APPENDIX - Addendum

Amended Application for Order, J une 17, 2014
Appellate Case: 2D10-5197
Lower Tribunal Case: 05-CA-7205; Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, William Cook.
Exhibit 1 Clerk of Court J ames Birkhold, form letter to Gillespie dated October 7, 2013
Exhibit 2 ORDER granting stay, Hillsborough Circuit J udge Marva Crenshaw, September 9, 2008
Exhibit 3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie, J une 6, 2008
Exhibit 4 Plaintiff's Claim of Exemption and Request for Hearing, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie Aug-14-2008
Exhibit 5 Emergency Request for Hearing, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie, August 11, 2008
Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, Mr. Bauer prohibited Gillespie from attending hearings
Separate Appendix: Bar Complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, 2007-11,162(13D) Feb-20-2007
Separate Appendix: TRANSCRIPT, Circuit J udge Crenshaw, emergency hearing, August 14, 2008
Separate Appendix: Gillespie’s letter October 1, 2013 to The Hon. Charles A. Davis, J r. Chief J udge
Separate Appendix: J ohn Gardner RFA No. 14-14647 separate appendix, update J une 5, 2014
Separate Appendix, UPL Complaint against Mr. Rodems, unlawfully represented the state of Florida in a
federal court action; Accompanied the Notice of Appeal, December 5, 2013 to the 2dDCA.
Separate Appendix: Amended Disability Motion, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, 43 page motion only; 251 page
motion and exhibits on Scribd at the link below.
Motion shows the Americans With Disabilities Act required disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel.
"";.. /
The Florida Bar  'fD)   In!
.Inquiry/Complaint Fonn 
  FEB 2 2 )UUI  
PART ONE: (Read instructions on reverse side.)
Your Name:AJ61  
Address:   SW 1/6  
City: Q'Ct4 IA State: EL-
Phone:   CdJ· flifC'l Zip Code: 3r't e/
ACAP Refe,-ence No, c:,u'--'d'"N-'-'--"=- _
Attorney's Name:      
Address: .   Z/tJt:7
City: U/l-tf2L1- ;="L.
Phone: (fi3J   I Zip Code: -3-6-'a-.;<-
PART TWO: (See reverse, part two.) The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:
, r cJ
PART THREE: (See reverse, part three.) The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached
: (See reverse, part four.)
(circle one or the other) attempt to use ACAP to resolve this situation.
To attem 0 resolve this matter, I did the following:
I did / id no
PART FIVE (See reverse. part five.): Under penalty ofpeIjury. I declare the foregoing facts are true. correct
and complete_
"'" .../
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070000320528076
February 20, 2007
The Florida Bar
5521 West Spruce Street, C-49
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958
This is a complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, ID no. 947652.
Enclosed you will find a completed inquiry/complaint form.
My complaint against Mr. Rodems is for his violation of the Rules Regulating the
Florida Bar during his appearance in a civil lawsuit styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William 1. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205. I am the Plaintiff
suing the Defendants, who are my former lawyers. In retaliation my former lawyers
countersued me for. libel over a previous Bar complaint.
Mr. Rodems' misconduct falls into several categories. The first category of his
misconduct involves conflict of interest with a former client (me) and disclosure of my
confidential client information gained during his law firm's prior representation of me,
and his general disregard for the rules as set forth below.
Mr. Rodems' second category of misconduct relates to his allegations that I
committed criminal acts, including his accusation that my Bar complaint against his law
partner, William J. Cook, is criminal extortion under Florida law. Mr. Rodems falsely
accused me of threatening violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers, and when that was
proved false with a tape recording of the conversation, Mr. Rodems accused me of yet a
third crime, a felony for tape recording him. (Even though he wrote me consenting to
being tape recorded).
Mr. Rodems' third category of misconduct is his retaliatory libel counterclaim
against me for writing about a Bar complaint against Mr. Cook in a letter to Ian
The  Florida Bar, Tampa""'- Page - 2 of 10 
February 20, 2007 
Mackechnie of Amscot Corporation, after the complaint process had run  its course, and 
the complaint was a matter of public record.  Mr.  Rodems is aware that my disclosure has 
absolute protection pursuant to Tobkin v.  Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, as cited by Mr.  Kenneth 
Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation for the Florida Bar. 
Mr.  Rodems'  fourth category of misconduct is an  incident of his perjury that led 
to  the recusal of the trial judge, the Honorable Richard A.  Nielsen. 
An aggravating factor in Mr.  Rodems'  misconduct is the fact  that I am disabled, 
and Mr.  Rodems has used information about my disability against me,  information he 
learned from his law firm's prior representation of me. 
Enclosed please find  the following documents supporting my complaint against 
Mr.  Rodems: 
A.   My Complaint for Breach of Contract and Fraud, filed  August  11,2005. 
B.   Defendants'  Motion to  Dismiss and Strike.  This was Mr.  Rodems'  first 
appearance in this lawsuit, August 29, 2005. 
C.   Order by Judge Richard A.  Nielsen finding  a cause of action for Breach of 
Contract and Fraud against Barker,  Rodems & Cook, P.A.  and William J. 
Cook, January  13, 2006. 
D.   Retaliatory Libel counterclaim by  Ryan Christopher Rodems, January 
19,  2006, against Neil J.  Gillespie, with allegations of criminal extortion, 
for a letter I wrote Amscot Corp.  about a Bar compliant.  Libel 
Counterclaim contained in Mr.  Rodems'  Answer, Affirmative Defenses 
and Counterclaim. 
E.   Plaintiffs Motion for  Punitive Damages Pursuant to  Section 768.72 
Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits.  This documents my relationship 
with Mr.  Rodems'  law firm,  Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 
F.   Transcript of my March 3,  2006, telephone conversation with Mr.  Rodems 
where he threatened to reveal my confidential client information, 
and where he misquoted me  in his  verification to the Court. 
G.   Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit For An Order To Show Cause Why 
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be  Held In Criminal Contempt Of 
Court And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law.  This document, with an 
audio tape of the pertinent conversation, shows that Mr.  Rodems lied to 
Judge Nielsen about me,  under oath, which led to  Judge Nielsen's recusal. 
H.   Plaintiffs Accommodation Request, Americans With Disabilities Act, 
The Florida Bar, Tampi;;'
Page - 3 of 10
February 20, 2007
shows that Mr. Rodems used information about my disability against me,
information he learned from his law firm's prior representation of me.
My complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems:
Mr. Rodems as defense counsel has a direct conflict of interest with me. Defense
counsel is the Defendant in this lawsuit and is being sued by a former client for fraud and
breach of contract. The contract is attached to the complaint as exhibit I. Defendants and
Plaintiff entered into a representation contract that Defendants are now trying to disavow.
Defendants formerly represented Plaintiffs interest in the contract. On January 13,2006,
the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cause of action against Defendants for breach of that
contract and Defendants' accompanying fraud.
Rule 4-1.9(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the
same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially
adverse to the interest of the former client unless the former client consents after
consultation. In the instant case, Defendants represented Plaintiff s interest in the contract
beginning November 3,2000, when it was signed. Now with the commencement of this
lawsuit, Defendants are representing their own interest in the contract, and taking a
position materially adverse to Plaintiff, their former client.
This is what West's Florida Statutes Annotated states under Comment (Vol. 35,
pp. 354-355): "After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer may not
represent another client except in conformity with this rule. The principles in Rule 4-1.9
determine whether the interests of the present and former client are adverse. Thus, a
lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on
behalf of the former client." (underline added). "When a lawyer has been directly
involved a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially
adverse interests clearly is prohibited." (underline added). The contract between Plaintiff
and Defendants is a specific transaction directly involving Defendants who now have
materially adverse interests.
With regard to an opposing party's raising a question of conflict of interest see
comment to rule 4-1.7, which states that a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate
against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if it is wholly unrelated.
(p. 330). As in the instant case, if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is
in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client
detached advise. (pp. 330-331). And a suit charging fraud I entails conflict to a degree not
involved in a suit for a declaratory judgment concerning statutory interpretation. (p. 331).
Where the conflict is such as clearly to call into question the fair or efficient
administration ofjustice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question. (p. 332). Thus
I The Court found a cause of action for fraud against Defendants in the instant case.
The Florida Bar,     Page - 4 of 10
February 20, 2007
Plaintiff pro se may properly raise the question of disqualification, because Mr. Rodems'
presence in the litigation calls into question the fair and efficient administration ofjustice,
particularly when Mr. Rodems will commit perjury before the court to gain an advantage
for his own law firm, a defendant in this case.
Finally, Rule 4-1.1 0, the Imputed disqualification general rule, subsection (a) states
that 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 by rule 4-1.7, 4-
1.8(c), 4-1. 9, or 4-2.2. This rule is especially valid in the instant case because Defendant
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., is a small, three lawyer firm, and the rule of imputed
disqualification stated in subdivision (a) gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client
as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be considered from
the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially 1 lawyer for purposes of the rules
governing loyalty to the client or from the premise that each lawyer is vicariously bound
by the obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated.
Plaintiff's personal confidential information is also at stake in this motion to disqualify.
Preserving confidentiality is a question of access to information. Access to information,
in tum, is essentially a question of fact in particular circumstances, aided by inferences,
deductions, or working presumptions that reasonably may be made about the way in
which lawyers work together. A lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a
law firm and may regularly participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be inferred
that such a lawyer in fact is privy to all information about all the firm's clients. The
following paragraph illustrates how Plaintiffs personal information is freely discussed
among Mr. Barker, Mr. Rodems and Mr. Cook, and probably their support staff too, and
this is another basis for disqualification.
An attorney can be disqualified if he is opposing a former client from whom he
received confidential information related to the pending action or if the attorney had access
to information in   prior representation that would prejudice the former client in the
subsequent representation. In any event, it is presumed that that the lawyer received
confidential information if an attorney-client relationship existed. In the instant case
Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. has threatened to use such information to the
disadvantage Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff
at his home and issued the following threat to use infoffi1ation learned from its prior
representation ofPlaintiffto Plaintiffs disadvantage: This is what Mr. Rodems said,
taken from a transcript of the conversation:
MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a car so that you
could get the cash rebate to get some dental work done? We're going
to get to the discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really happen?
MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that you could get the cash
rebate to get some dental work done?
The Florida Bar, Tampa''-:-- Page - 5 of 10 
February 20, 2007 
MR.  GILLESPIE:  Listen, this is why you need to be disqualified. 
MR.  RODEMS: No, I mean,  that's -- because I know that?  Because I 
know that to  be a fact? 
MR.  GILLESPIE:  You know it to be a fact  from  your previous  
representation of me.  
MR.  RODEMS:  Well. you know, see that's--
MR.  GILLESPIE:  Ifit is  -- ifit's a fact,  anyway. 
MR.  RODEMS:  You need to study the rules and regulations of the 
Florida Bar because when you make --
MR.  GILLESPIE:  I think, I think I bought a car so  I would have 
something to drive.  I don't know why you buy cars,  but that's why I 
bought it. 
MR.  RODEMS:  Well --
MR.  GILLESPIE:  If it had sonle other benefits, that's different. 
MR.  RODEMS:  I understand that car was repossessed shortly after you 
bought it so --
MR.  GILLESPIE: No, it wasn't repossessed. 
MR.  RODMES:  Okay.  Well,  then you can probably drive that down to 
tIle  hearing then on the 28th. 
MR.  GILLESPIE: No,  it was voluntarily turned in because after 911 
attack the job that I was  in dried up. 
Rule 4-1.9(b), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states that a  lawyer who has 
formerly  represented a client in a matter shall  not thereafter use  information relating to the 
representation to the disadvantage of the former client.  (relevant portion).  In the instant 
case Mr.  Rodems has announced that Defendants'  intend to  use confidential infom1ation 
acquired in the previous representation of Plaintiff to  his disadvantage in this lawsuit. 
Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel for Defendants brought a frivolous  libel 
counterclaim against Plaintiff in violation of Rule 4-3.1, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. 
Defendants Counterclaim for Libel,  Counts I and II,  served January  19, 2006, was taken 
primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay and retaliation against Plaintiff for suing 
A.·.·.·:· ... ·'.:..
The Florida Bar,    
Page - 6 of 10 
February 20, 2007 
his former lawyers.  Defendants are notorious in the Tampa legal community for engaging 
in antics which include throwing a cup of coffee in the face  of their    counsel 
during a mediation
,  and claiming that the other side engaged  in criminal extortion against 
.  Defendants' counterclaim states that Plaintiff engaged in criminal extortion against 
them, paragraph 67.  (Also in Paragraph 57, affirmative defenses, contained in the same 
document, Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim). 
About the time Plaintiff retained the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino 
& Cook, P.A., the St.  Petersburg Times reported that Jonathan Alpert threw a 20 ounce 
cup of coffee in the face of attorney Arnold Levine during mediation in a season ticket 
holder dispute.  Alpert, Barker, Rodems,  Ferrentino & Cook, P.A., represented the Bucs' 
fans,  and Arnold Levine represented the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  According to stories 
published in the St.  Petersburg Times, Alpert was ranting and raving when he threw a 20 
ounce cup of coffee in the face  of Levine, who then sued Alpert for civil damages and filed 
a battery complaint with Tampa Police.  The St.  Petersburg Times also reported that 
Jonathan Alpert announced in court that he  had asked police to  investigate "threats and/or 
extortion" by the Bucs' lawyer Arnold Levine.  Tampa police detectives reviewed the 
extortion complaint, which named Levine, Bucs general manager Rich McKay and 
Edward and Bryan Glazer. 
So this tactic  is  Defendants'  modus operandi, except Mr.  Rodems did not report 
Plaintiffs "extortion" to  law enforcement.  Furthermore, on March 7, 2006, Plaintiff 
offered his surrender to  Mark Ober, but the State Attorney has  not replied.  Plaintiff 
contacted the Florida Bar about Defendants accusation, and it does not agree.  The 
Director of Lawyer Regulation, Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, wrote Plaintiff that "Those 
questions involve a  legal conclusion of criminal law and I am not in a position to  answer 
them."  Defendants are not criminal law experts either. 
Mr.  Marvin also provided Plaintiff with a copy of a Florida Supreme Court case 
Tobkin v.  Jarboe,  7'10  So.2d 975  (1998), which held that an individual who files  a 
complaint against an attorney and makes no  public announcement of the complaint is 
afforded absolute immunity from  a defamation action by complained-against attorney.  In 
the  illstant case, Plaintiff made no  public announcement and  in fact  allowed the grievance 
procedure to  run its  natural course.  The letter Plaintiff purportedly wrote to  Amscot is 
dated after the conclusion of the grievance procedure, and announces that Mr.  Cook 
prevailed, and thus did not do  anything wrong.  Also, Defendants'  counterclaim for  libel 
will  not succeed given the limited distribution and privileged nature of the publication 
complained of.  See e.g.  Nodar v.  Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803  (Fla.  1984). 
Mr.  Rodems lack of candor toward the Court is a clear violation of Rule 4-3.3, 
Rules regulating the Florida Bar.  Mr.  Rodems knowing made a false  statement of nlaterial 
fact to the Court in violation of Rule 4-3.3(a)(I).  On March 6,  2006, Mr.  Rodems filed 
Defendants'  Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, where he swore under oath 
2  St.  Petersburg Times, June 6,  2000, "Attorney's suit says he  received coffee  in  the  face" 
3  St.  Petersburg Times, June  10,  2000, "Sucs accused of extortion" 
The Florida Bar, Tampa . Page - 7 of 10
February 20, 2007
that Plaintiff was going to violently assault him in Judge Nielsen's chambers on April 25,
2006. But Mr. Rodems stands impeached by a transcript of the conversation during which
the purported threat was made. In his motion, Mr. Rodems told the Court that Plaintiff
threatened him during a telephone call on March 3, 2006. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote
in paragraph 5:
"At this point in the conversation, Plaintiff stated - and this is an exact
quote - "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's
chambers." Quite alarmed, I paused and said "are you threatening me
physically or did you mean that metaphorically?" Plaintiff said
"metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger."
Mr. Rodems invoked the name of the of the Honorable Richard'A. Nielsen in the
threat Plaintiff allegedly made against him. Mr. Rodems did this in a calculated effort to
prejudice the Court against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems used his position as an Officer of the
Court to lend credibility to his verified accusation against Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems invoked
the name of the Judge Nielsen to make the Court itself fearful of a violent attack from
Plaintiff. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"I am concerned that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings
do not resolve favorably for him, and I request that the Court have a bailiff
available at any future hearings. In over thirteen years of practicing law, I
have had only one other occasion wherein I was threatened in a matter that
made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involved a pro se
Mr. Rodems then asked the Court to punish Plaintiff for his alleged threat, and to
have a bailiff present in order to prevent Plaintiff from violently attacking Mr. Rodems in
Judge Nielsen's    implying that a violent attack in Judge Nielsen's chambers
would most certainly injure Judge Nielsen due to the close proximity of Plaintiff to Judge
Nielsen. This is what Mr. Rodems wrote:
"Defendants request that the Court enter an Order sanctioning Plaintiff for
the threatening comment, as detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refrain
from threatening acts of violence."
Mr. Rodems then wrote: "WHEREFORE, Defendants request a bailiff at all future
hearings and that Plaintiff be sanctioned appropriately." Mr. Rodems then verified the
pleadings with the following statement:
"I swear under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this motion
are true and accurate and that the quotes attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are
true and accurate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6
day of March,
verification contained Mr. Rodems' signature.
l.. •••.
The Florida Bar, T a m p ~   ·  
Page - 8 of 10
February 20, 2007
Mr. Rodems' verified request for bailiff and sanctions was notarized by Lynne
Anne Spina, a notary public employed by Mr. Rodems at his law firm. Defendants'
Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions submitted by Mr. Rodems was false and
misleading, and Mr. Rodems committed perjury regarding the "exact quote" attributed to
Neil J. Gillespie.
Mr. Rodems' defamation aggravated Plaintiffs disability. On March 3, 2006, Mr.
Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his home in Ocala, Florida, and issued several threats. Mr.
Rodems knows Plaintiff suffers from a disability from his law firm's prior representation
of Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems insulted Plaintiff. (Transcript, page 7, line
21). Then Mr. Rodems threatened Plaintiff and said "I mean, it was kind of bizarre that
you would even send that letter, but you did, so now you will have to pay for that."
(Transcript, page 9, line 1). Mr. Rodems continued his threats, insults, and taunts until
Plaintiff spoke metaphorically and said he would "slam him" on the law. This is
Plaintiffs exact quote: "So listen you little, whatever, you raise anything you want, 1will
see you on the 25
and 1will slam you against the wall like 1did before." (Referring to
Plaintiffs legal victory over Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss and strike). (Transcript, page
11, line 3). Mr. Rodems then falsely presented this information to the Court in
Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, submitted March 6, 2006.
Mr. Rodems stated, under oath, that this is the exact quote attributable to Plaintiff: "I am
going to slam you up against the wall in Judge Nielsen's chambers." Plaintiff did not say
"in Judge Nielsen's chambers" but in fact Plaintiff said "like 1did before." These are two
very different statements. Ryan Christopher Rodems lied to the Court to again an
advantage. The hearing before Judge Nielsen on April 25, 2006 began with Mr. Rodems
discussing his request for a bailiff to be present. This is what Mr. Rodems told the Court:
MR. RODEMS: The fourth motion that we filed had to do with a request
for a bailif(to be present. We didn't notice that for hearing, but obviously
we have a deputy here. So that 1don't know that that necessarily needs to
come up. It was not noticed for hearing today, but we can take it up if you
want to. (Transcript, April 25,2006, page I, lines 15-20).
And the Court responded:
THE COURT: 1agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is
on any case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for
future reference you do not have to submit a request. And since it's not in
the form of a motion, 1don't think it needs a ruling. All right. (Transcript,
April 25, 2006, beginning page 1, line 24).
And during the hearing, Mr. Rodems stated that everything he represented
to the court has been accurate. This is what Mr. Rodems said:
The Florida Bar, Tampa 
Page - 9 of 10 
February 20, 2007 
"His final  reason for trying to disqualify me  is  he  said that I lack candor, 
which he cites no case law to that
.  And I would assert before the Court, as 
an officer of the court, that everything that I've  represented to  the court has 
been accurate." (Transcript, April 25,  2006, page  12,  beginning line 2). 
The hearing before Judge Nielsen on June 28,2006 brought more false  
statements from  Mr.  Rodems.  This is what Mr.  Rodems said:  
MR.  RODEMS: All right.  First of all, Judge, this continued allegation by 
Mr.  Gillespie that there's been a threat against him, there's been no  threat 
against him;  he  is  the one that threatened me when we had a telephone 
conversation and he told me he was going to  slam me  up against your 
hearing chambers wall.  That's never been followed,  but he continues to 
repeat it  in every pleading and then, you know, the idea is that,  I guess,  if 
you've got judicial immunity from  what you say - but the bottom line is,  is 
that's there's been nothing but cordial behavior on our part.  (Transcript, 
June 28,  2006, page  11,  lines  11-22). 
