STATE OF FLORIDA

HON. J. PRESTON SILVERNAIL
~ U D I   I L QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
CHAIR
I I 10 THOMASVILLE ROAD
BROOKE So KENNERLY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32303-6224
MICHAEL L. SCHNEIDER
(850) 488- I 58 I
GENERAL COUNSEL
December  10,2013 
Neil J. Gillespie  
8092 SW  115
th
Loop  
Ocala,  FL  34481  
Re:  Docket No. 13573, Judge Cook
Dear Mr.  Gillespie: 
The  Commission has completed  its  review of your complaint in  the above 
matter and has determined, at its meeting held on Thursday, December 5,2013, 
that the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a  breach of the 
Codoe ,of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission. 
The  purpose  of the  Commission  is  to  determine  the  existence  of judicial 
misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State 
of  Florida.  If  such  misconduct  or  disability  is  found,  the  Commission  can 
recommend disciplinary action to  the  Florida Supreme Court.  The Commission 
has found  no basis for  further action on your complaint that therefore has been 
dismissed. 
Sincerely yours, 
Michael L.  Schneider 
General Counsel 
-MLS/bsk 
  n':l
.It}"     ptf·4'· 1 'T'
STATE OF FLORIDA
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
1110 THOMASVILLE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
t
p Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
34481$3567
I JJ J" J-", II J, IJ, J.11III"I' ", f f Jf IJf ., " , ".1, I, J". I fJIll, ,t,
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Supreme Court ___________________________________
District Court
of Appeal ___________________________________
Circuit Court ___________________________________
County Court ___________________________________
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6224
(850) 488-1581
COMPLAINT FORM
This form is designed to provide the Commission with information required to make an
initial evaluation of your complaint.
PLEASE NOTE: COMPLAINT FORM MUST BE TYPED OR LEGIBLY HAND PRINTED, DATED
AND SIGNED BEFORE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
I. Person Making Complaint
Name ___________________________________________________________________________
Mr. (Last) (First) (Middle)
Ms.
Mrs.
Address ___________________________________________________________________________
Telephone Number(s): (Day)_________________________ (Evening)_________________________
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
II. Judge Against Whom Complaint is Made
Name ___________________________________________________________________________
(Last) (First) (Middle)
Address ____________________________________________________________________________
(Note: This form can be typed into here, then printed, or print it out and fill it in by hand.)
Gillespie Neil J
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
352-854-7807
Cook Martha Jean
800 E. Twiggs Street
Tampa, Florida 33601
13th Judicial Circuit
III. Statement of Facts
Please provide in as much detail as possible the information which you have knowledge which you
believe constitutes judicial misconduct or disability. Include names, dates, places, addresses and
telephone numbers which may assist the Commission.
If additional space is required, attach and number pages.
See the accompanying complaint letter and documents.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
IV. Additional Information (if available)
a. If your complaint arises out of a court case, please answer the following questions:
1. What is the name and number of the case?
Case name: ______________________________ Case No. _____________________________
2. What kind of case is it?
civil criminal domestic relations probate
small claims traffic other (specify)
3. What is your relationship to the case?
plaintiff/petitioner defendant/respondent
attorney for _______________________________: ________________________________
witness for ________________________________: ________________________________
other (specify)
b. If you were represented by an attorney in this matter at the time of the judge’s conduct, please
identify the attorney:
Name _____________________________________________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________________________________________
Phone ____________________________________________________________________________
c. List and attach copies of any relevant documents which you believe support your claim that the
judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability. (Note: Retain a copy for your
records as these documents shall become the property of the Commission and may not be
returned.)
d. Identify, if you can, any other witnesses to the conduct about which you complain:
Name(s): __________________________________
05-CA-7205
Gillespie v Barker Rodems and Cook

pro se plaintiff-counter defendant

See enclosed documents, and Petition No. 13-7280 for writ of cert
to the U.S. Supreme Court
see the complaint
Addresses: _
Phone Numbers: _
IN FILING THIS COMPLAINT, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S RULES PROVIDE THAT ALL
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION,
SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL PRIOR TO THE FILING OF FORMAL CHARGES. I FURTHER
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RULE OF CONFIDENTIALITY ATTACHES AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON
THE FILING OF THIS COMPLAINT AND THAT ANY VIOLATION COULD RESULT IN A CITATION FOR
CONTEMPT BYTHECOMMISSION.
V.  Underpenaltyofperjury,IdeclarethatIhaveexaminedand understandthiscomplaintformand
tothebestofmyknowledgeand belief,theaboveinformationis true,correctandcompleteand
submittedofmyownfreewill.
November20, 2013
(Date)
ignedcomplaintswillbe considered.)
Please note that the Commission only has authority to investigate allegations of judicial
misconductorpermanentdisabilityby persons holdingstatejudicialpositions. The Commission
has no jurisdiction over and does notconsider complaints against Federal Judges, magistrates,
lawyers, police, court personnel, or State Attorneys. The Commission does not act as an
appellate court and cannot review, reverse or modify a legal decision made by ajudge in the
course ofacourtproceeding. For example, the Commission does notinvestigateclaims thata
judge wrongfully excluded evidence; imposed an improper sentence, awarded custody to the
wrong party; incorrectlyawarded alimonyorchild support; incorrectlyresolved alegalissue or
believed perjuredtestimony.
Please return thisform and directallfuturecommunicationsto:
FloridaJudicialQualificationsCommission
1110Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6224
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FNY99593397 November 20, 2013
Rick Morales J QC Commission Chair Confidentiality Waived:
J QC Commission Members (member list enclosed)
c/o Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director This matter is in the public domain,
c/o Michael Schneider, General Counsel Petition No. 13-7280 SCOTUS; and
J udicial Qualifications Commission - J QC The Florida Bar UPL Investigation
1110 Thomasville Road No. 20133090(5) of Neil J . Gillespie,
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6224 initiated by attorney Ryan C Rodems
RE: Complaint against J udge Martha J . Cook, Hillsborough County, Florida
Dear Commission Chair Morales,
Commission Members,
Ms. Kennerly, and Mr. Schneider:
Please find enclosed my signed J QC complaint form and supporting documents in my complaint
against J udge Martha J ean Cook. My complaint shows the existence of judicial misconduct and
disability by J udge Isom as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida.
This is a new complaint concerning new subject matter never before considered by the J QC.
J udge Martha Cook is so corrupt, and has committed so much judicial misconduct, that it has
taken me a long time just getting all her misconduct reported to the J QC.
J udge Cook corruptly entered a sham “Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se” in the
matter of Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. et al, case 05-CA-7205 November 15, 2010.
Although this case was closed over two years ago, J udge Cook’s sham order is being used
against me today by Ryan Christopher Rodems as part of a vexatious Unlicensed Practice of Law
(UPL) Complaint made by Rodems against me. Rodems’ UPL complaint is enclosed, Exhibit 1,
and the unsigned sham order of Martha Cook is attached.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I P. 2 The Florida Bar - UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie
Section II P. 3 Opening Statement - Gillespie complaint against J udge Cook
Section III P. 5 Petition No. 13-7280 - for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court
Section IV P. 6 COMPLAINT - Neil J . Gillespie vs. J udge MARTHA J EAN COOK
Section V P. 30 The J QC - Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission
Section VI P. 34 Conclusion - J udge Cook must be removed from office
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 2
Section I P. 2 The Florida Bar - UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) in the state of Florida. UPL is a 3d felony subject to 5-yrs
incarceration and a $5,000 fine (§454.23), defined by Florida Bar Rule 10-2.1(a):
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel is investigating/prosecuting the Unlicensed Practice of
Law Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5).
A prosecutor is obligated to seek truth and to "do justice." See Model Rules of Professional
Conduct Rule 3.8 Cmt. (1) (1983)(describing prosecutors as "minister[s] of justice"); Model
Code of Professional Responsibility EC7-13 (1981) (stating that prosecutors must "seek
justice"); ABA Standards for Criminal J ustice A§ 3-1.2(c) (3d ed. 1993) ("The duty of the
prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict").
I asked Mr. Coaxum as a prosecutor to strike the sham order of Martha Cook [as evidence] and
he replied by letter J uly 25, 2013 in part, “I am not a member of the judiciary”. Yes, everyone
concerned here knows Mr. Coaxum is not a judge, and not a member of the judiciary. However
Mr. Coaxum, as a UPL Bar Counsel prosecutor is obligated to seek truth and to "do justice."
Mr. Coaxum’s full “I am not a member of the judiciary” response of J uly 25, 2013 is set forth
here, and in his letter, enclosed as Exhibit 2.
4. You asked that I "strike" the "sham order of J udge Martha Cook." I do not have the
authority to strike an order from a judge. You would need to appeal the order to the
appropriate appellate court. I am not a member of the judiciary, nor is The Florida Bar a
tribunal.
Mr. Coaxum is not a judge, he is a Bar prosecutor obligated to seek truth and to “do justice.”
Mr. Coaxum’s letter of J uly 25, 2013 contains a number of similar misapprehensions that will be
addressed in my response to him, such as his response in paragraph 2, “You do have the right to
retain counsel at any time during this investigation.” I also have the right to buy a new vehicle, a
new home, or even a high-performance aircraft. However these rights are contingent on the
ability to pay the costs associated with the right. Otherwise the right is a parchment guarantee.
Mr. Coaxum knows on J une 14, 2013 I requested appointment of counsel because I am indigent.
His response J uly 25, 2013 is a callous display of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
Mr. Coaxum referred me to the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission by email Thursday,
May 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM, because “I do not have the authority to address any issues of what
you perceive to be misconduct by J udge Cook as such matters are handled by the Florida J udicial
Qualifications Commission.” Therefore I submit this complaint against J udge Martha Cook.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 3
Section II P. 3 Opening Statement - Complaint of Neil J . Gillespie against
J udge Martha J ean Cook, Hillsborough Co. Florida
This complaint concerns a sham order entered November 15, 2013 by J udge Cook preventing me
from appearing pro se in Neil J . Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems, and Cook, PA et al, 05-CA-7205,
Hillsborough County. The “Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se” is a sham and
did not address a bona fide issue. J udge Cook corruptly entered the Order during a conflict of
interest, while she was a Defendant in my federal disability and civil rights lawsuit. J udge Cook
entered the Order with a corrupt motive, to stop legitimate inquiry showing her personal and
business financial affairs violated the Florida Code of J udicial Conduct. J udge Cook recused
herself in this case November 18, 2010, three days after entering the Order. J udge Cook’s recusal
shows my motions to disqualify her were legally justified. J udge Cook violated F.S. § 837.06:
837.06 False official statements.—Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in
writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official
duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082 or s. 775.083.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-
0899/0837/0837.html
J udge Cook’s sham order was a false statement in writing intended to mislead a public servant,
Pat Frank, Clerk of Court, in the performance of her official duty. From page two of the order:
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL REJECT for filing any document received from Plaintiff
which does not bear the clear and conspicuous signature of an attorney duly licensed to
practice law in this state.
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL NOT DOCKET any pleading, correspondence or other
document received from Plaintiff which is prohibited by this order.
Fortunately Clerk Pat Frank disobeyed J udge Cook’s sham order, see ¶ 26 of my J une 14, 2013,
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK’S
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
SEE COPY ENCLOSED WITH THIS COMPLAINT - 64 PAGES WITH EXHIBITS
TWENTY-THREE (23) PAGE AFFIDAVIT - 41 PAGES, INDEX AND EXHIBITS
26. Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed J udge Cook’s sham Order prohibiting my
pleadings. The Clerk allowed me to file pro se pleadings to the end of the case in
defiance of the Order.
Nonetheless, F.S. § 837.06 only requires intent, and ultimately the Clerk obeyed the order.
2010
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 4
My affidavit on J udge Cook’s order, 64 pages, is provided with this complaint, with the text set
out in this complaint. Also enclosed as a Separate Volume Appendix is Plaintiff’s 4th Motion to
Disqualify J udge Martha J . Cook, filed November 10, 2010 [Case 05-CA-7205]
AN INSOLVENT JUDGE [Martha J. Cook]
LACKS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
AND IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY
The UPL complaint made by Mr. Rodems alleges I engaged in UPL for representing my own
interests in two cases, one of which is Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc. v. Neil J . Gillespie, et al,
the wrongful foreclosure of my home on a “reverse” mortgage called a HECM, Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage. Therefore I filed notice of the UPL complaint in the U.S. District Court,
5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL, to preserve the matter for appeal, and document political persecution.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Order of Dismissal in case no. 13-11585-B entered J une 12, 2013
dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, and is unpublished.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Order DENIED Appellant Neil Gillespie's J uly 2, 2013 motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s J une 12, 2013 order dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction
in case no. 13-11585-B and was entered J uly 25, 2013 and is unpublished.
On October 21, 2013 I made the AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J . GILLESPIE, Fraud or Impairment of
Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate Government activity (18 U.S.C. § 371), deprivation of rights
under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), and conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), in the
Supreme Court of the United States, copy enclosed. The affidavit was provided to:
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF J UDGES AND LAWYERS
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON DISABILITY UNITED NATIONS ENABLE
SECRETARIAT FOR THE CONVENTION OF RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, NEW YORK, NY
On October 22, 2013 I made the AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J . GILLESPIE, I have a well-founded
fear of political persecution, a copy of which is enclosed. The affidavit was provided to:
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF J UDGES AND LAWYERS
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON DISABILITY UNITED NATIONS ENABLE
SECRETARIAT FOR THE CONVENTION OF RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, NEW YORK, NY
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 5
Section III P. 5 Petition No. 13-7280 - for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court
Petition No. 13-7280 for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court
Neil J . Gillespie v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. et al. Petition No. 13-7280
Docketed November 5, 2013, responses due December 5, 2013
The Florida Bar is a cross-party in the above petition. Petition No. 13-7280 calls into question
the constitutionality of the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission by and through:
Constitutional challenge, Fla. Stat., sec. 43.20 J udicial Qualifications Commission.
Attorney General Pamela J o Bondi was served the corrected petition November 5, 2013, see the
enclosed Rule 29 Proof of Service for Constitutional Challenge, 28 U.S.C. §2403(b).
Also see Question Presented No. 8:
8. Did a letter October 10, 2012 to the Petitioner from the Florida J udicial Qualifications
Commission (J QC) waive jurisdiction in J QC Docket No. 12385 for J udge Claudia
Rickert Isom [fn1], where J QC general counsel Michael Schneider wrote, "the concerns
you express....are matters for review solely through the court system." Is this an open-
ended "right to sue" letter that allows the Human Rights Committee to receive and
consider communications under article 41, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR)?
[fn1] New information shows J udge Isom failed to report her interest in WCAT, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, where she is Vice President and Corporate Secretary; and
failed to report an ownership interest in a high performance aircraft owned by WCAT,
INC.
Please find enclosed a copy of Petition No. 13-7280, and cover page of the separate volume
appendix drawing into question the constitutionality of the J QC through Fla. Stat., sec. 43.20.
Also enclosed, please see the following:
• Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie to the U.S. Supreme Court, Notice of Non-Cooperation of the
Florida Attorney General, served November 15, 2013.
