Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
..' ..
,,",
,1 ,/
.1"
Nei ." i es i;? 7"
SW 115tyLoop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Cc: "MICHAEL BORSETH" <mjborseth@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:05 PM
Subject: Florida's Wiretapping Laws
Page 1 of 1
7/26/2012
I have learned from Court Reporter Michael Borseth and other sources that you
wrongfully recorded and published dialogue from a telephone conversation we had on
June 14, 2011, even though you had explicit instructions from me that my words were
not to be recorded. The "business use exemption" that you claim is nonsense. The
only "business" you have is in your own mind. Secondly, you pursuaded or coerced Mr.
Borseth to include verbiage at the beginning of the transcript which was never spoken
by neither you nor me.
I am hereby demanding a copy of the audio from the aforementioned telephone
conversation.
I am also demanding that you remove the transcript of our telephone conversation from
your ridiculous website. Lastly, I am demanding that you notify the Courts where you
have filed this illegally recorded telephone conversation, or I most certainly will.
Be advised that Florida Statute Chapter 934 allows for monetary damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees. And I'm sure that I'm not the only person you've
wrongfully recorded.
You have ten (10) days from today to deliver the aforementioned audio to my office in
Largo. Don't even think of telling me you that you no longer possess the audio,
because we both know that you do, as you have nothing better to do day in and day out
but to pursue your ludicrous, ridiculous "lawsuits."
In the event you fail to meet my demand(s) as expressed above, I plan to sue you for
violating Florida's Security of Communications Act. Mr. Borseth may or may not be a
co-defendant for wrongfully "transcribing" words that were not uttered by me or by you
and including same in the transcript so that the unsuspecting reader would think those
words were part of the proceeding, when they most certainly were not.
You've been warned. My lawsuit is drafted and ready to go. Your move.
Eugene P. Castagliuolo
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
801 West Bay Drive
Suite 301
Largo, Florida 33770
(727) 712-3333
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (and any associated files) from Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A. is for the sole use of the intended
recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or
other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original
message.
1
August 1, 2012
Attorney General Pam Bondi
Office of Attorney General
State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
RE: Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Florida Bar ID: 104360
Dear Attorney General Bondi:
On July 25, 2012 attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo accused me of wrongfully recording a phone
call June 14, 2011 where he admitted to having mental problems. Mr. Castagliuolo threatened to
sue me under chapter 934 Florida Statutes. He also threatened Michael Borseth, a court reporter
who made the transcript. Mr. Borseth has made similar transcripts for me for the past five or six
years and did nothing wrong. Exhibit 1 is a copy of Mr. Castagliuolos email.
I believe Mr. Castagliuolo objects to the disclosure of this statement he made June 14, 2011:
You know, I don't make any judgments about people based on what their mental
problems are. Because if you -- if you're going to measure people by that yardstick then
I'm not going to pass the test either.
(Transcript, pages 7-8, line 23)
I believe Mr. Castagliuolos disabilities prevented him from effectively representing me, and
argued that in my petition for writ of mandamus in SC11-1622, Supreme Court of Florida. The
petition is uploaded on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/77963112/
This is my request to the Attorney General for a legal opinion of my long-time, well-known
practice of lawfully recording phone calls. It is public knowledge that All calls on home office
business telephone extension (352) 854-7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes
pursuant to the business use exemption of Florida Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1)
and the holding of Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215
(11th Cir. 1991). This is announced on my Telephone Recording webpage
http://yousue.org/telephone-recording/
On June 9, 2011 at 10.41 a.m. I notified Mr. Castagliuolo by email to communicate by email if
he declined my usual practice of recording. Exhibit 2 is a copy of the email. I did not agree not to
record him. Mr. Castagliuolo had no expectation of privacy. Mr. Castagliuolo failed to mention
that in his July 25th email to me and Mr. Borseth.
Only calls on my home office extension are recorded. Other phone extensions in my home are
not recorded. This practice began in 2005 while caring for my Mother with Alzheimers disease.
My short-term memory is poor and I needed a way to preserve medically-related calls for later
2
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 2
reference. This could also be considered a disability accommodation under 934.02(4)(b). For
example, Illinois is, by statute, a two-party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme
Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of
private citizens. The consensus is that one-party consensual recording is merely "enhanced note-
taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have
any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.
Since 2006 the business use of my home office extension was civil litigation in Gillespie v.
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., et al., 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, and Gillespie v. HSBC
Bank, et al, case no. 5:05-cv-362-Oc, U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala Div. Since 2010 the
business use of my home office extension additionally included my Justice Network website, and
the following federal lawsuits:
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Case No. 5:10-cv-503-oc WTH-TBS, U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala Division
Appeal No. 12-11213-C, U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Case No. 5:11-cv-539-oc WTH-TBS, U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala Division
Appeal No. 12-11028-B. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
In February 2010 Kirby Rainsberger, Police Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department,
investigated my recording of attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems and found no wrongdoing on
my part or court reporter Mr. Borseth. Mr. Rodems made a false affidavit about our phone call
and submitted the affidavit to the court for tactical advantage. Mr. Rainsberger found Rodems
was not right or accurate in representing to the court as an "exact quote" language that clearly
was not an exact quote. Mr. Borseth transcribed the Rodems call, with the same kind of script
found on Castagliuolo transcript. Mr. Rainsberger found nothing wrong with the transcript made
by Mr. Borseth. Exhibit 3 is Mr. Rainsbergers letter of Feb-22-2010, together with my response.
A complete file with transcript is uploaded on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/58081371/
I believe Mr. Castagliuolo is misinformed about Chapter 934, Florida Statutes as interpreted by
Royal Health Care Servs., Inc., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). In my personal opinion Florida
law prohibits the interception of certain communications, not all recording. The U.S. Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that because only interceptions made through an electronic,
mechanical or other device are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course
of business to record conversations do not violate the law. In other words, the telephone set
intercepts the call, not the recording device, and the phone call is lawfully recorded after
lawful interception. This is in contrast to a court-ordered wiretap where a call is intercepted
before it reaches the telephone set. A land-line home office telephone, really any land-line home
phone, is the type that intercepts a call before it is recorded. That is my personal opinion, not a
legal opinion or legal advice. Upon request I will submit a laymans memorandum of law.
Quite frankly I do not want to make or receive phone calls. I prefer written communication. I
cannot hear well on the phone, and as noted above, my short-term memory is too poor to make
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 3
contemporaneous notes. Email provides written evidence of communication. Making transcripts
of phone calls is too expensive and burdensome to do on a regular basis.
Exhibit 4 is a PDF of the transcript of the call June 14, 2011, at 12:38 p.m. I believe the
transcript is accurate. The transcript shows Automated Answering Machine on page three. I
believe the manufacturer calls this a Telephone Recording Announcer. The announcer
automatically plays whenever the handset is lifted, and announces: This call is being recorded
for quality assurance purposes. That sound starts the recording process automatically. The
recording of my call with Castagliuolo shows that sequence of events.
Because this was an outgoing call, the announcer played its message before Mr. Castagliuolo
answered. This appears to be a design glitch. In any event, I notified Mr. Castagliuolo by email
on June 9, 2011 at 10.41 a.m. that he should email me if he did not want to be recorded. I did not
agree not to record calls with him. Castagliuolo had no expectation of privacy. The transcript
shows I was returning his call. Castagliuolo asked me to call him. He could have sent me an
email. Mr. Castagliuolo choose not to use email, that was his decision.
Mr. Castagliuolo also claims Secondly, you pursuaded (sic) or coerced Mr. Borseth to include
verbiage at the beginning of the transcript which was never spoken by neither you nor me.
While I am not sure what verbiage Castagliuolo refers to, I explained how the Telephone
Recording Announcer works. The other script identifies the parties, date, and time of the call,
and explains my recording practice and reliance on Royal Health Care Servs., Inc.
There was no attempt to persuade or coerce Mr. Borseth as claimed by Castagliuolo. In our five
or six year business relationship I cannot ever recall speaking with Mr. Borseth, either on the
phone or in person, but I could be mistaken. We communicate by email or letter. Our contact is
brief and to the point. Over the years I have found Mr. Borseth very honest and capable. He is far
more knowledgeable about transcripts than me. I have confidence in him and trust his judgment.
Some time ago I provided Mr. Borseth with the script that explains my recording practice and
my reliance on Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. and asked him to include it in the transcript. I have
no problem moving the script to the appearances page or to a separate page. I agree to make
that accommodation for Mr. Castagliuolo if he wants, providing Mr. Borseth agrees to do so.
Mr. Castagliuolos representation of Gillespie
On June 21, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo disobeyed my instructions not to accept a walk-away
settlement agreement in my litigation with Mr. Rodems. Castagliuolo said judges have mud on
their shoes, perhaps a reference to judicial misconduct in may case, but he ran out as soon as the
agreement was signed, and has refused to talk about it. The record shows Castagliuolo made the
decision to settle when I became confused during a coercive confinement deposition to force the
settlement. After I had a meal and regained my senses I promptly disaffirmed the agreement in
writing. From my Petition for Writ of Mandamus, page 4, SC11-1622, Supreme Court of Florida:
My counsel Eugene Castagliuolo (A.7), whom I hired from Craigslist a
couple weeks earlier, made the decision to settle because judges have mud on
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 4
their shoes. I signed the agreement while confused and in a diminished state.
Castagliuolo disobeyed my prior written and verbal instructions not to accept a
walk-away settlement agreement. Once I was released from custody and had a
meal, I realized the settlement was a mistake and promptly disaffirmed the
agreement by written notice to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo and Major James
Livingston of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office. (A.2.1.2-3).
The settlement agreement is so broad that it may cover everyone and everything that happened
prior to June 21, 2011. That would include the call on June 14, 2011. (Exhibit 5).
Mr. Castagliuolos Health Issues
Mr. Castagliuolo has a problem with rage. Castagliuolo claims he is a former prosecutor, and
uses that to threaten and intimidate people. On June 9, 2011 Castagliuolo became enraged
because he felt I sent him too many documents. At that point I fired him because it was apparent
that Castagliuolo was not suitable for the assignment. Castagliuolo later apologized for his
outburst but refused to refund any of the money I prepaid him. I took him back, but that has
proved to be a big mistake. Later I found he had a conflict of interest with the public defender.
Mr. Castagliuolo notified me by email June 15, 2011 at 10:03 p.m. that he planned to argue his
own health issues to Judge Arnold at the hearing the next day: (Exhibit 6)
The game plan is this: "Judge, I've prevailed upon Mr. Gillespie to appear for a
deposition. Due to his health issues and my health issues, I am requesting 60 days to get
this done. Will you please vacate/quash the writ, with a specific instruction to law
enforcement to rescind the warrant ?"
That strategy failed, and literally shows Mr. Castagliuolos health issues were an issue in the
representation. He appears to lack the stamina for litigation, perhaps due to disability.
Mr. Castagliuolo was distracted June 21, 2011 at the deposition over the health of a child,
possibly a family member, and Castagliuolo was mumbling to himself about the matter. At other
times during the deposition Castagliuolo was angry at me. Castagliuolo never prepared me for
the deposition as agreed, and that was a big problem. The record shows there were at least two
ex parte hearings during the deposition, where I was not present before the judge. The ex parte
hearings were not transcribed either, even though a court reporter was present. Mr. Castagliuolo
was visibly shaken when returned, and looked as though he may have been threatened. All he
said to me was judges have mud on their shoes. In defense of Mr. Castagliuolo, part of the
problem is years of unethical behavior by opposing counsel, Ryan Christopher Rodems.
Mr. Castagliuolo has Repeatedly Falsely Accusing Me of Criminal Acts
For the past year Mr. Castagliuolo has repeatedly falsely accusing me of criminal acts. His
behavior shows that Castagliuolo likely has mental problems, apart from his own admission
during our phone call. The abusive language in his emails, and the crazy large font type, is not
how normal adults should communicate.
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 5
The following is a list of threats or other inappropriate behavior by Mr. Castagliuolo:
1. Email June 09, 2011, 12:51 p.m., after I fired Mr. Castagliuolo, he refused to refund fees,
and told me do not contact him, or he shall immediately report your contact to law enforcement
and I shall prosecute you to the full extent of the criminal law. I'm a former prosecutor, so If you
think I'm bluffing, please try me, followed by large crazy font type. (Exhibit 7)
2. Email June 15, 2011, 7.43 p.m. Mr. Castagliuolo announced he was quitting after the
hearing the next day, prior to the deposition, and in breach of our contract. (Exhibit 8)
3. Email June 30, 2011, in response to a pleading I provided, Mr. Castagliuolo said his
response to the court would be forthcoming next week, but he never responded. He also
demanded that I contact him only by mail: Any other form will be reported to Marion County
Sheriff as criminal harassment, & trust me, I will prosecute. (Exhibit 9)
4. Civil Theft Notice, July 1, 2011, Mr. Castagliuolo threatened criminal prosecution under
section 812.012(6)(b), Fla. Stat., and section 772.11 Fla. Stat. (2011) for allegedly obtaining
professional services by false pretenses. Mr. Castagliuolo demanded $1,000. (Exhibit 10).
Attorney Danialle Riggins of Ocala advised me that Castagliuolos threat of criminal prosecution
was not legitimate and that I did not violate any criminal statutes. I responded to Castagliuolo
August 4, 2011 by certified letter that counsel advised I did not violate any criminal statutes, and
set forth his wrongdoing. (Exhibit 11).
5. Email July 15, 2011, Mr. Castagliuolo threatened me over a conflict check with the
public defender previously appointed to represent me. Mr. Castagliuolo failed to disclose a
conflict with his daughter, attorney Maria E. Castagliuolo who works for the public defender.
Maria Castagliuolo was promoted shortly after her father secured a settlement agreement
benefiting the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in my lawsuit. My email to Defender Julie Holt is
enclosed. Castagliuolo wrote: Mr. Gillespie, I have just learned that you have contacted the
employer of a member of my family. As soon as I finish typing this message, I am leaving my
office to personally report your crime to the nearest substation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's
Office, followed by big crazy font type. (Exhibit 12).
6. August 5, 2011, Mr. Castagliuolo demanded $3,000 because my Civil Theft claim
against you has been perfected. Again, attorney Danialle Riggins advised me that
Castagliuolos threat of criminal prosecution was not legitimate and that I did not violate any
criminal statutes. (Exhibit 13).
7. Email August 12, 2011, Mr. Castagliuolo accused me of cowering in your house behind
masked windows, hiding from the mailman, and refusing to accept my certified mail. This
shows paranoia by Mr. Castagliuolo. I simply was not home when the certified letter arrived. I
picked it up later at the post office. Castagliuolo concluded with his typical flourish of threats.
(Exhibit 14). This does not sound like a mentally healthy person:
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 6
Oh, and by the way, I have instructed the support staff in my building to refuse your
certified mail. Similarly, you are hereby advised that you are not to ever again send me
ANYTHING via facsimile transmission. Should you persist in doing so, I will report your
willful ignorance of my demand to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
Mr. Castagliuolo was a disaster as an attorney. In my view he should not be representing people,
especially in court. If he follows through on his lawsuit, I may counterclaim for legal
malpractice, breach of contract, and other such, as set forth in my letter to him August 4, 2011 in
response to his improper Civil Theft Notice. (Exhibit 11).
In Defense of Mr. Castagliuolo - The Unlawful Representation of Ryan Christopher Rodems
In defense of Mr. Castagliuolo, opposing counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems was the underlying
problem. Mr. Castagliuolo even called Rodems an asshole in one email. (Exhibit 15)
Based on what I know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole
Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would
get NOTHING from you. (Page 5, Petition, SC11-1622)
Mr. Rodems refused to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily
attachment for my arrest. In his email to me June 10, 2011, Mr. Castagliuolo stated in part Last
but not least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but
unhappy message. At a time when law enforcement was actively trying to arrest me, Rodems
would not cooperate with Castagliuolo. This put law enforcement at risk for no good reason!
Attorney Robert W. Bauer who represented me had similar problems with Rodems. On August
14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an emergency hearing on garnishment before
Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Rodems' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated my disability to the
point where I can no longer represent my at hearings. I become easily distracted and
confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent
himself. See Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011. http://www.scribd.com/doc/57773675/
I am disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq., the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
701 et. seq., and 825.101(4), Florida Statutes.
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 7
I filed May 27, 2011 Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie in
Hillsborough Co. that shows I have Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Velopharyngeal Incompetence. I also
have impaired hearing, especially under stress. http://www.scribd.com/doc/58070860/
Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case. Mr. Bauer
sent me this email July 8, 2008 at 6.05 p.m. stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be
able to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the
situation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I
believe it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You
have had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much more
difficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be
avoided.
See Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie filed September 18, 2010.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58060341/
Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers estimated on September 17, 2009 the non-pecuniary cost of this
litigation to me at $100,000 for physical and emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation.
Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and emotional ill effects resulting from the
litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome, the book provided to me by Plaintiff. It
is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the nonpecuniary costs of any case, and this
case is no different. In attempting to evaluate the physical and emotional costs of going
forward with the litigation, I considered both short and long-term effects, and the
opportunity cost caused not just by direct time invested in the case but also by loss of
energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this
figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may wish to adjust this figure upwards or
downwards. There is 100% probability these costs will be incurred regardless of the
outcome of the litigation.
The Complaint (Doc. 1), U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., 5:10-cv-503, 135.
Beginning in 2010 Dr. Karin Huffer was my ADA accommodation advocate and designer.
Dr. Huffer diagnoses, treats, and serves patients with invisible disabilities, and is the author of
Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome.
Dr. Huffer provided Gillespie a letter October 28, 2010 documenting the abuses in this case.
(Exhibit 16). Dr. Huffer wrote in part:
As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and
testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 8
possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the Judge and now,
with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with arrest if
he does not succumb to a deposition. (p1, 2)
At this juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds. (p1-2)
Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my medical
advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly being
accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of bullies
to sort out a legal problem. (p2, 2)
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than two
years. (p2, 4).
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.
This litigation was to recover $7,143 stolen by Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J.
Cook from me in the settlement of the Amscot lawsuit. Mr. Rodems is unlawfully representing
himself against me, a former client in a substantially related matter, see McPartland v. ISI Inv.
Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is
uploaded on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/55956605/
The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Conflict of Judge Claudia R. Isom, and ADA denial, July 30,
2012, shows the conflict of Mr. Rodems, former partner Jonathan Alpert, Judge Isom, and
husband Woody Isom, and is uploaded on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/95369974/
On February 4, 2006 I moved to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. Disqualification
was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029,
M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory authority on disqualification in Tampa since
entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich, U.S. District Court, M.D. of Fla., Tampa Division:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional
impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.
[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show
existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 9
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for
purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing
party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court
must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal
advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial
relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant
and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information
was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
McPartland cites State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 75 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991), a
Florida Supreme Court case. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I found
McPartland and other similar cases in 2010.
On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems was heard. Judge Richard Nielsen failed
to disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029,
M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of McPartland. Upon information and belief, Mr.
Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose McPartland to Judge Nielsen:
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be
directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing
counsel, in this instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v.
ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal
authority directly adverse to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are
just two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the
Table of Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully
inform the court on applicable law whether favorable or adverse to position of
client so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of
the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced by
this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr. Rodems and
BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
Paragraph 61, Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. July 9, 2010, also Exhibit 10 to the Complaint
in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc, and is uploaded on Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/
On January 13, 2006 Judge Richard A. Nielsen found by Order that I established a cause of
action for fraud and breach of contract against Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA and William J.
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 10
Cook. Partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence of
another partner when the later acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney.
Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There
was an actual conflict in Mr. Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves.
Because he had a conflict in this case, Mr. Rodems took every opportunity to disrupt the
proceedings, present false testimony, and not cooperate with counsel. Over the course of this
lawsuit that began in 2005, Mr. Rodems improperly obtained money sanctions against me, and
by 2011 had obtained a writ of bodily attachment, used to conduct a coercive confinement
deposition to force a settlement. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/95369974/
On May 27, 2011 the public defender was appointed to represent me but Judge Arnold relieved
the public defender immediately prior to the contempt hearing and I had no representation.
On June 1, 2011 Judge James Arnold issued an arrest warrant for me for civil contempt on a writ
of bodily attachment obtained by Mr. Rodems through a series of ex parte hearings where
Rodems provided false testimony. Judge Arnold is the fifth judge assigned to the case. There are
a total of 18 related cases. (Exhibit 17). The wrongdoing in this case is well documented in
thousands of pages of documents.
I am preparing a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. The
question of Mr. Rodems conflict, and Mr. Castagliuolo conflict and disability, will be
presented with other questions, such as the failure of The Florida Bar to protect the public.
FL Bar Rule 4-8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct
It is clear that Mr. Rodems is guilty of misconduct, but none of the lawyers or judges with
knowledge of this case have reported Rodems misconduct as required by Bar Rule 4-8.3.
FL Bar Rule 4-8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer
has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial
question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
This includes Ms. Chapman, who represents Mr. Bauer. While Ms. Chapman has been the model
of civility, and I appreciate her graciousness, Ms. Chapman has not responded to my email query
of November 17, 2011 about the ethics of Mr. Rodems securing a settlement for Mr. Bauer:
On another matter, I dont see how Mr. Rodems can lawfully or ethically represent your
client, and my former counsel, Robert W. Bauer, and the Law Office of Robert W. Bauer,
in this matter, through the so-called Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release
of June 21, 2011. What is your view? (Exhibit 18)(settlement agreement added)
Attorney General Pam Bondi
August 1, 2012
Page - 11
By way of this letter I am making a referral to Florida Lawyers Assistance for Mr. Castagliuolo.
Hopefully he will seek assistance. Mr. Castagliuolo needs help. Mr. Borseth, myself, and the
public deserve protection from lawyers like Mr. Castagliuolo, and Rodems too.
Please advise about my long-time, well-known practice of recording phone calls. If you want a
memorandum of law, prepared by me, a non-lawyer who did not attend law school, I will
provide one. I researched this subject considerably years ago and still have the cases and other
information, although it is now dated. My intent is to comply with the law. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Telephone (352) 854-7807, all calls are recorded for quality assurance purposes.
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Website: http://yousue.org/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/ngillespie
Enclosures
cc: PDF only by email:
Michael J. Cohen, Executive Director, Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.
Paul F. Hill, General Counsel, The Florida Bar
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation
Michael M. Sevi, Office of General Counsel, Gov. Rick Scott
Dr. Karin Huffer, prepared ADA report for Neil Gillespie
Catherine Barbara Chapman, counsel for Robert W. Bauer
Michael Borseth
Eugene P. Castagliuolo
Ps. If I hear from Mr. Castagliuolo again, I will forward his communication to each of you.
CISTAGlIllllLAw GIIIP, P. A.