Mr.  Rodems statement to the court that "there's been nothing but cordial  behavior 
on our part" is impeached by the transcript of his phone call  to  Plaintiff on March 3, 
2006.  Mr.  Rodems repeatedly lied to the Court with impunity, to  my  detriment. 
Ryan Christopher Rodems violated Rule 4-3.4, Rules  Regulating the Florida Bar, 
Fairness to  Opposing Party and Counsel.  Rule 4-3.4 states, A lawyer shall not:  (g) present, 
participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to  obtain an 
advantage in a civil matter.  As previously stated in paragraph 5(c),  Defendants' 
counterclaim states that Plaintiff engaged in criminal extortion against them, paragraph 67. 
(Also  in Paragraph 57, affirmative defenses, contained in the same document, Answers, 
Affirmative    f   n s ~ s   and Counterclaim).  Defendants are notorious in the Tampa legal 
community for engaging in antics which include claiming that the other side engaged in 
criminal extortion against them.  So this tactic is  Defendants'  modus operandi, and the Bar 
should stop this practice and rebuke Mr.  Rodems.  Furthermore, on March 7,  2006, 
Plaintiff offered to  surrender to  Mark Ober, on the  felony  crime of extortion, but the State 
Attorney has  not replied.  Plaintiff contacted the Florida Bar about Defendants accusation, 
and it does not agree either.  The Director of Lawyer Regulation,  Kenneth Lawrence 
4 Florida case law  prohibits  lawyers  from  presenting false  testimony or evidence.  Kneale v. Williams. 30 So.
2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration of a fraud  is  outside the scope of the  professional duty of an 
attorney and no  privilege attaches to communication between an attorney and a client with respect to 
transactions constituting the  making of a false  claim or the  perpetration of a fraud.  Dodd v. The Florida
Bar, 118 So2d 17 (Fla. 1960), reminds us  that "the courts are  ...  dependent on  members of the  bar to  ... 
present the  true  facts  of each cause  to enable the judge or the jury to  [decide the facts]  to  which the  law 
may  be applied.  When an attorney  allows  false  testimony  ...  [the attorney]  ...  makes  it  impossible for the 
scales [ofjustice] to  balance."  See  The Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394 So.2d 405  (Fla.  1981), and  The Fla. Bar v.
Simons. 391  So.  2d 684 (Fla.  1980). 
( .
  ~ .   , ,
The Florida Bar, Tampa'  .-'
Page - 10 of 10 
February 20, 2007 
Marvin, wrote Plaintiff that "Those questions involve a legal conclusion of criminal law 
and I am not in a position to answer them." 
Finally, I am asking the Bar to consider Mr.  Rodems perjury to the Court that led 
to Judge Nielsen's recusal on November 22, 2006.  Mr.  Rodems'  perjury is set forth in 
Plaintiffs Motion With Affidavit For An Order To  Show Cause Why Ryan Christopher 
Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court And Incorporated 
Memorandum Of Law.  (Exhibit G).  This document, with an audio tape of the pertinent 
conversation, shows that Mr.  Rodems lied to Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which 
ultimately led to Judge Nielsen's recusal. 
In reviewing my complaint, I ask the Bar to consider the duty this law firm once 
owed me.  It is long established that the relationship between an attorney and his client is 
one of the most important, as well as the most sacred, known to the law.  The 
responsibility of an attorney to place his client's interest ahead of his own in dealings 
with matters upon which the attorney is employed is at the foundation of our legal system. 
(Deal  v.  Migoski,  122 So.  2d 415).  It is a fiduciary relationship involving the highest 
degree of truth and confidence, and an attorney is  under a duty, at all times, to  represent 
his client and handle his client's affairs with the utmost degree of honesty, forthrightness, 
loyalty, and fidelity.  (Gerlach v.  Donnelly, 98  So.  2d 493).  The lawyers at Barker, 
Rodenls & Cook, P.A. did not meet this duty while I was their client.  Mr.  Cook did not 
behave as lawyer with a fiduciary duty.  Instead, my  fonner lawyers acted more like a 
pawn SllOP  out for their own financial  interests.  As set forth  in nlY  motion for punitive 
damages (Exhibit E), my former lawyers'  conduct was fraudulent,  deliberately 
oppressive, malicious, and committed with such gross negligence as to  indicate wanton 
disregard for my rights.  (See Domke v.  McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., M.D.Fla.1996, 939 F.Supp. 
849).  As set forth in this complaint, Mr.  Rodems'  unethical behavior continues unabated. 
This concludes my initial complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems. 
E.   Plaintiff's Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to Section 768.72 
Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits.  This documents my relationship 
with Mr. Rodems' law ftnn, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 
F.   Transcript ofmy March 3, 2006, telephone conversation with Mr. Rodems 
where,#ethreatenedto reveal my conftdentialclient information, 
~ ~ ~   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJ1einhis Veriiicati"nto the Court.;  .  . 
G.   ,PI3intifrs'MotionWithAffidavit For' An: Order To Show''Cause Why 
Ryah Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of 
Court And Incorporated Memorandum OfLaw.  This document, with an 
audio tape ofthe pertinent conversation, shows that Mr. Rodems lied to 
Judge Nielsen about me, under oath, which led to Judge Nielsen's recusal. 
-,  \  ,
)  Ii 
....'-'  ,  ....
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM 
TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's 
Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made 
arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion 
to Dismiss and Strike.  Defendant's Reply to  Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion 
to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to 
Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon, 
ADJUDGED as follows: 
1.  Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part. 
2.  Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to 
dismiss the Complaint are denied.  Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this 
order within which to file responsive pleadings. 
or,  36  
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with §768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33606
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
Ocala, Florida 34481
or' 37
f _
Plaintiff,  . 
CASE NO.:  05-CA-7205 
a Florida corporation, Wll..LIAM 
J.  COOK, 
(ADA) and states: 
1.  Plaintiffwas determ.ilied totally disabled by Social Security in 1994.  r· 
2.  Defendants are familiar with Plaintiff's disability from their prior 
representation ofhim.  Defendants investigated his eligibility to receive services from the 
Florida Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR).  DVR determined that Plaintiff 
was too severely disabled to benefit from services.  Defendants qoncurred, and notified 
Plaintiff of their decision in a letter to him dated March 27,2001. (Exhibit A). 
3.  Plaintiff has the following medical conditions which are disabling and 
prevent him from effectively participating in court proceedings, including: 
a  Depression and related mood disorder.  This medical condition prevents 
Plaintiff from working, meeting deadlines,  and concentrating.  The inability to 
concentrate at times affects Plaintiff's ability to hear and comprehend. 
- .. -
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, l' .A., case no. OS-CA-7205
b. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), makes Plaintiff susceptible to
stress, such as the ongoing harassment by Defendants' lawyer, Mr. Rodems.
c. Velopharyngeallncompetence (VPI) is a speech impairment that affects
Plaintiff's ability to communicate.
d. The medical treatment for depression includes prescription medication
that further disables Plaintiff's ability to do the work ofthis lawsuit, and further
prevents him from effectively participating in the proceedings.
4. Prior to the onset of the most disabling aspects Plaintiff's medical
condition(s), he was a productive member of society, a business owner for 12 years, and a
graduate of both the University of Pennsylvania and The Evergreen State College.
5. On March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his
home and threatened to use information learned during Defendants prior representation
against him in the instant lawsuit. Mr. Rodems' threats were twofold; to intimidate
Plaintiff into dropping this lawsuit by threatening to disclose confidential client
information, and to inflict emotional distress, to trigger Plaintiff's Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and inflict injury upon Plaintiff for Defendants' advantage in this lawsuit.
6. On March 6, 2006, Mr. Rodems made a false verification the Court about
the March 3, 2006 telephone call. Mr. Rodems submitted Defendants' Verified Request
For Bailiff And For Sanctions, and told the Court under oath that Plaintiff threatened acts
of violence in Judge Nielsen's chambers. It was a stunt that backfired when a tape
recording of the phone call showed that Mr. Rodems lied. Plaintiff notified the Court
about Mr. Rodems' perjury in Plaintiff's Motion With Affidavit To Show Cause Why
Ryan Christopher Rodems Should not Be Held In Criminal Contempt Of Court and
Incorporated Memorandum Of Law submitted January 29,2007.
Page - 2 of4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook:   case no. 05-CA-7205
7. Mr. Rodems' harassing phone call to Plaintiff of March 3, 2006, was a
tort, the Intentional Infliction o/Emotional Distress. Mr. Rodems' tort injured Plaintiff
by aggravating his existing medical condition. From the time of the calIon March 3,
2006, Plaintiff suffered worsening depression for which he was treated by his doctors.
a. On May 1, 2006 Plaintiffs doctor prescribed Effexor XR., a serotonin-
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), to the maximum dosage.
b. Plaintiff's worsening depression, and the side affects ofthe medication,
lessened Plaintiffs already diminished ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
c. On October 4, 2006 Plaintiff began the process of discontinuing his
medication so that he could improve is ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
d. On or about November 18, 2006, Plaintiff discontinued the use of anti-
depression medication, to improve his ability to represent himself in this lawsuit.
8. Mr. Rodems continued to harass Plaintiff during the course of this lawsuit
in the following manner:
a. Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait for Plaintiff outside Judge Nielsen's chambers
on April 25, 2006, following a hearing, to taunt him. and provoke an altercation.
b. Mr. Rodems refused to address Plaintiff as "Mr. Gillespie" but used his
fIrst name, and disrespectful derivatives, against Plaintiff's expressed wishes.
c. Mr. Rodems left insulting, harassing comments on Plaintiffs voice mail
during his ranting message of December 13, 2006.
d. Mr. Rodems wrote Plaintiff a five-page diatribe of insults and ad
hominem abusive attacks on December 13,2006.
9. Plaintiff notified the Court of his inability to obtain counsel in Plaintiffs
Notice o/Inability to obtain Counsel submitted February 13,2007.
Page - 3 of4
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, ¥.1""\., case no. 05-CA-7205
10. Plaintiff acknowledges that this ADA accommodation request is unusual,
'but so are the circumstances. Defendants in this lawsuit are Plaintiffs former lawyers,
who are using Plaintiffs client confidences against him, while contemporaneously
inflicting new injuries upon their former client based on his disability.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests additional time to obtain counsel, a stay in the
proceedings for 90 days. Plaintiff also requests accommodation in the forin of additional
time to meet deadlines when needed due to his disability.
day of February, 2007.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct .copy of the foregoing has been
furnished via US Mail to Ryan C. Rodems, attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400
N Ashley Dr., Suite 2100, Tampa, FL 33602, this 20
day o f   e b ~ 2007.
Page - 4 of4
· .
':IIIUS I',AItl'FIl.  Tr.Ir.l'hO'\l: 5IJ/18<).1001
300  West  Plat.t  Street,  Suite  150 
':11Itl!:TllI'IIFit ROIJr:.MS
F,c.illlilr. SJJ/Hitl.IOOS 
WII.IIAM I. Cl.'flK  T'll1pn,  Florid3  33606 
March 27,2001 
Neil J.  Gillespie
Apartlllcllt  C-2 
I 12\  Beach Drive NE 
Sf.  Pdersburg, Florida 33701-1434 
Rc:  Voca tiollal  Rehabilil:n lion 
Dear Neil: 
J am  cnclosing the material  yOll  provided  to  us.  We  have  reviewed  them  und,  unfortunately, 
we  arc  not  in  a  position  to  represent you  for  any  claims  you  may  have.  Please understand  that  our 
decision  docs not mcan  that your claims lack merit,  and another attorney might wish to  represent you. 
If yoII wish to cOllsldt with another attorney,  we  recommend that you  do  so  immedinlely as  a statute 
orlilllilaliollswill  apply  to  any claims you  llIay  have.  As  you  know,  a statute oflimitations is  a legal 
deadline  for filing  a lawsuit.  Thank yOll  for the  opportunity to  review your materials. 

William  J.  Cook 

P.nclosl1 res   STATEOFFLOqlDA )
THIS arat QAY(JF .abo.T 20/cJ
v -
·h,,,,,''- B   D. C. 
u.s. Postal ServiceTilOelivery ConfinnationTilReceipt 
Access internet web site at 
Postage and Delivery Confinnation fees must be paid before maning. 
ArDele Sent To: (to be completed by mailer)
-rk- dt<..,
"""'SPI tv(' .!>  r 5ff1.u( e rr,  'If
tl?J ;:L 33/,(7 7 -S-f6"J' 
Keep this receipt.  For Inquiries:
Here 8 
or ca.1I1-800-222-1811 
Mall  Service 
oFirst-Class Mairparcel 
oP8Ckage SeMces parcel 
OCALA,  Florida 
1143840606  -0096 
02/20/2007  (352)861-8188  03:04:54  PM 
Sales  Receipt 
Sale  Unit 
Description  Qty  Price  Price 
HOUSTON  TX  77027  $2.31 
8.30  oz. 
Issue  PVI:  $2.31 
TAf.1 PA  FL  33602  $0.63 
1.10  oz. 
Customer  Postage  ··$0.39 
Issue  PVI:  $0.24 
TAt·1PA  FL  33601  $0.63 
1.10  oz. 
Customer  Postage  -$0.39 
Issue  PVI:  $0.24 
FL  33607  Priority  $6.65 
5  1b.  7•90  oz. 
Delivery  Confirmation  $0.50 
Label  #:  03061070000320528076 
Issue  PVI:  $7.15 
Total:  $9.94 
Paid  by: 
Cash  $20.00 
Change  Due:  -$10.06 
Bi11#:  1000401881296 
Clerk:  07 
All  sales  final  on  stamps  and  postage.  
Refunds  for  guaranteed  services  only.  
Thank  you  for  your  business.  
Customer  COpy  
USPS - Track &  ConfIrm Page 1 of 1
Track & Confirm
Search Results 
Label/Receipt Number: 0306 1070 0003 2052 8076 
Detailed Results: 
Track &Confirm 
•  Delivered, February 22,  2007,11:32 am, TAMPA, FL 33607 
Enter Label/Receipt Number. 
•  Arrival at Unit, February 22,  2007,8:11  am, TAMPA,  FL 33607 
•  Acceptance, February 20,  2007, 3:04 pm, OCALA, FL 34474 
< Back, , Rtlfum to USPS.CDm HtHne > 
--. ~   _ ~
Notification Options 
Track & Confirm by email 
Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email.  :  60>

POSTAL INSPECTORS  site map  contact us  government services  jobs  National & Premier Accounts 
Preserving the Trust  Copyright ©  1999-2004 USPS.  All  Rights Reserved.  Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Via US Priority Mail
Delivery Confirmation No.: 0306 1070 0003 2052 8113
February 23, 2007
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin
Director of Lawyer Regulation
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205
Dear Mr. Marvin,
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2006, and the enclosed copy of Tobkin v.
Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975. The information is useful in defending the libel claim brought
against me by my former lawyers, who are represented by Ryan Christopher Rodems.
On November 22, 2006, the trial judge in the above captioned matter recused
himself over Mr. Rodems perjury to the Court. Earlier this week I made a Bar complaint
about Mr. Rodems misconduct, but I am concerned that the Tampa office has pre-judged
this matter. I am concerned that my complaint may not be fairly considered, given the
Bar's track record of excusing Mr. Cook's misconduct.
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch
Disciplinary Counsel of the Bar's Tampa office where I raised my concern. It appears
that the Tampa office feels that because I received a $2,000.00 settlement in the Amscot
lawsuit, this somehow releases the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. from
observance of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, as well as fraud and contract law.
You may recall our correspondence concerning a $5,000.00 "improper payoff
attempt'" between my former lawyer and Amscot's lawyer. In March, 2005, you wrote me
on behalf of Ms. Overstreet Johnson saying a complaint was needed. In March, 2006,
you forwarded the complaint to the Bar's Tampa office for investigation. In response to
the complaint, I received an incredible letter from Assistant Staff Counsel Troy Lovell
Kenneth Lawrence   Page -2
Director of Lawyer Regulation February 23, 2007
that the six year time limit for considering the complaint had expired, but arithmetic does
not bear out his conclusion. The six year limitation pursuant to Rule 3-7.16 does not
expire until August, 2007, which is still six months away.
Also enclosed is a copy of Plaintiff's Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to
Section 768.72 Florida Statutes, which   my letter to Ms. Bloemendaal. This
docuIIlent, with its fifty supporting documents (including your letter of July 12, 2006,
Exhibit 48), provides the full context of my fomler lawyer's misconduct. I do not believe
that the misconduct described in the motion can be explained away because of a
$2,000.00 payment as Ms. Bloemendaal asserts. The misconduct of my former lawyers -
from throwing coffee in the face of another lawyer during a deposition, to Mr. Rodems
perjury that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen - is so encompassing that it would be
difficllit to arrange in the form of a usual Bar co:mplaint. And the tenets of Rule 3-4.3
reminej us that misconduct is not to be narrowly construed.
Mr. Marvin, I appreciate your prior interest in this matter. The above captioned
lawsuit is ongoing, and I am preparing an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the libel
counterclaim brought by my former lawyers for filing a Bar complaint. But I am disabled
and this limits my effectiveness, and I would prefer the assistance of counsel, including
for the show cause motion pending against Mr. Rodems for criminal contempt. I have
been unable through the exercise of diligence to obtain counsel, and have exhausted the
referrals form the Hillsborough County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service.
In conclusion, how can I be assured that my complaint against Mr. Rodems will
be fairly considered, given the Bar's track recor(} of excusing Mr. Cook's misconduct?
And how can I obtain counsel for an admittedly difficult situation? These are my two
questions to you, for which I would like a response.
Thank you.
..-_-----..  /"  ..<1  )"7 //   
  /// /  
.;7  /..&..  
.....  P   ,/
./ ,(tc./ Y:; ./ ,,' /1
N    ,.v //

cc: Susan V. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Disciplinary Counsel, Tampa office
OCALA,  Flori da 
1143840606  -0095 
02/23/2007 (352)861-8188  04:06:34  PM 
Sales  Receipt 
Pri ce 
Pri or; ty  '.1ai 
3  lb.  9.90 
fL  3

2399  $5.60 
De1ivery  Confirmation  $0.50 
Label  #:  03061070000320528113 
Issue  PVI:  $6.10 
39c  Ronald  1 $0*39  $0.39 
Reagan  PSA 
Total:  $6.49 
Paid  by: 
Debit  Card  $6.49 
Account  #:  XXXXXXXXXXXX5762 
Approva 1  #:  061323 
Transaction  #:  934 
23  903300648 
Recei pt#:  010032 
Order  stamps  at  or  call 
1-800-Stamp24.  Go  to i cknship  to  print  shipping 
labels  with  postage.  For  other 
i nformat i on  call  1-S00-ASK -USPS. 
6;11#:  1000502371569 
C1  ark:  01 
All  sales  final  on  stamps  and  postage.  
Refunds  for  guaranteed  services  only.
Thank  you  for  your  business.  
Customer  Copy  
u.s. Postal ServiceTliDelivery Confirmation
Here . >
PS Form 152. May 2002
L        '\  
---.__  ·  ....'ft/·'[\J(     
tiN  F. HARKNESS, JR.  TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300  850/561-5600 
February 28, 2007 
Mr.  Neil J.  Gillespie 
8092 SW  IIS
Ocala,  FL  34481 
Dear Mr.  Gillespie: 
I have  received  your letter dated February 23,  2007  asking me two  specific questions.  The first 
is  "How can I be assured that my complaint against Mr.  Rodems will  be fairly considered?", and 
my  answer  is:  Bar  Counsel  takes  their  job  very  seriously  and  it  is  a  difficult job.  They  are 
trained  to  recognize  issues  and  analyze  evidence  to  assist  their  determination  as  to  whether  a 
complaint  should  be  dismissed  or  pursued.  Bar  Counsel  is  concerned  with  doing  the  "right 
thing",  not persecuting lawyers nor dismissing valid complaints.  Your letter dated  February 22, 
2007  to  Ms.  Bloemendaal,  paragraph  2  states  that  ".  .  .  I  understand  your  desire  to  protect  a 
fellow  lawyer."  That  statement  is  incorrect.  Bar  Counsel  has  a  desire  to  prosecute  lawyers 
where  the  facts  and law indicate that the  lawyer has violated a Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 
and the converse is  also true.  The second question is:  "How can you obtain counsel ...?"  You 
state  that  you  have  tried  the  local  Bar  Association  without  success  and  I  have  no  other  good 
suggestion,  other  than  to  speak  to  other  members  of the  community  or perhaps  try the  Yellow 
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin 
Director, Lawyer Regulation 
Icc:   Susan Bloemendaal 
TAMPA,FL33607-5958 TAMPA,FL33607-5958
Ocala,FL 34481
Re:  Inquiry/ComplaintagainstRyanChristopherRodems
DearMr. Gillespie:
WehavereceivedandreviewedyourcomplaintagainstRespondent. Inorderto evaluateyour
representationof youduringthecurrentproceedingyoubroughtagainstRespondent'sfirm. In
andthemannertheinformationwascommunicatedtohim. Also,pleasenotethatRule4-
necessarytodefend·himself inadisputewiththeclient. Pleaserefertotherule(availableonour
YouhavecomplainedthatRespondenthasanimpermissibleconflictof interest. In your
Defendantsbecauseof thisconflict. PleasebeawarethatTheFloridaBarhasnoauthority
regardingthedisqualificationof counselinpendingcases. IfyoubelievethatRespondentshould
bedisqualified,thatissueshouldbebroughttotheattentionof thepresidingjudgethroughan
appropriate motion. If the matter has been brought to the attentionof the court, please provide us
YoualsocomplainthatRespondentpeIjuredhimself duringtheproceedingsandthatthis
misconductresultedinJudgeNielsen'srecusal. Pleaseprovideacopyof themotionandorder
relatedtoJudgeNielsen'srecusal. If thereisatranscriptof anyhearingonthematter,please
Neil Gillespie
March 7, 2007
Page 2
You complain about Respondent' s   f i l i ~ g of a counterclaim for libel against you, which you claim
was a knowingly frivolous counterclaim. Please provide information regarding whether this
claim is still pending and, if it has been resolved, copies of all documents related to the
Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be matters which are the subject of the
civil litigation between you and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are deferred until after the
conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding. Ifthere are reasons you believe that such a
deferral would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your response.
We would appreciate a response within thirty (30) days. Please contact us if you have any
~ t// :
/ .
Troy Matthew Lovell
Assistant Staff Counsel

o A
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
Visit our website:

C:! o
I 03/06/2007
Mailed From 33607
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SV'J Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
3448i $:;:;567 RCi4E: 1•• 11 •• 1'1' .1•• 11 •• ' •••• 111.111111' IIII.II.I.J 11111" I, II" I,I
Neil J. Gillespie 
·8092 SW 115
Ocala, Florida 34481 
• 'j ; I- ,.
. r
April  11, 2007 
Troy Matthew Lovell, Assistant Staff Counsel 
The Florida Bar 
5521  West Spruce Street, C-49 
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958 
RE:  Inquiry/Complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems  
TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D)  
Dear Mr.  Lovell: 
This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2007, requesting additional 
information to evaluate the above captioned complaint.  Please take notice that I recently 
retained counsel in the matter of Gillespiev. Barker,. Rodems & Cook. case no. 05-CA-
7205.  I am currently represented by Robert W. Bauer, Esq., of Gainesville, Florida. 
Because ofthe time neededto confer With Mr. Bauer and provide him the case file 
in the civil lawsuit, I have not been able to respOnd to your request within the 30 days you 
requested.  However now that Mr.  Bauer is litigating the civil lawsuit, I hope to have a 
response to you soon, hopefully within a week.  Mr. Bauer does not represent me in my 
Bar complaint against Mr.  Rodems. 
One response that I can provide now is that there has been no settlement regarding 
Mr.  Rodems'  libel counterclaim over my Bar complaint against Mr.  Cook.  When I 
moved to dismiss the libel counterclaim, Mr.  Rodems moved for sanctions pursuant to 
section 57.105(1) Florida Statutes.  Mr. Rodems is demanding attorneys' fees thereto, and 
I subsequently filed an answer to the libel counterclaim.  The matter is now in the hands 
ofMr.  Bauer, who entered his appearance with the Court on April 2, 2007. 
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW  115
Ocala, Florida 34481 
Telephone:  (352) 502-8409 
April  18, 2007 
Troy Matthew Lovell, Assistant Staff Counsel 
The Florida Bar 
5521  West Spruce Street, C-49 
Tampa, Florida 33607-5958 
RE:  Inquiry/Complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems  
TFB No.  2007-11,162(13D)  
Dear Mr.  Lovell: 
This is a follow-up to my letter of April  11, 2007, and in response to your letter of 
March 7, 2007, wherein you asked the following: 
1.  In paragraph two of your letter you asked about Respondent's misuse of 
confidential information obtained in his prior representation of me,  and disclosed during the 
current proceeding I brought against Respondent's firm.  My response is that Respondent 
threatened to reveal client confidences, although he did not actually do so.  Mr. Rodems' 
threat to  reveal client confidences was for the purpose of intimidation of a witness. 
During a telephone call on March 3, 2006, Mr.  Rodems threatened to reveal 
confidential information about my payment for medical treatment.  Mr. Rodems'  threat was 
memorialized by a voice recording which has been transcribed.  You already have a copy of 
the transcript which was provided with my complaint. (Exhibit F). 
As for the manner the information was communicated to Mr.  Rodems, he learned it 
from  Mr.  Cook.  The information was not public knowledge, and was known only to my 
lawyers.  Specifically, Mr. Rodems threatened the following:  (relevant portion) 
The Florida Bar, Tampf) 

Page - 2 of5 
April  18, 2007 
"MR. RODEMS:  Didn't you at one time purchase a car so that you could get the 
cash rebate to get some dental work done?  We're going to get to the discovery, 
anyhow, so just tell me, did that really happen? 
MR.  RODEMS:  Did you purchase a car so that you could get the cash rebate to  
get some dental work done?  
MR.  GILLESPIE:  Listen, this is why you need to be disqualified.  
MR.  RODEMS:  No, I mean, that's -- because I know that?  Because I know that  
to be a fact?  
MR.  GILLESPIE:  You know it to be a fact from your previous representation of  
MR. RODEMS:  Well, you know,  see that's-
MR.  GILLESPIE:  Ifit is -- if it's a fact,  anyway.  
MR.  RODEMS:  You need to study the rules and regulations of the Florida Bar  
because when you make -
MR.  GILLESPIE:  I think, I think I bought a car so I would have something to  
drive.  I don't know why you buy cars, but that's why I bought it.  
MR.  RODEMS:  Well-
MR.  GILLESPIE:  If it had some other benefits, that's different.  
MR.  RODEMS:  I understand that car was repossessed shortly after you bought it  
MR.  GILLESPIE:  No,  it wasn't repossessed.  
MR.  RODEMS:  Okay.  Well, then you can probably drive that down to the  
hearing then on the 28th.  
MR.  GILLESPIE:  No, it was voluntarily turned in because after 911  attack the  
job that I was in dried up...."  
2.  Concerning your question about Respondent's impermissible conflict of 
interest, and my assertion that he should be disqualified from representing the Defendants 
because of this conflict, I assume you are correct when you wrote that The Florida Bar 
The Florida Bar, Tampf.) o
Page - 3 of5
April 18, 2007
has no authority regarding the disqualification of counsel in pending cases. As such,
kindly limit your inquiry to Respondent's impermissible conflict of interest. As I
understand your letter, The Florida Bar has no jurisdiction to make a determination on
disqualification, so it would be inappropriate for The Florida bar to consider the matter of
disqualification. But Respondent's current, ongoing, impermissible conflict of interest
representing the Defendants in the civil litigation against me is within the jurisdiction of
The Florida Bar, and the Bar is obligated to investigate his impermissible conflict.
Nonetheless, my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems in the civil litigation was
denied. In my view the denial was based on a delay in bringing the motion, not on the
substance of the impermissible conflict
. But since The Florida Bar has no jurisdiction to
make a determination on disqualification, it would be improper for the Bar to consider the
ruling. I am complaining about Respondent's impermissible conflict of interest, not
whether or not he should be disqualified.
3. Concerning Mr. Rodems' perjury before the court, you asked for a copy of
the motion and order related to Judge Nielsen's recusal. I am happy to comply with your
request, and the following is enclosed:
a. Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Judge, and Memorandum of Law;
b. Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Disqualify Judge;
c. Order of Recusal (on Judge Nielsen's own motion).
You also asked for a transcript of any hearing on the matter. My response is that
Judge Nielsen did not have a hearing on this matter. Judge Nielsen initially ruled that my
motion was not timely filed. Then two days later the Judge recused himself on his own
motion, presumably on the merits of my motion that Mr. Rodems perjured himself.
4. You asked about Respondent's filing of a counterclaim for libel against
me, and to provide information regarding whether this claim is still pending and, if it has
been resolved, copies of all documents related to the resolution. I already responded to
this question last week, in my letter to you dated April 11,2007. This is what I wrote you
concerning the counterclaim:
"One response that I can provide now is that there has been no settlement
regarding Mr. Rodems' libel counterclaim over my Bar complaint against Mr. Cook.
When I moved to dismiss the libel counterclaim, Mr. Rodems moved for sanctions
pursuant to section 57.105(1) Florida Statutes. Mr. Rodems is demanding attorneys' fees
thereto, and I subsequently filed an answer to the libel counterclaim. The matter is now
in the hands ofMr. Bauer, who entered his appearance with the Court on April 2, 2007."
In addition, in Florida judges generally pander to attorneys in the hope of receiving future campaign
contributions and political support, and favor attorneys over pro se litigants, especially when the attorney is
a defendant, and where Mr. Rodems filed a false affidavit to prejudice the court against me.
The Florida Bar, TampP
Page - 4 of5
April 18, 2007
As of today Defendants' counterclaim for libel is still pending against me.
5. Finally Mr. Lovell, you made the following assertion in an attempt to defer
my grievance because the allegations are the same as in pending civil litigation. This is
what you wrote:
"Many of the matters about which you complain appear to be
matter which are the subject of the civil litigation between you
and Respondent's firm. Typically, grievances which are based on
the same allegations as pending civil or criminal proceedings are
deferred until after the conclusion of the civil or criminal
proceeding. If there are reasons you believe that such a deferral
would be inappropriate in this case, please advise in your
response." (Lovell, March 7, 2007, p2, ~ 2  
Mr. Lovell, my response is that your assertion is not correct. Grievances are not
typically deferred until after the conclusion of contemporaneous civil or criminal
proceedings. Specifically, Rule 3-7.4, Grievance Committee Procedures, states:
Rule 3-7.4(e) No Delay for Civil or Criminal Proceedings. An investigation shall
not be deferred or suspended without the approval of the board even though the
respondent is made a party to civil litigation or is a defendant or is acquitted in a criminal
action, notwithstanding that either of such proceedings involves the subject matter of the
Mr. Lovell, unless you can provide evidence that the board has approved a
deferral or suspension pursuant to Rule 3-7.4(e), I view your unilateral effort to defer my
grievance as obstruction of a bar complaint, and as an effort to help your fellow
colleagues Mr. Rodems and his law partners. Contrary to your assertion that this
grievance should be deferred, Rule 3-74(e) provides otherwise. Mr. Lovell, why are you
unilaterally obstructing my grievance contrary to the rule of law?
Mr. Lovell, this is not the first time you have improperly tried to obstruct my
grievance against Mr. Cook and his cohorts. In your letter to me dated April 18, 2006,
concerning a bar complaint about a $5,000.00 "improper payoff attempt" Mr. Cook
received from opposing counsel, you wrote:
"In addition, we note that the conduct in question occurred in 2001.
The Florida Bar has jurisdiction to consider complaints filed up to
six (6) years after the conduct in question. Thus, even if we were to
conclude that failing to file a grievance constituted a violation of the
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, we would be unable to conclude
that he failed in his duty before the time period for filing had
expired." (Lovell, April 18, 2006, pI, 5  
The Florida Bar, TampP o
Page - 5 of5
April 18, 2007
Mr. Lovell, it appears you are referring to bar Rule 3-7.16, Limitations on Time to
Bring Complaint. It also appears you are wrong, and the information you provided was
incorrect, because the six year time period had not expired at the time of your April 18,
2006 letter. In fact, as of today the six year time period has not yet expired, and the time
does not expire until August, 2007, which is still four months away. At the time of your
letter, only   years had passed, allowing another 1Y:z years for The Florida Bar to
conclude that Mr. Cook failed in his duty to report the $5,000.00 "improper payoff
Mr. Lovell, in addition to the two preceding examples of improperly invoked
procedural obstacles to my bar complaints, your pervious letters to me have asserted facts
not in the record, and have attributed statements to me that I did not make. As such, the
objective evidence of your numerous false or inaccurate assertions calls into question
whether or not you take my complaints seriously, and prompts the following queries:
1. Mr. Lovell, did you willfully provide false, incorrect, or misleading
information relative to bar Rule 3-7.16, Limitations on Time to Bring Complaint, in your
letter to me of April 18, 2006, to help your colleague Mr. Cook evade discipline?
2. Are you currently providing false information relative to bar Rule 3-7A(e),
No Delayfor Civil or Criminal Proceedings, specifically your present claim that
grievances which are based on the same allegations as pending civil or criminal
proceedings are deferred until after the conclusion of the civil or criminal proceeding?
3. Mr. Lovell, is your behavior willfully calculated to obstruct justice, and the
grievance procedures of The Florida Bar? Or do your numerous false or incorrect
assertions result from your ignorance of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar?
Mr. Lovell, kindly answer the above so I know how to proceed with this matter.
At this time I believe I have answered all your questions, and provided the items
you requested. Kindly contact me if you have additional questions or need anything else.
It is my intent to fully cooperate with The Florida Bar and its grievance process.
TAMPA,FL33607-5958 TAMPA,FL33607-5958
Ocala,Florida 34481
RE:  Inquiry/ComplaintregardingRyanChristopherRodems
DearMr. Gillespie:
documentation. Basedonourreviewof thesematerials,wehaveconcludedthatno further
Respondentisamemberof yourfonnerlawfinnandisdefendingthatlawfinnincivillitigation
broughtbyyou. YouallegedthatRespondenthasengagedusedconfidentialinformationagainst
youbasedonthepriorrepresentation. OnMarch7,2007,werequestedadditionalinfonnation
regardingtheseallegationsinorderforusto evaluateyourgrievance. Todate,wehavereceived
noadditionalinfonnation. In theabsenceof specificallegationsandsupportingevidence,we
havenobasisfor u r t   ~ r   proceedings.
Accordingly,ourfileinthismatterisnowclosed. TherecordsregardingthisInquiry/Complaint
willbedestroyedone(1) yearfromtoday. Ourdispositionof yourcomplainthasno effecton
~ ~  
AssistantStaff Counsel
cc: RyanChristopherRodems
'" '"
.. A
• n
... m
'l! •

• ",
TAMPA, FL 33607-5958
r n 7 ; •••5

r' .....
Mailed From 33607


Visit our website:
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
3448i   7 R:::45 ',.",.1•• 1.1'1II•• •••• II•• 'I•• I. I•• 11 •• ". ,III"'" I,II•• '.'

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful