Anda di halaman 1dari 25

VIA UPS No.

1Z64589FP297064771 May 29, 2013


Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando
The Gateway Center
1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Orlando, Florida 32801-1050
RE: UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)
Complaint Against Ryan Christopher Rodems for Unlicensed Practice of Law
Dear Mr. Coaxum:
Your letter to me dated May 14, 2013, copy enclosed, requested: (Exhibit 1)
Please give us your written position concerning the attached correspondence from Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Esq.. I would appreciate receiving your written response no later
than twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. Responses should not exceed twenty-
five (25) pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available
on request. A reply from you will assist my office in determining whether this is a matter
which should be referred to an unlicensed practice of law committee. Any response by
you will become a part of the UPL record in this matter and become accessible to the
public upon closure of the case.
On information and belief, the twenty (20) day time to respond ends Monday J une 3, 2013.
My written position herewith is not a response to the allegations of Ryan Christopher Rodems
in the attached correspondence which you failed to identify as his UPL complaint against me.
Instead, this is a request for a determination under Rule 105.1(b) whether the alleged conduct, if
proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition against engaging in UPL.
In the alternative I request a 30 day extension of time to respond. Either way, I am making this
UPL complaint part of the appellate review in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and
will seek appointment of counsel on my pro se appeal of the foreclosure of my home.
Rule 105.1(b) states:
(b) Review by Bar Counsel. Bar counsel shall review the complaint and determine
whether the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition
against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. Bar counsel may conduct a
preliminary, informal investigation to aid in this determination and, if necessary, may
employ a Florida bar staff investigator to aid in the preliminary investigation. If bar
counsel determines that the facts, if proven, would not constitute a violation, bar counsel
may decline to pursue the complaint. A decision by bar counsel not to pursue a complaint
shall not preclude further action or review under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
The complainant shall be notified of a decision not to pursue a complaint and shall be
given the reasons therefor.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 2
In my view, Mr. Rodems UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if proven, would
constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.
Quite frankly this UPL complainant is vexatious, and a continuation by Mr. Rodems of a long-
standing personal vendetta against me for having the temerity to hold him and his crooked law
partners accountable for defrauding me of $7,143 in prior representation.
Mr. Rodems UPL complaint makes false and/or misleading accusations, under penalty of
perjury, but he has not provided any dates, nor attached any relevant documents supporting his
accusations to inform my response. The UPL form states dates and documents are required:
DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT, PROVIDE DATES AND FACTS OF ALLEGED
MISCONDUCT AND ATTACH A COPY OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.
The only document I found in the envelope from you is not relevant, and is from a closed case in
another matter, and not part of the allegations in Mr. Rodems complaint. Do I have all the
documents in this complaint? If not, please provide me the missing documents immediately.
The case law I reviewed does not show grounds for this UPL complaint either. I am not licensed
to practice law, and never claimed that I was so licensed. The construction and application of
UPL is to protect the public from laypeople who claim to be licensed lawyers:
While the Supreme Court is expressly charged under the Florida Constitution with
regulating and disciplining licensed members of the Florida Bar, it also has a duty to
protect the public from laypeople who claim that they are licensed to practice law, but are
not. The Florida Bar v. Abreu, 833 So.2d 752 (2002).
Mr. Rodems has not alleged that I harmed the public, or that I claimed to be a licensed lawyer.
The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act
constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)
I represented myself, my interest in an estate and trust, pro se. I was not a court-appointed
personal representative of an estate
1
. In the trust matter, my co-trustee is represented by counsel.
Florida Constitution, Article I:
Section 21. Access to courts. - The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any
injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

1
The Florida Bar should seek clarification in the law for the term personal representative. The
term is used by a testatrix in a will to appoint a personal representative; and the same term is
used by a court to appoint by Order a personal representative. This is confusing to nonlawyers.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 3
Once a person has made a decision to represent himself, the Supreme Court should not
enforce any unnecessary regulation which might tend to hinder the exercise of such right.
Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978).
The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and
found qualified to practice is to protect the public from being advised and represented in
legal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exercise
little, if any, control. Morrison v. West App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearing
denied. Attorney And Client App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearing denied.
28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to
manage and conduct causes therein.
Martha J ean Cook - judge of questionable ethics
As to the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se, the order was entered by Martha
Cook ex parte, without hearing, and prior to the expiration of time to respond. When Martha
Cook entered the order November 15, 2010, she was a Defendant in my federal lawsuit
2
against
her and others of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, and therefore had a duty to recuse. But Martha
Cook does not recuse when required, and enjoys making rulings favorable to her interests.
Unfortunately Martha Cook is a judge of questionable ethics, according to a story on the Florida
Bar News Summary J uly 22, 2011, CRITICS: J UDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK
SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa Tribune. See Exhibit 2, and the link.
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7aa779e8525688d0073
e8f8/b820bfd498a31e31852578d50050dfc9
Martha Cooks sham order entered November 15, 2010 is an honest services fraud in exchange
for Mr. Rodems campaign donation, and for his UPL representation of her and the state of
Florida in a federal court action J une 21, 2011.
Rule 10 - 2.1. Generally
Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein
set forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicate a different meaning:
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice of
law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.

2
Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 4
Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of Law June 21, 2011
Improper Representation of the State of Florida in Federal Litigation
Mr. Rodems submitted Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With
Prejudice (Doc. 32) J une 21, 2011 in my federal ADA and civil rights case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-
TBS-WTH. Mr. Rodems motion, which appears at Exhibit 3, states:
On J une 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J . Cook. See Exhibit "1".
Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
Fortunately U.S. District J udge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant Mr. Rodems motion, and now I
know why: Only the Florida Attorney General may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. My attorney at the time, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, failed to inform me, and it appears certain
that he and Mr. Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of my rights
guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.
As set forth in my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747, by September 2010 I needed the assistance and
protection of an Article III federal judge, in Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205, due to Mr. Rodems
extreme misconduct representing his firm against me, a former client on the same or substantially
related matter in violation of Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.
On the morning of September 28, 2010 I filed by hand delivery to the U.S. District Clerk in
Ocala, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District
of Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. My Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-cv-
00503 pled violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rights
under section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit, Hillsborough case no 05-CA-7205 commenced five
years earlier to recover the money stolen from me by Rodems his partners in the Amscot lawsuit.
Unfortunately things got worse in the Florida case. Hours after I filed my federal civil rights
lawsuit, Martha Cook held me in civil contempt, with writ of bodily attachment, during an ex
parte hearing, where she made a false record that I elected to leave. Mr. Rodems aided and
abetted that fraud. Fortunately the bailiff, Deputy C.E. Brown, told his commander that J udge
Cook ordered me to leave after I provided her a copy of the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.
Mr. Rodems got a warrant to arrest me on the pretext of a court-ordered deposition after the case
was closed and on appeal in 2D10-5197. In 2008 J udge J ames Barton awarded $11,550 to
Rodems in attorney-fee sanctions, blaming me for Rodems earlier misconduct and disruption of
the tribunal. Later I was incompetently represented by Robert W. Bauer, at a cost of $31,863.
Mr. Bauer was a referral from the Florida Bars Lawyer Referral Service. Yesterday I submitted
a rebuttal to the response of Mr. Bauer in Florida Bar complaint no. 2013-00,540 (8B) It appears
Mr. Bauer and Rodems were engaged in racketeering and obstruction to deprive me of rights
guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 5
The public defender was appointed to represent me J une 1, 2011 at a civil contempt hearing, but
the judge relieved the defender at the hearing and immediately entered an order to arrest me. For
twenty-one days law enforcement sought to arrest me while I was at home with the blinds closed
working on appeal 2D10-5179. Day after day Marion County Sheriff Deputies came pounding
on my door looking for me. On J une 3, 2011 I hired attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo off
Craigslist to prepare for the deposition, but that was a disaster. I voluntarily appeared J une 21,
2011 for the deposition but that was a trap to force a coercive custody settlement, which I
promptly rescinded. Castagliuolo also failed to disclose that his daughter was a public defender.
Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlement
agreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I was
unlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Florida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the Florida
Attorney General can represent the State of Florida, which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
Claudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)
J ames M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
Martha J . Cook, Hillsborough Florida J udge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to
appoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. 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, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:
16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:
(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or
criminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in the
Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.
The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.
(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the office
of the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutor
shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of
criminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a
related transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or more
judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 6
by the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicial
nominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.
Unfortunately Mr. Rodems mislead in violation of Rule 11, F.R.C.P., the following three federal
judicial officers in the performance of their duty in case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH.
United States District J udge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge,
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 - present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398)
United States Magistrate J udge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893)
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to J uly-29-2011
United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269)
Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 J uly-29-2011 to February-27-2012
Mr. Rodems again violated his duty under Rule 11 on J uly 14, 2011 when submitted (Doc. 40)
Response to Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespies Motion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of
Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice [DKT 33], which
appears as Exhibit 4, w/o attachment. Mr. Rodems wrote in part:
Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract the settlement agreement Gillespie
asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of
Florida and therefore he cannot represent the State of Florida in federal litigation. Moreover,
U.S. Magistrate J udge Thomas Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that 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 Order appears at Exhibit 5. Therefore I filed a Notice
of Objection (Doc. 63) which appears at Exhibit 6.
The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems
Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). Exh 7.
Florida Bar Complaint J anuary 4, 2013 - Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of Law
Complaint closed, Response by Leonard Clark May 16, 2013
Due to mental impairment and disability, it took me a long time, about 1 year, 5 months, and 14
days, to figure out why J udge Hodges did not grant Rodems UPL motions. Once I understood
that Rodems engaged in UPL, I made a Bar complaint J anuary 4, 2013 to ACAP in Tallahassee,
but I did not hear back until Mr. Clark wrote me May 16, 2013 with the excuse Your secondary
complaint was incorporated into your original complaint against Mr. Rodems. and dismissed.
