NJ G v BRC, 05-CA-7205 13th J udicial Circuit - Petition No. 12-7747 U.S.

Supreme Court

1. Deputy Christopher E. Brown, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO), who
impeached Martha “marionette judge” Cook, her falsehood made in open court
September 28, 2010 that I “elected to leave” the final summary judgment hearing.
Martha Cook ordered me removed after receiving the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.
2. Major J ames Livingston, HCSO, Commander of Court Operations, who provided me a
letter J anuary 12, 2011 with Deputy Brown’s statement impeaching Martha Cook, a
“marionette judge” to Mr. Rodems. see U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
3. The Hon. Richard Nielsen, who rejected Mr. Rodems’ false legal argument to a “claim”
of $50,000 in “court-awarded fees and costs” and established res judicata, forever barring
Rodems’ falsehood from this case. See Order On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And
Strike, entered J anuary 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.
4. The Hon. Pat Frank, Clerk of Court, Hillsborough Co., who refused for 6 months to obey
a sham order corruptly entered by “marionette judge” Cook banning my pro se pleadings.
5. Florida Bar Counsel William Lance Thompson, who opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C)
J une 28, 2004 on my complaint against William J . Cook. Unfortunately Tampa Chief
Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal improperly closed the file February 9,
2005 without finding misconduct, and has defended her wrong decision ever since.
6. Tampa attorney David M. Snyder who informed Mr. Rodems September 7, 2006 that
“Mr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss”, and Rodems’ counterclaim had
“little chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution and privileged nature...”.
7. Florida Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood, who opened TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
September 13, 2012 on my complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems. Tampa Chief
Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the file
without finding misconduct, by Bar Counsel Leonard Clark’s letter May 14, 2013.
8. Florida Bar Counsel Theodore P, Littlewood, who opened TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
August 17, 2012 on my complaint against Eugene P. Castagliuolo. Tampa Chief Branch
Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the file without
finding misconduct, see her letter to me dated J une 13, 2013.
9. Florida Bar Counsel J ames A G Davey, J r. who referred November 5, 2010 my complaint
against Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) to a local grievance committee that
dismissed; the ABA McKay Report calls local committees “crony” discipline components.
10. Attorney Seldon Childers who determined September 17, 2009 that actual damages were
$7,143, not $6,224 as in my complaint; and $100,000 Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation.
11. Michael Borseth, an independent court reporter who has faithfully made transcripts for
me, even when wrongly threatened with litigation by attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo.
12. Allison Raistrick, Clerk’s Indigent Screening Unit, appointed me counsel May 27, 2011
for a civil contempt hearing. Fla. J udge J ames Arnold relieved the public defender, held
the hearing ex parte, and corruptly ordered my arrest on Mr. Rodems’ false evidence.
13. Dr. Karin Huffer, my ADA advocate. Author and educator on Legal Abuse Syndrome.
14. Berryhill and Associates, Inc., Court Reporting, and Dempster-Berryhill Court Reporting.
To Thomasina Berryhill, Larry Murray, and associates for reporting an unpopular cause.
THANK YOU: To the Persons listed below for showing
Moral Courage in the J ustice System. - Neil Gillespie
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 39
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 39
3
Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit is of a
substantial or controlling effect, which I intended to, but did not present with my petition March
18, 2013 due to disability related illness, discussed in Part 3. The petition contained 12 pages,
three pages less than the Rule 33.2(b) limit. I move to submit the three pages now.
U.S. v. Terry affirmed a jury conviction against former J udge Steven J . Terry of several
honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an
official from accepting things of value “in return for” official acts. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2).
In U.S. v. Terry, the government proved to a jury that Terry accepted from political
benefactor Frank Russo campaign donations, a thing of value, in return for official acts, improper
rulings on summary judgment. An FBI wiretap provided evidence of the crime. The government
proved that the defendant used the mail to carry out a “scheme or artifice to defraud” another,
18 U.S.C. § 1341, of “the intangible right of honest services.” 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
In my case, Respondent J udge Martha J . Cook accepted campaign donations from
Respondent Ryan C. Rodems, and two of my former lawyers, his partners William J . Cook and
J onathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings on summary judgment, and civil contempt, during
ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.
Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major J ames Livingston, provided evidence the
Respondents falsified the record of the hearing. The Respondents used the mail to carry out their
“scheme or artifice to defraud” me of “the intangible right of honest services.” 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
I only attended one of three hearings before J udge Cook September 28, 2010. The first
was my spoken motion to disqualify J udge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a § 1983 civil rights and
From Petition No.
12-7747, Rule 21
Motion to amend,
received-SCOTUS
April 15, 2013, the
date of dismissal.
4
disability lawsuit. J udge Cook refused, accused me in open court of feigning disability, and
ordered Deputy Brown to remove me. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. required recusal
because “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be
constitutionally tolerable”. The Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie attests to the above, and appears in
a separate volume appendix. (Also, trial record Doc. 58-2, Exhibit 14, response to show cause).
J udge Cook falsified the record that I “elected to leave” the hearing, in violation of F.S. §
839.13(1) and § 837.06. The transcript and errata sheet appear in a separate volume appendix.
J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the summary judgment hearing, and Mr. Rodems
complied with her instruction to create a record, which false testimony went unchallenged
because no one represented me. J udge Cook then granted summary judgment for Mr. Rodems,
and immediately signed, without reading, a six page order at Mr. Rodems’ request, one he
prepared in advance. [Appendix 1]. J udge Cook mailed me a conformed copy order in a postage
prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote
1
.
Next, J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the civil contempt hearing, again falsified the
record that I elected to leave in violation of F.S. § 839.13(1), and found me guilty. Because this
was civil contempt, and not criminal contempt, appointment of counsel was not required under
Gideon v. Wainwright. (The defender was appointed May 27, 2011, but relieved by the court).
Two days later September 30, 2010 J udge Cook signed an improper order holding me in
civil contempt [Appendix 4], filed October 1, 2010. This is the same proposed order that Mr.
Rodems provided by mail
2
, and instructed J udge Cook to sign, together with postage paid

