VIA UPS No.

1Z64589FP298344878 J une 14, 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: Case No. 20133090(5), UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie
Dear Mr. Coaxum:
This is a motion or request for the following in your UPL investigation of me:
1. Appointment of counsel
2. Exclusion of evidence
3. Change to a venue outside Florida
4. Strike the sham Order of J udge Martha Cook (Submitted by Mr. Rodems)
5. Disqualification of Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, from this matter for cause
1. Appointment of counsel
I request appointment of counsel under the laws and Constitution of Florida, and the laws and
Constitution of the United States, including the Sixth Amendment, and the holding of Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and any other case requiring legal counsel in this matter.
Engaging in the unlicensed practice of law in Florida is a third degree felony, punishable by five
(5) years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.00. A conviction of UPL may result in criminal
penalties against me under F.S. 454.23, including fines, incarceration and loss of liberty.
F.S. 454.23 Penalties. - Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law
in this state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out to the public as
qualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes or
uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified, or
recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
I am indigent and cannot afford to hire counsel to advise or represent me. Previously I was
determined indigent or insolvent, and granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the cases
shown below, with evidence thereof attached, Exhibits 1-6.
Florida Supreme Court, No. SC11-858, No. SC11-1622.
Florida Second District Court of Appeal, 2D10-5197, 2D10-5529, and 2D11-2127.
Hillsborough Co., Florida, 05-CA-7205, F.S. 27.52 appointed public defender.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel J une 14, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 2
2. Exclusion of evidence
You failed to inform me that this is a criminal matter. Case No. 20133090(5), while initially
presented as Bar regulatory action, is essentially similar to F.S. 454.23. Tellingly you failed to
inform me in connection with your investigation of my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
I move to exclude any evidence previously given until counsel is appointed to represent me.
3. Change of venue
In the interest of justice I request a change to a venue outside the state of Florida. I do not
believe The Florida Bar will fairly adjudicate this matter because of prejudice or bias against me.
I have filed meritorious Bar complaints with The Florida Bar against lawyers guilty of multiple
breaches of The Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which
complaints The Bar has failed to properly adjudicate. The two most recent were improperly
dismissed without probable cause:
Ryan Christopher Rodems File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
The complaints were found meritorious by intake Bar Counsel Theodore Littlewood, who
determined under Rule 3-7.3(a) that in each case the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute
a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline.
Mr. Littlewood opened a disciplinary file in each case, and pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(b), his
investigation concluded each complaint warranted further consideration. Mr. Littlewood sent
each complaint to the Bars Tampa Branch Office, which corruptly dismissed each case.
Each case was dismissed without probable cause by Bar Counsel Leonard Clark, with the
consent and advice of Ms. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel, Michael Stofer, Chair
of the Sixth J udicial Circuit, and Sandra Fascell Diamond, Designated Reviewer.
The Rule 3-7.3(d) determination in each case of no probable cause by Bar Counsel and
Committee Chair was a sham because the determination did not address a bona fide issue
complained about. Email between Mr. Clark and the parties show the determination in each case
was a foregone conclusion to dismiss without probable cause.
4. Strike sham Order of J udge Martha Cook (submitted by Mr. Rodems)
Enclosed you will find my affidavit made to impeach the Order of J udge Cook submitted by Mr.
Rodems. The Order is a sham on its face and was entered by J udge Cook with a corrupt motive,
to stop legitimate inquiry showing her personal and business financial affairs violated the Florida
Code of J udicial Conduct. J udge Cook recused herself in this case November 18, 2010, three
days after she entered the Order. J udge Cooks recusal shows my motion to disqualify her was
legally justified, and that Cook was unfit to serve as a judge in Florida.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel J une 14, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 3
5. Disqualification of Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, from this matter for cause
Unfortunately, your response to my letter of May 29, 2013 would cause a reasonable person to
conclude that you are not conducting this UPL investigation fairly, and that you are biased
against me. You may also be engaged in prosecutorial overreach and/or misconduct.
You responded by email Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:19 PM as follows: (Copy enclosed)
Mr. Gillespie:
It appears that you are requesting an advisory opinion in that you are asking for a
determination. The branch offices are not permitted to render advisory opinions, such
matters are handled through headquarters in Tallahassee. I can grant you a 30 day
extension until J uly 3, 2013 for either you or your counsel to provide a written response.
The complaint in question consisted of the signed form from Mr. Rodems and J udge
Martha J . Cook's two page order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se in case
number 05-CA-7205.
I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct
by J udge Cook as such matters are handled by the Florida J udicial Qualifications
Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com
Thank you,
Ghunise L Coaxum
Henceforth, please respond to me through the U.S. mail. I will not accept email from you.
You are mistaken that I requested an advisory opinion. I did not request an advisory opinion.
Instead, I asked for compliance with Rule 105.1(b):
Rule 105.1(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. (relevant portion)
Your absence of a reply responsive to my question and required by Rule 10-5.1(b) shows this
inquiry is not legitimate, but vexatious. It appears you are facilitating Mr. Rodems use The
Florida Bar for the untoward purpose of retribution against me. There is no evidence you
complied with Rule 105.1(b). Mr. Rodems UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if
proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.
Your referral to the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) for Martha Cooks sham order
entered November 15, 2010 is misplaced. J udge Cook committed a crime, not misconduct, which
criminal activity is a denial of judicial under the color of law. See my enclosed affidavit.
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel J une 14, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 4
Unfortunately Mr. Coaxum, you did not respond to my UPL complaint against Mr. Rodems, set
forth in part below.
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)
Your failure Mr. Coaxum to respond to my UPL complaint against Mr. Rodems is remarkable.
You have apparently dispensed with any pretext that this is legitimate investigation. Instead, you
are improperly protecting Mr. Rodems unlicensed practice of law, his representation of the state
of Florida in a federal court action, case no. 5:10-cv-503, my federal ADA disability and section
1983 civil rights lawsuit against the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, state judicial officers,
and state employees.
Mr. Rodems engaged in the unlicensed practice of law as defined by Rule 105.1(b):
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.
http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/6F7CBB2BCCBD2AC285257A2C00687BA2
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
Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel J une 14, 2013
The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 5
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
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.
Mr. Coaxum, acting under color of law to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive me of rights
protected by the Constitution or U.S. law is a federal crime.
Please remove yourself immediately from this matter.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Enclosures
Cc: Gov. Rick Scott, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295160885
Attorney General Pam Bondi, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297592898
Chief-Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP292600931
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

Neil Gillespie
From: "Ghunise Coaxum" <gcoaxum@flabar.org>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)
Page 1of 5
6/2/2013
Mr. Gillespie:

It appears that you are requesting an advisory opinion in that you are asking for a "determination." The branch offices are not permitted to
render advisory opinions, such matters are handled through headquarters in Tallahassee. I can grant you a 30 day extension until July 3,
2013 for either you or your counsel to provide a written response.

The complaint in question consisted of the signed form from Mr. Rodems and Judge Martha J. Cook's two page order Prohibiting Plaintiff
From Appearing Pro Se in case number 05-CA-7205.

I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct by Judge Cook as such matters are handled by the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com

Thank you,

Ghunise L Coaxum
Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar
Unlicensed Practice of Law Department
The Gateway Center
1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Orlando, Florida 32801-5200
(407) 425-0473
(407) 841-5403 (fax)



From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
To: "Ghunise Coaxum" <gcoaxum@flabar.org>, "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Cc: "Gov. Rick Scott" <Rick.Scott@eog.myflorida.com>, "AG Pam Bondi" <pam.bondi@myfloridalegal.com>, "Diana R Esposito" <Diana.Esposito@myfloridalegal.com>, "Laurel G
Bellows" <lbellows@bellowspc.com>, "James R. Silkenat" <jsilkenat@sandw.com>, "Ellyn Rosen" <Ellyn.Rosen@americanbar.org>, "Myles Lynk" <Myles.Lynk@asu.edu>, "Joseph
Bluemel" <jbluemel@hamsfork.net>, "Nancy Cohen" <ncohen@mcpclaw.com>, "Dolores Dorsainvil" <DorsainvilD@dcobc.org>, "Linda Gosnell" <lindagosnell1@gmail.com>, "James Hill"
<jhill@zkslaw.com>, "James A Kawachika" <JAK@opglaw.com>, "Amy Lin Meyerson" <amy@almesq.com>, "Cleaveland Miller" <cmiller@semmes.com>, "William W Wilhelm"
<wwilhelm@flabar.org>, "Theodore P Littlewood" <tlittlew@flabar.org>, "Susan Varner Bloemendaal" <sbloemen@flabar.org>, "Paul F Hill" <phill@flabar.org>, "Leonard E Clark"
<LClark@flabar.org>, "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <kmarvin@flabar.org>, "John Thomas Berry" <jberry@flabar.org>, "John F Harkness" <jharkness@flabar.org>, "Jeffrey Carter
Andersen" <candersen@bushross.com>, "James N Watson" <jwatson@flabar.org>, "Gwynne Alice Young" <gyoung@carltonfields.com>, "Eugene Keith Pettis" <epettis@hpslegal.com>,
"Annemarie Craft" <acap@flabar.org>, "Mary Ellen Bateman" <mbateman@flabar.org>, "Gregory Harrison Fisher" <fishlaw@gte.net>, "Belinda Barndollar Lazzara" <blazzara@mslo-
law.com>, "Maribeth L. Wetzel" <beth@goldmanwetzel.com>, "Michael G Stofer" <mstofer@deaconandmoulds.com>, "Sandra Fascell Diamond" <sdiamond@wdclaw.com>
Date: 05/29/2013 03:04 PM
Subject: UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)



VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297064771
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.
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. 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.
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,
Page 2of 5
6/2/2013
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
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/41bc6044e7aa779e8525688d0073e8f8/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.
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.
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
Page 3of 5
6/2/2013
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 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
Page 4of 5
6/2/2013
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.
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". [attachment "Ltr Ghunise Coaxum, Bar Counsel, UPL-
Gillespie.pdf" deleted by Ghunise Coaxum/The Florida Bar]
Page 5of 5
6/2/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327
November 19, 2010
CASE NO.: 2D10-5529
L.T. No. : 05-CA-007205
Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P. A., Et AI
Appellant I Petitioner(s), Appellee I Respondent(s).
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
The affidavit of insolvency and accompanying motion filed in this original
proceeding persuade this court that petitioner is insolvent, and petitioner is accordingly
declared insolvent within the meaning of chapter 57, Florida Statutes (2009), for
purposes of the filing fee associated with this petition. This determination is subject to
rebuttal by respondent within twenty days.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Honorable Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge
Pat Frank, Clerk
vg
1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327
November 22, 2010
CASE NO.: 2D10-5197
L.T. No. : 05-CA-7205
Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P. A. & William J. Cook
Appellant / Petitioner(s), Appellee / Respondent(s).
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Based upon this court's determination in 2010-5529, the filing fee is not
required in this appeal.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Pat Frank, Clerk
pm
James Birkhold
Clerk
2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND DISTRICT
1005 E. MEMORIAL BOULEVARD
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801-0327
(863)-499-2290
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE
DATE: May 3, 2011
STYLE: NEIL 1. GILLESPIE V. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,
P A & WILLIAM 1. COOK
2DCA#: 2Dll-2127
The Second District Court of Appeal has received thePetition reflecting
a filing date of5/2/11
The county of origin isHillsborough.
The lower tribunal case number provided is05-CA-00n05
The filing fee is Waived.
Case Type: Prohibition Civil
The Second District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence
filed in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE
ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER.
Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment.
cc: Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Pat Frank, Clerk
Rodems, Esq.
3








Case Number: SC11-858 - Closed
NEIL J . GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., ET AL.
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 05-CA-007205


Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
05/21/2011 02:38
Date
Docketed Description Filed By Notes
05/03/2011 PETITION-HABEAS
CORPUS
PS Neil J . Gillespie BY: PS Neil J .
Gillespie
W/ATTACHMENTS (FILED AS
"EMERGANCY PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS & EMERGENCY
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
PROHIBITION") (05/05/11: ACK OF
NEW CASE LTR CORRECTED TO
REFLECT CORRECT CASE STYLE)
05/04/2011 No Fee Required
05/18/2011 DISP-HABEAS
CORPUS DY
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is
hereby denied.
Page 1of 1 Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
5/21/2011 http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket
4
-"
__ _
__ l,",=_P'.....,C'!l . _- -. ""'._ ..p-:w,.,

IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
__..-.:t_".
CASE NO.
=-ST-:-ATE--:--Of=F::-LORID---=-A::-:--Yl......-'-'=-'--1-................:.; { \ 'E:
D_lldallllllnor Child
/ APPLICATION FOR CRIMiNAL INDIGENT STATUS
'_lY"':'_1A . AUM SEEKING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
OR
_I HAVE APRIVATE ATIORNEY OR AM SELF-REPRESENTED AND SEEK DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCE STATUS FOR COSTS
Notice to Applicant: The provision of apublic defender/court appointed lawyer and costs/due process services are not free. Ajudgment and lien may be imposed against all real or
personal property you own to pay for legal and other services provided on your behalf or on behalf of the person for whom you are making this application. There is a$50.00 fee tor each
application filed. If the application fee is not paid to the Cieri( of the Court within 7days, it will be added to any costs that may be assessed against you at the conclusion of this case. If
you are aparent/guardian making this affidavit on behalf of a minor or tax-dependent adult, the information contained in this application must indude your income and assets.
1. Ihive.l!)...JHpendenm. (Do not incl children ';;'t IMng at home and do not include a working spouse or yourself.)
2. Ihive I take home Income of $ paid ( ) weekly ( ) ( ) semi-monthly ( ) monthly ( ) yearly
(Take home income equals salary, wages, bonu s, commissions. aUowances. overtime, tips and simHar payments. minus deductions required by law and other courl-orde19d
support payments) .k. II L :
3. Ihive c:a .. ( this otherwise
compensation Child support or other regular support I J
Union F Yes $ 0 from family memberslspouse...... \, Yes $
Wor1(ers compensation Yes $ Rental income................................. Yes $
Retirement/pensions Yes $ Dividends or inlerest.......................... Yes $
Trusts or gifts Yes t: Other kinds of income not on the list...... Yes $
4. "No."
Bank accounI(s) Yes $@StocksIbonds.........................................Yes$,----' ,"-
certificates of deposit or . 'Equity in Real estale (excluding homestead) Yes $,_-;1""""'-__--1
money mari(et accounts Yes $ @> 'Equity meMS velue minus loans. Also list any
'Equity in MotorVehicleslBoats/ in an interest in such properly.
Othertangbleproperty Ustthe adcJress of this properly.
Ustthe yearlmakelmodel and tag#: I Jd? Address --'-_
sci- City, Stale, =0
r-"'" County of Residence :::;
5. Ihive a total amount of Illbillties Ind debts In the lmount of () (,))
6. Ireceive: (Cirr:le "Yes" or "No'
Temporary Assistance tor Needy Famifies-Cash Assistance.........................
Poverty-related veterans' benefits............................................................................................................................................... Yes
Supplemental security Income (551)............................................................................................................................................... Yes
7. I hive been ",leased on ball In lhellllOllnt of $ Cash __Surety __ PostIId by: Self __ Family __ Other
A person who knowingly provides false information to the der1( or the court in seeking adelennination of indigent status under s. 27.52, F.S., commits. amisdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. ns.082. F.S., or s. n5.083, F.S. I attest that the Information I have provided on this Application Is tru, and accurate to the best of my
knowledge. '.'
Signed this ;?7 day of J.1, ,2olL.
Date of Birth S r /9.. 19S-b Print Full L al Name
Driver's license or ID numbeb 'tC;! S{, Zip
Phone number
CLERK'S DETERMINATION
n the inJ nnation in this App.lieati6ii. I have detennined the applicant to be ( ) Not Indigent
P blic DeJ nder is hereby appointed to the case listed above until relieved by the Court.
PAT FRANK
Cieri< of the Circuit Court
This fonn was completed with the assistance of
__Cler1<lDeputy Cler1<lOther authorized person
APPUCANTS FOUND NOT INDIGENT MAY SEEK REVIEW BY ASKING FOR A HEARING TIME. Sign here if you want the]Udge
to NYtew the clerk's decision of not Indigent. .
06118/10
' ..:.
5








Case Number: SC11-1622 - Active
NEIL J . GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, ET AL.
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2D10-5197, 05-CA-7205


Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
08/23/2011 12:56
Date
Docketed Description Filed By Notes
08/08/2011 PETITION-
MANDAMUS
PS Neil J . Gillespie BY: PS Neil J .
Gillespie
FILED AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL &
TREATED AS A PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDAMUS
08/22/2011 No Fee - Insolvent INSOLVENT BELOW
08/22/2011 ORDER-PROPER
PETITION
Petitioner's Notice of Appeal, filed in this
Court on August 8, 2011, has been treated
as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking
reinstatement of the proceedings in the
district court of appeal below. Petitioner is
allowed to and including September 12,
2011, in which to file a proper petition for
writ of mandamus; that complies with
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100,
addressing why the proceedings in the
district court of appeal should not have been
dismissed. The failure to file a proper
petition with this Court within the time
provided could result in the imposition of
sanctions, including dismissal of this case.
See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Please
understand that once this case is dismissed,
it may not be subject to reinstatement.
Page 1of 1 Florida Supreme Court Case Docket
8/23/2011 http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket
6