• Urgent Appeal - For Protection from Political Persecution in the United States
Observer requested for new petition filed October 23rd in the U.S. Supreme Court
October 25, 2013, provided to the United Nations, copy enclosed.
Gabriela Knaul, U.N. Special Rapporteur Independence of J udges and Lawyers, Geneva
Shuaib Chalklen, Special Rapporteur on Disability, United Nations Enable, New York
9
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 6
Section IV P. 6 COMPLAINT - Neil J . Gillespie vs. J udge MARTHA J EAN COOK
Taken from the affidavit cited below; for Exhibits referenced, see my accompanying affidavit.
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK’S
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
SEE COPY ENCLOSED WITH THIS COMPLAINT - 64 PAGES WITH EXHIBITS
TWENTY-THREE (23) PAGE AFFIDAVIT - 41 PAGES, INDEX AND EXHIBITS
_______________________________
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
vs. CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: J
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J . COOK,
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs.
_________________________________/
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK’S
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
I, Neil J . Gillespie, under oath, testify as follows:
1. My name is Neil J . Gillespie. I am over 18 years old. I was the Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant in the above-captioned case in Hillsborough County, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit.
(hereinafter “this case”). This affidavit is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.
2. I made this affidavit to impeach the “Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se”
(the “Order”), a sham Order entered November 15, 2010 by J udge Martha J . Cook in this case.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 7
(Exhibit 1). The Order is a sham and did not address a bona fide issue. J udge Cook corruptly
entered the Order during a conflict of interest, while she was a Defendant in my federal disability
and civil rights lawsuit. J udge Cook entered the Order with a corrupt motive, to stop legitimate
inquiry showing her personal and business financial affairs violated the Florida Code of J udicial
Conduct. J udge Cook recused herself in this case November 18, 2010, three days after entering
the Order. J udge Cook’s recusal shows my motion to disqualify her was legally justified.
3. On May 1, 2013 Ryan Christopher Rodems submitted the sham Order, under penalty of
perjury, in his vexatious Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) complaint against me to The Florida
Bar, case 20133090(5) for representing myself and my related interest pro se in other cases.
Consumer assistance required: Protection of an Article III federal judge
4. On the morning of September 28, 2010 I sued J udge Martha Cook, and others, for
violation of my ADA disability rights, and civil rights (section 1983) in this case. I filed my
federal lawsuit, case 5:10-cv-503, by hand-delivery to the Ocala Division, U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida. Pages 1and 2 of my pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), stamped 7:47 AM,
appear at Exhibit 2. I paid a $350 filing fee in cash to the Clerk. Exhibit 3. At all times pertinent
I was a law-abiding consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce.
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Non-Criminal J ustice Act Counsel Appointment
5. On information and belief, the federal district court had authority to appoint counsel to
represent me. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit adopted provisions for furnishing representation for
persons financially unable to obtain adequate representation in cases and situations which do not
fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, as amended -- but in which the court believes that
the interests of justice will be served by the presence of counsel. Addenda Five, 11th Cir. R.,
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 8
Non-Criminal J ustice Act Counsel Appointment, (b)(2) shows cause for appointment of counsel
because I sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the interest of justice would be served by the
presence of counsel, and on the basis of disability and mental impairment.
6. In J une 2011 appointment of counsel was, on information and belief, required under 18
U.S.C. § 3006A, and the Sixth Amendment, after Mr. Rodems corruptly obtained a warrant for
my arrest through honest services fraud with J udge Cook, who accepted things of value
(campaign donations) “in return for” official acts [18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)], improper rulings on
summary judgment, and civil contempt with arrest on writ of bodily attachment, and who used
the mail to carry out a “scheme or artifice to defraud” me [18 U.S.C. § 1341] of “the intangible
right of honest services.” [18 U.S.C. § 1346]. See U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, C.A.6.
J udge Cook made a false record of the hearing September 28. 2010
J udge Cook ordered me removed from court, falsely stated I “elected to leave”
7. After filing my federal Complaint, I drove from Ocala to Tampa for a hearing before
J udge Cook at 11:00 AM with opposing counsel Mr. Rodems, also a Defendant in 5:10-cv-503.
8. At the start of the 11:00 AM hearing, the transcript shows I informed J udge Cook that
she was a Defendant in federal case 5:10-cv-503, and I provided her a copy of the Complaint.
9. The transcript shows I made a spoken motion to disqualify J udge Cook on several
grounds, including her conflict as a Defendant in my federal lawsuit, case no. 5:10-cv-503, a
business relationship with husband William H. Sedgeman, J r., and disability discrimination.
10. J udge Cook refused to recuse as trial judge. Instead, J udge Cook ordered me removed
from the hearing, made a false record that I “elected to leave”, and ruled against me ex parte on
summary judgment, and civil contempt with provision for arrest on writ of bodily attachment, to
benefit Mr. Rodems, and his law partner and law firm who were the Defendants in this case.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 9
Eyewitness impeached J udge Cook’s false record that I “elected to leave” the hearing
Witness Christopher E. Brown, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO)
11. A witness present, a bailiff, impeached J udge Cook’s statement that I “elected to leave”
the hearing. The witness, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputy Christopher E. Brown, told his
Commander, Major J ames Livingston, that J udge Cook ordered me removed from the hearing.
Major Livingston put Deputy Brown’s statement in a letter to me J anuary 12, 2011. Exhibit 4.
12. At all times pertinent Mr. Rodems was present, and conspired with J udge Cook to create
a false record that I “elected to leave” the hearing, as shown in the transcript of the proceeding.
Entry of sham Order by J udge Cook November 15, 2010
13. On November 15, 2010 J udge Cook entered “Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing
Pro Se”, done during a conflict of interest, while she was a Defendant in 5:10-cv-503. Exhibit 1.
14. The Order states “This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ [Mr. Rodems’]
“motion for an order to show cause as to why Plaintiff should not be prohibited from henceforth
appealing pro se,” filed by Rodems J uly 29, 2010, on his personally biased claim that I was an
“abusive litigant”. Rodems and his firm have a conflict of interest with me as a former client.
15. The Order states “On November 4, 2010, this court issued the order to show cause why
Plaintiff should not be prohibited from appearing pro se.”, which gave me 20 days to respond.
16. J udge Cook entered the Order November 15, 2010, done ex parte, without a hearing, and
before my response was due November 24, 2010. (Plus an additional five days for mailing).
Motions to disqualify J udge Cook were justified: She recused November 18, 2010
17. The Order further states “Among Plaintiff’s response were his fourth and fifth attempts to
disqualify this court.”. This statement is false. My motions to disqualify J udge Cook were not a
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 10
response to the order to show cause. The motions to disqualify were separate from that matter,
and independently justified under the Code of J udicial Conduct, Florida Statutes, and case law.
18. On November 4, 2010 the Division of Elections provided me J udge Cook’s Form 6
public disclosure of financial interests for the year 2007 that showed J udge Cook owned a
beneficial interest in Community Bank of Manatee. J udge Cook failed to disclose this conflict
September 28, 2010 when I moved to disqualify her based on my financial or fiduciary
relationship with Community Bank of Manatee, husband William Sedgeman
1
, and my account
and other business with Community Bank of Manatee.
19. On November 5, 2010 I obtained a copy of the bank’s Consent Order, No. FDIC-09-569b
and OFR 0692-FI-10/09. The bank was undercapitalized, poorly managed, and at risk of failing.
20. The bank lost $9.3 million in 2009. The bank lost $1.4 million in 2010.
21. On November 8, 2010 the Florida Commission on Ethics provided me J udge Cook’s
Form 6 for the years 2008 and 2009. Since 2007 J udge Cook’s net worth had declined by almost
half and she was insolvent or essentially insolvent.
