You are on page 1of 84



Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
JAN 2 9 2007
HILLS80ROLLGH C ( ) U f ~ T Y ft
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P., Rule 3.840(a),
moves the Court for an entry of an Order to Show Cause Why Ryan Christopher Rodems
Should not Be Held in Criminal Contempt of Court for perjury in Defendants' Verified
Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions that Mr. Rodems submitted to the Court March 6,
2006, and as grounds therefor would state:
Ryan Christopher Rodems' Perjury
1. On March 6, 2006, Defendants' counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems falsely
injected The Honorable Richard A. Nielsen into the fray between the litigants for the
purpose of advantage when he submitted Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And
For Sanctions to the Court. (Exhibit 1).
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
(a) Mr. Rodems told the Court that Plaintiff threatened him during a telephone call
on March 3,2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated - and this is an exact
quote - "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." Quite alarmed, I paused and said "are you threatening me
physically or did you mean that metaphorically?" Plaintiff said
"metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger." (Exhibit 1, ~ 5 )
(b) Mr. Rodems invoked the name of the of the Honorable Richard A. Nielsen in
the threat Plaintiff allegedly made against him. Mr. Rodems did this in a calculated effort
to prejudice the Court against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems used his position as an Officer of the
COlm to lend credibility to his verification against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems invoked the
name of the Judge Nielsen to make the Court itself fearful of a violent attack from
Plaintiff. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"I anl concerned that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings
do not resolve favorably for him, and I request that the Court have a bailiff
available at any future hearings. In over thirteen years of practicing law, I
have had only one other occasion wherein I was threatened in a matter that
made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involved a pro se
party." (Exhibit 1, ~ 6 ) .
(c) Mr. Rodems then asked the Court to punish Plaintiff for his alleged threat, and
to have a bailiff present in order to prevent Plaintiff from violently attacking Mr. Rodems
in Judge Nielsen's chambers, implying that a violent attack in Judge Nielsen's chambers
Page - 2 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
would most certainly injure Judge Nielsen due to the close proximity of Plaintiff to Judge
Nielsen. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"Defendants request that the Court enter an Order sanctioning Plaintiff for
the threatening comment, as detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refrain
from threatening acts of violence." (Exhibit 1, ~ 7 )
Mr. Rodems then wrote: "WHEREFORE, Defendants request a bailiff at all futllre
hearings and that Plaintiff be sanctioned appropriately." (Exhibit 1, page 3)
(d) Mr. Rodems then verified the pleadings with the following statement:
"I swear under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this motion
are true and accurate and that the quotes attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are
true and aCCllrate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6
day of March,
verification contained Mr. Rodems' signature. (Exhibit 1, page 3).
(e) Mr. Rodems' verified request for bailiff and sanctions was notarized by Lynne
Anne Spina, a notary public employed by Mr. Rodems at his law firm. (Exhibit 1, page 3).
2. A transcript of the March 3, 2006 telephone call that Mr. Rodems placed
to Plaintiffs home is attached as Exhibit 2. The transcript was made from a partial tape
recording of the conversation between Mr. Rodems and Plaintiff. A cassette tape of the
conversation was transcribed (Exhibit 3). The tape and transcript of the March 3, 2006
telephone call impeaches the "exact quote" that Mr. Rodems attributed to Plaintiff, and
impeaches Mr. Roden1s' verification, his swearing under the penalty of perjury that the
statements made in his motion were true and accurate and that the quotes attributable to
Neil J. Gillespie were true and accurate.
Page - 3 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
3. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems called Plaintiff at his home in response to
the fact that Plaintiff had scheduled a hearing on a motion to disqualify Mr. Rodenls as
counsel. Mr. Rodems was angry about the substance of the motion and the fact that
Plaintiff had already scheduled the hearing
a. When Mr. Rodems called on March 3
, Plaintiff did not immediately
commence recording the conversation. In fact, Plaintiff did not intend to record the call
at all. But as Mr. Rodems' hostility increased, his call turned from lawful communication
to a threatening and harassing phone call. Once Mr. Rodems engaged in unlawful
behavior, making threats and insults, Plaintiff began recording the conversation to
document his crime. It was a split-second reaction to Mr. Rodems' verbal assault, a panic
to do something before it was too late. The recording equipment was already in place for
another lawful purpose. All Plaintiff did was push the record button to document a
crime-in-progress. Had Mr. Rodems simply conducted himself lawfully, Plaintiff would
not have recorded the conversation.
b. The following transpired between Mr. Rodems and Plaintiff before the
commencement of tape recording, and this portion of the conversation was not recorded:
(i) Mr. Rodems called Plaintiff to schedule the motion to disqualify hinl as
counsel, and the date of April 25, 2006 was chosen. Mr. Rodenls became argumentative
over the fact that Plaintiff scheduled the motion without first speaking to him. But the
motion sat for a month with no action, and Mr. Rodems had failed to communicate with
Plaintiff about hearings in the past. So Plaintiff set the motion for hearing, subject to Mr.
1 Plaintiff was responding to a call from Judge Nielsen's judicial assistant, Myra Gomez. Ms. Gomez called
Plaintiff to ask about scheduling Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Counsel, submitted a month earlier on
February 4, 2006. In the interim Mr. Rodems had ignored the motion, so Plaintiff set it for hearing.
Page - 4 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Rodems' availability. This angered Mr. Rodems, and he told Plaintiff that he was taking
over the task of scheduling all hearings, and would not permit Plaintiff to schedule any
motions, not even his own motions. Mr. Rodems also told Plaintiff that he cannot appear
at future hearings telephonically, and that if Plaintiff did, Mr. Rodems would object to the
Court. Mr. Rodems said he was forcing Plaintiff to make the long trip to Tampa for each
hearing. Mr. Rodems was angry, and referred to a previous hearing on September 26,
2005, when Plaintiff appeared telephonically, and Judge Nielsen ordered Mr. Rodems to
send Plaintiff copies of the case law he argued. Mr. Rodems was upset about this, and
said it allowed Plaintiff to do his legal research after the hearing, and that he would not
permit that to happen again. Mr. Rodems was becoming more angry, and Plaintiff sought
to change the subject.
(ii) Plaintiff changed the subject and discussed Defendants' Motion for Sanctions
Pursuant to Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, which he admittedly did not understand.
Mr. Rodems began to explain, then stopped mid-sentence, and angrily stated that he is not
teaching law to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff should know the law. Each time Plaintiff
began to discuss the motion, Mr. Rodems cut him off with angry statements that Plaintiff
did not know the law, and should not be permitted to represent himself. This thread
started another argument.
(iii) In reply to Mr. Rodems' statements that Plaintiff did not know the law, and
should not be able to represent himself, Plaintiff reminded Mr. Rodems that Plaintiff
prevailed on Defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss. Plaintiff also reminded Mr.
Rodems that Defendants law firm failed to prevail in court against Amscot Corporation.
While factually true, this further enraged Mr. Rodems, who then issued a threat to
Page - 5 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Plaintiff: Mr. Rodems told Plaintiff that "you will pay" for writing a letter to Amscot.
Later, when Plaintiff told Mr. Rodems that the letter was not libelous, Mr. Rodems
repeated his threat to Plaintiff stating "you will pay for that".
(iv) Mr. Rodems' threat, while not specific, was spoken in a way to suggest
something extra-judicial, a physical beating perhaps, or worse. Plaintiff knew that Mr.
Rodems had lost perspective, and told him so, in an attempt to calm him down.
(v) Mr. Rodems was not placated, and continued to insult Plaintiff. He began to
ridicule Plaintiffs speech. Mr. Rodems told Plaintiff that he can't speak right and does
not know the law. It was at this point that Plaintiff reactively pushed the record blltton
and began recording the conversation. Plaintiffrebuffed Mr. Rodems' personal insults,
and this is where the tape begins.
MR. GILLESPIE: "Now, you calillere and just marched into a tirade ofinsults.,,2
(Exhibit 2, p7, line 21).
(vi) Mr. Rodems' threats and insults to Plaintiff was an effort calculated to
aggravate and exploit his medical condition. Mr. Rodems knows, by way of his firm's
prior representation, that Plaintiff suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, depression,
velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI, a speech disorder), and an oral-dental deformity
known as a cleft lip and palate. Mr. Rodems ridiculed Plaintiffs speech, and mocked
Plaintiffs oral-dental deformity by inferring that Plaintiff fraudulently used a car rebate to
2 Since that time Mr. Rodems has made a number of other insults to Plaintiff. In a ranting phone message of
December 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems engaged in name-calling, calling Plaintiff "cheap" and a "pro se litigant of
dubious distinction" and other such. Mr. Rodems also disparaged Plaintiffs disability, and made a number
of wild accusations. A transcript of Mr. Rodems' call is part of the record. Mr. Rodems also wrote Plaintiff
a five-page diatribe the same day reiterating many of the same personal insults. Mr. Rodems also called
Plaintiff "a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own poor choices in life." Because of
this, Plaintiff wrote Mr. Rodems on December 27,2006, demanding that he stop sending ad hominem
Page - 6 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
pay for dental work. Mr. Rodems baited Plaintiff with threats and insults knowing that
this would trigger a post traumatic stress response in Plaintiff, which would benefit
Defendants in creating a diversion to their fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiff suffered
considerable emotional distress since, and will provide evidence of his condition and
subsequent medical treatment during an in camera proceeding upon the Court's request.
c. Plaintiff began recording the conversation after Mr. Rodems did the following:
(i) Mr. Rodems issued a threat to Plaintiff that "you will pay" for writing a
letter to Amscot, and the threat was spoken in a way to suggest something extra
judicial, a physical beating perhaps, or worse; and
(ii) Mr. Rodems engaged in personal insults directed at Plaintiffs speech
impairment and lack of legal knowledge.
d. At this point the recording served to document the remainder of the
conversation between Mr. Rodems and Plaintiff. The recording began with Plaintiff
rebuffing Mr. Rodems' personal insults:
MR. GILLESPIE: "Now, you call here and just marched into a tirade ofinsults.,,3
(Exhibit 2, p7, line 21). In response, Mr. Rodems pulled back fronl making overt insults
and this is where the transcript begins to document the rest of the conversation: (Exhibit
2, p7, beginning line 23).
MR. RODEMS: No, actually I haven't insulted you at all. I've never said
anything about you. I just said that you don't really know the law because you
abusive messages and letters. Plaintiff also suggested that Mr. Rodems seek help from the Florida Lawyers
Assistance, Inc., of the Florida Bar.
3 The purpose of Mr. Rodems' insults is to harass, annoy, and offend Plaintiff. Likewise with Mr. Rodems'
refusal to address Plaintiff as "Mr. Gillespie", instead calling Plaintiff "Neil" or "Neily". Plaintiffwrote
Mr. Rodems about that too, in a letter dated December 22, 2006.
Page -7 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
don't know how to practice law. And that's not insulting, that's just actually the
facts. I mean, your nl0tion to dismiss demonstrates a fundamental lack of
understanding. I mean, how do you plead the Economic Loss Rule to a
Defamation claim? I mean, that makes no sense.
MR. GILLESPIE: First of all, your defamation claim has -- doesn't lie at all.
MR. RODEMS: -- the Eight Amendment or something. I mean, it just -- it really
has no basis. It's kind of silly. I mean, it's enlbarrassing. It's -- it just has no
basis at all.
MR. GILLESPIE: Actually, you're wrong there.
MR. RODEMS: Oh, the Economic Loss Rule applies to a defamation claim?
MR. GILLESPIE: First of all, you claim doesn't even lie.
MR. RODEMS: And the Economic Loss Rule deals with tort and contract claims.
And when -- and when the tort arises out of a contract claim that's -- what you
sent to Amscot had nothing to do with the other -- that was a action that you
created against yourself. I mean, it was kind of bizarre that you would even send
that letter, but you did, so now you will have to pay for that.
MR. GILLESPIE: Oh, really?
MR. GILLESPIE: I'm shaking in my boots.
MR. RODEMS: Neil, I mean, I don't understand, you know, what your plans are.
You know, instead ofjust litigating the claims you has to go out there and
basically accuse us of doing something wrong on something like that. It's kind of
weird, you know. But in any event, I mean, obviously -
Page - 8 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
MR. GILLESPIE: What is weird is you guys lying about the legal fees. Not only
is that weird, that's unprofessional. And you will be called to account for that.
MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a car so that you could get the
cash rebate to get some dental work done? We're going to get to the discovery,
anyhow, so just tell me, did that really happen?
MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that you could get the cash rebate to
get some dental work done?
MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need to be disqualified.
MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I know that? Because I know that
to be a fact?
MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from your previous representation of
MR. RODEMS: Well, you know, see that's-
MR. GILLESPIE: If it is -- ifit's a fact, anyway.
MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and regulations of the Florida Bar
because when you make -
MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a car so I would have something to
drive. I don't know why you buy cars, but that's why I bought it.
MR. GILLESPIE: Ifit had some other benefits, that's different.
MR. RODEMS: I understand that car was repossessed shortly after you bought it
so -
Page - 90f26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
MR. GILLESPIE: No, it wasn't repossessed.
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well, then you can probably drive that down to the
hearing then on the 28th.
MR. GILLESPIE: No, it was voluntarily turned in because after 911 attack the
job that I was in dried up. Okay. So listen you little, whatever, you raise anything
you want, I will see you on the 25th and I will slam you against the wall like I did
MR. RODEMS: Are you threatening me?
MR. GILLESPIE: Are you threatening me?
MR. RODEMS: No, you just said you would -- did you mean that physically or
did you mean that metaphorically?
MR. GILLESPIE: Metaphorically.
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well, I just want to be clear because I understand that in
talking with you it's very important to be precise because you don't really have a
good command of the language that, you know, lawyers speak. But it did sound
to me like you were physically threatening me.
MR. GILLESPIE: No, no, it wasn't a physical threat. And by the way, as far as
your little nonsense with this saying that you have been a victim of some kind of
- oh, it's so ridiculous I can't even think of the word now
. You think that -- I'll
see you on the 25th. And I will slam you legally, metaphorically against the wall
like I did before.
4 The word is extortion, as in Defendants' claim that Plaintiff's Bar complaint against Mr. Cook was
extortion. This is an example of how PTSD affects Plaintiff's ability to communicate under stress.
Page - 10 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
MR. RODEMS: Okay. We will see that, Neil.
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Bye-bye.
4. Plaintiff received Mr. Rodems' Verified Request For And For
Sanctions in the mail on or about March 8, 2006. Plaintiff was concerned when he read
Mr. Rodems' verification invoking the name of Judge Nielsen and Plaintiff in a threat of
violence in the Judge's chambers, because Mr. Rodems' verification was false. Mr.
Rodems had, in fact, committed perjllry, and the falsehood about Plaintiff was intended
by Mr. Rodems to discredit him before the Court, for the purpose of advantage in
Plaintiff s fraud and breach of contract lawsuit against Defendants.
5. Plaintiff responded to Mr. Rodems' perjury in Plaintiffs Verified
Response to Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, And To Mr.
Rodems' Perjury, and Plaintiffs Motion For An Order Of Protection, submitted March
14, 2006. (Exhibit 4).
a. In his response Plaintiff denied the quotes Mr. Rodems attributed to him.
(Exhibit 4, p6,
b. Plaintiff specifically denied the "exact quote" Mr. Rodems attributed in to him
where Mr. Rodems wrote: "At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated - - and this is
an exact quote - - "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." Plaintiff wrote the following to impeach Mr. Rodems' "exact quote":
"Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony because I did not say this, and
the quote contains proprietary information known to Mr. Rodems but not
5 The recording shows Mr. Rodems speaking in a snide, snickering nlanner, belying his claim of fear.
Page - 11 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
to Plaintiff at the time - that the hearing would be conducted in "Judge
Nielsen's chambers." As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff did not know that
hearings are conducted in "chambers" and assumed that the hearing would
be held in open court." (Exhibit 4, p7, 15(d)).
c. Plaintiff s response was complied from his memory of the phone call, even
though part of the conversation with Mr. Rodems was tape recorded. Mr. Rodems'
bating, taunts, threats and intimidation were so upsetting that he did not want to listen to
Mr. Rodems' harassment again.
Plaintiff's Telephone Recording Equipment
6. Plaintiff obtained the equipment to record phone calls on December 20,
2005. On that day Plaintiff purchased a Telephone Handset Recording Control from the
Radio Shack store located at 8585 SW Hwy. 200 in Ocala, Florida. A copy of the
purchase receipt and product information card is attached as Exhibits 5A and 5B. The
purchase price for this simple household item was $15.49. The product information card
provided a schematic instruction guide for connecting a home telephone to a cassette tape
recorder. Plaintiff followed the instructions to install the device. Plaintiff already had a
home telephone and a Sony cassette player/recorder. Plaintiff owned the cassette
player/recorder for many years, and acquired it in the late 1990' s he believes. Plaintiff s
home telephone, cassette player/recorder, and telephone handset recording control were
connected according to the Radio Shack instructions, and located on a inlprovised desk in
Plaintiff s bedroom. A photograph of the desk and recording equipment is attached as
Exhibit 6. This photograph was made January 24, 2007, and fairly represents the way the
desk and recording equipment appeared on March 3, 2006. Plaintiff also noted that there
Page - 12 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodenls & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
was no warning on the Radio Shack device, the packaging, or the instructions about any
prohibition for using the devise for the purpose it was designed, to record telephone calls.
In fact, printed on the device was the following: "Complies with part 68, FCC Rules".
The device also bore a FCC registration number of AAOCHN-33199-KX-N. The device
was Intertek (ETL) listed and conformed to ANSIIUL standard 1459. The device also
appeared to be certified to Canadian standards too.
7. The purpose for which Plaintiff purchased the Telephone Handset
Recording Control from Radio Shack was for enhanced note-taking relative to caring for
his 75 year-old widowed mother. Ms. Gillespie was hospitalized due to complications
(Plaintiff believes) from taking a heart arrhythmia drug. Ms. Gillespie's ailments include
atrial fibrillation with mitral valve regurgitation, and Alzheimer's dementia with transient
ischemic attack. Ms. Gillespie was hospitalized on December 6, 2005 at West Marion
Community Hospital, Ocala, and remained there until December 23, 2005, at which point
she was transported to Timber Ridge Nursing Facility, Ocala, where she remained until
January 10, 2006. Ms. Gillespie was gravely ill and her recovery at times was in doubt.
Plaintiff does not have a medical background, and needed to tape record significant
amounts of complex medical terminology, data, and treatment options received over the
phone, in order to later transcribe it, and then evaluate the information for use in
providing care for his mother. Plaintiff purchased the Radio Shack telephone recording
handset control December 20, 2005, just three days prior to his mother's discharge from
the hospital, and before she entered the nursing facility.
Page - 13 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Mr. Rodems' Consent To Record Telephone Conversations
8. Mr. Rodems provided Plaintiff written consent to tape record telephone
conversations with him, by letter dated 5, 2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
to Plaintiff: "In the past, you have requested to record telephone conversations with me,
and I continue to have no objection to that procedure." Plaintiff advised the Court of this
fact in his Notice Of Mr. Rodems' Written Consent To Record Telephone Conversations
With Him, submitted December 29, 2006. (Exhibit 7).
9. Mr. Rodems' written consent to be recorded is in addition to his oral
consent to be recorded given on a number of occasions, as well as his tacit consent to be
recorded when he knowingly left voice messages on Plaintiff s telephone voice mail. In
fact, the parties often used recorded voice messages to communicate, and recorded
communication became their usual and customary means of comnlunication.
10. On January 4, 2007, Mr. Rodems again left a recorded message on
Plaintiff s voice mail, as part of his usual and customary means of communication. A
transcript of Mr. Rodems' recorded message is attached as Exhibit 8. Among other
things, Mr. Rodems complained that his prior written consent (to being tape recorded) did
not apply to his March 3, 2006 conversation, where he was caught lying to Judge Nielsen.
Mr. Rodems also threatened Plaintiff with a felony crime. (Exhibit 8, p4,
11. In a letter dated January 4,2007, Mr. Rodems wrote Plaintiff reiterating
much of what he said on Plaintiff s voice mail. The letter is a pathetic attempt at damage
control for fact that he lied to Judge Nielsen and the Court, and is little nlore than self
serving accusations and misconceptions. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 9.
Page - 14 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Mr. Rodems' Deception to the Court, April 25, 2006
12. Mr. Rodems did not limit his perjury about Plaintiff to his false
verification. At hearing before Judge Nielsen on April 25, 2006, Mr. Rodems discussed
his request for a bailiff to be present. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
MR. RODEMS: The fourth motion that we filed had to do with a request
for a bailiffto be present. We didn't notice that for hearing, but obviously
we have a deputy here. So that I don't know that that necessarily needs to
come up. It was not noticed for hearing today, but we can take it up if you
want to. (Transcript, April 25, 2006, page 1, lines 15-20).
And the Court responded:
THE COURT: I agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is
on any case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for
future reference you do not have to submit a request. And since it's not in
