Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • 20 Related Cases, Gillespie V Barker, Rodems and Cook PA, 05-CA-7205

    Diunggah oleh

    Neil Gillespie
    234 tayangan2 halaman
    The litigation of Neil Gillespie against his former lawyers, Barker, Rodems & Cook. PA, is to recover $7,143 stolen during their prior representation of Gillespie. Ryan Christopher Rodems is unethically representing his firm against Gillespie, a former client of the small three-partner firm, contrary to Florida Bar Rules, including Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients, Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client, Rule 4-1.10(a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm, and well-established case law, see McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, etc. Mr. Rodems’ strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on Gillespie who he knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct that includes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Mr. Rodems also brought a vexatious libel counterclaim against Gillespie over a letter about a closed Bar complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted Gillespie leave to amend his motion for disability accommodation, and it was submitted August 6, 2012, see Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11

    Judul Asli

    20 Related Cases, Gillespie v Barker, Rodems and Cook PA, 05-CA-7205

    Hak Cipta

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Format Tersedia

    PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    The litigation of Neil Gillespie against his former lawyers, Barker, Rodems & Cook. PA, is to recover $7,143 stolen during their prior representation of Gillespie. Ryan Christopher Rodems is unethically representing his firm against Gillespie, a former client of the small three-partner firm, contrary to Florida Bar Rules, including Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients, Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client, Rule 4-1.10(a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm, and well-established case law, see McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, etc. Mr. Rodems’ strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on Gillespie who he knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct that includes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Mr. Rodems also brought a vexatious libel counterclaim against Gillespie over a letter about a closed Bar complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted Gillespie leave to amend his motion for disability accommodation, and it was submitted August 6, 2012, see Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11

    Hak Cipta:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    234 tayangan2 halaman

    20 Related Cases, Gillespie V Barker, Rodems and Cook PA, 05-CA-7205

    Diunggah oleh

    Neil Gillespie
    The litigation of Neil Gillespie against his former lawyers, Barker, Rodems & Cook. PA, is to recover $7,143 stolen during their prior representation of Gillespie. Ryan Christopher Rodems is unethically representing his firm against Gillespie, a former client of the small three-partner firm, contrary to Florida Bar Rules, including Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients, Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client, Rule 4-1.10(a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm, and well-established case law, see McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, etc. Mr. Rodems’ strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on Gillespie who he knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct that includes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Mr. Rodems also brought a vexatious libel counterclaim against Gillespie over a letter about a closed Bar complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted Gillespie leave to amend his motion for disability accommodation, and it was submitted August 6, 2012, see Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11

    Hak Cipta:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 2

    20 Cases Related to Gillespie v.

    Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-7205 Hillsborough County, Florida - Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
    1. Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 to Jun-21-2011. (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009) Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205: Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, Jan-19-2006 to Sep-28-2010. (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)

    2.

    Cases in the Second District Court of Appeal, Florida


    3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2dDCA, 06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 2dDCA, 07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed) 2dDCA, 08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed) 2dDCA, 10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 2dDCA, 10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 2dDCA, 11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

    Cases in the Supreme Court of Florida


    9. 10. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition, May-03-2011, (Gillespie pro se) (closed) SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief, Jan-09-2012, (Gillespie pro se) (closed)

    Cases in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division
    11. Case No. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Sec. 1983 Civil Rights/ADA. (Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal) Case No. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Estate Claims, Civil RICO. (Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)

    12.

    Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit


    13. C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Estate claims, Civil RICO. (Gillespie pro se) (closed; petition for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court) C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Sec. 1983 Civil Rights, ADA. (Gillespie pro se) (closed; petition for writ of certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court)

    14.

    Matters in the Supreme Court of the United States


    15. SCOTUS Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se) Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858. SCOTUS Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se) Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858. SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 to review Fla. Supreme Court case SC11-1622, Decided March 12, 2012, Rehearing Denied May 22, 2012. Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time: The May 22, 2012 order from the Florida Supreme Court does not appear to be a order denying a timely petition for rehearing. SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas August 13, 2012 docketed August 31, 2012, Application No. 12A215 to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to Justice Thomas. Petition to review two U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit cases, 12-11028-B and 12-11213-C.

    16.

    17.

    18.

    Original Litigation
    19. Case No. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, class action complaint in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Tampa Div., filed December 9, 1999. Appeal No. 01-14761-AA, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, filed August 20, 2001.

    20.

    Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement shows persons relevant to complaint: Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq. Amscot Corporation Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Barker, Chris A., Esq. Cook, William J., Esq. Gillespie, Neil MacKechnie, Ian Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq. Mr. Rodems has committed multiple violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar while representing his law firm and partner in civil litigation against me, a former client on the same or substantially related matter, contrary to 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 other similar cases. Mr. Rodems and is guilty of misconduct, conflict of interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Beginning in August 2005 through the present, Mr. Rodems has represented his firm and partner against me, a former client on the same or substantially related matters in cases 1-11, and 14-18, a total of 16 cases or matters.

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai