Florida Bar Complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Sep-13-2012

THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
September 13, 2012
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker
501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790
Tampa, FL 33602-5237
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Rodems:
Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the
above referenced complainant(s). 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. Responses should not exceed 25 pages al1d
may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to
provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please note
that any correspondence must be sent through the u.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your written
response, including any documents submitted therewith.
Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Discipline, any reports, correspondence,
papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s)
shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon a
disposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the
status of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made and
the matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline,
you are further required to complete and retllm the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form.
Furtller, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative
litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should
new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
September 13, 2012
Page Two
Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and
the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your
response.
Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,
Notice - Mailing Instructions)
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
1. The enclosed letter is an informal inquiry. Your response is required under the
provisions of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4 8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct.
Failure to provide a written response to this conlplaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4 8.4(g). If
you do not respond, the matter will be forwarded to the grievance committee for disposition in
accordance with Rule 3-7.3 of the Rules of Discipline.
2. Many conlplaints considered first by staff counsel are not forwarded to a grievance
committee, as they do not involve violatiol1s of the Rules of Professional Conduct justifying
disciplinary action.
3. "Pllrsuant to Rule 3-7.1(a), Rules of Discipline, any response by you in these proceedings
shall become part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public
upon the closure of the case by Bar counselor upon a finding of no probable cause, probable
cause, minor misconduct, or recommendation of diversion. Disclosure during the pendency of
an investigation may be nlade only as to status if a specific inquiry concerning this case is made
and if this matter is generally known to be in the public donlain."
4. The grievance committee is the Bar's "grand jury." Its function and procedure are set
forth in Rule 3-7.4. Proceedings before the grievance committee, for the most part, are non
adversarial in nature. However, you should carefully review Chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating
The Florida Bar.
5. If the grievance committee finds probable cause, formal adversarial proceedings, which
ordinarily lead to disposition by the Supreme Court of Florida, will be commenced under
3-7.6, unless a plea is submitted under Rule 3-7.
NOTICE
Mailing Instructions
The Florida Bar is in the process of converting its disciplinary files to electronic media.
All submissions are being scanned into an electronic record and hard copies are
discarded.
Please limit your submission to no more than 25
pages including exhibits.
If you have additional documents available, please make reference to them in 'your
written submission as available upon request. Should Bar counsel need to obtain copies
of any such documents, a subsequent request will be sent to you. Please do not bind, or
index your You may underline but do not highlight documents under
any circumstances. We scan documents for use in our disciplinary files and when
scanned, your document highlighting will either not be picked up or may obscure
any underlying text.
** Materials received that do not meet these guidelines may be returned. **
Please refrain from attaching media such as audio
tapes or CD's, oversized documents, or
photographs.
We cannot process any media that cannot be scanned into the electronic record.
Please do not submit your original documents.
All documents will be discarded after scanning.
Please do not submit confidential or privileged
information.
If information ofthis nature is important to your submission, please describe the nature of
the information and indicate that it is available upon request. Bar counsel will contact
you to make appropriate arrangements for the protection of any such information that is
required as part ofthe investigation ofthe complaint.
Thank you for your consideration in this respect.
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
September 13, 2012
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Ryan Christopher Rodems; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Enclosed is a copy of our letter to Mr. Rodems which requires a response to your complaint.
Once you receive Mr. Rodems's response, you have 10 days to file a rebuttal if you so desire. If
you decide to file a rebuttal, you must send a copy to Mr. Rodems. Rebuttals should not exceed
25 pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Please
address any and all correspondence to me. Please note that any correspondence must be sent
througll the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
Please be advised that as an arm of the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida Bar can
investigate allegations of misconduct against attorneys, and where appropriate, request that the
attorney be disciplined. The Florida Bar cannot render legal advice nor can The Florida Bar
represent individuals or intervene on their behalf in any civil or criminal matter. Further, please
notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative litigation which
pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should new litigation
develop during the pendency of this matter.
Please review the enclosed Notice on mailing instructions for information on submitting your
rebuttal.
Sincerely,
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosures (Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Letter to Mr. Rodems; Notice - Mailing
Instructions)
cc: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
"'----- -'
...... -..
THE FLORIDA BAR
f

\ 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
;
"
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

.. ' .;:'

It'G
Visit our web site: www.FLORIDABAR.org
016H165073,.56

f1\ (\(\ c 5(\
Qi
'::
.a1'"
tt\ 09 13 2012
:t'
uS PU51AGr:
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
i ".:35S7 R::iS7 i51 III.' J J iJ iJ .1111 ill I.Ji II Ii I J IJ I. J Ii J1 ilit Ilii, 111 i.1i I Ji.'
IIIIIl!!I!IIIII- - - ---""""""
THE FLORIDA BAR
INQUIRy/COMPLAINT FORM
PART ONE (See Pa2e I, PART ONE - Required Information.):
Your Name: Neil J. Gillespie
Organization: _
Address: 8092 SW 115th Loop
City: Ocala State: FL
Zip Code: 34481 Phone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
ACAP Reference No._n_o_ne _
Attorney's Name: Ryan Christopher Rodems
Address: 501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
City: Tampa State: ~
Zip Code: 33602 Telephone: 813-489-1001
PART TWO (See Pa2e I, PART TWO - Facts/AIle2ations.): The specific thing or thin2s I am comolainin2 about are:
Please see accompanying letter and exhibits.
PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE - Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
sheet].
PART FOlTR (See Page 1, PART FOUR - Signature.): Under penalties ofperjury, I declare that theforegoingfacts are
true, correct and complete.
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program September 10, 2012
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 323992300
Complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID: 947652,
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602, telephone (813) 489-1001;
Mr. Rodems has committed multiple violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar while
representing his law firm and partner in civil litigation against me, a former client on the same or
substantially related matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.
In August 2005 I sued, pro se, Mr. Rodems firm and partner to recover $6,224.78
1
stolen by
them from my settlement in a prior case against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot). Amscot was
a class action lawsuit over payday loans or delayed deposit check cashing schemes that result
in usurious rates of interest. The case is Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and
William J. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Mr. Rodems countersued me on February 19, 2006. It was a vexatious counterclaim for libel
over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, about the litigation and a closed
Bar complaint. On September 28, 2010 Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without
prejudice. I incurred $31,863
2
in legal fees to attorney Robert W. Bauer, a February 26, 2007
referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service to defend the libel suit. Mr. Bauer also
reinstated my voluntarily dismissed claims against Rodems firm and partner, but latter dropped
the case in October 2008
3
. Rodems misconduct made lawful resolution of this case impossible.
Lying is a habit for Mr. Rodems, and he is guilty of misconduct related to lack of candor, which
rules and standards are contained in a publication by The Florida Bar Ethics Department, the
Informational Packet entitled Candor Toward The Tribunal. Rodems is guilty of dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rodems
also knowingly disparaged, humiliated, and discriminated against me on the basis of disability.
Mr. Rodems partner and law firm previously consulted with me on disability and the Florida
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR.
Mr. Rodems misused discovery, disrupted the tribunal, obtained $11,550 in sanctions, and then a
money judgment against me. Much of the case was spent obtaining and executing on the $11,550
judgment. Through a series of ex parte hearings, Mr. Rodems wrongly obtained a warrant for my
arrest on civil contempt, a writ of bodily attachment, for allegedly failing to attend a full
deposition, post final judgment. On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems announced that he had
accumulated another 130 hours of sanctions. That would amount to $45,500 at $350 per hour.
On June 21, 2011 I was held in coercive custody at the Tampa Courthouse until I signed a
settlement while incompetent. I promptly disaffirmed the agreement upon a meal after release.

1
Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers later determined that the amount stolen was $7,143.68, see
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, filed pro se May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton.
2
$12,650 remains unpaid; the rest was paid from Social Security disability benefits or borrowed.
3
Judge Barton entered Order Granting Motion To Withdrawal As Counsel October 1, 2009.
The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012
Page - 2
Mr. Rodems continued his misconduct in my related federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit,
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., 5:10-cv-503, U.S. District Court, M.D.,
Fla. A list of twenty (20) related cases appears at Exhibit 1. Currently I am preparing a petition
for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. My Rule 13.5 Application to extend time to file
a petition for writ of certiorari was docketed August 31, 2012, Docket No. 12A215.
I. Overview of the Misconduct of Ryan Christopher Rodems
A. Represented his partner/firm against me, a former client on a substantially related matter.
B. Represented his partner/firm at ex parte hearings and mislead the Court.
C. His exercise of independent professional judgment was materially limited by conflict.
D. Lack of Candor Toward The Tribunal; Rodems failed to correct earlier false testimony.
E. Misused discovery and obtained sanctions thorough a pattern of racketeering activity.
F. Disrupted the tribunal to improperly influence and prejudice the Court.
G. Disparaged, humiliated, and discriminated against me on the basis of disability.
II. Bar Rules And Case Law Violated by Ryan Christopher Rodems
Mr. Rodems was admitted to the Florida Bar September 23, 1992, and was Board Certified in
Civil Trial Law in 2007. The misconduct described in this complaint cannot be attributed to
mistake or inexperience. This is knowing, willful misconduct, committed with malice
aforethought, and utterly lacking independent professional judgment. Mr. Rodems crossed the
line from misconduct to criminal behavior when he presented false testimony during several ex
parte official proceedings to obtain a warrant for my arrest. The following is my laymans
understanding of Mr. Rodems misconduct and crimes, and the applicable rule or law.
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-Ryan-
Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010
Page - 3
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.
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.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a
mandatory authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich:
[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.
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)
Page - 4
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:
(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
Page - 5
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
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)
III. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - All Courts
1. 2005-present. Mr. Rodems improperly represented his law firm and partner against me in
16 cases (Exhibit 1), a former client on the same or substantially related matter, contrary to
Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890
F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems did this to cover-up the fraud and other wrongdoing
committed 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. As shown below, Mr. Rodems representation of
his law firm essentially consisted of his presenting false testimony on behalf of his firm and
partner, while harassing me and committing other fraud on the court. Mr. Rodems is guilty of
misconduct, conflict of interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice, and lack of independent professional judgment. (Exhibit 2).
IV. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - Hillsborough Co., Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL
Reverse Chronology, with some exceptions as shown.
Limited by the Bars prohibition on submitting more than 25 pages.
Page - 6
2. 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).
Mr. Castagliuolo admitted August 30, 2012 in a written response to Theodore P. Littlewood Jr.,
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.
This shows how the discipline process is compromised, in this case 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 may
have caused Mr. Castagliuolo to work for the benefit of Mr. Rodems instead of me, his client.
Mr. Bauer stated in a letter to me August 24, 2012 that the settlement only binds me, not him.
3. 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.
Page - 7
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
trust does not have any money. The trust has no assets other than my home. My home is valued
at $85,584. The outstanding mortgage is $108,056. The home is underwater with negative
equity of -$22,532. The delinquent HOA fees are $6,902. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
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).
Page - 8
May 27, 2011 I filed Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.
Gillespie in 05-CA-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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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:
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.
Page - 9
(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
10. 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 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. Mr. Rodems failed to correct
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.
Robert W. Bauer Shows Mr. Rodems Fraud - No Claim For Court-Awarded Attorneys Fees
11. October 30, 2007. Robert W Bauer outlined Mr. Rodems fraud to Judge Barton October
30, 2007 during a hearing for judgment on the pleadings: (Transcript, October 30, 2007, p.39)
22 [MR. BAUER] Another issue to point out the fact this is for
23 their claim of court-awarded attorney's fees, there
Page - 10
24 was no claim. The claim had already been determined
25 by the court, denied. It didn't exist any more.
1 [MR. BAUER] Yes, there was an appeal outstanding, but that
2 doesn't resurrect any claim. The only thing that's
3 going to resurrect a claim is an overruling by the
4 appellate court. A claim no longer exist once it's
5 been denied, even if it's on appeal. So in
6 asserting there existed a claim for attorney's fees
7 is false. It - it's not there.
Robert W. Bauer Shows Mr. Rodems Perjury Before The Court
4
12. October 30, 2007. Mr. Rodems lied in open court October 30, 2007 before Judge James
Barton, essentially testifying as a witness for his law firm and partner, claiming that I signed a
contingent fee agreement with BRC. There is no signed contract because I did not sign one.
(October 30, 2007, p.20, beginning at line 2)
2 MR. RODEMS: Wait just a second. I have a
3 written signed copy of that contract. I'm not the
4 one that filed this lawsuit. Gillespie did. And
5 Gillespie filed an unsigned version of that
6 contract.
24 MR. RODEMS: That is completely incorrect.
25 There is a signed contract. It exists.
13. 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.
14. October 30, 2007. Mr. Rodems, as counsel for his firm and partner, essentially testified as
a witness, and clearly lacked independent professional judgment, or a modicum of decorum.
(October 30, 2007, p.31, line 23)
23 [RODEMS] We are being shaken down by Mr. Gillespie.
24 That's what's happening here.
(October 30, 2007, p.45, beginning at line 20)
20 [RODEMS] But, you know, we believe that if you will
21 carefully consider this matter, you will see that,
22 you know, Mr. Gillespie is basically trying to shake
23 us down.

4
During a February 9, 2009 telephone call Mr. Bauer and I discussed Mr. Rodems perjury
before Judge Barton about the unsigned contingent fee agreement. (Transcript, p11, Feb-09-09)
MR. BAUER:...[I] think it clearly puts
12 before the Court the mistake or perjury, whichever
13 the Court determines that they wish to interpret as
14 Mr. Rodems misleading the Court when he said that
15 certain things were present that weren't. If you
16 read those motions I clearly said that in there.
Page - 11
15. Because of the foregoing false witness testimony by Mr. Rodems, I asked Mr. Bauer if I
should attend hearings to rebut Rodems perjury. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a
witness in my own case, and sent me an email July 8, 2008 at 6.05 p.m. stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be
able to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the
situation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I
believe it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You
have had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much more
difficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be avoided.
Because I was not present at hearings, Mr. Rodems lied with impunity about factual matters in
2007 and 2008 while Mr. Bauer represented me. Mr. Rodems was essentially a witness for his
firm and law partner. I was not present at the hearings to present rebuttal testimony.
Mr. Rodems Full Nuclear Blast, Harassment - Unfairness to Opposing Party or Counsel
16. 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 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
Page - 12
Dr. Huffer also wrote He is left with permanent secondary wounds. (page 2). Also:
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
19. July 27, 2010. Notice of Fraud on the Court by Ryan C. Rodems, Discovery.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. June 17, 2010. Sworn Notice of Mr. Rodems Fraud on the Court, re: Coordinating Hearing
23. June 14, 2010. Motion For Order of Protection, cancel deposition, Stay pending ADA ruling.
24. May 5, 2010. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Mr. Rodems as a Defendant personally.
25. 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.
26. February 19, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, ADA Disability.
27. January 5, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, Harassment.
28. December 15, 2009. Motion To Hold Mr. Rodems in Contempt, Violated Stay Order
29. January 29, 2007. Plaintiff's Motion with Affidavit For Order to Show Cause, Rodems
Criminal Contempt, his false affidavit Mar-06-2006. See Perjury Complaint to TPD, 25.
30. April 25, 2006. Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment, BRC Fraud & Breach of Contract
Motions To Disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as Counsel for BRC and Mr. Cook
31. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard. Judge
Nielsen did not to disqualify Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890
F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of McPartland and did not argue it.
The following is Paragraph 61 from my Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel
Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. filed July 9, 2010. It was not heard.
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed 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, in this instance
Page - 13
Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services,
Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal authority directly adverse
to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are just two of a number of cases
Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the Table of Cases that accompanies this
motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully inform the court on applicable law whether
favorable or adverse to position of client so that the court is better able to make a fair and
accurate determination of the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176.
As evidenced by this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr.
Rodems and BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
On February 13, 2006 I prevailed on Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss the Complaint, and thereby
established a cause of action for Fraud and Breach of Contract. This established personal liability for
Mr. Rodems. 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. Rodems and BRC had an actual
conflict. Disqualification of Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel was required. Also see Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify Counsel, December 11, 2006.
32. Judge Nielsens Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel held:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiffs
Motion to Disqualify Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and
counsel and Mr. Gillespie having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised
in the premises, it is ORDERED:
The motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may
be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice.
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. In addition, no judge
has considered disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel for 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. 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-Falsified-Order-Rodems-Disqualif-Sep-27-2010
Mr. Rodems Misuse of Discovery - Civil RICO Pattern of Racketing Activity
33. Mr. Rodems misused discovery with the help of presiding judges to whom he either paid
money to as campaign contributions, or to whom his partners paid money as campaign contributions.
Judge Claudia Isom, the second trial judge authored an essay, Professionalism and Litigation
Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323, that describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors
intensive case management for lawyers to avoid costly discovery sanctions, because judges are
elected and need the support of lawyers. The essay acknowledges that lawyers behave badly in
Page - 14
court (like Mr. Rodems in this case), and this behavior, which Judge Isom calls
cutting up, is intended to churn more fees for themselves. In my case Judge Isom refused to
provide me the same intensive case management, but instead held me to rigid standards, and set
the stage for the next trial judge, Judge James Barton, to slam me with $11,550 in sanctions,
which in turn Mr. Rodems used to obtain a money judgment, and used that to extort a settlement.
In the case of Judge Barton, Mr. Rodems law firm paid money to the business of Judge Bartons wife,
Chere Barton, president of Regency Reporting Service. Chere Barton transcribed my deposition in the
Amscot case May 14, 2001. The transcript, which contains much information about my disabilities,
has apparently been stored in the home office of Judge Barton. It was not until May 2010 that all the
dots were connected during a hearing. Judge Barton was disqualified as trial judge May 24, 2010 for
cause, a long-standing business relationship between Mr. Rodems law firm and the court-reporting
business of Judge Bartons wife. The $11,550 sanction award is contrary to the law on discovery:
Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to encourage the
settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.
1996). The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedy determination
every action (In re Estes Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1963), to
promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure that judgments are rested on the real
merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd. Partnership v. Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler
v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (2dDCA 1977).
Because Mr. Rodems firm and partner previously represented me in the Amscot case, and the current
litigation was about the Amscot case, Mr. Rodems already had most, if not all, my discovery on file.
On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems announced at the court-ordered deposition that he had accumulated
another 130 hours of sanctions against me. At $350 per hour, that would amount to $45,500.
The Civil RICO pattern of racketeering activity is more fully described in Motion to Reconsider, U.S.
Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 12-11028-B, and on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95369974
34. March 28, 2006. Rule 4-3.4(d). Improper Interrogatory requests by Mr. Rodems, such as 10
years of medical history (#8), a list of bar complaints filed (#11), information on any complaints to
any government agency ever made, including the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which
complaints Mr. Rodems knows are confidential. (#12). Same with RFP. I tried my best to comply, but
Rodems did not really want the discovery, (which he already had from his firms prior representation
of me), Rodems wanted to get discovery sanctions against me to use as extortion to force a settlement.
My discovery requests to Mr. Rodems were essentially the same as he sent me. But Mr. Rodems
refused to provide any documents in response to my RFP, not a single page. He objected to many
of the same Interrogatories he sent me. See, Motion for Reconsideration, $11,550 Sanctions, 05-
CA-7205, June-18-2010, and Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery Sanctions, Dec-11-2006.
35. July 29, 2010. Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Mr. Rodems false letter about his discovery.
Mr. Rodems refused to provide documents in response to my RFP. Instead, Rodems sent me a
letter dated December 19, 2006, stating The documents have already been produced..., which
was false. In fact, much of Mr. Rodems discovery is still outstanding.
Page - 15
V. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. 5:10-cv-503
36. 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, ~ 1 9 . 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. 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. 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. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges dismissed
the case without prejudice on other grounds and noted Rodems' assignment. (Order, Doc. 64.)
VI. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems Regarding Disability
37. I am an indigent fifty-six (56) year-old single man, law-abiding, college educated, and a
former business owner, 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. In March 2001 I
consulted with Mr. Cook and BRC on disability and DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR.
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. Mr. Rodems'
strategy has been, since 2006, 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 ofjustice. 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/l 02585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-l1.
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 litigants... on any basis, including, but not limited to... disability....".
Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this complaint is available upon request.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Thank you for considering this complaint.
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. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA (closed, appeal)
13. 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. Original case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corp. class action Dec-09, 1999
20. Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp, filed August 20, 2001
1
I. Prior Representation of Neil Gillespie by Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. et al.
1. I was a plaintiff in a class action suit against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot). Jonathan Alpert filed the Amscot
lawsuit December 9, 1999
1
as partner of the firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. The action was based
on payday lending and alleged violations of federal and state lending laws. Myself and another plaintiff intervened in
November 2000 to save the case from dismissal, because the first plaintiff was unqualified.
2. Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. also represented me in another class action suit, one against
ACE Cash Express filed April 14, 2000, Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, U.S.
District Court, M.D. Fla., Tampa Div. (ACE)
3. A Tampa Police Department report dated June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges Mr. Alpert committed
battery, Florida Statutes 784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing hot coffee on him. At the time Mr. Levine was
a 68 year-old senior citizen. The report states: The victim and defendant are both attorneys and were representing their
clients in a mediation hearing. The victim alleges that the defendant began yelling, and intentionally threw the contents of a
20 oz. cup of hot coffee which struck him in the chest staining his shirt. A request for prosecution was issued for battery.
Mr. Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report and failed to inform me that Mr. Alpert attacked attorney Arnold
Levine
2
in the Bucs case, during the same time Mr. Alpert and the Alpert firm represented me in Amscot and ACE.
4. On or about July 20, 2000 Mr. Alpert became a candidate for state attorney for Hillsborough County
3
. The
vacancy was created by the suicide of State Attorney Harry Lee Coe who shot himself July 13, 2000.
5. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Barker executed Articles of Incorporation for Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A (BRC), a
new law firm formed in secret from Jonathan Alpert. The new firm was not announced until December 6, 2000. Prior to
that time, Mr. Cook told me that he and Messrs. Barker and Rodems formed their own law firm, and asked me to keep the
information secret from Mr. Alpert. This double-dealing and deception against Mr. Alpert placed me in a position of
conflict and divided loyalties with the lawyers and law firm representing me.
6. During the four month period between the formation of Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (BRC) in August 2000,
and the formal announcement in December 2000, Mr. Cook secretly sought to bring cases and clients from the Alpert firm
to BRC. Mr. Cook offered me a number of incentives to sue Amscot, and bring my cases from the Alpert firm to BRC. Mr.
Cook said I would get special attention as a favorite client of his newly formed law firm. The new firm would be anxious
for business which he and his partners hoped I would provide. Mr. Cook said once they were free from the control of Mr.
Alpert they would be able to decide themselves what cases to accept and litigate. Following the breakup of the Alpert firm,
I brought new claims to BRC. In a March 22, 2001 letter to Mr. Cook, I requested representation on disability matters and
the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. (DVR). DVR determined that my disability was too severe for
rehabilitation services to result in employment. I provided Mr. Cook documents in the matter, DLES case 98-066-DVR.
Mr. Cook responded March 27, 2001 that ...we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have.
7. Mr. Rodems and his partners announced the formation of their new law firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (BRC)
by letter December 6, 2000. Substitute counsel BRC and William J. Cook represented me beginning December 12, 2000 in
both the Amscot and ACE cases. Both cases were contingent fee, but BRC did not sign a contingent fee agreement with me.
The only contingent fee agreement in each case was with the closed Alpert firm.
8. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. The court held that the transactions involved predated the
applicable law. BRC and Mr. Cook appealed. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield,
and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit. Amscot settled for business reasons
before the appeal was decided. The Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement attached to the
Joint Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this complaint:
Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq.
Amscot Corporation
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Barker, Chris A., Esq.
Cook, William J., Esq.
Gillespie, Neil

1
, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, US District Court, Tampa
2
Mr. Levine previously sued Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, a $5 million dollar defamation claim, Buccaneers Limited
Partnership v. Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, 99-2354-CIV-T-23C.
3
Mr. Alpert was defeated and eliminated in the September 5, 2000 primary election.
2
2
MacKechnie, Ian
Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq.
9. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA with prejudice, with the parties
bearing their own costs and attorneys fees.
10. BRC and Mr. Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot. Mr. Cook lied to me about
a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the closing statement. There was no $50,000 award. The
closing statement was a fraud. The $50,000 was actually part of the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned
contingent fee agreement, or Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was later
found to be $7,143.68. The closing statement did not comply with Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) in that no costs or expenses were
itemized, and payment of $2,544.79 to Mr. Alpert was not shown.
11. This case boils down to the veracity of a single sentence on the closing statement prepared and signed by Mr.
Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001. The sentence states In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that
AMSCOT Corporation separately paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against
AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs. This sentence was later determined false. The closing statement is a fraud.
There were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. As a matter of law it was impossible to have court-awarded fees as claimed
by BRC and Mr. Cook because the federal court dismissed those claims with prejudice and held that the transactions
involved predated the applicable law.
12. During the course of litigation with me, Mr. Rodems argued that the claim for court-awarded fees and costs
actually refers to a fee-shifting provision of the federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA). In fact, the $50,000 claim against
AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs is a fraud, a deliberate misrepresentation by Mr. Rodems. There were no
attorneys fees awarded under TILA in this case. None. There was no possibility of an awarded of attorneys fees under
TILA in this case because of prior court decisions in other cases known to Rodems, specifically the ACE
4
and Payday
Express
5
cases litigated by BRC. Three different federal courts ruled that the transactions complained-about predated the
TILA rule. This happened in all three separate TILA lawsuits brought by Mr. Rodems predecessor firm (Alpert) and
acquired by Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. This is one example of Rodems, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation,
and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
13. The foregoing is more fully described in two pleadings to large to submit with this complaint:
a. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (151 pages with exhibits) was filed May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge
Barton and a motion for leave, and is posted on Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55956605/Plaintiffs-First-Amended-
Complaint-Gillespie-v-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-May-5-2010
b. Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. (190 pages with exhibits) was filed July 9, 2010. Also on Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-
Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010
II. Substantially Related Litigation - Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al. Case No. 05-CA-7205
14. My litigation against BRC and Mr. Cook was to recover $6,224.78 stolen by them from me, from my settlement in
prior litigation in the Amscot case. I filed the original complaint pro se August 11, 2005 alleging fraud and breach of
contract against BRC and Mr. Cook. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint was filed with permission of Judge James Barton
May 5, 2010. Seldon Childers, Esq. later found the amount stolen by BRC was $7,143.68.
15. On August 29, 2005 Mr. Rodems entered his appearance on behalf of BRC and Mr. Cook by way of filing
Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Strike. I responded September 6, 2005 and denied Mr. Rodems the assertions in his
motion. Rodems set his motion for hearing Monday, September 26, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. without coordinating the time and
date with me. Because I live in Ocala which is 100 miles from the Tampa courthouse, Judge Richard Nielsen allowed me to
attend the hearing telephonically. The hearing commenced as noticed September 26, 2005 but Mr. Rodems failed to
provide me copies of case law prior to the hearing. Since I was attending telephonically, Judge Nielsen directed Mr.
Rodems to provide the case law to me by mail, and allowed me to file a written response, which I did October 7, 2005. Mr.
Rodems filed a reply October 10, 2005, where he revealed BRC and Cooks fraud on me: (page 6, 2)

4
Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B
5
Eugene R. Clement v. Payday Express, Inc., case no. 99-2768-CIV-T-23C
3
Because the Closing Statement Mr. Gillespie signed shows that he knew the payment was
for a claim for court-awarded fees, not for an award of fees by the Court, Mr. Gillespie cannot claim to have relied
on the presumed-to-be-true allegation that Mr. Cook told him that the Court awarded BRC $50,000 in fees.
I responded October 31, 2005 to the court in a second rebuttal after Rodems admission of how the fraud worked:
1. Defendants central argument implodes on page 5 of its Reply dated October 10, 2005, paragraph 3 b. ii. Here
Defendants argue that the $50,000 is for a claim for court-awarded fees, and not an actual fee award. This begs
the question - without an actual court-awarded fee, there is no claim for a court-awarded fee. Because Defendants
did not prevail in court, they cannot rely on a statutory claim for court-awarded fees, because there is none. This
is how Defendants created the impression that the Appellate Court awarded fees, when in fact the it ruled that the
parties bear their own costs and attorneys fees. This is Defendants fraud on its own clients. Fraud is an
exemption to the parole evidence rule, blocking Defendants reliance on Franz Tractor v. Case, 566 So. 2d 524.
16. Judge Richard Nielsen agreed in his Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, February 13, 2006.
My complaint stated a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Mr. Cook. Judge Nielsen rejected
Mr. Rodems claim for court-awarded fees. Under the legal doctrine res judicata, Mr. Rodems was precluded from again
raising this defense of a claim for court-awarded fees in this matter. 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. Rodems and BRC now had an actual conflict. Disqualification of Rodems was required.
17. On January 19, 2006, Mr. Rodems countersued me for Libel over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie, President of
Amscot, about the prior litigation and a related closed Bar complaint.
18. On February 4, 2006 I filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. In 2006 I did not know about
the McPartland case. I found McPartland and other similar cases in 2010. Disqualification was required by the holding of
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory authority on
disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich.
[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.
19. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify him and started an argument.
During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech, and threatened me saying you will pay for writing the letter to
Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot. Rodems also threatened to reveal confidential medical information learned about
my payment for dental treatment from his firms prior representation of me. This is from the March 3, 2006 phone call:
(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
(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?
4 MR. GILLESPIE: What?
4
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.
20. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with his sworn affidavit made under the
penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of trial Judge Richard Nielsen in Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff
And For Sanctions. Mr. Rodems falsely named Judge Nielsen in an exact quote attributed to me. Rodems falsely told the
Court that I planned to attack him in chambers. It was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage by improperly
influencing the judge. And it worked, because after that date Judge Nielsen was hostile toward me. Prior to that time I had
a good working relationship with Judge Nielsen and his JA Myra Gomez.
21. A recording of the call
6
impeached Mr. Rodems sworn affidavit. Judge Nielsen recused himself November 22,
2006 after I provided him a transcript of the phone call and a motion to disqualify. In a letter dated February 22, 2010,
Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Dept., provided the results an investigation of matter and wrote that
Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing to the Court as an exact quote language that clearly was not
an exact quote. The investigation did not show wrongdoing by me.
22. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard. Judge Nielsen did not to disqualify
Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not
aware of McPartland and did not argue it. 61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed 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, in this instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v. ISI Inv.
Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal authority directly adverse to the position of his
client. McPartland and Culp are just two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the Table of
Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully inform the court on applicable law whether
favorable or adverse to position of client so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of the
matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced by this motion, legal authority directly adverse to
the position of Mr. Rodems and BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
23. Judge Nielsens Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Counsel held:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify
Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and counsel and Mr. Gillespie having been heard,
and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED:
The motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may
be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice.
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.

6
All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes
pursuant to the business use exemption of Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal
Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). In addition, Mr. Rodems provided
written authorization to record our calls, which I filed with the court. Furthermore, on December 30, 2009 I filed Plaintiff's
Notice of Telephone Recording in this case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.
5
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.
In addition, no judge has considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel for 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.
24. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment. It was set for a hearing before Judge Nielsen
August 1, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Rodems objected by email the same day. I canceled the hearing with the intention of
resetting, and hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was not heard and I was denied due
process. Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment filed April 25, 2006 predated, and should have lawfully precluded,
Defendants Final Summary Judgment September 28, 2010.
25. Following the April 25, 2005 hearing Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait outside Judge Nielsens court to harass me. Rodems
claimed it was to wish a warm greeting, belying his fear of attack.
26. This case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006. On December 15, 2006 I submitted
Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, and moved for disclosure of conflict and noted the following possible
conflicts:
Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 by check to Woody Isom on or
about July 2, 2002. (3, page 2)
Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002, and $100.00 by check to The
Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002. (4, page 2)
My motion informed Judge Isom of the significance of Jonathan Alpert to this case:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protges and former law partners, and the contract that forms the basis of this
lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems,
Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. (4, page 2)
On January 5, 2007 I served Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict.
27. On December 12th and 13th, 2006 Mr. Rodems left this voice mail for me:
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)
24 I would also point out that the problem that
25 youre having in retaining counsel is probably more
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 7, beginning at line 1)
1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and
2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're
3 usual hours rates are for litigation like this,
19. ..And then on top of all
20. that you always fall back on your medical
21. condition, which I have never seen any
22. documentation of, that you always allude to that in
23. your Court fillings. And quite frankly, you play
24. the victim when it suits you and you play the
25. advocate when it suits you
28. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter of insults and ridicule of mental illness:
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own poor choices in life. You also
claim to have mental or psychological problems, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior
in this case has been so abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of mental problems. (P1, 3)
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rates for
representation. (P3, 2).
29. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to Judge Isom about Mr. Rodems harassment of me. I provided Judge Isom a
transcript of Rodems ranting phone message of December 13, 2006. I provided Judge Isom a copy of Rodems five page
diatribe to me of December 13, 2006.
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephone
6
message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his subsequent five page diatribe of even date. In my view
Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling, ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all
is evidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lost perspective in this matter, as
demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen.
Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribe
of wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodems contacts the Florida Lawyers
Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. Apparently Mr. Rodems has been missing work, as evidenced from his
calling me from home during normal business hours. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line 15). As
stated before, I am concerned for his well-being and mine. I also requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad
hominem abusive messages and letters.
30. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For An Order To Compel Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop
Harassing Behavior.
31. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom held a hearing on Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The
hearing was transcribed and is part of the record. Judge Isom denied the existence of any conflict. The transcript shows that
Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husband Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and
shareholders at Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were
previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.
32. In March 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. While researching accusations in
one of Mr. Rodems harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit signed by Mr. Alpert in his divorce case that stated in 3c:
I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in last fall's election and supported
him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth
Alpert's counsel;
33. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed by email that he practiced law with Mr. Alpert. Woody Isom wrote:
He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.
34. During a hearing February 5, 2007 Judge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions,
contrary to her own law essay on discovery sanctions that favors intensive case management instead, Professionalism and
Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. Judge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems counterclaim for
libel against me, a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are
interested parties on the Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement. My letter was substantially
related to the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation of BRC and Cook. Judge Isom should have, but did not,
disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland on the counterclaim. Judge Isom went against
her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused to abate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to
continue the lengthy hearing due to disability.
35. By February 7, 2007 I could no longer tolerate Mr. Rodems bully tactics, harassment, name-calling, hate mail,
and rude phone calls. Mr. Rodems refused to call me Mr. Gillespie as I requested, and called me Neily instead. This is
in addition to Judge Isoms misconduct. So on February 7, 2007 I gave notice of voluntary dismissal and submitted a
motion for an order of voluntary dismissal. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his counterclaim. If Mr. Rodems did so,
that would have ended the case in 2007. But Rodems wanted vengeance.
36. In March 2007 I retained counsel Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville for the libel counterclaim through the Florida
Bar Lawyer Referral Service. Mr. Bauer reviewed the case and said this about Rodems law partner William Cook: the
jury would love to punish a slimy attorney. (Transcript, March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer reinstated my
voluntarily-dismissed claims. Rodems appealed the decision in 2D07-4530, which denied Mr. Rodems petition for writ of
certiorari February 8, 2008, and ruled:
PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 575 So. 2d 214,
215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that when counterclaim is pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss
complaint without order of court).
The information in the foregoing paragraphs 1-36 is more fully described in Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Conflict of
Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co. , Submitted in Support
of Motion for Disability Accommodation, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, case 12-11213-C, and is posted on Scribd at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101764386/Affidavit-of-Neil-Gillespie-Conflict-of-Judge-Claudia-R-Isom-ADA-July-30-2012
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Li censed Marri age and Fami l y Therapi st #NV0082
ADAAA Ti t l es II and III Speci al i st
Counsel i ng and Forensi c Psychol ogy
3236 Mount ai n Spri ng Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www. l vaal l c. com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
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. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
3
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. 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.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than
two years.

Florida Bar Complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Sep-13-2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Florida Bar Complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Sep-13-2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FLORIDA BAR

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET

You might also like