2451 MeMulll. 11111111.11
Cllarwallr, Fllrilia 33159
TEl: 1121) 11 2 3 3 3 3
FAX: 1121) 12 5 0 3 8 9
RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT -:#(
Date: b/3/t2oI)
, I
00
Received from NElL 81 LLE6-P, E
the sum of $ I'} ODD. )5)('.J(
/
on behalf of CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A. in the form of:
o Check
o Money Order
WMJTf?j) '7D FbI( AA/b
A"'fIEAJJ)f1 tV l? E .t\J D Ef'l>6("1) 0Ai) -rH' .1)/(7 () F
CVH/CH H4s l/E-r 7D IJE.- l::ETRMJNb6
www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com
3
Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: documents
Page 1 of 5
I like this letter. It's concise, and it contains multiple exhibits indicating a spirit of cooperation
with Rodems' discovery requests. I'm not carting a 51 page document with me tomorrow (3
copies no less) to give to people who aren't going to read it anyway. But I will hand up a copy of
this letter to Judge Arnold.
The game plan is this: "Judge, I've prevailed upon Mr. Gillespie to appear for a deposition.
Due to his health issues and my health issues, I am requesting 60 days to get this done. Will you
please vacate/quash the writ, with a specific instruction to law enforcement to rescind the
warrant ?"
Then, in the next 60 days, you file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (presuming this trust of yours which
everyone's talking about doesn't mean you don't qualify under the means test), and
abracadabra, Rodems and this state court lawsuit are history.
www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLI UOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMul l en Boot h Road, Cl ear w at er , Fl or i da 33759
(727) 712-3333
Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC
101-1330).
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (and any associated files) from Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A. is for the sole use of the intended
recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or
other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original
message.
--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:
From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Subject: Re: documents
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 9:32 PM
See the attached letter to Mr. Rodems dated June 25, 2010. This letter is also "Exhibit E"
to the 51 page Notice of Fraud on the Court, that you read 50% of, below.
2010, 07-27-10, Notice Of Fraud On The Court by Ryan C. Rodems - Discovery, w
exhibits.
Rodems has purposely confused the discovery in this matter. Rodems made two different
discovery demands June 1, 2010 - a Deposition Duces Tecum, and Defendants Motion
4
Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: documents
Page 1 of 3
No no no no and no. This is all too much. I read about 50% of the 50+ pages of that July 2010
document you referred me to, and I am not litigating a single issue raised in that document
tomorrow. NONE of that stuff is at issue tomorrow. The only thing that is at issue tomorrow is
your freedom. End of story. My sole role tomorrow, after which I shall be finished as your
lawyer, shall be to do my utmost best to prevail upon the kindness of Judge Arnold to vacate the
writ and resultant arrest warrant.
Neil, I cannot stop working on all of my other cases for $1,000 or even $2,000. I simply can't do
it.
Tomorrow, I will be your staunch advocate, but after tomorrow, my role in this matter will be
over.
www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLI UOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMul l en Boot h Road, Cl ear w at er , Fl or i da 33759
(727) 712-3333
Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC
101-1330).
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (and any associated files) from Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A. is for the sole use of the intended
recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or
other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original
message.
--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:
From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Subject: Re: documents
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 7:23 PM
Eugene,
The deposition dates from 2008 when Mr. Bauer represented me. Then nothing
happened in the case for a year, from August 13, 2008 when Mr. Bauer moved to
withdrawal until Judge Barton granted the withdrawal October 1, 2009.
Then Mr. Rodems scheduled a deposition in December 2009 and another in June 2010. I
responded to each. Then Mr. Rodems wrote a letter to Judge Cook July 12, 2010. I
refuted that by notice July 27, 2010. Rodems had all the documents and/or responses at
that point as shown in the pleading. Judge Cook issued the contempt order September
5
CASTAGlIUOlO LAw GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMulllD Illth Ilad
Cllarwallr, Fllrlda 33159
TEL: (121) 112 -3333
FAX: 1121) 1 2 5 - 0 3 8 9
CIVIL THEFT NOTICE
TO: Neil J. Gillespie
LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: 8092 S. W. 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you have obtained professional services from me by
false pretenses, fraud, and/or deception, in violation of Florida Statute 812.012(6)(b), for which
you owe me $1 ,000.00, as you promised and agreed to pay me. Section 772.11 Florida Statutes
(2011) permits me to make claim against you for triple the amount of damages sustained by me
by my deprivation by you of the sum total of $1,000.00. TRIPLE THE SUM OF $1,000.00 IS
$3,000.00.
This is my demand that you pay me the sum of $1 ,000.00 within 30 days after your
receipt of this notice.
Dated: 11: I, IOlon
r ,
EUGENE P. CASTAGLIUOLO
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL # 7009-2820-0000-5183-3510
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
6
VIA FAX (727) 725-0389 and
USPS First Class Mail and
USPS Certified Mail, RRR, 7010 1670 0001 9008 0543
August 4, 2011
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A.
2451 McMullen Booth Road
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Dear Mr. Castagliuolo:
In response to your "Civil Theft Notice" dated July 1, 2011, counsel has advised me that your
claim is legally insufficient, therefore I decline payment.
You are in breach of contract. You committed legal malpractice. You failed to prepare for the
deposition. You failed to represent me in bankruptcy. You failed to timely obtain a copy of the
writ of bodily attachment that was available from Judge Arnold at all times, according to Major
Livingston. Instead you "threw me under the bus" and accepted a walk-away settlement that you
were specifically instruct, in writing, not to accept. You are also in violation of the Americans
With Disabilities Act (ADA) relative to the lack of ADA accommodation(s) during the
deposition. You failed to engage in negotiations with Mr. Rodems beneficial to me such as, but
not limited to, the payment of my attorneys fees. You failed to disclose a conflict of interest with
your daughter who works for the Public Defender previously appointed to represent me. The
foregoing is representative of, but not inclusive of, every claim I may have against you.
You failed your duty as an attorney to report Mr. Rodems' conduct prejudicial to the
administration ofjustice, Rodems' misconduct under Bar Rule 4-8.4(d), when Rodems and his
staff failed to cooperate with you, failed to return your phone.calls, or failed to provide you a
copy of the writ of bodily attachment upon your request.
You were terminated from representing me by email June 9, 2011 at 12:44 PM. You refused to
provide any refund of advance payment. You took advantage of my status as a person subj ect to
arrest on a writ of bodily attachment and threatened me, continued the representation, and
extorted from me the promise of more money and other such.
t
l
7
Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:15 AM
Page 1 of 1
Mr. Gillespie, I have just learned that you have contacted the employer of a member of my family. As
soon as I finish typing this message, I am leaving my office to personally report your crime to the nearest
substation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
BE FOREWARNED TO AVOID ANY FURTHER CONTACT WITH ME OR
WITH ANY MEMBER OF MY FAMILY OR WITH ANYONE CONNECTED
WITH MY FAMILY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY EMPLOYERS.
www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLI UOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMul l en Boot h Road, Cl ear w at er , Fl or i da 33759
(727) 712-3333
Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC
101-1330).
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (and any associated files) from Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A. is for the sole use of the intended
recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or
other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original
message.
8
Neil Gillespie
From: "Julie Holt" <HoltJ@PD13.STATE.FL.US>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: conflict check
Page 1 of 1
Without further explanation for your request, I do not feel it is appropriate to respond
to this request.
From: Neil Gillespie [ mailt o: neilgillespie@mfi.net ]
Sent : Friday, July 15, 2011 4: 39 PM
To: Julie Holt
Subj ect : conflict check
Ms. Julianne M. Holt
The Law Offices of Julianne M. Holt
Public Defender of the 13th Judicial Circuit
700 East Twiggs Street, 5th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Dear Ms. Holt:
This is a conflict check for your office and attorney-employee Maria E. Castagliuolo, and
attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo of Clearwater, Florida. What, if any, is their shared
consanguinity to the third degree? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
(352) 854-7807
neilgillespie@mfi.net
Confidentiality Notice: You are advised that this communication is for use only by the intended recipient(s) and contains information that
may be secret, private, privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. This includes any and all attachments hereto. If you are
not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any saving, reproduction, use, copying or distribution of this communication, in
whole or in part, in any manner, is strictly prohibited. If received in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete
this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of
the Office of the Public Defender of the 13th Judicial Circuit of Florida, you should maintain its contents in confidence (not discuss the
contents with others or otherwise share the contents with others) in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may
be available to protect confidentiality.
Additional Notice: If you are not a current client of the Office of the Public Defender of the 13th Judicial Circuit you should not construe
anything in this e-mail in a manner to believe that you have become a client of the firm, unless this e-mail contains a specific statement that
you have become a client of the firm. By responding in this e-mail, the Office of the Public Defender of the 13th Judicial Circuit has not
necessarily agreed to undertake representation of you or others. Further, if you are not a current client of the Office of the Public Defender
of the 13th Judicial Circuit you should not disclose anything to the Office of the Public Defender of the 13th Judicial Circuit in reply that you
expect it to hold in secret, in confidence, or otherwise have protected by attorney-client privilege. This communication does not constitute
consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.
CASTAGUIOlO law GROIP, P. A.
2451 McM.UIII1111
Clllrwltlr, fllrlill 33159
TEL: (121) 11 2 - 3 333
fAX: (121) 125-0389
August 5, 2011
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7009-2820-0000-5183-3558
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S. W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
RE: One-Time Nonnegotiable Offer of Settlement
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Pursuant to the Civil Theft Notice which was served upon you via Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, on July 5, 2011, you had thirty (30) days thereafter to comply with the demand contained in
said Notice. Accordingly, your compliance was required no later than August 4, 2011. Today is August
5, 2011, and you have failed to comply. Furthermore, you faxed me a letter yesterday in which you stated
explicitly that you "decline payment." Therefore, given the foregoing facts and circumstances, my Civil
Theft Claim against you has been perfected, and you are now indebted to me in the amount of $3,000.00
(THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS).
You can count on me to aggressively pursue collection of that sum from you. However, in an
effort to avoid further litigation and to put a permanent end to our relationship, I am making a one-time,
non-negotiable settlement offer to you, as follows: I W!U accept $500.00 from you in full satisfaction
of my claim against you for attorneys' fees due and owing, as long as I am in receipt of said sum
on or before November 11, 2011. This expansive deadline for acceptance is designed to give you
plenty of time to accumulate that sum.
You can accept my offer by simply tendering $500.00 to me on or before November 11,2011.
If you fail to do so, then you will have rejected my offer, and in that event, I shall file suit against you to
recover the full $3,000.00 that you owe me on Monday, November 14,2011. I have been very successful
collecting unpaid attorneys' fees, and I am quite confident that I will be equally successful obtaining a
judgment against you. If you think I'm bluffing, try me.
-
OTHER THAN TO ACCEPT MY OFFER AS SPECIFIED ABOVE OR TO CONTACT ME
THROUGH YOUR ATTORNEY, YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED NOT TO CONTACT ME YOURSELF
VIA ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. YOU ARE FURTHER WARNED THAT I SHALL TAKE
APPROPRIATE ACTION IF I SHOULD SEE ANYTHING ABOUT ME ON YOUR RIDICULOUS
WEBSITE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Sincerely,
EUGENE P. CASTAGLlUOLO
9
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,
APPEAL NO.: 12-11213-C
Appellants/Plaintiffs,
vs. APPEAL NO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.
_______________________________/
CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF PRO SE
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING PROHIBITION BY DISTRICT COURT
In support of Disability Accommodation and IFP Fee Waiver
1. Appellants, NEIL J. GILLESPIE (Gillespie) and ESTATE OF PENELOPE
GILLESPIE, give notice of electronic filing (e-filing) prohibition in the District Court,
which cost Gillespie not less than $1,094.94, and 178.5 hours labor. The District Court
requires pro se litigants to file paper documents with the Court, and does not permit pro
se e-filing without authorization, but there is no procedure for obtaining authorization.
This practice by the District Court is unconstitutional as set forth in this notice.
2. This Court dismissed Gillespies appeal no. 12-11028-B on July 13, 2012 for
failure to pay filing and docketing fees. The extra cost of paper filing to Gillespie is not
less than $1,094.94. This money could have been used to pay the fees. Gillespie is
indigent and/or insolvent. This Court gave Gillespie notice July 16, 2012 in appeal no.
12-11213-C that pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-1 (b) it will dismiss the appeal
9
unless he pays $455 to the District Court. Gillespie is indigent and/or insolvent and
cannot pay the fee. The extra cost of paper filing to Gillespie of not less than $1,094.94
represents money that could have been used to pay the fees.
3. The additional time required of a pro se litigant for paper-only filing is a burden.
This burden is especially onerous to the disabled. Gillespie is disabled. Gillespie spent
not less than 178.5 hours filing paper documents. The time saved by e-filing would have
allowed Gillespie to make better pleadings. This extra time burden is unconstitutional.
PACER and CM/ECF
4. Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public
access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal
appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet.
PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing
public access to court information via a centralized service. See http://www.pacer.gov/
5. The Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system is the Federal
Judiciary's comprehensive case management system for all bankruptcy, district and
appellate courts. CM/ECF allows courts to accept filings and provide access to filed
documents over the Internet. See http://www.pacer.gov/cmecf/ (Exhibit 1).
CM/ECF keeps out-of-pocket expenses low, gives concurrent access to case files
by multiple parties, and offers expanded search and reporting capabilities. The system
also offers the ability to: immediately update dockets and make them available to users,
file pleadings electronically with the court, and download documents and print them
directly from the court system. See http://www.pacer.gov/cmecf/ (Exhibit 1)
CM/ECF Policy in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
6. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida filed a
CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order, No. 6:07-MC-0027-ORL-19, by Chief Judge
Patricia C. Fawsett, signed February 28, 2007. (Exhibit 2). The Order states that
electronic filing is mandatory:
I(A) EFFECTIVE DATE
Electronic filing is mandatory, unless otherwise permitted by these administrative
procedures, by a general order of the Court, or by authorization of the Judge;. All
documents filed in Civil and Criminal cases in this District on or after July 12,
2004, no matter when a case was originally filed, shall be filed electronically.
The Courts CM/ECF Order requires pro se to file in paper format unless authorized to
file electronically, but provides no information on how to obtain such authorization:
III(C) PRO SE FILER
Unless authorized to file electronically, a pro se filer shall file any pleading and
other paper in paper format. The Clerk will scan and file these papers
electronically and will also maintain a paper file of such documents. If authorized
by the assigned Judge, a party proceeding pro se may file electronically. If
authorized to file electronically, the pro se filer must follow these procedures.
7. The Middle Districts CM/ECF Order is discriminatory on its face to pro se filers,
and contrary to PACERs mandate - Public Access to Court Electronic Records. The
Courts Order violates the Constitutionally protected rights of pro se filers as follows:
First Amendment, Pro se free speech, pro se right to petition for a governmental
redress of grievances, in the customary manner;
Fifth Amendment, depravation of liberty to pro se filers to file electronically;
Eighth Amendment, prohibition from excessive fines; the excessive cost to pro se
filers to make, transport, and mail or serve by courier paper filings to the Court;
Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Constitution does not prohibit pro se electronic
filing, so that right is retained by the people;
Fourteenth Amendment, the due process clause, and the equal protection clause.
8. Gillespie submitted October 1, 2010 Plaintiffs Motion to File Electronically in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-
WTH-DAB, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. (Doc. 6)
(Exhibit 3). The motion was brief, at the suggestion of personnel in the Clerks office:
Pursuant to local Rule 1.0t(a) Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves to file documents
electronically in this lawsuit.
The Courts CM/ECF Order, described above in paragraph 6, and attached as Exhibit 2,
does not provide further instruction on obtaining pro se e-filing authorization.
9. U.S. Magistrate Judge David A. Barker Denied by Order (Doc. 17) October 24,
2010, Gillespies motion to e-file. (Exhibit 4). The Court held:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion To File Electronically (Doc. No.
6). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, seeks leave to file documents
electronically in this action. Pro se litigants, however, are generally not permitted
access to the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF)
system unless extenuating circumstances exist. Because Plaintiff has failed to
state any reason why he needs access to the CM/ECF system, Plaintiffs Motion
To File Electronically (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED.
The Courts Order does not give Gillespie leave to amend his motion, or show cause of
extenuating circumstances, or any other reason to e-file. However it should be obvious
that a pro se litigant would want to e-file for the same reasons that attorneys e-file:
CM/ECF keeps out-of-pocket expenses low, gives concurrent access to case files
by multiple parties, and offers expanded search and reporting capabilities. The
system also offers the ability to: immediately update dockets and make them
available to users, file pleadings electronically with the court, and download
documents and print them directly from the court system.
$811.48 Additional Cost of Paper Filing in Case No. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB
130.5 Additional Hours Time Spent Filing Paper in Case No. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB
10. a. Gillespie estimates that he incurred not less than $811.48 in additional expenses
in case no. 5:10-cv-503 because the Court denied his motion to e-file. Gillespie resides
13.9 miles from the Court, according to Google Maps. (Exhibit 5). A round trip is 27.8
miles. To file paper documents with the Court, Gillespie must either hand deliver the
documents to the Court, or drive to the post office and mail the documents, or hire a
courier service to deliver the documents to the Court. Each of these options are costly and
time consuming, but hand delivery appears to be the most efficient.
b. Gillespie believes he made not less than 31 round trips in his vehicle to file
paper documents, which amounts to not less than 861.8 miles. At least 9 trips were made
in 2010, at least seventeen 17 trips made in 2011, and at least 5 trips in 2012.
c. Gillespie estimates his mileage cost for filing paper documents at $461.48. The
standard business mileage rate set by the Internal Revenue Service in 2010 was 50 cents
per mile; in 2011 the rate was 55.5 cents per mile; in 2012 the rate is 55.5 cents per mile.