Today I reached the understanding that since Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL, I failed to make the
necessary or proper UPL complaint, and submit it to the UPL office. Ironically this knowledge
came thanks to Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 7
Enclosed is my letter to Florida Bar President Young of May 22, 2013 requesting a Rule 3-3.4(b)
Special Grievance Committees, which unfortunately Kenneth Marvin subsequently denied.
Mr. Coaxum, I believe this letter gives you sufficient information under Rule 105.1(b) to
determine that Mr. Rodems alleged UPL, conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the
prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. The Orlando UPL office has
jurisdiction because Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL in the Ocala Division of the U.S. District
Court. Also, I live in Ocala and am a survivor of Mr. Rodems UPL. I am also a member of the
public, and protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act
constitutes the (unlicensed) practice of law. I was harmed by Mr. Rodems UPL.
The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act
constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response, hopefully a dismissal of UPL against me,
and the criminal prosecution of UPL against Mr. Rodems with a term of imprisonment.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
NOTE: The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen was not a defendant in any lawsuit by me. It wrongly states
in the Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, in the 2 page AG
Case #Tampa Monitor that [Gillespie] now brings this claim against his former attorney and
law firm and all the judges who had any involvement in his 13th J udicial Circuit Case.
The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems misleading legal argument, a phony claim
of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs in his Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss
And Strike, entered J anuary 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.
J udge Nielsen did his best, until Rodems strategically disrupted the tribunal to gain advantage. I
request the Attorney General correct its Synopsis of Major Issues to show this important fact, an
error I blame on David Rowlands failure to provide Petition No. 12-7747 to the AGs office.
Cc: Gov. Rick Scott, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP298992794
Attorney General Pam Bondi, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295720789
Chief-Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297480802
Email Cc: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list;
Mr. Anderson, Chair, 13th Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D.
The Florida Bar
The Gateway Center
1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
John F. Harkness, Jr.
Orlando, Florida 32801-1050
(407) 425-0473
Executive Director www.FLORIDABAR.org
May 14, 2013
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie;
Case No. 20133090(5)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Please give us your written position concerning the attached correspondence from Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Esq.. I would appreciate receiving your written response no later than
twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. Responses should not exceed twenty-five (25)
pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. A
reply from you will assist my office in determining whether this is a matter which should be
referred to an llnlicensed practice of law committee. Any response by you will become a part of
the UPL record in this matter and become accessible to the public upon closure of the case.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Ghunise L. Coaxum
Bar Counsel
UPL Department, Orlando
GLC/ct
Enclosure
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.
1
The Florida Bar
Unlicensed Practice of Law
Complaint Form
Please carefully review this complaint form once you have included all information. Note that there is a
requirement for you to execute the oath at the end of this form. False statements made in bad faith or
with malice may subject you to civil or criminal liability. A copy of your complaint may be sent to the
nonlawyer during the course of the investigation. Additionally, if the nonlawyer asks who complained,
your name will be provided. Further information may be found in the pamphlet llFiling an Unlicensed
Practice of Law Complaint."
Your Name: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire Nonlawyer's Name: Neil J. Gillespie
Address: 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790 Address: 8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Tampa, FL 33602 Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (813) 489-1001
Telephone: ( __..1-) _
DESCRIBE YOUR COfVlPLAINT, PROVIDE DATES AND FACTS OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AND AITACH A COPY OF
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. YOUR COMPLAINT AND DOCUMENTS WILL BE SCANNED. PLEASE LIMIT COMPLAINT
AND AITACHMENTS TO 25 PAGES. (Use a separate sheet if necessary. Do not write on the back of this form!)
Neil J. Gillespie is not a lawyer. He has, however, represented a Trust in state and federal court litigation,
and as a "personal representative" of the "Estate of Penelope Gillespie" in another case.
The cases are: (1) Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc v. Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustees
of the Gillespie Family Living Trust, et aI., pending in the Florida 5
th
Judicial circuit, Case No. 42-2013
CA-000115-AXXX-XX; Mr. Gillespie., acting as Trustee, removed the case to the United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No. 5: 13-cv-00058-0C-WTH-PRL; (2) Estate of
Penelope Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, which was filed in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No. 5:11-cv-539-0C-10TBS.
A non-lawyer trustee may not act as attorney for the trust. It constitutes an unlicensed practice of law.
EHQF Trust v. S & A Capital Partners, Inc., 947 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)("The notice of appeal
filed by appellant, a trust, was not signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Section 454.23,
Florida Statutes (2006), prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law, provides no exception for representation
of a trust. Although Florida has not previously addressed the issue, other states have concluded that a trustee
cannot appear pro se on behalf of the trust, because the trustee represents the interests of others and would
therefore be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.").
Similarly, a non-lawyer may not act as an attorney in the role of "personal representative" of an Estate. Mr.
Gillespie's allegations that he was the "personal representative" of the "Estate of Penelope Gillespie" appear
to be false. There is no record of an action to open such an estate, and no Order appointing him to be the
"personal representative."
In a case in which I was counsel of record, Mr. Gillespie previously represented himself in the Florida 13
th
Judicial Circuit and was found by the Court to be an abusive litigant and barred from further self
representation. A copy of the Order is attached hereto.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read th d that to the best of my knowledge
and belief the facts stated in it are true.
30,/0(s') 0 Ignatu
_-Da-te-'-..--...;.---"""----------
I
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIR'fEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASEID:
Plaintiff,
v.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOI{, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; and
WILLIAM J. COOI{,
Defendants.

ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM APPEARING PRO SE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' "motion for an order to show cause as
to why should not.be prohi?!ted :fl:om henceforth appeal'ingpro se," filed on July 29,
2010. It is alleged that "Plaintiff is an abusive who should 'not be permitted to fue fiuiher
pleadings in this cause" they are reviewed and signed:b; practice
law in this state. Defendants allege that s prosecution is an affront to the dignity of the
judicial system and an unacceptable burden on its resources. On November 4, 2010, this court
issued the order to sho\v cause why Plaintiff should not be prollibited from appearillgpro se.
Among Plaintiff's response were his fourth and fifth attempts to disqualify this court. This
response is typical of Plaintiff's litigation style. And his continuing course of conduct in this case
is all the more troublesome because this case is presently pending appellate review of a final
surrunary judgment order. There is nothing left to litigate at this tinle. Yet Plaintiff continues to
file spurious pleadings \vith this court, eacll of which must be reviewed and evaluated by members
of the court staff. For these reasons and the reasons enumerated in the nlotion, the Court hereby
finds that Plaintiff is an abusive litigant and, in order to preserve both the dignity and the efficient
operation of the judicial systenl, his right to full access to the court should be curtailed to the
extent described in this order. Plaintiff is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any paper with this
court which is not signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice la\v in the State of Florida.
10f2
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
I. Plaintiff SHALL CEASE filing any pleading, correspondence, or other document in this
case unless the document is signed by an attorney who is duly licensed to practice law in
the State of Florida.
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL REJECT for filing any document received from Plaintiff
which does not bear the clear and conspicuous signature of an attorney duly licensed to
practice law in this state.
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL NOT DOCKET any pleading, correspondence or other
document received from Plaintiff which is prohibited by this order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough Florida, this 15
th
day of '. '. '
.
November, 2010. OR\G\Nl\l b\\;)\ ..,
"Q'J 1 5 20\0
r': <\\{IHll J,
______________o.""wo
JUOGE.
MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Judge
Send copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW 115
lh
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Roderns, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
400 N Ashley DrIve
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
20f2
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
Daily News Summary
An electronic digest of media coverage of interest to members of The Florida Bar compiled each workday by the Public Information and Bar Services Department.
Electronic links are only active in today's edition. For information on previous articles, please contact the publishing newspaper directly.
Links to online newspapers
July 22, 2011
--Judiciary--
NEW CIRCUIT JUDGE NAMED-- Palatka Daily News, http://www.palatkadailynews.com, July 22,
20111. [Also: GOVERNOR APPOINTS NEW JUDGE-- Daytona Beach News-Journal,
http://www.news-journalonline.com, July 22, 2011; MENDOZA SELECTED FOR CIRCUIT JUDGE
JOB-- St. Augustine Record, http://staugustine.com, July 22, 2011].
St. Augustine Assistant City Attorney Carlos Mendoza is Putnam County's newest circuit judge.
Mendoza was selected Thursday [July 21] by Gov. Rick Scott to fill a vacancy created by Seventh Circuit
Judge Terry LaRue, who is transferring to Volusia County to replace Circuit Judge Julianne Piggotte, who
retired July 1. Mendoza is scheduled to start work in Putnam County on Aug. 29. The Seventh Circuit
includes Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns and Volusia counties.
CRITICS: JUDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa
Tribune, http://www.tbo.com, July 22, 2011.
A Hillsborough County judge seeking to tame a backlog of thousands of foreclosure lawsuits has critics
wondering whether she should be hearing foreclosure cases at all.
Judge Martha J. Cook has an ownership interest in Community Bank of Manatee, where her husband,
William H. Sedgeman Jr., serves as chairman and chief executive, public documents show. The bank has
been hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis and has struggled to shed troubled assets. Like most banks,
Community Bank often finds itself as a plaintiff against homeowners in foreclosure cases. Cook said she
is not prejudiced and that she listed her connection, as required by the law. The state's Judicial
Qualifications Commission's code of conduct does not expressly prohibit judges from owning stock in
companies they may see in the courtroom, but it does require disclosure. Cook said she disclosed the
connection because of her husband's interest in the bank. She said she doesn't hear cases involving his
bank and doesn't feel she has a conflict of interest by overseeing foreclosures by other banks.
--Legal Profession--
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, TWO FIRED LAWYERS IN PUBLIC DISPUTE-- Orlando Sentinel,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com, July 22, 2011.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and two recently fired employees, Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson, are
embroiled in a public fight over whether her office fired the two lawyers for being too aggressive
against mortgage lenders involved in foreclosure fraud cases or whether the lawyers engaged in
unprofessional conduct.
LONGTIME DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO JOIN PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE-- Panama City News Herald,
http://www.newsherald.com, July 22, 2011.
Robert Sombathy, a board certified criminal defense attorney, will fill a position in the 14th Circuit State
Attorney's Office that opened up when John O'Brien left the Major Crimes Division last week. State
Attorney Glenn Hess said he was looking for an experienced trial attorney to replace OBrien, who was
also an accomplished defense attorney earlier in his long career. Sombathy has taken more than 85
Daily News Summary http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7...
1 of 2 5/29/2013 11:15 AM
2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 600
3
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID 601
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID 602
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID 603
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,
Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants.
____________________________________/

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIES MOTION TO STRIKE OR SET
ASIDE MR. RODEMS NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AND MOTION
FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT 33]

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. Dkt 32, Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the
Assignees moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt 32.
Gillespie now moves this Court to set aside the settlement agreement reached wherein he
assigned the claims in this action to Assignees. Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion,
and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract -- the
settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
1


1
Notwithstanding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gillespies recitation of the
events surrounding the settlement are belied by the record. The settlement agreement was signed
by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie
stated to his attorney, Ill defer to your judgment on this. Gillespies attorney stated, Ive
already given you judgment in private, and Ill give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is
an agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest. (Exhibit 1). Gillespie
now claims that he signed under duress, lacked informed consent, and asserts other reasons it
should be set aside, none of which are supported by the record of the settlement conference.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1350
4
2

The Court should deny Gillespies motion and grant the Assignees motion to dismiss the action,
Dkt 32.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14
th
day of July, 2011.

/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 947652
Attorney for Assignees
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 489-1001
Fax: (813) 489-1008
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
filed using the Courts CM/ECF filing system, which will send an electronic notice of filing to:
Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The
Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer and anyone else registered to receive
such filings. No other defendant has been served.
/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1351
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10DAB
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies 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).
When Mr. Gillespie instituted this lawsuit he included as defendants the law firm
of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (the Firm) and attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems
(Doc. 1). Mr. Gillespie sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 13)
but he chose instead to voluntarily dismiss his claims against the Firm and Mr. Rodems
(Doc. 22). Upon receipt of Mr. Gillespies notice of voluntary dismissal the Court
directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing all claims against the Firm and Mr.
Rodems without prejudice (Doc. 25). The Judgment was entered on November 23,
2010 (Doc. 26).
On June 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
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 51 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1444
5
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.
Mr. Gillespie has motioned this Court to strike or set aside both the Notice and
the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 33). The Assignees served a response to the motion
in which they dispute certain facts alleged by Mr. Gillespie, assert that he does not have
standing to bring his motion to strike and they say this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction (Doc. 40).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that [t]he court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter. (Emphasis supplied). The only pleadings allowed are: (1) a
complaint; (2) the answer to the complaint; (3) the answer to a counterclaim; (4) the
answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party
complaint; and (7) if the Court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.
Because the Notice and Settlement Agreement are not pleadings they are not subject
to a motion to strike. McNair v. Monsanto Co., 279 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1298 (M.D. Ga.
2003)(motion to strike is only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the
pleadings.); Merritt v. Hubb Intern. Southwest Agency Ltd., 2011 WL 4026651, *2
(N.D. Ga. 2011)(motion to strike declaration held procedurally improper because Rule
12(f) only applies to pleadings.); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Belu, 2009
2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 51 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1445
WL 2848995, *3 (N.D. Ga. 2009)(explaining that Rule 12(f) only applies to pleadings);
and Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988)(noting
that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection).
Therefore, Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies 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) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on the 6 day of October, 2011.
th
Copies furnished to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Counsel of Record
3
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 51 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1446
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 63 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1794
6
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 63 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1795
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
-vs- Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10TBS
THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint against eleven (11)
Defendants which, by its title, purports to state a claim under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq., as well as various violations of his
constitutional rights.
1
(Doc. 1). The Complaint is due to be dismissed for several reasons.
First, the Plaintiff has never effected service of summons on any of the Defendants,
or complied with any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second, the Complaint
consists of 39 pages of rambling, largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Third, the Complaint fails to allege the basis for the
Courts subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) the parties are
clearly all citizens of Florida and therefore not diverse, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any
1
The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two (2) of the Defendants, Barker
Rodems & Cook, P.A., and Ryan Christopher Rodems, on October 29, 2010 (Docs. 22, 25-26).
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 64 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1796
7
intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. And fourth, it appears that the Plaintiff has assigned all of
his claims in this case to Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and
William J . Cook, who have moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(2). (See Doc. 32).
2
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,
terminate all pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 27th day of February, 2012.
Copies to: Counsel of Record
Neil J . Gillespie, pro se
2
The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlement
agreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, executed
under duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However, the core of the
settlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of various matters
pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have been executed as part
of a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court is the appropriate judicial
body with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the validity and/or enforceability of the
settlement agreement and assignment. This Court will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction)
entertain any disputes within the purview of the settlement agreement unless and until the state
court enters a judgment declaring the settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 64 Filed 02/27/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1797

Anda mungkin juga menyukai