22. On November 10, 2010 I filed “Plaintiff’s 4th Motion to Disqualify J udge Martha J .
Cook”. The motion is 64 pages and accompanies this affidavit in a separate volume appendix.

1
William H. Sedgeman, J r. was Chairman & CEO of Community Bank of Manatee. Mr. Sedgeman was
married to J udge Cook. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the
common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and wife are considered as
one person and the relatives of one spouse by consanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the
same degree. State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or
their counsel might consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to disclose
relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of
Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their
counsel had dealings with a relative of the court. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla.App.3 Dist.2000.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 11
The motion is also posted on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772018/Plainitiff-s-4th-
Motion-to-Disqualify-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-Nov-10-2010
23. On information and belief, J udge Cook was unfit to serve as a judge in Florida because
her personal and business financial affairs violated the Code of J udicial Conduct
2
. An insolvent
judge lacks judicial independence and is a threat to democracy.
Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion for Order of Protection
Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. 2D10-5529 - November 18, 2010
24. On November 18, 2010 I sought removal of trial J udge Cook by writ of prohibition in the
Second District Court of Appeal, case 2D10-5529. J udge Cook recused on her own motion the
same day. J udge Martha Cook’s SUA SPONTE ORDER TO RECUSE ASSIGNED JUDGE
appears at Exhibit 5. Pages 1 and 2 of my petition, and the Clerk’s acknowledgment, appear at
Exhibit 6. Petition No. 2D10-5529 is 37 pages alone, and 763 pages with supporting exhibits.
The petition was denied as moot with respect to J udge Martha Cook December 9, 2010, and in
all other respects. The Order and docket appear at Exhibit 7. The following is posted online:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3852902/Second-District-Court-of-Appeal-Florida
• Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion for Order of Protection, with
supporting exhibits (763 pages) and without supporting exhibits (37 pages), Nov-18-2010
• Notice of Filing Supplemental Information, Nov-20-2010
• Defendants Response and Suggestion of Mootness, Nov-23-2010
• Plaintiff’s Reply to Mootness, Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment, Dec-08-2010
• Final Order, December 9, 2010, and case docket

2
I learned about J udge Cook’s finances by accident, while searching online for an explanation of J udge
Cook’s contempt for me and disability matters. I found J udge Cook had an adopted daughter who was
disabled. The daughter used the name of her father, Sedgeman. J udge Cook and her daughter appeared in
media stories about the child’s hearing loss. J udge Cook was biased on disability, but refused to
disqualify on that basis, or her contempt of my disability. I believe the child is now an adult.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 12
25. J udge Cook’s recusal
3
on her own motion shows my efforts to disqualify her were legally
justified. My 4th motion to disqualify, and petition for writ of prohibition, showed J udge Cook’s
personal and business financial affairs violated the Code of J udicial Conduct for Florida.
Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed sham Order prohibiting my pleadings
26. Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed J udge Cook’s sham Order prohibiting my pleadings.
The Clerk allowed me to file pro se pleadings to the end of the case in defiance of the Order.
27. J udge Cook entered Order Directing Clerk To Close Case (Exhibit 8) that stated:
THIS MATTER is sua sponte before the court subsequent to the final order of summary
judgment and the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all remaining issues by
Defendants. At this time, there are no pending issues before the court. The court therefore
ORDERS the Clerk TO CLOSE the case. The Clerk may only re-open this case in the
event that a mandate is issued by a reviewing court or a proper pleading, signed by a duly
licensed member in good standing of The Florida Bar, is filed in this matter.
28. Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed this second order, also entered November 15, 2010.
The Clerk allowed me to file pro se pleadings to the end of the case in defiance of the order.
29. Mr. Rodems wrote to the Clerk May 11, 2011 as follows: (Exhibit 9).
Dear Ms. Frank:
I am counsel for William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. in case number 05-
CA-7205.
On November 15, 2010, J udge Cook entered and Order barring the Plaintiff, Neil J .
Gillespie, from appearing pro se, and also directing the Clerk’s office not to accept any
more filing from Mr. Gillespie. Since that time, the Clerk’s office has accepted a number
of flings from Mr. Gillespie.
A copy of J udge Cook’s Order is enclosed.

3
A judge has a duty to remain on a case assigned to him or her unless he or she is legally
disqualified. State ex rel. Palmer v. Atkinson, 116 Fla. 366, 156 So. 726, 96 AL.R. 539 (1934);
Micale v. Polen, 487 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1986).
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 13
Would you please explain why your office has not complied with J udge Cook’s Order?
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
30. Dale Bohner, Clerk’s Counsel, notified me that the Clerk did not respond to Rodems.
Motions to disqualify J udge Cook were a public service
Information benefited the citizens and state of Florida
31. Community Bank of Manatee sold a controlling interest to a Brazilian billionaire named
Marcelo Faria de Lima. He and others invested millions of dollars in J udge Cook’s bank, and
saved J udge Cook, husband William H. Sedgeman, J r., and the bank, from financial ruin.
32. During the review process with OFR, the Office of Financial Regulation, Mr. Lima failed
to disclose that his past employer ABN AMRO Bank faced one of the largest Money Laundering
and Trading With The Enemy cases ever brought by the Department of J ustice.
33. Mr. Lima’s tenure at ABN AMRO Bank in Chicago coincides with accusations of
significant criminal activity. On December 19, 2005 a Cease and Desist Order, FRB Dkt. No. 05-
035-B-FB, was issued against ABN AMRO Bank, including the Chicago Branch where Mr.
Lima worked. ABN AMRO Bank agreed to stop its unlawful money laundering operations
which date to 1995 during Mr. Lima’s tenure. The matter was widely reported in the press,
including the Wall Street J ournal on December 20, 2005 "ABN Amro to Pay $80 Million Fine
Over Iran, Libya", but Mr. Lima claimed he never knew and failed to disclose the information as
required by law on his Interagency Biographical and Financial Report submitted to OFR.
34. OFR failed to conduct a sufficient background check on Mr. Lima that would have
disclosed criminal activity during his tenure at ABN AMRO Bank that was not reported on his
application to acquire a controlling interest in the bank as required by Florida law. Much of this
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 14
information can be found in my Petition for Public Hearing in the Application To Merge
Community Bank & Company with First Community Bank of America, OFR Admin. File No.
0828-FI-03/11. The petition is also on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51601224/Merger-
of-Community-Bank-and-Company-OfR-Petition-for-Public-Hearing
35. My Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for Public Hearing alleged OFR Commissioner J .
Thomas Cardwell used his office to benefit the special interest of J udge Cook, et al, over the
citizens of Florida. The notice is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/53002574/2011-04-14-
11-Notice-of-Withdrawal-Admin-File-0828-FI-03-11
36. A letter from the Office of Gov. Rick Scott February 22, 2011 thanked me for contacting
the Governor about changes needed to the Office of Financial Regulation. (ORF), and suggested
I share my concerns with the Florida Cabinet about my recent experience with OFR. Exhibit 10.
37. I shared my concerns with the Florida Cabinet. Brooke McKnight responded for
Commissioner Adam H. Putnam by letter to me May 17, 2011. Exhibit 11. Ms. McKnight wrote:
Thank you for contacting Commissioner Putnam to share your concerns with the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation (OFR). He has requested that I contact you on his behalf.
Commissioner Putnam agrees that politics have no role in detern1ining the future of a
financial institution and believes that consistent regulation of our state's financial
institutions will provide for the growth and stability of sound community banks and
thrifts. Please know that it remains of paramount importance to the commissioner that
Florida's financial institutions receive fair and equal treatment among regulators -
whether State or Federal.
The Commissioner has directed me to make sure your concerns are brought to OFR's
attention and properly addressed.
38. Brandon Brooks responded on behalf of Attorney General Pam Bondi May 24, 2011 that
my complaint was forwarded the Attorney General’s legal staff for further review, and made a
referral to the Office of Inspector General. The letter appears at Exhibit 12.
determining
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 15
39. Gov. Scott choose Tom Grady to replace Mr. Cardwell as OFR Commissioner.
Tampa Tribune: “Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures”
by Shannon Behnken, J uly 21, 2011
40. Home mortgage foreclosure defense lawyers, and homeowners in foreclosure, also
benefited from information in my motion to disqualify J udge Cook. Martha Cook is a judge of
questionable ethics according to a story in the Tampa Tribune by Shannon Behnken, J uly 21,
2011: "Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures". Exhibit 13. A number of
Florida legal authorities have publicly criticized J udge Cook, including Henry P. Trawick J r., a
Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice and Procedure.
Henry P. Trawick J r., a Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice
and Procedure, a textbook used by lawyers, said it's good that Cook
disqualifies herself from hearing cases that involved her husband's
bank. But he said she should go a step further.
"I think she shouldn't hear foreclosure cases," Trawick said. "That's what
I would do if I had that close of a connection, but perhaps my ethical
standards are higher."
The problem, Trawick said, is whether or not Cook shows favor to the
banks; those representing homeowners may feel like she might.
This story was profiled J uly 22, 2011 on The Florida Bar’s Daily News Summary. Exhibit 14.
41. On J uly 20, 2011, attorney Mark P. Stopa wrote J udge Cook about presiding over
foreclosure cases. Mr. Stopa’s letter appears at Exhibit 15. Mr. Stopa wrote in part:
Respectfully, I am concerned at your decision to continue presiding over mortgage
foreclosure cases given your personal ties to the banking industry and that of your
husband. While I do not profess to have personal knowledge of the veracity of the
following facts, it seems as if these facts are true, particularly since I have seen
documents bearing your signature containing this information:
1. Your husband is the Chairman and CEO of Community Bank of Manatee (and
has been for quite some time);
2. You have/had more than a 5% ownership interest in that bank;
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 16
3. Your personal net worth decreased by nearly half in recent years, largely
because of the near-failure of Community Bank.
Mr. Stopa, and other legal authorities, were quoted in the Tampa Tribune story by Shannon
Behnken, “Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures”:
"It's reasonable that a homeowner would fear they aren't going to get a
fair hearing before her," said Mark Stopa, a foreclosure defense
attorney. "There's no way I could go into court before her without
thinking about this."...
...Stopa, the foreclosure defense attorney, said Cook once told him in
court that she thought the "only way to improve the economy is to push
through foreclosures as soon as possible."
Cook said she was misquoted, but she declined to correct the statement.
Mike Wasylik, a foreclosure defense attorney, said he's had few cases
before Cook but is uncomfortable with her connection to a local bank.
"A judge has the duty to avoid even the appearance of bias," Wasylik
said. "She may have personal opinions about the need to push
foreclosures through quickly."
Phyllis Kotey, a professor at FIU School of Law, said the connections
show an "appearance of personal and financial interest."
"At the very least, parties before her should be put on notice and have
the opportunity to object to her hearing their cases."
Mr. Stopa’s letter was widely distributed on the Internet, and featured by a number of websites.
42. On information and belief, Hillsborough Chief J udge Manuel Menendez, J r. reassigned
J udge Cook to the criminal division because she refused to recuse from foreclosure cases.
Same-sex “Husband and Husband” mortgage vesting
J udge Cook’s bank, then called “Community Bank & Company”
43. J udge Cook’s bank favored its new CEO, an associate of the Brazilian billionaire who
invested millions of dollars to bailout J udge Cook, and save her from financial ruin, by making a
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 17
“Husband and Husband” mortgage for him, perhaps the first same-sex mortgage in the state of
Florida (Page 1 of the mortgage appears at Exhibit 16), but contrary to the Florida Constitution:
Article 1, Section 27: "Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of
only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as
marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
44. Personally I believe all eligible couples wanting a same-sex mortgage should get one as a
matter of law. Such right should not be limited to a single wealthy benefactor of a Florida judge.
45. The Florida Attorney General wrote me about same-sex mortgage by email August 10,
2012 at 4.17 PM, by Samantha Santana, Office of Citizen Services, who wrote in relevant part:
Hello Mr. Gillespie,
The Florida Attorney General's Office received your most recent email and
postal correspondence in which you request opinions relating to...mortgages
entered into by same-sex couples.
Attorney General Bondi has asked that I respond.
To date, this office has not issued an Attorney General Opinion (AGO) in
regard to mortgages entered into by same-sex couples....
46. Florida Gov. Rick Scott wrote me August 6, 2012 about same-sex mortgage in response
to my letter of J uly 20, 2012, by Martha Lynn, Office of Citizen Services, who wrote in part:
The person who can best assist you with your question/concerns about "Husband and
Husband" mortgage is an attorney.
You should contact the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) about your complaint
against J udge Cook.
Regarding your views on same-sex marriage, you can influence legislation by contacting
your local legislative delegation.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 18
The letter of Martha Lynn, Office of Citizen Services for Gov. Scott, appears at Exhibit 17. My
33 page letter to Gov. Scott is posted on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/100665091/Letter-
to-Gov-Rick-Scott-Husband-and-Husband-Mortgage-C1-Bank
J udicial Qualifications Commission - J QC
47. Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar Unlicensed Practice of Law
Department, Orlando Branch Office, emailed me On May 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM in part:
I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct
by J udge Cook as such matters are handled by the Florida J udicial Qualifications
Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com
48. Previously I made three (3) meritorious complaints against J udge Martha J . Cook to the
J udicial Qualifications Commission
4
, all of which were dismissed:
JQC Docket No. 12554, Complaint against J udge Martha J . Cook November 26, 2012 in
this case for judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the
State of Florida, including:
• Lied and was dishonest in judicial proceedings before her, and created a false record.
• Abdicated her role as judge, and improperly allowed opposing counsel a judicial role.
• Entered as her own authorship a six page order prepared by opposing counsel.
• Violated criminal law, §§ 837.06, 838.022, 839.13(1), to favor and assist opposing
counsel in judicial proceedings before her, and to harm me and my cause.
• Disparaged, humiliated and discriminated against me on the basis of disability.
Denied J anuary 24, 2013 by letter of Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel. Posted on Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/147841154/J QC-Docket-12554-J udge-Martha-J -Cook

4
On information and belief, the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) is an independent
agency created by the Florida Constitution solely to investigate alleged misconduct by Florida
state judges. It is not a part of the Florida Supreme Court or the state courts and operates under
rules it establishes for itself. Authority for The J udicial Qualifications Commission is found in
the Florida Constitution, Article V J udiciary, Section 12 Discipline; removal and retirement.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 19
JQC Docket No. 11375, Complaint August 17, 2011, for misconduct reported in the
Tampa Tribune J uly 21, 2011, a news story by reporter Shannon Behnken, "Critics: J udge with
interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures". Denied September 13, 2011 by letter of Michael L.
Schneider, General Counsel. Posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/109873211/J QC-
Complaint-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-Docket-No-11375
JQC Docket No. 10495, Complaint against J udge Martha J . Cook October 5, 2010 in
this case for judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the
State of Florida. Denied J anuary 7, 2011 by letter of Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel.
Posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/109873802/J QC-Complaint-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-
Docket-No-10495
49. February 20, 2011 I emailed the Brennan Center for J ustice, but got no response to my
complaint that Florida’s discipline of judges is not credible. I wrote in part:
In the state of Florida there have been forty (40) disciplinary cases against judges for the
last 10 years (2000-2010) according to the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission.
At least two cases that I know of were dismissed without a finding of wrongdoing. (J udge
Gregory Holder). http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
This amounts to an average of four (4) cases per year. There are 774 judges in the state of
Florida.
7 supreme court
61 DCA
448 circuit court
258 county court
774 total
Based on these figures just over one half of one percent (0.52%) of Florida J udges have
been subject to inquiry for 2000-2010. This number seems so low as to be not credible.
50. On information and belief, people who complain about wrongdoing in the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit face retribution, and worse, as happened to a sitting judge. Florida Circuit J udge
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 20
Gregory Holder paid a heavy price for speaking out against wrongdoing in the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit, almost $2 million and years of legal abuse. As set forth in my Response to Order
to Show Cause (Doc. 58) in case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS: (page 5)
The Thirteenth Circuit is notorious for wrongdoing. The price is high for confronting
judicial misconduct. In one example, Circuit J udge Gregory Holder spoke to the media
about judicial misconduct, and was a cooperating witness (2001-2002) in a federal
criminal investigation of corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. In retaliation
the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) pursued two failed inquiries
against him, J QC Inquiry Nos. 01-303 and 02-487. J udge Holder spent many years and
$1.92 million successfully defending himself. On J une 23, 2005, the Hearing Panel of the
J QC voted unanimously to dismiss the charges against J udge Holder. This was the first
trial defense verdict against the J QC in almost twenty years. On September 15, 2009 the
Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC03-1171, ordered entry of judgment for J udge
Holder for recovery of costs from the J QC in the amount of $70,000 for successfully
defending J QC Inquiry No. 02-487. J udge Holder’s actual expenses were $1,779,691.81
in legal fees, and cost of $140,870.79.
Public files in the above J QC cases are online on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
According to the public file, J udge Holder’s life was at risk for reporting judicial misconduct:
During 2001 and 2002, J udge Holder cooperated with the FBI in the courthouse
corruption investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 4-5, at App. 3.] Because of J udge Holder’s
cooperation, the investigation’s targets had motive and resources to seek retribution
against him. [Id. at pp. 7-8] Indeed, these targets faced not just loss of position but
potential incarceration. [Id.] Detective Bartoszak testified at trial that the courthouse
corruption investigation team was concerned that J udge Holder’s activities were being
monitored by targets of the investigation. J udge Holder was advised by federal law
enforcement agents to carry a weapon, and he was provided with a secure cell phone to
communicate with the authorities. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7-8, at App. 3.]
Page 7, Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS.
An appendix of key documents in the J QC Inquiry of J udge Holder, J QC No. 02-487, Supreme
Court No. SC03-1171, are posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/147143787/Vexatious-
J QC-Inquiry-No-02-487-of-J udge-Gregory-P-Holder-Fla-sup-Ct-No-SC03-1171
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 21
All the documents are online at the link on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/03/03-1171/index.html
David A. Rowland, General Counsel
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
51. On May 16, 2013 I notified Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Civil
Litigation Bureau, that David Rowland misrepresented to him that I did not provide Rowland a
copy of my Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In turn the Attorney General did not file a response that was due J anuary 14, 2013. Without a
response, a petition has much less chance of success in my opinion, because the issues are not
debated through response and rebuttal briefs permitted under the Rules of the U.S. Supreme
Court. Therefore I believe Mr. Rowland knowingly and willfully obstructed justice in my
petition with malice aforethought. My letter (only) to AAG Wilson appears at Exhibit 18, and
with exhibits (24 pages) is posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/142305243/Kenneth-
Wilson-Fla-AAG-Records-Missing-Petition-No-12-7747
52. My 4th motion to disqualify J udge Cook shows that Mr. Rowland was active in this case,
that he seized control of my ADA disability accommodation request (Exhibit 19), and that he
was likely instructing J udge Cook how to make rulings in this case. Beginning on page 12, ¶ 36:
36. J udge Cook’s poor state of financial affairs suggests why Court Counsel David A.
Rowland has been so active in Gillespie’s lawsuit since the case was reassigned to J udge
Cook May 24, 2010 after J udge Barton was disqualified when it was learned that
opposing counsel paid thousands of dollars to the J udge’s wife’s business.
37. On J uly 9, 2010 Mr. Rowland seized control of Gillespie’s ADA accommodation
request from Gonzalo B. Casares, the Court’s ADA Coordinator, and issued his own
letter denying the request. Likewise there is evidence that Mr. Rowland is controlling
J udge Cook in this case from behind the scene.
38. On J uly 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM Gillespie spoke by phone with Mr. Rowland about
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 22
his letter of J uly 9, 2010 denying Gillespie’s ADA request. Gillespie and Mr. Rowland
discussed the notice of claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes. They also
discussed Mr. Rodems’ representation of his firm and Gillespie’s emergency motion to
disqualify Rodems pending before J udge Cook. Mr. Rowland expresses surprise when
Gillespie informed him that the motion, filed J uly 9th, was still pending. Later that day
J udge Cook denied the motion without a hearing. J udge Cook’s Order was filed with the
Clerk J uly 22, 2010 at 3.17 PM according to the Clerk’s time stamp on the Order.
39. Gillespie believes the timing of events is not circumstantial, and that following the
aforementioned phone call Mr. Rowland instructed J udge Cook to deny Gillespie’s
emergency motion to disqualify Rodems pending before her. The Order itself is unlawful,
see Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook falsified an
official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie due process on the disqualification
of Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel, filed November 1, 2010.
40. As Court Counsel Mr. Rowland was preemptively defending the Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit against Gillespie’s lawsuit formally announced J uly 12, 2010 in the notice of
claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes, but first raised in Gillespie’s
letter to Rowland of J anuary 4, 2010 requesting information about section 768.28(6)(a)
Florida Statutes. (Exhibit 10).
J udge Cook: “marionette” to Mr. Rodems
U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
53. I am a consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce in this case.
54. I commenced this lawsuit August 11, 2005 by filing the Complaint and paying a $255
filing fee, in cash, to the Clerk of the Court. I paid an additional $40 cash August 11, 2005 to the
Hillsborough County Sheriff to serve the Complaint on the Defendants.
55. The Circuit Court of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, is a court created by statute to administer, apply, and interpret the laws of the state of
Florida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal
self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 23
56. Martha J ean Cook is an elected judge for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, and was by
virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for
lawfully performing and discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
56. As shown in this affidavit, J udge Cook did not lawfully perform and discharge her duties,
but served as Mr. Rodems’ “marionette” as that term is used in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S.
Sixth Circuit, which 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).
57. The following is from my Rule 21 motion to correct and supplement my petition for
rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari. Unfortunately my Rule 21 Motion was
delayed one day in transit, and another day at the Supreme Court’s separate quarantine location,
and did not arrive to the Court until the rehearing was denied April 15, 2013. The Rule 21
motion was not heard, and was returned to me. This scenario may have been avoided if the Court
permitted e-filing like other federal courts. PACER and CM/ECF would allow the Supreme
Court to provide access to court services in an effective and expeditious manner as required by
the Constitution and laws of the United States. My Rule 21 motion is currently posted on Scribd
at the link below for anyone in the world to read, except perhaps the J ustices of the Supreme
Court of the United States. http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/Rule-21-Motion-12-7747-
With-Appendicies-Apr-10-2013
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 24
See my letter (only) to Kathleen L. Arberg, Public Information Officer, U.S. Supreme Court at
Exhibit 20, and with exhibits on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/144645896/SCOTUS-
Public-Information-Officer-Kathleen-L-Arberg
58. 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.
59. In my case, J udge Cook accepted campaign donations from Mr. 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 this
case. H.C.S.O. Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major J ames Livingston, provided evidence
that J udge Cook and Rodems falsified the record of the hearing. J udge Cook and Rodems 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.
60. 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
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
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 25
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).
61. 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.
62. 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
5
.
63. 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).
64. 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
6
, and instructed J udge Cook to sign, together with postage paid
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:

5
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.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 26
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.
65. 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.

6
Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems’ notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 27
Conflict of Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
with former client Neil J . Gillespie
66. In this case I sued pro se the Defendants, my former lawyers, for stealing $6,224.78
(Attorney Seldon Childers later determined the amount was $7,143) from my settlement in a
“payday loan” case, a concocted closing statement fraud in Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie
v. AMSCOT Corporation, Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in
violation of Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), and for fraud, and breach of contract.
67. Mr. Rodems, a partner in Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., unlawfully represented his firm
and partner against me, a former client in the same or substantially related matter, contrary to
Florida Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, and the holding in McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland was entered J une 30, 1995 by United States
J udge Elizabeth Kovachevich. The case appears at Exhibit 21 and holds as follows:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional
impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.
[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show
existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for
purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing
party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court
must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal
advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be “substantially related”
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial
relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant
and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information
was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under
Florida law.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 28
68. William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (BRC) represented or consulted with
me on other “payday loan” cases where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation
against BRC, and did not make Bar complaints against lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A:
Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, in United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. (Circuit Court, Hillsborough
Consolidated Case No. 99-9730). This was a “payday loan” case like AMSCOT.
EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater. a “payday loan” case like AMSCOT. (settled pro se)
National Cash Advance. This was a “payday loan” case like AMSCOT. (settled pro se)
William Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA consulted with me on disability and
employment matters where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation against BRC,
and did not make Bar complaints against the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.:
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), DLES Case No. 98-066-DVR, found my
disability too severe for services to result in employment. (Exhibit 22)
St. Petersburg J unior College, job placement for students with disabilities, the program
did not exist as advertised. Encountered age discrimination (over age 40). (Exhibit 23)
Federal Bureau of Investigation - FBI - Civil Rights, Color of Law Abuses
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
69. From the Federal Bureau of Investigation website, Civil Rights, Color of Law Abuses:
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security
guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government
agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country.
These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize
property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in
certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our
nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of
law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the
Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority
given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 29
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include
acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of
their lawful authority...
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures....
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of
law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure....
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment
prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these
rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment).
The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should
not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal
process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect
local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual
from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts, upon personal
knowledge, and information and belief, are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
Dated this 14th day of J une 2013.

NEIL J . GILLESPIE
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 30
Section V P. 30 The J QC - Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission
The J udicial Qualifications Commission of Florida is an independent agency created by the
Florida Constitution solely to investigate alleged misconduct by Florida state judges in a fair and
unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal self-enrichment,
self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
Authority for The J udicial Qualifications Commission is found in the Florida Constitution,
Article V J udiciary, Section 12 Discipline; removal and retirement, and section 43.20 Florida
Statutes, J udicial Qualifications Commission:
43.20(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to implement s. 12(b), Art. V of the
State Constitution which provides for a J udicial Qualifications Commission.
Brooke S. Kennerly is the Executive Director of the J udicial Qualifications Commission, and is
by virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for
lawfully performing and discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, conflict of interest, or UPL.
Michael Schneider is the General Counsel of the J udicial Qualifications Commission, and is by
virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for
lawfully performing and discharging his duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, conflict of interest, or UPL.
Ricardo (Rick) Morales, III, is Commission Chair of the J udicial Qualifications Commission,
and is by virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible
for lawfully performing and discharging his duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, conflict of interest, or UPL.
Commission Members of the J udicial Qualifications Commission are each by virtue of that
position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for lawfully
performing and discharging his or her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, conflict of interest, or the
Unlicensed Practice of Law. A list of Commission Members, November 20, 2013, is enclosed.
Florida - Corruption Capital of America
Florida is the most corrupt state in America. The New York Times, September 1, 2013, by Nick
Madigan: Arrests of 3 Mayors Reinforce Florida’s Notoriety as a Hothouse for Corruption:
“...Florida....led the country in convictions of public officials - 781 - between 2000 and
2010, according to Department of J ustice figures.”
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 31
“Florida has become the corruption capital of America," said Dan Krassner, the executive
director of a watchdog group, Integrity Florida, citing statistics going back to 1976 and
the "significant number of public officials arrested this year and last.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/arrests-of-3-mayors-reinforce-floridas-notoriety-as-a-
hothouse-for-corruption.html
Reporting Professional Misconduct
Member of The Florida Bar have a duty to report misconduct of lawyers and judges:
Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer
has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial
question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) Reporting Misconduct of J udges. A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a
violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the
judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
Misprision of Felony
All persons have a duty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4 - Misprision of felony:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court
of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to
some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
See U.S. v Scruggs, 11-60564, C.A.5, Opinion, misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. 4
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-60564-CV0.wpd.pdf
Offenses Related to Obstruction of J ustice Offenses
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01739.htm
In part, from the D.O.J . Criminal Resource Manual 1739:
C. 18 U.S.C. § 241--conspiracy to injure or intimidate any citizen on account of his or her
exercise or possibility of exercise of Federal right (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512,
and 1513). Under 18 U.S.C. § 241, it is a Federal offense to conspire to injure a citizen for
having exercised a Federal right or to conspire to intimidate a citizen from exercising a Federal
right. One such right is the right to be a witness in a Federal court, United States v. Dinome, 954
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 32
F.2d 839, 845 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 830 (1992); United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d
616, 626 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1008, and cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1109, and cert.
denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982); or other Federal proceeding, United States v. Smith, 623 F.2d 627,
629 (9th Cir. 1980). "So is the right to inform Federal officials of violations of Federal laws." Id.
E. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 372--conspiracies to commit any offense against the United States, or to
prevent or retaliate in response to the lawful discharge of the duties of Federal officers (overlap
with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513). see generally United States v.
Frankhauser, 80 F.3d 641, 653 (1st Cir. 1996) (conspiracy to persuade witness to destroy or
conceal evidence for use in an official proceeding); United States v. Fullbright, 69 F.3d 1468,
1472 (9th Cir. 1995) (conspiracy to mail arrest warrants to a United States Bankruptcy J udge);
United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365, 1367 (6th Cir. 1994) (conspiracy to alter flight log books
of police officers to prevent information from reaching the grand jury); United States v.
J eter, 775 F.2d 670, 683 (5th Cir. 1985) (conspiracy to obtain secret grand jury information),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 (1986).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of legitimate government activity may take any
of several forms:
1. Bribery of a government employee, kickbacks to government employees or extortion
of money or favors by government employees, misrepresentations of financial capability,
alteration or falsification of official records, submission of false documents; and
2. Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00925.htm
Article VI and Treaties of the United States
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides in part, “...all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
J udges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding.” I believe certain Treaties of the United States may apply:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Signed by the United States October 5, 1977; ratified J une 8, 1992.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
The review of the United Sates of America has been canceled
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/ReviewUSA.aspx
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
Signed by the United States December 9, 2003; ratified October 30, 2006
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 33
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Resolution 217(A)(III) of the United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948.
U.S. State Department link http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/204710.pdf
"Legal aid, a right in itself" – UN Special Rapporteur - May 30, 2013
"Legal aid is both a right in itself and an essential precondition for the exercise and enjoyment of
a number of human rights, including the rights to a fair trial and to an effective remedy," said
Ms. Knaul, presenting her latest report to the UN Human Rights Council. "It represents an
important safeguard that contributes to ensuring the fairness and public trust in the
administration of justice."
“States bear the primary responsibility to adopt all appropriate measures to fully realize the right
to legal aid for any individual within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction,” the Special
Rapporteur said. “Beneficiaries of legal aid should include any person who comes into contact
with the law and does not have the means to pay for counsel.”
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13382&LangID=E
Integrity Florida - http://www.integrityflorida.org/
Integrity Florida is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute and government watchdog whose
mission is to promote integrity in government and expose public corruption. Florida led the U.S.
in federal public corruption convictions from 2000-2010. Florida received a failing grade for
state ethics enforcement agencies, see Corruption Risk Report Card, State Integrity Investigation.
• Corruption Risk Report: Florida Ethics Laws, J une 2012 by Ben Wilcox and Dan Krassner
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Integrity_Florida-Corruption-Risk-
Report-Florida-Ethics-Laws-06.06.12.pdf
• Florida’s Broken Campaign Finance System, J an-16, 2013 by Ben Wilcox and Dan Krassner
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Floridas-Broken-Campaign-
Finance-System-Integrity-Florida-Report-to-the-Florida-House-of-Representatives-FINAL-
01.16.13.pdf
• Enterprise Florida: Economic Development or Corporate Welfare? February 2013
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Enterprise-Florida-Economic-
Development-or-Corporate-Welfare-FINAL2.pdf
• Corruption Risk Report: Enterprise Florida, by Ben Wilcox and Dan Krassner
http://www.integrityflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Integrity_Florida-Corruption-Risk-
Report-Enterprise-Florida-04.25.12.pdf
J QC Complaint - Martha J ean Cook - November 20, 2013 Page - 34
Section VI P. 34 Conclusion - J udge Cook must be removed from office
Unfortunately Martha J ean Cook is dishonest and has engaged in a wide range of misconduct as
shown here. This complaint shows the existence of judicial misconduct and disability by J udge
Cook as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. J udge Cook must be
immediately removed from office to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Florida is the most corrupt state in America, and Hillsborough County may be the most corrupt
county in Florida, as shown in my past complaints to the J QC, which it has wrongly dismissed.
A J udge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the J udiciary. Canon 1. An independent
and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in
establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe
those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.
A J udge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the J udge's
Activities. Canon 2. Section A, a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept
restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
and should do so freely and willingly. The Commentary to Canon 2A holds, “Irresponsible or
improper conduct by judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary. A judge must avoid all
impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant
public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be
viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.”
Fiscal Matters of a J udge Shall be Conducted in a Manner That Does Not Give the Appearance
of Influence or Impropriety; a J udge Shall Regularly File Public Reports as Required by Article
II, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, and Shall Publicly Report Gifts; Additional
Financial Information Shall be Filed With the J udicial Qualifications Commission to Ensure Full
Financial Disclosure. Canon 6.
Martha J ean Cook is personally known to me as a complete and utter liar. J udge Cook was
dishonest September 28, 2010 during a hearing on final summary judgment in my civil lawsuit,
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.
There is no polite way to say this: J udge Cook is a criminal, as shown in Petition No. 13-7280,
pages 35-37. J udge Cook accepted things of value “in return for” official acts. 18 U.S.C. §
201(b)(2). J udge Cook and Mr. Rodems used the mail to carry out a “scheme or artifice to
defraud” me, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, of “the intangible right of honest services.” 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
In consideration of the foregoing, J udge Martha J ean Cook must be removed from office.
JOC Complaint - Martha Jean Cook - Noven1ber 20, 2013   Page - 35 
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and understand this complaint and 
to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and 
subn1itted of my own free  will. 
Telephone:  (352) 854-7807 
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net 
Enclosures: JQC complaint form,  and supporting documents: 
1.   List, JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS 
2.   Petition No.  13-7280 for writ of certiorari, U.S.  Supreme Court 
3.   Affidavit of Neil J.  Gillespie on Judge Martha J.  Cook's Order Prohibiting Plaintifffrom
Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order], June  14,2013 
4.   Separate Volume Appendix, Plaintiffs 4th Motion to Disqualify Judge Martha J.  Cook 
5.   Letter of Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Investigation of Gillespie, No.  20133090(5), May-14-13 
6.   Letter of Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Investigation of Gillespie, No.  20133090(5), July-25-13 
7.   Cover page Separate Appendix, Petition No.  13-7280, FL Challenge 28 USC 2403-b 
8.   Composite, Separate Appendix, Treaties of the United States 
9.   Rule 29 Proof of Service November 5,2013, Petition No.  13-7280 
10.   Nov-05-2013  letter of Gillespie to Clerk-SCOTUS, w/disability accomn10dation request 
11.   Urgent Appeal, UN Special Rapporteurs, October 25, 2013 
12.   Affidavit of Neil J.  Gillespie, I have a well-foundedfear ofpoliticaI
13.   Affidavit of Neil J.  Gillespie, Fraud and Impairn1ent of Petition No.  12-7747 
14.   Affidavit of Neil J Gillespie, Notice of Non-Cooperation of the Florida Attorney General 
J UDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS
On information and belief, this is a list of Commission members November 20, 2013.
Kindly advise the complainant if this list is not current, and of any changes needed.
Mr. Ricardo (Rick) Morales, III , CHAIR
President, Morales Construction Co., Inc.
The Morales Group
6950 Philips Highway, Suite 15
J acksonville, FL 32216
Hon. Kerry I. Evander, VICE-CHAIR
Florida Bar ID Number: 302597
Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 S Beach St.
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-5002
Alan B. Bookman, Esq.
Florida Bar ID Number: 154770
Emmanuel Sheppard & Condon, P.A.
PO Box 1271
Pensacola, Florida 32591-1271
Ms. Shirlee P. Bowne
Tallahassee, Florida (retired)
Michelle K. Cummings, Esq.
Florida Bar ID Number: 299464
GrayRobinson, P.A.
401 E Las Olas Blvd Ste 1850
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-4236
Mayanne Downs, Esq.
Florida Bar ID Number: 754900
GrayRobinson P A
301 E Pine St. Fl 14
Orlando, Florida 32801-2724
Mr. Harry R. Duncanson, C.P.A.
9704 Waters Meet Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32312-372
Hon. Thomas B. Freeman
Florida Bar ID Number: 118504
Pinellas Co. C J C, Florida
Hon. Krista Marx
Florida Bar ID Number: 511749
205 N Dixie Hwy.
West Palm Beach, Florida 334014-5222
Steven R. Maxwell, Ed.D.
Educator, School District of Lee County
Sanibel, Florida
Hon. Michelle T. Morley
Florida Bar ID Number: 603333
Sumter County Courthouse
215 E McCollum Ave.
Bushnell, Florida 33513-6120
Hon. Robert Morris
Florida Bar ID Number: 308439
2nd District Court of Appeal
PO Box 327
Lakeland, Florida 33802-0327
J erome S. Osteryoung, Ph.D.
Professor of Finance
FSU, Tallahassee Florida
Hon. J ames A. Ruth
Florida Bar ID Number: 494372
Duval County Courthouse
501 W Adams St. Rm. 7159
J acksonville, Florida 32202-4603
J ohn G. (J ay) White, III, Esq.
Florida Bar ID Number: 389640
Richman Greer P.A.
250 S Australian Ave Ste 1504
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5016
_________________________________
Executive Director, Brooke S. Kennerly
General Counsel, Michael L. Schneider
Florida Bar ID Number: 525049

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful