Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fraud on the Court by Ryan C. Rodems, Discovery, Jul-27-2010

Fraud on the Court by Ryan C. Rodems, Discovery, Jul-27-2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by Neil Gillespie
Mr. Rodems’ exercise of independent professional judgment is materially limited by his own interest and conflict, resulting in his fraud on the court as set forth in this notice.
Mr. Rodems’ exercise of independent professional judgment is materially limited by his own interest and conflict, resulting in his fraud on the court as set forth in this notice.

More info:

Published by: Neil Gillespie on Jun 14, 2011
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

07/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURTOFTHE
THIRTEENTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
IN AND
FOR
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISIONNEIL J. GILLESPIE,Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205vs.BARKER, RODEMS
&
COOK, P.A.,DIVISION: Ga Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J.
COOK,Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs.
JUL
27
2010
___________
......;1
CLtRK
OF
CIRCUIT
COURT
NOTICE OF
FRAUD ON
THECOURT
BY
HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY,
FL
RYAN
CHRISTOPHER
RODEMS
-DISCOVERY
Plaintiff pro se Gillespie hereby reports fraud on the court by Ryan ChristopherRodems counsel for Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, and
in
support thereof states:
1.
Upon infonnation and belief,
Mr.
Rodems submitted a letter to Judge
C o o ~
 
datedJuly 12, 2010. A copy
of
the letter
is
attached
as
Exhibit
A.
2.
Mr.
Rodems stated for item
1:
"Mr.
Gillespie did not file any response
or
objection to the request for production." Gillespie objected to the deposition June 14,2010 with
Plaintiffs
Motion To Cancel Deposition Duces Tecum June
18,2010
And For
An
Order
of
Protection. (Exhibit B). GiHespie provided objections to Mr. Rodems by faxJune 21, 2010. (Exhibit C). Gillespie filed the letter with the court June 21, 2010.(Exhibit D). After the court denied Gillespie's Motion For Reconsideration he providedMr. Rodems the outstanding discovery
by
letter dated June 25, 2010. (Exhibit E).
3.
Mr. Rodems stated for item
2:
"Mr.
Gillespie's former counsel served unsigned,unsworn answers that were evasive or incomplete. Thus. this circumstance does not meet
 
the criteria for entry
of
an Order compelling discovery without a hearing." This is false.Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories
of
September
2,2008
were provided by myformer lawyer Robert W. Bauer, October 1,2008. (Exhibit F). Mr. Bauer notified Mr.Rodems October
2,2008
that he was "attempting to comply with your discovery request."(Exhibit G). I signed the verification page and it was notarized October
2,2008.
Bauersubmitted the signed and notarized verification page to the Clerk
of
Court October 3,2008. (Exhibit H). Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal from the case October 13, 2008before completing discovery. Gillespie submitted the remaining response to Interrogatory
No.2
on
April 28,2010, seeAffidavitAndInventory
Of
PersonalProperty
Of
NeilJ.Gillespie And Designated Exemptions. (Exhibit I).4. Mr. Rodems lied to the court because he has a conflict representing
himself
andhis independent professional judgment is materially limited by the lawyer's
own
interest,see Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &Barker, Rodems
&
Cook,
PA
submitted July
9,2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED July
27,2010.
Certificate
of
ServiceIHEREBYCERTIFYthatacopy
of
theforegoingwasmailedJuly2
,2010
toMr. Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems
&
Cook, PA, 40 As ey . e, S 'te 2100,Tampa, Florida 33602.Page -2
 
COpy
BARKER,
RODEMS
&
COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONATTORNEYS
AT
LAW
CHRIS
A. BARKER
Telephone
813/489
.
1001
400
North
Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
RYAN
CHRISTOPHER
RODEMS
Facsimile 813/489
.
1008
WILLIAM
J.
COOK
Tampa, Florida
33602
July 12, 2010The Honorable Martha
J.
CookCircuit Court JudgeCircuit Civil, Division
"G"
800 E. Twiggs 8treet, Room 511Tampa, Florida 33602
Re: Neil
J.
Gillespie v.
Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A.,a Florida Corporation;
and
William
J.
CookCase No.: 05-CA-7205; Division
"G"
Dear Judge Cook:Following the hearing
of
even date, I reviewed, as you requested, the circumstances surroundingthe below described motions to compel to determine
if
they met the criteria under AdministrativeOrder 8-2008-145,
~
 
14, which provides in pertinent part: "When a motion to compel complyingwith Florida Rule
of
Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(2) alleges the absence
of
a response or objection todiscovery and there has been no request for an extension
of
time to respond, the court, without ahearing, may enter an order requiring compliance with the original discovery request
....
"My review shows as follows:
1.
"Defendant's Motion for an Order compelling Plaintiffto Respond to theDefendant's Request for Production and Attend Deposition"Mr. Gillespie did not file any response or objection to the request for production. Thus, it meetsthe criteria, and an Order compelling a response is enclosed. As for the depositions that Mr.Gillespie failed to attend, he did object. Thus, the motion to conlpel his attendance at thedeposition does 'not meet the criteria for entry
of
an Order compelling attendance without ahearing.When this morning's hearings began, you advised that the purpose was for case management only.After Mr. Gillespie asked to be excused due to his apparent illness, I advised that this motion tocompel was noticed for hearing today. Given that Mr. Gillespie departed before this was clarified,Defendants would prefer to reschedule the hearing to avoid any claim that Mr. Gillespie wasdenied
an
opportunity to be heard.
A

You're Reading a Free Preview

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