the form of a motion, I don't think it needs a ruling. All right. (Transcript,
April 25, 2006, beginning page 1, line 24).
And during the hearing, Mr. Rodems stated that everything he represented to the
court has been accurate. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
"His final reason for trying to disqualify me is he said that I lack candor,
which he cites no case law to that
. And I would assert before the Court, as
6 Florida caselaw prohibits lawyers from presenting false testimony or evidence. Kneale v. Williams, 30 So.
2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration ofa 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 S02d 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
Page - 15 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
an officer of the court, that everything that I've represented to the court has
been accurate." (Transcript, April 25, 2006, page 12, beginning line 2).
And Judge Nielsen agreed with Mr. Rodems, indicating that the Court believed
and relied upon Mr. Rodems' verification, and did not believe Plaintiffs account of the
incident. This is what the Court said:
THE COURT: As for the grounds based upon lack of candor, I don't find a
proper basis for that at this time. The allegations that you have made with
respect to allegations Mr. Rodems may have made seems to me to fall
within the litigation privilege. And so that is denied as well. (Transcript,
April 25, 2006, beginning page 14, line 21).
Finally, Plaintiff asked the Court to consider Plaintiffs Motion for an Order of
Protection which discussed Mr. Rodems' lack of candor more thoroughly. Plaintiff said:
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. I don't think we discussed whether
we were going to hear my motion for an order of protection. I trust you're
in receipt of that.
THE COURT: I don't know about that one. I've read several motions. Yes,
I did see that.
MR. GILLESPIE: That goes into the candor issue a little more thoroughly.
MR. RODEMS: Just a second, Your Honor. If I could have a moment to
find that particular motion.
MR. GILLESPIE: It's plaintiffs verified response to defendant's verified
scales [ofjustice] 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 - 16 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
request for bailiff and for sanctions, and plaintiffs motion for an order of
protection. They're both contained in the same document.
MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, if! might suggest. The motion related to the
motion to dismiss our counterclaim was -- we noticed these hearings first,
and since we only have 45 minutes, I would suggest that it would be
appropriate if we could go to the substantive motion.
THE COURT: Well, I agree. Mr. Gillespie, since your motion was quite
late in the process, an add-on, if you will, to the response to the motion or
the request for the bailiff, I'll defer on that and go back to the order we
were discussing. So the disqualification is denied. (Transcript, April 25,
2006, beginning page 15, line 2).
Mr. Rodems' Deception to the Court, June 28, 2006
13. The hearing before Judge Nielsen on June 28, 2006 brought more
false statements from Mr. Rodems. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
MR. RODEMS: All right. First of all, Judge, this continued allegation by
Mr. Gillespie that there's been a threat against him, there's been no threat
against him; he is the one that threatened me when we had a telephone
conversation and he told me he was going to slam me up against your
hearing chambers wall. That's never been followed, but he continues to
repeat it in every pleading and then, you know, the idea is that, I guess, if
you've got judicial immunity from what you say - but the bottom line is, is
that's there's been nothing but cordial behavior on our part. (Transcript,
June 28, 2006, page 11, lines 11-22).
Page - 17 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Roden1s & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Mr. Rodems statement that "there's been nothing but cordial behavior on our part" and
other such is impeached by the transcript of his phone call to Plaintiff on March 3, 2006.
14. Plaintiff was delayed in bringing this tape recording to the attention of the Court
for the following reasons.
a. The trauma that Mr. Rodems inflicted upon Plaintiff on March 3, 2006, caused
emotional upset that aggravated his depression. Plaintiff sought medical treatment on
March 29, 2006, and saw a doctor on May 1, 2006. At that time Plaintiff was prescribed
medication for depression. The depression incapacitated Plaintiff, and the new regimen
of medications further incapacitated Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered considerable emotional
distress since, and will provide evidence of his condition and subsequent medical
treatment during an in camera proceeding upon the Court's request.
b. Plaintiff was unfamiliar with the process for preserving Mr. Rodems'
conversation from the tape, and finding someone to transcribe the taped conversation.
Plaintiff did not find someone to transcribe the tape until October 9, 2006, when he was
referred to Michael Borseth.
c. Plaintiff was hoping that he could proceed with the case without revealing Mr.
Rodems' perjury, and still receive fair treatment by the Court. However, on a nun1ber of
occasions Mr. Rodems' reiterated his perjury about Plaintiff, and this prejudiced the
Court against him. Mr. Rodems also spoke new deceptions about Plaintiff to the Court,
such as described in Plaintiffs October 16, 2006 letter to Judge Nielsen. When Plaintiff
finally was able to bring Mr. Rodems' perjury to the attention of the Court, in a motion to
disqualify the Judge, The Honorable Richard A. Nielsen recused himself.
Page - 18 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
15. Mr. Rodems' lack of candor toward the tribunal includes his perjurious
verification of March 6, 2006, his deception to the Court at the hearing of April 25, 2006,
his deception to the Court during the hearing of June 28,2006, and his deceptive letter to
Judge Nielsen of October 12, 2006. In that letter, Mr. Rodems falsely told Judge Nielsen
that he had not heard from Plaintiff regarding a proposed Order from a hearing on
October 4, 2006. In fact, Plaintiff spoke to Mr. Rodems by phone the previous day, and a
tape recording and transcript of the conversation impeached Mr. Rodems' falsehood to
the Court. And this fact is important -- Mr. Rodems was advised, and agreed to
beforehand, to the tape recording, and the colloquy thereto was also recorded.
Nonetheless, Mr. Rodems lied to Judge Nielsen, despite the existence of a recording to
impeach him. This suggests that Mr. Rodems will lie to the Court under any
circumstance, even after having consented to being tape recorded. It also suggests that
Ryan Christopher Rodems has a problem, and that he may be a pathological liar.
16. Mr. Rodems and his law partners, the Defendants in this lawsuit, have a
long history of deceiving Plaintiff and engaging in all sorts of deception in their role as
attorneys and Officers of the Court. The specifics of the many instances of Defendants'
deception and lack of candor is set forth in Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages
Pursuant to Sections 768.72 Florida Statutes. For the sake of brevity, Plaintiff refers the
Court to that forty-eight (48) page document and its fifty (50) supporting exhibits.
Incorporated Memorandum of Law
17. Mr. Rodems' perjury to the Court in Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff
And For Sanctions constituted a serious threat to the administration ofjustice in this
lawsuit, and is a criminal contempt for falsely injecting The Honorable Richard A.
Page - 19 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Nielsen into the fray between the litigants for the purpose of advantage. Contempt is
defined as an act that embarrasses, hinders or obstructs a court in the administration of
justice or that is calculated to lessen its authority or dignity. Thomson v. State, App. 2
Dist, 398 So.2d 514 (1981). Mr. Rodems played the Court to his own advantage, by
making a verification, and then invoking his status as an "Officer of the Court" to lend
credibility to his assertion that everything he said was truthful. It was a stunt that
backfired when a transcript proved that Mr. Rodems lied under oath. Willful filing of
sworn false motion constituted contempt. Nelson v. State, App. 4 Dist., 208 So.2d 506
(1968). Mr. Rodems intended the Court to rely on his verification, and it did. Intent is an
essential element of criminal contempt, and absent any statement thereof or admission by
the accused, it must be inferred from acts of accused in surrounding circllmstances; i.e., it
must be established by circllmstantial evidence. Thomson v. State, App. 2 Dist., 398
So.2d 514 (1981). Determination of whether contempt proceedings are civil or criminal
goes to the nature of contemptuous acts. Carter v. State, App. 5 Dist., 409 So.2d 127
(1982). Mr. Rodems false verification injecting the trial judge into the fray is a gravely
serious, contemptuous act. Courts rely upon the truthfulness of lawyers in the
administration ofjustice. 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 S02d 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
Page - 20 of 26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
the jury to [decide the facts] to which the law may be applied. When an attorney ... allows
false testinlony ... [the attorney] ... makes it impossible for the scales [ofjustice] 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). Direct criminal contempt may be punished without
notice or rule to show cause. Pennekamp v. State, 156 Fla. 227, 22 So.2d 875 (1945)
(appellate citation omitted). The primary purpose of a criminal contempt is to punish and
to preserve the power, and to vindicate the dignity of the court. Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla.
297, 95 So. 755 (1923). Mr. Rodems must be punished for his perjury to preserve the
power of the Court. Mr. Rodems' perjury led the recusal of Judge Nielsen; he
embarrassed the Court. Mr. Rodems' punishment will vindicate the dignity of the Court.
18. Mr. Rodems provided Plaintiff with his written consent to tape record
telephone conversations by letter dated October 5, 2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
to Plaintiff: "In the past, you have requested to record telephone conversations with me,
and I continue to have no objection to that procedure." Mr. Rodems' written consent was
made freely, broadly, and unconditionally, and is continuing in nature. Plaintiff
incorporated Mr. Rodems' freely made, written consent into Notice of Mr. Rodems'
Written Consent To Record Telephone Conversations With Him. (Exhibit 7). Also, Mr.
Rodems voluntarily left recorded messages to communicate with Plaintiff on a number of
occasions. These were made knowingly and voluntarily, and had become a usual and
customary means of communication. When taken together with his written consent,
made in a broad, unconditional manner, and referencing past recording, there is no
question that Mr. Rodems intended to give his consent to record all communications. A
person may lawfully intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the
Page - 21 of26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes.
a. Now that a transcript of Mr. Rodems' recorded conversation is being used to
impeach him, he wants to change his consent. The law does not permit this. "When there
are conflicts between the allegations and the documents attached as exhibits, the plain
language of the documents control." Geico General Ins. Co., Inc. v. Graci, 849 So.2d
1199, 1199 (Fla. 4
DCA 2003). This is also a matter of Mr. Rodems' intent, what did he
intend when he wrote "In the past, you have requested to record telephone conversations
with me, and I continue to have no objection the that procedure." Clearly Mr. Rodems
intent was to provide a broad, unconditional, all-encompassing consent, that was freely
made, to show that he was a person beyond reproach. But in fact Mr. Rodems is not
truthful, and has committed perjury before tIle Court.
b. Mr. Rodems also maintains that Plaintiff did not record a colloquy of his
consent at the beginning of the March 3, 2006 telephone conversation. Plaintiff responds
that was both unnecessary and impossible, because at the beginning of the March 3, 2006,
telephone call, the conversation was not being recorded. The subsequent recording was
an unplanned, split-second reaction to Mr. Rodems' threats and insults. The recording
began more than half-way through the conversation, and was all that Plaintiff could do to
protect himself from an out-of-controllawyer.
c. The power differences between Mr. Rodems and Plaintiff are enormous. Mr.
Rodems is a menlber of the Florida Bar, and an officer of the court. Mr. Rodems
regularly makes reference to his status as an "Officer of the Court", and invokes that
status to lend credibility to his statements, verifications, and motions before the Court.
Page - 22 of 26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
What does Plaintiff have to counterbalance Mr. Rodems' enormous power advantage? A
five minute tape recording that impeaches his verification the Court, and begins to level
the playing field. Without this tape recording, Plaintiff would have nothing to defend
himself against Mr. Rodems' lies.
19. Mr. Rodems relies upon a strict interpretation of section 934.06, Florida
Statutes to keep the evidence of his perjury out of court. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
Plaintiff on January 4, 2007:
"Should you attempt to use the transcript of the March 3, 2006 telephone
conversation or tIle audiotape of it in any hearing, I will object under
section 934.06 Florida Statutes because the recording was unauthorized
and illegal, and I cannot acquiesce to such blatant violations of law.
(Exhibit 9, ~ 2 ) .
Case law has a different view. State v. Nova, 361 So.2d 411, held that the trial
judge can make conclusions of fact concerning the adnlissibility of the contents of a
telephone conversation. Beaber v. Beaber, 41 Ohio Misc. 95, 332 N.E.2d 910, held that
telephone conversation tapped on one's residential phone for the purpose of impeachment
was not prevented by provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control Act or of other federal or
state constitutions. Society does not recognize an absolute right of privacy, for purposes
of the Florida Security of Communications Act (the wiretap statute), in a party's office or
place of business. Cohen Brothers, LLC v. ME Corp., S.A.Fla.App. 3Dist., 2004. The
March 3, 2006 telephone call between Mr. Rodems and Plaintiff was not personal or
private in nature, but was a business call about a lawsuit. Mr. Rodems did not have
reasonable expectation of privacy once he engaged in threats and taunting of Plaintiff.
Page - 23 of 26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
The purpose of the recording was to obtain evidence of Mr. Rodems' crime-in-progress.
There was no time to obtain the assistance of law enforcement or contact a judge for
pemlission. It was a split-second decision to docunlent a crime-in-progress, before it was
too late. Mr. Rodems did not have a right to privacy in his telephone conversation with
Plaintiff because a wrongdoer who voluntarily speaks to another of his wrongdoings, only
has the hope or expectation, not a constitutionally protected right, that the other person
will not breach his confidence and testify as to the contents of their conversations. It
logically follows then that recordings of such communications should be and are
admissible after the individual in whom the accused has confided has testified (both as to
his consent and the contents of his discussion) in that in the search for the truth it is by far
the most reliable evidence possible. Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168, Fla.App., 1979.
Recordings of communications should be and are admissible after individual in whom
accused has confided has testified both as to his consent and the contents of his
discussion. Plaintiff will testify that the recording of Mr. Rodems on March 3, 2006
occurred as stated in this pleading. The right of privacy demands that individuals be free
from uninvited observation of or interference in those aspects of their lives that fall within
the ambit of this zone of privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a
compelling state interest. Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, Fla., 1989. In the instant
case, the state has a compelling interest in whether lawyers submit false verifications to
20. Other jurisdictions.
Page - 24 of 26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
a. U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls with the consent of at
least one party. Single-party consent is provided for by specific statutory
exemption under federal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).
b. Illinois is, by statllte, a two-party state. However, case law from both
the IL Supreme COllrt and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a
one-party state in the case of private citizens. The consensus is that one-party
consensual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have
total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of
privacy to a conversation held with another person.
c. Although their clients are permitted to record telephone calls, Texas
lawyers are not permitted to do so. See Ethics Opinion 392, Tex, B.J., July 1978,
page 580. Nonetheless, they are allowed to "advise a client to electronically record
a telephone conversation to which the client is a party, without first informing
all other parties involved." See Ethics Opinion 514, February 1996. Furthermore,
Texas lawyers are required to provide clients with both an accurate statement of
these laws, and an honest opinion of the consequences likely to result from such
a particular COllrse of conduct. See Comment 7 to DR 1.02.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff petitions the Court for entry of an Order to Show Cause
Why Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held in Criminal Contempt of Court; a
finding that Mr. Rodems lied to the Court about an "exact quote" he verified as
attributable to Plaintiff, and that Mr. Rodems' verification was perjurious; impose upon
Mr. Rodems the penalty for perjury; sanction Mr. Rodems as permitted by Fla. R. Civ. P.,
Page - 25 of 26
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Rule 1.380(b), including awarding attorneys' fees and costs incurred in presenting this
motion; and report Mr. Rodems' misconduct to the Florida Bar.
day of January, 2007.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by hand delivery to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems &
Cook, P.A., Attorneys for Defendants, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa,
Florida 33602, this 29
day of January, 2007.
Page - 26 of 26
Table of Contents
Affidavit ofNeil J. Gillespie
Exhibit 1, Defendants' Verified Request for Bailiff and For Sanctions
Exhibit 2, Transcript of Telephone Conversations, March 3, 2006 and April 26, 2006
Exhibit 3, Cassette Tape of Telephone Conversations, March 3, 2006 and April 26, 2006
Exhibit 4, Plaintiff's Verified Response to Defendants' Verified Request for bailiff and for
Sanctions, and to Mr. Rodems' Perjury, and Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Protection
Exhibit 5A and 5B, Radio Shack receipt and product card for handset recording control
Exhibit 6, Photograph of Plaintiff's telephone, tape player/recorder, and handset
recording control
Exhibit 7, Notice of Mr. Rodems' Written Consent To Record Conversations With Him
Exhibit 8, Transcript of Telephone Recording, January 4, 2007
Exhibit 9, Mr. Rodems' five-page letter to Plaintiff dated January 4, 2007
N J.
1:llail1tift: CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM
BEF'ORE tIle lllldersigned autllority, personally appeared Neil J.
being tirst dllly sworn, deposes and states as follows:
I. My llanle is Neil J. Gillespie and I alTI the Plailltiff pro se ill tllis matter.
anl over eighteell years of age and conlpetent to testify; al1d I have persollal ((110wledge of
the facts hereil1 set fortll.
2. I state tl1at the "exact quote" Mr. Rodems attributed ill to n1C ill paragraph
5 of I)cfelldallts' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctiol1S, wllere Mr. !{OdCITIS
wrote: leleAt tllispoillt in. tIle conversation., Plailltiff stated - - alld tl1is is an exact quote -
"I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's chambers." is false. 1did
not say these words. This is not an exact quote of anything 1said.
3. 1 state that because the "exact quote" attributed to me by Mr. Rodems is
not true, and because he verified the "exact quote" under the penalty of peljury, I believe
Mr. Rodcms is guilty of perj ury, and should be held in criminal contempt of court.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of January, 2007, by Neil 1. Gillespie, who is personally known to me
or has produced {;L {)I{ LC- as identification and who did take an oath.
.."'lh Comml 000330303 :
, I
:. " " it , .
Page - 2
vs. Case No.: OSCA720S
Division: F
a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM
Defendants Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook, Esquire request a
bailiff at the hearings on Tuesday, Aplil 25, 2006 at 2: 15 p.m. and move for sanctions against
Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie, and as grounds therefor state:
1. On March 3, 2006, I, Ryan Christopher Rodems, received a voice luaj[liolll
PlaintiiT Plaintiff stated that he wished to set a motion for hearing on March 15, 200G, and since
I was not in, he would not wait for me to contact him and would set the hearing.
2. I then contacted the Court's Judicial Assistant to explain that 1 was on a trial
docket before Judge Charlene Honeywell on March 13,2006, and I would not be availablel;.)r
hearings on March 15,2006, but that if the Court would provide some aItemative dates, I would
coordinate a heming with Plaintiff and advise the Court of the agreed upon date. The J lid icial
Assistant gave me several dates and I told her I would send a copy of the notice ofhearing.
3. After speaking with the Judicial Assistant, I immediately called Plaintifl: (lrll! we
discussed his 11.1.otion for disqualification of counsel. He told me that because it was a "no-
brainer" that the Court would grant his motion to disqualify me fTom representing tllC
Defendants, he saw no point in scheduling his motion to dismiss Defendants counterclaims IIH'
hearing until after "your new counsel takes over."
4. He then began speaking very loudly that he had received the motion for sanctions
1 had "tiled" and that it was only received yesterday, not 21 days earlier as stated in tbe lllotiOJl.
advised tbat the motion had not been filed yet, but would be filed ifhe did not take curative
nction within 21 days. We then discussed the motion for sanctions and I explaincd to lrim that, ,IS
one example, the econon"lic loss rule, which Plaintiff raised as a defense to the counterclaims,
was not a proper defense to a defamation action. Plaintiff began to speak louder and loudcr, and
made statements about his beliefs about the viability of the motion for sanctions, J advised
PlaintiJfthat we wished to schedule all hearings at the same time and that the Court could decide
the protocol, but that it did not make sense to have him travel to Tampa from Ocala twice.
5. At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated -- and this is an exact qllote -- "I
am going to slam you up against the wan in Judge Nielsen's chambers." Quite alarmed, I paused
and said "are you threatening me physically or did you mean that metaphorically?" PlaintilT said
"metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger.
6. I am concerned that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings do not
resolve favorably for him, and I request that the COUl1 have a bailiff available at any 1l.lture
hearings. In over thirteen years of practicing law, I have had only one other occasion wherein I
was threatened in a manner that made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involvl:d
a pro se party.
7. Defendants request that the Court enter an Order sanctioning Plaintiff for the
threatening COl11.l11ellt, as detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refiaill fronl t.hreatening acts 0f
Defel1dal1ts request a bailiff at all futlIre h.earil1gs an.d :Plain ti. U'-be
sanctioned ap11ropriately.
day of March, 2006.
. ' --
L,/k .f
.. _---
lristo]Jller Rodelus, EsC].uoire
Florida BarNo. 947652
Barlcer, RodelTIS & Cook, P .A..
400 Nort11 Asll1ey Drive, S"uite 21 O()
rraIl1pa, Florida 33602
Telep110ne: 813/489-1001
"Facsill1ile: 813/489-1008
Attorneys for Defen.dal1ts
I swearullder IJenalty of pe:r:jury that the statell1ents Inade ill 111.0tioll arc true and
accurate alld tIle qllotes attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are 1TlIe and aCClIratc.
Y S'UBMITTED t11is day of March, 2006.
S\vorn to or aJfilI1J.C(1 and signed before ll1e on i /D (, jot, by Ryan Christopher Rodcl11s,
wlHY-is perso:nally }(110Wl1 to l11C.

Lynne Anne Spina

'. ExpIres: .DEC. 26. 2009
Bonded Thru Benaing
[ HEREBY CERTIFY that a tme and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished viJ
- { f ~ -
u.s. Mail to Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115
Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, t h i ~ day of March,
Case No. 0':)-)) 0')
Division: "F'"
Ul\J-\]<EH.,RODEMS & COOK, P. A.
A Florida Corporation,
WILLIl\M J'. C001<,
RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below
DATE & TIME: As Indicated Below
TRANSCFUBED BY: Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporter
Notary Public
Mlchael J. Borseth
Court Reporter/LegaJ Transcription
(813) 598-2703
1 CJ
For the Plaintiff:
80_92 SW }15t.h I,oo.p
Ocala, Florida 34481
(352) 854-7807
For t=.h.e Defendants:
Barker, RodBTIS & Cook, P.A.
400 Nortb. 1-\sh1ey D ~ L i ve
Sui-te 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 489-1001
* * * * * * * * * *
MR. GILLESPIE: Iiello. My ]_.5 NE?iJ
conversc1tion wi th Mr. Ryan Cll.ris-topher ilTJ
cl-t-torney liceI1sed to practice law ()f
Mr. RodelTlS represents tJ:1e law
l={odems a.nd Cook:, PAD The t.h.e Ley!"")
j_s 26t11, 2006 . Mr. Rodems t.()ITlC'
tape recording our conversation.
Mr. Rodems placed call too my ()fl
April 26th, in. wi tIl his
of both the law firm and a lawyer, William J.
Cook, in the lawsuit I filed tC)J.'
a.nd breach of contra.ct, in -t:rle __
t.he Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,irl a[lel
F[j_1J_sborough COllnty, Florida., case
2005-CA-7205, Division F. Thank you.
MR .. RODEMS: Neil, it's Cll.ris Roej.enl.E; ..
to me I have to record your conversation.
MR. RODEMS: l'11at' s f .
MR. GILLESPIE: Okay. You're being tape
:2 (l
MR. RODEMS: I called Judge Nielsen's
jud.icial assistant to obtaill. -three flew to finish. up the rnotio1l.S c11H'1
-told I needed an hOllr. And s'he I.TLll y
:20-th at 9: 30, Al1gUSt 1st at 2: 45 aJld_ ]-\Ll\J"lJE;"\.. :/rl('l III
g: 30. So I was won.deri:ng if allY -t.h.(),r"3(:?
w()u.ld for yOL1?
MR. GILLESPIE: Let m.e -trle T'
What. were -tll0se dates a.gain? July'?
MR. RODEMS: July 20 at 9:30.
RODEMS: A.ugust ls-t at. 2: 45. 1\1:"1(1 t ..
2nd. at 9: 30.
MR. GILLESPIE: August 1st.
MR. RODEMS: Oka.y. That would :be c:::l.t. "In
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you.
MR. I'll send tllis -- l'.1.J
serlel 'the no-tice (")1Jt Now, my no-tice wi Ihd\lc::
j us-t the 'things tl1at I want t.() call l11=> f:c)J.'
hear-ing. And obviollSly, if you ll.eed heaJ::-i.lJCJ I'" 'irll(\
for any [notion.s yo'u rnay have, you. kJl_C)W, Y{)1.J C>-111
ca.J.l too re.serve, but I need a. full YOI.:!
'\(I1()W, wha-t we [laVe pending.
I f3
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you.
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Bye-bye.
* * * * * * * * * *
MR. GILLESPIE: This concludes my
c::onver'satioI1 witll. Mr. Rodem.s 011 April 26t:.t-.I, :?()()().
11.e dU.ra.tion. of the call wa.s eJJ1C'
minute and twenty seconds.
* * * * * * * * * *
MR. GIIJI-JE,SPIE:My name is Neil (11'lel
tJ1is is a "ta.:pe recording of mysel f lc-::av"j_Tl.\J (:) on -tll.e voice of Ryarl
on March 3rd, 2006. As USU.3_]., MT'.
sta.ff P'ut Iny call throLlg11 -to
. Wher1ever I call Mr. RocJerns a"t ():EL:ic:c\
ll.i.s s-taff -tell me that he is no-t (-11"\('-/
t.rlell ask if I wOll.ld li](e to lea\le a ()rl 11 i :.;
v'oic:e mail. 111 I ar1swer , yes, (JrHj
IJ.r(Jc:eed. to leave a recorded m.essage.
When Mr. Roderns' staff sends mE? -tc) lli,(::; \l()] ('(\
:JTl.t-::li 1 I' ill by Mr. Rod.ems' ()Wfl. \/() -j (:('
m_essa.g-e. In -tu.rn., I a rec:oreJecl .1-(.).1
iVJr. Ro(jerns. As, "tape rec:o.rcling C'
.recor'ding has I)eCOn1e our usua.1 and nlc)clc'
o'ursel ves recoL'd.ed ancl the voluI1"tary ():r--
:L 6
') ')
1_, ," _

It:::avir1g Otlr \Toice orl t.he ;.1..1')(""/ i t available
Flere is a tclpe recorclirlg of t:.
C:OITl:m.urlica.tioJl. on Ma.rch 3rd, 2006.
(Pll.OI1e rillging.)
MR. RODEMS: Hi, this is Chris Rodems.
ca.rl'"t tak.e YCYLL[ call at "th.e rnOrnell.t.,
will me yc)u.r name I ' J
get. back: -to yO'Ll as soon. as I call.. YCYLI.
(Au-toma.ted Beep)
GILLESPIE: Good rnornirlg', Mr.
Neil Gillespie ca.l1ing. I 'm in. receipt=. ()t YCJlIJ'
ill.ot.ioT1, Defen.dant' s Motion for 1?lLr;3l.1iJ III
Sec"tion 57.051 F'lorida. S-tatutes. I j 1.1::3t.
received that for the first time. Yo1] (? t .r' 11
i:rJ. here something about twenty-one dci.y:::; t()
you. served a copy upon me.
and was not aware of it an.d as suc:h., J:
you need to amend this.
T:3l1-t anyway, I 'ill. ca.lling to (j
OTl .my mot_ion to d.isqua.lify you as COU.DSE::J. 1 hrl\lt_\
spoJ'(en to the Judge's assistaI1t. arld j
at 3: 4S p.m.. I was hopiJ1g t=.o c:()rlt:.i. CrT)
s with yOLl, t.)ut appaJ:-ently yOL1' re 11 ()"t=. ,:J\l,) 1 1,::11)
now. So I 'm going to go ahead.] (\
.2 L]
tJ.lis Marc:h 15-th a-t 3:45 lJ.rn. A:nd l'n1
sched_1Jling my n10-tion -to dismiss beCalJSe .if' t-.tLi ..
rno-tion to disq'ualify lS gran.ted, as I ..i.l_
wiJ_l be, t:hen your new COlJnsel carl take LIEJ
o' rno-tion.
you and my T1l11n}:)er
area code 352-854-7807. Thank you, sir.
g'ood day.
* * * * * * * * *
MR. RODEMS: Tl1is concludes my rniJ.i.J, I',c)
Mr .. Rodems from Ma.rch 3rd, 2006. ()!:
the call was approximately one minute and
ve seco.nds.
* * * * * * * * * *
tl1is is a_ pc--lrtial recording of my conversElt:._icJll
Mr .. Rodems fro:m March 3rd, 2006 ..
* * * * * * * * * *
MR .. RODEMS: on tJl.e ()t)j t,y
argument. I like that.
MR .. GILLESPIE: Now, you ca,ll (
marched into a tirade of insults.
Ml:Z. RC'OEMS: No, actllally I :haven' t:, .irl::=.;tJJt.. c,cl
YO'U. a.-t all.. I've ll.eVer .saicl YC)IJ ..
I j'ust said_ tha."t yOll don't really k:n.ow J.:JW

. t)
t.IlEJ.'t's I10t insulting, that's just. a.c:t.lJ.E:l.J,ly
I rnean, you.r motion to d.isrnis.s OtLL
COl.1nterclairn demollstrates a fL1Il.d.an1en.t='ej.J. ():[
tlrlclerstanding. I mean, d_o YC)lJ bJ ]_eC:-1cl
E:con.()mic Loss Rule to a defama-tion Clc15.Tn? '1' 1111 ,
that makes no sense.
MR. First of all, YC)"LJ.J=' etc; teJIrlf:ll--. ICHI
claim has -- doesn't lie at all.
MR. ROO:E:MS: t:he Eigll-th Ame:rlciITlE-;Ilt. (.'Jl
ba.sis. It's k.ind of silly. I :mearl,
l?mbarrassing. It's -- it jus't ha..s rl() (J.l
. I mean, it j
MR. GILlIESPIE: Actually, you' Wr'()ll.Cf
MR. ROJJEMS: Oh., the EconcJ-mic I_lOSS
c.:l.p:plie,s t.o a d.efamation c:lainl?
doesnYt even lie.
MR. RODEMS: And the Econon1ic (j(-'i-ll.
wi'th tort an.d COlltract claims. And. wJ-lerl ---- c-lrlc:]
Wfle:n a_rises OU.t of a. c:J.cJinl
's -- what YOLl sent to AnlSco-t h.3cl TIC)t.l-l i rlCJ Ic)
do with 'the ot11er -- that was a ac-tioll. \/()L.!
23 yCJtlrself. I m.ean., i-t wcJE;k,'i .. 11C'] (,) r
t.ha-t you WOll1d. eve]} S811d th.a.-t ()I.11
yOll, so now you will t.o .pay tJJr' t ..h.,].t'.
MR. GILLESPIE: Oh, really?
MR. GILLESJ?I.E: I 'TTl shaJ(iI1g j_n. my t)C:)C)t..
RODEMS: Neil, I TI1eaJl., I do:n't.
you J<now, what your pla.n..s a .. Y()l.J
iI1s-tead of litigating 'the YC)LI
ll.Etd g'o OLlt there and basically aCC:::tlSe 1.1::3
(joirlg WJ=-OIlg on sornet.hirlg Ii ..
rt'ls Jeind of weird, yOll ]<now. I31J.'t i.n, i3fly ,
mean, obviously-
MR. GILLESPIE: is weird is yerLJ
J_yir1g about -the legal fees. only
weir-d, tha.'t' s unprofessional. An.d :Iou. w.il1 t)c:\
called to account for that.
a car so that you could get the ca.sfl. ('IC? l .. C)
SOITl.e der1tal done? We' .re goirl.g 'Le) (JE?L t.C) 1,.1:'1(:'
T'ea.lly h.appen?
.MR D : What?
MR. RODEMS: Did yOll purcllase a E;C) t.h(:J.t.
:L H
t,o be
Listell., this J_S Wlly YC)U
k.:now -tha-t? BeCal.1Se

You. kllOW
c) :
... .Lr'cHLl
your previous representation of me.
MR. RC)OEMS: Well, you kJl.OW, see tl:-1Elt.',c; -_ ..
MR. GILLESPIE: If it is -- if i'e V,<3 (]
YOLl need to study -t11e ,:u1cl
regulations of the Florida Bar YC)I:l
car so I would have something to drive. I CICJll' I
.k_D.ow wt1Y YOlJ. buy but tha."t v s wIlY I L)()lJClr-1t: i t ..
benefits, that's different.
Ml=Z. I u.ll.d,ersta.,n.d -that=-
sh.ortly after you, r')o'Llght. ...
MR. ROIJE.MS: O]<ay. Well, tJl.en you,
t:.he 28 -tIl.
"1 ()
J. :1..
MR. : No, it wa.s V011J.f1.t=.a.J.:'.i t.l./l.'/It i
iI1 after 911 atta.cJ<: t.he job 'lila.t. J Wd
d.ried Ll.p. O]<ay. So list.en Y01J
you. anythill,g you. want, I will YCjLl ()r1
2St11 and I will slam. you a.gairlst t.t1e waJ_J. 'I .. i.. k:,l:
(lid before.
MI-<'. RO.D.EMS: J\re you t.hreateIl.i.n.g lTl.e '?
MR. No, you just said yOll w()lJ.l(j
clid. you meal1 that physically or dj_d YCYU L
j_ ca.l1y'?
MR. GIl,IJESPIE:: Metaphorically ..
MR. ROCIEMS: OJ<ay. Well, I jllst I.c)
c,lea.r becclu,se I understand th.a.'t in vvi.. l.tI
yOLl it's very irnJ;Jortant to be precise
cloT1' t. have a. good. -th.E?,LiJ.I1CJU.,'lCT('
t.ll.a.'t, you ](D.OW, lawyers But it, ctoi.cj ,c3CYI.JJlcj
me lik:e yOLl were p11ysical1y
MR. 1\10, flO, .it wa.s:n.'t. r)h\/:,::;ic:ill
t.hrea't. An.dby tll.e wCJ.y, as far as yC)'ur J...i.t-.I'J... c'
rlon.sense witil tllis saying you 11cl'V'e c:1
-- I'll see you. on. the 25,th _ l.\nd, T wi.l-j
YO'U lega.lly, meta.phorica.l1y a.gairls't I
J.. ].
I did before.

RODEMS: O]<ay. We will
RODEMS: Okay. Bye-bye.
* * * * * * * * * *

MR. GILLESPIE: This concludes m
c::on\Tersation wit11 Mr. Rodems on. Ma.rch
'I1h.e dur'ation of the call, tJl.e pclrt. t.llat. WE-l;:;
wa.s a.pproxirnately fi \Te
* * * * * * * * * *
J 4
:l. H
r) 1:
L . ....)
I, Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter
FLillsborolJgh Coun-ty, DO I-IEREBY -tllat I
a.lrt110rized to and did -transcribe a -tape/C]) ()[
t='.he p]:::-oceeding"s and evidence in tile
of said proceedings a.nd t:.O
(Jf my ability.
IN WITNESS WI-IEREOF, I Ildve hereurrto lIlY l-lElrlcl 11 October 2006.
Plaintitl CASE NO.: 2005 CA-7205
a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff pro se files this response to the false and perjurious statements that Ryall
Christopher Rodems made, under oath, in Defendants' Verified Request for Bailiffand
for Sanctions, submitted to this Court on March 6, 2006.
1. It is an established tenet that a person has the right to represent himself in a court
of law. The courts must be open to all persons to redress any injury, and justice must be
administered without sale, denial, or delay. Plaintiff's pro se appearance is lawful.
2. Ryan Christopher Rodems is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
Florida. In his appearance before this court, Mr. Rodems is an officer of the court, and
bound by the laws and tenets permitting Plaintiff to appear pro se in this lawsuit.
. I
Background I.nformation
3. Cllristopller Rodelns represents the Defenda!lts in this lawsuit. Mr. I{odclllS
failed to COl11111llnicate witll Plailltitl' as follows:
(a) Mr. Rodenls failed to c.onfer witll Plaintiff whel1 sclledulil1g the hearing f()r
Defendallts' Motio!l to Disilliss and Strike. Mr. Rodenls ullilaterally scheduled a hearing
for Se11tenlber 26, 2005 at 10:30 a.ln. J:llaintiff advised tIle Court abolLt this, all(1 received
pernlissioll to attelld tIle hearing Plaintiff 111llSt travel from Ocala., r;L., a
distallce of abollt 90 111iles. Plaintiff is also the prinlary caregiver for 11is 75 year-old
ailing 111other, and 111l1St make arral1gell1ents for her care in 11is absence.
(b) Mr. I{odel11s failed to retufll a phol1e call frol11 Septerrlber 30, 2005., that
Plaintiff ll1ade U11011 receipt of case law that the COlui directed Mr. Rodel11sprovjclc.
(c) 011 Jallliary 30, 2006, Plaintiff called Mr. Rodenls abollt the case nlallagenlcnl
conferel1ce pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P., .Rule 1.200(a). At first Mr. Rodellls seenlcclunaware
of tIle rlile., al1clllad to lool( it up. Mr. Rodems said the rtIle is not usually followed, but
he WOllld Lio so if Plailltiff reqllested. Wllile discussil1g discovery, Mr. Rodenls saicl
could COIJY docull1e11ts at his law office, but that PlaintifTwould probably want to
do tllis elsewllere becallse of Defel1dants h.ostility toward hi111.
(d) Wllellever Plaintiff calls Mr. Rodell1s, he is ullavailable, alld llis staff put the
call tlu
0ugll to voice l11ail. Mr. Rodell1s only retufllS about 11alf of Plailltiff' s phone cal Is.
lVIarch 3, 2006, Plailltiff Scheduled a Hearing
4. 011 March 3, 2006 Plaintifftelepllo11ed the Court's Judicial Assistallt to obtai]l
hearillg dates for Plai11tiff's Motion to Dis9llalify COllnsel filed on Febrllary 4., 2006. A
111011th hac11JaSsed witll0Ut a word fi0111 Mr. Rodeills. The Court's Judicial Assistant
Page - 2
l)rovided three dates: March 15,2006 at 3:45 p.111., Marcl128, 2006 at and
April 6, 2006 at 2:45 1-'lle Court's Judicial Assistal1t said tl1at .Plaintiil=' cl)uld appear
telelJll011ically by callillg (813) 272-6354. Plaintiff telepholled Mr. Rodems to discuss the
available l1earillg dates. As usual, Mr. Rodenls was unavailable, alld Plailltiff left a voice
ll1essage tllat l1e set tIle 11earing for March 15, 2006 at 3:45, and if tl1at date \-vas nol
good, to call I)laintifl' to resclledule. Plaintiff said he wOllld wait to sclleclule a hearing on
Plainti 1'1'" s Moti011 to l)j Sllliss and Strik.e Counterclainl, because if Plaillt.iff prevai led 011
11is Motion to Disqllali-tY Counsel, the1l Defendants' new lawyers would be reSl)Onsible
for lllat. Plai11tiff also asl<ed to discuss Defendants' Motioll for San.ctions ])ursuanl to
Section 57.1 05( 1), Florida Statutes.
5. j)Iailltifl'wrote :Lvlr. Rodell1s a letter about tIle MarcIl 15, 200611eari11g, and
Defell(iant's Motio11 for Sa11ctions !)ursuant to Section 57.105(1), Flori(ta Statutes.
(Exlli11it 1). Plailltiff attempted to fax the letter to Mr. Rodenls, a1ld eac.h till1e the
tra11S1l1ission was il1terrllpted, presunlably by S0111eone ill his law otTice. UltiJl1ately the
letter was 110t faxed or 111ailed to Mr. Rodenls because of his subseqllellt telephone call.
Mr. Rodems' Taunts, Threats, and Intimidation.
6. Mr. RodelTIS telepllo11ed Plailltiffat his honle all March 3, 2006, al1(1 to1(1 I>laintirr
11e received his voice 1l1ail, and that tIle March 15, 2006 11earing conf1icted with ()l1C ()f his
trials, alld 11e called the COllrt's Ju.dicial Assistant a11d canceled the 11earillg. Mr. l{odenls
tIlell alll10ullced tllat l1e was tal(ing over the task of sclledulillg 11eari11gs, and wou1cl n<.)t
perll1it l::>lailltifl' to sclledtllehis own illations. Mr. Rodellls was angry a11d said Jle was
sclle<..iuling all tIle lTIotiol1S for tIle sanle day because he kllew he WOllld prevail on
Plail1tiff's M.otioll to Disqualify Counsel.
!)age - 3
7. rrlle parties agreed to a hearillg Oil April 25, 2006 at 2:15 Mr. Rodell1s
illsisted 011 SCllCdlllillg tIle following thTee 11earillgs for that tinle:
(a) Defel1Liallt' s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Section 57.1 05( 1), Flori<.la
(b) Motioll to Disqualify Counsel; and
(c) s Motioll to Disll1iss a11d Strike Counterclailll.
IvIr. Rodcl11S schedllied his Illation first, even tl10Ugh it l1as 110t yet been filed.
(Exllibit 2). The sigllature 011 Defel1dants' Notice of Hearillg alld tIle attacllcd
of Service do 110t appear to be Mr. Rodems' actual sigllature, but that of allotl1er person.
8. Mr. Rodenls told Plaintitl' he call110t appear telephonically for tIle 11earing., and
tllat if he tried to, Mr. Rodenls would object. Mr. Rodenls was angry, and reicrre<.t to a
previous 11earil1g all Septelnber 26, 2005. Mr. RodelTIS said Plailltiff did. 11is legal
research after tile l1earillg, alld 11e wOll1d not perluit that to 11appell again.
9. 1:llaintil1 attempted to disCllSS with Mr. Rodenls Defe11dant's .Motion for Sanctions
l->ursuant to Seetioll 57.1 05( 1),Florida Statutes. Plail1titl' tried to discerll if tile 111()ti()[l
was filed., or ift11e LioCllmellt lle received on Marcl12, 2006 was Inerely tIle notice (}fthe
Illation. Mr. !{odel1ls begall to eXIJ!ain, tIlell stopped l11id-selltellce, and angrily stated that
he is not teacllillg law to Plail1tifI alld that Plaintiff should blOW tIle law. Each ti lllC
l->lailltifl' begall tt) disCllSS the motioll, Mr. Rodenls cut hinl ofl' witll angry statell1cnts that
Plaintitl' did 110t l(lloW the law, alld should not be perlnitted to represent Ilinlself.
10. 111 reply to Mr. Rodenls statelnents that Plail1tifl" did not know tIle law., [uld should
110t be able to represent hill1self: Plaintiff renlil1ded Mr. RodelTIS that Plaintifl' prevailed
011 Defe11dants' Motion to Strike alld Disnliss. Plailltitl' also relnillded M.r. that
Defelldants law firnl failed to prevail in court against Anlscot Corporatiol1.Mr.
Page - 4
allgrily replieci witll a tlueat, and told Plaintiff that "you will pay" for writillg a letter to
Al11SCot. told Mr. Rodenls that the letter was not libelous., Mr. l{()llcnls
re!)eateli llis tllreat to PIaillti1T statillg ""yOll will pay for that".
11. .Mr. RO(tell1S contillllCd speakillg allgrily, and told r
lailltitl'that 'loyOll d()ll'\ t speak
lik.c a lawyer". Mr. Rodeills tllen asked PlaintitI about a vehicle he Ollce OWJlcd, a 200 I
Cllrysler Voyager 111i11i vall. Plaintiff bOllght the vehicle ill the sunl111er of 2001 , and
the $2,000.00 rebate to pay for dental work. Followillg tIle lerr()rist attack
of Septcll1ber 11, 2001, tllere was a decline il11)laintiff S catering al1d ball(}llet w()rk, and
he VOlulltarily surrenciered the vellicle whellile could 110 longer 111ake tIle paYll1clltS.
Ivlr. IlodcIIIS learlled tl1is infof1l1atio11 from his prior represe11tatioll of Plailltiff. N()w
Mr. l{odel11s talultedPlail1tifl"' witll tIle infonl1atio11, a cliel1t cOl1fidence. Mr. Izodenls
asked if tile va1ll1ad beel1 repossessed. Plaintiff told hilll tllat tIle vall was not
repossessed, at Wllicll POillt Mr. Rodenls sllouted "tllell you will be drivillg it to the
hearillg 011 April 25tl1!" PlaiIltifT explained to Mr. Rode111s tllat 11e VOllultarily
sllrrendered tIle as statee!' Mr. Rodenls c011tinlled to taullt Plai11tiff ab()Llt tJle
$2,000.00 rebate, saying tllat Plaintitl'used the nloney for dental worl(. Mr. :Rodenls'
taullts abolit tile vall alld Plailltiff's dental work was in fact a tlrreat to use a client
COl1tid.el1ce agaillst as a fornl of il1tinlidation to drop this lawsuit.
12. Mr. Rociell1s' taullts, threats, al1d intinlidation of Plaintitl"' were a calClllaleli cfl()rt
to aggravate al1d exploit Plai1ltifl"s Inedical condition. Mr. Rodeills is aware., by way of
11is prior representatioll of P tllat Plaintiff sliffers frOlTI post tralunatic stress
disoreler., velopl1aryngeal i1lc011lpete11ce (a speech disorder), and all oral-clentaJ dcfornli ty
COlll1l1011ly 1(110Wll as a cleft lip al1d palate. Mr. Rodenls taunted al1d rid.iculecll'>laintif]-'s
l>age - 5
speecll, sayillg '"'"you dOll't speak like a lawyer." Mr. RodelTIS lllocked .PlaiIltiff's ora1
delltal deforillity by il1ferrillg that Plailltiff fraudulently used a car rebate to jJay f()r dental
worl(. Mr. baited Plail1tiff witll taunts, tllfeats, alld il1tilnidatioll, 1(110willg that
his bellavior wou!(i likely trigger a post traul11atic stress response ill Plaintifl".
13. After l11a](illg a series of tallllts, tllreats, and illtinlidation, Mr. finally
succeeded ill triggerillg a post traull1atic stress response froBl Plailltifl". III reply to
Mr. l<odenls' riliicule that Plailltift'" did 1101 }(110W the law, alld Sl10ll1d not be pcrnlittcd lo
represent l1ill1sel:t: Plaintiff told Mr. Rodenls that 11e would 'loslanl hilll" 011 the law.
Inl111ediately Mr. Rodenls dell1eall0r changed fronl anger, to feigned fear and 1110ckery.
Mr. Rodel11s asked if Plailltiff ll1eallt llletapilorically, alld I said yes, InetapJlorically.
Plailltiff apologizes to tIle Court for his lapse ill SUCCUll1biIlg to Mr. Rode111s' bullying.
Mr. Rodents' Perjury Before This Court
14. l]le essclltial elel11el1ts of peljury are the willful givillg of false testinlony uJlder
lawful oatIl all a nlaterialll1atter in ajudicial proceeding. (Diamond v. State, App. 4 l)isl.'l
270 So.2d 459 (1972). III tIle instant case, Mr. Rodenls filed Defendallts' Verifieli
RClluest l-:;'or Bailiff and For Sallctions on March 6, 2006. Mr. Rodel11s swore lInder oath
that the statelnellts l11ade ill tllis motiol1 are true and aCCllrate alld that tIle lluotes
attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are true alld accurate.
15. Plailltiff states that Mr. RodeiTIS' verified statements are not trlle al1d accurate, and
that the statel11ents attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are not trlle and aCCllrate. Plail1tjff states
tIle Jollowillg to ill1peacll tile sworl1 statements made by Mr. Rodems:
(a) 111 paragrapll 1 ofllis illotion, Mr..Rodell1s stated under oatIl tllat ;;;; ... since I
was not ill, ]le WOllld 110t wait tor 11le to contact him... " Mr. Rodell1s staten1.ent is
Page - 6
testimony, because while I set the motion for a hearing, I specifically stated on his voice
mail that I was waiting to hear from Mr. Rodems if there was a problem with the date.
(b) In paragraph 3 of his motion, Mr. Rodems stated under oath that 1told him
" ... it was a "no brainer" that the Court would grant his motion to disqualify ... "
Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony, because 1did not say this, and take nothing (ix
granted in this lawsuit. I told Mr. Rodems that if the Court ruled in my favor, his new
lawyers would be responsible for any outstanding motions.
(c) Paragraph 4 of Mr. Rodems' sworn testimony is a false characterization of our
conversation. An accurate, truthful description of our telephone call is contained in lhis
document, paragraphs 4 through 13, and paragraph 15.
(d) In paragraph 5 of his sworn testimony, Mr. Rodems stated the following exact
quote attributed to Plaintiff: "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge
Nielsen's chambers." Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony because 1 did not say
this, and the quote contains proprietary information known to Mr. Rodems but nol to
Plaintiff al the time - that the hearing would be conducted in "Judge Nielsen's chambers."
As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff did not know that hearings are conducted in "chambers" and
assumed that the hearing would be held in open court.
(e) In paragraph 5 of his sworn testimony, Mr. Rodems stated: "Quite alarmed, I
paused and said '>are you threatening me physically or did you mean that
metaphorically?" Plaintiff said >'metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger. "
Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony because he was not "quite alarmed" bUl inhtcl
was baiting Plaintiff: trying to trigger a post traumatic stress response in P l a i n t i n ~ to stage
any incident or excuse with which to complain to the Court. Mr. Rodems himsel f admiLs
Page - 7
tl1at l1C COllsidered tile so-called threat a 111etaphor. Mr. Rodenls also allll1its tl1at l>lainti ff
intel1decl tIle rell1ark l11etapll0rically. Ollce Mr. Rodel11s elicited tIle respollse he wanted
fr01111)lail1ti.fl:his dell1eall0r ellal1ged fron1 anger, to feigned fear and Ill0ckery. As a
l11atter of Jaw, a "'tilfeat" Inade over tIle telephone fronl a distance is 110t credible because
the "'tllreat" calTHot be conlpleted in a proxinlate nlanner.
(:t) 111 paragra.pll 6 of Mr. Rodenls' SWOl11 testinlolly, lIe statecl: "'1 am concerned
tllat Plailltifl'lllay becollle violent if additional hearings do not resolve favl)rably f()r hilll.,
alld I request tilat tile Court have a baili!l'available at any ftitllre 11earillgs." Mr.
stateillellt is false testilll011Y because he knew Plaintiff's statenlent was a l1letaphor.
Absellt all actllal tilreat., Mr. Rodenls has no reaSOll to believe tllat Plaintifl" would assault
llim. Mr. Rodell1s intelltiollally baited Plailltiff to create or stage tllis incidcllt for the
pur!Jose of conlplaining to tIle Court. As a practical matter, 1)laintiff is a gray-Ilair.,
overweigllt, fifty year-old with health problems. Mr. Roden1s is illllCll younger, in his late
30's, strollger aIle! i11better COl1ditiol1. Mr. Rodel11s' concern is just not 'creclible.
(g) III paragrapll 6 ofMr. Rodenls' sworn testilTIOlly, he states: "In over thirteen
years of .practicing law, I have had only one other occasion wherein. 1was t]lreatened in a
l1lan.ner tl1at Illade 111e fear for nlY physical safety, and tI1at case also involved apr(J se
party." Mr. Rodellls' statel11ent is evidence of his contel111)t for pro se litigallts, and of his
predislJOsed preju(iice toward Plaintiff.
(11) III paragra.pll 7 of Mr. Roden1s' sworl1 testinlony, 11e states: "'Defelldants
request tllat tile COllrt enter all Order sanctioning Plaintiff for tIle tllreatelling C()nllnenL, as
detailed above, alld Order Plaintift'to refrain from tl1featelling acts of violence.'"
Page - 8
Mr. Rodell1s' statelnellt is false testinlollY because Mr. Rodenls adnlitted tllat Illaintiffls
stateJl1ent was 110t a tllreat, it was a l11etaphor. In requestillg all Order froill tl1is to
sallctioll. Plailltifffor a tllreat of violence, Mr. Rodenls is aslcing tIle Court to join his
prejudice agai11st because there sinlply is 110 tllreat of viole11ce to sancli{)ll.
1-'11e Court S.hOllid 110t sanction Plai11tiff because he did 110t threatellMr. ..c)denls.
Defendants Ongoing Effort to Criminalize Plaintiff's Lawful Behavior
16. rrl1e law firlll Barl(er, I{odell1s & Cook, PA., and its law partllers l1ave accused
Plailltifl' of COlll111itti11g felol1y crinlil1al extortion agaillst tllell1., citil1g section 836.()5.,
Florida Statlltes (2000), alld Florida case law, for filing a complai11t with the 13ar.
1'.he right t() file a .Bar COll1plaint is lawful, yet in an 011going effort to illtillliclate JJlainti fC
Defendallts have falsely acc'used Plail1titl' of extortioll. 111 additiol1 to n1akillg the
cllarge, Defelldmlts willfllily l11isstate facts al1d misapply law to those facts in an eff()rt to
obstrllct tIle adll1illistration ofj ustice. Defendants have falsely aCCllsed Plail1tiff (yf
extortion OIl at least three separate occasiol1s:
(a) Cllristol)11er A. Barker wrote a letter to Plailltiff 011 Jl1l1e 19, 2003 stating the
followillg (Releval1t portioll):
loioFirst, you state tl1at if our law firnl does 110t pay yOll nl0ney, tllell you will
file a c0l1Tplail1t agaillst Mr. Cook with the Florida Bar al1d contact our
forn1cr clients. We C011sider this threat to be extortio1late. See 836.05,
Fla. Stat. (2000); Carricarte v. State, 384 So.2d 1261 1980); CoojJcr
v. Allstin, 750 So.2d 711 (Fla. 5
DCA 2000); Gordoll v. Gordon, 625
So2d 59 (Fla. 4
DCA 1993); Berger v. Berger, 466 So2d 1146 (Fla. 4
DCA 1985)." (Exllibit 3).
Page - 9
11111is letter to Plailltiff, Mr. Barker describes a strol1g-arlll deillall(i for 111()llCy.,
wIlell in fact Plai11tiff was 11lerely following tIle process for filil1g a cOlllplaillt with the
FloriliaBar. 011 Jllne 12, 2003, Piailltitl" called the Florida Bar aild spoke with 1)011
Spallgler., all attonley witil tIle Florida Bar's Atforney Consurner AssL\'llltlCe jJr{)f.-p,rllfn
(ACAP), and described tIle problenl witl1 his lawyers. Mr. Spallgler assigllecl reference
11l1111ber 03-18867 to tIle C01l1plaillt. Mr. Spangler said Piailltifl" could file an. ethics
C011l.l)lail1t, an.d cOldd also contact tIle lawyers and try to settle the lllatter. "fllis
in.for111atiol1 is also pri11ted on tile Florida Bar COll1plaint forl11, Part Four, Attcl11pted
Resoilltioll. (Exllibit 4-).
"rIle Florilia Bar specifically states that " ... yOll silouid atteillpt to resolve your
111atter by writillg to tIle subject attorlley, before cOlltactillg ACAP or filillg a C()111plaint.
Evell if tl1is is Ullsu.ccessful, it is important tl1at you do so in order to 11ave dOClll11el1tation
of gooLi-faith efforts to resolve your matter." (Exhibit 4, Part Four). Plailltil1" wr()te tt) Bill
Cool( all JUlle 13, 2003. (Exhibit 5). Mr. Barker turlled Plailltifl'"s good-faitll etJ()rt into
the felolly cril11e of extortioll.
(b)Willianl J. Cook esselltially repeated the above extortioll cllarge ill a letter
date(i Jllly 12,2004 to tIle Florida Bar, as part of his respOl1se to all illquiry.
(c) Now Mr. Rodenls is accllsing Plaintiff of crimiIlal extortion illl1is Answers,
AfJirll1ative Defenses al1d Counterclainl dated Jal1uary 19, 2006. Mr. Rodenls wrote the
followillg 011 page 7, paragrapl1 67:
~ I o 011 Jlllle 13, 18 and 22, 2003, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant wrote
letters to Defel1(lallt/Coullterclainlants and stated that if tiley did
[not] pay 11i1ll 1110ney, tIlen Plail1tiff/Counterdefendant would file a
Page - 10
conlpJaillt agail1st Defendant/Counterclainlant Cook with tIle
Bar'! sue Defendallts/Coullterclainlants and COlltact their
fl)rmer cliellts. Defendallts/Counterclainlallts advised
J) lailltitliCollllterliefelldant by letters that they COllsidered tllese
tllreats to be extortioll Llilder section 836.05., Fla. Stat. (2000) all<..i
tIle 110I(iings of v. State, 384 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1980);
Cooper v. AllStill, 750 So.2d 711 (Fla. 5
DCA 2000); Gordon v.
Gordon, 625 So.2d 59 (Fla. 4
DCA 1993); Berger v. Berger, 466
So.2d 1149 4
DCA 1985). [relevant pOliion]
In the above paragrapll, Mr. Rodems l1as essel1tially charged with a crinlC
ill Circuit Civil Court. Tllis is wrollg because crilnirial proseclltioll is tIle job e)f the State
AttorllCY. Mr. I-Zodeills is essentially cril11inalizing the cOlnplaillt process ()f tIle
Bar, alld tllis will tend to illtill1idate conlpIail1ants fronl filing a Bar complaillt.
17. Defelldallt Barker, Rodeills & Cool( is a sInal1 law office, cOlll.prised of tJlrec
lawyers who are ullgry witlll)lailltifffor filin.g a lawsuit against tllenl. Mr., Mr.
Rodell1S, alldMr. Cool( are llpset tllat this Court dellied the part oftllcir ll10tic)11 to disilliss
tllis lawsuit, alld ordered Mr. Rodeills to file responsive pleadillgs. 'T'lley are upset that
Mr. Cool( is being lleld persollal1y liable. The anger and rage that Defendants harb()f
toward l:l1ailltiff is expressed through tlleir lawyer, Mr. Rodenls, WllO isbot1) C()UllSel and
a law tirtll partller-d.efel1dallt. 011 MarcIl 3, 2006, Mr. Rodelns isslled a personal threat to
Plaintiff: stating ''"YOll will pay" for writing a letter of apology to AnlSCOt. Detendants and
their coullsel, Mr. RotielllS, lack perspective in this lawsuit. As evidcllcecl by their
Page - 11
Coullterclail11, tlley falsely believe Plailltiff is out to ruiIl thell1. According to their
pleadings, Defel1dal1ts falsely believe Plaintiffs intent is to injllre or 111aliciously Hlalign
and tarllish illeir professiollal reputations and stature ill tIle C01111nUllity, or 110tll.
Defelldallts clainl tllat intends to bring distrust, ridicllle, contenl1)t.) or
disgrace, or illjure thell1 ill their trade or profession. Faced witll tllis false )->laintifr
believes tlley will stO}) at 110tllillg to prevail in tllis lawsuit, il1cluding violating the la.w.
by COlltrast 11as few ties to rrall1pa or its conl1l1unity. J
lail1tjff's interest in
tllis lawsuit is linliteci to 11is final1cialloss and a willinglless to confrollt wrongdoing. It is
a lill1ited elldeavor witll a focused perspective. If the case was dislnissed today, lllainti fr
11as alreacty 1110ved on, literally and metaphorically.
p laintiff requests an Order of Protectiol1 agaillst Detelldants and
Mr. I{yall Christopller Rodell1s, to illclude:
(a) A Bailiff or Police Oflicer be present whenever Defel1(iants or Mr.
are near J)laintifl: wlletller ill COlIft, or anywhere in rranlpa or I-lillsborough County.
Wllile Mr. Rodel11s tllreatel1ed Plaintiil' for writing to AlllsCOt, tIle ll10st likely tllreat is
tllat they will stage a stUllt witll wllich to conlplaill to the Court, or set a trap f(lr a
trllll1!Je(i-u}J crinlillal cllarge against Plaintiff.
(b) rrhat all h.earil1gs be 11eld in open court, not ill chalnbers, to allow the l)arties
as 1Illiell rOOlll as possible. Again, tIle luost likely threat is that they will stage a stunt
witl1 Wllicll to COll1plain to tIle Court, or set a trap for a trumped-up crinlinal charge.
(c) 1'11at all telepll01le conl111unications between Plaintiff an(i Mr. be tape
recorded. Plailltifl' agrees to this, and requests that Mr. Rodeills agree too. Alternatively
will COll1111unicate by letter, fax, or tllfOUgh an i11terll1ediary, but Plaintiff cannot
Page - 12
h:.lVC 1.I11111onitored COll11l1LlIlication vvith .Mr. because ()f his
tllrcals"I and intlrnidation ofPlaint.iff'.
(d) Plaintiff asks t.he to renlindl\1r. [<'OdelllS t.hat he is au ()friccr ()r I he
courl., ;.IIl<..1 lc) act acc()rdingly.
"I 4
}<I SLJI3lVIJI"1'El) this day oorrvlarch, 2006.
_.. ",,'
..=l\Jcil J. C.iilles(:)ic:.,
SW 115
Ocala:J ,Flor.ida ]LJ4X I
rreJc,phonc: (352) S5
I s\vcar under Lhepen,alty ofpcljury that the staten1cnt:s 1l1acf.c in thjs n}()(j()ll ;lrl.'
,.lIlt! that the qLlotes attributed to Ryan Christopher RoclclllS arc trlle ;llHI :ICCllr;lll,'.
' 11,0'(""'I')00'LJoIL-oYS"l']'- O['-t-"-t-'}-'D'!' 14
-1 ] jO()(
J. o. \.t,S ... , ,.t ,_J t ll.S Clay 0' . arc 1,
S' ['.1\' I '1-;: ()f" Fl' LJ() A
(' ()lJ N'r'' () t\/l A 1\.1()N
Sworn to or affirmed and signed before me by Neil .I. (iilksl)ic.. wltp
is pcrs()n(tI ]ykll()\iVII to IT1C . _
() I' h;.1 s prt) d uC,Cd .Lll;' .__ as i cI cntifi cati 0 n.
21'UQlllol N IJ 111 VI'. U\IllllII VI III 18 '11 III ()IJ "" VI n .,\ III W "J<J 1jI/1(.l tl ott"". II ""f.
E A, Z/C)N
I. ..
}'agc - 13
A'T'E 0 F
11 a true and correct copy 0.1.' tllCl(}reg(, h(lS
rurnishc.dvi(l. tJS rvlail., to l{yan Attorney at IJavv., J3arkcr.,
(\:.. ('ook., P'./-\ .., /\ttc)rncys for 400 North f\shlcy I)rive., Suite 21 ()().,
'I'lorida :3 3()( )2.) n'l i s 14
day of 2006.
. ,)
( .,.:... ,.. ,'
" i'
... L .. ..
J. Gi..llcsJJje
:Neil tl. GilleSIJic
8092 SW 11S
Ocala., Florida 34481
rfclephone: (352) 854-7R07
VI_AI ";\)( 2:: "I 0(2li
\/1/\ I,'II S M 1\11J
I\yan (Ihrist()phcr Attorney at [Jaw
I )CIClllS C.:o()k, I).A.
Ashley [)rlve., Suite 2100
'!'dlll pa., I." orida 336()2
Y cst.crda.y., .March 2" 2006, I received your Motion for te)
Sed inll )'7. I05( I), Florida Statues, but did not receive a prior copy, ei ther 21 clays prior
or ;11 :Iny ()thcr ti1T1C. As stich your nl0tion bas not Tnct the rcquircll1C"llts ()f the
I I()\vcver I all1 wi II illg to cI.iscuss tlle substance of your Illation, as 1 believe Ill<JsL, i 11(){ all
or your c()ncerns unJouncied. After that I cUll willing to rnake any llcccssary
'r()day I called your oJl1cc and you were not available, and I left a.v()lCC 1l1CSS:lgC
f(lI" y011. The purpose of my call was to discuss the above cited motion, and to schedule"
(ilne ()r Iny MoLiO]1 to IJisqua.lify 1-3ccause I could 11()(: YlHI., J scI
(he Ill':lrinj!, ()f March 15,2006., at 3:45 p.Jl1., and \\fiU send you a l1C)tlec. '('he C()Ult has
1',r;lllfcd rnc {he ()pti()11 to appear telephonically and 1nlay do so. J did 11()t schcdulccf
hc.arin'..l, ()I'l lny M()ti()ll tC) l)is111iss and Strike yet., bcea.usc Sh()LJld I I
OIl lite I\IJolit)Jl tC) l) Counsel, your new .lawyers wOlLlc1 be resp()nsi.blc (t)t" th<lL
Sill (',Crc Iy .,
r\l '1'1 I lJJrr O.F rrIIE
IN I\NJ) IfOI{ C()U'NrrV, .F'IJ()l{JJJ/-\
I i I nrf.,
.'",) Case No.:

I(!{., ().) gt:I\IS C()OJ(, .r.1\.,
11'I0. ";l an(1
,L (. l( )()
1\/101 jotl In I)iSllliss ancl Strik.e Countcrclailll, will be called 11]) for bcJ<.-rrc the lJonOri\hlc
'1';IIJ1P;I., l,'lcrricla. 3:1,602, OIl rrucsday, April 25,2006 at 2:15 ]).111. ()r as S()(JLl (Ilcrc;dlcr itS
111;')1 he heard. r-rin1.c :Reservccl: 45 J11.illlltes.

--l.-(j- .. .. - _-
IZyan C,hrlstophcr Rodcrns,
Florida 13ar No. 947652
Barker, :Rodcl11S 'r .A..
400 NorthA.shley Drive, Stlite 2,'1 ()()
1'a111pa, 33602
rrclcphonc: 813/l-l89-10()]
813/4-89-1 ()()X
Attorneys for Defendants

i ....,)".,
--_._....- .... _----------_._

III I ':1 '{ that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Iws heell run I vi:1
liS. 1\l1:Iil 10 I J. C;illcspie, 8092 SW 115
Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, Ihis 3d day of M;ll"cll,
0_. .. _._.._0_. . _._". . .
Ryan Christopher Roclenls,I-':squil"c
'11\1 )/,1/\1., ,\:;:--iUCI/\TlllN
.'\ "'''' \) IZ1\1 E)' 1\ '1' L/\ \V
II F I', ,', 1', .. \ L I I: I
I' (' I. Jl 1,1 I I II' ", I \.11,'\ II I (Ill I
300 \X/cst. Plall Street, SUiLC l'iO
I' 'I ,\ I: I I I I: I " I I I I' I I l' I: II I I I : "I
I : ',I t :, I f II I , t' /', I \ I ,I 'I I (\1 I : "
1\'1111,\'" I celll!- Tallll';l, 1:lfll'il!:1 JJ(,Oh
II I I F I ',' \\:' (; 11\ " III-I
Jtill C .. 2003
[",j 1'\ I ,I ('; I I ,( ..': I )I (
'd) I Vv (, ;I I) I;,It: : j Ie (. I., u . I ,f) S
-I'; II I I I); I, I' I()I' , ( , ; \ 'l' (, ( ) . ), t.)
\1\1<', 1';Ivt.' yCHJr IC:Ucrs oJ'JUI1C 13 nndlX, 20(3) te) 1\/\,.. ('()(l!<, \/Vl,I,;I\'I'
11'\,11'\\'('11 Villi! discLlssed this Hi'lL! provide "oJlo\vi11t', rc:q)()Il.';C',
\"11:-;1, V(JII :";(;'llc th;tt ifour 1;:,\.\1 rirln docs nOl pay "hell .YC)l1 \tvill ('()JIII)!;IIIJI
;1),,:1111,';11\/11, ( '(Hll\ \vitlJ tllc f"lurid;:, IJ(lr and ourronncr clicnts_ We till:; Illl(';lI III Ill'
St::lt. (2000); __ 3g
I, 2cl I 2.() I (1'1;, I ()i':U), ('(lUJ)('I'
\' 'I./)() 'j II (l-"ta. 625 Sc>. 2d 5() (1'1:1. /1'11 1)( '/\ 1<)1) \),
I{I'I'I',I,'!, v. /I()() 2d 1149 (Fla.I.\,jh [)C:/\ .I9SS).
\,ve \Vi,l;h to ;Hldrcss :.Ippc;tr 10 LlC i()ll.": ()I\ ,y'( )1'1 11;11 f \V,
11I',II,:111 It'III(',(;Clli II')'. )/()1.I severed YC;lrs /\Itcr t'lle Cilfil'c c;,se t \\'('
lllt't\ ;111 ()Il .YC)l.Ir lH:ll:,I1L SpeciJ'ic:llly, the clisrniss;,l1 ()I" tile', 1"(':('t'I';\I '1'1'\1111 III
I,('lltllll)', /\(',1 eL" Ill. {.lIttler thaI. I;.t\v, you \vcrc seeking ()Illy statutory cd' 1.,()()(),()() ;\\111111
Il:lV(' V()III ;,lIH,' ..;u-; p;'lid by tilL l)clcnc!;.lI1L III olllCT if \,\!l .., Il:Ht j)l('''';\IIl.'<1 <III
;\jll)(';II"III('<lllu' C';L1;1: \\/01'1., yOll only\vuliid h:lvcrcccivcd \V()II((IIl:\\I('
;I I' \ IIII I ;, \ v; I I .( I('( I ;1I { (', "'1 II .Y.l) '.' C.
r ) I II" I J', llll. ;'I )pC' {ll.. Y() u i 11 i tie111 y i liSistcd (II t \-\1 c. ;It tel 1"1 pI' to II L 1.!. ()I ;;\t C it :-; 1II {:I I I C I Il \ \' I III 1111'
I )(,I(,1)( ]; III I (l I \ I I II L , v ( )I; II )Ic I crill S, CVell tit ULI gI, \ve ;I<. Ivi ccI til::" yn u r c 11 L, n C l: cd' I) rev; 1 iii Il ", () II ; I PIII ' ;I I
\ \' , I (' I I ( II I ] I, . ( ) I I" h <. I I I :::: \-\1 I:' I' c, burnc. uut, :l S \ Ye 1I CC srull y con vi Il C ctI A J 11set >t t () I); I Y \" () I J ,'\ . '" () (J () .ll ()
;IIHllt'\(';\:;(' ;\1')1 cl;,i,"::; it' ''';\y had you. /\dLlitiun;l1ly, ;lL',rt'c(/ it) P;\V ()IIIL\\\I IIIllI
l'cH ;\iI()IIH:Y::)) cusls. pClitll() ()lll' 111111,
;111 ;111111\11'\ III \vl\i(ol\ ,YC)II cxr,ressly :,\grccLl in "vriling t\VO YCilrs (lUlU, ()Il (,lilt 1/'1.':; ;1111\
( 't I ; I I(I ,. I I I I' (:; \ .' ; (': .
v\lll\'" ;HI'vi:,;c:c1 you urtbe ofCcr 10 settle, yOLt \vcrc quil:e \vilJl fl'l' :;('1(1"11\1'111 IIIll'1
; 1111 I I Iill' (, I (,II \ I.': It.) ; C cpt i L \" 0 1.I then \v i11 i1\ gIy sigil CtI b0 lh the set. UeIn c.n t ;1u) rC C J1, C J tl I I \( 1fll(" I().'; Ill) "
"'11C: ::cf'( ;\g,')'\cld' you signed reflects th;ll Ihe :,("1.\1 f):li(1 (1111/:1\\'
flllll;1 I('t'. III liell ()I' 1I'le risk ora fcc.
1\'1 I I'\j(, II ,I. ( ; ill (':';1) i c
11111t' I I) " ) ( ) ()
;1)',," .'
!\]()\V" IH,'j\rl,Y t\V() (.reter the you dCIlJc:lncll.ha(' \ve P;,1Y you J)()rti()J) (lI"tl,c (J()
;llltIIIH'V:;' ;11\1.1 c('):;LsA,rnscot p:,lirltn 0111" finll" 'r'Ol.lllclVC fllrCil{'Cl1Cd I() rile.;l ILl! ('()j111J\;1111l
;I,II,; II II :; I 1\/11, ( ( )( d< ; I III leun 1It lUI lie: 11L \V iI, h u1.I r !'0 rill ereIien Is ir \ve do n () t CUI 11PI,V'
1"l)1 \VC 11IU:.;I, YOllr t1CIIIill'lll. 1;'jrsl
\vJlen (his \V;l.': ,I;c'jll('d, Villi
It) Pd.yint!I()llr $50,000.00 J'orl,dlorl1eysJ fees ;\llt,1 ()\II' ('{HIli;"" Pll\Vld('11
IILII 1111:: "11'111 (0 t'lIC full ;:lllIOl.lnt or.'1'he feL in the event' it (),- VU\l1 1I'('()"'I'I\' "
Ilil I :; I IIt " ", "t "I \\1 II jell ittI i t1" '{0 II aIso signctI a sctt Ie111 L: 11 t c\ grcellI c nt') (, c C) J1)/ () {' \v f \ i t. 11 i ,t: (' I \I ' I{) ;I ", I,
;III II I ( I V" lJ', 1\) l I : l cd 'I c p;" r ;,Il. e $50 000.00 P Y111 Cn(: tu 0 1I r Ll \V ri n n f'o r ::1 ( I. urn _y:,,;" !'f. C':: ;" l( I C' ().' ; I ; \' (III
II It'll I , "I \ ( '( I :1 L I() :',: I 1\ P, t: II CInc nt., :.l copy 0 t\v hiehis ;1 Iso C11 Closcd'I ,:1 ppI" 0 v ill J\ II I :. c, cd ","; p; 1VIll( , I 'II I(\ I IIII
1;1\\1 III Ill, '('1111:;,. y()lll' \VC 110\,V YOlllllore 1l10llC,Y is a dern;llHI 111:\1 \\I{' I ('IU",()II;III' 1111'
(I' Lice :, 13;'11- cOll'lplaint aIle! sL;ll.clllcnls. 'Tllls is 11()t ()llI,V IJllll';I.';()I\:t1d<.', 11111
IIIIL I \V 1111,
I\/to) 'you \,ve PilY you j\ portion oftlle ;IIHI ('(L":I:;l \\'1'
1/111:;1 the l\.ulcs lhe Florid;] .1.3ar prohil)it u;; fl'{'lll ,1;1'11111(1)', I',T,';
\VI r II (' II (,III _
0 II 1 V(I I" J I I U c I Jell:c r, yu1.1 (11 SO asscrl III I t AInsc () l)S0 rrc r \v assu (1' \ C l"<')1 Tn () r;I ., / h r i I H " '" I(l II J( 1111 T
II:; I() :;('.111(,_ \\/C I('lnilld you th,lt it you ",,110 dell'landed that \ve Ilc-U.o(i;llc ;\ ;11\(11\'11
('IHlk c(,,,I-1I IllC'clY()UI- ill:';{'-lietiolls in \vl'it'inJ..!,. Furthcr
;\pproxill1;\l'c,ly (;00 (,){' I<-,},.;a! \vull\ \\0';1:;
";I" ' I II (I I I (II c': /\ I I I:; c, l d: c,; I ... e t"u r .YU U J' bell e (tl. 13 sc.: tI 0 n III L a1.1,0 I" nc.ys' fec. s r); lit I \V C \V C ,. c I I It ' I ( , 1"( II I' p; I It I
;11 I1<HIII.y r;lle Of:,lpproxilllalcly$42.UOpcr 11UUr. '''['his is a sl.lbsLlI\l,i;ll r('tllll',fi(Hl Ulil
:;I: I , I ( I; I I I I I H ) II I ' IY I'; \ t c \v hieh r a11 g, es fl"0 III $200.() 0 to $250.00 for c 1SCS S 1I C II ;J y ()III . I I' (1l(L I )( ,;II II; Id
Iln'v;lllc(I, \\le JIl<c,l.y \vcHlld have been cntitlctllo a sevcr:,tll:ilrlcs tll;111 tll;ll \Vl'
11 It ' I C"() I (', I; I i I (<.) c C Il<J \\1 theree a111 01111 ts I() a U bribc,)) :J S YU1I con t: end. I,) 1a i I 11 y" (I I II t \V; I :; III; II \Vl '
(11;IIIL11IC;\IIV (lUr ;,lU,()l"I1CYS
fees beec,lust: yol.l I.!l;l( the lH', ,1;(.. 111(':(1,
'1'11:\1 1('I(el aJ.l;C) 1'1'1;lkc.s rc,fcrcnce to the Ace 'vYc h;,'\vC (,I III (nil 111(' In)111 Villi
( '( III r III I \ I Il)', .'>/ ( \l I I" ;'.1',1' C In c. n t: r e ll"cI i 11 g yo u III d IVI r. ICIn C111 )S:I res pee t i vcrCC(J vel' I "':1 I ,I \\' ( 'II ;I.'; )' Pili
;I,I',I\'I'III(,1l1 I() Illl' it) be l:laid tu OUI" "inn. '{O\.l alsosignctl () sf.;lt'cnlCllf 1(\ 111\" 1\'1'
,1'\ ,;II :;;, i d" \v.... : 1I' I 1cd: s u .. C \\1 hY yo\.I rn en ti 0 I 1C. d IIIc. J\ cC Ci'l SC sinc cit (1 PP )1 ( ) l' ; l I" C: l" ( ) 1\l {, I J( III q', II L \ I
VII \ I I (', \ ' I ' i ,,( ',{ I ('I () I I I 1.1 C h \IH,I \v c d i cI n(J l recci veenougIt , A, s yo 1.I kn0 \V 'I \v c r c: tI uc c (I () \J J 1 1( 'I ' I ) I;,l ',\' It' I,'
;lllll (\I<lll()\ Cll;1I1',t'. f'c)t our cosls as an yOll (lDel l\/Ir. 1\1) I\("('tl
I{I I (, VI :; I I I IJ( ) " ; I.' ; t ,I', I ' C C' I I 1en t s.
\\/{, \-vl::I\ t() rcn,lincl YULI) llo\vcver, you dirnillishcd the v:lIuc ()r )/()lJr /\(','
I)Vl': IIII Iq', ( )Jl P( ) i 11 P, C () 11 nscI prior t. 0 tIl e 1ncd i:lli 0 11 ;1 t vVhie11 yousctlJ cd y()1I rcl;', j , 11 , \' ( H I r 1I: I V 1'(' r ;111
1(', II tll}', (II 'I H '): ; I I \ }'. (' (H,I I ) c, I v i ;,1 V 0 ice ['1l:O'1 i 1 t h:l t L( nt this poi 11 tInI'll i n t c: res t ec1 i n :-; , f I i I q', f Ill.. (-; I : (,' ; II II I ;I " I
MI 1,11'11 , (;llk::pll'
1111'1' I'i, ,'()() "
1IIIIII':i\ :::III::lw,\ Will, lhe UIIICI11 CCH.l11SCllll:t1 Illavc ililli wOlllcllikc 10 spc;,k willi V(lll 11111i(' :rI"lIll
I!I:II ..
Will k \'1 III :; II h:; (:q IIC nIl Y 10Id lVII', Co!)k 111:1 I y011 c;iIlcd up]lOS i Ilg U HI J 1.';1: I, .\'1)\ J (I i (I III d 11,11 111111
111:11 VI111I',\jlll";::I'(1 ;111)1 ,li:':;;llisl:1Clil.lll willtoUl'l'cpl'C;Cl1lilllOI1, lbtl YUIIllUlll);l(k 111;t! (';111, \\'1'1111)',111
1,:\\,(,1\1','1\ ;iI d,' I' \ 1I'I'I)VCIl'VCn lllOl'e 1'01' you in th;ll ;lc.tion.
1 1\11111)',111(' ll)llr::c olyour rcprcsel1latioll, lVI,r, Coole ;lclIICVCtl OIlI::LlllIlill)', n::;IIII:; 1111 Villi :11111
,11"":1\,:,,111<'11111 )',llIlIll;tilh Iuwilrdsyoll. AIllI,inspllcufrn:tnyadvClsekg;llrulill)',:; III 1111'::1 1\'11l'::11I
(:\':,": 11111111)',11/)111 Ilw :;I:i1c, IIC \Va:, ;i1JIe III rccovl'1'illlofyourslalulury d:lllli'1',L':.; I'nlill j\III::('ul :1:: \VI'II
:1:;;11'11)',1\'1'11<':::: nl' yUill' l!lcn-ouIsl,llldillg loalls. Ullder lIle circLlln:;tillKC;, III:, ('(JIII,1 111.11 II:IV(' 1111\\1'
1111 II I ~ ,
w(' :11(' \ I r I:; 111"<.', why, i\ rter almClst two years, wi thoul ,IllY prior con lad III' I I i ::< II :::;1 <III I ('J ',:11 tlllIl',
111<':;"1::::11 1':;, VIlli 11;\\le tllrei.llcned to 1\;\r111 [VIr. Cook'S;\l1lJOLJI' "'1'1'11':; rcpII(;\III)\1 1/ \VI' ,I" Illd )',1\'(' 1'1111
111111" 11"1111')', I"il::nl \.III the Clcl::>, the law, :\Jld 13,11' rcglll;ttiollS discw:sc(\ Ilereill, WI': (:;IIII\(II :1)',1101' II'
Chris A, Uillkcr
17'01 Ihe I;inn
The Florida Bar
(i51 E. Jefferson
Tallahassee, Florida 323!1!l2300
I ,H61j352 0707 (ACi\P)
li,';oil ; d I ill': 1"Il" Ii lln,'; c';,,',' 1', Illy he !'ore corn Lhe form on the b,lek of tllis P;'1'.c. If Ill .. ron.. is uul P""P
""11' COlli ... 1 il Illay he 01' returned for COITcction. You rnay ,,1:1 ;tell II p III ; I( I, I i I illll:t I :;II1TI';
I II :,"1'1 II, :1111' " I ; " 'y ''':0:1 i(l'\. 1.1' you h;lve not alre<:ldy done so, you should cont:tct the A I U,,""',//( :Il' ":'1"'''' /\:::,i:;
1.1111" 1""1',''1'" (1\<:/\ I') ;,1 I' he :lhove loll free nUlnller, to see if tlwy can hel p I I'll' Ill; 'II cr ; d HIl,I wl,i(I, 1'(111
1'1<-":,,, 1101(' 'I'h,: l'I'lI'i,L, 1-\,11- canno!. Oil your beh;:ll!' in;:l civil or crirninal (;'1.";';, ,,",' ,:;", w,: )',IV': \'1111
11'1',;d '1,lvi,,' W" ,III "Ill II;,vc.i,"isdicLion to co,nplainLs ag;linstjudgcs ;IIHI Ill; II ry ,'1"1'1," I "Ifi,i;":; (1111
I.,wy," '"I'."I;iI ill" ,I, 'I I; 1"I-nH:nI' whether an 11<Is violated Ol.l I' 1'I.lles of con, Ii \1'1 ;, IH I (I, 'j ('1"" i '1(";
wll('ll,,'r 1111<1",' Ill(' Inl;llil:y of Ihe cirCUlust<:lI1Cl'S the atl.ol'ncy should receive some tYl-'e of Ili';l'qllilll', TIll' 1,'vI"
III il,,!,',';1 '1',:11 ill II v;u'il','; r1epcllding on Ule complexity or tile JJ your cOll1plilint h ,lfl.';I'<I, 1'011 will
"""'''1(' 'I \!\i,ifll'lI of !.Ill' reasons why. "fhere is Illl I'iglll to ".1 dcci:--:iflll 1101 I" 1'''1'.',;"" ,III
111\1,";1 'I',;lf ilH l.
/\ H'I' ( 11\1 I,: j I nror.nation, You must YOUl' name, ;H.-lei n:ss ;,111/ I I-' I,nne rH.""I.", , ;, ,"l I III: 'L "'''',
"dtl"",;:: .11,,1 1'1'"11(' of' the subject attorney. The clddress or the al:l:ocney is I-,;H'I jeul;ll'ly i"II'II"I;II11 :I.':
IIl.lIly I: "iVy'.'!'.'; llilve ,';;Ilnc.' or silnilar names, List only one attortwy PCI' ronn (you II Ii Iy CflPY tlli,; 1'".-." il'Vllll
lI",'tI ,,"<Iii illll.d ,.ol-'ie:--:) ;111111:1I';nt or type in black ink. You can l'iJe a complaint only ''1:"ill.:--:1 illdividll;" :,11111
""\,';, nol "1'," i 'I.'; I " L I W fi 1'11'1. I"-you havl.' al cr.ady contacted ACAP, ple;'lse i nd ica tc you I' /\C/\ I ' ,',. rl'n '111(' '"11"11/'1,
\'/\H'I' TW() .'"cj:-.://\.IIeg'ltions. Describe eacllthing about which you arc eon'pl;Iillilll',. I,ecill' ;111 "I'llII'
,I, '1;0 i 1.-;. i " , I",(,," >i 1'I',i,:; ,I ""d, 'I', ::>l.lpplying dates where possihl". III IIT1IJel' ;..1 ny ... Id iii' 11',,',1 I I; 'I:' ....; I'"" ;tll,ocl,.
IIYIIII 11.,\1,' 1,'11",;;, ,IIlCl.Hnenl:s or ol:her evidence, YIlU should ",!t,H:h (DC) 1\1 ( )'1' >>I'-,N I) ()I\ 1(; I N/\I,
I II I( :1 II i:; I,e I pfu1 i I' you Illark your aItadlJneII ls <1.<; exhilJi Is (1\, B, C, cle.). ;llId 10 1111.'111 ill ylllll
.1,""1;111 i'"1 Ill' yOl II' con'lJI;Iilll., Please bc that simply alleging conclusions V\/ i! laoul sel j illg ouj
Lit ,,..; j 11;11 slIpl',)('1 ."o,,>e conclusions will result ill the nced for the Bar to a:-.:k you ['0" ;lddjj iUl,al
illl'onll;lj iOIl and Illay dclay a di."position of YOUt' complaint.
/\ 1,'1' TIll?! ': I': Wi 1IU':-.:ses. Your i nquiry/cornplaint will be considered even if ; 11'(' no w I I' yOIl
11.,,1(' ;II f;wh ..)1i.l','i, with llie 'li.llIl(.', "ddn::;:; :1,"11<:1<: ;Hlc/itional sheel:,
I,JIIlIlI' '"11101,,'" 1',"' ':;11. h wilrw.';s. and include" IIriel' or l'he 1';:,(I's ,:lbo,'" wllich 11"" wil 111.'.";"; w,"o1t1
1,",1 Ily II y' "' ,10 1'01 ;,11.;1('.1'1 :I I is!: or WiUICSSCS, we will presLime I:hal YOll have no wi Inl'..';.'';(.'.'-; , 01111.'1' tl':I II IIII'
,,'1111'111'1' :I,"lyOlll,::,'II'.
/'/\1\'(' ,,()\ II, 1\1 Resolution. TheFJorida B<:lr olTers v;lriol.1S :tIter-native "".";01 II f ""' .',:CIVII-'-:; IIlI'
di'-;I ,,,I,"; 1 1W, ',"I : ,III.IJllcys ;'lI,eI clien Is, such as the Attorney Consurner PI'( IJ',1'''111 (1\ C /\ I ') d I IIII' t "II
"11'1' ,,,",d , '"' 11, ... 101' of this f-I;:lge. If you Itave not tr'icd 1.0 do so, you should I'l, 1'1'.,,,,1,, ... \,'"11' 11,;11'",
I,)' w, j Ii "/', f" I I", ::r II.ljCe: I ;, UOl'ncy, berol'(.' contacting I\CAP or fi ling a compl;:li nl'. I:: VCIl if ( 1'1 i,'; i .. ; 11I1::r IITI,:;:;rlll, il
,:; i"'I""f.III' lilil' yl",.lo ,";0 i'l orclc" to have docurllcnlation ofgood,h.lith efforts to yOI'I' '1':1/'"". Iry""
,I"",:;" III !'," f'lI'\I\I;oI,.1 willi;, cOlllplaint, you should speCify wllat re.'wlution cllo"ls yOIl ";ov,' "Ii"I" "" VilliI' lIW'1
111'11; dI', i '1.-111l1 i ''1', w Iw YOII con t;JCtcd ACAP-- .You should Slx'cilir;]llv indicnlr.' i I'YOII U 11/1,- /II (', I /\ { /\ I: ,/I II Iii
.',rI, II-(/. II ,,''',f' 111'( I Ii (1/1 I YO/II' II."iI' or tlte services oFACAP
1'/\ "I V I,: S '1';11;\ III YOII ITlllst sign the fornl <:Ind certif'y under Iwn;llty of 1')(.'lj'"'y II Ii \ I. y0111 ;r II,'!',: II i"ll.';
"'" ,,'11,' 11":;"",,,'11 "()I''1''"ints an: not considered. '
af' I.hc Hr.mel' OJTice ne"rcst Lite <ll.lorney's olfice ;,lIdrc.";.'.;:
I IM'::I ;1"'1('1' ".;" I ?OOEdgewaler Dr Cypress l:Oinancial Cenler PI;\/,;, '1 '; til; til: "':.":1.'1' I "I'; 1111'11
:;11 ii" ( >1
Orlallcln,l'l. N. Ave. Suite M-I U(J (j!) I ", ,1l'lII'!slllI ,';1
T,I1I1I';I, 1:1, ::::(;(1'/
J2HO/I.G3J4 Suite 900 44
1Blicl<.dl Aw T;tll;J!I:I',;<:r'l.'."I.
1"1. L.;)uclcrrblc, FL., Miwni,F'l..,
3330!l 33t:\ I
Neil ,J. Gillespie
301 W. Phlll Streel, Itl55
'rmnpa, Florida 33606
Telephone: (R 13) 295-74() 1
Ellwil: ncil77(iJ),gIC,l1c1
V I /\ I I I\. N I) I) I 0' I, I V ro', RY
,11111l' I ", ',' (H) \
Ilill ('(I()l.:, /\tllIITICY at Law
It:llkIT, l{odcllls & PA
I()l) W Piau SIred
'1':11111';\, 1;1, THIO()
, I>;IVI.' leg;" ;IIHI cth'ical concerns about the sclllerncnt in the (',;1:;<'>, J
:>11111',111 ;111 npillioll ,llwul this matter [i'om a Tampa law finn. Aller reviewill)', Ilw
lIwy Ih,lt I contact the Ethics (lnd Grievance Office of The Florida I LlL
'I'he ,llIon/(:y ConslImer Assistance Progmm (ACArI) of The {"Ioriel;l 13;11'
('()II:,idt'.Il,l! til i:-; In;lller yesterday. As a mattcr of procedure ACAP noted your n;\lI1(' ;11111
"t1t1IC:;:;, ;Iml a:,::-;igned reference number OJ-188m to lIlis mailer. Upon review or Ilw
1:111'>,1\/ ';\1' sl'l;L',csfcd IhatI cOlllplaillt with The Florida Bar.
i\,,-; ;1 COIJ.-Icsy to you r would like to settle lhis matter prior 10 filin/-',;, COllljlhinl.
A( I ;d:;u :;ut,J',e:,lcd Ihis alternative. 'fhis is Illy view of Ihe prohlem.
Thc $50,000 paid to your finn by Alllscot WilS a thinly vei led brihe to :;d I Ie I
(';1::1:, ;\lld ;, con fliet or i nlcrcst with your el ienls. Also, the United Slales ('our! oj A/,!/('(t/s
10/ thl' /':!('\'('lIlh Circuit disrnisscd your nppea1 saying Ihat the parties will l!leir OWl'
,'o::f:; II I \( I ;1110 I'IH'Y' S
I Jnc!cr tcrlllS of our representation contracl, J believe the $SO,O()() C:I;lillll'c! ;\,.;
1''1',,,1 ke:: I:: "cfwilly p;H'l of the "Iotnl recovery" along with Ihe $2,O()() received Ily
,ii-fi,e tilree pl;,illii fli-;, ['Or a total recovery 01'$56,000. Similarly, in thc !\nlcric;t',': (:;1::11
r':,\ IHe;:; ( i\ ( 'to:) c;l:,C, the I0,000 loinI recovery should have been cI ispcrsC'l I ;WCUI( Ii III', 10
'11" ('()III, ;Icl ill tl1,,1 In;JL!cr. AeeOlnpanying this letler is an addendum, my COllllllII;11 jllll ()j
Ihl' :;cilkrncnf LInder Our contract.
indicated Oil the addcndlllH, your !.inn owes me $4,523.93. of l!l;t!
:;1111\ hy .1,1111, )(), 200J, will salisfy my claim and averl a eornpJaint 10 'rile l:lurid;1 ILII
./ .

r "r ( '() (d<., 1\ t , ( )I -rl C Y (d. r.' L1\'
.1" II I. \ 1 J ()() l
(lther plaintiffs, .Eugene C:lernenl and C3ay 13IoIl1Cllel(l, 1 h:rvc nn(
l '.(lill ;I c. t ('. d t1 H 'Ill., 11 () r (\ () 1 i ntend to contact thCIn. LJ(l Vv c t11 1CS, and y() u r c() 11 sci C I) C.l dl( )f II d
} "II id ('. .Y () 'JI' d I I I Y 1() Y()\1 r f() 1Tn ereIien ls.
) J

lelephone Handset
Recording Control
Record and play back phone calls through your telephone's handset
Use with any voice-activated cassette recorder with '/." mic
and earphone jacks
Works on single-line and multi-line analog/digital PBX phone system
with modular connections
No battery required-powered by phone
':ll3,,:,r :.:( :.\
i,:, S',; :\1,;:'

...: .... ::
', ..."
'1=':.1" . nit:
r:::ql;"!red (1:': i"l-:.'"rund:s., rell/LIS
T0 tne terns d.nd
H:,shdCk CGn>c !\1.l.j O(

1" S .f-': e_ .t:i::Cl:

J-:" t> 'r 'Y r1 i: i -r-t e -t
": Telephone Accessory
"'111 IU:;;lll pUlvllaocy ell '-lo.UlI..,,,:)lh;l\. f\.II,.:.lY Ul.:: I o.;;:lUI llt:U lUI t:1Xlilli:lllge,
credit, or refund witllin 30 clays of purchase. In addition a defective
item may be repaired or replaced within 90 days of purchase under
RadioShack's Warranty Policy, or within the manufacturer's
warranty period, whichever is longer, See the Warranty Policy
below for more information.
Merchandise must be returned in Iiko-new condition (except for
damage caused by any procluct c1efect) wilh the original packaging
materials (including the barcocie/UPC label), accessories.
instructions and the original sales receipt, otherwise your producl
may not be eligible for return or its return may be SUbject to a
m lIllilllll
m'= J

set crrrord[ll]nrrrrrrr
refurbishing fee. FladioShack performs a careful inspection of all
Jack _. _ returned items for signs of use or wear. Where RadioShack
determines that a returned item has not been SUbjected to any
prior use, the returned item is sold as new. Refunds are not
To T,I,pho", available on shipping charges (except for defective products) or
any installation work performed. Purchases involVing agreements
with third-party serviCe proviclers (such as cellphone airtimo

["::'0' ('"",...Ol .- -----,Handset Jack
agreements) may carry additiomll restrictions, so please read your
-J:=-' agreement and receipt carefully for full terms and conditions.

Independent RadloShack dealers may require different terms and
To Recorder's
:. .conditions.
External MIC Jack
Cassette Tape Recorder
0 40293 12605 6
Custom MilOU[aclured in China for RadioShack Corporation, Fort Worth, TX 76102
Refunds on purchases paid for by cash will be refunded in cash
unless store funds are not available in which event, a refund checl<
will be sent from the RadioSllack Corporate offices-usually within
14 days. Your name, address and phone number may be reqUired
to process your refund. If you do not receive your checl< within 14
days, please contact the store identified on this receipt. Refunds
on purchases paid tor by checl< will be made on the same basis
but only after your check has cleared. Purchases paid for by credit
card will only be refunded by a credit to Ihe cardholder's account.
Most products sold by .RadioShack inclucle a warranty from the
manufacturer, Applicab!e warranty information can usually be
found inside tt]e box ot packaging. RadioShack provides a 90 day
limited warranty witl1 the products Iir;;ted orllhls receipt whenever
the manufacturer provides no Warranty or a warrantyo! less than
90 Ask your Sales Associate for (letaHs,
Except in California, RadioSliack makes no addilional warranties
of any kind, express or irnpliecl, tor any product manUfactured by a
party other thal1 t=ladioShack that comes wilh at least a eO-day
warranty from the manufaclurer.
Photograph made by Neil 1. Gillespie on January 24,2007.
Nt':II,.I. (,II ,LESPIE,
CASE NO.: OS-CA-7205
a ',"oriil" eorroration; WILLIAM
I. I)laintiff received written consent from Ryan Christopher Rodems to record
lckphonc conversations with him, by his letter dated October 5, 2006. (Exhibit A).
2. This is what Mr. Roc1ems wrote to Plaintiff: "Tn the past, you have requested to
lclcphone conversations with me, and I continue to have no objection to th'll
procedure." (Exhihit A, paragraph!, last sentence).
Plaintiff thanks Mr. Rodellls for his ongoing consent to record telephone
with him.
day of December, 200(,.
" I'
...-:', ......
.::; .., > /"
_"__ ----'-.
.. __ .... __ ._. . _
NeirI Gillespie, Plainti f( pro sc
8092 SW 115
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (J52) S02-g409
J that a copy orthe foregoing has been fur111s'hcclby lJS 111al1..
first CI;ISS"\ t() Christopller Roclel11S., Attorney., Barker., 'Rodel11s .., Ll()O
Norfh Ashley l)rivc., Suite 2100., TallJpa., 33602, thls 29
clay ofl)ecenlbcr"\ 2006.
-- ,.-
" .' / .".. , ... " ..... / .'
... ' .. , .. ,,/ /... / (.:; .
..... ," _I',.f,' .. '
.. ..... _-- ........ __.. _..,..L._----
J. Gillesriie ,....
I I' I /\ I', .'\ I, F "
T,'I,'plllll1l' Il1Pl
400 Nor t h l\s h1cy I)rive, S1I i te 2100
F Y 1\ hI I II II. I I I I I' I I J. I, IZ <. ') j) r: s
F ;l C s j III i len 1\ / /1 U . I n{) ,l;
\1"1111/\1\1 I <:l)ll!< Tampa, Florida 33602
October 5,2006
rvl r N, i I .J. ( ; i II c pic
S() ()/. S\V J I t) 111 I .() () p
( k,;1 \;1, 1"lllri( 1:1 ""VI ('IX I
Neil .1. (;illespic v. Cook, P.I\.,
;1 l"lol-ida find 'VBlinnl .J. Cook
(,';lseNo.: OS-CA-7205; llivision "'Ii"
III (n yuur leUcr of()ctobcr 5,2006 rejecting our scu:lell1cnt: oller, YVC acknc)\vleclgc that Mr. Snyder flO longer
Icpr('sclIl.< ynll. h;rvc not placed a "block" of your telepholle nUll1bcr froll1 our as you put it. 1 stlggcsl
Y\HI {",heck \villl yuur service provider to see iryou have a service problcll1. \\le have had no Si'llillll" dilTic:ultics \vilh
:IlIYOIIC Iryill1!, In reach us by telephonc. Perhaps, if your h0l11C telephone does not "vork, you could lIse;l puhlic
p:ly or ohhlin (] prepaid telephone card. In I:hc past, you have requested to record telephone
willllllC, ;llHII contillue to have no objcctionlo thlltproccdurc.
1<)1" YOllr Ms. l(auftn<lll, \ve "",ill advise the C:ourt thaI: T'ravc.lcrs agreed to cover your c!;lilll, hut
,VUlt 'I'Llvclers not: to do so youlcarned that: ,ve ,vcre l1cgotj(lting a scttlcrncnl or the \Ve
will :Il!visc lite ('ourl. that .Ms. l(aufrnan rel11sed your request that'T'rave]crs not: seUle t.he clailll hut
JlI () vidI:, y() II \\1 j t It c() L111 SC 1.
I fo yOll in Iny recent letter, we arc rcvic\ving our discovery responses and wiJ:l respond to yntl by Icller
(1) ()I <" )ctobcr 9,2006. We \\fill nol horse-trade on discovery, so yOllf request t!l::I( \\le ask lhe C:ollrllo
-'tlly )/1, 2()()() ()rder is rejected out ofhand.
1"f1cl(I:';cd ;1 proposc',f! ()rder regarding the ()ctober 4,2006 hearing. 1 \vill tnlllSlTlit:it lo Judgcl'lielscn 011 ()clnbcr
1.1., ','()()(), yUlI <lgreG to it and advise Jl1C bcf.{Jrc that c1l1lc. 1trusL yOLl \\'ill not consider dclnying the enlry or tile
()rdlT III urevilding yet another deadline in this case.

I :'II,lo:'';IIIC
[\11<1 I, ,J. CIlrLESPIE,
Case No. 05--7205
\I :: --
Division: "H"
I './\I-(I<I:r(, FZODEMS rY. C001<, P.A.
/\ I" [or-ida Corporation,
---------------------------------- /
FZECF_:IVED J\T: As Indicated Below
ri/\'T.'E s, TTME: 4 LTanuary 2007
BY: Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporter
Notary Public
r;/i ) I
(ORIC; 1N7\L

Michael J. Borseth
COLl rt l::::eporte./:: /LegaJ Transcci_pLi.. on
(813) 598-2703
1\ r) P E:.A1=(7\ S :
, .,
}}5tIJ LOC-l.P
Ocala, 34481
(J52) 854-7807
the Defendants:
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PuA.
400 l\lort.h. J-\sh.ley fJ.ri\Te
( \
Suit.e 2100
rra.111pa., Florida
I ()
(813) 489-1001
I :
I .;
I /1
I ()

I;; I
,) I


" )
. )/1
" I
I ()
I ()
( )
:'( )
)' )
, :
, I
. )
* * * * * * * * * *
clqe ..
lY1R.. RODEI.MS: Hi Neil, Cllris r r'lO\l\7
It's alJ011t t_wo 0' c)n Tllll,rscLJY,
lJd,.nlJeJ..Y.'Y 4t,ll .. And. I'n1 calling J
a c0r-)y of t_.he filillg wi-t.ll t_ll.E' ().f
t. at. a t_in1e ]:)efore I real i. -t11a.t. yC) l.'l
I?'(-:;c-:c)rcled. t_,he MarcIl 3rd, 2006,
wi tll.out nlY permis.sioT1 ..
.As yO'Ll will a.nd. you ]<:IlO'V\7 C1C)()Cl
w<:=?11 , Y01J. did tell rne at any tirnc-? c11J.rj__ llc1
clJllv'er'sation that, YOlJ it:...
l-\nd E;'Ll1JsecJLlent con\Tersa.tio11S Y01J a.s]<:ecl nl(:? eJt t.lle
if you could rec()rcl it. a.r1cl, ().[
I alwa.ys sd.icl yes. :I31Jt Y011 clid.ll' 'l.:_ (-.1() I-::.l-lat.
()!'lMa:cc:h 3I:-C] af 2006. So t,11is
t __' t.O mis.lea.d. t-.lie Court.
;:;C) , I a.In YC)lJ t_() cla:c.-i.f
! \Ali.t.ll t.Jl(? C:c)u.r1":.
'['.hat. yOll did. rIot ask, faJ=:- a.nd llot
[- () 'r- c: 0 :cc.l. 0 1.1 t:. e 1. e ph.()ne c: ()11"Te J:::- c). tic)II L) r11Y1 c:] r.- J l' (j
()t 2006 ..
Anci I 'i.A7()u.ld a.Iso l.lrge Y01J tC) cllJCl.ic)
I ()
I :
I' )
/ ;..:
! i)
. ' I
1 ,
. 'J
, '1
. )
wit.ll.()lJt. allY Cl.d.visen1erlt tome t.hat "J!701J
'/C)lJ find t.hat. t.flat is llC)t. I,.n
ElTlY I)]:=-C)c:(-?ed.illg to prOSeClJt:.e yOll ('3.
\rJit..hout. my IJerIUission on Marc:.h Jrcl, :?006
'L.:::.: (J
\.1iolat.ion. In it.' s a ..
61.1t. I' ITl not Cl.skillg t.o clo E11lj7 t.Jl.irlg
1T1(3 t. t .r :f0 t]le pro1-) e :r a 1.1 t [1() r i t. i E? S t. () c1cl e E-j ,(3 ,J t
7-\.nd. at tl1i S I)()j.D t I \rJOl1J.d yOl-l t. () 1, of Y
dflcj tlle Cou.rt. f s rec.--:cJ:L'cl so t.lla,t
I d.Oll' t h.a.\le to eXl?ose tC) t.ll.0? C:()l,.l.Ct: YC)111'
t l] .L t .. ll. :[ e f f lJ r t. s t () mi .s lead t.11e (-= () t. "
T d.l E3C) j1C)lJ t.o bJ::- tllat:. t:.d.l')E-\ tC)
1') on Mc:Lrc:ll St.ll .sC) \N(? /::)-1. Ej 17 j. t. f () r
l ..11 (; ,JlJclqc-?,. I f you [1c1v e 0 11 sell t. f r ()III TTl c)n J--l (] t .
t d T=> c-::\ I 'N ()1J .1 c..i .1 i ](e () t1ear i B (:3 lJ .i f )1 () II cl ()
\i\111j .. c:l1 is I SOlllP ,:=J.L)('tJt ..
T31Jt in a.ny if (:::a1.1 rne \r1.711E?rl
, )
I ()
I '\
I ()
( )
.: I
) )
" I
c:J.cLcifying yOll ll.3\le tl1is Oc:t.():ber 5tll, 2006 r
W;.:1S before yOtl disclosed. tC) ()r t.e)
t.l-le t.r-cillscript of t.he MarcIl 3rci, 2006,
ffhe .nlunber l1ere is (813) 489-1001 T J()()J(
tC) h.ea.rinSJ f.roJll 'jlOll 1\leil" \i\1.i 11. t ell ]<: t. () yC) II
s()()n.. Byc-:?-L)yE:? .
AtJf]l()M.A'TE.D MAClJING: 'I' ()C .1 (). .Y j. s
l:JJ.:-ess 1.. fTc) delete, press 7 ..
For mDre options, press 6.
1'0 replay this m.essage, p.ress 1..
fTc) eIe J_ L.(? r
7.. To ret.urn s c:al.1,
r)L'eSS 8. sa.\Te, p:cess 9.. For TI10I.'t"? Ol-)t.. r
'I'C) .repla.y this ITlaSsage, 1 ..
'7.. 1'0 t.he 11leSsd.cJ(:?
8.. To, 9.. For rnc)re o'[)t-.j.. ()rl,(:3 r
T) (? S S 6 II
L.. To send a message, press 2.
qreeLing, press 3. For more box options, press 4.
'''orpasswoed securit.y, pees.s For 5. help,
I ()
I .;
I /1
( )
11'0 se.n.d. a n1essage, I)ress 2.
password lJress 5 ..
.Ma.ill menu. To to YOll1:-
1 . 'T\) senel cl I11eSsc1ge, 2"
pres s 3.. rOor JTIOl-e }-Jox OI..Jt. i 011 S , 4 a
IJ(J.sswo.rd sec:u_rity, prc:::ss
'Thank yOll foJ.:- llSlllg 'T-Mc)t)ile \loic:e ME1il..
(:; () () ell:) ye .
r tl1e above cl'uclic) \I\](.J
udecl. )
. If
I /1
, ,
I I)

:;' 1'7\'1'1': ()F'-' :F'J.JC)RI.O.1-\
r ()!' of the
Illlt'.1-1C)J::'izE?cl t.O a.Jl.d did. a (Jf
() .f. IllY (J.lj]. J.. L Y..
I-N \1\7I'TNESS WI--IEREOF, I ha\Te heI'e1J.nt.() [--3c;-l=. rny llcJ.llCl
,:111:1:; /1.1\/11:1:1:1:
T ': I "I' h" n <: g I .: /" I)". I [) [) I
400 Nordl J\5bley Drive. Suite 2100

WIIII/IM I (:,l<H Tomp'l, FltHido 3360Z
January 4, 2007
Mr. Neil -'. Gillespie
X()I)2 SW 115"' ',(lOp
I. )c!!:t, 141-!R!
J\ ncr you riled the lawsuit against Bill Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., the first occasion
111;11 yOll and! spoke by telephone (other than perhaps a brief conversation to schedule a hearing)
was on March 3,2006. You did not advise me that you were recording our telephone conversation
;lIld yOll did not ask far my permission to record it, and 1did not give you permission to it.
SlllHild yOll ;1(Jcrnpl to lise the transcript of the March 3, 2006 telephone conversation or the
or it in any hearing, I will object under section 934.06, Florida Statutes because the
recording W:1S unauthorized and illegal, and 1cannot acquiesce to such blatant violations of law.
I" !;rd, you provided only a partiaJ transcript of the March 3, 2006 telephone conversation,
precclkd hY:I lranseription of voice mail messages and your self-serving editorial that "[elach of
liS to having ourselves recorded." Apparently you added this to the tape alter the fact to
e:-:pl;lin a"d your to advise that you were recording the March 3, 2006 telephone
COllvcrS:lf ion.
(;iVl'1I rhe choppy quality of the transcript, that you intentionally omitted tram;crihin,g of
Ihe 1\t1:lrch 1,2006 telephone conversation and added your own after-the-hlct COlTlments to exr,lain
YOllr :Icl ions, I have strong reason to believe you may have doctored portions of the tape. I trust
yOll IJ:IVC nol destroyed or altered the alleged audiotape of the March 3,2006 telephone
W!J;l1 is 1I10s1 striking is the omission in the transcript ofthe March 3, 2006 telephone
l'onvns:lliollS of :1I1Y request by you to record the telephone call -- unlike the transcripts offhe
1\ pri I :U" 200() and October II, 2006 telephone conversations. In the transcript of both of those
IckplHlIle calls, you advised that you wished to record the conversation, and 1consented to i1.
On Oclohcr 5, 2006,1 you aletler which you recently filed with the Court. Among other
fhiIlJ_',S, Ihal Iclter authorized you to continue to record telephone conversations. I was unaware on
.' .0
Mr.Ncil J. (iillcspic
Janll:lry .4.,
1);11-:),C 2
()clohcr 5., 2006 that you had illegally recorded the March 3, 2006 telc'phc)ne C()l1'fcrsatiC)l1. 111 facL
(he first tirnc I saw the tratlscrlpt of'the March 3., 2006 telephone COl1,'crsation lS ,,,,,hen YC)1J
it to Y()UflllOti()ll to disqualify Judge Nielscn flIed 1\lovenlber 3., 200(). ()ct()ber 5.,
2()()(, IcUcr \vas 11()t an after-thc-fact authorization for the recordil1g of'theMa.rch 3., 2006 telephone
C()IlVCrS;l f.i()n.
In f he rllf lIrc., jfCHJ wish to record our telephone conversations"! I \\1j11 agree 'provided y()U (.1 )
:tdvise rnc tl1at you wish to record the telephone (2) rec()rd the colloquy
your request for perrnissioll and and., (3) agree to send ITIC a C()lJ)' alldlo
('pc tlf your expense.
. 1 I
SInccre y...
I .'
,I -I ," ) t1
1 l

l I
. ......
t. / 1,\
/ Ii
l' /. t / / "\" "-.' '",....- {. .,.. ( ft..... ,1,/ I
( . ',/ l' '1,/ .:_/ j __/ ,,-- /,t 'I
\-...... RY[l.l1 Christopher Roclenls