2dDCA 2D10 5197 APPENDIX Fla EthicsCommission June 12 2014 | Attorney General | Complaint

APPENDIX - Amended Application for Order, J une 12, 2014

Appellate Case: 2D10-5197
Lower Tribunal Case: 05-CA-7205; Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, William Cook.
Exhibit 1 Order DENIED application for order, November 7, 2013
Exhibit 2 Gillespie’s Application for order 2D10-5197, September 27, 2013
Exhibit 3 Florida Supreme Court Order SC11-1622 acknowledgment February 11, 2014
Exhibit 4 Florida Supreme Court Order, GRANTED SC11-1622 surrender file, April 16, 2014
Exhibit 5 Florida Supreme Court Order SC11-858 acknowledgment February 11, 2014
Exhibit 6 Florida Supreme Court Order, GRANTED SC11-858 surrender file, April 16, 2014
Exhibit 7 Gillespie’s appeal of Order denying application to SCOTUS, December 5, 2013
Exhibit 8 Order DENIED appeal to SCOTUS, no further judicial action, December 10, 2013
Exhibit 9 Online Court Case Docket in Appeal No. 2D10-5197
Exhibit 10 Clerk of Court J ames Birkhold, form letter to Gillespie dated October 7, 2013
Exhibit 11 Online Court Case Docket in Appeal 2D08-2224
Exhibit 12 Gillespie’s Motion to Surrender files in six appellate cases, August 22, 2013
Exhibit 13 Order DENIED without prejudice, may request public records, September 20, 2013
Exhibit 14 Order On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And Strike, entered by the Hon. Richard A.
Nielsen, J anuary 13, 2006
Exhibit 15 The Florida Bar, re J ohn Gardner RFA 14-14647
Exhibit 16 October 14, 2013, email of Clerk Birkhold
Separate Appendix: Appellant’s Initial Brief, 2D08-2224, by Robert W. Bauer, Esq. for Neil Gillespie
Separate Appendix: Letter to Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director, Florida Commission on Ethics
Separate Appendix: Public records, Appeal No. 2D10-5197, October 17, 2013
APPENDIX - Amended Application for Order, J une 12, 2014
Appellate Case: 2D10-5197
Lower Tribunal Case: 05-CA-7205; Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, William Cook.
Separate Appendix: Letter to Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director, Florida Commission on Ethics
Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Florida Commission on Ethics 1. J ames Comey, Director, FBI Headquarters
325 J ohn Knox Road 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Building E, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
Tallahassee, FL 32303 http://www.fbi.gov/
http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/ VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNY93206995
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP290206844
2. Michelle S. Klimt, Special Agent in Charge
6061 Gate Parkway, J acksonville, FL 32256
April 23, 2014 http://www.fbi.gov/jacksonville/
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP290690204
RE: Rules and Policy Concerns
Dear Ms. Doss:
Please take notice that henceforth I will likely appeal any decision made by the Commission,
therefore I request a verbatim record of the proceedings is made in compliance with a “note”
found on page 5, Amended Public Session Agenda Friday, J anuary 24, 2014, 8:30 a.m., stating,
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Commission with respect to any
matter considered at the meeting, he or she will need a record of the proceedings. For
such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidences upon which the appeal is to be
based.
Enclosed is a copy of Complaint No. 14-034, my sworn complaint for Misuse of Public Position,
F.S. § 112.313(6), against Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi for delaying the September
10,2013 execution of Marshall Lee Gore to attend her campaign fund-raiser to benefit her
campaign and herself. I request a verbatim record of the proceedings in this matter.
Incoherent Rules of the Florida Commission on Ethics, Chapter 34-1 through Chapter 34-17
The Rules of the Florida Commission on Ethics are published on the Commission’s website.
Does the Commission have a more coherent edition of the Rules available? About half the rules
have been repealed. Some of the Rules have been partially repealed. The file for Chapter 34-1 is
damaged and does not print properly. This makes reading and understanding the rules difficult.
Defective Public Records provided by Ms. Doss by email Monday, February 03, 2014 11:36 AM
Enclosed is a paper copy of your email providing public records, which you refer to as a “tape of
the J anuary 24 Commission meeting”. You wrote,
Dear Mr. Gillespie,
Attached is an excerpt of the tape of the J anuary 24 Commission meeting. Your matters
begin at the 2:00 mark on the timer.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 2
The J anuary 24 Commission meeting was an “executive session” that considered seven
complaints for “legal sufficiency pursuant to Commission Rule 34-5.002, F.A.C.” (see below)
The Commission issued the enclosed seven orders following the executive session,
1. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 13-201, Filed J an-29-2014
2. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 13-202, Filed J an-29-2014
3. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 13-203, Filed J an-29-2014
4. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 13-204, Filed J an-29-2014
5. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 13-205, Filed J an-29-2014
6. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 13-206, Filed J an-29-2014
7. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 13-207, Filed J an-29-2014
The quality of the recording of the executive session is so poor that it could not be transcribed by
my court reporter Michael J . Borseth, who emailed me February 9, 2014,
Mr. Gillespie
Good afternoon.
I'm sorry to say I am not able to prepare a transcript from this recording.
I listened to it several times, there is just too much interference from someone shuffling
papers near a microphone. Also, the person doing most of the speaking wasn't near a
microphone. Also, speaker identification is impossible.
I know in the past I have had some recordings like this where you have control over the
audio from each microphone. That way when you have someone talking or moving
papers around like this case, you can turn the sound off to that microphone and hear what
the other microphones are picking up. I don't know if that is an option for you to obtain
such a recording from the person that supplied this one to you.
Again, sorry I can't help.
Michael J . Borseth
Is a better recording of the J anuary 24, 2014 Commission executive session available?
F.A.C. Rule 34-5.002 Review for Sufficiency of Allegations of Breach of Public Trust and Order
of Preliminary Investigation.
(1) After the complaint has been reviewed and found to be in proper form, the complaint
shall be reviewed by the Executive Director in order to determine whether the
Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint; that is, whether the complaint is one
concerning a breach of public trust. Complaints need not be as precise as would be
required by the rules of civil procedure in a court of law and shall be deemed sufficient if
the complainant under oath upon knowledge or belief alleges matters which, if true, may
constitute a breach of public trust. A complaint shall not be insufficient because it is
based upon evidence which would be hearsay evidence in a court of law. In order to
make this determination, the Executive Director may request additional information from
the complainant and may obtain information from public records.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 3
(2) If the Executive Director finds that the complaint is sufficient to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Commission, the Executive Director shall order an investigation of the
complaint.
(3) If the Executive Director finds that the complaint is not sufficient to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Commission, the complaint shall be brought before the Commission in
executive session with the recommendations of the Executive Director. The Commission
may find the complaint to be sufficient and order an investigation; may find the
complaint to be insufficient, dismiss it, and notify the complainant that no investigation
will be made; or may take such other action as may be appropriate. In any case where a
complaint is found legally insufficient and dismissed, a summary of the reasons for
dismissing the complaint together with the complaint itself and all documents related
thereto shall become a public record and constitute a public report.
Specific Authority 112.322(10), FS.
Law Implemented Art. II, Section 8(f), (h), Fla. Const., 112.322, 112.324, FS.
History--New 4-7-77, Amended 9-21-77, 7-13-80, 1-12-82, Formerly 34-5.02.
Appeal process, Complaint No. 14-015 and Complaint No. 14-016, Dismissed March 12, 2014
Where are the Rules found for an appeal of a decision made by the Commission? The
Commission filed the following Orders March 12, 2014, copies enclosed.
1. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 14-015, Filed Mar-12-2014
2. Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint No. 14-016, Filed Mar-12-2014
Does the Commission have a verbatim record of the proceedings in Complaint No. 14-015 and
Complaint No. 14-016? If so, kindly provide a copy of the record. Has the appeal period expired?
Expiration period for sworn complaint to the Florida Commission on Ethics
Does a sworn complaint have an expiration period? I have a number of complaints sworn to and
notarized in February 2014 that I have not yet submitted. Are those notarized complaints still
valid if I submit them in the next month or two? After further studying this matter, I concluded
that I failed to include serious violations of Art. II, Sec. 8, Fla. Const., Ethics in Government,
and the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.
Public Officers and Employees corruptly violated the public trust to benefit themselves, and state
of Florida judges, state of Florida employees, attorney Robert W. Bauer and The Law Office of
Robert W. Bauer, P.A., who had corruptly accepted J une 21, 2011 a bribe of $15,870, private
legal services, and corrupt settlement benefits, corruptly offered Ryan Christopher Rodems, a
Florida lawyer in private practice, benefiting the Defendants in my federal 1983 civil rights and
ADA disability lawsuit, case no. 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS, U.S. District Court, Middle
District of Florida, Ocala Division, Neil J . Gillespie v Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, et al.,
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 4
Mr. Rodems appeared J une 21, 2011 in 5:10-cv-00503 and entered Notice of Assignment of
Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (Doc. 32) benefiting the Defendants
to settle the case in exchange for satisfaction of Final J udgment of $11,550 against me (nominal
value $15,870 at 11% interest on J une 21, 2011, or $1,984 for each of eight (8) defendants).
No. 1 Thirteenth J udicial Circuit FL (Chief J udge) $1,984+bribe
No. 2 J udge Claudia R. Isom, Thirteenth Circuit $1,984+bribe (Bar ID: 200042)
No. 3 J udge J ames M. Barton II, Thirteenth Circuit $1,984+bribe (Bar ID: 189239)
No. 4 J udge Martha J . Cook, Thirteenth Circuit $1,984+bribe (Bar ID: 242640)
No. 5 David A. Rowland, Gen Counsel 13th Circuit $1,984+bribe (Bar ID: 861987)
No. 6 Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator 13th $1,984+bribe
No. 7 Robert W. Bauer, (my counsel, 05-CA-7205) $1,984+bribe (Bar ID: 11058)
No. 8 Law Office RWB PA (counsel, 05-CA-7205) $1,984+bribe
The Final J udgment corruptly entered by J udge Barton March 20, 2008 in case 05-CA-7205 later
benefited J udge Barton as a Defendant in case 5:10-cv-00503, and states in part,
IT IS ADJ UDGED that Defendants Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J . Cook,
whose addresses are 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, recover
from Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie, whose address is 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida
34481, the sum of $11,550.00, that shall bear interest at the rate of 11.00% per annum for
which let execution issue forthwith.
F.S. § 838.015 Bribery.
(1) “Bribery” means corruptly to give, offer, or promise to any public servant, or, if a
public servant, corruptly to request, solicit, accept, or agree to accept for himself or
herself or another, any pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law with an intent or
purpose to influence the performance of any act or omission which the person believes to
be, or the public servant represents as being, within the official discretion of a public
servant, in violation of a public duty, or in performance of a public duty.
(3) Any person who commits bribery commits a felony of the second degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
F.S. § 838.016 Unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior.
(1) It is unlawful for any person corruptly to give, offer, or promise to any public servant,
or, if a public servant, corruptly to request, solicit, accept, or agree to accept, any
pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law, for the past, present, or future
performance, nonperformance, or violation of any act or omission which the person
believes to have been, or the public servant represents as having been, either within the
official discretion of the public servant, in violation of a public duty, or in performance of
a public duty. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude a public servant from
accepting rewards for services performed in apprehending any criminal.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 5
Proof of specific agreement was not required was not required under unlawful compensation
statute; statute criminalized mere solicitation of "benefit not authorized by law" regardless of
whether solicited party accepted offer, statute expressly made it unlawful for public servant
corruptly to request or accept pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law, statute did not
require that person from whom public official requested or accepted benefit agree to exchange,
and thus, statute did not require specific agreement, and required only corrupt intent to be shown.
West's F.S.A. § 838.016(1). State v. Castillo, 877 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2004).
F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct.
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any
person or to cause harm to another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document
or cause another person to perform such an act; or
(c) Obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to the
commission of a felony that directly involves or affects the public agency or public entity
served by the public servant.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Elements of a bribery under Florida law are (1) knowledge on the part of the accused of the
official capacity of the person to whom the bribe is offered, (2) the offering of a thing of value,
and (3) an intent to influence official action by the person to whom the bribe is offered. West's
F.S.A. § 838.015. Nicor Intern. Corp. v. EI Paso Corp., 318 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
Conspiracy may be proven with circumstantial evidence. Young v. State, 940 So. 2d 543 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist.2006). Proof of a formal agreement is not necessary to convict for
conspiracy. Young v. State, 940 So. 2d 543 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2006).
F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records, and F.S. § 837.06 False official statements, are also involved.
I emailed and provided a letter to you, Ms. Doss, Thursday, J anuary 09, 2014 11:17 AM asking,
(The email and letter are enclosed)
For example, my complaint dated December 9, 2013 states on page 2, "Synopsis of Major
Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor, a false public record corruptly created", but I did not
cite to F.S. § 837.06 False official statements, or F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct., or
F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records. I am a nonlawyer with virtually no legal training.
837.06 False official statements.—Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in
writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 6
duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082 or s. 775.083.
838.022 Official misconduct.—
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any
person or to cause harm to another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records.
(1) (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk,
sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a
public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw,
falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any
paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and
willfully take off, discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other
forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document
or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or
certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books,
or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if
any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in
anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission
Complaints of judicial misconduct and disability are filed with the Florida J udicial Qualifications
Commission, not with the Florida Commission on Ethics. None of the judges reported the
$1,984+bribe received from Mr. Rodems, thereby showing the existence of judicial misconduct
and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the state of Florida by,
J udge Claudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough County, Florida
J udge J ames M. Barton, II, Hillsborough County, Florida
J udge Martha J ean Cook, Hillsborough County, Florida
for failing to report their $1,984+share of a $15,870 bribe on the Form 6A Gift Disclosure
required by F.S. § 112.3144 and Art. II § 8, Florida Constitution, full and public disclosure of
financial interests, for corruptly accepting private legal services, and corrupt settlement benefits
corruptly provided by Ryan Christopher Rodems J une 21, 2011, and corruptly received by J udge
Isom, J udge Barton, and J udge Cook, benefiting them as Defendants in my federal 1983 civil
rights and ADA disability lawsuit.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 7
The bribes were a conflict of interest with Mr. Rodems and J udge Isom, J udge Barton and J udge
Cook who presided over my civil lawsuit with Rodems in Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, and
were Defendants J une 21, 2011 in U.S. District Court, Middle District, Florida, Ocala Division,
in 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS, Neil Gillespie v Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, et al.
Hillsborough Chief J udge Manuel Menendez, J r. was not named in the lawsuit, but is under
Article V, section 2(d), Florida Constitution, the administrative head of the circuit, “responsible
for the administrative supervision of the circuit courts and county courts in his circuit.”
The federal courts: USDC MD FL; CA11; SCOTUS
A complaint of judicial misconduct or judicial disability against a federal judge is governed by
the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 (“Act”), and the Rules
for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, 248 F.R.D. 674 (2008).
Mr. Rodems appeared J une 21, 2011 in 5:10-cv-00503 and entered Notice of Assignment of
Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (Doc. 32) benefiting the Defendants
to settle this case in exchange for satisfaction of a Final J udgment of $11,550 against me (worth
$15,870 at 11% interest on J une 21, 2011, or $1,984 each divided by 8 defendants) for attorney
fee sanctions corruptly entered by J udge Barton in 05-CA-7205 corruptly benefiting Rodems.
Mr. Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. were dismissed as parties in 5:10-cv-503 upon my
notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), F.R.C.P (Doc. 22) filed October 29, 2010.
Unfortunately federal judicial officers and employees of the District Court allowed Mr. Rodems’
misconduct to continue unfettered in federal court. I had sought the assistance and protection of
an Article III federal judge exercising the judicial power of the United States when I filed my
complaint in 5:10-cv-503 September 10, 2010, but no protection or assistance was provided. The
federal judicial officers and employees who engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and
expeditious administration of the business of the courts include,
U.S. District Court Chief J udge Anne C. Conway
U.S. District J udge William Terrell Hodges, Senior Status
U.S. Magistrate J udge Thomas B. Smith
U.S. Magistrate J udge David A. Baker
U.S. District Clerk of Court, Sheryl L. Loesch
U.S. District Court Operations Supervisor J ames Leanheart, Ocala Division
J udge Hodges entered an Order (Doc. 25) November 22, 2010 dismissing my claims without
prejudice against Mr. Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Clerk Loesch entered
J udgment November 23, 2010 in compliance with the Order (Doc. 22) of J udge Hodges.
Mr. Rodems’ appearance in federal court for the Defendants J une 21, 2011 in 5:10-cv-00503 and
filing on their behalf Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with
Prejudice (Doc. 32). Mr. Rodems is not authorized to represent the state of Florida in a federal
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 8
court action. Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal
court action. Fla. Const. Art. 4(b); F.S. § 16.01(5). A circuit court judge was without the
authority to appoint an acting state attorney to represent the state in an action pending before a
federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein, Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1978
Mr. Rodems is not the Attorney General of Florida. He was a lawyer in private practice with
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., a firm that that has a conflict with me, described below. Rule 4-
1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest, inter alia, precluded Rodems’ representation of his firm,
but The Florida Bar would not enforce Rule 4-1.10, and the courts refused to disqualify him.
Instead, The Bar and the courts became part of a RICO and Honest Services Fraud conspiracy.
Attached to Rodems’ Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with
Prejudice (Doc. 32) is a Settlement Agreement And General Mutual Release. On J une 1, 2011
Rodems corruptly got a civil “bodily attachment” arrest order issued ex parte to cause a coercive
confinement of me J une 21, 2011 to force the settlement of my federal civil rights lawsuit.
U.S. Magistrate J udge Thomas B. Smith in 5:10-cv-00503 entered October 6, 2011 an Order
(Doc. 51) that held in part,
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff, Neil J . Gillespie’s Motion to Strike or
Set Aside Mr. Rodems’ Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of
Action with Prejudice and Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and
General Mutual Release (Doc. 33). [paragraph 1]
On J une 21, 2011, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker and William J . Cook (the
“Assignees”), filed their Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of
Action with Prejudice (the “Notice”) (Doc. 32). Attached to the Notice is a document
entitled “Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release” (the “Settlement
Agreement”) (Id.). The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Mr. Gillespie, the
Assignees and the Firm. In the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Gillespie assigned “all claims
pending or which could have been brought, based on the allegations of [Mr. Gillespie],
against any person or entity, without limitation, in [this case].” In return, he received the
satisfaction of a judgment. [paragraph 3]
Magistrate J udge Smith denied my motion because, inter alia, the proper method of challenging
evidence is by filing a notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574,
1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). The District Court did not grant Mr. Rodems’ Notice of Assignment of
Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (Doc. 32).
The Order of Magistrate J udge Smith shows the federal district court knew of Rodems’ bribery.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, knew or should have known of Rodems’ bribery.
What did the Supreme Court of the United States know?
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 9
Duty of a Florida lawyer to avoid limitation on professional judgment
Conflict of Ryan Christopher Rodems with me, a former client of his firm on
the same matter as the prior representation, where our interests are now opposite.
Mr. Rodems disrupted the tribunal for strategic advantage in March 2006 after J udge Richard
Nielsen denied Rodems’ motion to dismiss by Order J anuary 13, 2006, establishing a cause of
action for fraud and breech of contract, in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook 05-CA-7205.
Rodems countersued me for libel J anuary 19, 2006 over a letter about a closed Bar complaint.
J udge Nielsen rejected Rodems’ misleading legal argument, a claim against AMSCOT for court-
awarded fees and costs of $50,000. Rodems’ firm and partners concocted a closing statement
fraud and stole $7,143 from my settlement in Amscot, a contingent fee case where the lawyers
wrongly took almost 90% of the total recovery for themselves, rather than 45% permitted by Bar
Rules. Rodems’ representation of his firm against me violates the holding of case law such as
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., and The Rules of Professional Conduct including:
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest.
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and
partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2) substantial
risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the lawyer's responsibilities
to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems. See Emergency Motion to
Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, J uly
9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on Scribed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-Christopher-
Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-J uly-09-2010
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another person in
the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse
to the interests of the former client. (b) use information relating to the representation to the
disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal information relating to the representation about the
client. Mr. Rodems’ firm and law partner represented me the Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and
consulted with me on disability matters with Florida DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and
other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems J uly 9, 2010.
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in
Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client
when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so. Mr. Rodems has an
imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William Cook previously represented
me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems J uly 9, 2010.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 10
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995.
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and
any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to
disqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and
that the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for purposes of
disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing party, a long-term or
complicated relationship is not required, and court must focus on subjective expectation
of client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be
"substantially related" to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify
counsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons would
understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship between
instant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm had
previously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that
confidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8]
Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
In 2003 Rodems’ firm accused me of “extortion” for making a $4,524 settlement offer under
ACAP, The Florida Bar’s Attorney Consumer Assistance Program.
Florida Bar Counsel William Lance Thompson opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C) J une 28,
2004 on my complaint against William J . Cook. Unfortunately Tampa Chief Branch Discipline
Counsel Susan Bloemendaal corruptly closed the file February 9, 2005 to benefit Mr. Cook and
his firm. Bloemendaal and The Bar have defended her corrupt closure ever since.
Tampa attorney David Snyder informed Mr. Rodems by letter September 7, 2006 that
“Mr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss”, and Rodems’ counterclaim had “little
chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution and privileged nature...”. Mr. Snyder
proposed settlement to Rodems, payment to me of $6,224.78, but Rodems rejected the offer.
In 2007 I retained Robert W. Bauer on referral of The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service to
defend Rodems’ vexatious libel counterclaim, and pursue the case after my voluntary dismissal.
Bauer was not competent, not diligent, churned $31,863 in fees that only benefited himself,
moved to withdrawal from the case in 2008, granted in 2009, and with Rodems and others,
engaged in fraud and impaired of Petition 12-7747 to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorney Seldon Childers determined in September 2009 my actual damages were $7,143, not
$6,224 claimed in my complaint; and I suffered $100,000 Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation.
Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood opened TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E) September 13, 2012
on my complaint against Mr. Rodems. Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Bloemendaal
oversaw the corrupt closure of the file, by Bar Counsel Leonard Clark’s letter May 14, 2013.
Mr. Clark’s closure letter did not address a bona fide issue in the complaint.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 11
The Florida Bar
Public Officers violated their Oath of Office to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution
and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida” and to “faithfully perform the
duties” of that office. Public Officers who are members of The Florida Bar violated their Oath of
Admission to The Florida Bar, and The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Constitution of The State of Florida, Article II, SECTION 3. Branches of government.—
The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and
judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers
appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
The purpose of separate branches of government is to protect individual freedoms and prevent
the government from abusing its power. Here the executive branch, Florida Attorney General
Bondi, and the judicial branch, David Rowland and the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, of Florida
Government, conspired to deprive me of civil rights, and disability rights, under color of law (18
U.S.C. § 242) and engaged in a conspiracy against my rights (18 U.S.C. § 241).
This is not surprising when one considers AG Bondi and General Counsel Rowland are lawyers,
and essentially all on the same team. The “branches of government” melt away like ice cream on
a hot Florida afternoon. What’s left is an unconstitutional amalgamation of formerly separate
branches of Government. It may be a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization, a RICO.
“The distinguishing feature of the legal profession is that lawyers, in a real sense, are
members of the judicial branch of government. They are truly "officers of the court."
Their duties go far beyond representing a client's best interest and merely practicing law
competently. They have duties to the system of justice itself. The Florida Constitution
has specified for lawyers a special role in the state's judicial system. The system simply
would not function without lawyers.”
Paragraph 2, 4. J udiciary and the Regulation of Attorneys (Broad Issue Paper, page 5)
Thus, Attorney General Pam Bondi “in a real sense” is a member of both the executive and
judicial branches of government.... (incomplete section).
Florida Constitution, Article II, SECTION 5. Public officers.—
Florida Bar members who are also part of the executive branch of Florida government are
“officers of the court” with conflicted interests between the executive branch, the judicial
branch, and the Florida Constitution, Article II, SECTION 5. Public officers.—
(a) No person holding any office of emolument under any foreign government, or civil
office of emolument under the United States or any other state, shall hold any office of
honor or of emolument under the government of this state. No person shall hold at the
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 12
same time more than one office under the government of the state and the counties and
municipalities therein, except that a notary public or military officer may hold another
office, and any officer may be a member of a constitution revision commission, taxation
and budget reform commission, constitutional convention, or statutory body having only
advisory powers.
(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give
bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the
Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that
I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I
will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now
about to enter. So help me God.”,
and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in
office until a successor qualifies... (incomplete section)
F.S. § 112.313(6) F.S. Misuse of Public Position
MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.—No public officer, employee of an agency, or local
government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or
any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her
official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or
others.
November 30, 2009 Governor Charlie Crist filed a petition requesting that a Statewide Grand J ury
be convened in order to "examine and evaluate public policy issues regarding public corruption and
develop specific recommendations regarding improving current laws." On December 2, 2009, the
Florida Supreme Court issued an Order to convene the Nineteenth Statewide Grand J ury for the
purpose of investigating crimes, returning indictments, and making presentments.
Search case SC09-1910
http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket_search
First Interim Report, Public Corruption in Florida, December 29, 2010
Nineteenth Statewide Grand J ury, SC09-1910
Prologue: Florida’s Corruption Tax
We, the members of the Nineteenth Statewide Grand J ury, find that public corruption
continues to be an issue of great importance in all aspects of government, politics, and
business throughout the State. We have been asked to address an enormous issue which is
broad in scope and long in history. We take on this challenge with sincere appreciation
for the gravity of the undertaking. We hope our words are heard and our
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 13
recommendations are followed. Better efforts to prevent and penalize corruption are
necessary in order to stop fraud, waste, and abuse of our State resources. Given the
serious fiscal limitations at all levels of government, anti-corruption efforts
must stop the theft and mismanagement of vital public funds. This
mismanagement and theft penalizes taxpayers by driving up the cost of all
government services. Therefore, we call for an immediate repeal of what can
only be referred to as Florida’s Corruption Tax.
P. 119 with chart, Florida led the nation in the number of federally convicted public officials
from 1998 through 2007. Endnote lxi page 124, Florida ranked first with 824 convicted public
officials and New York ranked second with 704.
Final Report of the 19th Statewide Grand J ury on Public Corruption.
Case No. SC 09-1910, February 13, 2011
We, the Grand J ury, have been called upon to examine, among other matters, the
functioning of the Broward County School Board and of the Broward County School
District. We have done so and as result we make certain findings and recommendations...
The evidence we have been presented concerning the malfeasance, misfeasance and
nonfeasance of the Broward County School Board (Board) and of the senior management
of the Broward County School District, (District) and of the gross mismanagement and
apparent ineptitude of so many individuals at so many levels is so overwhelming that we
cannot imagine any level of incompetence that would explain what we have seen.
Therefore we are reluctantly compelled to conclude that at least some of this behavior
can best be explained by corruption of our officials by contractors, vendors and their
lobbyists. Moreover, many of the problems we identified in our inquiry are longstanding
and have been pointed out by at least two previous Grand J uries. But for the
Constitutional mandate that requires an elected School Board for each District, our first
and foremost recommendation would have been to abolish the Broward County School
Board altogether....
Executive Order Number 11-03 on Ethics, Office of the Governor
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 11-03
(Ethics and Open Government)
WHEREAS, a commitment to ethics and integrity in government is essential to
maintaining the public trust; and
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 14
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2010, the Nineteenth Statewide Grand J ury filed with the
Florida Supreme Court its First Interim Report regarding public corruption in Florida and
recommending proposed solutions to address public Corruption in all aspects of government,
politics and business throughout Florida; and
WHEREAS, an open government in which decisions are made in a transparent manner is
also imperative to preserving the public trust; and
WHEREAS, all Floridians have a right to know and have access to information with
which they can hold government accountable for the management and expenditure of taxpayer
dollars;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK SCOTT, as Governor of Florida, by virtue of the authority
vested in me by Article IV, Section (1)(a) of the Florida Constitution, and all other applicable
laws, do hereby promulgate the following Executive Order, to take immediate effect:
Section 1. I hereby direct the immediate adoption and implementation of a revised Code
of Ethics applicable to the Office of the Governor. This revised Code of Ethics applies to all
employees within the Office of the Governor, as well as the secretaries, deputy secretaries, and
chiefs of staff of all executive agencies under my purview. As with its predecessor, this Code of
Ethics imposes clear, understandable standards that often go beyond the statutory Code of Ethics
set forth in Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes. However, this revised Code of Ethics imposes
more stringent requirements than the Code it revises.
I hereby designate my General Counsel to act as the chief ethics officer for the Office of
the Governor. Each agency secretary is directed to designate an individual at his or her agency to
act as the agency's chief ethics officer. The agency's ethics-officer will make reasonable efforts
to ensure that the employees responsible for adhering to this revised Code become familiar with
relevant ethics, public records and open meeting requirements.
Each agency secretary is further directed to review and evaluate the current policies
adopted at his or her agency in light of this revised Code, with a view to using this revised Code
as a standard for his or her agency, adjusted for the program requirements and variables unique
to his or her agency. Agency secretaries are directed to implement any agency-specific
adjustments to the Code within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order.
I further direct my Chief Ethics Officer to periodically review and evaluate the revised
Code. The purpose of this periodic review shall be to develop further recommendations as
necessary or appropriate to assure that we maintain and effectively enforce the highest ethical
standards for state officials and employees. and promote consistency of state agency policies on
ethics. public records, open meetings and personnel matters.
Section 2. I hereby direct my Special Counsel, in conjunction with my Chief Ethics
Officer, to review the Statewide Grand J ury's December 29, 2010 First Interim Report,
addressing public corruption in Florida and recommend a plan for implementing all or certain of,
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 15
as advisable, these recommendations either through executive action, or through legislative
proposals seeking necessary statutory modifications.
Section 3. I hereby re-establish the Office of Open Government previously established in
Executive Order 07-01, and reaffirm this administration's commitment to the proper functioning
of such Office. The Office will (1) facilitate Floridians' right to know and have access to
information with which they can hold government accountable, (2) establish and maintain a
website providing ready access to accountability information, (3) continue to assure full and
expeditious compliance with Florida's open government and public records laws, and (4) provide
training to all executive agencies under my purview on transparency and accountability. The
Office will also have primary responsibility for ensuring that the Office of the Governor
complies with public records requests in an expeditious manner.
Section 4. All state agencies under the direction of the Governor are hereby directed, and
all other state agencies are hereby requested, to provide such assistance to the individuals
carrying out the directions in this Executive Order as may be requested from time to time in
furtherance of the principles herein stated.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand and caused the Great
Seal Seal of the State of Florida to be affixed, at
Tallahassee, the Capitol, this 4th day of
J anuary, 2011.
ATTEST:
(signature, Rick Scott)___________
GOVERNOR
(signature, J ennifer Kennedy)
SECRETARY OF STATE
Florida Commission on Ethics
The Florida Commission on Ethics is an independent nine-member commission formed in 1974
to review complaints filed under the statutory Code of Ethics and to answer questions from
public officials about potential conflicts of interest through its issuance of advisory opinions.
If the Ethics Commission believes a violation of the law may have occurred, it may decide to
hold a public hearing. If it concludes a violation has been committed, it may recommend civil
penalties that include removal from office or employment and fines up to $10,000 per violation.
Attorney General’s Ethics Bureau
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/0693b742280c12ec85256cc6005a5c45
The Attorney General's Office assists the Florida Commission on Ethics by providing attorneys
who serve as the Commission's prosecutors or "Advocates." Once the Commission has received
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 16
and investigated a sworn Complaint alleging that a public officer or employee has breached the
public trust, the Advocate assigned to the case makes a recommendation as to whether the case
should go forward. If it does, it is the Advocate who conducts the prosecution, through an
administrative hearing under Chapter 120. Advocates also handle some appeals, and collect civil
penalties when a violation is found.
Most state and local government employees, as well as elected and appointed officials, are
subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, and the types of violations investigated range from
erroneous financial disclosure filings to misuse of office. Information about the Ethics
Commission, as well as formal opinions, orders, and forms, can be found at their web site at
http://www.ethics.state.fl.us or by calling the Commission at (850) 488-7864.
For more information on this bureau, please call 850-414-3300.
Complaint: Florida Commission on Ethics February 22, 2014
AG Bondi corruptly delayed the September 10, 2013 execution of Marshall Lee Gore
“There is no graver responsibility and act of state government than an
execution. In Florida this week, a campaign fundraiser takes precedence.”
- Adam C. Smith, Political Editor, Tampa Bay Times, September 9, 2013:
“Execution rescheduled to accommodate Pam Bondi Fundraiser”
Misuse of Public Position, F.S. § 112.313(6), against Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (AG
Bondi) for corruptly delaying the September 10, 2013 execution of Marshall Lee Gore to attend
her campaign fund-raiser to benefit her campaign and herself.
• The Florida Attorney General is the public officer responsible for conducting state
executions of persons in Florida sentenced to death under F.S. §§ 421.141 & 775.082.

• Marshall Lee Gore was a convicted murderer sentenced to death. Gore’s execution was set
for September 10, 2013, and required the presence of the Attorney General in Starke, FL.
• AG Bondi was bound by her Oath of Office to execute Marshall Lee Gore on September 10,
2013 at the Florida State Prison in Starke, FL. AG Bondi failed to execute Gore on that day.
• AG Bondi corruptly delayed Gore’s execution for her own personal benefit, to attend a
campaign fund-raiser at her home in Tampa benefiting her reelection campaign and herself.
A story September 9, 2013 in the Tampa Bay Times by Adam C. Smith, “Execution rescheduled
to accommodate Pam Bondi Fundraiser” reported the matter, and accompanies this complaint.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/execution-rescheduled-to-accommodate-pam-
bondi-fundraiser/2140891
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 17
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent
the State of Florida in a federal court action.
The Florida Solicitor General (SG) is state government's principal appellate counsel, representing
the interests of the state throughout Florida's appellate courts and in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Role and Function of the Attorney General
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/F06F66DA272F37C885256CCB0051916F
The Attorney General is the statewide elected official directed by the Florida Constitution to
serve as the chief legal officer for the State of Florida. The Attorney General is responsible for
protecting Florida consumers from various types of fraud and enforcing the state’s antitrust laws.
Additionally, the Attorney General protects her constituents in cases of Medicaid fraud, defends
the state in civil litigation cases and represents the people of Florida when criminals appeal their
convictions in state and federal courts.
Within the Attorney General’s Office is the Office of Statewide Prosecution that targets widespread
criminal activities throughout Florida including identity theft, drug trafficking and gang activity.
The Attorney General's Office also conducts various programs to assist victims of crime.
The Attorney General defends the constitutionality of statutes duly enacted by the Legislature
and is authorized to issue formal legal opinions at the request of various public officials on
questions relating to the application of state law. The Office of the Attorney General houses the
Florida Commission on the Status of Women and the Council on the Social Status of Black Men
and Boys. Also housed within the Attorney General’s Office is the Office of Civil Rights, which
investigates and takes legal action against violations of Floridians’ civil rights.
The Attorney General serves as a member of the Florida Cabinet along with the Chief Financial
Officer and the Commissioner of Agriculture. As a Cabinet member, the Attorney General serves on
the Clemency Board and as a member of the various Cabinet boards and commissions that address
state lands, state investments, and rules pertaining to insurance and financial regulation. Also as a
Cabinet member, the Attorney General serves, collectively as agency head for the Departments of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Law Enforcement, Revenue and Veterans Affairs.
Role of the Solicitor General
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/main/a0cb91c5c403a0f385256cc6007a3808!opendocument
“The Solicitor General is not a neutral, he is an advocate; but an advocate for a client whose
business is not merely to prevail in the instant case. My client's chief business is not to achieve
victory but to establish justice. [T]he Government wins its point when justice is done in its courts.”
Florida Bar J ournal, J uly/Aug 2001 (quoting a former U.S. Solicitor General).
The Solicitor General is a position within the Office of the Attorney General. Created at the
request of the Attorney General in February 1999, the position was patterned after the U.S.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 18
Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the
Attorney General.
The Solicitor General oversees civil appeals involving the State and has the authority to decide
whether the State should appeal a case to the Florida Supreme Court, United States Supreme
Court, or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, as well as the authority to decide whether the
State should file or join an amicus brief in state or federal court, primarily the Florida Supreme
Court and United States Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General reviews each petition for review filed in the Florida Supreme Court in civil
cases to determine whether the case involves an issue of statewide importance in which the State
should be involved. When such a case is identified, the Solicitor General researches the legal and
policy issues implicated in the case and consults with potentially affected State agencies. The
Solicitor General will then determine whether the State should intervene in the case or appear as
amicus curiae.
The Solicitor General also monitors those cases in the Attorney General’s Office that involve the
constitutionality of a statute, the interpretation of a constitutional provision, the functions of
government, or other matter of great public interest. In cases that will likely progress to the Florida
Supreme Court, the Solicitor General provides input at the trial and intermediate appellate courts
to ensure that the case is in the best posture for the Florida Supreme Court’s review.
The Solicitor General evaluates the requests of other states for Florida to join an amicus brief
being prepared in cases pending in the United States Supreme Court or other federal courts.
When a request for amicus participation is received, the Solicitor General reviews the lower
court decision and researches Florida and Eleventh Circuit law to determine whether the case
impacts an interest important to Florida. The Solicitor General generally will not recommend
joining an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari where the Eleventh Circuit’s law is
favorable to the State; however, if the court grants the petition, the Solicitor General will
consider joining or filing a brief to preserve the favorable state law. In addition to its
independent research on the issues presented in the case, the Solicitor General coordinates
review with assistant attorney generals who specialize in the legal issues implicated by the case,
as well as the Governor’s Office, the Legislature, and appropriate state agencies. Once the
Solicitor General determines that the State of Florida should join an amicus brief prepared by
another state or prepare its own amicus brief, the Solicitor General discusses the issue with the
Attorney General. The Solicitor General then reviews and provides comments on the draft brief
prepared by the other state or prepares its own brief.
The Solicitor General is sometimes contacted by private attorneys requesting that the Solicitor
General file an amicus brief in a case between private litigants. The Solicitor General considers
each request and independently researches the issues presented in the case to determine whether
or how the State’s interests may be implicated by the case.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 19
Richard W. Ervin Eminent Scholar Chair
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/main/8ac3c14443f4120285256cc6007a9be9!OpenDocument
The Solicitor General holds the Richard W. Ervin Eminent Scholar Chair, established in honor of
former Attorney General and Florida Supreme Court Chief J ustice Richard Ervin. In that
capacity, the Solicitor General teaches courses at the Florida State University College of Law.
Courses are two credit hours and limited to 15 second and third year students during the fall and
spring semesters. Past courses have included appellate advocacy and a white collar crime
seminar. Courses for the 2007-08 academic year include a seminar entitled “Florida, the
Constitution, and the United States Supreme Court” and “Topics in Appellate Law and Policy.”
The former focuses on major constitutional law cases arising in Florida that made their way to
the United States Supreme Court; the latter focuses on appellate topics not covered in the general
appellate advocacy course, such as appellate court structure and funding, the meaning of judicial
independence, appellate judicial opinion writing, merit retention versus election of appellate
judges, judicial free speech, and so on. Students are required to prepare a paper of publishable
quality on a selected topic. Each course will have prominent members of the legal community as
guest speakers and will provide students with the opportunity to learn more about the work of the
Solicitor General on cases involving legal issues of statewide and national interest.
The Attorney General of Florida is Pam Bondi
Assumed office J anuary 4, 2011
The Attorney General of Florida is an elected cabinet official of the Executive Branch who
serves as the chief legal officer of the State of Florida, a position of public trust created by the
Florida Constitution, Art. IV, § 4(b), authorized by F.S. § 16.01 et seq.
The current Attorney General of Florida is Pamela J o Bondi who took office on J anuary 4, 2011,
and swore to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States
and of the State of Florida” [Fla. Const. Art II § 5(b)], 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, or conflict of interest. Her term will expire on J anuary 6, 2015.
Note: I requested as a public record the Oath of Office for AG Pam Bondi; it was not produced.
Diana R. Esposito Chief-Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Florida
Diana R. Esposito is the Chief-Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Florida, and swore to
"support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the
State of Florida" [Fla. Const. Art II § 5(b)], 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, or conflict of interest.
Note: I requested as a public record the Oath of Office for AAG Esposito; it was not produced.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 20
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Florida
Kenneth V. Wilson is an Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Florida, and swore to "support,
protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of
Florida" [Fla. Const. Art II § 5(b)], 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, or conflict of interest.
Note: I requested as a public record the Oath of Office for AAG Wilson; it was not produced.
Valerie Williford, employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa Florida
Valerie Williford is a nonlawyer employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa Florida,
and is by virtue of that position of trust an employee of state government responsible for lawfully
performing and discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper influence,
personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, or conflict of interest.
Laura Martin, employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa Florida
Laura Martin is a nonlawyer employee of the Office of Attorney General, Tampa Florida, and is
by virtue of that position of trust an employee of state government responsible for lawfully
performing and discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper influence,
personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, or conflict of interest.
David A. Rowland, General Counsel for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida
David A. Rowland is the General Counsel for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida, and is by
virtue of that position of trust a local government attorney of state government responsible for
lawfully performing and discharging his duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, or conflict of interest. Pursuant to
Florida Bar Rule 10-2.1(b) Mr. Rowland was the attorney responsible for supervising Sandra
Burge. A member of The Florida Bar is responsible for the work of a paralegal. Rule 10-2.1(b).
Sandra Burge was a “paralegal assistant” to David A. Rowland, General Counsel
for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit Florida
Sandra Burge is a nonlawyer “paralegal assistant” to Mr. Rowland, and is by virtue of that
position of trust an employee of state government responsible for lawfully performing and
discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal self
enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, or conflict of interest. Ms. Burge may no longer work as
a “paralegal assistant” to Mr. Rowland. I do not know if Ms. Burge was qualified as a paralegal.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director April 23, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 21
Ryan Christopher Rodems FL - Bar #947652
Mr. Rodems is a Florida licensed lawyer, formerly a partner in Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. I
was a client of Barker, Rodems & Cook when Mr. Rodems and his partners concocted a closing
statement fraud and stole $7,143 from my settlement in the Amscot case, which fraud forms the
basis for this matter. Neil Gillespie, et al v. AMSCOT CORPORATION, Case 8:99-cv-02795-
RAL, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
Conclusion
The foregoing is an incomplete work in progress. Once I get responses Ms. Doss on the appeals
process, verbatim record of the proceedings, incoherent Rules of the Florida Commission on
Ethics, defective public records provided by email Monday, February 03, 2014, appeal process
for Complaint No. 14-015 and Complaint No. 14-016 dismissed March 12, 2014, and the
expiration period for sworn complaint to the Florida Commission on Ethics, I will submit a
comprehensive complaint.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures
Morgan R. Bentley 
Chair
Linda McKee Robison 
Vice Chair
Michelle Anchors 
Matthew F. Carlucci 
I. Martin Ford 
Tom Freeman 
Susan Horovitz Maurer 
Stanley M. Weston 
State of Florida  
COMMISSION ON ETHICS  
P.O. Drawer 15709  
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709  
325 John Knox Road  
Building E, Suite 200  
Tallahassee, Florida 32303  
"A Public Office is a Public Trust"
February 26, 2014 
Virlindia Doss 
Executive Director
C. Christopher Anderson, III 
General CounseV
Deputy Executive Director
(850) 488-7864 Phone 
(850) 488-3077 (FAX) 
www.ethics.state.f1.us 
CERTIFIED MAIL 
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 
The Honorable Pamela Jo Bondi 
Office ofthe Attorney General 
Confidential
PL-O1,  The Capitol 
Tallahassee, FL  32399-1050 
RE:  Complaint No.  14-034, In re PAMELA JO BONDI 
Dear Attorney General Bondi: 
The above-captioned complaint, recently received in the office of the Commission on Ethics, is 
being transmitted to you pursuant to the requirements of Section 112.324, Florida Statutes.  This 
office will forward all future correspondence in this matter to you at the above-listed mailing 
address unless otherwise notified of a change in your address.  This transmittal is a routine 
administrative requirement which should not be construed as an approval, disapproval, or 
judgment of the complaint, either as to its terminology or merits. 
Please note that this complaint, as well as all of the Commission's proceedings and records 
relating to the complaint, remain confidential either until you make a written request to the 
Commission that such records be made public or until the complaint reaches a stage in the 
Commission's proceedings where it becomes public.  Unless we receive a written waiver of 
confidentiality from you, our office is not free to release any documents or to comment on this 
complaint to members of the public or the press, so long as the complaint remains in a 
confidential stage.  The Commission's procedures on confidentiality do not govern the actions of 
the complainant or the respondent. 
The following information is submitted to aid you in understanding the review that a complaint 
may go through under the Commission's rules.  The first stage in our complaint process is a 
determination of whether the allegations ofthe complaint are legally sufficient, that is, whether 
they indicate a possible violation of any law over which the Commission has jurisdiction.  If the 
complaint is found not to be legally sufficient, the Commission will order that the complaint be 
disnlissed without investigation and all records relating to the complaint will become public at 
that time. 
PAMELA JO BONDI 
Page 2 
February 26, 2014 
If the complaint is legally sufficient but pertains solely to allegations of errors or omissions in 
financial disclosure forms, a determination will be made as to whether the error(s) or 
omissions(s) are significant to investigate.  If the error(s) or omissions(s) are determined to be 
minor or inconsequential, you will be so notified and will be given 30 days in which to correct 
the error(s) or omission(s).  If the correction is made, the complaint will be dismissed.  Ifno 
correction is made, the complaint will advance to the next step in the process. 
If the complaint is found to be legally sufficient, a preliminary investigation will be undertaken 
by the investigative staff of the Commission.  The next stage ofthe Commission's proceedings 
involves the preliminary investigation ofthe complaint and a decision by the Commission of 
whether there is probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of any of the ethics 
laws.  If the complaint is investigated, you and the complainant will be given an opportunity to 
speak with the investigator.  You also will be sent a copy of our investigative report prior to any 
action by the Commission and will be given the opportunity to respond to the report in writing. 
If the Commission finds that there is no probable cause to believe that there has been a violation 
of the ethics laws, the complaint will be dismissed and will become public at that time. 
If the Commission finds that there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation ofthe 
ethics laws, the complaint becomes public and enters the last stage of proceedings, which 
requires that the Commission decide whether the law actually was violated and, if so, whether a 
penalty should be recommended.  At this stage, you have the right to request a public hearing 
(trial) at which evidence would be presented, or the Commission may order that such a hearing 
be held.  Public hearings usually are held in or near the area where the alleged violation 
occurred. 
You are entitled to be represented by legal counsel during our proceedings.  Upon written  
request, documents and notices regarding the complaint will be provided to your attorney.  
If you are unfamiliar with the ethics laws and the Commission's responsibilities, I encourage you 
to access our website at www.ethics.state.fl.us. where you will find publications, rules, and other 
information. If there are any questions concerning this complaint or the procedures being 
followed by the Commission, please feel free to contact Ms. Kaye Starling, our Complaint 
Coordinator, at (850) 488-7864. 
Sincerely, 
j/,/eI~ /V), /:1 j) t".fj'
bY   l ~ P j L ~ ~
Virlindia Doss  r J
Executive Director 
Enclosure 
cc:  Mr. Neil J.  Gillespie, Complainant 
__.._  .._  __•  __••  ..  ·•· ••r••• ·• ·11 ·•· ••••'.. 1'·. '•• · •• ·'il'· ·•  '.IIIl· _  ....  , ..
•  ur'n'_'.  .r  ._ 11. 'f II  t·  "-- •  ...", "111111011·e-"I. I 
P.O.  DRAWER  15709  
TALLAHASSEE,  FL 32317-5709  


(/) 
(/) 

Z        
..J
o
2  1M  --i
T
oOA8°

fI) 
0004264307  FEB262014
a: 
MAILED FROM ZIPCODE  32303 u:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111' ,11 11 ,1"11 11 I1 JI1 1I111 1I
Mr.  Neil J. Gillespie 
8092 SW 115th Loop 
Ocala, FL  34481 
:::i448i :i:35E:7
j u
i
j JJt IjJIIi J II Jiii Ji1JI  jjIi jJ1ihJ I i J jJ ii JIi jJ i; j iii t ijiJ j j Jp
------------------------------------
---------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O. DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32317-5709
COMPLAINT
1.  PERSON BRINGING COMPLAINT:
Name:_N_e_il_J._G_i_lIe_s_p_ie   TelephoneNumber:_35_2_-_85_4_-_78_0_7  _ 
Address: 8092 SW  115th Loop
C
1
't
y:
Ocala   C
oun

y:
Marion 
_

Ip
'  C d
0
34481 
_ e:
2.  PERSON AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT:
Currentorformerpublicofficer, publicemployee,candidate,orlobbyist- pleaseuseonecomplaintform
foreachpersonyou wish tocomplainagainst:
Pamela  Jo  Bondi, Attorney General of Florida  T  I  h  N  b  850-414-3300
N
arne:  e ep one urn er: _
The  Capitol  PL-01,  Office of the Attorney General 
Add
ress:  _
C
1
't
y:
Tallahassee  
County:
Leon 
_
·  C  d  32399-1050
Ip 0 e: _

TitIeof officeorpositionheldorsought:_A_tto_r_n_eY_G_e_n_er_a_1_of_F_lo_r_id_a   _ 
3.  STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Please explain your complaint fully, either on the reverse side of this form or on additional sheets,
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions oftheperson named above. Include relevant
dates and the names and addresses ofpersons whom you believe may be witnesses. Ifyou believe that a
particular provision ofArticle II, Section 8, Florida Constitution (the Sunshine Amendment) or ofPart
III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (the Code ofEthics for Public Officers and Employees) has been
violated, please statethespecific section(s). Pleasedo notattachcopies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionofthemwillsuffice. Also,pleasedonotsubmitvideo tapesoraudiotapes.
4.  OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA
COUNTYOF H\A-r;On
Swornto(oraffirmed) andsubscribedbeforeme
I, the person bringing this complaint, do this I sr dayof Fe I:,r«AA-r'( ,
depose on oath or affirmation and say that
20 It.(  ,by Na;, G; ((e-sp; e.
thefacts setforth in theforegoingcomplaint  (nameof personmakingstatement)
and attachmentstheretoaretrueandcorrect

(Signatureof NotaryPublic- Stateof Florida)
tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief.
      CECIL!A 
(Print,Ty :*. : of otaryPublic)
Bar*tThrunarFain.:..... ....701I "':',
,Rr..,
PersonallyKnown__ORProducedIdentification__
TypeofIdentification Produced:
CEFORM50-EFF.4/2008
VIA UPS No.  1Z64589FP294746085   February 22, 2014 
Virlindia A.  Doss, Executive Director 
Florida Commission on Ethics 
325  John Knox Road 
Building E,  Suite 200 
Tallahassee, FL 32303 
Dear Ms.  Doss: 
Please find enclosed a sworn complaint for  Misuse of Public Position, F.S.  §  112.313(6), against 
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (AG Bondi) for delaying the September 10,2013 execution 
of Marshall Lee Gore to  attend her campaign fund-raiser to benefit her campaign and herself. 
The Attorney General of Florida is  an elected cabinet official of the Executive Branch who 
serves as the chief legal officer of the State of Florida, a position of public trust created by the 
Florida Constitution, Art.  IV,  § 4(b), authorized by F.S.  §  16.01  et seq. 
The current Attorney General of Florida is  Pan1ela Jo  Bondi who took office on January 4,2011, 
and swore to "support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States 
and of the  State of Florida" [Fla.  Const.  Art II  § 5(b)], 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, or conflict of interest. Her term will expire on January 6,2015. 
•   The Florida Attorney General is the public officer responsible for conducting state 
executions of persons in Florida sentenced to death under F.S.  §§  421.141  & 775.082. 
•   Marshall Lee Gore was a convicted murderer sentenced to  death.  Gore's execution was set 
for  September 10, 2013, and required the presence of the Attorney General in  Starke, FL. 
•   AG Bondi was bound by her Oath of Office to  execute Marshall Lee Gore on September 10, 
2013  at the Florida State Prison in  Starke, FL.  AG Bondi failed to  execute Gore on that day. 
•   AG Bondi corruptly delayed Gore's execution for her own personal benefit, to  attend a 
campaign fund-raiser at her home in Tampa benefiting her reelection campaign and herself. 
A story September 9,  2013  in the Tampa Bay Times by Adam C.  Smith, "Execution rescheduled 
to  accon1modate Pam Bondi Fundraiser" reported the matter, and accompanies this complaint. 
Monday, September 9, 2013 7:21pm
There is no graver responsibility and act of
state government than an execution.
In Florida this week, a campaign fundraiser
takes precedence.
Attorney General Pam Bondi persuaded Gov.
Rick Scott to postpone an execution scheduled
for tonight because it conflicted with her
re-election kick-off reception.
"What's going on down there? It's ridiculous,"
said Phyllis Novick, the Ohio mother of one of
Marshall Lee Gore's victims, when told Monday
about the reason for the delay.
Gore, 50, raped, strangled and stabbed
30-year-old Robyn Novick in 1988 before
dumping her body into a Miami-Dade County
trash heap. Gore was also sentenced to die for
the slaying of 19-year-old Susan Roark, whose
body was found a few months later in Columbia
County.
Gore was initially scheduled for execution in
June, but the date was twice delayed because of legal skirmishes over Gore's sanity.
After Scott last month rescheduled the execution for Sept. 10, the date of Bondi's "hometown campaign kickoff" at
her South Tampa home, Bondi's office asked that it be postponed. The new date is Oct. 1.
Scott said Monday that he did not know the reason for the request, and he declined to answer when asked whether he
considers a campaign fundraiser an appropriate reason to reschedule an execution.
"When another Cabinet officer asks for something, we try to work with them," Scott said.
On Monday, Bondi responded to questions with a statement saying she had made a mistake.
"As a prosecutor, there was nothing more important than seeing justice done, especially when it came to the
unconscionable act of murder. I personally put two people on death row and, as Attorney General, have already
participated in eight executions since I took office, a role I take very seriously," Bondi said.
"The planned execution of Marshall Lee Gore had already been stayed twice by the courts, and we absolutely should
Adam C. Smith, Times Political Editor
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/execution-rescheduled-to-accommodate-pam-bondi-fundraiser/2140891
not have requested that the date of the execution be moved," said Bondi, who has long championed victims' rights.
Shortly before a scheduled execution, the Florida attorney general typically phones the governor to inform him there
is no legal basis for delay. Since Bondi and Scott began their first terms in 2011, eight executions have been carried
out.
Gore's attorney, Ted Scher, said he had asked the governor's office for more information about why the execution
was postponed, but the governor's staff would say only that it was at the request of the attorney general. That it
turned out to be because of a campaign event came as a surprise.
"It's very unusual," Scher said. "It's particularly unusual given the attorney general's position in these cases that all
we (defense lawyers) do is delay these executions," Scher said.
Bondi is fighting legal challenges to the 2013 "Timely Justice Act" aimed at speeding up executions in Florida.
"Wherever one stands on the death penalty, there isn't anyone in America that believes an execution should be
postponed for political fundraising," said David Donnelly, executive director of Public Campaign Action Fund. "That
Pam Bondi requested a delay in this execution shows how the nonstop chase for campaign cash has hollowed out the
morality of our political system. Her moral compass is broken."
The delay keeps Gore on death row an extra 21 days at a cost that the Department of Corrections estimates at about
$1,000.
The Republican attorney general faces no serious challenger so far, and organizers expect her campaign kick-off
event to attract 100 to 200 people. Among those hosting the event: Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, a Democrat; House
Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel; and state Sens. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, Bill Galvano, R-
Bradenton, Tom Lee, R-Brandon, Wilton Simpson, R- Trilby, and Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg.
The governor won't be there because he made other plans once the execution dropped off his Tuesday schedule.
He will be at a reception in Broward County raising money for his re-election campaign.
Times/Herald staff writers Steve Bousquet and Mary Ellen Klas, Times researcher Caryn Baird and the News
Service of Florida contributed to this report. Contact Adam C. Smith at asmith@tampabay.com.
Execution rescheduled to accommodate Pam Bondi fundraiser 09/09/13
© 2013 Tampa Bay Times
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/execution-rescheduled-to-accommodate-pam-bondi-fundraiser/2140891

Neil Gillespie
From: "Doss, Virlindia" <DOSS.VIRLINDIA@leg.state.fl.us>
To: "'Neil Gillespie'" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 11:36 AM
Attach: gillespie.mp3
Subject: FW: records request
Page 1of 1
4/23/2014
Dear Mr. Gillespie,
Attached is an excerpt of the tape of the J anuary 24 Commission meeting. Your matters begin at the
2:00 mark on the timer.


Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
To: "Virlindia A Doss" <doss.virlindia@leg.state.fl.us>
Cc: "Kaye Starling" <starling.kaye@leg.state.fl.us>; "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, J anuary 09, 2014 11:17 AM
Attach: 2014, 01-09-14, letter to Virlindia A Doss.pdf
Subject: complaint process questons, update
Page 1of 2
4/23/2014
VIA Email only doss.virlindia@leg.state.fl.us
J anuary 9, 2014

Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director
Florida Commission on Ethics
325 J ohn Knox Road
Building E, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32303
cc: Ms. Kaye Starling
starling.kaye@leg.state.fl.us
Dear Ms. Doss,
Good morning.
This is to update a statement made December 9, 2013 in my initial complaint on page 5, "In a few days I
plan to submit a Supplemental Brief..." I have not yet submitted a supplemental brief in Petition No. 13-
7280, although I have been working on one. Poor health, and the significant work needed has delayed
me. A supplemental brief is limited to 15 pages, plus a cover, a list of parties, table of contents, table of
authorities, etc. Appendices are permitted. My petition was distributed December 26, 2013 for
conference tomorrow. If denied, I may use the supplemental brief as a basis for a petition for rehearing,
which is also 15 pages and a similar format.
I also have questions about the process, such as the supplemental information I sent you December 11,
2013. Is that information considered an amendment needing a separate, notarized complaint form to be
considered? I read about that requirement afterward.
On December 30, 2013 I spoke briefly with Kay Starling, the Complaint Coordinator and Ms. Starling
mentioned the amendment process too. I also asked how technically perfect a complaint must be? For
example, my complaint dated December 9, 2013 states on page 2, "Synopsis of Major Issues, AG Case
#Tampa Monitor, a false public record corruptly created", but I did not cite to F.S. § 837.06 False
official statements, or F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct., or F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records. I am a
nonlawyer with virtually no legal training.
837.06 False official statements.—Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the
intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
838.022 Official misconduct.—
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause
harm to another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in
s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records.
(1) (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff,
coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any
person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process,
charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of
this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off, discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited
recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any
document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate,
or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings
whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure
any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so
offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s.
775.083.
So does that part of my complaint need to be amended?
Concerning The Florida Bar, F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position, and Bar complaints made by
the public, is Bar Counsel a public officer subject to F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position? What
about ACAP intake counsel? Director of ACAP? Chief Branch Discipline Counsel? Director of Lawyer
Regulation? Director of the Legal Division? Grievance Committee member? Designated Reviewer? Bar
Governor? Bar President, President-elect, or Executive Director? UPL counsel, or UPL circuit
committee persons?
Finally, does F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position apply to an Assistant State Attorney who is a
member of a bar grievance committee, acting as the investigating member? It seems to me that a person
working as an Assistant State Attorney might violate the Fla. Const, art II, § 5, holding more than one
public office when serving on a grievance committee.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,

Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures
Page 2of 2
4/23/2014
VIA Email only doss.virlindia@leg.state.fl.us J anuary 9, 2014
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director
Florida Commission on Ethics
325 J ohn Knox Road
Building E, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32303
cc: Ms. Kaye Starling
starling.kaye@leg.state.fl.us
Dear Ms. Doss,
Good morning.
This is to update a statement made December 9, 2013 in my initial complaint on page 5, “In a
few days I plan to submit a Supplemental Brief...” I have not yet submitted a supplemental brief
in Petition No. 13-7280, although I have been working on one. Poor health, and the significant
work needed has delayed me. A supplemental brief is limited to 15 pages, plus a cover, a list of
parties, table of contents, table of authorities, etc. Appendices are permitted. My petition was
distributed December 26, 2013 for conference tomorrow. If denied, I may use the supplemental
brief as a basis for a petition for rehearing, which is also 15 pages and a similar format.
I also have questions about the process, such as the supplemental information I sent you
December 11, 2013. Is that information considered an amendment needing a separate, notarized
complaint form to be considered? I read about that requirement afterward.
On December 30, 2013 I spoke briefly with Kay Starling, the Complaint Coordinator and Ms.
Starling mentioned the amendment process too. I also asked how technically perfect a complaint
must be? For example, my complaint dated December 9, 2013 states on page 2, “Synopsis of
Major Issues, AG Case #Tampa Monitor, a false public record corruptly created”, but I did not
cite to F.S. § 837.06 False official statements, or F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct., or F.S. §
839.13 Falsifying records. I am a nonlawyer with virtually no legal training.
837.06 False official statements.—Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with
the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
838.022 Official misconduct.—
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to
cause harm to another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director J anuary 9, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics
Page - 2
F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records.
(1) (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff,
coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or
any person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any
record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial
proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off, discharge or
conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or
shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any
registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any
minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office
within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be
committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
So does that part of my complaint need to be amended?
Concerning The Florida Bar, F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position, and Bar complaints
made by the public, is Bar Counsel a public officer subject to F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public
Position? What about ACAP intake counsel? Director of ACAP? Chief Branch Discipline
Counsel? Director of Lawyer Regulation? Director of the Legal Division? Grievance Committee
member? Designated Reviewer? Bar Governor? Bar President, President-elect, or Executive
Director? UPL counsel, or UPL circuit committee persons?
Finally, does F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position apply to an Assistant State Attorney
who is a member of a bar grievance committee, acting as the investigating member? It seems to
me that a person working as an Assistant State Attorney might violate the Fla. Const, art II, § 5,
holding more than one public office when serving on a grievance committee.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures
DAT·E FILE·D
MAR 12 2014
BEFORE THE  
STATE OF FLORIDA  
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
COMMISSION ON ETHICS 
In re  PAT FRANK,  )
) Complaint No.  14-015 
Respondent.  )
----------)
PUBLIC REPORT AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 
On  Friday,  March  7,  2014,  the  Commission  on  Ethics  met  in  executive  session  and 
considered  this  complaint  for  legal  sufficiency  pursuant  to  Commission  Rule  34-5.002,  F.A.C. 
The        reVIew  was  limited to  questions  of jurisdiction of the  COITffilission  and  of the 
adequacy  of the  details  of the  complaint  to  allege  a  violation  of the  Code  of Ethics  for  Public 
Officers  and  Employees.  No  factual  investigation  preceded  the  review,  and  therefore  the 
Commission's conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations of the complaint. 
The  Commission  voted  to  dismiss  the  complaint  for  lack  of legal  sufficiency,  based  on 
the following analysis: 
1.  This complaint was filed  by Neil J.  Gillespie of Ocala, Florida. 
2.  The Respondent,  Pat Frank,  serves as Clerk of the  Circuit Court for  Hillsborough 
County. 
3.  The  complaint  apparently  alleges  that  the  Respondent,  as  Court  Clerk,  misused 
her public position by corruptly  conspiring with others  in her office to  deprive  the  Complainant 
of  his  legal  rights  by  complying  with  a  "sham"  judicial  Order  Prohibiting  Plaintiff  from 
Appearing  Pro  Se  and  also  by  using  the  Respondent's  public  position  and  resources  within  her 
trust  to  secure  a  special  privilege,  benefit,  or  exemption  for  an  individual  who  allegedly  filed 
with the Florida Bar a "vexatious" Unlicensed Practice of Law complaint against the
Complainant.
4. The only provision of the Code of Ethics possibly implicated by the allegation is
Section 113.313(6), Florida Statutes, which states:
MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.--No public officer, employee of an
agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or
her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her
trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or
exemption for himself, herself, or others.
Pursuant to Section 112.312(9), Florida Statutes, "corruptly" is defined as
... done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or compensating
or receiving compensation for, any benefit resulting from some act or omission of
a public servant which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his or her
public duties.
Section 112.313(6) prohibits public officials and employees from corruptly using or attempting
to use their official positions or property or resources within their trust, and it prohibits them
from corruptly performing their official duties, in order to secure a special privilege, benefit, or
exemption for themselves or another.
5. The complaint fails to state a violation of Section 112.313(6) because the
allegations that the Respondent corruptly conspired to deprive the Complainant of his legal rights
and that the Respondent used her public position and resources within her trust to secure a
special benefit for an individual who allegedly filed a Florida Bar complaint against the
Complainant are speculative and conclusory and, therefore, insufficient to indicate a violation of
Section 112.313(6). Also, although the Complainant presumably suffered a detriment as a result
of the alleged Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se, the complaint fails to allege in
2  
a factual manner any privilege, benefit, or exemption to the Respondent or anyone else, as
requiredunderthestatute.
Accordingly, this complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to constitute a legally
sufficientcomplaintwitlltheissuanceof thispublicreport.
ORDERED bythe State ofFloridaCommissiononEthics meeting inexecutive session
onMarch7,2014.
12/ 'z'D/c/
DateRendered
MORGANR. BENTLEY
Chair, Florida Commission on Ethics
MRBlbd
cc: Ms.PatFrank,Respondent
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie,Complainant

DATE  FILED  
BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA MAR  12   
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
COMMISSION  ON ETHICS 
In re DALE KENT BOHNER, ) 
)  Complaint No. 14-016
Respondent. ) 
----------) 
PUBLIC REPORT AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
On Friday, March 7, 2014, the Commission on Ethics met in executive session and
considered this complaint for legal sufficiency pursuant to Commission Rule 34-5.002, F.A.C.
The   reviGw limited to questions of jurisdiction of the Commission and of the
adequacy of the details of the complaint to allege a violation of the Code of Ethics for Public
Officers and Employees. No factual investigation preceded the review, and therefore tIle
Commission's conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations of the complaint.
The Commission voted to dismiss the complaint for lack of legal sufficiency, based on
the following analysis:
1. This complaint was filed by Neil J. Gillespie of Ocala, 'Florida.
2. The Respondent, Dale Kent Bohner, allegedly serves as Counsel to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.
3. The complaint apparently alleges tllat the Respondent, as Counsel to the Court
Clerk, misused his public position by corruptly conspiring with others in his office to deprive the
Complainant of his legal rights by complying with a "sham" judicial Order Prohibiting Plaintiff
from Appearing Pro Se and also by using the Respondent's public position and resources within
his trust to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for an individual who allegedly filed
with  the  Florida  Bar  a  "vexatious"  Unlicensed  Practice  of  Law  complaint  against  the 
Complainant. 
4.  The only provision of the Code of Ethics possibly implicated by the allegation is 
Section  113.313(6), Florida Statutes, which states: 
MISUSE  OF  PUBLIC  POSITION.--No  public  officer,  employee  of  an 
agency,  or local  government  attorney  shall  corruptly use  or attempt  to  use  his  or 
her official  position  or any property  or resource  which  may  be  within  his  or her 
trust,  or perform his  or her official duties,  to  secure a special privilege, benefit,  or 
exemption for himself, herself, or others. 
Pursuant to Section  112.312(9), Florida Statutes,  "corruptly" is defined as 
... done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or compensating 
or receiving compensation for,  any benefit resulting from  some act or omission of 
a  public  servant  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  proper  performance  of his  or her 
public duties. 
Section  112.313(6)  prohibits  public  officials  and  employees  from  corruptly  using  or  attempting 
to  use  their  official  positions  or  property  or  resources  within  their  trust,  and  it  prohibits  them 
from  corruptly performing  their official  duties,  in  order to  secure  a  special  privilege, benefit,  or 
exemption for themselves or another. 
5.  The  complaint  fails  to  state  a  violation  of  Section  112.313(6)  because  the 
allegations that the Respondent corruptly conspired to deprive the Complainant of his legal rights 
and that the Respondent used his public position and resources within his trust to  secure a special 
benefit  for  an  individual  who  allegedly  filed  a  Florida Bar  complaint  against  the  Complainant 
are  speculative  and  conclusory  and,  therefore,  insufficient  to  indicate  a  violation  of  Section 
112.313(6).  Also,  although  the  Complainant presumably suffered  a detriment  as  a result  of the 
alleged  Order  Prohibiting  Plaintiff  from  Appearing  Pro  Se,  the  complaint  fails  to  allege  in  a 
2  
factualmanneranyprivilege,benefit,orexemptiontotheRespondentoranyoneelse,asrequired
underthestatute.
Accordingly, this complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to constitute a legally
sufficientcomplaintwiththeissuanceof thispublicreport.
ORDERED bythe State ofFloridaCommissiononEthics meeting inexecutive session
onMarch7, 2014.
DateRendered
Chair, Florida Commission on Ethics
MRB/bd
cc: Mr. DaleKentBohner,Respondent
Mr.NeilJ. Gillespie,Complainant


( .
I' 
STATE OF FLORIDA  
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 11-03 
(Ethics and Open Government) 
WHEREAS, a commitment to ethics and integrity in government is essential to 
maintaining the public trust; and 
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2010, the Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury filed with the 
Florida Supreme Court its First Interim Report regarding public corruption in Florida and 
recommending proposed solutions to  address public cOlTUption in all aspects of government, 
politics and business throughout Florida; and 
WHEREAS, an open government in which decisions are made in a transparent manner is 
also imperative to preserving the public trust; and 
WHEREAS, all Floridians have .8 right to know and have access to infonnation with 
which they can hold government accountable for the management and exp.enditure oftaxpayer 
dollaB; 
NOW. THEREFORE) I, RICK SCOTT, as  GovemorofFlorlda, by virtue of the authority 
vested in me by Article IV, Section (1)(a) of the Florida ConstitutioD, and all other applicable 
Jaws,  do hereby promulgate the following Executive Order, to take immediate effect: 
Section 1.  I hereby direct the inunediatc adoption and implementation of a revised Code 
of Ethics applicable to 'the Office ofthe Governor.  This revised Code ofEthics applies to all 
employees within the Office of the Governor, as well as the secretaries, deputy secretaries, and 
chiefs of staff of all executive agencies under my purview.  As with its predecessor, this Code of 
Ethics imposes clear, understandable standards that often go beyond the statutory Code ofBthics 
1

fl·
r-·
set forth in Chapter 112, Part ill, Florida Statutes. However, this revised Code of Ethics imposes
more stringent requirements than the Code it revises.
I hereby designate my Geneml Counsel to act as the chief ethics officer for the Office of
the Governor. Each agency secretary is directed to designate an individual at his or her agency
to act as the agency's chiefethics officer. The agency's ethics-officer will make reasonable
efforts to ensure that the employees responsible for adhering to this revised Code become
familiar with relevant ethics, public records and open meeting requirements..
Eacq agency secretary is further directed to review and evaluate the current policies
adopted at his or her agency in light of this revised Code, with a view to using this revised Code
as a standard for his or her agency, adjusted for the program requirements and variables unique
to his or her agency. Agency secretaries are directed to implement any agency-specific
adjustments to the Code within forty-five (45) days of the date ofthis Order.
I further direct my ChiefEthics Officer to periodically review and evaluate the revised
Code. The purpose of this periodic review shall be to develop further recommendations as
necessary or appropriate to assure that we maintain and effectively enforce the highest ethical
standards for state officials and employees. and promote consistency ofstate agency policies on
ethics. public records, open meetings and personnel matters.
Section 1. I hereby direct my Special Counsel, in conjunction with· my ChiefEthics
Officer, to review the Statewide Grand Jury's December 29, 2010 ~   Interim Report
,
addressing public conuption in Florida and recommend a plan for implementing all or certain of)
as advisable, these recommendations either through executive action, or through legislative
proposals seeking necessary statutory modifications.
2
• l
Section 3. I hereby re-establish the Office of Open Government previously established in
Executive Order 07-01, and reaffmn this administration's commitment to the proper functioning 
of such Office.  The Office will (1) facilitate Floridians' right to know and have access to 
information with which they can hold government accountable, (2) establish and maintain a 
website providing ready access to accountability information, (3) continue to  assme full and 
expeditious compliance with Florida's open government and public records laws, and (4) provide 
training to all executive agencies under my purview on transparency and accountability.  The 
Office will also have primary responsibility for ensuring that the Office of tbe Governor 
complies with public records requests in an expeditious manneT.
Section 4.. All state agencies Wider the direction of the Governor are hereby directed, and 
all other state agencies are hereby requested, to provide such assistance to  the individuals 
carrying out ¢.e directions in this Executive Order as may be requested from time to time in 
furtherance of the principles herein stated. 
IN  TESTIMONY  WHEREOF,  I  have 
hereunto  set my hand  and caused the Great 
Seal of the State of Florida to be affixed,  at 
Tallahassee,  the  Capitol,  this  4th  day  of 
January, 2011. 
ATfEST: 
r'....
~ J
..... ,
~ -   ---..
\-:. -- c.•_
--. .:
~
t . ~
..........
-. 
~
f
pil't
...
:

: ~
-.1
,e. 
.,
-
,
.,...
  . ~ ~
...
I ::.
r·... 
.",:.S
r--. •
c:·r!:", 
..
.
--"

. .:.-:  ..
3  ;;"--
I ..A
~ ~ ~ . J


___________________________________________________________________





Supreme Court of Florida
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009
CASE NO.: SC09-1910
STATEWIDE GRAND J URY #19
ORDER DIRECTING IMPANELMENT OF A
STATEWIDE GRAND JURY
THE COURT, having considered the second amended petition of the
Honorable Charles J . Crist, J r., Governor of Florida, for an order to impanel a
statewide grand jury, and being fully advised of the relevant matters, hereby finds
as follows:
A. The Petitioner, Honorable Charles J . Crist, J r., Governor of Florida, has
shown good and sufficient reason exists and that it is in the public interest to
impanel a statewide grand jury, with jurisdiction throughout the State of Florida, to
investigate crime, return indictments, make presentments, and otherwise perform
all functions of a grand jury with regard to the offenses of:
(1)   bribery, burglary, car jacking, home-invasion robbery, criminal usury,
extortion, gambling, kidnaping, larceny (now theft), murder,
prostitution, perjury, and robbery;
(2)   crimes involving narcotic or other dangerous drugs;
(3)  any violations of the provisions of the Florida Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO); including any
offense listed in the definition of racketeering activity in section
895.02(1)(a), Fla. Stat., providing such listed offense is
investigated in connection with a violation of section 895.03, Fla. Stat.,
and is charged
in a separate count of an information or indictment containing a count

CASE NO. SC09-1910
PAGE 2
charging a violation of section 895.03, Fla. Stat., the prosecution of
which listed offense may continue independently if the prosecution of
the violation of section 895.03, Fla. Stat., is terminated for any reason,
including but not limited to the following offenses: Unlawful
Compensation for Official Behavior, Corruption by Threat against a
Public Servant, Official Misconduct, Bid Tampering, Falsifying
Records, Misuse of Confidential Information, and Money
Laundering;
(4)  any violations of the provisions of the Florida Anti-Fencing Act
(sections 812.02-812.037, Fla. Stat.);
(5) any violations of the provisions of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980,
as amended;
(6) any violations of the provisions of chapter 815, Fla. Stat., Computer-
Related Crimes;
(7) any crime involving, or resulting in, fraud or deceit upon any person;
(8) any violations of sections 847.0135, 847.0137, or 847.0138, Fla. Stat.,
relating to computer pornography and child exploitation prevention,
or any offense related to violations of sections 847.0135, 847.0137, or
847.0138, Fla. Stat., or any violation of chapter 827 where the crime
is facilitated by or connected to the use of the Internet or any device
capable of electronic data storage or transmission;
(9) any criminal violations of Part I of chapter 499, Fla. Stat.;
(10) any criminal violations of sections 409.920 or 409.9201, Fla. Stat.; or,
(11) any attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit any violations of
the crimes specifically enumerated above.
CASE NO. SC09-1910
PAGE 3
B. The matters to be inquired into are offenses occurring, or having
occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a related transaction or when
any such offenses are connected with an organized criminal activity throughout the
State affecting two or more judicial circuits.
WHEREFORE, THE COURT, pursuant to the provisions of sections 905.31
through 905.40, Fla. Stat., Statewide Grand J ury Act, hereby orders as follows:
1. A statewide grand jury shall be promptly impaneled for a term of twelve
calendar months, to run from the date of impanelment, with jurisdiction throughout
the State of Florida, to investigate crime, return indictments, make presentments,
and otherwise perform all functions of grand jury with regard to the offenses stated
herein.
2. The statewide grand jury shall be drawn from the certified jury lists
submitted by the chief judges of the Eleventh, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and
Twentieth J udicial Circuits.
3. The Honorable Victor Tobin, Chief J udge in and for the Seventeenth
J udicial Circuit, is designated as presiding judge over the statewide grand jury. In
his capacity as the presiding judge, the Honorable Victor Tobin shall maintain
judicial supervision of the statewide grand jury, and all indictments, presentments,
and formal returns of any kind made by such grand jury shall be returned to the
presiding judge. The presiding judge may designate an alternate presiding judge in
the event of calendar conflicts or otherwise and to assist in the administrative
process of the statewide grand jury.
4. Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, is hereby
designated clerk of this statewide grand jury and is empowered to deputize any


CASE NO. SC09-1910
PAGE 4
clerk of a circuit court or any deputy clerk of a circuit court to issue necessary
process and to carry out the administrative functions of the statewide grand jury.
QUINCE, C.J ., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and
PERRY, J J ., concur.
A True Copy
Test:
mc
Served:
WILLIAM NEWTON SHEPHERD
HON. G. KEITH CARY, CHIEF J UDGE
HON. PETER D. BLANC, CHIEF J UDGE
HON. J OEL H. BROWN, CHIEF J UDGE
HON. VICTOR TOBIN, CHIEF J UDGE
HON. CHARLES J . CRIST, J R., ETC.
ROBERT R. WHEELER
J UDITH SERAPHIN
STEVEN R. ANDREWS
Attorney General Bill McCollum News Release

December 2, 2009
Media Contact: Sandi Copes
Phone: (850) 245-0150

Statement from Attorney General on Supreme Court's Order to Convene a
Statewide Grand Jury

TALLAHASSEE, FL – Attorney General Bill McCollum issued the following statement
in response the Florida Supreme Court’s order convening a statewide grand jury on
public corruption:

“ Public officials should be held accountable for any illegal and dishonorable actions
that violate the public's trust. They should adhere to a higher standard, not make a
mockery of the offices with which they were entrusted."

“ This statewide grand jury will work to suggest common sense changes that instill
confidence and public trust. Our Statewide Prosecutor will work with the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement and Florida’s State Attorneys to identify
investigations and cases to bring before the grand jury. I am confident our work will
have a significant impact.”
Page 1of 1
2/7/2010 http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/pv/E365531E2C220C328525768000656945
Attorney General Bill McCollum News Release

February 1, 2010
Media Contact: Sandi Copes
Phone: (850) 245-0150

Attorney General: Statewide Grand Jury will Help Restore Trust in
Government

TALLAHASSEE, FL – Attorney General Bill McCollum today issued the following
statement on the upcoming statewide grand jury on public corruption, which is
scheduled to begin jury selection next week:

" Floridians should be able to be proud of the public officials who serve their state and
their communities, not ashamed of the latest scandal by someone in elected office.
We absolutely should expect better of those we have chosen to lead us.

" The grand jury will need to examine the blatant theft of public resources and,
perhaps most importantly, the illicit sources of influence upon public officials and
how to lift the cloud of scandal that has been present for far too long.

" Led by my Office of Statewide Prosecution and working cooperatively with the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, as well as local law enforcement and
Florida’s state attorneys, the grand jury will work toward restoring the public’s trust in
its government. I anticipate excellent work from these men and women who will
undertake this responsibility, and I know Florida will benefit greatly from their
efforts."

The Statewide Grand Jury was convened by the Florida Supreme Court in early
December to examine a list of specific crimes including bribery, extortion, unlawful
compensation for official behavior, corruption by threat against a public servant,
official misconduct, falsifying records, and misuse of confidential information. The
grand jury will be comprised of jurors summoned from the 11th, 15th, 17th and 20th
judicial circuits. The presiding judge will be the Honorable Victor Tobin, Chief Judge
in and for the 17th Judicial Circuit.

Additional information about the statewide grand jury, including a tip line to report
public corruption at 1-800-646-0444, is online at:
http://myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegrandjury
Page 1of 1
2/7/2010 http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/pv/A26DE7C27763DB94852576BD005BB1E7
Main  Office 
400 Nonh  Tampa  Street,  Suite 3200  300 Nonh  Hogan  Street,  Suite  700
o
o
Tampa,  Florida  33602  Jacksonville,  Florida  32202-4270 
813/274-6000 
904/301-6300 
813/274-6200 (Fax)  904/301-6310 (Fax) 
2110 First Street,  Suite 3-137  
u.s. Department of Justice
501  West Church  Street,  Suite 300 
Fon Myers,  Florida  33901  Orlando,  Florida  32805 
239/461-2200  United  States Attorney  407/648-7500 
239/461-2219 (Fax)  407/648-7643 (Fax) 
Middle District of Florida 
Reply to:  Orlando,  Florida 
August 1,2007 
VIA UNITED STATES MAIL 
Neil  J.  Gillespie 
8092  SW  115
th 
Loop 
Ocala,  Florida 34481 
Re:   Your July 6,  2007 letter 
Dear Mr.  Gillespie: 
This is  in  response to your July 6,  2007 letter.  As you  know,  I am  no longer with 
the  Florida Attorney General's Office.  I left that office at the end  of 2002,  and  I have 
had  no  professional dealings with Ace Cash  or any of the  payday loan cases since my 
departure.  For that reason  and  others,  I do not believe that I am the appropriate person 
to whom your letter should  be  directed.  As a federal  prosecutor,  I am  primarily 
responsible for prosecuting violations of federal  law that are investigated  by law 
enforcement.  Your request for an  investigation needs to  be directed to an  investigating 
agency. 
I have enclosed the materials that you  sent me. 
Sincerely, 
JAMES  R. KLINDT 

By:    
Assistant United  States Attorney 
o
o  
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th 
Loop 
Ocala, FL  34481 
Telephone: (352) 854-7807 
email: neilgillespie@mfi.net  RECEIVED
U.S. ATTORNFY'S OFFlCE
llUL  09 Z007
July 6,  2007 
MIDDLE DISTRICT at=: FLORIDA
ORLANDO
Roger B. Handberg, Assista
US  Attorney Office 
501  W.  Church Street,  Suite 
Orlando, FL 32805-2281 
nt US  Attorney 
300 
Dear Mr.  Handberg, 
Some time ago, in your position with the Florida Attorney General, your office 
intervened in a lawsuit where I was a plaintiff in a "payday loan" lawsuit, Neil Gillespie
v.  ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no.  8:00-CV-723-T-23B, in United States District Court, 
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.  I met you during a mediation June  12,2002, 
at the office of Gasper J.  Ficarrotta.  Just prior to the mediation I called ACE's counsel, 
Paul Watson, to complain about my own lawyers'  behavior and to try to settle my 
involvement in the lawsuit.  I am writing you about the crimes of my former lawyers. 
My lawyer was William J.  Cook of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.  Mr.  Cook 
began representing me while he was with the firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino &
Cook, P.A.  Mr.  Cook also represented me in another payday loan case against Amscot 
Corporation.  That case settled October 30, 2001, and I suspected that my lawyers 
defrauded me during the settlement, but I could not prove it at the time.  For example, 
Amscot's lawyer, John Anthony, initially offered Mr.  Cook a $5,000.00 "improper payoff 
attempt" to settle the case.  Shortly thereafter Mr.  Cook told me that he had received a 
$50,000.00 court-award for costs and attorneys' fees,  and that this award took precedent 
over our contingent fee agreement, thereby limiting my recovery. 
In 2003  I learned that Mr.  Cook did not receive $50,000.00 in court-awarded costs 
and attorneys'  fees,  and that Mr.  Cook defrauded me.  I contacted The Florida Bar, but 
my former lawyers accused me of extortion for utilizing Bar's Attorney Consumer
Assistance Program (ACAP) in a good-faith effort to resolve my dispute without 
litigation.  In 2005  I sued my former lawyers for fraud and breach of contract, and they 
countersued me for libel over a letter about the bar complaint. 
Initially I proceeded pro se because I could not find a lawyer willing to litigate 
against my former lawyers, in part because of their reputation, which I later learned 
Roger B. Handberg, s ~   n t US Attorney
o
Page - 2
July 6,2007
includes Mr. Alpert throwing coffee in the face of opposing counsel during a mediation.
Nonetheless I prevailed on Mr. Cook's motion to dismiss and Judge Nielsen found I
stated a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract. Ryan Rodems is representing
Mr. Cook and the firm, and shortly thereafter he filed a false affidavit about a threat of
violence. A voice recording of the conversation later proved Mr. Rodems lied,
committed perjury, and Judge Nielsen recused himself. The antics continued with Judge
Isom, and she recused herself. Now Judge Barton has the case. In April, 2007 I found a
lawyer in Gainesville willing to take the case, Robert W. Bauer, but the case has been
damaged due to Mr. Rodems perjury and obstruction ofjustice.
My former lawyers are incompetent, not just because they failed to prevail in any
of the payday loan claims, but because of the coffee-throwing and other antics. In my
view these lawyers are little more than criminals with law degrees. Their behavior is
outrageous, and certainly more grievous than that of the payday lenders they sued.
I am writing you today about the criminal fraud by my former lawyers. Also, I am
complaining about Mr. Rodems' perjury, obstruction ofjustice, and his threats of
criminal prosecution issued to me during the course of litigation. The local state attorney,
Mark Ober, has not responded to my correspondence.
Enclosed you will find Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to
Section 768.72 Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits 1 through 50. I believe this
document sets forth the facts needed to assist with your evaluation of my request. Also
enclosed is an amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v. Leiter. Amicus HALT
argued that over-billing a client is not part of the practice oflaw, and that lawyers are
subject to statutory consumer protection law in dealing with their clients.
Thank you for your consideration.
enclosures
c  o  
Neil J. Gillespie
8092  SW  115
1h 
Loop 
Ocala, FL 34481 
VIA UNITED STATES CERTIFIED MAIL  
Article no.:  7006010000073366 1075  
October 2,  2007 
Roger B.  Handberg, Assistant US  Attorney 
US  Attorney Office 
501  W.  Church Street, Suite 300 
Orlando, FL 32805-2281 
Dear Mr.  Handberg, 
Thank you for your letter of August  1,  2007.  After reading your response, I am 
confused when you directed me to an investigating agency for an investigation of my 
former  lawyers' criminal conduct.  In my  letter to you of July 6,  2007, I wrote that I 
contacted the local  State Attorney, Mark Ober, but that he did not respond to my 
correspondence.  I also provided you copies of my letters to Mr.  Ober as exhibits to 
Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72 Florida Statues, 
specifically three letters grouped as exhibit number 47, letters dated March 7
th
,  16
1h 
and 
24
Ih
,2006.  In addition, I wrote Mr.  Ober on July  15,2006 requesting a reply to my 
correspondence, but he did not respond.  Isn't Mr.  Ober, the State Attorney for the 
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, the proper investigating agency?  If not, who is? 
I take Mr.  Ober's failure to  reply or acknowledge my correspondence as evidence 
of his tacit approval of my former lawyers'  wrongdoing.  The State Attorney's failure 
denied my civil rights to equal protection under law, the right to  due process, protection 
from witness intimidation and/or tampering, and obstruction ofjustice. 
I contacted you because as a federal  prosecutor, you are responsible for 
prosecuting violations of federal  law.  In this instance the State Attorney has denied my 
civil rights.  Citizens have federal  civil rights that parallel their state civil rights, and 
historically when the state fails to  uphold a citizen's civil rights, the U.S Department of 
Justice acts.  That is why I believe you have both the authority and duty to act. 
~ y ,
a ~ ~ -  
. ~ ~
c
o  
U.S. Postal Service c' 
U') 
r'-
CERTIFIED MAILr.1 RECEIPT
CJ (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
M
.JJ 
.JJ 
IT! 
r'- CertJfled Fee S2.65  O?_.... , ...
CJ  
CJ Return Receipt Fee 1-------1/,7   '1.

CJ (Endorsement Required) S2.15.  • 
'(: (
CJ Restricted Delivery Fee  I------ - - ... ,-.
SOOO
(Endorsement Required) $ .5·.21'  I  t no?
CJ Total Postage &Fees"
.JJ  L..:.  --1  U;.; r S 
CJ ntop_ntt:> .

/$
,
,..)
../v

__·  



II)
'"
N

U1
r'-
CJ
M
.JJ 
.JJ 
IT! 
IT! 
r'-
CJ
CJ
a.
'a;
CJ

a: 
CJ
E
CJ :>
M
m
a:
CJ

II
CD
..ll
E
0
8

r'-
g
0
I
C\l


as 
.lJ

Ql
u-
ll:
T'""
.8  EO
T'""
§,g
GO 
C') 

.2 
E

U-

en
N a.. 
"PADDOCK  BRANCH  POST  OFFICE"  
OCALA,  Florida 
344749998 
1143840606  -0093 
10/02/2007 (352)861-8188  03:28:24  PM 
Product 
Receipt
Sale  Unit  Fi nal 
Description  Oty  Pri ce  Price 
ORLANDO  FL  32805  Zone-2 
First-Class  Letter 
0.50  oz.  
Return  Rcpt  (Green  Card)
Certified  
$0.41 
$2.15 
$2.65 
Label  #: 
70060100000733661075 
Issue  PVI: 
$5.21 
Total: 
$5.21 
Paid  by: 
Cash 
$5.25 
Change  Due: 
-$0.04 
Order  stamps  at  USPS. com/shop  or  call 
1-800-Stamp24.  Go  to  USPS.com/clicknship 
to  print  shipping  labels  with  postage. 
For  other  information  call  1-800-ASK-USPS. 
Bill#:  1000701736984 
Clerk:  02 
All  sales  final  on  stamps  and  postage.  
Refunds  for  guaranteed  services  only.  
Thank  you  for  your  business.
****************************************
****************************************
HELP  US  SERVE  YOU  BETTER 
Go  to:  http://gx.gallup.com/pos 
TELL  US  ABOUT  YOUR  RECENT 
POSTAL  EXPERIENCE 
YOUR  OPINION  COUNTS 
****************************************
****************************************
Customer  Copy 
STATE OF FLORIDA 
Office of the Governor 
Citizen Services 
THE CAPITOL  
TALLAHASSEE, FL  32399-000]  
www.flgov.com
CHARLIE CRIST 
850-488-4441
GOVERNOR 
850-487-0801  fax 
November 21,2007
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting Governor Charlie Crist. The Governor appreciates your
concerns about a law firm in Florida and asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Florida Constitution limits the Governor's intervention in matters that should be
resolved through the court system. Each state attorney is an elected official charged
with certain discretionary duties, including the duty to determine whether or not to
prosecute any particular crime committed within his or her jurisdiction. This decision is
based on the quality and quantity of the evidence of guilt shown, and in the best interest
of justice. I encourage you to work with the state attorney's office to resolve this
situation.
As you know, your best source of assistance with a complaint about an attorney is
the Florida Bar. The primary purpose of the Florida Bar is to ensure the highest
standards of professionalism in the practice of law for the benefit of members and the
public. I encourage you to continue working with the Florida Bar to resolve your
concerns. Complaints may be filed by writing the Florida Bar at 650 Apalachee
Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300 or by calling 1-800-342-8060.
I also encourage you to express your concerns to Attorney General Bill McCollum.
You can contact Attorney General McCollum by writing to the Office of the Attorney
General, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 3'2399, or by calling (850) 4,14-3990.
Thank you again for contacting Governor Crist. The Governor hopes your concerns
can be resolved to your satisfaction.
Sincerely,

Cole Hoopingarner
Office of Citizen Services
CH/cas

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No.: 7007 0710 0000 7841 4671
October 22, 2007
Governor Cllarlie Crist
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Dear Governor Crist,
There is a problem at The Florida Bar, one that reaches Mr. Kenneth Lawrence
Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation. Mr. Marvin has apparently ignored several
complaints I submitted about lawyer misconduct. Specifically, Mr. Marvin has not
complied with bar Rule 3-7.4(b), which states that a complaint received direct from a
conlplainant shall be reported to the appropriate bar counsel for docketing and assignment
of a case nllmber, unless resolved within 10 days after receipt of the complaint. Enclosed
you will find a copy of my October 12, 2007 letter to Mr. Marvin asking why he failed to
process my complaints, as well as a copy of my cover letter to Mr. Marvin of June 20,
2007 that accompanied the complaints. (For the purpose of confidentiality, the letters are
redacted as to the identity of the complained-about lawyers).
The Florida Bar's failure is a drain on Florida's judicial resources. Because The
Florida Bar failed to hold my former lawyers accountable on my initial bar complaint, I
commenced a civil lawsuit, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J.
Cook, case no.: OS-CA-720S, Hillsborough County Circuit Civil Court. (Exhibit A). As a
pro se litigant I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract. (Exhibit B).
III retaliation nlY former lawyers countersued me for libel. (Exhibit C). Thus far the civil
litigation has required three circuit court judges, and two interlocutory appeals to the
Second District Court of Appeals.
This matter began when my former lawyers took more money from my settlement
in a civil lawsuit that they were entitled. When I turned to The Florida Bar's Attorney
Client Assistance Program (ACAP) for help, attorney Chris Barker accused me of felony
extortion for attempting to resolve this matter by writing to the subject attorney.
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Mr. Donald M. Spangler, Director of the Attorney
Consumer Assistance Program, which details my former lawyers' extortion accusation.
Governor Charlie Cris
Page - 2
Office of the Governor
October 22, 2007
My contact with these reprobate lawyers began in December, 1999, from a referral
by the state of Florida
1
to the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.
for my transactions with predatory lenders. In April, 2000, I became a plaintiff in class-
action litigation against ACE Cash Express, Inc.
2
Two months later my lawyers made
headlines in the St. Petersburg Times when Jonathan Alpert threw a 20 ounce cup of
coffee in the face of attorney Arnold Levine during a mediation in a Bucs season ticket
holder dispute.) My former lawyers also accused Mr. Levine of extortion, according to a
news story published in the Times.
4
Making accusations of extortion against one's
opponent is something for which my former lawyers are notorious. Presenting criminal
charges to obtain advantage in civil litigation is contrary to bar Rule 4-3.4(g).
Shortly after the infamous coffee-throwing incident, Mr. Alpert unsuccessfully ran
for the office of state attorney. During the political campaign, three of Mr. Alpert's law
partners, Chris Barker, Ryan Rodems and William Cook secretly made plans to start their
own law firm. My former lawyers also had a problem with another class action lawsuit,
their case against AMSCOT Corporation that was facing dismissal due to an unqualified
class representative. That lawsuit was commenced on December 9, 1999, Eugene R.
Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, case no. 8:99-2795-CIV-T-26C, United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In order to save their doomed
lawsuit, I was pressured to intervene as plaintiff-class representative to replace the
unqualified Mr. Clement.
5
A comprehensive aCCOllnt of my former lawyers' misconduct
is set forth in Plaintiffs Motion For Punitive Damages Pursuant To Section 768.72
Florida Statutes (Exhibit D), and its supporting List of Exhibits numbered 1 through 50
(Exhibit E). A copy of the motion and exhibits are enclosed.
My former lawyers did not prevail in court on the merits of any lawsuit they
pursued on my behalf. After the AMSCOT lawsuit was dismissed, its lawyer, John
Anthony, offered a $5,000.00 cash payment to my lawyers to refrain from appealing the
ruling, tiling state law claims, or suing AMSCOT in the future. My lawyer, William
Cook, described Mr. Anthony's $5,000.00 offer as an "improper payoff attempt" in his
memo dated August 20, 2001. (Exhibit E, tab no. 26). Mr. Cook failed to report this self-
described impropriety to The Florida Bar, and what followed set in motion my former
lawyers' fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, set forth in the pleadings.
I The referral was made by Susan Sandler, a lawyer with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance.
2 April 14,2000, class action complaint filed, Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-
723-T-23 B, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Case remanded to
stated court December 26, 2000. The Florida Attorney General, Robert Butterworth, intervened in the state
lawsuit, consolidated case no. 99-9730, Division J, Hillsborough County Circuit Civil. Attorney General's
Motion For Intervention, submitted February 5, 2001, by Roger B. Handberg, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Economic Crimes Division, citing Florida RICO jurisdiction.
3 Exhibit E, tab no. 4, S1. Petersburg Times, Attorney's suit says he received coffee in the face, June 6, 2000
4 Exhibit E, tab no. 5, 81. Petersburg Times, Bucs accused of extortion June 10, 2000
5 Exhibit E, tab no. 1, Amscot's Response in Opposition to Clenlent described him as a convicted criminal
who was recently re-arrested, a person of questionable sanity, and owing unpaid debt of $450,000.00.
Governor Charlie Crist Page - 3  
Office of the Governor  October 22, 2007  
My initial bar complaint was made June 7,  2004, TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C), and 
was initially investigated by William L.  Thompson, Assistant Staff Counsel.  Six nl0nths 
into the investigation Mr.  Thompson was removed from the inquiry and left the bar.  At 
that point Susan V.  Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel, took over and shut 
dowl1 the investigation on what appear to be inappropriate grounds.  My subsequent 
complaint abollt Mr.  Cook's failure to report the $5,000.00 "improper payoff attempt" 
from  o p p o s   ~ counsel was dismissed (TFB No.  2006-11,194 (13D)).  Likewise, my 
conlplaint about Mr.  Cook's failure to sign or comply with a Statement o/Clients' Rights
alld properly account for the settlement proceeds in a Closing Statement as required, was 
dismissed contrary to substantial evidence, bar rules, and supporting case law.  (TFB No. 
2007-10,004 (13D)). 
I brought this matter to the attention of HALT, the legal reform organization. 
HALT  has reviewed my civil litigation and provided background information and case 
law for a fraud and breach of contract lawsuit against an attorney in HALT's amicus
curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v.  Leiter.  HALT argued that over-billing a client 
is not part of the practice of law, and that lawyers are subject to statutory consumer 
protection law in dealing with tlleir clients.  HALT also provided its amicus brief filed in 
tIle matter of Mark M.  Hager, a disciplinary matter in the District of Columbia.  HALT 
argued that Mr.  Hager should be disbarred for stealing his clients settlement money. 
Enclosed you will find copies of HALT's amicus briefs.

As for my former lawyers' retaliatory counterclaim, I have asked Mr.  Francisco R. 
Angones, President of The Florida Bar, for the Bar to intervene on my behalf in the libel 
counterclaim.  There is a strong public policy interest for The Florida Bar to intervene, or 
in tIle  alternative, to submit an amicus curiae brief on my behalf.
7
A  copy of my letter to 
Mr.  Angones requesting Bar intervention is enclosed. 
HALT  asserts in the Illinois case of Cripe v.  Leiter that a lawyer over-billing a 
client is subject to statutory consumer protection law.  As such, I ask that you refer my 
former lawyers to the Florida Attorney General for prosecution.  Additionally, the crimes 
perpetrated by my former lawyers merit review before the statute of limitations expire. 
Those crimes include fraud against a client, intimidation of a witness and bar 
complainant, and perjury that led to Judge Nielsen's recusal in my civil lawsuit. 
Historically local law enforcement and the state attorney have overlooked my former 
lawyers'  coffee-throwing violence and mendacious extortion claims.  When I contacted 
state attorney Mark Ober about my former lawyers'  extortion accusation, Mr.  Ober did 
not reply or acknowledge my correspondence.

As Officers of the Court, my former 
6  On June 30, 2007, I wrote Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation,  about this matter,  
and  provided him with copies of HALT's amicus briefs, but as  of today Mr.  Marvin has not responded.  
7  On June 21, 2007, I wrote Kenneth Lawrence Marvin,  Director of Lawyer Regulation,  about this matter  
but as  of today  Mr.  Marvin has not responded.  
8  Exhibit E,  tab no.  47  
Governor Charlie Crist
Page - 4 
Office of the Governor  October 22, 2007 
lawyers'  misdeeds diminish the COllrt's dignity, integrity, and the rule of law.  The Florida 
Bar's failure to abide by its own grievance procedures undermines its credibility.9 
Governor Crist, please take action to address the issues described in this letter, the 
crimes and misconduct that have been ignored or whitewashed for too long.  Thank you. 
Sincerely, 
-, .••   ~ ... - t ~  
' ,  J/ /'
1
~ , 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I1  J.  G i l l ~ e r
cc:  Mr.  Francisco R.  Angones, President, The Florida Bar (letter only)  
Mr.  John F.  Harkness, Jr.,  Executive Director, The Florida Bar (letter only)  
Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation (letter only)  
Mr.  Donald M.  Spangler, Director, Attorney Consumer Assistance Progranl (letter only)  
Mr.  Timon V.  Sullivan, Director, Thirteenth Circuit Board of Directors (letter only)  
Mr. William Kalish,  Director, Thirteenth Circuit Board of Directors (letter only)  
Ms.  Gwynne A.  YOllng,  Director, Thirteenth Circuit Board of Directors (letter only)  
Ms.  Susan V.  Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel (letter only)  
Enclosures: 
Exhibit A:  Complaint For Fraud And Breach Of Contract 
Exhibit B:  Order On Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And Strike 
Exllibit C:  Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim 
Exhibit D:  Plaintiffs Motion For Punitive Damages Pursuant To  Section 768.72 Florida Statutes 
Exhibit E:  List Of Exhibits (1  through 50) to the above motion 
HALT's amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v.  Leiter 
HALT's amicus curiae brief in the matter of Mark M.  Hager 
Letter to  Mr.  Francisco R.  Angones,  President, The Florida Bar, October 22, 2007 
Letter to Mr.  Donald M.  Spangler, Director, ACAP, October 16, 2007 
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation,  October 12, 2007 
Letter to  Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, June 20, 2007 
9  By way of further example, I understand that a federal judge denounced my former lawyers'  notorious 
coffee-throwing attack on one of the Bar's Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs.  It  is  ironic that 
the  Bar's CLE program rebuked this misconduct, but failed  to  admonish the  lawyers actually involved. 
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
V1A FIRST CLASS MAIL
l)ecenlber 9, 2007
Clovernor Cllarlie Crist
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Dear (}ovemor Crist,
Thank you for your letter of November 21, 2007, from Cole Hoppingamer on your
lJehal-f. I appreciate the time and effort spent reviewing my concerns.
Pursuant to your letter, I expressed my concerns to Attorney General Bill
McCollllffi. A copy of my letter to Mr. McCollum is enclosed.
encloSllres
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
December 11, 2007
Governor Charlie Crist
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Dear Governor Crist,
Enclosed you will find Attorney General Bill McCullom's response to your letter
to me of November 21, 2007, from Cole Hoppingarner. (copies enclosed). The Attorney
General wrote that he does not have jurisdiction in this matter. As Governor, you should
be aware of this fact.
Kindly return the documents I provided you with my letter of October 22, 2007.
Below is a list of the documents I provided. I will pay for the cost of returning my
documents. You may call me at the above phone number for payment by credit card, or
you may send a bill with the documents and I will send payment. Please advise.
Exhibit A: Complaint For Fraud And Breach Of Contract
Exhibit B: Order On Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And Strike
Exhibit C: Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim
Exhibit D: Plaintiff's Motion For Punitive Damages Pursuant To Section 768.72 Florida Statutes
Exhibit E: List Of Exhibits (1 through 50) to the above motion
HALT's amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v. Leiter
HALT's amicus curiae brief in the matter of Mark M. Hager
Letter to Mr. Francisco R. Angones, President, The Florida Bar, October 22, 2007
Letter to Mr. Donald M. Spangler, Director, ACAP, October 16, 2007
Letter to Mr. Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, October 12, 2007
Letter to Mr. Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, June 20, 2007
BILL MCCOLLUM
ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
o
~   OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Office of Citizen Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Telephone (850) 414-3990 , SunCom 994-3990
Fax (850) 410-1630, SunCom 210-1630
December 7, 2007
Mr. Neil 1. Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting Attorney General Bill McCollum regarding Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
and the allegation of perjury by Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems.
The Attorney General's Office does not have jurisdiction in this matter. By contacting The Florida Bar
you have contacted the appropriate agency to review your concerns. The Florida Supreme Court has
designated The Florida Bar as the agency responsible for reviewing grievances against lawyers
licensed to practice in this state. The Florida Bar's decisions are not subject to the Attorney General's
authority.
As the Governor's Office suggested, and as you wish to file a criminal complaint regarding alleged
perjury, please contact the local law enforcement agency and state attorney's office where the criminal
violation occurred. In Florida, the local police or sheriffs department and the elected state attorney in
each judicial circuit are responsible for investigating and prosecuting crime at the local level. Those
authorities operate independently and are not a part of the Attorney General's Office. If you have not
already done so, you may contact the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office and Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit State Attorney's Office at the following:
Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office
Post Office Box 3371
Tampa, Florida 33601
Phone: (813) 247-8000
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office
County Courthouse Annex, Fifth Floor
800 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33602
Phone: (813) 272-5400
Otherwise, please continue with your private attorney if you need any legal guidance. An attorney can
give you the legal advice which our office is not at liberty to provide to private individuals. We hope
this proves helpful to you. Thank you for contacting Attorney General McCollum's Office.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES
Florida Attorney General's Office
OCSlba
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
o  
Neil J. Gillespie 
8092  SW 115
th
Loop 
Ocala, Florida 34481 
VIA US  PRIORITY MAIL 
DELIVERY CONFIRMATION 
0306 2400 0000 7670  1444 
December 5, 2007 
Attorney General Bill McCollum 
Office of the Attorney General 
The Capitol 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 
Dear Attorney General McCollum: 
Governor Crist encouraged me to express my concerns to you concerning a fraud 
scheme perpetrated by my former lawyers at the Tampa law firm Barker, Rodems & 
Cook, P.A.  A copy of Governor Crist's letter is enclosed, along with my original letter 
and enclosllres to the Governor.  The following is a brief description of the fraud scheme 
and subsequent attempts by my former lawyers to obstruct justice when I sued them.  For 
more details about this matter, please see my letter to Governor Crist and enclosures. 
My former lawyers pressured me to intervene in their previously filed class-action 
lawsuit when their initial plaintiff proved unqualified to represent the class.  The lawsuit 
was captioned Eugene R.  Clement v.  AMSCOT Corporation, case no.  8:99-2795-CIV-T-
26C, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.  The 
action was commenced December 9,  1999, by the Tampa law firm Alpert, Barker, 
Rodems,  Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.  Mr.  Alpert's firm dissolved soon after his 
unsuccessful run for state attorney in 2000, and following his infamous coffee-throwing 
incident against attorney Arnold Levine.  Three lawyers fronl Mr.  Alpert's firm then 
formed a new law firm,  Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, who assumed the case. 
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.  failed to prevail and the lawsuit was dismissed. 
An appeal was filed,  and negotiations pursued, because the defendant wanted to settle so 
that a business deal could move forward.  The settlement negotiations were marked by a 
$5,000.00 "unlawful payoff attempt" by defense attorney John Anthony, followed by my 
own lawyers'  fraud,  breach of fiduciary duty,  and breach of contract, a scheme designed 
to take most of the settlement proceeds as attorneys'  fees.  Specifically, Barker, Rodems 
& Cook, P.A.  prepared, but did not sign, a contingent fee  agreement.  Then William Cook 
told me that the court awarded his firm $50,000.00 in attorney's fees  in an attempt to 
avoid the terms of the contingent fee  agreement.  I received a nominal settlement of 
o
Attorney General Bill .ollum Page - 2
Office of the Attorney General December 5,2007
$2,000.00, as did the other two co-plaintiffs. However, had Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. honored the terms of the contingent fee agreement, the three plaintiffs would have
received $8,224.78 each, and the law firm would have received $31,325.46. But because
my former lawyers failed their fiduciary duty to their clients, the law firm unlawfully took
an additional $18,675.54 by fraud and breach of contract.
My initial complaint to The Florida Bar was made June 7, 2004, TFB No. 2004-
11,734(13C), and was investigated by William L. Thompson, Assistant Staff Counsel.
Six months into the investigation Mr. Thompson was removed from the inquiry and left
the bar. At that point Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel, took
over and shut down the investigation on what appear to be inappropriate grounds. My
subsequent complaint about Mr. Cook's failure to report the $5,000.00 "improper payoff
attempt" from opposing counsel was dismissed (TFB No. 2006-11,194 (13D)). Likewise,
my complaint about Mr. Cook's failure to sign a contingent fee agreement and his failure
to account for the settlement proceeds in a Closing Statement, was dismissed contrary to
substantial evidence, bar rules, and supporting case law. (TFB No. 2007-10,004 (13D)).
When The Florida Bar failed to hold my former lawyers accountable for their
misconduct, I commenced a civil lawsuit, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and
William J. Cook, case no.: 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County Circuit Civil Court. (Exhibit
A). At that time I was unable to find counsel willing to take the case, and I proceeded pro
see Since then I found a lawyer in Gainesville to represent me and the case is active. As a
pro se litigant I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract. (Exhibit B).
In retaliation my former lawyers countersued me for libel. (Exhibit C).
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. is represented by attorney Ryan Christopher
Rodems of the firm. During tIle time I represented myself, Mr. Rodems made a false
affidavit to the Court abollt an argument we had, where Mr. Rodems swore under oath
that I intended to attack him in Judge Nielson's charrlbers. Mr. Rodems' false affidavit
prejudiced the Court against me. When a recording of the argument proved Mr. Rodems
lied to the Court, Judge Nielsen recused himself. The case then went to Judge Isom who
was also prejudiced by Mr. Rodems' perjury, and she recused herself. Judge Isom said in
open court that I could bring Mr. Rodems' perjury to the attention of law enforcement.
You may consider this letter as my first attempt to comply with Judge Isom's directive.
Currently Judge Barton has the case and I am represented by attorney Robert W.
Bauer of Gainesville. Mr. Rodems' aforementioned perjury was calculated to obstruct
justice, intimidate me as a witness, and deny me due process of law. This matter has
consumed a considerable amount of legal resources, including (so far) three circuit court
judges and two interlocutory appeals to the Second District Court of Appeals.
HALT, the legal reform organization, has reviewed my civil lawsuit and provided
background information and case law for a fraud and breach of contract lawsuit against an
attorney in HALT's amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v. Leiter. HALT
argued that over-billing a client is not part of the practice of law, and that lawyers are
AttorneyGeneralBill.onum
o
Page- 3
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral December5,2007
subjecttostatutoryconsumerprotectionlawindealingwiththeirclients. HALTalso
provideditsamicus brieffiled inthematterofMarkM. Hager,adisciplinarymatterin
tIle DistrictofColumbia. HALTarguedthatMr. Hagershouldbedisbarredforstealing
hisclientssettlementmoney. EnclosedyouwillfindcopiesofHALT'samicus briefs.
Inadditiontotheabovedescribedunlawfulbehavior,Barker,Rodems&  Cook,
P.A. hascountersuedmeforlibeloveraletteraboutmyinitialbarcomplaint. Thelibel
counterclaimiscontrarytotheholdingofFloridaSupremeCourtcase,Tobkinv. Jarboe,
710 So.2d975 (1998),whichrecognizesabsoluteimmunityforacomplainantwho
followsTheFloridaBar'sgrievanceprocedures. Barker,Rodems&  Cook,P.A.hasalso
accusedmeofcriminalextortionforutilizingTheFloridaBar'sAttorney Client
Assistance Program (ACAP),whichrequiresacomplainantmakeagood-faitheffortto
resolvethematterpriortomakingaformal complaint. Bothmattersaredescribedin
n10re detailintheaccompanyingexhibitsandletters.
ThusfarTheFloridaBarhasexcusedmyformerlawyers' misconduct,andhas
doneso inaparticularmanner. SusanBloemendaal,theChiefBranchDisciplinary
CounseloftheTampaoffice,haspersonallyintervenedonbehalfofmyformerlawyers.
OnseveraloccasionsMs. Bloemendaalhasreplacedtheindividualbarcounselwhowere
investigatingmycomplaints,andthenrenderedherowndecisionthatmerelyadoptedmy
former lawyers' defenses. OnotheroccasionsMs. Bloemendaalapparentlybypassed
assignmenttoindividualbarcounselaltogether,reviewedthecomplaintsherself,and
simplyreiteratedmyformerlawyers' positioninexcusingtheirmisconduct. Ineach
instanceMs. Bloemendaalplayedfastandloosewiththefacts, andreacheduntenable
conclusionsoflaw. Inotherwords,Ms. Bloemendaalwhitewashedmycomplaint.
Thelocalstateattorney,MarkOber,hasnottorespondtomycorrespondence. 
MyletterstoMr. OberareenclosedinExhibitE,tabnumber47. 
Thankyoufortheopportunitytobringthismattertoyourattention. Ihavedone
soattheencouragementof GovernorCharlieCrist. Shouldyouwanttopursuethis
matter,Icanprovideadditionalinformation. Forexample,Ihavetranscriptsofthecourt
proceedings,andtranscriptsofmyphonecallswithMr. Rodems. Ihavealso submitted
totheCourtPlaintiffsMotionWithAffidavitForAnOrderToShowCauseWhyRyan
ChristopherRodemsShouldNotBeHeldInCriminalContemptOfCourtAnd
IncorporatedMemorandllffiOfLaw. Themotionhasnotyetbeenheard. Themotionsets
forthMr. Rodems'perjurythatwascalculatedtoobstructjustice,intimidatemeasa
witness,anddenymedueprocessoflaw. JudgeIsomsaidIcouldbringthismattertothe
attentionoflawenforcement. PleaseinvestigatethisperjuryasJudgeIsomsuggested.
Sincerely,
<   ..  :.:/  L   ~ ,
eilJ. l l ~ i e . ~
Attorney General Bill .Ollum

Page - 4 
Office of the Attorney General  December 5, 2007 
cc:  Governor Charlie Crist (letter only) 
Enclosures: 
Exhibit A:  Complaint For Fraud And Breach Of Contract  
Exhibit B:  Order On Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And Strike  
Exhibit C:  Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim  
Exhibit D:  Plaintiffs Motion For Punitive Damages Pursuant To Section 768.72 Florida Statutes  
Exhibit E:  List Of Exhibits (1  through 50) to the above motion  
HALT' s amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v.  Leiter  
HALT' s amicus curiae brief in the matter of Mark M.  Hager  
Letter from Governor Charlie Crist dated November 21, 2007  
Letter to Governor Charlie Crist, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Francisco R.  Angones, President, The Florida Bar, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Donald M.  Spangler, Director, ACAP, October 16, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, October 12, 2007  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, June 20, 2007  
a  
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Office of Citizen Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Telephone (850) 414-3990 SUNCOM 994-3990
FAX (850) 410-1630 SUNCOM 210-1630
December 14,2007
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Per your request, we are enclosing copies of the documents you previously forwarded to
this office.
We will retain your information in our consumer files to help this office organize its
priorities. Thank you for contacting the Attorney General's Office.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES
Florida Attorney General's Office
OCS/fb
Enclosures
AN AFFIRMAnVE ACnON/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 
Neil J. Gillespie 
8092 SW IIS
th 
Loop 
Ocala, Florida 34481 
Telephone:  (352) 854-7807 
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL 
December 11, 2007 
Attorney General Bill McCollum 
Office of the Attorney General 
The Capitol 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 
Dear Attorney General McCollum: 
Thank you for your letter dated December 7, 2007. (copy enclosed).  In order for 
me to comply with your referrals, I will need the return of the documents I provided you. 
A list of the enclosures is provided below.  I am willing to pay the cost of returning my 
documents.  You may call me at the above phone number for payment by credit card, or 
you may send a bill with the documents and I will send payment.  Please advise. 
Sincerely,  
Exhibit A:  Complaint For Fraud And Breach Of Contract  
Exhibit B:  Order On Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And Strike  
Exhibit C:  Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim  
Exhibit D:  Plaintiff's Motion For Punitive Damages Pursuant To Section 768.72 Florida Statutes  
Exhibit E:  List Of Exhibits (1  through 50) to the above motion  
HALT's amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v.  Leiter  
HALT' s amicus curiae brief in the matter of Mark M.  Hager  
Letter from Governor Charlie Crist dated November 21, 2007  
Letter to Governor Charlie Crist, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Francisco R.  Angones, President, The Florida Bar, October 22, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Donald M.  Spangler, Director, ACAP, October 16, 2007 (letter only)  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, October 12, 2007  
Letter to Mr.  Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, June 20,2007  


N I N E T E E N T H S T A T E WI D E G R A N D J U R Y Page 3


We, the members of the Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury, find that
public corruption continues to be an issue of great importance in all aspects of
government, politics, and business throughout the State. We have been asked
to address an enormous issue which is broad in scope and long in history. We
take on this challenge with sincere appreciation for the gravity of the
undertaking. We hope our words are heard and our recommendations are
followed. Better efforts to prevent and penalize corruption are necessary in
order to stop fraud, waste, and abuse of our State resources. Given the
serious fiscal limitations at all levels of government, anti-corruption efforts
must stop the theft and mismanagement of vital public funds. This
mismanagement and theft penalizes taxpayers by driving up the cost of all
government services. Therefore, we call for an immediate repeal of what can
only be referred to as Florida’s Corruption Tax.

The cadets at our nation’s military academies swear an oath to neither
lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do. There is no reason we should hold
our public officials to a lesser standard.



N I N E T E E N T H S T A T E WI D E G R A N D J U R Y Page 119
In 2009 alone, 1,082 individuals were charged nationwide with public corruption related
prosecutions by the United States Attorneys’ Offices. State and local officials made up 363 of
those charged. In 2009, 1,061 individuals were convicted nationwide for public corruption
related prosecutions by the United States Attorneys’ Offices.
lviii
Since 2000, Florida’s three
federal United States Attorney’s Office districts had more public corruption convictions than any
other state’s combined district totals.
lix
According to one witness who provided us the following
diagram, Florida led the nation in the number of federally convicted public officials from 1998
through 2007.
lx
According to this testimony, Florida leads the next closest state, New York, by
over an 8% margin.
lxi

Convicted Public Officials 1998-2007
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Fla N.Y Texas Pa. California Ohio Ill.
N.J. D.C. LA Va. Ala. Tenn. Ky.
P.R. Mich. Miss. Mass. N.C. Ga. Mo.
Md. Ariz Ind. Wisc. Conn. Okla. Wash
Guam Ark. Colo. W. Va S. C. Minn. Mont.
N. D. Virgin Is. Alaska Hawaii Nev. Del. S. D.
Idaho Kan. Utah Ore. Iowa N. M. R. I.
Maine N. H. Wyo. Vt. Neb.


We also heard from a witness from FDLE who presented State of Florida public
corruption arrests and convictions statistics since 2000 gathered by the Florida Statistical


N I N E T E E N T H S T A T E WI D E G R A N D J U R Y Page 124

xlix
See The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement for SB 252, Prepared by The Professional Staff
of the Ethics and Elections Commission, March 5, 2009.
l
CS/HB 551, Approved by Governor May 27, 2010.
li
The Federal Elections Commission, Thirty Year Reoprt 12 (Sept. 2005), available at
http://www.fec.gov/info/publications/30year.pdf
lii
Id.
liii
Id.
liv
Congress Staffers Gain From Trading Stocks, Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2010, pg. 1.
lv
Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section for 2009, supra. The
information about the Public Integrity Section in this Report was taken from this Report to Congress.
lvi
Id at i..
lvii
Id. at 38.
lviii
Id. Table I at 51.
lix
Id. Table III at 54-58.
lx
We are unable to cite where this information was obtained by the witness.
lxi
According to testimony, Florida ranked first with 824 convicted public officials and New York ranked second
with 704. We point out that according to this testimony, Nebraska ranked last in this survey. We find this
interesting in that Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, but have not received any testimony that these two things
are related.
lxii
We find the Legislature should address the need for reporting the disposition of criminal charges to a central
database such as FCIC.
lxiii
Information presented by Data prepared by the Florida Statistical Analysis Center as of July 26, 2010.
Phil Sears / AP
Attorney General Pam Bondi, left, and Gov. Rick Scott
listen to a speaker during a meeting of the Florida Cabinet
Thursday, March 7, 2013, at the Capitol in Tallahassee.
Posted on Thu, Mar. 07, 2013
By Steve Bousquet
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
Long before the Legislature saw the need for new
ethics laws, Gov. Rick Scott made a bold
commitment to fight public corruption.
But he hasn’t followed through.
On his first day in office in 2011, Scott issued an
executive order that preserved an Office of Open
Government and added a new code of conduct for
everyone working for him that in some areas was
stricter than state law.
The order also directed Scott’s then-special
counsel, Hayden Dempsey, to study a fresh
statewide grand jury report on public corruption
and push parts of it through the Legislature. But
nothing came of it, even though Scott demanded
in his campaign in 2010 that he be held accountable for his promises.
“This was a promise of the governor,” said Dan Krassner of Integrity Florida. “Florida needs Gov.
Scott’s leadership on ethics reform.”
Two years later, the grand jury’s recommendations on what it called “an enormous issue, which is
broad in scope and long in history” are still not law, though parts are in an ethics bill that passed
the Senate Tuesday.
That Senate bill leaves out many of the grand jury’s strongest recommendations. They include
making it a felony if an officeholder’s unethical conduct is motivated by money; raising the
maximum fine for an ethics violation from $10,000 to $100,000; allowing the Commission on
Ethics to open investigations without complaints being filed, the same as 30 other states; and
clamping down on bid-rigging. The grand jury said public corruption cases are too hard to prove
under existing laws and that when they are proven, the penalties are too soft.
Following recent Times/Herald inquiries, Scott directed his general counsel, Peter Antonacci, to
look back at why nothing happened.
“I’ve asked Pete to look at that,” Scott said. “Anytime you see corruption around the state, you
ought to look at it and say, ‘What can you do to make sure it doesn’t happen again?’ ”
Antonacci said much of what the administration considers necessary is in a just-passed Senate
Rick Scott promised big ethics reform, but nothing has happened - 03/07/... http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/07/v-print/3273287/rick-scott-pro...
9/7/2013 11:44 PM 1 of 3
ethics bill, SB 2, awaiting House action. “It’s pretty good, and I’m sure the governor is going to
support it,” Antonacci said.
Ethics law expert Mark Herron, a lawyer who has done legal work for the Florida Democratic
Party, had another theory for why the grand jury report went nowhere.
“It might have been a little gimmick on Day 1,” Herron said. “I see no legal reason why it would
have evaporated.”
Any discussion of changes to state ethics laws in 2011 likely would have included Phil Claypool,
who was then executive director of the Commission on Ethics.
“I do not remember any communications with the governor’s office about the grand jury report
and its recommendations for changes in the ethics laws,” Claypool said. “That doesn’t mean that
it didn’t happen, just that I don’t recall anything like that.”
Scott in effect missed an opportunity to own the anti-corruption issue — and now the Florida
Senate largely owns it. Scott may sign an ethics bill that ethics watchdogs consider too weak
because it opens gaping new loopholes in laws they say are already too weak.
Krassner, of Integrity Florida, said the Senate bill is a potential “disaster” and that Scott should
consider vetoing it because of three major flaws. They include nebulous language involving blind
trusts; giving elected officials a 30-day “re-do” to fix mistakes on financial disclosure forms; and a
requirement that the Commission on Ethics dismiss complaints if the acts were the result of
“inadvertent or unintentional error.”
Claypool analyzed the Senate bill for Integrity Florida and said it would actually weaken current
law — especially the provision regarding “unintentional” ethics violations.
“Someone is being protected here, and it isn’t the public,” Claypool wrote in his analysis.
The statewide grand jury urged much the opposite: making voting conflicts that involve a
financial gain second-degree felonies, including for legislators.
The grand jury, under the direction of the Office of Statewide Prosecutor, convened in 2010 at the
urging of former Gov. Charlie Crist after a series of highly publicized public corruption cases. It
issued its report on Dec. 29, 2010, one week before Scott took office.
On J an. 4, 2011, Scott’s Executive Order 11-03 directed his staff to “recommend a plan for
implementing all or certain” of the grand jury’s recommendations.
It was a tall order for Scott, who was new to governing and still assembling an inner circle of
advisers, nearly all of whom were strangers to state government. Dempsey, a prominent lawyer
and lobbyist before and after working for Scott, was one of the few who could navigate the
bureaucracy.
Recalling the grand jury report, Dempsey said: “We looked at it, and we reviewed it. There were a
lot of issues in the report, and we didn’t feel we would be driving good public policy to rush to
judgment on this.” He said Scott’s office never presented anything to the Legislature in the 2011
session.
On Thursday, Antonacci — Dempsey’s successor — said it would be bad public policy for the
state to criminalize ethics violations as the grand jury proposed. At the same time, Scott has
Rick Scott promised big ethics reform, but nothing has happened - 03/07/... http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/07/v-print/3273287/rick-scott-pro...
9/7/2013 11:44 PM 2 of 3
imposed strict ethical standards on his own employees, including banning acceptance of gifts
from anyone other than relatives.
Antonacci also said Scott’s staff members are prohibited from drinking alcohol in public in any of
the popular after-hours watering hotels near the Capitol. “If it’s any kind of gin mill activity, you’re
out,” Antonacci said.
©2013 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Rick Scott promised big ethics reform, but nothing has happened - 03/07/... http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/07/v-print/3273287/rick-scott-pro...
9/7/2013 11:44 PM 3 of 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful