping
transfer tax in which transfer the original transferor is a resident of this state at the date of original transfer
or the property transferred is real or personal property in this state.
(14) Original transferor means any grantor, donor, trustor, or testator who by grant, gift, trust, or will
makes a transfer of real or personal property that results in a federal generation-skipping transfer tax.
(15) Federal generation-skipping transfer tax means the tax imposed by chapter 13 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
History.s. 2, ch. 16015, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 1342(81); ss. 21, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 44, ch. 71-377; s. 1, ch. 80-153; s. 3, ch.
Copyright 1995-2014 The Florida Legislature Privacy Statement Contact Us
"";.. /
The FloridaBar 'fD) In!
.Inquiry/Complaint Fonn
FEB 2 2 )UUI
PART ONE: (Read instructions on reverse side.)
Your Name:AJ61
Address: SW 1/6
City: Q'Ct4 IA State: EL-
Phone: CdJ flifC'l Zip Code: 3r't e/
ACAP Refe,-ence No, c:,u'--'d'"N-'-'--"=- _
Attorney's Name:
Address: . Z/tJt:7
City: U/l-tf2L1- ;="L.
Phone: (fi3J I Zip Code: -3-6-'a-.;<-
PART TWO: (See reverse, part two.) The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:
, r cJ

PART THREE: (See reverse, part three.) The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
: (See reverse, part four.)
(circle one or the other) attempt to use ACAP to resolve this situation.
To attem 0 resolve this matter, I did the following:
I did / id no
PART FIVE (See reverse. part five.): Under penalty ofpeIjury. I declare the foregoing facts are true. correct
and complete_

"'" .../
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070000320528076
February 20, 2007
The Florida Bar
5521 West Spruce Street, C-49
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958
This is a complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, ID no. 947652.
Enclosed you will find a completed inquiry/complaint form.
My complaint against Mr. Rodems is for his violation of the Rules Regulating the
Florida Bar during his appearance in a civil lawsuit styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William 1. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205. I am the Plaintiff
suing the Defendants, who are my former lawyers. In retaliation my former lawyers
countersued me for. libel over a previous Bar complaint.
Mr. Rodems' misconduct falls into several categories. The first category of his
misconduct involves conflict of interest with a former client (me) and disclosure of my
confidential client information gained during his law firm's prior representation of me,
and his general disregard for the rules as set forth below.
Mr. Rodems' second category of misconduct relates to his allegations that I
committed criminal acts, including his accusation that my Bar complaint against his law
partner, William J. Cook, is criminal extortion under Florida law. Mr. Rodems falsely
accused me of threatening violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers, and when that was
proved false with a tape recording of the conversation, Mr. Rodems accused me of yet a
third crime, a felony for tape recording him. (Even though he wrote me consenting to
being tape recorded).
Mr. Rodems' third category of misconduct is his retaliatory libel counterclaim
against me for writing about a Bar complaint against Mr. Cook in a letter to Ian
The FloridaBar,Tampa""'- Page- 2of10
MackechnieofAmscotCorporation,afterthecomplaintprocesshadrun itscourse,and
thecomplaintwasamatterof publicrecord. Mr. Rodemsisawarethatmydisclosurehas
absoluteprotectionpursuanttoTobkinv. Jarboe,710So.2d975,ascitedbyMr. Kenneth
Mr. Rodems' fourthcategoryofmisconductisan incidentofhisperjurythatled
to therecusalofthetrialjudge,theHonorableRichardA. Nielsen.
AnaggravatingfactorinMr. Rodems' misconductisthefact thatIamdisabled,
andMr. Rodemshasusedinformationaboutmydisabilityagainstme, informationhe
Enclosedpleasefind thefollowingdocumentssupportingmycomplaintagainst
Mr. Rodems:
A. MyComplaintforBreachofContractandFraud,filed August 11,2005.
B. Defendants' Motionto DismissandStrike. ThiswasMr. Rodems' first
C. OrderbyJudgeRichardA. Nielsenfinding acauseofactionforBreachof
ContractandFraudagainstBarker, Rodems& Cook,P.A. andWilliamJ.
Cook,January 13,2006.
D. RetaliatoryLibelcounterclaimby RyanChristopherRodems,January
19, 2006,againstNeilJ. Gillespie,withallegationsofcriminalextortion,
foraletterIwroteAmscotCorp. aboutaBarcompliant. Libel
CounterclaimcontainedinMr. Rodems' Answer,AffirmativeDefenses
E. PlaintiffsMotionfor PunitiveDamagesPursuantto Section768.72
FloridaStatues,withsupportingexhibits. Thisdocumentsmyrelationship
withMr. Rodems' lawfirm, Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A.
F. TranscriptofmyMarch3, 2006,telephoneconversationwithMr. Rodems
andwherehemisquotedme inhis verificationtotheCourt.
G. PlaintiffsMotionWithAffidavitForAnOrderToShowCauseWhy
RyanChristopherRodemsShouldnotBe HeldInCriminalContemptOf
CourtAndIncorporatedMemorandumOfLaw. Thisdocument,withan
audiotapeofthepertinentconversation,showsthatMr. Rodemsliedto
JudgeNielsenaboutme, underoath,whichledto JudgeNielsen'srecusal.
H. PlaintiffsAccommodationRequest,AmericansWithDisabilitiesAct,
The Florida Bar, Tampi;;'
Page - 3 of 10
February 20, 2007
shows that Mr. Rodems used information about my disability against me,
information he learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
My complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems:
Mr. Rodems as defense counsel has a direct conflict of interest with me. Defense
counsel is the Defendant in this lawsuit and is being sued by a former client for fraud and
breach of contract. The contract is attached to the complaint as exhibit I. Defendants and
Plaintiff entered into a representation contract that Defendants are now trying to disavow.
Defendants formerly represented Plaintiffs interest in the contract. On January 13,2006,
the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cause of action against Defendants for breach of that
contract and Defendants' accompanying fraud.
Rule 4-1.9(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the
same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially
adverse to the interest of the former client unless the former client consents after
consultation. In the instant case, Defendants represented Plaintiff s interest in the contract
beginning November 3,2000, when it was signed. Now with the commencement of this
lawsuit, Defendants are representing their own interest in the contract, and taking a
position materially adverse to Plaintiff, their former client.
This is what West's Florida Statutes Annotated states under Comment (Vol. 35,
pp. 354-355): "After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer may not
represent another client except in conformity with this rule. The principles in Rule 4-1.9
determine whether the interests of the present and former client are adverse. Thus, a
lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on
behalf of the former client." (underline added). "When a lawyer has been directly
involved a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially
adverse interests clearly is prohibited." (underline added). The contract between Plaintiff
and Defendants is a specific transaction directly involving Defendants who now have
materially adverse interests.
With regard to an opposing party's raising a question of conflict of interest see
comment to rule 4-1.7, which states that a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate
against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if it is wholly unrelated.
(p. 330). As in the instant case, if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is
in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client
detached advise. (pp. 330-331). And a suit charging fraud I entails conflict to a degree not
involved in a suit for a declaratory judgment concerning statutory interpretation. (p. 331).
Where the conflict is such as clearly to call into question the fair or efficient
administration ofjustice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question. (p. 332). Thus
I The Court found a cause of action for fraud against Defendants in the instant case.
The Florida Bar, Page - 4 of 10
February 20, 2007
Plaintiff pro se may properly raise the question of disqualification, because Mr. Rodems'
presence in the litigation calls into question the fair and efficient administration ofjustice,
particularly when Mr. Rodems will commit perjury before the court to gain an advantage
for his own law firm, a defendant in this case.
Finally, Rule 4-1.1 0, the Imputed disqualification general rule, subsection (a) states
that 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 by rule 4-1.7, 4-
1.8(c), 4-1. 9, or 4-2.2. This rule is especially valid in the instant case because Defendant
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., is a small, three lawyer firm, and the rule of imputed
disqualification stated in subdivision (a) gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client
as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be considered from
the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially 1 lawyer for purposes of the rules
governing loyalty to the client or from the premise that each lawyer is vicariously bound
by the obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated.
Plaintiff's personal confidential information is also at stake in this motion to disqualify.
Preserving confidentiality is a question of access to information. Access to information,
in tum, is essentially a question of fact in particular circumstances, aided by inferences,
deductions, or working presumptions that reasonably may be made about the way in
which lawyers work together. A lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a
law firm and may regularly participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be inferred
that such a lawyer in fact is privy to all information about all the firm's clients. The
following paragraph illustrates how Plaintiffs personal information is freely discussed
among Mr. Barker, Mr. Rodems and Mr. Cook, and probably their support staff too, and
this is another basis for disqualification.
An attorney can be disqualified if he is opposing a former client from whom he
received confidential information related to the pending action or if the attorney had access
to information in prior representation that would prejudice the former client in the
subsequent representation. In any event, it is presumed that that the lawyer received
confidential information if an attorney-client relationship existed. In the instant case
Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. has threatened to use such information to the
disadvantage Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff
at his home and issued the following threat to use infoffi1ation learned from its prior
representation ofPlaintiffto Plaintiffs disadvantage: This is what Mr. Rodems said,
taken from a transcript of the conversation:
MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a car so that you
could get the cash rebate to get some dental work done? We're going
to get to the discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really happen?
MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that you could get the cash
rebate to get some dental work done?
TheFloridaBar,Tampa''-:-- Page- 5of10
MR. GILLESPIE: Listen,thisiswhyyouneedtobedisqualified.
MR. RODEMS:No,Imean, that's-- becauseIknowthat? BecauseI
knowthatto beafact?
MR. GILLESPIE: Youknowittobeafact from yourprevious
MR. RODEMS: Well.youknow,seethat's--
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifitis -- ifit'safact, anyway.
MR. RODEMS: Youneedtostudytherulesandregulationsofthe
MR. GILLESPIE: Ithink,IthinkIboughtacarso Iwouldhave
somethingtodrive. Idon'tknowwhyyoubuycars, butthat'swhyI
MR. RODEMS: Well--
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifithadsonleotherbenefits,that'sdifferent.
MR. RODEMS: Iunderstandthatcarwasrepossessedshortlyafteryou
MR. GILLESPIE:No,itwasn'trepossessed.
MR. RODMES: Okay. Well, thenyoucanprobablydrivethatdownto
tIle hearingthenonthe28th.
MR. GILLESPIE:No, itwasvoluntarilyturnedinbecauseafter911
attackthejobthatIwas indriedup.
Rule4-1.9(b),RulesRegulatingtheFloridaBar,statesthata lawyerwhohas
formerly representedaclientinamattershall notthereafteruse informationrelatingtothe
representationtothedisadvantageoftheformerclient. (relevantportion). Intheinstant
caseMr. RodemshasannouncedthatDefendants' intendto useconfidentialinfom1ation
acquiredinthepreviousrepresentationofPlaintiffto hisdisadvantageinthislawsuit.
RyanChristopherRodemsascounselforDefendantsbroughtafrivolous libel
DefendantsCounterclaimforLibel, CountsIandII, servedJanuary 19,2006,wastaken
A...: ... '.:..
Page- 6of 10
hisformerlawyers. DefendantsarenotoriousintheTampalegalcommunityforengaging
inanticswhichincludethrowingacupofcoffeeintheface oftheir counsel
, andclaimingthattheothersideengaged incriminalextortionagainst
. Defendants'counterclaimstatesthatPlaintiff engagedincriminalextortionagainst
them,paragraph67. (AlsoinParagraph57,affirmativedefenses,containedinthesame
&Cook,P.A.,theSt. PetersburgTimesreportedthatJonathanAlpertthrewa20ounce
cupofcoffeeinthefaceof attorneyArnoldLevineduringmediationinaseasonticket
holderdispute. Alpert,Barker,Rodems, Ferrentino& Cook,P.A.,representedtheBucs'
fans, andArnoldLevinerepresentedtheTampaBayBuccaneers. Accordingtostories
publishedintheSt. PetersburgTimes,Alpertwasrantingandravingwhenhethrewa20
ouncecupofcoffeeintheface of Levine,whothensuedAlpertforcivildamagesandfiled
abatterycomplaintwithTampaPolice. TheSt. PetersburgTimesalsoreportedthat
JonathanAlpertannouncedincourtthathe hadaskedpoliceto investigate"threatsand/or
extortion"bytheBucs' lawyerArnoldLevine. Tampapolicedetectivesreviewedthe
Sothistactic is Defendants' modusoperandi,exceptMr. Rodemsdidnotreport
Plaintiffs"extortion"to lawenforcement. Furthermore,onMarch7,2006,Plaintiff
offeredhissurrenderto MarkOber,buttheStateAttorneyhas notreplied. Plaintiff
contactedtheFloridaBaraboutDefendantsaccusation,anditdoesnotagree. The
questionsinvolvea legalconclusionof criminallawandIamnotinapositionto answer
them." Defendantsarenotcriminallawexpertseither.
Mr. MarvinalsoprovidedPlaintiffwithacopyof aFloridaSupremeCourtcase
Tobkinv. Jarboe, 7'10 So.2d975 (1998),whichheldthatanindividualwhofiles a
complaintagainstanattorneyandmakesno publicannouncementofthecomplaintis
affordedabsoluteimmunityfrom adefamationactionbycomplained-againstattorney. In
the illstantcase,Plaintiffmadeno publicannouncementand infact allowedthegrievance
procedureto runits naturalcourse. TheletterPlaintiffpurportedlywroteto Amscotis
datedaftertheconclusionofthegrievanceprocedure,andannouncesthatMr. Cook
prevailed,andthusdidnotdo anythingwrong. Also,Defendants' counterclaimfor libel
will notsucceedgiventhelimiteddistributionandprivilegednatureofthepublication
complainedof. Seee.g. Nodarv. Galbreath,462So.2d803 (Fla. 1984).
Mr. Rodemslackof candortowardtheCourtisaclearviolationofRule4-3.3,
RulesregulatingtheFloridaBar. Mr. Rodemsknowingmadeafalse statementofnlaterial
facttotheCourtinviolationofRule4-3.3(a)(I). OnMarch6, 2006,Mr. Rodemsfiled
Defendants' VerifiedRequestForBailiffAndForSanctions,wherehesworeunderoath
2 St. PetersburgTimes,June6, 2000,"Attorney'ssuitsayshe receivedcoffee in the face"
3 St. PetersburgTimes,June 10, 2000,"Sucsaccusedof extortion"
The Florida Bar, Tampa . Page - 7 of 10
February 20, 2007
that Plaintiff was going to violently assault him in Judge Nielsen's chambers on April 25,
2006. But Mr. Rodems stands impeached by a transcript of the conversation during which
the purported threat was made. In his motion, Mr. Rodems told the Court that Plaintiff
threatened him during a telephone call on March 3, 2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
in paragraph 5:
"At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated - and this is an exact
quote - "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." Quite alarmed, I paused and said "are you threatening me
physically or did you mean that metaphorically?" Plaintiff said
"metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger."
Mr. Rodems invoked the name of the of the Honorable Richard'A. Nielsen in the
threat Plaintiff allegedly made against him. Mr. Rodems did this in a calculated effort to
prejudice the Court against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems used his position as an Officer of the
Court to lend credibility to his verified accusation against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems invoked
the name of the Judge Nielsen to make the Court itself fearful of a violent attack from
Plaintiff. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"I am concerned that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings
do not resolve favorably for him, and I request that the Court have a bailiff
available at any future hearings. In over thirteen years of practicing law, I
have had only one other occasion wherein I was threatened in a matter that
made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involved a pro se
Mr. Rodems then asked the Court to punish Plaintiff for his alleged threat, and to
have a bailiff present in order to prevent Plaintiff from violently attacking Mr. Rodems in
Judge Nielsen's implying that a violent attack in Judge Nielsen's chambers
would most certainly injure Judge Nielsen due to the close proximity of Plaintiff to Judge
Nielsen. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"Defendants request that the Court enter an Order sanctioning Plaintiff for
the threatening comment, as detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refrain
from threatening acts of violence."
Mr. Rodems then wrote: "WHEREFORE, Defendants request a bailiff at all future
hearings and that Plaintiff be sanctioned appropriately." Mr. Rodems then verified the
pleadings with the following statement:
"I swear under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this motion
are true and accurate and that the quotes attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are
true and accurate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6
day of March,
verification contained Mr. Rodems' signature.
l.. .
The Florida Bar, T a m p ~
Page - 8 of 10
February 20, 2007
Mr. Rodems' verified request for bailiff and sanctions was notarized by Lynne
Anne Spina, a notary public employed by Mr. Rodems at his law firm. Defendants'
Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions submitted by Mr. Rodems was false and
misleading, and Mr. Rodems committed perjury regarding the "exact quote" attributed to
Neil J. Gillespie.
Mr. Rodems' defamation aggravated Plaintiffs disability. On March 3, 2006, Mr.
Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his home in Ocala, Florida, and issued several threats. Mr.
Rodems knows Plaintiff suffers from a disability from his law firm's prior representation
of Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems insulted Plaintiff. (Transcript, page 7, line
21). Then Mr. Rodems threatened Plaintiff and said "I mean, it was kind of bizarre that
you would even send that letter, but you did, so now you will have to pay for that."
(Transcript, page 9, line 1). Mr. Rodems continued his threats, insults, and taunts until
Plaintiff spoke metaphorically and said he would "slam him" on the law. This is
Plaintiffs exact quote: "So listen you little, whatever, you raise anything you want, 1will
see you on the 25
and 1will slam you against the wall like 1did before." (Referring to
Plaintiffs legal victory over Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike). (Transcript, page
11, line 3). Mr. Rodems then falsely presented this information to the Court in
Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, submitted March 6, 2006.
Mr. Rodems stated, under oath, that this is the exact quote attributable to Plaintiff: "I am
going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's chambers." Plaintiff did not say
"in Judge Nielsen's chambers" but in fact Plaintiff said "like 1did before." These are two
very different statements. Ryan Christopher Rodems lied to the Court to again an
advantage. The hearing before Judge Nielsen on April 25, 2006 began with Mr. Rodems
discussing his request for a bailiff to be present. This is what Mr. Rodems told the Court:
MR. RODEMS: The fourth motion that we filed had to do with a request
for a bailif(to be present. We didn't notice that for hearing, but obviously
we have a deputy here. So that 1don't know that that necessarily needs to
come up. Itwas not noticed for hearing today, but we can take it up if you
want to. (Transcript, April 25,2006, page I, lines 15-20).
And the Court responded:
THE COURT: 1agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is
on any case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for
future reference you do not have to submit a request. And since it's not in
the form of a motion, 1don't think it needs a ruling. All right. (Transcript,
April 25, 2006, beginning page 1, line 24).
And during the hearing, Mr. Rodems stated that everything he represented
to the court has been accurate. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
Page- 9of10
"Hisfinal reasonfortryingtodisqualifyme is he saidthatIlackcandor,
. AndIwouldassertbeforetheCourt,as
anofficerofthecourt,thateverythingthatI've representedto thecourthas
beenaccurate."(Transcript,April25, 2006,page 12, beginningline2).
statementsfrom Mr. Rodems. ThisiswhatMr. Rodemssaid:
MR. RODEMS:Allright. Firstof all,Judge,thiscontinuedallegationby
Mr. Gillespiethatthere'sbeenathreatagainsthim,there'sbeenno threat
againsthim; he is theonethatthreatenedmewhenwehadatelephone
conversationandhetoldmehewasgoingto slamme upagainstyour
hearingchamberswall. That'sneverbeenfollowed, buthecontinuesto
repeatit ineverypleadingandthen,youknow,theideaisthat, Iguess, if
you'vegotjudicialimmunityfrom whatyousay- butthebottomlineis, is
that'sthere'sbeennothingbutcordialbehavioronourpart. (Transcript,
June28, 2006,page 11, lines 11-22).
Mr. Rodemsstatementtothecourtthat"there'sbeennothingbutcordial behavior
onourpart"isimpeachedbythetranscriptofhisphonecall to PlaintiffonMarch3,
2006. Mr. RodemsrepeatedlyliedtotheCourtwithimpunity,to my detriment.
Fairnessto OpposingPartyandCounsel. Rule4-3.4states,Alawyershallnot: (g)present,
participateinpresenting,orthreatentopresentcriminalchargessolelyto obtainan
advantageinacivilmatter. Aspreviouslystatedinparagraph5(c), Defendants'
(Also inParagraph57,affirmativedefenses,containedinthesamedocument,Answers,
Affirmative f n s ~ s andCounterclaim). DefendantsarenotoriousintheTampalegal
criminalextortionagainstthem. Sothistacticis Defendants' modusoperandi,andtheBar
shouldstopthispracticeandrebukeMr. Rodems. Furthermore,onMarch7, 2006,
Plaintiffofferedto surrenderto MarkOber,onthe felony crimeofextortion,buttheState
Attorneyhas notreplied. PlaintiffcontactedtheFloridaBaraboutDefendantsaccusation,
anditdoesnotagreeeither. TheDirectorofLawyerRegulation, KennethLawrence
4 Floridacaselaw prohibits lawyers from presentingfalse testimonyorevidence. Kneale v. Williams. 30 So.
2d 284(Fla. 1947), statesthatperpetrationof afraud is outsidethescopeofthe professionaldutyofan
attorneyandno privilegeattachestocommunicationbetweenanattorneyandaclientwithrespectto
transactionsconstitutingthe makingof afalse claimorthe perpetrationofafraud. Dodd v. The Florida
Bar, 118So2d 17(Fla. 1960), remindsus that"thecourtsare ... dependenton membersof the barto ...
presentthe true facts ofeachcause toenablethejudgeorthejuryto [decidethefacts] to whichthe law
may beapplied. Whenanattorney allows false testimony ... [theattorney] ... makes it impossibleforthe
scales[ofjustice]to balance." See The Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394So.2d405 (Fla. 1981),and The Fla. Bar v.
Simons. 391 So. 2d684(Fla. 1980).
( .
~ . , ,
TheFloridaBar,Tampa' .-'
Page- 10of10
Marvin,wrotePlaintiffthat"Thosequestionsinvolvealegalconclusionof criminallaw
Finally,IamaskingtheBartoconsiderMr. RodemsperjurytotheCourtthatled
toJudgeNielsen'srecusalonNovember22,2006. Mr. Rodems' perjuryissetforthin
PlaintiffsMotionWithAffidavitForAnOrderTo ShowCauseWhyRyanChristopher
MemorandumOfLaw. (ExhibitG). Thisdocument,withanaudiotapeof thepertinent
conversation,showsthatMr. RodemsliedtoJudgeNielsenaboutme,underoath,which
owedme. Itislongestablishedthattherelationshipbetweenanattorneyandhisclientis
oneof themostimportant,aswellasthemostsacred,knowntothelaw. The
responsibilityof anattorneytoplacehisclient'sinterestaheadof hisownindealings
withmattersuponwhichtheattorneyisemployedisatthefoundationof ourlegalsystem.
(Deal v. Migoski, 122So. 2d415). Itisafiduciaryrelationshipinvolvingthehighest
degreeoftruthandconfidence,andanattorneyis underaduty,atalltimes,to represent
loyalty,andfidelity. (Gerlachv. Donnelly,98 So. 2d493). ThelawyersatBarker,
Rodenls& Cook,P.A.didnotmeetthisdutywhileIwastheirclient. Mr. Cookdidnot
behaveaslawyerwithafiduciaryduty. Instead,my fonnerlawyersactedmorelikea
pawnSllOP outfortheirownfinancial interests. Assetforth innlY motionforpunitive
damages(ExhibitE),myformerlawyers' conductwasfraudulent, deliberately
oppressive,malicious,andcommittedwithsuchgrossnegligenceasto indicatewanton
disregardformyrights. (See Domkev. McNeil-P.P.C.,Inc.,M.D.Fla.1996,939F.Supp.
849). Assetforthinthiscomplaint,Mr. Rodems' unethicalbehaviorcontinuesunabated.
E. Plaintiff'sMotionforPunitiveDamagesPursuanttoSection768.72
FloridaStatues,withsupportingexhibits. Thisdocumentsmyrelationship
F. TranscriptofmyMarch3,2006,telephoneconversationwithMr.Rodems
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJ1einhisVeriiicati"ntotheCourt.; . .
G. ,PI3intifrs'MotionWithAffidavitFor'An: OrderToShow''CauseWhy
Court And Incorporated MemorandumOfLaw. This document, with an
-, \ ,
) Ii
....'-' , ....
toDismissandStrike. Defendant'sReplyto PlaintiffsRebuttaltoDefendant'sMotion
1. Defendant'sMotiontoDismissandStrikeisgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart.
2. ThoseportionsofDefendant'sMotiontoDismissandStrikeseekingto
dismisstheComplaintaredenied. Defendantshallhavefifteendaysfromthedateof this
or, 36
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33606
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
Ocala, Florida 34481
or' 37
f _
Plaintiff, .
CASENO.: 05-CA-7205
1. Plaintiffwasdeterm.iliedtotallydisabledbySocialSecurityin1994. r
2. DefendantsarefamiliarwithPlaintiff'sdisabilityfromtheirprior
representationofhim. Defendantsinvestigatedhiseligibilitytoreceiveservicesfromthe
FloridaDepartmentofVocationalRehabilitation(DVR). DVRdeterminedthatPlaintiff
wastooseverelydisabledtobenefitfromservices. Defendantsqoncurred,andnotified
Plaintiff of theirdecisioninaletter tohimdatedMarch27,2001.(ExhibitA).
3. Plaintiff hasthefollowingmedicalconditionswhicharedisablingand
a Depressionandrelatedmooddisorder. Thismedicalconditionprevents
Plaintiff fromworking,meetingdeadlines, andconcentrating. Theinabilityto
- .. -
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, l' .A., case no. OS-CA-7205
b. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), makes Plaintiff susceptible to
stress, such as the ongoing harassment by Defendants' lawyer, Mr. Rodems.
c. Velopharyngeallncompetence (VPI) is a speech impairment that affects
Plaintiff's ability to communicate.
d. The medical treatment for depression includes prescription medication
that further disables Plaintiff's ability to do the work ofthis lawsuit, and further
prevents him from effectively participating in the proceedings.
4. Prior to the onset of the most disabling aspects Plaintiff's medical
condition(s), he was a productive member of society, a business owner for 12 years, and a
graduate of both the University of Pennsylvania and The Evergreen State College.
5. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his
home and threatened to use information learned during Defendants prior representation
against him in the instant lawsuit. Mr. Rodems' threats were twofold; to intimidate
Plaintiff into dropping this lawsuit by threatening to disclose confidential client
information, and to inflict emotional distress, to trigger Plaintiff's Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and inflict injury upon Plaintiff for Defendants' advantage in this lawsuit.
6. On March 6, 2006, Mr. Rodems made a false verification the Court about
the March 3, 2006 telephone call. Mr. Rodems submitted Defendants' Verified Request
For Bailiff And For Sanctions, and told the Court under oath that Plaintiff threatened acts
of violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers. It was a stunt that backfired when a tape
recording of the phone call showed that Mr. Rodems lied. Plaintiff notified the Court
about Mr. Rodems' perjury in Plaintiff's Motion With Affidavit To Show Cause Why
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court and
Incorporated Memorandum Of Law submitted January 29,2007.
Page - 2 of4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook: case no. 05-CA-7205
7. Mr. Rodems' harassing phone call to Plaintiff of March 3, 2006, was a
tort, the Intentional Infliction o/Emotional Distress. Mr. Rodems' tort injured Plaintiff
by aggravating his existing medical condition. From the time of the calIon March 3,
2006, Plaintiff suffered worsening depression for which he was treated by his doctors.
a. On May 1, 2006 Plaintiffs doctor prescribed Effexor XR., a serotonin-
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), to the maximum dosage.
b. Plaintiff's worsening depression, and the side affects ofthe medication,
lessened Plaintiffs already diminished ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
c. On October 4, 2006 Plaintiff began the process of discontinuing his
medication so that he could improve is ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
d. On or about November 18, 2006, Plaintiff discontinued the use of anti-
depression medication, to improve his ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
8. Mr. Rodems continued to harass Plaintiff during the course of this lawsuit
in the following manner:
a. Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait for Plaintiff outside Judge Nielsen's chambers
on April 25, 2006, following a hearing, to taunt him. and provoke an altercation.
b. Mr. Rodems refused to address Plaintiff as "Mr. Gillespie" but used his
fIrst name, and disrespectful derivatives, against Plaintiff's expressed wishes.
c. Mr. Rodems left insulting, harassing comments on Plaintiffs voice mail
during his ranting message of December 13, 2006.
d. Mr. Rodems wrote Plaintiff a five-page diatribe of insults and ad
hominem abusive attacks on December 13,2006.
9. Plaintiff notified the Court of his inability to obtain counsel in Plaintiffs
Notice o/Inability to obtain Counsel submitted February 13,2007.
Page - 3 of4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, .1""\., case no. 05-CA-7205
10. Plaintiff acknowledges that this ADA accommodation request is unusual,
'but so are the circumstances. Defendants in this lawsuit are Plaintiffs former lawyers,
who are using Plaintiffs client confidences against him, while contemporaneously
inflicting new injuries upon their former client based on his disability.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests additional time to obtain counsel, a stay in the
proceedings for 90 days. Plaintiff also requests accommodation in the forin of additional
time to meet deadlines when needed due to his disability.
day of February, 2007.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct .copy of the foregoing has been
furnished via US Mail to Ryan C. Rodems, attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400
N Ashley Dr., Suite 2100, Tampa, FL 33602, this 20
day o f e b ~ 2007.
Page - 4 of4
':IIIUS I',AItl'FIl. Tr.Ir.l'hO'\l: 5IJ/18<).1001
300 West Plat.t Street, Suite 150
':11Itl!:TllI'IIFit ROIJr:.MS
F,c.illlilr. SJJ/Hitl.IOOS
WII.IIAM I. Cl.'flK T'll1pn, Florid3 33606
Neil J. Gillespie
Apartlllcllt C-2
I12\ BeachDriveNE
Sf. Pdersburg,Florida33701-1434
Rc: Vocatiollal Rehabilil:nlion
Jam cnclosingthematerial yOll provided to us. We have reviewed them und, unfortunately,
we arc not in a position to representyou for any claims you may have. Pleaseunderstand that our
decision docsnotmcan thatyourclaimslackmerit, andanotherattorneymightwishto representyou.
If yoII wish to cOllsldtwithanotherattorney, we recommendthatyou do so immedinlelyas astatute
orlilllilaliollswill apply to anyclaimsyou llIay have. As you know, astatuteoflimitationsis alegal
deadline forfiling alawsuit. ThankyOll forthe opportunityto reviewyourmaterials.

William J. Cook

P.nclosl1res STATEOFFLOqlDA )
THIS arat QAY(JF .abo.T 20/cJ
v -
h,,,,,''- B D. C.
-rk- dt<..,
"""'SPI tv(' .!> r 5ff1.u( e rr, 'If
tl?J ;:L 33/,(77 -S-f6"J'
Keepthisreceipt. ForInquiries:
www.usps.com 8
Mall Service
OCALA, Florida
1143840606 -0096
02/20/2007 (352)861-8188 03:04:54 PM
Sales Receipt
Sale Unit
Description Qty Price Price
HOUSTON TX 77027 $2.31
8.30 oz.
Issue PVI: $2.31
TAf.1PA FL 33602 $0.63
1.10 oz.
Customer Postage $0.39
Issue PVI: $0.24
TAt1PA FL 33601 $0.63
1.10 oz.
Customer Postage -$0.39
Issue PVI: $0.24
FL 33607 Priority $6.65
5 1b. 790 oz.
Delivery Confirmation $0.50
Label #: 03061070000320528076
Issue PVI: $7.15
Total: $9.94
Paid by:
Cash $20.00
Change Due: -$10.06
Bi11#: 1000401881296
Clerk: 07
All sales final on stamps and postage.
Refunds for guaranteed services only.
Thank you for your business.
Customer COpy
USPS - Track & ConfIrm Page 1 of 1
Delivered,February22, 2007,11:32am,TAMPA,FL33607
ArrivalatUnit,February22, 2007,8:11 am,TAMPA, FL33607
Acceptance,February20, 2007,3:04pm,OCALA,FL34474
<Back, , Rtlfum to USPS.CDm HtHne >
--. ~ _ ~
Notification Options
Getcurrenteventinformationorupdatesforyouritemsenttoyouorothersbyemail. : 60>

POSTALINSPECTORS sitemap contactus governmentservices jobs National& PremierAccounts

PreservingtheTrust Copyright 1999-2004USPS. All RightsReserved. TermsofUse PrivacyPolicy
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Via US Priority Mail
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070 0003 2052 8113
February 23, 2007
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin
Director of Lawyer Regulation
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205
Dear Mr. Marvin,
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2006, and the enclosed copy of Tobkin v.
Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975. The information is useful in defending the libel claim brought
against me by my former lawyers, who are represented by Ryan Christopher Rodems.
On November 22, 2006, the trial judge in the above captioned matter recused
himself over Mr. Rodems perjury to the Court. Earlier this week I made a Bar complaint
about Mr. Rodems misconduct, but I am concerned that the Tampa office has pre-judged
this matter. I am concerned that my complaint may not be fairly considered, given the
Bar's track record of excusing Mr. Cook's misconduct.
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch
Disciplinary Counsel of the Bar's Tampa office where I raised my concern. It appears
that the Tampa office feels that because I received a $2,000.00 settlement in the Amscot
lawsuit, this somehow releases the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. from
observance of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, as well as fraud and contract law.
You may recall our correspondence concerning a $5,000.00 "improper payoff
attempt'" between my former lawyer and Amscot's lawyer. In March, 2005, you wrote me
on behalf of Ms. Overstreet Johnson saying a complaint was needed. In March, 2006,
you forwarded the complaint to the Bar's Tampa office for investigation. In response to
the complaint, I received an incredible letter from Assistant Staff Counsel Troy Lovell
Kenneth Lawrence Page -2
Director of Lawyer Regulation February 23, 2007
that the six year time limit for considering the complaint had expired, but arithmetic does
not bear out his conclusion. The six year limitation pursuant to Rule 3-7.16 does not
expire until August, 2007, which is still six months away.
Also enclosed is a copy of Plaintiff's Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to
Section 768.72 Florida Statutes, which my letter to Ms. Bloemendaal. This
docuIIlent, with its fifty supporting documents (including your letter of July 12, 2006,
Exhibit 48), provides the full context of my fomler lawyer's misconduct. I do not believe
that the misconduct described in the motion can be explained away because of a
$2,000.00 payment as Ms. Bloemendaal asserts. The misconduct of my former lawyers -
from throwing coffee in the face of another lawyer during a deposition, to Mr. Rodems
perjury that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen - is so encompassing that it would be
difficllit to arrange in the form of a usual Bar co:mplaint. And the tenets of Rule 3-4.3
reminej us that misconduct is not to be narrowly construed.
Mr. Marvin, I appreciate your prior interest in this matter. The above captioned
lawsuit is ongoing, and I am preparing an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the libel
counterclaim brought by my former lawyers for filing a Bar complaint. But I am disabled
and this limits my effectiveness, and I would prefer the assistance of counsel, including
for the show cause motion pending against Mr. Rodems for criminal contempt. I have
been unable through the exercise of diligence to obtain counsel, and have exhausted the
referrals form the Hillsborough County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service.
In conclusion, how can I be assured that my complaint against Mr. Rodems will
be fairly considered, given the Bar's track recor(} of excusing Mr. Cook's misconduct?
And how can I obtain counsel for an admittedly difficult situation? These are my two
questions to you, for which I would like a response.
Thank you.
..-_-----.. /" ..<1 )"7 //
/// /
.;7 /..&..
..... P ,/
./ ,(tc./ Y:; ./ ,,' /1
N ,.v //
cc: Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel, Tampa office
OCALA, Florida
1143840606 -0095
02/23/2007 (352)861-8188 04:06:34 PM
Sales Receipt
Prior;ty '.1ai
3 lb. 9.90
fL 3
2399 $5.60
De1ivery Confirmation $0.50
Label #: 03061070000320528113
Issue PVI: $6.10
39c Ronald 1 $0*39 $0.39
Reagan PSA
Total: $6.49
Paid by:
Debit Card $6.49
Account #: XXXXXXXXXXXX5762
Approva1 #: 061323
Transaction #: 934
23 903300648
Receipt#: 010032
Order stamps at USPS.com/shop or call
1-800-Stamp24. Go to
U5PS.com/cli cknship to print shipping
labels with postage. For other
i nformati on call 1-S00-ASK-USPS.
6;11#: 1000502371569
C1 ark: 01
All sales final on stamps and postage.
Refunds for guaranteed services only.
Thank you for your business.
Customer Copy
u.s. Postal ServiceTliDelivery Confirmation
Here . >
PS Form 152. May 2002
L '\
---.__ ....'ft/'[\J(

tiN F.HARKNESS,JR. TALLAHASSEE,FL32399-2300 850/561-5600
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW IIS
Ocala, FL 34481
DearMr. Gillespie:
Ihave received yourletterdatedFebruary23, 2007 askingmetwo specificquestions. Thefirst
is "HowcanIbeassuredthatmycomplaintagainstMr. Rodemswill befairlyconsidered?",and
my answer is: Bar Counsel takes their job very seriously and it is a difficultjob. They are
trained to recognize issues and analyze evidence to assist their determination as to whether a
complaint should be dismissed or pursued. Bar Counsel is concerned with doing the "right
thing", notpersecutinglawyersnordismissingvalidcomplaints. Yourletterdated February22,
2007 to Ms. Bloemendaal, paragraph 2 states that ". . . I understand your desire to protect a
fellow lawyer." That statement is incorrect. Bar Counsel has a desire to prosecute lawyers
where the facts andlawindicatethatthe lawyerhasviolatedaRuleRegulatingTheFloridaBar
andtheconverseis alsotrue. Thesecondquestionis: "Howcanyouobtaincounsel...?" You
state that you have tried the local Bar Association without success and I have no other good
suggestion, other than to speak to other members ofthe community orperhaps try the Yellow

Icc: SusanBloemendaal
TAMPA,FL33607-5958 TAMPA,FL33607-5958
Ocala,FL 34481
Re: Inquiry/ComplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems
DearMr. Gillespie:
WehavereceivedandreviewedyourcomplaintagainstRespondent. Inorderto evaluateyour
representationof youduringthecurrentproceedingyoubroughtagainstRespondent'sfirm. In
andthemannertheinformationwascommunicatedtohim. Also,pleasenotethatRule4-
necessarytodefendhimself inadisputewiththeclient. Pleaserefertotherule(availableonour
YouhavecomplainedthatRespondenthasanimpermissibleconflictof interest. In your
Defendantsbecauseof thisconflict. PleasebeawarethatTheFloridaBarhasnoauthority
regardingthedisqualificationof counselinpendingcases. IfyoubelievethatRespondentshould
bedisqualified,thatissueshouldbebroughttotheattentionof thepresidingjudgethroughan
appropriate motion. If the matter has been brought to the attentionof the court, please provide us
YoualsocomplainthatRespondentpeIjuredhimself duringtheproceedingsandthatthis
misconductresultedinJudgeNielsen'srecusal. Pleaseprovideacopyof themotionandorder
relatedtoJudgeNielsen'srecusal. If thereisatranscriptof anyhearingonthematter,please
Neil Gillespie
March 7, 2007
Page 2
You complain about Respondent' s f i l i ~ g of a counterclaim for libel against you, which you claim
was a knowingly frivolous counterclaim. Please provide information regarding whether this
claim is still pending and, if it has been resolved, copies of all documents related to the
Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be matters which are the subject of the
civil litigation between you and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are deferred until after the
conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding. Ifthere are reasons you believe that such a
deferral would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your response.
We would appreciate a response within thirty (30) days. Please contact us if you have any
~ t// :
/ .
Troy Matthew Lovell
Assistant Staff Counsel

o A
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
Visit our website: www.FLORIDABAR.org

C:! o
I 03/06/2007
Mailed From 33607
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SV'J Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
3448i $:;:;567 RCi4E: 1 11 1'1' .1 11 ' 111.111111' IIII.II.I.J 11111" I, II" I,I
'j ; I- ,.
. r
April 11,2007
TroyMatthewLovell,AssistantStaff Counsel
5521 WestSpruceStreet,C-49
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems
DearMr. Lovell:
Thisisinresponsetoyourletterof March7,2007,requestingadditional
informationtoevaluatetheabovecaptionedcomplaint. PleasetakenoticethatIrecently
retainedcounselinthematterof Gillespiev.Barker,.Rodems&Cook.caseno.05-CA-
7205. IamcurrentlyrepresentedbyRobertW.Bauer,Esq.,of Gainesville,Florida.
requested. HowevernowthatMr. Bauerislitigatingthecivillawsuit,Ihopetohavea
responsetoyousoon,hopefullywithinaweek. Mr.Bauerdoesnotrepresentmeinmy
BarcomplaintagainstMr. Rodems.
Mr. Rodems' libelcounterclaimovermyBarcomplaintagainstMr. Cook. WhenI
movedtodismissthelibelcounterclaim,Mr. Rodemsmovedforsanctionspursuantto
section57.105(1)FloridaStatutes. Mr.Rodemsisdemandingattorneys'feesthereto,and
Isubsequentlyfiledananswertothelibelcounterclaim. Thematterisnowinthehands
ofMr. Bauer,whoenteredhisappearancewiththeCourtonApril2,2007.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092SW 115
Telephone: (352)502-8409
April 18,2007
5521 WestSpruceStreet,C-49
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems
TFBNo. 2007-11,162(13D)
DearMr. Lovell:
Thisisafollow-uptomyletterofApril 11,2007,andinresponsetoyourletterof
1. Inparagraphtwoof yourletteryouaskedaboutRespondent'smisuseof
confidentialinformationobtainedinhispriorrepresentationofme, anddisclosedduringthe
currentproceedingIbroughtagainstRespondent'sfirm. MyresponseisthatRespondent
threatenedtorevealclientconfidences,althoughhedidnotactuallydoso. Mr.Rodems'
threatto revealclientconfidenceswasforthepurposeofintimidationofawitness.
DuringatelephonecallonMarch3,2006,Mr. Rodemsthreatenedtoreveal
confidentialinformationaboutmypaymentformedicaltreatment. Mr.Rodems' threatwas
memorializedbyavoicerecordingwhichhasbeentranscribed. Youalreadyhaveacopyof
AsforthemannertheinformationwascommunicatedtoMr. Rodems,helearnedit
from Mr. Cook. Theinformationwasnotpublicknowledge,andwasknownonlytomy
lawyers. Specifically,Mr.Rodemsthreatenedthefollowing: (relevantportion)
Page- 2of5
April 18,2007
"MR.RODEMS: Didn'tyouatonetimepurchaseacarsothatyoucouldgetthe
cashrebatetogetsomedentalworkdone? We'regoingtogettothediscovery,
MR. RODEMS: Didyoupurchaseacarsothatyoucouldgetthecashrebateto
MR. GILLESPIE: Listen,thisiswhyyouneedtobedisqualified.
MR. RODEMS: No,Imean,that's-- becauseIknowthat? BecauseIknowthat
MR. GILLESPIE: Youknowittobeafactfromyourpreviousrepresentationof
MR.RODEMS: Well,youknow, seethat's-
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifitis-- ifit'safact, anyway.
MR. RODEMS: YouneedtostudytherulesandregulationsoftheFloridaBar
MR. GILLESPIE: Ithink,IthinkIboughtacarsoIwouldhavesomethingto
drive. Idon'tknowwhyyoubuycars,butthat'swhyIboughtit.
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifithadsomeotherbenefits,that'sdifferent.
MR. RODEMS: Iunderstandthatcarwasrepossessedshortlyafteryouboughtit
MR. GILLESPIE: No, itwasn'trepossessed.
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well,thenyoucanprobablydrivethatdowntothe
MR. GILLESPIE: No,itwasvoluntarilyturnedinbecauseafter911 attackthe
2. ConcerningyourquestionaboutRespondent'simpermissibleconflictof
The Florida Bar, Tampf.) o
Page - 3 of5
April 18, 2007
has no authority regarding the disqualification of counsel in pending cases. As such,
kindly limit your inquiry to Respondent's impermissible conflict of interest. As I
understand your letter, The Florida Bar has no jurisdiction to make a determination on
disqualification, so it would be inappropriate for The Florida bar to consider the matter of
disqualification. But Respondent's current, ongoing, impermissible conflict of interest
representing the Defendants in the civil litigation against me is within the jurisdiction of
The Florida Bar, and the Bar is obligated to investigate his impermissible conflict.
Nonetheless, my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems in the civil litigation was
denied. In my view the denial was based on a delay in bringing the motion, not on the
substance of the impermissible conflict
. But since The Florida Bar has no jurisdiction to
make a determination on disqualification, it would be improper for the Bar to consider the
ruling. I am complaining about Respondent's impermissible conflict of interest, not
whether or not he should be disqualified.
3. Concerning Mr. Rodems' perjury before the court, you asked for a copy of
the motion and order related to Judge Nielsen's recusal. I am happy to comply with your
request, and the following is enclosed:
a. Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Judge, and Memorandum of Law;
b. Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Judge;
c. Order of Recusal (on Judge Nielsen's own motion).
You also asked for a transcript of any hearing on the matter. My response is that
Judge Nielsen did not have a hearing on this matter. Judge Nielsen initially ruled that my
motion was not timely filed. Then two days later the Judge recused himself on his own
motion, presumably on the merits of my motion that Mr. Rodems perjured himself.
4. You asked about Respondent's filing of a counterclaim for libel against
me, and to provide information regarding whether this claim is still pending and, if it has
been resolved, copies of all documents related to the resolution. I already responded to
this question last week, in my letter to you dated April 11,2007. This is what I wrote you
concerning the counterclaim:
"One response that I can provide now is that there has been no settlement
regarding Mr. Rodems' libel counterclaim over my Bar complaint against Mr. Cook.
When I moved to dismiss the libel counterclaim, Mr. Rodems moved for sanctions
pursuant to section 57.105(1) Florida Statutes. Mr. Rodems is demanding attorneys' fees
thereto, and I subsequently filed an answer to the libel counterclaim. The matter is now
in the hands ofMr. Bauer, who entered his appearance with the Court on April 2, 2007."
In addition, in Florida judges generally pander to attorneys in the hope of receiving future campaign
contributions and political support, and favor attorneys over pro se litigants, especially when the attorney is
a defendant, and where Mr. Rodems filed a false affidavit to prejudice the court against me.
The Florida Bar, TampP
Page - 4 of5
April 18, 2007
As of today Defendants' counterclaim for libel is still pending against me.
5. Finally Mr. Lovell, you made the following assertion in an attempt to defer
my grievance because the allegations are the same as in pending civil litigation. This is
what you wrote:
"Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be
matter which are the subject of the civil litigation between you
and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are
deferred until after the conclusion of the civil or criminal
proceeding. If there are reasons you believe that such a deferral
would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your
response." (Lovell, March 7, 2007, p2, ~ 2
Mr. Lovell, my response is that your assertion is not correct. Grievances are not
typically deferred until after the conclusion of contemporaneous civil or criminal
proceedings. Specifically, Rule 3-7.4, Grievance Committee Procedures, states:
Rule 3-7.4(e) No Delay for Civil or Criminal Proceedings. An investigation shall
not be deferred or suspended without the approval of the board even though the
respondent is made a party to civil litigation or is a defendant or is acquitted in a criminal
action, notwithstanding that either of such proceedings involves the subject matter of the
Mr. Lovell, unless you can provide evidence that the board has approved a
deferral or suspension pursuant to Rule 3-7.4(e), I view your unilateral effort to defer my
grievance as obstruction of a bar complaint, and as an effort to help your fellow
colleagues Mr. Rodems and his law partners. Contrary to your assertion that this
grievance should be deferred, Rule 3-74(e) provides otherwise. Mr. Lovell, why are you
unilaterally obstructing my grievance contrary to the rule of law?
Mr. Lovell, this is not the first time you have improperly tried to obstruct my
grievance against Mr. Cook and his cohorts. In your letter to me dated April 18, 2006,
concerning a bar complaint about a $5,000.00 "improper payoff attempt" Mr. Cook
received from opposing counsel, you wrote:
"In addition, we note that the conduct in question occurred in 2001.
The Florida Bar has jurisdiction to consider complaints filed up to
six (6) years after the conduct in question. Thus, even if we were to
conclude that failing to file a grievance constituted a violation of the
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, we would be unable to conclude
that he failed in his duty before the time period for filing had
expired." (Lovell, April 18, 2006, pI, 5
The Florida Bar, TampP o
Page - 5 of5
April 18, 2007
Mr. Lovell, it appears you are referring to bar Rule 3-7.16, Limitations on Time to
Bring Complaint. It also appears you are wrong, and the information you provided was
incorrect, because the six year time period had not expired at the time of your April 18,
2006 letter. In fact, as of today the six year time period has not yet expired, and the time
does not expire until August, 2007, which is still four months away. At the time of your
letter, only years had passed, allowing another 1Y:z years for The Florida Bar to
conclude that Mr. Cook failed in his duty to report the $5,000.00 "improper payoff
Mr. Lovell, in addition to the two preceding examples of improperly invoked
procedural obstacles to my bar complaints, your pervious letters to me have asserted facts
not in the record, and have attributed statements to me that I did not make. As such, the
objective evidence of your numerous false or inaccurate assertions calls into question
whether or not you take my complaints seriously, and prompts the following queries:
1. Mr. Lovell, did you willfully provide false, incorrect, or misleading
information relative to bar Rule 3-7.16, Limitations on Time to Bring Complaint, in your
letter to me of April 18, 2006, to help your colleague Mr. Cook evade discipline?
2. Are you currently providing false information relative to bar Rule 3-7A(e),
No Delayfor Civil or Criminal Proceedings, specifically your present claim that
grievances which are based on the same allegations as pending civil or criminal
proceedings are deferred until after the conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding?
3. Mr. Lovell, is your behavior willfully calculated to obstruct justice, and the
grievance procedures of The Florida Bar? Or do your numerous false or incorrect
assertions result from your ignorance of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar?
Mr. Lovell, kindly answer the above so I know how to proceed with this matter.
At this time I believe I have answered all your questions, and provided the items
you requested. Kindly contact me if you have additional questions or need anything else.
It is my intent to fully cooperate with The Florida Bar and its grievance process.
TAMPA,FL33607-5958 TAMPA,FL33607-5958
Ocala,Florida 34481
RE: Inquiry/ComplaintregardingRyanChristopherRodems
DearMr. Gillespie:
documentation. Basedonourreviewof thesematerials,wehaveconcludedthatno further
Respondentisamemberof yourfonnerlawfinnandisdefendingthatlawfinnincivillitigation
broughtbyyou. YouallegedthatRespondenthasengagedusedconfidentialinformationagainst
youbasedonthepriorrepresentation. OnMarch7,2007,werequestedadditionalinfonnation
regardingtheseallegationsinorderforusto evaluateyourgrievance. Todate,wehavereceived
noadditionalinfonnation. Intheabsenceof specificallegationsandsupportingevidence,we
havenobasisfor u r t ~ r proceedings.
Accordingly,ourfileinthismatterisnowclosed. TherecordsregardingthisInquiry/Complaint
willbedestroyedone(1) yearfromtoday. Ourdispositionof yourcomplainthasno effecton
~ ~
AssistantStaff Counsel
cc: RyanChristopherRodems

'" '"
.. A
... m

TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
r n 7 ; 5

r' .....
Mailed From 33607


Visit our website: www.FLORIDABAR.org
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
3448i 7 R:::45 ',.",.1 1.1'1II II 'I I. I 11 ". ,III"'" I,II '.'