RICARDO "RICK" MORALES, III

CHAIR
HON. KERRY!. EVANDER
VICE - CHAIR
MICHAEL L. SCHNEIDER
GENERAL COUNSEL
STATE OF FLORIDA
~ U D I   I L QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
I I 10 'THOMASVILLE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32303-6224
<8S0) 488- I S8 I
December 10,2013
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Docket No. 13527, Judge Isom
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
Coqe of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are
matters for review through the normal court process.
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. $chneider
General Counsel
MLS/bsk
    1::1.... 32°3'
It}   1. 'To
STATE OF FLORIDA
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS (;OMMISSION
1110 THOMASVILLE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
t
h Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
34481$3567 t IJ J. J' -, J. II J, IJ".II JJ ,,, J"" JI II I l' tJ" ""', 't"III fJII"I.,
  4 ,.$     J,4/."
Florida Judicial .
111 0 Thomasville Road
c r ,. ,•• ,'.,. '.'"PH," .•. . ... ..
Tallahassee, FL   .... 'tor.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Your correspondence has been received and will be  
reviewed by the Commission when it meets next.  
You will be notified of the Commission's actions by return mail.  
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission  
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.  
(Note:  This form  can  be  typed  into here,  then  printed,  or print it  out and  fill  it  in  by  hand.)  
I.  Person Making Complaint 
Name  Gillespie 
Neil  Joseph 
Mr. 
Ms. 
Mrs. 
(Last)  (First)  (Middle) 
Address 
8092 SW 115th Loop 
Ocala,  Florida 34481 
Telephone Number(s):  (Day) 352-854-7807  (Evening)  _ 
*********************************************************************** 
II.  Judge Against Whom Complaint is Made 
Name 
Isom  Claudia  Rickert 
(Last)  (First)  (Middle) 
Address  George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E.  Twiggs Street,  Room 430 
Tampa,  FL 33602 
Supreme Court 
District Court 
of Appeal 
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.  Hillsborough Co 
Circuit Court 
County Court 
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.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
I
--
If additional space is required, attach and number pages.
This complaint is not related to my case where Judge Isom presided. However in the interest of full  disclosure I noted that case below 
(05-CA-7205), and provided a copy (without exhibits) of my previous complaint made August  15, 2012 related to that case, and letter 
of Mr. Schneider re: Docket No.  12385 Judge Isom to Neil J. Gillespie October 10, 2012 "the concerns you express....are matters for 
review solely through the court system." 
This complaint concerns Judge Isom's violation of the Constitution of the State of Florida, Article V, Section 13; failure to disclose 
multiple "Interests In Specified Businesses" on the Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests, Section E; failure to 
disclose an ownership interest in a high performance aircraft; likely tax evasion through WCAT, INC.; and concealment of the real 
purpose and use ofWCAT, INC., the high performance aircraft, and purpose for failing to disclose this information. 
IV. AdditionalInformation(ifavailable)
a. Ifyourcomplaintarisesoutofacourtcase, pleaseanswerthefollowingquestions:
1. Whatis thenameand numberofthecase?
Gillespiev. Barker, Rodems&Cook, PA, etal C N 05-CA-007205, HillsboroughCo.
Case name: ase o. _
2.   Whatkind ofcase is it? 
¢  civil [J criminal D domesticrelations D probate 
o smallclaims 0 traffic 0 other(specify)
3. Whatisyourrelationshiptothecase? I
counter-defendant 
It plaintiff/petitioner defendant/respondent 
o attorneyfor _
o witnessfor _
o other(specify)
b. Ifyou wererepresented byan attorneyinthismatteratthetimeofthejudge'sconduct, please
identifytheattorney:
Name_n_l_a _
Address _ 
Phone _ 
c. Listand attachcopiesofanyrelevantdocumentswhichyou believesupportyourclaim thatthe
judgehas engaged injudicialmisconductorhas adisability. (Note: Retain acopyforyour
recordsas thesedocumentsshallbecomethepropertyoftheCommission and maynotbe
returned.)
Seeaccompanyingwrittencomplaintandsupportingdocuments.
d. Identify, ifyou can, anyotherwitnesses totheconductaboutwhich you complain:
Seeaccompanyingwrittencomplaintandsupportingdocuments.
Name(s): _
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents. 
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents. 
Addresses:   _ 
See 8CCOmpanylng written complaint and supporting documents. 
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  BY THE  COMMISSION. 
V.   Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and  understand this complaint form and 
to the best of my knowledge and  belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and 
submitted of my own free will. 
October 17, 2013 
(Date) 
Please  note  that  the  Commission  only  has  authority  to  investigate  allegations  of  judicial 
misconduct or permanent disability by persons  holding state judicial positions.  The  Commission 
has  no  jurisdiction  over  a,nd  does  not consider  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  a judge  in  the 
course  of a court  proceeding.  For  example,  the Commission  does  not investigate claims  that a 
judge  wrongfully  excluded  evidence;  imposed  an  improper  sentence,  awarded  custody  to  the 
wrong  party;  incorrectly awarded  alimony or child  support;  incorrectly resolved  a legal issue  or 
believed perjured testimony. 
Please  return this form and  direct all future communications to: 
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 
1110 Thomasville Road 
Tallahassee,  FL  32303-6224 
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP292234917 October 17, 2013
Rick Morales J QC Commission Chair
J QC Commission Members (member list enclosed)
c/o Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director
c/o Michael Schneider, General Counsel
J udicial Qualifications Commission - J QC
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6224
RE: Complaint against J udge Claudia Rickert Isom, 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 Claudia Rickert Isom. 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.
Overview
This complaint concerns J udge Isom’s violation of the Constitution of the State of Florida,
Article V, Section 13; failure to disclose multiple “Interests In Specified Businesses” on the
Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests, Section E; failure to disclose an
ownership interest in a high performance aircraft; likely tax evasion through WCAT, INC.; and
concealment of the real purpose and use of WCAT, INC., the high performance aircraft, and
purpose for failing to disclose this information.
Complaint Count 1:
Judge Isom’s private, for profit, corporate duties, other than judge.
Constitution of the State of Florida, Article V, J udiciary:
SECTION 13. Prohibited activities.—All justices and judges shall devote full time to
their judicial duties. (relevant portion)
Public records filed with the Florida Secretary of State show J udge Isom is employed or serves
as the Vice President and Corporate Secretary for WCAT, INC., mailing address 4412 W.
Estrella St., Tampa FL 33629. Enclosed please find the following Florida Profit Corporation
Amended Annual Report showing Claudia R. Isom serves as the Vice President and Corporate
Secretary for WCAT, INC.:
WCAT, INC. 2009 Florida Profit Corporation Amended Annual Report, Aug-20-2009
WCAT, INC. 2010 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report filed Feb-02-2010
WCAT, INC. 2011 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report filed J an-03-2011
WCAT, INC. 2012 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report filed J an-09-2012
WCAT, INC. 2013 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report filed J an-25-2013
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 2
Complaint Count 2:
Judge Isom failed to disclose WCAT, INC on Form 6 “Interests In Specified Businesses”
J udge Isom failed to show her interest beginning on or about August 20, 2009 in WCAT, INC, or
her service as the Vice President and Corporate Secretary for WCAT, INC, on the Form 6 Full
and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests, Section E “Interests In Specified Businesses”, that
J udge Isom filed up to and including the disclosure for 2012 filed J uly 1, 2013.
Enclosed you will find the below listed Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests
filings bearing the name and notarized signature of J udge Isom. However J udge Isom failed to
disclose on the forms her interest in WCAT, INC, or service or employment as Vice President
and Corporate Secretary for WCAT, INC, Section E “Interests In Specified Businesses”:
Isom Claudia Rickert 2009 Form 6, stamped received J une 16, 2010
Isom Claudia Rickert 2010 Form 6, stamped received J une 17, 2011
Isom Claudia Rickert 2011 Form 6, stamped received J une 25, 2012
Isom Claudia Rickert 2012 Form 6, stamped received J uly 1, 2013
Complaint Count 3:
Judge Isom is engaged in fraud through WCAT, INC.
The Articles of Incorporation filed April 2, 2002 for WCAT, INC. show it is a Florida profit
corporation, and in Article III Purpose, organized “to operate, buy, sell and lease aircraft”:
The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized is to operate, buy, sell
and lease aircraft, and to do everything necessary, proper, advisable or convenient for the
accomplishment of said purposes, and to do all other things incidental to them or
connected with them that are not forbidden by the Florida corporation laws or by other
laws, or by those Articles of Incorporation, and to carry out the said purposes in any
state, territory, district, or possession of the United States, or in any foreign country, to
the extent that these purposes are not forbidden by the law of the state, territory, district,
or possession of the United States or by the foreign country.
On information and belief, neither J udge Isom nor husband Woodson Isom “buy, sell and lease
aircraft” as a profession. J udge Isom is a judge, and Woodson Isom is a Florida licensed attorney
who operates a law practice. On information and belief, Woodson Isom is a pilot, and served
1968 - 1972 as an AVIONICS OFFICER, U.S.A.F. Enclosed is an aviation-related resume for
Mr. Isom, and his lawyer resume. It appears this corporation may be used solely to avoid
payment of taxes, by charging the expenses of personal flights as a business expense.
In the alternative, this aircraft may be used for untoward purposes discussed below.
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 3
Complaint Count 4:
Judge Isom failed to disclose an ownership interest in a high performance aircraft.
Also missing from J udge Isom’s Form 6 Part B is a valuable asset, a high performance aircraft
registered as owned by WCAT, INC. As shown on the attached evidence of registration, WCAT,
INC. owns a 1979 Piper model 32RT-300T, Serial number 32R-7987092, fixed wing single
engine aircraft, Tail ID 3025L. The aircraft has a high performance 310 horsepower single
Lycoming TI0-540 engine (turbocharged and fuel-injected variant), 7 seats, speed 124mph.
According to the enclosed flight tracker information, the aircraft owned by WCAT, INC. Tail ID
3025L flew from Vaiden Field Marion Alabama (6.42 PM CDT) September 8, 2013 to Tampa
Executive airport Tampa Florida September 8, 2013 (10:51 PM EDT).
The aircraft flew from Tampa Executive airport Tampa Florida (1:31 PM EDT) September 1,
2013 to Palm Beach International airport West Palm Beach Florida (2:39 PM EDT) September 1,
2013, with a return trip the same day. The aircraft left Palm Beach International airport (8:57 PM
EDT) September 1, 2013 and arrived at Tampa Executive airport (10.01 PM EDT) September 1,
2013. It appears this aircraft travels often.
Complaint Count 5:
Judge Isom failed to disclose the real purpose of serving as Vice President and Corporate
Secretary of WCAT INC, or the purpose and use of owning a high performance aircraft.
The 1979 Piper model 32RT-300T is known as a favorite for cargo haulers, with a powerful 310
horsepower engine, multiple well-placed doors, the largest cabin of it class, and an immense
amount of room to load long and bulky objects. (Flying Magazine, Mar 08, 2010)
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/six-seat-stalwart-used-pa-32-review
The PA-32 appears well-suited to smuggling or other untoward usage. J udge Isom has concealed
her position as Vice President and Corporate Secretary with WCAT INC., a Florida for profit
corporation that owns the aircraft. J udge Isom may have concealed an ownership interest in the
aircraft. Flight tracker information shows frequent flights to and from Tampa Florida to the east
coast of Florida, and to and from Tampa Florida to Vaiden Field in Marion Alabama.
Tampa Executive airport in Tampa Florida is a private airport. On information and belief, Tampa
Executive and does not screen passengers or baggage like the adjacent Tampa International
Airport which uses the TSA - Transportation Security Administration to screen passengers and
baggage. Users of Tampa Executive airport may board an aircraft with illegal drugs, large
amounts of cash, loaded firearms, or other illicit items with little effort or chance of discovery.
The above information when considered in its entirety would cause an ordinary person to
question why J udge Isom did not disclose her position as Vice President and Corporate Secretary
with WCAT INC., a Florida for profit corporation that owns the aircraft. A reasonable person
could also question the source of funds used to pay the costs of operating this aircraft frequently.
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 4
Complaint Count 6:
Judge Isom failed to disclose Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc. on Form 6 as “Interests In
Specified Businesses”
The enclosed Internet listing by Bizapedia shows J udge Isom served as director of Honey Creek
Lane Farm, Inc., beginning in 2004; currently an inactive Iowa corporation. J udge Isom does not
show on any Form 6 in Part E listed below an interest in Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc.
Isom Claudia Rickert 2004 Form 6, stamped received J uly 5, 2005
Isom Claudia Rickert 2005 Form 6, stamped received J une 22, 2006
Isom Claudia Rickert 2006 Form 6, stamped received J une 19, 2007
Isom Claudia Rickert 2007 Form 6, stamped received May 15, 2008
Isom Claudia Rickert 2008 Form 6, stamped received J une 22, 2009
Isom Claudia Rickert 2009 Form 6, stamped received J une 16, 2010
Isom Claudia Rickert 2010 Form 6, stamped received J une 17, 2011
Isom Claudia Rickert 2011 Form 6, stamped received J une 25, 2012
Isom Claudia Rickert 2012 Form 6, stamped received J uly 1, 2013
The J udicial Qualifications Commission of Florida
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 the
Unlicensed Practice of Law.
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 the
Unlicensed Practice of Law.
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 5
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 the Unlicensed Practice of Law.
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, October 17, 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.”
“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.”
A paper copy of the Times’ story is enclosed, and can be found online that this link:
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 as provided
by Rule 4-8.3(a) and (b):
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.
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 6
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
Honest Services Fraud
A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry 11-4130, C.A.6 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). 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. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0040p-06.pdf
See enclosed the application of Terry to Hillsborough Co. Florida J udge Martha J . Cook
J QC Complaints, Complainants and the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
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 (enclosed):
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,
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 7
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 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 President Carter October 5, 1977, Ratified by the United States J une 8, 1992.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 8
U.S. Finally Ratifies Human Rights Covenant, by J immy Carter, J une 29, 1992
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html
The United States declares that it accepts the competence of the Human Rights,
Committee http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx
to receive and consider communications under article 41 in which a State Party claims
that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en
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
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/
Ratified by the United States October 30, 2006
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=XVIII-
14&chapter=18&lang=en
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
J QC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 9
The United States and the International Criminal Court
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/Web%20Working%20Papers/ICC.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court J ustice Robert J ackson, in his opening statement as the chief prosecutor at
Nuremberg, reminds us:
"The [Nuremberg] charter recognizes that one who has committed a criminal act may not
take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of state."
Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Working Paper T-00-02
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 also received a failing grade for
state ethics enforcement agencies on a Corruption Risk Report Card by State Integrity
Investigation. Integrity Florida is published research reports:
• 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 - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 10
The Florida Press Association to Chief J udge
Manuel Menendez, J r., Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
The Florida Press Association wrote Chief J udge Menendez November 16, 2011 (enclosed):
“[T]o convey our serious concern that foreclosure hearings in Hillsborough County are being
conducted in a manner that inappropriately impedes public access to judicial proceedings. It has
recently come to our attention that members of the public encounter significant obstacles when
attempting to observe foreclosure proceedings, and in some instances are unable to do so at all.
We believe this practice violates Florida law's robust guarantee of open courts.”
The Press Association’s letter was provided “cc” to Florida Supreme Court Chief J ustice Charles
T. Canady. Signatories to the November 16, 2011 letter include:
• Samuel J . Morley, General Counsel, The Florida Press Association
• Talbot D’Alemberte, The Florida Press Association
• Barbara Peterson, President, First Amendment Foundation
• Larry Schwartztol, Staff Attorney, The American Civil Liberties Union
• Gil Thelen, Executive Director, Florida Society of News Editors
• Randall C. Marshall, Legal Director, The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida
Conclusion
Unfortunately Claudia Rickert Isom 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 Isom as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. J udge Isom 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
JQC Complaint - Claudia Rickert Isom October 17, 2013
Page - 11
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
nlight be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly."
Fiscal Matters of a Judge Shall be Conducted in a Manner That Does Not Give the Appearance
of Influence or Impropriety; a Judge 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 Judicial Qualifications Commission to Ensure Full
Financial Disclosure. Canon 6.
Claudia Rickert Isom is personally known to me as a complete and utter liar. Judge Isom was
dishonest February 1, 2007 during a conflict hearing in my civil lawsuit, Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, PA, et aI, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co. Judge Isonllied by
omission when she failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law
partners and shareholders at the law firm Fowler White in Tampa.
Judge Isom lied in my case in order to avoid disqualification and stay on the case to unlawfully
help Mr. Rodems and his firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. Judge Isom also denied me
disability accommodation. So why is Judge Isom lying by onlission now, failing to disclose her
position as Vice President and Corporate Secretary ofWCAT INC, and her other misconduct?
In consideration of the foregoing, Claudia Rickert Isom must be removed from office.
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
submitted of my own free will.
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures: JQC complaint form, and the above supporting documents.
APPENDIX, JQC Complaint
J udge Claudia Rickert Isom, October 17, 2013
Exhibit 1 WCAT, INC., composite of Florida Profit Corp. Annual Reports, 2009-2013
Exhibit 2 J udge Isom, composite of Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure, 2004-2013
Exhibit 3 WCAT, INC., Articles of Incorporation filed April 5, 2002
Exhibit 4 A. Woodson Isom, J r. lawyer resume, aviation-related experience
Exhibit 5 1979 Piper 32RT-300T, ser. 32R-7987092, Tail ID N3025L Aircraft Registration
Exhibit 6 Flight tracker information, Sep-08-2013, Vaiden Field to Tampa Exec, ID N3025L
Exhibit 7 Flight tracker information, Sep-01-2013, Tampa Executive to Palm Beach, ID N3025L
Exhibit 8 Flight tracker information, Sep-01-2013, Palm Beach to Tampa Executive, ID N3025L
Exhibit 9 PA-32 Review, Flying Magazine, March 8, 2010
Exhibit 10 Bizapedia, List of Companies with principals that go by the name of Claudia Isom
Exhibit 11 New York Times, Florida’s Notoriety as a Hothouse for Corruption, Sep-01-2013
Exhibit 12 J udicial Qualification Commission Members, October 17, 2013
Exhibit 13 U.S. v. Terry 11-4130, C.A.6, as applied to Martha Cook
Exhibit 14 Criminal Resource Manual 1739 Offenses-Obstruction of J ustice
Exhibit 15 Criminal Resource Manual 925 Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Govt. Activity
Exhibit 16 Florida Press Association Letter to Chief J udge Menendez, Nov-11-2011
Exhibit 17 J QC Docket No. 12385, J udge Claudia R. Isom, October 10, 2010
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
4412 W. ESTRELLA ST.
TAMPA, FL 33629
Current Principal Place of Business:
Current Mailing Address:
4412 W. ESTRELLA ST.
TAMPA, FL 33629
Entity Name: WCAT, INC.
DOCUMENT# P02000037731
FEI Number: 72-1567119 Certificate of Status Desired:
Name and Address of Current Registered Agent:
ISOM, A.WOODSON JR
4412 W. ESTRELLA ST.
TAMPA, FL 33629 US
The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida.
SIGNATURE:
Electronic Signature of Registered Agent
Date
Officer/Director Detail Detail :
I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under
oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears
above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered.
SIGNATURE:
Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail
Date
FILED
Jan 25, 2013
Secretary of State
A. WOODSON ISOM, JR. P
01/25/2013
2013 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT
No

Title PT
Name ISOM, A. WOODSON JR
Address 4412 W. ESTRELLA ST.
City-State-Zip: TAMPA FL 33629
Title VS
Name ISOM, CLAUDIA R
Address 4412 W. ESTRELLA ST.
City-State-Zip: TAMPA FL 33629
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
A. WOODSON ISOM, JR.
P.O. Box 320461
Tampa, FL 33679-2461
(813) 629-6388
(813) 286-3699 (fax)
www.woodyisom.com
woodyisom.law@gmail.com
EDUCATION
Florida State University College of Law
Juris Doctor Degree, High Honors
Law Review, Notes and Comments Editor
Book Awards: Torts and Evidence
Research Assistant, Dean Joshua Morse
Research Assistant, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar
Student Intern, First Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office; Student Intern, Florida Supreme Court
University of Florida
Bachelor of Science in Mathematics
MILITARY EXPERIENCE:
United States Air Force, Avionics Officer
Achieved Rank of Captain.
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
1975 - 1985 Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, Florida
Insurance Defense Litigation Practice
1985 Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan & McLaughlin, Tampa, Florida
Plaintiff's Personal Injury Practice
1985 - 2007 A. Woodson Isom, Jr., P.A.; Isom & Pingel, P.A.; Isom, Pingel & Isom-Rickert,
P.A.; Isom & Isom-Rickert, P.A.;A. Woodson Isom, Jr., P.A., Tampa, Florida
Plaintiff's Personal Injury Practice; Mediation and Arbitration
2007 - 6/10 Merlin Law Group, Tampa, Florida
First party insurance trial practice
6/10 - Present A. Woodson Isom, Jr., P.A., Tampa, Florida
Mediation, Arbitration and Trial Practice
4
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Memberships
The American Board of Trial Advocates
Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association
Aviation Law Section, The Florida Bar
Hillsborough County Bar Association
American Inns of Court
Leadership Positions
Hillsborough County Bar Association
Board of Directors, 1984-1990
Trial Lawyers Section, Executive Council. 1984-90, President, 1989-90
Medical-Legal Committee, Chairman, 1983-84
American Board of Trial Advocates, Tampa Chapter, President, 1987-1988; 2004-2005
The Florida Bar
13
th
Circuit Grievance Committee “C,” Chairman 1984-1985
Aviation Law Section
Trial Lawyers Section, Executive Council, 2001-2007
American Inns of Court, Master of the Bar, 1990-96 ; 2006-present;
Parliamentarian, 1994-95; Secretary, 1995-96
PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS
Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, The Florida Bar, 1983 - present
Certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, 1988 - present
Certified as an arbitrator by state and federal courts
Certified as a mediator by state and federal courts
AV rating, Martindale-Hubbell
Florida “Super Lawyer.” 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
Supreme Court of Florida, 1975
U.S. Supreme Court, 1981
Tennessee Bar, 2009
U.S.D.C., Middle District of Florida, 1975
U.S.D.C., Northern District of Florida, 1981
U.S.D.C., Southern District of Florida, 2009
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1981



A. WOODSON ISOM, J R.

AVIATION-RELATED EXPERIENCE


1968 - 1972 AVIONICS OFFICER, U.S.A.F.

1971 EARNED PRIVATE PILOT LICENSE THROUGH U.S.A.F.
AEROCLUB

1975 - 1985 PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL PRACTICE WHICH INCLUDED
REPRESENTATION OF AIR CARRIERS, MAJOR AVIATION
INSURANCE COMPANIES, AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS,
PRIVATE PILOTS, REPAIR FACILITIES, ETC. IN AVIATION
RELATED MATTERS

1985 - 1996 PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL PRACTICE PRIMARILY LIMITED TO
REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFFS, INCLUDING AVIATION
RELATED MATTERS, AND PILOTS AND MECHANICS IN FAA
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

1987 - Present AOPA LEGAL SERVICES PLAN ATTORNEY

ASMEL, IFR RATING, 3,000+ HOURS, AIRCRAFT OWNER/OPERATOR


GENERAL TRIAL-RELATED EXPERIENCE

BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER, THE FLORIDA BAR, SINCE 1983

CERTIFIED AS A CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCATE BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL
ADVOCATES SINCE 1988

AV RATING, MARTINDALE-HUBBELL

Aircraft
N-number
View Aircraft Registration
ﺔﻴﺑﺮﻌﻟا | Deutsch | English (UK) | English (USA) | Español (España) | Français | תיִ רְבִ ע | Italiano | | | Nederlands | Português | Русский | Svenska | Türkçe | ( ) | ( )
© 2013 FlightAware | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | FAQs
Pilot Resources N3025L Aircraft Registration
Ai rcraft Regi strati on Rel ated Li nks:
Track this plane live
View Flight History
View photos
Aircraft Registration (N3025L)
Aircraft Summary Aircraft Summary
Summary Summary Owner Owner Airworthiness Airworthiness Serial Number Serial Number
1979 PIPER PA-32RT-300T
Fixed wing single engine
(7 seats / 1 engine)
WCAT INC
TAMPA, FL
(Corporation)
Standard/Normal 32R-7987092
Aircraft Details
Engine Weight Speed Mode S Code
LYCOMING TI0-540 SER
Horsepower: 310 (Reciprocating)
Less than 12,500lbs 124mph 50624722
Registration Details Registration Details
Status Certificate Issue Date Airworthiness Date Last Action Date Expiration
Assigned 2002-04-18 1979-09-17 2011-04-14 2014-04-30
Registration History Registration History
Date Owner Location Serial Number Mode S Code
02-Jun-2006 WCAT INC TAMPA FL 32R-7987092 50624722
LI VE FLI GHT TRACKI NG
10:09PM EDT
Like 0
3 9k
http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N3025L
5
ACTIVITY LOG Want a full history search for N3025L dating back to 1998? Buy now. Get it within one hour.
ﺔﻴﺑﺮﻌﻟا | Deutsch | English (UK) | English (USA) | Español (España) | Français | תיִ רְ בִ ע | Italiano | | | Nederlands | Português | Русский | Svenska | Türkçe | ( ) | ( )
© 2013 FlightAware | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | FAQs
Live Flight Tracker N3025L
Date Date Aircraft Aircraft Origin Origin Destination Destination Departed Departed Arrival Arrival Duration Duration
No History Data (searched last 14 days)
Registered users (registering is free and easy!) view 4 months history. Join

07:53PM EDT
Like 0
3 9k
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N3025L
6
ACTIVITY LOG Want a full history search for N3025L dating back to 1998? Buy now. Get it within one hour.
ﺔﻴﺑﺮﻌﻟا | Deutsch | English (UK) | English (USA) | Español (España) | Français | תיִ רְבִ ע | Italiano | | | Nederlands | Português | Русский | Svenska | Türkçe | ( ) | ( )
© 2013 FlightAware | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | FAQs
Live Flight Tracker N3025L 01-Sep-2013 KVDF - KPBI
Date Date Aircraft Aircraft Origin Origin Destination Destination Departed Departed Arrival Arrival Duration Duration
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Vaiden Field (A08) Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field (KLIT) 02:50PM CDT 05:04PM CDT 2:14
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Vaiden Field (A08) 12:38PM EDT 02:12PM CDT 2:34
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) Tampa Executive (KVDF) 08:57PM EDT 10:01PM EDT 1:04
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) 01:31PM EDT 02:39PM EDT 1:08
Registered users (registering is free and easy!) view 4 months history. Join

02:50PM EDT
Like 0
3.8k
7
ACTIVITY LOG Want a full history search for N3025L dating back to 1998? Buy now. Get it within one hour.
ﺔﻴﺑﺮﻌﻟا | Deutsch | English (UK) | English (USA) | Español (España) | Français | תיִ רְבִ ע | Italiano | | | Nederlands | Português | Русский | Svenska | Türkçe | ( ) | ( )
© 2013 FlightAware | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | FAQs
Live Flight Tracker N3025L 01-Sep-2013 KPBI - KVDF
Date Date Aircraft Aircraft Origin Origin Destination Destination Departed Departed Arrival Arrival Duration Duration
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Vaiden Field (A08) Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field (KLIT) 02:50PM CDT 05:04PM CDT 2:14
05-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Vaiden Field (A08) 12:38PM EDT 02:12PM CDT 2:34
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) Tampa Executive (KVDF) 08:57PM EDT 10:01PM EDT 1:04
01-Sep-2013 P32R/G Tampa Executive (KVDF) Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) 01:31PM EDT 02:39PM EDT 1:08
Registered users (registering is free and easy!) view 4 months history. Join

02:47PM EDT
Like 0
8
Enlarge Photo
(http://www.flyingmag.
com/sites/all/files
/imagecache
/enlarged_image
/_images/201003
/FLY0210_used_1000x6
74.jpg)
View Gallery
(/photo-gallery
/photos/six-seat-
stalwart-used-pa-
32-review)
Saratoga
It's been 45 years since Piper stretched the Cherokee fuselage to create the Six, and the much refined version of
the airplane remains in production as the Saratoga II. That kind of production longevity is proof that Piper
found an enduring market niche for the PA-32 family, and solid demand on the used market even in today's
depressed conditions is additional evidence that the airplane can do what others can't.
The original four-seat Cherokee had been in production for only three years at Piper's then-new Vero Beach,
Florida, factory when the first Cherokee Six was delivered in 1965. The Six fuselage was stretched more than
four feet compared with the original PA-28 Cherokee, and engine power was increased from 160 to 260 to pull
the heavier load.
Piper, however, added less than three feet to the wingspan of the Six, making the broad constant-chord
"Hershey bar" wing look even chunkier. The extended span was mostly at the tips, where the Six had an
additional fuel tank on each side, plus at the standard Cherokee tanks near the wing root.
The four-tank arrangement is one of the few pilot annoyances in the Six because your fuel reserve can end up
spread over all four tanks. The only way to concentrate your reserve in one or two tanks is to run the others dry before switching. I can tell you that takes nerves of
steel, particularly when flying in the clouds, because it can take an eternity of seconds for the engine to catch again after you switch from the empty tank.
Another fuel system quirk of the Six is a handbook requirement to burn down the inboard tanks first when flying at higher weights. The reason is to reduce the wing
bending moment. With the weight of fuel concentrated at the tips, the load on the wing is spread a little more evenly than if both fuel and fuselage weight are at the
wing root. All larger airplanes (#) have zero fuel weights that require all weight above that limit to be fuel, not payload in the cabin. The Six was among the first
light airplanes to have a fuel weight limit. Many larger airplanes have fuel systems that drain center tanks first, but those systems are usually automated. In the Six,
it's up to the pilot to keep track. And the fuel selector is mounted down below the seats on the forward edge of the wing spar where you can't easily see it, so tank
switching is done mostly by feel.
Since the beginning the PA-32 family has had a passenger door on the left side of the fuselage in addition to the standard entry door over the wing on the right side
for access to the pilot seats. The passenger door is aft of the wing's trailing edge, making it one of the easiest of all piston singles to enter and exit.
In a stroke of design foresight that pilots have praised for decades, Piper also put a baggage door on the left side. The baggage door is about half the size of the
passenger door and is hinged at the top, while the passenger door has forward-mounted hinges. But when you open the passenger door and lift the baggage door,
there is an immense amount of room to load long and bulky objects. The door arrangement, probably more than any other feature, has made the PA-32 a favorite for
cargo haulers and, for obvious reasons, was the No. 1 choice for flying funeral directors before steep insurance requirements stopped them from routinely
transporting the departed.
Many years ago Flying columnist Gordon Baxter wrote about flying funeral directors and their work to comfort the living and hit upon the idea of why, in a flight
plan or at the request from controllers, we always say "souls on board," not persons. Most of us had never thought of that before.
The PA-32 cabin is the roomiest of the popular six-seat singles. Most of the series have club-style seating with the center row of seats facing aft, and there is plenty
of room for full-size adults to find space for their knees. The cabin is wide enough that there is an option to add a third seating position in the middle row. It's tight
for adults but ideal for adding children to the payload. Most of the airplanes have a storage container or cooler between the middle seats instead of the third belted
position.
The original Cherokee Six had a six-cylinder 260 hp Lycoming with a fixed-pitch propeller as standard. The fixed-pitch prop produced barely enough thrust to lift the
Six off the runway, but the weight savings (#) allowed Piper to claim a useful load greater than the empty weight for the basic model. Few, if any, Sixes flew with
the standard fixed-pitch propeller, which was replaced by the optional constant-speed prop. The engine also has a carburetor, so carb ice is always a threat. By the
second year of production, the Six was offered with a fuel-injected 300 hp version of the Lycoming 540 engine with a constant-speed prop standard.
email (/forward?path=node%2F11891) print (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php) share comment (#comments)
Related Tags: Pistons (/aircraft/pistons) , Single-Engine Piston (/aircraft-types/single-engine-piston) , Piper Aircraft (/aircraft-brands/piper-aircraft) , Cherokee Six (/results/cherokee-six) , PA-32 (/results
/pa-32) , used aircraft (/results/used-aircraft)
By Ian McNeilly / Published: Mar 08, 2010
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/six-seat-stalwart-used-pa-32-review
9
MORE FROM FLYING
Cessna Skymaster Breaks Up Over New Jersey Airport (http://www.flyingmag.com/safety
/accident-investigations/cessna-skymaster-breaks-over-new-jersey-airport%26quot%3B?src=related)
Pilot Shoots Self in Flight (http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/pilot-shoots-
self-flight?src=related)
NTSB: Father Wasn’t at Controls of Doomed Turbo Commander
(http://www.flyingmag.com/news/ntsb-father-wasn%E2%80%99t-controls-doomed-turbo-
commander?cmpid=obinsite&con=outbrain&obref=obinsite&src=related)
Video: C-17 Accidentally Lands at Small GA Airport (http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-
places/pilots-adventures-more/video-c-17-accidentally-lands-small-ga-airport?src=related)
CitationJet Crashes into Hangar at Santa Monica Airport (http://www.flyingmag.com
/technique/accidents/citationjet-crashes-hangar-santa-monica-airport)
50,000 U.S. Airplanes Disappear (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/50000-us-airplanes-
disappear?cmpid=enews031913&con=outbrain&obref=obnetwork&spJobID=213038391&
spMailingID=16988136&spPodID=030&spReportId=MjEzMDM4MzkxS0&src=related)
FROM AROUND THE WEB
Southwest CEO on Flight 345's Crash Landing (http://video.foxbusiness.com
/v/2565911455001/southwest-ceo-on-flight-345s-crash-landing/) (Video - Business Leaders)
Elon Musk Talks Shop: Renewable Energy, Tesla, and Space Exploration
(http://www.informationweek.com/video/smarterbiz/1909191857) (InformationWeek)
12 Weapons That Changed Everything (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/08
/15/12-Weapons-That-Changed-Everything) (The Fiscal Times)
Toyota Re-Recalling 780K Vehicles Over Suspension Issue (http://video.foxbusiness.com
/v/2662970451001/toyota-re-recalling-780k-vehicles-over-suspension-issue/) (Fox Business)
15 Pics Miley Cyrus Will Regret From The 2013 MTV Video Music Awards
(http://styleblazer.com/178286/6-photos-miley-cyrus-will-regret-from-the-2013-mtv-video-music-awards/)
(Styleblazer)
The Best Ways to Get Airline Seat Upgrades (http://www.creditcardguide.com/creditcards
/credit-smarts/the-best-ways-to-get-airline-seat-upgrades-5141/) (Credit Card Help Topics)
(/aircraft/pistons/swift-opens-unleaded-fuel-processing-facility)
Swift Opens Unleaded Fuel Processing Facility (/aircraft
/pistons/swift-opens-unleaded-fuel-processing-facility)
Indiana plant will beginoperations next month.
(/aircraft/pistons/flight-training-provider-places-huge-cessna-172-order)
Flight Training Provider Places Huge Cessna 172 Order
(/aircraft/pistons/flight-training-provider-places-huge-cessna-
172-order)
ViraZH adds to its fleet of Cessna 172s.
(/aircraft/pistons/cirrus-aircraft-riding-recovery-wave)
Cirrus Aircraft Riding Recovery Wave (/aircraft/pistons
/cirrus-aircraft-riding-recovery-wave)
Deliveries up 32 percent in second quarter of 2013.
RELATED ARTICLES
The Six 300 turned out to be much more popular than the 260 version. The original price (#) difference was $3,000. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it did bump
the base price from $18,500 for the 260 to $21,500, a significant percentage increase. The Six 260 remained in production until 1978, and surprisingly, the price
difference between it and the 300 on the used market is about the same as it was when the airplanes were new. Most of the difference in performance is in takeoff
and climb, with higher weights amplifying that difference. Both models were approved for 3,400 pounds maximum takeoff weight.
Most of the Cherokee Sixes have 84-gallon fuel capacity. At maximum cruise, the Six 300 on a good day can make 145 knots, and the 260 around five or six knots
less. More typical cruise speeds are around 135 knots true, and the 300 will consume around 15 gph while the 260 burns a gallon or two less. With full fuel the Six is
a five-hour airplane with minimal reserve, but four hours is very comfortable.
[What's This?] (#)
Facebook social plugin
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/six-seat-stalwart-used-pa-32-review
62,710,539 Companies
53,791,211 Principals
707
Tweet 296
CLAUDIA ISOM
707
Tweet 296
This information is current as of September 5, 2012.
There are 2 individuals that go by the name of Claudia Isom. These individuals collectively are associated with 2 companies.
List of Companies with principals that go by the name of Claudia Isom:
Principal Name: Claudia Isom(Director)
Company Name: Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc.
Status: Inactive Filing Date: 02/12/2004
Entity Type: Corporation File Number: 290319
Filing State: Iowa (IA) Registered Agent: Dale Rickert
Principal Name: Claudia R Isom(Vice President, Secretary)
Company Name: Wcat, Inc.
Status: Active Filing Date: 04/05/2002
Entity Type: Domestic Profit Corporation File Number: P02000037731
Filing State: Florida (FL) Registered Agent: IsomA.woodson J r
Page 1 of 1 (2 Records)
Previous Next Search People Order Business Services
Bizapedia.comis not affiliated with any government agency.
Copyright ©2012-2013 · Bizapedia.com· All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sitemap
Like 4.3k
Like 4.3k
InstantCheckmate.com
1) Enter Name and State. 2) Access
Full Background Checks Instantly.
www.LegalZoom.com
Save time and money with LegalZoom.
Fast, low cost. We're here to help.
http://www.bizapedia.com/people/CLAUDIA-ISOM.html
10
62,710,539 Companies
53,791,211 Principals
707
Tweet 296
HONEY CREEK LANE FARM, INC.
Information current as of Apr 8, 2012.
707
Tweet 296
Company Name: HONEY CREEK LANE FARM, INC. Status: Inactive Filing Date: 02/12/2004
Entity Type: Corporation File Number: 290319 Company Age: 9 Years, 8 Months
Registered Agent:

Dale Rickert
4606 146th Ave
Wapello, IA 52653
Filing State:
Qualifying State:
Iowa (IA)
N/A
DIRECTOR
Claudia Isom
DIRECTOR
Dale J amison Rickert
DIRECTOR
Pamela Broeker
Previous Next Search Order Business Services For Honey Creek Lane Farm, Inc.
Bizapedia.comis not affiliated with the Office of the Secretary of State.
Copyright ©2012-2013 · Bizapedia.com· All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sitemap
Like 4.3k
Like 4.3k
InstantCheckmate.com
1) Enter Name and State. 2) Access
Full Background Checks Instantly.
www.deepwaterhorizonsettlements.com
Deepwater Horizon Settlements.
Official Court-Authorized website.
http://www.bizapedia.com/ia/HONEY-CREEK-LANE-FARM-INC.html
62,710,539 Companies
53,791,211 Principals
707
Tweet 296
WCAT, INC.
Information current as of Jul 6, 2012.
707
Tweet 296
Company Name: WCAT, INC. Status: Active Filing Date: 04/05/2002
Entity Type: Domestic Profit Corporation File Number: P02000037731 Company Age: 11 Years, 6 Months
Registered Agent:

IsomA.woodson J r
4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629
Filing State:
Qualifying State:
Florida (FL)
N/A
Principal Address:


4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629
Mailing Address:


4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629
PRESIDENT, TREASURER
IsomA. Woodson J r
4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629
VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY
IsomClaudia R
4412 W. Estrella St.
Tampa, FL 33629
Previous Next Associated Companies Search Order Business Services For Wcat, Inc.
Bizapedia.comis not affiliated with the Florida Department of State.
Copyright ©2012-2013 · Bizapedia.com· All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sitemap
Like 4.3k
Like 4.3k
InstantCheckmate.com
1) Enter Name and State. 2) Access
Full Background Checks Instantly.
www.deepwaterhorizonsettlements.com
Deepwater Horizon Settlements.
Official Court-Authorized website.
http://www.bizapedia.com/fl/WCAT-INC.html
September 1, 2013
By NICK MADIGAN
HOMESTEAD, Fla. — Even by Florida standards, the arrests of three suburban Miami mayors on
corruption charges within a month were a source of dismay, if not exactly a surprise.
On Wednesday, Steven C. Bateman, 58, the mayor of Homestead, was arrested. He is accused of
accepting under-the-table payments from a health care company that sought to build a clinic in
town, the state attorney’s office for Miami-Dade County said. Mr. Bateman was turned in by City
Council members and staff, said employees interviewed Friday at City Hall.
On Aug. 6, Manuel L. Maroño, 41, the mayor of Sweetwater and president of the Florida League of
Cities, and Michael A. Pizzi, 51, the Miami Lakes mayor, were picked up along with two lobbyists.
The United States attorney’s office has accused them of involvement in kickback and bribery
schemes concerning federal grants.
Prosecutors said Mr. Maroño had received more than $40,000 in bribes and Mr. Pizzi $6,750. The
defendants, who were targets of an F.B.I. sting operation, are charged with “conspiracy to commit
extortion under color of official right” and could face 20 years in prison if convicted.
Gov. Rick Scott suspended all three mayors while the criminal cases proceed.
“We bought the trifecta,” said Carla Miller, the ethics officer for Jacksonville and a former federal
prosecutor. “It’s bad when three mayors get led out in handcuffs. What’s left of the public trust gets
ground into little pieces.”
Not that such situations are unusual in Florida, which led the country in convictions of public
officials — 781 — between 2000 and 2010, according to Department of Justice figures.
“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.”
Florida, and especially Miami and its environs, has long had a reputation as a place where the odd
and the eccentric mix with the furtive and the felonious. Last century, organized crime figures
from Chicago and New York set up lucrative gambling, extortion and loan-sharking endeavors in
Miami Beach and elsewhere, and beginning in the 1980s, South Florida’s economy, culture and
reputation were transformed by drug trafficking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/arrests-of-3-mayors-reinforce-floridas-notoriety-as-a-hothouse-for-corruption.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewan...
11
With so much money sloshing about, it was perhaps inevitable that a parade of officials would
enrich themselves illicitly at the public trough.
One was Alex Daoud, who in 1985 became the mayor of Miami Beach and six years later was
indicted on 41 counts of bribery. He served 18 months in prison, and has since written a memoir.
Last year in Miami Beach, City Manager Jorge Gonzalez, who was making $273,000 a year and
had been mired in a web of investigations, was forced to step down after seven of his employees
were arrested in a federal corruption investigation. His six-figure pension remained intact.
The arrests of the three Miami-Dade mayors followed news in July that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had charged the City of Miami and one of its former budget directors with
securities fraud, only a few years after the commission reprimanded the city for similar behavior.
In May, a former mayor of Hialeah, Julio Robaina, and his wife, Raiza, were charged with failing to
report income from high-interest loans totaling more than $1 million that they had made under an
informal system involving friends and associates. The Robainas said they were innocent.
In 2011, in the largest municipal recall election in the country, the mayor of Miami-Dade County,
Carlos Alvarez, was removed from office after he gave large pay raises to close aides and then
pushed for a significant increase in property taxes.
This year, the State Legislature approved two ethics bills and six that focus on government
transparency and accountability — the first time in 36 years that state lawmakers had passed ethics
legislation. Mr. Krassner and others think legislators could do more. But many people seem
resigned to the prevalence of officials who appear oblivious to ethical boundaries.
“They get drunk on power,” said Katy Sorenson, who served on the Miami-Dade Board of County
Commissioners for 16 years and runs the Good Government Initiative at the University of Miami,
which educates elected officials about ethics and related issues.
“There’s a certain psychology to some of the people who run for office here — they don’t think
they’re going down the wrong track, but there’s a slippery slope,” she added. “There’s a lack of
self-awareness, an immaturity, a brazenness, of feeling like a big shot. So when they’re arrested,
they’re very surprised.”
The persistence of political malfeasance — often involving the stereotypical envelopes stuffed with
cash, delivered with knowing nods — perplexes those for whom public service is a noble calling.
“Maybe it’s the heat,” said Ruth Campbell, 93, a former City Council member here and the curator
of the Historic Homestead Town Hall Museum.
Mrs. Campbell, who has lived in town since 1942, was sadly aware of Florida’s reputation as a
haven for corruption. “We like to be distinguished,” she said, “but not like that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/arrests-of-3-mayors-reinforce-floridas-notoriety-as-a-hothouse-for-corruption.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewan...
Prosecutors said Mr. Bateman, among other things, had failed to disclose that the health care
company, Community Health of South Florida Inc., secretly agreed to pay him $120,000 over a
year to lobby on its behalf. By the time he was arrested, he had accepted $3,625, State Attorney
Katherine Fernandez Rundle said.
After the mayor’s arrest, a City Council member, Judy Waldman, told reporters, “I have zero
tolerance for people using their public office to make money.” Ms. Waldman, who referred to Mr.
Bateman only as “that individual,” said his activities on behalf of Community Health Care of South
Florida were “just the tip of the iceberg,” and encouraged prosecutors to dig deeper.
Mr. Bateman’s lawyer, Ben Kuehne, told The Associated Press that his client was “shocked” by his
arrest and had “served the community for many years in an honest, dependable manner.”
At City Hall on Friday, in a frame that contained photos of city officials, Mr. Bateman’s likeness
had been concealed behind a paper copy of the city’s crest. But a day earlier, a group of his
supporters rallied a couple blocks away, and Mr. Bateman, out on bond, showed up, shook hands
and vowed to fight the charges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/arrests-of-3-mayors-reinforce-floridas-notoriety-as-a-hothouse-for-corruption.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewan...
J UDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS
October 17, 2013
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
12
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.
13
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.
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 13a0040p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN J. TERRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
;

>

1
No. 11-4130
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:10-cr-390-1—Sara E. Lioi, District Judge.
Argued: October 10, 2012
Decided and Filed: February 14, 2013
Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Sylvester Summers, Jr., SYLVESTER SUMMERS, JR., CO., LPA,
Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel R. Ranke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sylvester Summers, Jr.,
SYLVESTER SUMMERS, JR., CO., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel R.
Ranke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. “If you can’t eat [lobbyists’] food, drink their
booze, . . . take their money and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being
[in politics],” said Jesse Unruh, a one-time Speaker of the California General Assembly,
in the 1960s. Bill Boyarsky, Big Daddy: Jesse Unruh and the Art of Power Politics 112
(2007). That is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it comes courtesy
of the federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an official from accepting
1
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 2
things of value “in return for” official acts. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). A jury found that a
state court judge did just that and convicted him of several honest services fraud
violations. We affirm.
I.
In April 2007, Governor Ted Strickland appointed Steven Terry to fill a vacancy
on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Soon after, Terry announced that he
intended to seek reelection to retain the seat the following November. Having never run
for elected office before, Terry sought the help of County Auditor Frank Russo, a
presence in Cleveland politics. Russo agreed to help Terry with his reelection campaign
and indeed had already helped him by recommending Terry to the Governor for the
appointment and by lobbying members of the local judicial nominating committee to
support him.
Terry knew that Russo was helping him behind the scenes. What Terry did not
know was that the FBI was investigating Russo on corruption charges and that federal
agents had tapped Russo’s phones. On July 15, 2008, Russo had a phone conversation
with a local attorney, Joe O’Malley, about two foreclosure cases on Terry’s docket.
O’Malley represented several homeowners in a lawsuit against American Home Bank,
and he asked Russo to convince Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary
judgment. Russo promised to call Terry and make sure Terry did what he was
“supposed to do” with the cases. Gov’t Ex. 116; 2 Trial Tr. 294.
Two days later, Russo and Terry spoke on the phone. Russo told Terry to deny
the motions for summary judgment, and Terry said he would. In the same conversation,
the two men also discussed Russo’s attendance at future fundraisers for Terry’s
reelection campaign.
That same day, Terry contacted the magistrate judge responsible for the
foreclosure cases and told her to deny the motions for summary judgment. Surprised by
Terry’s directive, the magistrate passed along the docket so that Terry could deny the
motions himself. Terry did just that, even though he never reviewed the case files, never
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 3
read the motions before denying them and never obtained a recommendation from the
magistrate or anyone else (within the court system) about how to rule on the motions.
Terry’s collaboration came relatively cheap. Russo’s political action committee
donated $500 to Terry’s reelection campaign in July 2007. Russo’s committee
purchased around $700 worth of stationery, envelopes and car magnets for Terry’s
campaign in July 2007. And Russo had his official staff work for Terry’s campaign
during business hours and provided other political help throughout the relevant time
period. In exchange for this assistance, Russo explained that he expected Terry “to
answer the phone any time I called. And any time I called with a recommendation, or
a problem, or a case, I would expect Steve to give it special attention” and “follow
through for me.” 2 Trial Tr. 290. Russo in other words expected that his political and
financial patronage meant Terry “would do what I asked him to do,” including “granting
[] a motion so it wouldn’t tie [a] case up.” Id. For his part in this and like-minded
arrangements with other Cleveland-area officials, Russo pled guilty to twenty-one
political corruption counts of one form or another and received a 262-month prison
sentence.
For his part, Terry ran into similar problems. A grand jury indicted him on five
political corruption charges. Count One alleged that Terry conspired with Russo to
commit mail fraud and honest services fraud. Count Two alleged that Terry committed
mail fraud by denying the bank’s summary judgment motions. And Counts Three, Four
and Five alleged that he committed honest services fraud by “accepting gifts, payments,
and other things of value from Russo and others in exchange for favorable official
action.” R. 24 ¶ 52. Each honest services fraud count was tied to a mailed document:
Counts Three and Four stemmed from checks Russo’s political action committee wrote
to pay for Terry’s stationery, envelopes and car magnets, while Count Five stemmed
from a thank you note Terry wrote to Russo. Id. ¶ 54.
After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Terry on Counts One, Three and Four, and
acquitted him on Counts Two and Five. The district court sentenced him to 63 months
in prison on each count, to be served concurrently.
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 4
II.
Terry presses three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court should have
dismissed the indictment because it failed to identify a crime under United States v.
Skilling, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010); (2) the district court improperly instructed the jury on
the requirements for showing that Terry accepted a bribe; and (3) insufficient evidence
showed that Terry accepted a bribe.
A.
The district court correctly denied Terry’s motion to dismiss. An indictment
must contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts
constituting the offense charged” and a “citation of the statute . . . that the defendant is
alleged to have violated.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c). Terry’s indictment did just that. It
outlined the contours of the relationship between Terry and Russo, detailed how Russo
instructed Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary judgment, listed the benefits
Terry received from Russo and mentioned each statute Terry allegedly violated.
The indictment also complied with Skilling. Honest services mail fraud requires
the government to prove 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,” id. § 1346. That intangible right, Skilling made clear, covers only schemes in
which the defendant deprives another of his honest services by participating in a bribery
or kickback scheme. 130 S. Ct. at 2931. The relevant counts of Terry’s indictment
allege that he “devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud” the
citizens of Cuyahoga County (including the litigants before him) of honest services
“through bribery and kickbacks” that he “knowingly caused to be delivered by mail.”
R. 24 ¶ 51. Several details supported the allegations, including the checks from Russo’s
political action committee that traveled through the mail and the summary-judgment
motions that Terry denied at Russo’s behest.
Terry argues that, in upholding the indictment, the district court misread Skilling
to say that honest services fraud required the government to prove that he also violated
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 5
a state-law duty. But why should Terry care? Right or wrong, the district court’s
decision benefitted Terry. By requiring the government to show Terry violated a state-
law duty, the district court added an element to the government’s case. That helped
Terry; it could not conceivably prejudice him. In narrowing honest services fraud to
require a bribe or kickback, Skilling did nothing to prevent federal courts from narrowing
the offense still further to include only bribes or kickbacks that also violate a state-law
duty. See 130 S. Ct. at 2928 n.36 (noting without elaboration that “[c]ourts have
disagreed about whether § 1346 prosecutions must be based on a violation of state law”).
We thus need not wade into the debate over whether a state-law violation is a
precondition of honest services fraud. Compare United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728,
734–735 (5th Cir. 1997), with United States v. Weyhrauch, 548 F.3d 1237, 1245–46 (9th
Cir. 2008).
B.
Terry’s second claim turns on the proper definition of a bribe when it comes to
a public official. The slate is not clean. Bribery in this setting has long been taken
seriously. See, e.g., Herodotus, The Histories 5:25 (A.D. Godley trans., Harvard Univ.
Press 1920) (describing how, in ancient Persia, a judge who accepted a bribe was flayed
alive and his successor was forced to sit on a chair made from the predecessor’s skin).
Punishment for the offense today is less severe, but the prohibition remains. The
political-corruption statutes and cases make a few principles in this area clear:
• A public official can commit honest services fraud only by accepting a
bribe or a kickback. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2931.
• A public official accepts a bribe when he “corruptly . . . receives
. . . anything of value . . . in return for . . . being influenced in the
performance of any official act.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2); see also
18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (similar definition in federal-programs bribery
statute); Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.02(b) (similar definition in state bribery
statute).
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 6
• One element of bribery is that the public official must agree that “his
official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or the
undertaking.” McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 273 (1991);
see also United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 526 (1972) (“The
illegal conduct is taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act
in a certain way.”); United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405, 411 (7th Cir.
1993) (looking to extortion cases to interpret a bribery statute because the
two crimes are “different sides of the same coin”).
• This agreement must include a quid pro quo—the receipt of something
of value “in exchange for an official act.” United States v. Sun-Diamond
Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 404–05 (1999).
• The agreement between the public official and the person offering the
bribe need not spell out which payments control which particular official
acts. Rather, “it is sufficient if the public official understood that he or
she was expected to exercise some influence on the payor’s behalf as
opportunities arose.” United States v. Abbey, 560 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir.
2009); accord United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 358–59 (4th Cir.
2012); Ryan v. United States, 688 F.3d 845, 852 (7th Cir. 2012); United
States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134, 147 (2d Cir. 2007).
That is a start. These principles, to be sure, do not spell out what kinds of
agreements—and what level of specificity—must exist between the person offering a
bribe and the public official receiving it. And some cases debate how “specific,”
“express” or “explicit” a quid pro quo must be to violate the bribery, extortion and
kickback laws. See, e.g., United States v. Ring, ___ F.3d ___, No. 11-3100, 2013 WL
276020, at *4 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“[C]ourts have struggled to pin down the definition of
an explicit quid pro quo in various contexts.”); United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d
1159, 1171 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610, 635 n.6 (2d Cir.
2011); United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 348–54 (5th Cir. 2009).
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 7
Yet these adjectives do not add a new element to these criminal statutes but
signal that the statutory requirement must be met—that the payments were made in
connection with an agreement, which is to say “in return for” official actions under it.
So long as a public official agrees that payments will influence an official act, that
suffices. What is needed is an agreement, full stop, which can be formal or informal,
written or oral. As most bribery agreements will be oral and informal, the question is
one of inferences taken from what the participants say, mean and do, all matters that
juries are fully equipped to assess. “[M]otives and consequences, not formalities,” are
the keys for determining whether a public official entered an agreement to accept a bribe,
and the trier of fact is “quite capable of deciding the intent with which words were
spoken or actions taken as well as the reasonable construction given to them by the
official and the payor.” United States v. Evans, 504 U.S. 255, 274 (1992) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); see also McCormick, 500 U.S. at 270
(“It goes without saying that matters of intent are for the jury to consider.”); Ring, 2013
WL 276020, at *7 (noting that intent “distinguishes criminal corruption from
commonplace political and business activities”); United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560,
569 (3d Cir. 2012) (“We rely on the good sense of jurors . . . to distinguish intent from
knowledge or recklessness where the direct evidence [of a quid pro quo] is necessarily
scanty.”).
That a bribe doubles as a campaign contribution does not by itself insulate it from
scrutiny. No doubt, a contribution is more likely to be a duty-free gift than a bribe
because a contribution has a legitimate alternative explanation: The donor supports the
candidate’s election for all manner of possible reasons. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S.
1, 21 (1976). But the prosecution may rebut that alternative explanation, and context
may show that an otherwise legitimate contribution is a bribe. Take Evans. In that case,
the Court permitted a jury to convict a state legislator who attempted to claim the
payment he received was a campaign contribution. See 504 U.S. at 257–59. Take as
well the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Whitfield. Two state judges argued that the loan
guarantees they received were made in the context of their electoral campaigns and thus
required special protection, but the court upheld a finding that the payments were bribes.
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 8
590 F.3d at 353. If an official receives money “through promises to improperly employ
his public influence,” he has accepted a bribe. Abbey, 560 F.3d at 519. A donor who
gives money in the hope of unspecified future assistance does not agree to exchange
payments for actions. No bribe thus occurs if the elected official later does something
that benefits the donor. On the other hand, if a donor (like Russo) makes a contribution
so that an elected official will “do what I asked him to do,” 2 Trial Tr. 290, and the
official (like Terry) accepts the payment with the same understanding, the donor and the
official have formed a corrupt bargain. That agreement marks the difference between
a run-of-the-mine contribution and a bribe.
Hold on, says Terry: Bribery should have two definitions, not one, a definition
for public officials who may not receive campaign contributions and a
definition for those who may. For public officials who may not receive campaign
contributions—appointed officials, for instance—any payment in exchange for a future
benefit is a bribe, he says. Terry Letter Br. at 3. But for officials who may accept
campaign contributions, a payment becomes a bribe only if it is made “in exchange for
a specific official act or omission.” Id. (emphasis added). Congress, however, did not
distinguish between public officials who may legally accept contributions and those who
may not in the bribery statutes. Nor has the Supreme Court. It has refused to
“distinguish[] between legal and illegal campaign contributions” in the context of
extortion. McCormick, 500 U.S. at 271; see also United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62,
77 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (refusing to carve out an exception in the federal bribery statute for
campaign contributions). An agreement, once again, is the dividing line between
permissible and impermissible payments.
Terry persists that campaign contributions must meet a higher standard to
become a bribe because “the financing of political campaigns depends upon officials
accepting contributions from people expecting some kind of benefit in return.” Terry
Reply Br. at 20. That sentiment may sum up Frank Russo’s donation strategy, but a
contribution also may represent nothing more than “a general expression of support for
the candidate and his views.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21. Just as “[n]ot every campaign
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 9
contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s
recusal,” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 884 (2009), not every
contribution to an elected judge is a bribe. Whatever else McCormick may mean, it does
not give an elected judge the First Amendment right to sell a case so long as the buyer
has not picked out which case at the time of sale.
The jury instructions in this case accurately conveyed that an agreement is the
key component of a bribe. The district court told the jury that, in order to find that Terry
violated the honest services fraud statute, it needed to find a “quid pro quo”: that is,
Terry agreed “to accept [a] thing of value in exchange for official action.” 5 Trial Tr.
1189. A “thing of value” could include a campaign contribution, so long as that was
“received in exchange for official acts.” Id. at 1192. Terry’s intent to exchange official
acts for contributions could be “based on [Terry’s] words, conduct, acts, and all the
surrounding circumstances disclosed by the evidence and the rational or logical
inferences that may be drawn from them.” Id. Each payment did not need to be tied to
a specific official act, so long as Terry understood that, “whenever the opportunity
present[ed] itself,” Terry would “take specific official actions on the giver’s behalf.” Id.
at 1190. These instructions matched the definition of bribery. The jury needed to find
that Terry agreed to accept things of value in exchange for official acts.
C.
Based on these instructions, the jury found that Terry accepted a bribe. We may
overturn that conclusion only if, after “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, [no] rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
A jury could find that Terry and Russo entered an agreement to fix cases. Start
with the benefits, financial and otherwise, that Russo provided to Terry during the
relevant time period. He gave Terry’s campaign $500. He supplied Terry’s campaign
with approximately $700 in campaign materials. He expected his employees in the
Auditor’s office to engage in electioneering for Terry during office hours. And he hired
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 10
a woman Terry had fired from his chambers staff to prevent Terry from suffering
negative publicity.
A flow of benefits from one person to a public official, to be sure, does not by
itself establish bribery. The benefits instead must be part and parcel of an agreement by
the beneficiary to perform public acts for the patron. That existed as well. On one side
of the bargain, Russo thought that they had a deal. In return for showering Terry with
benefits, Russo expected Terry to use his official powers whenever and however Russo
requested. Any time Russo called, he expected Terry to “give it special attention” and
“follow through with me.” 2 Trial Tr. 290. “Special attention,” he clarified, meant that
“whether it would be a character reference or whether it would be a case,” Terry would
“do what I asked him to do.” Id.
So, too, on the other side of the bargain. Although Terry disclaimed at trial any
agreement to fix cases in which Russo had a stake, his actions belied his words. Terry’s
rulings on the foreclosure cases were, at the very least, highly irregular, and the reality
that a tape recording captured the Russo-Terry conversation immediately preceding these
rulings did Terry no favor. No subtle winks and nods were needed. Russo straight up
asked Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary judgment in the two cases, and
with Terry’s tape-recorded reply (“Got it.” Gov’t Ex. 117), Terry agreed to do just that.
And he did, within hours of the conversation. Here is the timeline: Terry and Russo
spoke at 11:58 a.m. on July 17; Terry called the magistrate later that afternoon, around
12:30 p.m.; and Terry called Russo at 10:31 a.m. the next morning to confirm he had
denied the motions. Without reading the motions, without consulting the case files and
without relying on the recommendation of anyone—within the court system—who had
read the files, Terry did just what Russo asked. That is not an everyday occurrence in
the judicial branch, and a jury could readily infer that Terry’s unusual behavior, along
with the other evidence, stemmed from an agreement to use his position as a public
official to do Russo’s bidding in return for Russo’s financial, campaign and staff support.
In the face of this evidence, Terry claims that the record nonetheless does not
establish an agreement between him and Russo to exchange campaign contributions and
No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 11
help for official acts. Yes and no. Yes, the government never presented a formal
agreement between Russo and Terry stating that Russo’s gifts would control Terry’s
actions. But no, there was ample evidence for the jury to infer that an agreement
nonetheless existed between the two men.
Not every campaign contribution, we recognize, is a bribe in sheep’s clothing.
Without anything more, a jury could not reasonably infer that a campaign contribution
is a bribe solely because a public official accepts a contribution and later takes an action
that benefits a donor. See, e.g., McCormick, 500 U.S. at 272. But when a public official
acts as a donor’s marionette—by deciding a case to a donor’s benefit immediately after
the donor asks him to and without reading anything about the case—a jury can reject
legitimate explanations for a contribution and infer that it flowed from a bribery
agreement. Here, the jury rejected any legitimate explanation for Russo’s contributions
in the face of strong circumstantial evidence that Terry and Russo had a corrupt bargain.
Once the jury found Terry and Russo had an agreement, it could easily find that Terry
accepted a bribe, violating the honest services fraud statute along the way. The same
holds true for Terry’s conspiracy conviction.
III.
For these reasons, we affirm.
US Attorneys >USAM >Title 9 >Criminal Resource Manual 1739
prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
Conduct within the purview of the obstruction of justice statutes may also violate one or more of the
following statutes:
18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1112, and 1114--interference with, assaults on, or killing of Federal judges and
prosecutors, (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, and 1513). See United States v. Houlihan, 937 F. Supp.
75, 76 (D. Mass. 1996).
A.
18 U.S.C. § 201(a), (b) and (c)--bribery of Federal public officials and witnesses (overlap with 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1503 and 1505 (public officials) and 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (witness)). Subsection (e) of this statute provides
that the offenses and penalties in this section are separate from and in addition to those in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503,
1504, and 1505. See United States v. DeAlesandro, 361 F.2d 694, 699-700 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S.
842 (1966). [NOTE: Subsection (k) as cited in DeAlesandro was redesignated as subsection (e), Pub. L. No.
99-646, § 46(k), 100 Stat. 3604 (amended 1986).]
B.
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 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.
C.
18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(D), (2)(D), (4)(A), and (5)--intimidating or retaliating against individuals on account of
their serving or possibly serving as a grand or petit juror in a Federal court (overlap with 18 U.S.C. § 1503)
or on account of their serving or possibly serving as a grand or petit juror in a state court if the conduct is
motivated by the race, color, religion, or national origin of the victim.
D.
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 Judge); 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.
Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 683 (5th Cir. 1985) (conspiracy to obtain secret grand jury information), cert. denied,
475 U.S. 1142 (1986).
E.
18 U.S.C. § 401--contempt of court (overlaps with 18 U.S.C. § 1503). Contemptuous conduct in the
presence of the court is specifically covered by 18 U.S.C. § 401; however, such conduct may also satisfy the
elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. In that situation, a defendant may be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 even
though the offense conduct occurred in the presence of the court. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 663 F.2d
567, 569 (5th Cir. 1981) (threat directed at judge and prosecutor).
F.
18 U.S.C. § 1001--false statements and concealment of material facts before Federal departments and
agencies (overlap with 18 U.S.C. § 1505).
G.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01739.htm
14
18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 to 1623--perjury, subornation of perjury, and false declarations before grand juries and
courts (overlap with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, and 1512). It has been held by at least one court that simple
perjury, the assertion of a false affirmative statement by an individual testifying under oath, is not an
obstruction of justice under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. See United States v. Faudman, 640 F.2d
20, 23 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 1969). But see United States v.
Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 203, 204 (5th Cir.) (dicta), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 825 (1979); cf. Smith v. United
States, 234 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1956) (submission of false affidavits of others violates omnibus clause).
However, if simple perjury is accompanied by other obstructive, truth-suppressing acts, an omnibus
clause offense may exist. In United States v. Alo, 439 F.2d 751 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 850 (1971),
the court held that evasive testimony, such as a false denial of knowledge or memory, was included within
the coverage of the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. The court rejected the argument that the clause
proscribed only those efforts that interfered with other witnesses or documentary evidence. Id. at 754.
This reasoning applies as well to the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Griffin, 589 F.2d at 203-05
(false denial of knowledge and memory before grand jury); United States v. Cohn, 452 F.2d 881, 883-84 (2d
Cir. 1971) (same), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 975 (1972).
Suborning perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622, may also be an 18 U.S.C. § 1503 omnibus clause offense. See
Griffin, 589 F.2d at 203 (construing United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621, 630-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
434 U.S. 903 (1977); Catrino v. United States, 176 F.2d 884, 886-87 (9th Cir. 1949). While section 1622
requires proof that perjury was in fact committed, see, e.g., United States v. Brumley, 560 F.2d 1268, 1278
n.5 (5th Cir. 1977), the omnibus clause of section 1503 does not and thus may be used to prosecute attempts
to suborn perjury. See Catrino, 176 F.2d at 886-87.
26 U.S.C. § 7212--interference with or endeavors to interfere with the due administration of the Internal
Revenue laws (overlap with 18 U.S.C. § 1505).
I.
H.
[cited in USAM 9-69.100]
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01739.htm
US Attorneys >USAM >Title 9 >Criminal Resource Manual 925
prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of legitimate government activity may take any of several
forms:
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
1.
Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function. 2.
[cited in USAM 9-42.001]
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00925.htm
15
16
STATE OF FLORIDA
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
1110 THOMASVILLE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303-6224
(850) 488-1581
October 10, 2012
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Docket No. 12385, Judge 150m
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above
matter and has determined, at its meeting held on Friday, October 5,2012, that
the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the
Code'of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are
matters for review solely through the court system.
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
17
August 15, 2012
J udicial Qualifications Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
COMPLAINT: Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit J udge
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Hillsborough Co.
George Edgecomb Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430, Tampa, FL 33602
To the J udicial Qualifications Commission:
Please find enclosed my completed and signed complaint against J udge Claudia Rickert Isom for
failing to disclose a conflict with her husband, attorney Woody Isom, and my former attorney
J onathan Alpert. J udge Isom lied to me in open court February 1, 2007 by failing to make the
disclosure. J udge Isom’s deceit in the case before her had significant consequences as outlined
herein. J udge Isom engaged in dishonesty prejudicial to the administration of justice, and
brought discredit to the courts and the judiciary.
J udge Isom was dishonest February 1, 2007 during a conflict hearing in my civil lawsuit,
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co.
J udge Isom lied by omission when she failed to disclose that Woody Isom and J onathan Alpert
were previously law partners and shareholders at the law firm Fowler White in Tampa.
Please find enclosed the following exhibits in support of my complaint:
Exhibit 1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, December 15, 2006.
Exhibit 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, J anuary 7, 2007.
Exhibit 3. Transcript of conflict hearing February 1, 2007.
Exhibit 4. Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify J udge, February 13, 2007.
Exhibit 5. Court Order of Recusal, etc., February 13, 2007.
Exhibit 6. Copy of the Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, J uly 30, 2012.
On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict (Exhibit 1) that
informed J udge Isom of campaign contributions from my former lawyer J onathan Alpert to both
Woody Isom and J udge Isom. In addition, I informed J udge Isom:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protegees and former law partners, and the contract that
forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between Plaintiff
and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.
Upon information and belief, J udge Isom should have recused herself after reading that “the
contract that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between
Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.”
J udicial Qualifications Commission
Complaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit J udge August 15, 2012
Page - 2
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings with a
relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that a judge's prejudice
may bar a party from having his or her day in court. The function of the trial court on
motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to a determination of the legal sufficiency of an
affidavit, without reference to its truth and veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512,
Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
4. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of J udicial Conduct provides a judge shall disqualify
himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under this rule, a judge is disqualified
whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether
any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. The question whether disqualification of
a judge is required focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably
question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly
and impartially.
5. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethical responsibility
of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code of J ud. Conduct, Canon 3.
In March 2010 I found the affidavit of Mr. Alpert dated September 3, 2003, received in the
Clerk’s file September 11, 2003 in his family law matter, Alpert v. Alpert, Case No.: 29-2001-
DR-4977-C. (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 10). Mr. Alpert’s affidavit states at paragraph 3.c.:
“I contributed to J udge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in last
fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to J udge
Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;”
Woody Isom confirmed his relationship with Mr. Alpert to me in his email sent March 23, 2010
at 4:35 PM. Woody Isom wrote “He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of
time prior to my leaving the firm in J an. 1985.” (Exhibit 6: Paragraph 35/exhibit 11).
J udicial Qualifications Commission
Complaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit J udge August 15, 2012
Page - 3
Clearly Woody Isom practiced law with, and had a business relationship with, J onathan Alpert.
My affidavit
1
of J uly 30, 2012 sets forth the facts and legal arguments in more detail. (Exhibit 6).
J udge Isom’s dishonesty during the conflict hearing over which she presided is a serious breach
of judicial ethics giving rise to this complaint. As set forth in my affidavit, J udge Isom denied me
disability accommodation, and made rulings contrary to law. J udge Isom even ruled contrary to
her own law essay, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 6).
During a hearing February 5, 2007 I asked J udge Isom if I could expect to receive a fair trial and
hearings, but J udge Isom was unable to answer in the affirmative, and only mentioned that this
was a jury trial. J ury trial notwithstanding, J udge Isom would make ruling in this case, and I
believed, based on the response of J udge Isom, that I would not receive fair treatment. Therefore
I submitted February 13, 2007 Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify J udge. (Exhibit 4). My motion
raised a number of issues that showed I feared I would not receive a fair trial or hearing.
J udge Isom recused herself the same day, see Court Order of Recusal, etc., (Exhibit 5). J udge
Isom wrote:
THIS CAUSE came before the court on the plaintiff's motion to disqualify judge.
Although the motion is procedurally sufficient, is it insufficient as a matter of law in that
it appears to have been filed in response to adverse rulings of the court.
This response by J udge Isom is unlawful. Once J udge Isom found that my motion to disqualify
was “procedurally sufficient” she was required to step down. J udge Isom’ further comments
were not permitted under Florida law:
J udicial determination of initial motion. The judge against whom an initial motion to
disqualify is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall not
pass on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. J udicial Admin. 2.160(f).
I provided J udge Isom additional case law on this issue, see Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify
J udge, pages 4 and 5. (Exhibit 4).
J udge Isom continued in her Order of February 13, 2007: (Exhibit 5)
At the same time, however, the plaintiff has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his
cause leaving pending a counterclaim filed by the defendants. In an abundance of caution
and in an effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms of
the plaintiffs future court appearances, the court on the court's own motion on the matter
of disqualification has determined that reassignment is appropriate in this cause.
The above Order shows J udge Isom did not follow the law.

1
The original affidavit was submitted in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit J uly 30, 2012.
Judicial Qualifications Commission  Page - 4 
Complaint against Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge  August 15, 2012 
As for Judge Isom's "effort to generate confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in terms 
of the plaintiffs future court appearances", the Hillsborough courts have no  integrity. The JQC 
should know that after its unsuccessful pursuit of the Hon. Gregory P.  Holder, perhaps the only 
honest judge in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. 
Judge Isom should have recused herself after reading Jonathan Alpert's role  in this case, as 
described in my December 15',  2006 motion for disclosure. Judge Isom lied by omission 
February  1,  2007 by failing to disclose a conflict with her husband Woody Isom and my former 
attorney Jonathan Alpert. A transcript of the hearing is enclosed. (Exhibit 3). 
As set forth  in my affidavit, fifteen (15) additional related cases followed  in this matter,  in 
addition to the original case, after Judge Isom belatedly stepped down.  (Exhibit 6:  Paragraph 
47/exhibit 19). The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty and denial ofjustice has been enormous to 
me, all the lawyers involved, and to the court system. 
This matter has been in the public domain for some time, see my affidavit. (Exhibit 6). 
Judge Isom is a disgrace to the judiciary. She should be removed from office. Thank you. 
Sincerely, 
. ~ . . /)1/?
r ! 
~ t I   .   ..,....,t.
.f .'"
,"
..-:/  ;/>  /J../" '/  
/. / 
eil J:Gill9spie  
8092 SW/(15th Loop  
Ocala,/L 34481  
(352) 854-7807 
Enclosures 
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
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 Joseph
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
352-854-7807
Isom Claudia Rickert
George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 430
Tampa, FL 33602
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Co
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 accompanying written complaint and supporting 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-007205, Hillsborough Co. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al


n/a
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents.
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents. 
See accompanying written complaint and supporting documents. 
Addresses:   _ 
See accompanying written complaint and  supporting documents.
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 BY  TI-IE  COMMISSION. 
V.   Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined and  understand this complaint form and 
to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and 
submitted of my own free will.  ?
August 15, 2012
(Date)   o  plainant's Signqture) 
/"'''''-' 
ote: Only sigr>ed  complaints will be considered.)
I
Please  note  that  the  Commission  only  has  authority  to  investigate  allegations  of  judicial 
misconduct or permanent disability by persons  holding state judicial positions.  The  Commission 
has  no  jurisdiction over and  does  not consider  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  a judge  in  the 
course  of a court proceeding.  For example,  the Commission  does  not investigate claims  that a 
judge  wrongfully  excluded  evidence;  imposed  an  improper  sentence,  awarded  custody  to  the 
wrong  party;  incorrectly awarded  alimony or child support;  incorrectly resolved  a legal issue  or 
believed  perjured testimony. 
Please  return this form and  direct all future communications to: 
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 
1110 Thomasville Road 
Tallahassee,  FL  32303-6224