1
The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by order
J anuary 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5,
2010 I filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of J udge Barton, but
J udge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time.
2
Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems’ notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.
5
envelopes. [Appendix 5]. J udge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order
Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt states at footnote 1:
Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
During that hearing, Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return.
Fortunately Deputy Brown told his Commander, Major J ames Livingstion that I did not leave the
hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by J udge Cook. Major Livingstion
in turn provided me a letter dated J anuary 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B.
J udicial elections in Florida are different than those of other elected officials, and as
described in Terry. J udicial elections are nonpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial
office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified to seek
judicial office, there is pressure not to oppose a sitting judge. Lucy Morgan of the Tampa Bay
Times wrote May 2, 2008, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats: [Appendix 8].
...Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races in
the 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to a
review of election results over the past 12 years. J udges frequently escape opposition
because only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering a
judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges have
faced opposition, and only five have been defeated...
...For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide.
Twenty-three of those are open seats and will be contested. Of the 260 remaining seats,
only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and District
Court justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another term
since the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s...
As in Terry, J udge Cook’s collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002 bid. See
Appendix 9 for the donation records of Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert - $100 each. An
honest services fraud agreement need not spell out which payments control which act, just that
J udge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.
Unfortunately, J udge Cook acted like Mr. Rodems’ “marionette”. Terry at p. 11.
Po. Box 3371
Phone (813)247-8000
www.hcso.tampa.jl.us David Gee, Sheriff
Jose Docobo, ChiefDeputy
Hillsborough County
Tampa, Florida 33601
January 12,2011
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW l1S
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
In response to your letter dated November 13,2010, I made contact with Deputy
Christopher E. Brown concerning your request for an explanation regarding why he
escorted you out of the courthouse on September 28, 2010 after a hearing with Judge
Martha Cook. Deputy Brown advised that the Judge ordered you to leave after a
disruption in the courtroom. He stated that he followed you to the front door as you
exited the building without assistance. Other than the official records maintained by the
Court, I am not aware of any other records related to the hearing before Judge Cook.
As we discussed on the telephone today, you expressed some concern over your
personal safety while in the courthouse due to a disability and due to a potential threat
from opposing counsel. Please let me know the date and time of your next visit to the
courthouse and we will take action to help ensure a safe and orderly visit. Please feel free
to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
James P. Livingston, Major
Court Operations Division
-, \ ,
) Ii
....'-' , ....
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
DEFENDANTS.
--------------_-----:/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made
arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,
ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.
2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to
dismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this
order within which to file responsive pleadings.
DIVISION" F "
or, 36
-
//1­
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with §768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
RICHARD A. NIELSEN
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33606
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
or' 37
f _
/0 L.f-
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
JlR()FESSIONAL ASSOCJAT'ION
A<T'fORNF:YS l\ T Ll\W
C1UU$ A. MRKER Tt.,.lt+pl...:me 813/489... 1-(101
400 Nortlt Ashley Drive. Suire Z100
KYAN CllRlSTOMlEA ROOEMS
MtOlimile 8' 1/489.. 1008
WIUJ.-\M J. COOK
Tanlpa. r':lori(la 1,602
May 31, .2011
'+.
HOllorable Pat Frank
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Post Office Box 989
Tanlpa, Florida 336·01
Re: :Ncil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
a FI()rida Corporation; and William .J. Cook
N·o.: OS-CA-7205; I)ivision "J"
Dear Ms. Frank:
I am counsel for William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. in case n·umber 05-CA-7205.
011 Nov·etllber 15,2010, Judge Cc)ok c:utcrcd an Order barring the J>laintin: ·Neil J. from
appearing pro se, and also directin.g the office not to accept any more filing from Mr.
Gillespie. Since tllat time, the Clerk's office has accepted a number of filings from Mr. ·Gillespie.
A copy of Judge Cook's Order is enclosed.
Would }'OU please explain why your office has not complied ",ith Judge Cook's Order'?
RCRIso

Response and explanation to Mr. Rodems' question to Clerk of Court Pat Frank:

Goose-stepping and blindly "following orders" of fascists like Martha Cook went
out of fashion after the Nuremberg Trials.

Please take notice and govern yourself accordingly. - Neil Gillespie
THE FLORIDA BAR
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813-875-9821
EXEClfflVE DIRECTOR SUITE C-49 SUITE C-49 www.fLABAR.ORG
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
June 28, 2004
William John Cook, Esq.
Barker, Rodems &
300 W. Platt St., Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33602-2299
RE: Inquiry/Complaint of Neil J. Gillespie
TFB No. 2004-11, 734(13C)
Dear Mr. Cook:
Enclosed please find a copy of Neil J. Gillespie's inquiry/complaint against you. Please let me have your
written position on the matters raised within fifteen (15) days and send a copy of your reply to the
Complainant. Your response is required pursuant to Rule 4-8.4(g) and will assist this office in determining
whether this is a matter to be sent to a grievance committee and handled as for in Rule 3-7.3,
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Rule 4-8.4(g) provides that a written response shall be made within 15
days of the date of the initial written investigative inquiry by bar counsel, grievance committee, or board of
governors.
Also, return a completed copy of the enclosed disclosure form as mandated by Rule 3-7. 1(g), Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar.
Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(b), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, any response by you in these proceedings
shall become a part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public upon
the closure of the case by Bar counselor upon a finding of no probable cause, probable cause, or minor
misconduct. Disclosure during the pendency of an investigation may be made only as to status if a specific
inquiry concer ing this case is made and if this matter is generally known to be in the public domain.
WLT/psp
Enclosures - Copy of Inquiry/Complaint and Disclosure Form
cc: Neil J. Gillespie
THE FLORIDA BAR
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813/875-9821
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUITEC-49 SlllTE C-49
www.FLABAR.ORG
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
February 9, 2005
Neil J. Gillespie
301 W. Platt St., #155
Tampa, Florida 33606
RE: Inquiry/Complaint regarding William John Cook, Esq.
TFB No. 2004-11,734(l3C)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
After evaluating your complaint against the above-referenced attorney, we find that there is
insufficient evidence of a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to warrant further
proceedings.
Mr. Gillespie, the bar has carefully reviewed all the information and documents provided by you
and Mr. Cook. Based upon this review, it is the bar's position that the objective evidence is
insufficient to support a finding of misconduct on behalf of Mr. Cook.
The appellate court order stated that the parties were to bear their own attorney's fees and costs.
The objective evidence indicates that Amscot paid $50,000.00 to satisfy the claims for fees and
costs of the plaintiffs. It appears rather than Amscot paying you and the other two plaintiffs the
money they simply paid the money to the Mr. Cook's firm. In either case, Mr. Cook and his firm
were entitled to fees and costs for services performed. If Amscot had not paid the fees directly to
the firm, Mr. Cook and his firm would have had to recover their fees and costs from you and the
other two plaintiffs. If those fees and costs had not been paid in their entirety, Mr. Cook and his
firm would have had cause to proceed to seek those fees and costs through any legal means
available to them. The bar's review of this matter fails to find sufficient evidence to support a
finding of misconduct in this regard.
Likewise, review of the correspondence fails to support a finding Mr. Cook neglected to provide
you with information such that you could make informed decisions in this case. You had
discussions with Mr. Cook regarding settlement. The evidence indicates you were actively
involved in providing him with your position regarding settlement. The evidence indicates that
you were informed about the case and the status of the case throughout Mr. Cook's
representation. The settlement agreement was fully disclosed to you and you agreed to settle.
Likewise, the settlement was fully explained to you and you voluntarily signed the settlement
agreement.

While you do not agree with Mr. Cook's interpretation of the law and the damages you were
allowed to recover under the Truth In Lending Act, the evidence provided is insufficient to
support a finding Mr. Cook's representation was not competent. Moreover, Mr. Cook was able
to get you double the amount he believes you were entitled to under the law.
The objective evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Cook acted to mislead you
during his representation. Further the objective evidence is insufficient to support a finding that
he coerced you in any way to enter into a settlement. Finally, the objective evidence is
insufficient to support a finding that the $50,000.00 attorney fee in this case was some sort of
"payoff' entered into by Mr. Cook and Amscot's attorney.
Accordingly, our file in this matter is now closed. The records regarding this Inquiry/Complaint
will be destroyed one (1) year from today. Our disposition of your complaint has no effect on
any legal remedy that you may have.
Sincerely,
Susan V. Bloemendaal
Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel
SVB/psp
cc: William John Cook, Esq.

LAw OFFICE OF
DAVID M. SNYDER
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATiON
ArrORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAw
SUITE FOUR
181 0 SOUTH MACDILL AVENUE ADMITIED IN FLORIDA AND NEW YORK
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33629-5960 CERTIFIED MEDIATOR
TELEPHONE (81 3)258-4501 U.S. DISTRICT COURT. M.D. FLA.
FACSIMILE (813)258-4402 CIRCUIT AND COUNTY CJVIL
E-MAIL: DMSNYDER@DM5-LAW.COM N.A.S.D. ARBITRATOR & MEDIATOR
September 7,2006
Ryan C. Rodems
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
300 W Platt St, Suite 150
Tampa FL 33606
Re: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., etc., Case No. 05-7205
Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida
Dear Mr. Rodems:
Neil Gillespie has engaged this firm to assist him with the above-styled
action.
Mr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss. Defendant's
counterclaim for defamation, while it may have stated a cause of action at the
outset, has little chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution and
privileged nature of the publication complained of. See e.g. Nodar v. Galbreath,
462 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1984).
Mr. Gillespie has authorized me to propose settlement of all claims
between him and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Mr. Cook, and the firm's
officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns, for payment to
Mr. Gillespie of $6,224.78, exchange of mutual general releases, and dismissal
with prejudice of the above-styled lawsuit, which each party to bear his/its own
costs and attorneys' fees.
WWW.DMS..LAW.COM
Ryan C. Rodems
September 7,2006. Page 2
Please contact me at your convenience if you have questions or
comments. Thank you for your prompt consideration of and response to this
offer, which expires at 5 p.m., September 17, 2006.
Very truly yours,
L;i. Snyder
DMS
Encl
cc: Neil Gillespie
WWW.DMS-LAW.COM
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
September 13, 2012
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker
501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790
Tampa, FL 33602-5237
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Rodems:
Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the
above referenced complainant(s). Your response to this complaint is required under the
provisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating The Florida
Bar, and is due in our office by September 28, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages al1d
may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to
provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please note
that any correspondence must be sent through the u.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your written
response, including any documents submitted therewith.
Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Discipline, any reports, correspondence,
papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s)
shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon a
disposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the
status of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made and
the matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline,
you are further required to complete and retllm the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form.
Furtller, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative
litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should
new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
September 13, 2012
Page Two
Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and
the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your
response.
Sincerely,


Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,
Notice - Mailing Instructions)
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
October 26, 2012
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker
501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790
Tanlpa, FL 33602-5237
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Dear Mr. Rodems:
The above- referenced matter has been forwarded to The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office for
consideration. You may expect to hear from Bar Counsel (in that office) in the near future.
Sincerely,
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
The Florida Bar
Tanlpa Branch Office
4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Suite 2580
John F. Harkness, Jr.
Tampa, Florida 33607-1496
(813) 875-9821
Executive Director www.FLORIDABAR.org
June 14,2013
J\fr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (6D)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
On May 13,2013, I received a letter from you requesting a review of the decision to close your
complaint against Mr. Rodems. Pursuant to your request, on May 14,2013, I referred the matter
to the Designated Reviewer, Sandra Dianl0nd. That review process has now been completed and
it is the decision of Ms. Diamond that the file shall remain closed. Accordingly, pursuant to the
Bar's records retention sclledule, the computer record and file will be disposed of one year from
the date of closing.
Sincerely yours,
Leonard Evans Clark
Bar Counsel
LEC/lec
cc: Mr. Ryan Cllristopher Rodems
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Staff Counsel
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
August 17, 2012
Mr. Eugene P Castagliuolo
801 West Bay Dr Ste 301
Largo, FL 33770-3223
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Eugene P Castagliuolo
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
Dear Mr. Castagliuolo:
Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the
above referenced complainant(s). YOllr response to this complaint is reqllired under the
provisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professiol1al Conduct of the Rules Regulating The Florida
Bar, and is due in our office by August 31, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages and
may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to
provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please note
that any correspondence must be sent through the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.
You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your written
response, including any documents submitted therewith.
Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Disciplil1e, any reports, correspondence,
papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s)
shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon a
disposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the
status of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made and
the matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline,
you are further required to complete and return the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form.
Further, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative
litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should
new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.
Mr. Eugene P Castagliuolo
August 17, 2012
Page Two
Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and
the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your
response.
Sincerely,
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,
Notice - Mailing Instructions)
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
October 25,2012
Mr. Eugene P Castagliuolo
CASTAGLIUOLO LAW
801 West Bay Dr Ste 301
Largo, FL 33770-3223
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Eugene P Castagliuolo
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
Dear Mr. Castagliuolo:
The above- referenced matter has been forwarded to The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office for
consideration. You may expect to hear from Bar Counsel (in that office) in the near future.
Sincerely,
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
The Florida Bar
Tampa Branch Office
4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Suite 2580
John F. Harkness, Jr.
Tampa, Florida 33607-1496
(813) 875-9821
Executive Director www.FLORIDABAR.org
June 13,2013
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Eugene P. Castagliuolo
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
I.am in receipt of your correspondence requesting a review of Mr. Clark's decision to close the
above-referenced file. I am Mr. Clark's supervisor, and pursuant to Bar policy I have reviewed
,the file and·the:documents provided by you and by Mr. Castagliuolo. I have also considered the
arguments -raised· by you..
One of the considerations bar counsel must weigh in deciding whether to close a file is the
weight of available evidence. Should the Bar seek to discipline a lawyer, Supreme Court rules
require "clear and convincing" evidence that there has been a violation of one or more of the
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as,
"evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the factfinder to come to a
clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." This burden of
proof is heavier than that which is required in a civil trial.
After considering all of your allegations together with the available evidence, I am persuaded
that Mr. Clark's decision was appropriate. Our file will therefore remain closed.
Sincerely,
Susan Varner Bloemendaal
Discipline Counsel' .
SYB/sb
THE FLORIDA BAR
TALLAHASSEE BRANCH OFFICE
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
(850) 561-5845
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORC
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2300
November 5, 2010
Melissa Jay Murphy, Chair
Eighth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "B"
P.O. Box 357399
Gainesville, FL 32635-7399
Re: Robert W. Bauer; The Florida Bar File No. 2011-00,073(8B)
Complaint by Neil Gillespie
Dear Ms. Murphy:
Please assign the enclosed complaint to a grievance committee member for investigation. For
your convenience, enclosed is a Notice of Assignment of Investigating Member and/or Panel
Form.
The documents will soon be posted to the Grievance Committee Webpage for the Committee's
convenience. As always, if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~ 4, {;.IJ O+ey I t·
James A.G. Davey, Jr.
Bar Counsel
Enclosures
cc: Robert W. Bauer, Respondent
Neil Gillespie, Complainant

TEL 866.996.6104 Attorney at Law Jeff Childers
FAX 407.209.3870
URL www.smartbizlaw.com


Sixth Street Executive Center
1330 NW 6
th
Street, Suite C
Gainesville, FL 32601
37 North Orange Ave., Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32801
jchilders@smartbizlaw.com
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
RE: Economic Analysis Spreadsheet
Dear Neil,
In this letter, I will explain my thoughts and assumptions relative to the economic
analysis of your case, as represented by the spreadsheet which you should have received
contemporaneously with this letter.
The spreadsheet concludes that the case’s return on investment is negative.
There are four columns. The “Item” column represents either a potential recovery,
which increases the net value of the case, or a projected cost, which decreases the net value of the
case. Costs can be either “hard” costs such as attorneys fees and court costs, or “soft” costs such
as the cost of litigation-related illnesses and emotional harms. The “Amount” column represents
the best estimate of the actual recovery or cost for the category. The “Prob%” column represents
the probability of achieving the recovery or incurring the cost. The “Eco Value” column
represents the economic value of the item, i.e. the projected amount times the probability the
amount will actually be recovered or incurred.
Next I will discuss each individual item.
Actual Damages.
1
I calculated actual damages as follows. The award of $56,000 was
reduced by 45%, the amount a jury would likely allow the Defendants for their contingent fee.
This figure is based on the unexecuted contract attached to the Complaint. Furthermore, the
Bar allows that attorneys may pay actual costs before application of the contingent fee. Accepting
the costs as recited in the Complaint, the award is reduced by $6,125.46. Next, the amount is

1
The Complaint calculates actual damages a little differently. I went with my figures because they are more
favorable (and I believe, correct).
Page 2 of 5

divided by three to obtain the amount that should have been paid to the Plaintiff, and further
reduced by the $2,000 that was already paid to Plaintiff. I.e.:
Actual Award $56,000 $56,000
-Costs -$6,125.46 $49,874
- 45% Contingent Fee -$22,443 $27,431
- 2/3 due to the 2 other clients -$18,286 $9,143
- $2,000 already paid -$2,000 $7,143
==============
Total Actual Damages $7,143.00
2

Thus, as you can see, the maximum recoverable actual damages in this case are likely to
be $7,143. Next, the spreadsheet adjusts the maximum actual damage figure by the probability
of prevailing, which I calculated as 51%, or just more likely than not. Of course, these estimates
are largely subjective. I would have calculated the chance of prevailing on the merits as 75% at
the outset of the case, but given the case’s history and the events which have transpired since
inception, I am forced to reduce the probability of succeeding on the merits to 51%. Thus, the
economic value of the actual damages in this case is $3,643.00.
Punitive Damages. As you know, punitive damages are more difficult to obtain. There
are both legal and factual barriers to pleading and proving punitive damages.
3
The Defendants
may convince the court that punitive damages were not plead properly or are not available in
this case, in which event the jury is not permitted to consider punitive damages. Also, punitive
damages are granted up to three times actual damages, and there is no guarantee that a jury
would award the full treble damage amount. Still, I used treble damages, which is a maximum
recoverable amount of $21,431. Furthermore, any punitive damages award can be overruled by
the judge, and appealed separately. Therefore, the probability of succeeding with punitive
damages is accounted for as half of the probability of succeeding with actual damages, or 25%.
Therefore, the economic value of the punitive damages at this point in the case is only $5,357.00.

2
As you can see, I did an independent calculation of damages, which amount was very close to your own figures.
3
In fact, on January 13, 2006, the court ordered the demands for punitive damages to be stricken from the
Complaint, so, actually, no current demand for punitive damages exists (presumably it might be re-plead in an
amended complaint). Also, to the extent that the suit succeeds on a breach of contract and not tort claim, punitive
damages are excluded. Farnsworth, Contracts, § 12.3, at 157 (3d ed. 1999) ("Punitive damages should not be
awarded for breach of contract because they will encourage performance when breach would be socially more
desirable.").
Page 3 of 5

Award of Attorney’s Fees. Under the American Rule, each party must pay its own
attorneys fees and costs. Unless an exception is granted by agreement between the parties or by
statute, there is no provision for the prevailing party to recover its fees and costs. The un-
executed representation contract attached to the Complaint contains no provision for attorneys
fees. I am aware of no other such agreement or statute that would apply in this case, beyond a
bare equitable appeal to the court. The spreadsheet therefore allows for no recovery from the
Defendants of fees and costs.
Subtotal, Forecast Recovery. Thus, the maximum recovery at 100%, i.e. full certainty of
succeeding in the litigation as to both actual and punitive damages, is $28,574. However,
adjusted for the probability of succeeding on the merits at this point in the case, the maximum
economic recovery is only $9,001.
Bauer’s Outstanding Fees. Mr. Bauer has a claim to his fees of $12,517.41, at least as of
the most current invoice that I was provided. On the one hand, he may have difficulty proving
his entitlement to the fees, due to some evidence that an attempt was made to renegotiate the
contract to a contingency basis. However, since that evidence is not conclusive and represents a
triable issue of fact, the probability of incurring additional costs to litigate the fees issues offsets
the reduction in probability that Mr. Bauer can recover them. Furthermore, generally speaking,
most ethical attorneys would require the Plaintiff to resolve the fees issue with predecessor
counsel before agreeing to take the case (as I would). Thus, there will be pressure to pay the fees
or come to an amicable settlement. Accepting Bauer’s figures, the economic cost of the
outstanding fees to Mr. Bauer at this point in the case is $12,517.41.
New Attorney’s Fees. A new attorney would be required to litigate the case through
trial. Given the extensive history of the case, some non-trivial cost would be incurred in
reviewing and understanding the almost four-year history of this litigation (8 hrs). Then,
amendment of the complaint (4 hrs), response to various outstanding motions and issues
including the garnishment and counter-claims (26 hrs), preparation for trial on the substantive
issues and defenses (30 hrs), and the trial itself (30 hrs) will require substantial attorney time. At
an estimated $250 per hour, for 98 estimated attorney hours (loosely including paralegal time,
costs etc as part of the hours estimate), the fee for completing the case would be $24,500. Note
that any new attorney would have to consider the highly aggressive and acrimonious nature of
this particular litigation. This cost to complete the case is certain to be incurred, accounted
therefore at 100% probability. The economic value of this cost is $24,500.
4


4
It is unlikely a new attorney will offer a discounted, flat-rate, or contingency fee to take this case. The Defendants
have shown there is NO likelihood of a positive-cash settlement. Thus, there is no possible reward offsetting the
risks posed by this case. The only conceivable basis for a new attorney to proceed would be on a strict time and
materials basis with a substantial up-front retainer.
Page 4 of 5

Cost to Litigate Appeal. Based on their litigious behavior to date, the Defendants in this
case are almost certain to appeal any favorable ruling. Thus the spreadsheet reflects a
probability of 99% that any favorable verdict would be appealed. An average state-court appeal
is typically valued at $25,000, making the economic cost of this item $24,750.
Unpaid Judgment to Rodeems. Defendants are entitled to collect on their judgment for
sanctions in the amount of $11,550. As I understand the present status, some $400-$600 were
garnished by the bank and are awaiting an order of the court for release. If Plaintiff prevails at
trial, it is likely any award will be setoff by this amount if it is not already paid. Thus, 100%
probability the entire cost will be incurred, economic value $11,550.
Subtotal, Projected Costs. The total projected costs, which will likely be incurred
whether or not Plaintiff prevails, are $73,317.41. This amount should be considered the direct costs
avoided by ceasing litigation at this point. I note that the smallest cost in this category, the Unpaid
Judgment, eliminates almost entirely the projected recovery.
Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and
emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome, the
book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the non-
pecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate the physical
and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both short and long-term
effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time invested in the case but also by
loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this
figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards.
There is 100% probability these costs will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
Net Value of Case. The net value of the case is calculated on the spreadsheet by netting
all the projected costs of litigation from the projected economic recovery. In this case, the
spreadsheet calculates that the net value of the case is negative $164,316.
In summary, even if the figures are manipulated in the most favorable way, such as by
raising the probability of succeeding with actual and punitive damages to 100%, erasing Mr.
Bauer’s attorney’s fees, forecasting that no appeal would be filed, and waiving the emotional
and physical costs to Plaintiff, the case still would still be in the red by over $7,000
((7,143+21,431)-24,500-11,550). The assumptions that the costs would be limited in this way are,
obviously, unrealistically optimistic.

Page 5 of 5

The issue to my mind, therefore, is how to exit the case with the lowest possible cost.
Please see my letter regarding a recommended course of action for my suggestions in this
regard.

Respectfully,

Jeff Childers
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
CASE NUMBER: 05-CA-7205
Plaintiff,
DIVISION: J
VS.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM 1. COOK
Defendants.
______________---e
l
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
COMES NOW, the undersigned on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, to seek
clarification of a Clerk's Detennination dated May 27, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit A, allegedly
appointing the Office of the Public Defender on behalf of the plaintiff, Neil Gillespie, in this cause
based upon the following:
I. An Application for Criminal Indigent Status and Clerk's Detennination attached
hereto as Exhibit A purports to appoint the Office of the Public Defender to represent the
plaintiff in this cause.
2. It appears from the docket in this cause that Neil Gillespie is the plaintiff in this
cause and that he is before the Court based upon an Order to Show Cause.
3. Section 27.51, Florida Statutes, sets forth the duties of the Public Defender. The
duties of the Public Defender under Section 27.5 I (b)(3), Florida Statutes, provide that the Public
belief that the plaintiff in this cause, Neil Gillespie, is facing an action for criminal contempt.
I
WHEREFORE. the undersigned seeks to clarify with the Court the applicability of the
Application for Criminal Indigent Status and Clerk's Detennination as evidenced in Exhibit A,
attached hereto.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing motion has been furnished to Neil
Gillespie, 8092 SW 115
th
Loop, Ocala, FL 34481, Ryan C. Rodems, Esq. of Barker, Rodems &
Cook, P.A., 400 North AsWey Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, FL 33602, and to Richard L. Coleman,
Esq., P.O. Box 5437, Valdosta, GA 31603, by hand or U.S. mail delivery, this 1
st
day of June,
2011.
Mi acock
Florida Bar # 0303682
Post Office Box 172910
Tampa, Florida 33672-0910
(813) 272-5980
(813) 272-5588 (fax)
peacock@pdI3.state.f1.us
Ikm
2
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.
STATE OF FLORIDA· vs. t1-e.. \ LQJ I\ t
Defendant/Minor Child .
/" APPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL INDIGENT STATUS
I AA SEEKING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER .
OR
I HAVE A PRIVATE ATIORNEY OR AM SELF-REPRESENTED AND SEEK DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCE STATUS FOR COSTS
Notice to Applicant: The provision of a public defenderlcourt appointed lawyer and costs/due process services are not free. AjUdgment and lien may be imposed agains.t all real or
personal property you own to pay for legal and other services provided on your behalf or on behalf of the person for whom you are making this application. There is a $50.00 fee fQr each
application filed. If the application fee is not paid to the Clerli of the Court within 7days, it will be added to any oosts that may be assessed against you at the oonclusion of this case. If
you are a parent/guardian making this affidavit on behalf of a minor or tax-dependent adult, the information contained in this application must include your income and assets.
1. I have Udependents. (Do not incl!,hildren not living at home and do not include a working spouse or yourself.) .
2. 1have atake home income of $ paid () weekly () bi-weekly ( ) semi-monthly () monthly ( ) yearly
(Take home inoome equals salary, wages, bon;;ies, commissions, allowances, overtime, tips and similar payments, minus deductions required by law and other court-ordered
support payments)
3. I have other inco.me paid ( ) weekly ( ) ( ) yearly: (Circle "Yes" and fill in the amount ifyou have this kind of inoome, otherwise
Social 5ecurilybenefits es $ -1-1---- No Veterans' benefit............................... Yes $,------I(!9i.
Unemployment oompensation................. s $ Child suppor! or other regular support .. I
Union Funds Yes $ . 0 from family members/spouse...... . Yes $ . .
Workers oompensation : Yes $ I Rental incOme................................. Yes $
. .Retirement/pensions Yes $ . Dividends or interest.. :............. Yes $
Trusts or gifts Yes $ 0 Other kinds of inoome not on the lis!...... Yes.$·
, I h,w """""" 0 No' 'No' U" ... :=l
· ·Yes $ ®
money market accounts Yes $ "Equity means value minus loans. Also
"Equity in Motor VehiclesIBoatsi In an interest in such property.
Other tangible property.................. I No Ust the address of this property: . '.
Us! the year/make/model and tag#: I Address ---,_
. r "lgtb- Y;cf City, State, Zip .."
I ....' : . .. '" County of Residence Z
5. I have atotal amount of liabilities and debts in the amount of lf7; W
6. I receive: (Circle "Yes" or "No?
Ul
TemP9rary Assistance for Needy Families-Cash Assistance :... "Als
Poverty-related veterans' benefits.................................................................................................................................................... Yes
Supplemental security Inoome (551) :............................ Yes CJ'I"""
7. I have been released on bail in the amount of $ Cash __Surety __ Posted by: Self __ Family __ Other
Apersen who knowingly provides false information to the clerk or the oourt in seeking a determination of indigent status under s. 27.52, F.5., oommits a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082, F.S., or s. 775.083, F.S. I attest that the information I have provided on this Application is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.· ./ _//------..:...
Signed this A7 day of . Mil! ,2olL· -r',,?/. _/"
Sig
Date of Birth S pIC; ,- Print Full L al Name
. . /? .r.ao. Address '
Driver's license or ID numberU State, Zip'
Phone l1umber
CLERK'S DETERMINATION
V-;;::ed n the inf rmation 'in this Application, I have determined the applicant to be ( ) Not Indigent
P blic Def nder is hereby appointed to the case listed above until relieved by the Court.
M' ,. (
-D1te
)
... ------ ... -_..
Clerk of the Circuit Court
This fonn was completed with the assistance of
__Clerk/Deputy Clerk/Other authorized person
APPLICANTS FOUND NOT INDIGENT MAY"SEEK REVIEW BY ASKING fOR A HEARING TIME, Sign here if you want the judge
to review the clerk's decision of not indigent
06/18/10
EXHIBIT "A"
-------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE NUMBER.: 05-CA-7205
Plaintiff,
DIVISION: J
v.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J.
COOK
Defendants.
/
ORDER RELIEVING THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FROM REPRESENTATION
OF PLAINTIFF NEIL GILLESPIE
THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on the Motion of the Office of the Public Defender
for Clarification and the Court being fully advised in the premises does hereby relieve the Office of
the Public Defender of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit from representation of the plaintiff in this cause
as there is no lawful basis for the appointment of the Office of the Public Defender to represent the
plaintiff in the cause currently before the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida on this __ day of
June, 2011.
HONORABLE JAMES D. ARNOLD
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Copies furnished to:
--'----'--Neil-GilJ'€spi€,8092-SW-l-lS
th
.. B__ .... -- .. .. -- .... m --­ u.. .. .. -- - ..
Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, 400 North Ashley Dr., Ste. 2100, Tampa, FL 33602
Richard L. Coleman, Esq., P.O. Box 5437, Valdosta, GA 31603
Mike Peacock, Office of the Public Defender
/km
ORIGINAL
- 1 2Ull
!:'..
CIRCUIT JUDGE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, Case No. OS-CA-720S
Vs. Division: "J"
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A,
A Florida corporation; WILLIAM J.
COOK,
Defendants.
---------_./
ORDER RESCINDING WRIT OF BODILY ATTACHMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on June 21, 2011 and the Plaintiff,
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, having complied by volunteering to appear and producing all
documents under the Deposition Duces Tecum and the court being otherwise being fully
advised in the premises, it is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court's Writ of Bodily Attachment of
NEIL J. GILLESPIE of June 1,2011, is hereby rescinded.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Florida, Hillsborough County,
Florida, this __ day of June, 2011.
JAMES D. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge
Copies furnished to:
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop ORIGINAL SIGNEO
Ocala, FL. 34481
J U ~ 'l t 2011
JAMES D. ARNOLO'
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
400 North Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL. 33602
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082
ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist
Counseling and Forensic Psychology
3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www.lvaallc.com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and
testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways
possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the J udge and
now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with
arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigantís ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespieís case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespieís health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful