Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ghunise Coaxum, Florida Bar UPL Counsel, Rodems Complaint

Ghunise Coaxum, Florida Bar UPL Counsel, Rodems Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 263|Likes:
Published by Neil Gillespie
In my view, Mr. Rodems’ UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.

Quite frankly this UPL complainant is vexatious, and a continuation by Mr. Rodems of a longstanding personal vendetta against me for having the temerity to hold him and his crooked law partners accountable for defrauding me of $7,143 in prior representation.

Mr. Rodems’ UPL complaint makes false and/or misleading accusations, under penalty of perjury, but he has not provided any dates, nor attached any relevant documents supporting his accusations to inform my response. The UPL form states dates and documents are required.
In my view, Mr. Rodems’ UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.

Quite frankly this UPL complainant is vexatious, and a continuation by Mr. Rodems of a longstanding personal vendetta against me for having the temerity to hold him and his crooked law partners accountable for defrauding me of $7,143 in prior representation.

Mr. Rodems’ UPL complaint makes false and/or misleading accusations, under penalty of perjury, but he has not provided any dates, nor attached any relevant documents supporting his accusations to inform my response. The UPL form states dates and documents are required.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Neil Gillespie on May 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/16/2013

pdf

text

original

 
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297064771May 29, 2013Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar CounselThe Florida Bar UPL Department, OrlandoThe Gateway Center 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625Orlando, Florida 32801-1050RE: UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)Complaint Against Ryan Christopher Rodems for Unlicensed Practice of LawDear Mr. Coaxum:Your letter to me dated May 14, 2013, copy enclosed, requested: (Exhibit 1)Please give us your written position concerning the attached correspondence from RyanChristopher Rodems, Esq.. I would appreciate receiving your written response no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. Responses should not exceed twenty-five (25) pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are availableon request. A reply from you will assist my office in determining whether this is a matter which should be referred to an unlicensed practice of law committee. Any response byyou will become a part of the UPL record in this matter and become accessible to the public upon closure of the case.On information and belief, the twenty (20) day time to respond ends Monday June 3, 2013.My “written position” herewith is not a response to the allegations of Ryan Christopher Rodemsin the “attached correspondence” which you failed to identify as his UPL complaint against me.Instead, this is a request for a determination under Rule 10–5.1(b) whether the alleged conduct, if  proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition against engaging in UPL.In the alternative I request a 30 day extension of time to respond. Either way, I am making thisUPL complaint part of the appellate review in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and will seek appointment of counsel on my pro se appeal of the foreclosure of my home.Rule 10–5.1(b) states:(b) Review by Bar Counsel. Bar counsel shall review the complaint and determinewhether the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibitionagainst engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. Bar counsel may conduct a preliminary, informal investigation to aid in this determination and, if necessary, mayemploy a Florida bar staff investigator to aid in the preliminary investigation. If bar counsel determines that the facts, if proven, would not constitute a violation, bar counselmay decline to pursue the complaint. A decision by bar counsel not to pursue a complaintshall not preclude further action or review under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.The complainant shall be notified of a decision not to pursue a complaint and shall begiven the reasons therefor.
 
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013The Florida Bar UPL Department, OrlandoPage - 2In my view, Mr. Rodems’ UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.Quite frankly this UPL complainant is vexatious, and a continuation by Mr. Rodems of a long-standing personal vendetta against me for having the temerity to hold him and his crooked law partners accountable for defrauding me of $7,143 in prior representation.Mr. Rodems’ UPL complaint makes false and/or misleading accusations, under penalty of  perjury, but he has not provided any dates, nor attached any relevant documents supporting hisaccusations to inform my response. The UPL form states dates and documents are required:DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT, PROVIDE DATES AND FACTS OF ALLEGEDMISCONDUCT AND ATTACH A COPY OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.The only document I found in the envelope from you is not relevant, and is from a closed case inanother matter, and not part of the allegations in Mr. Rodems’ complaint. Do I have all thedocuments in this complaint? If not, please provide me the missing documents immediately.The case law I reviewed does not show grounds for this UPL complaint either. I am not licensed to practice law, and never claimed that I was so licensed. The construction and application of UPL is to protect the public from laypeople who claim to be licensed lawyers:While the Supreme Court is expressly charged under the Florida Constitution withregulating and disciplining licensed members of the Florida Bar, it also has a duty to protect the public from laypeople who claim that they are licensed to practice law, but arenot. The Florida Bar v. Abreu, 833 So.2d 752 (2002).Mr. Rodems has not alleged that I harmed the public, or that I claimed to be a licensed lawyer.The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular actconstitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)I represented myself, my interest in an estate and trust, pro se. I was not a court-appointed  personal representative of an estate
1
. In the trust matter, my co-trustee is represented by counsel.Florida Constitution, Article I:Section 21. Access to courts. - The courts shall be open to every person for redress of anyinjury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. 
1
The Florida Bar should seek clarification in the law for the term “personal representative”. Theterm is used by a testatrix in a will to appoint a personal representative; and the same term isused by a court to appoint by Order a personal representative. This is confusing to nonlawyers.
 
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013The Florida Bar UPL Department, OrlandoPage - 3Once a person has made a decision to represent himself, the Supreme Court should notenforce any unnecessary regulation which might tend to hinder the exercise of such right.Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978).The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice is to protect the public from being advised and represented inlegal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exerciselittle, if any, control. Morrison v. West App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearingdenied. Attorney And Client App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearing denied.28 U.S.C. § 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted tomanage and conduct causes therein.Martha Jean Cook - judge of questionable ethicsAs to the
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se
, the order was entered by MarthaCook ex parte, without hearing, and prior to the expiration of time to respond. When MarthaCook entered the order November 15, 2010, she was a Defendant in my federal lawsuit
2
againsther and others of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and therefore had a duty to recuse. But MarthaCook does not recuse when required, and enjoys making rulings favorable to her interests.Unfortunately Martha Cook is a judge of questionable ethics, according to a story on the FloridaBar News Summary July 22, 2011, “CRITICS: JUDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa Tribune”. See Exhibit 2, and the link.http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7aa779e8525688d0073e8f8/b820bfd498a31e31852578d50050dfc9Martha Cook’s sham order entered November 15, 2010 is an honest services fraud in exchangefor Mr. Rodems’ campaign donation, and for his UPL representation of her and the state of Florida in a federal court action June 21, 2011.Rule 10 - 2.1. GenerallyWhenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning hereinset forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicate a different meaning:(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law.
 
The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida. 
2
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->