2010: 9 trips x 27.8 miles each = 250.20 miles x $0.50 = $125.10
2011: 17 trips x 27.8 miles each = 472.60 miles x $0.55 = $259.93
2012: 5 trips x 27.8 miles each = 139 miles x $0.55 = $76.45
Total mileage costs: $461.48
d. Gillespie estimates his postage cost at $150 for filing and serving paper
documents by mail. While relatively few paper documents were mailed to the court, there
was postage to serve copies to the parties, as well as to mail Rule 4(d) waivers of service.
e. Gillespie estimates his paper and printing cost at $200 for filing and serving
paper documents by mail, for paper, envelopes, ink, toner, and drum cartridges, etc.
Total for postage and supplies: $350.00
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: $811.48
11. Gillespie spent at least 46.5 hours driving to the Court to file paper documents.
Google maps estimates about 28 minutes to drive from Gillespies residence to the Court.
(Exhibit 5). A round trip is 56 minutes. Additional time is needed to park, walk to the
Court building, pass through security, ride the elevator to the third floor, and file paper
documents with a deputy clerk. The entire process takes about 1.5 hours. Gillespie made
not less than 31 trips to the Court, and expended about 46.5 hours - over a weeks work.
(31 trips x 1.5 hours = 46.5 hours). In addition, for items filed in paper, approximately
two hours average additional time is needed to print and assemble paper documents for
hand delivery to the Court, and more time to prepare documents for mailing to the Court,
or to serve paper documents by mail on parties. (42 filings x 2 hours = 84 hours).
Gillespie believes that two hours is a conservative estimate of the time needed to
physically assemble, and prepare for hand delivery or mailing, paper documents to the
court. Simple filings take less time, and larger paper filings take much longer to prepare.
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: 130.5 hours. (46.5 + 84).
$283.46 Additional Cost of Paper Filing in Case No. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS
48 Additional Hours of Time Spent Filing Paper in Case No. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS
12. a. Gillespie estimates that he incurred not less than $283.46 in additional expenses
in case no. 5:11-cv-539 because he was not authorized to e-file. Gillespie estimates his
mileage cost for filing paper documents at $183.46:
2011: 6 trips x 27.8 miles each = 166.8 miles x $0.55 = $91.74
2012: 6 trips x 27.8 miles each = 166.8 miles x $0.55 = $91.74
Total mileage costs: $183.48.
b. Gillespie estimates his postage cost at $25 for serving paper documents by
mail. While no paper documents were mailed to the court in this case, there was postage
to serve copies on the parties, and to mail Rule 4(d) waivers of service to parties.
c. Gillespie estimates his paper and printing cost at $75 for filing and serving
paper documents, for paper, envelopes, ink, toner, and drum cartridges, etc.
Total for postage and supplies: $100.
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: $283.48.
13. Gillespie spent not less than 18 hours driving to the Court to file paper
documents. As described in paragraph 11, the entire process takes about 1.5 hours.
Gillespie made not less than 12 trips to the Court. (12 trips x 1.5 hours = 18 hours). For
items filed in paper, approximately two hours average additional time is needed to print
and assemble paper documents for hand delivery to the Court, and more time to prepare
documents for service by mail to parties. (15 filings x 2 hours = 30 hours).
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: 48 hours. (18 + 30).
Combined Totals for Additional Costs and Time
14. Combined totals calculated as follows:
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: $811.48.
Total costs to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: $283.48.
Combined total costs to file paper in both cases: $1,094.96.
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB: 130.5 hours.
Total time to file paper in case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc-WTH-TBS: 48 hours.
Combined time to file paper in both cases: 178.50 hours.
Seven (7) Hour Time Advantage with Electronic Case Filing in District Court
15. There is a seven (7) hour time advantage to e-filing within the same time zone.
The Ocala Clerks offices closes at 4:00 p.m., with after-hours drop off until 5:00 p.m.
Those authorized to e-file have until midnight.
FRCP, Rule 6. Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Rule 6(a)(4) Last Day Defined. Unless a different time is set by a
statute, local rule, or court order, the last day ends:
(A) for electronic filing, at midnight in the court's time zone; and
(B) for filing by other means, when the clerk's office is scheduled to close.
E-Filing as a Disability Accommodation
16. Gillespies motion to e-file is a reasonable disability accommodation request.
a. Gillespies disability request submitted to the District Court September 28,
2010 in case no. 5:10-cv-503, and resubmitted publicly in Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies
Notice of Filing Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie
(Doc. 36) , Exhibit 2, page 17, states as follows:
ADA Request No.6: Mr. Gillespie requests time to scan thousands of pages of
documents in this case to electronic PDF format. This case and underlying cause
of action covers a ten year period and the files have become unmanageable and
confusing relative to Gillespie's disability. Mr. Gillespie is not able to concentrate
when handling a large amount of physical files and documents. He is better able
to manage the files and documents when they are organized and viewable on his
computer. Mr. Gillespie will bear the cost of converting files and documents to
PDF. (Doc. 36, Page 47 of 62 Page ID 803).
Gillespies disability notice to the Court (Doc. 36) shows Depression, Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder, Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, and
Velopharyngeal Incompetence.
b. The notice shows that Since March 3, 2006, Ryan Christopher Rodems,
counsel for the Defendants, has directed, with malice aforethought, a course of harassing
conduct toward Gillespie that has aggravated his disability, caused substantial emotional
distress and serves no legitimate purposeGillespie is disabled, and Mr. Rodems knows
of Gillespie's disability from Defendants' prior representation of him. (Doc. 36, Page 1
of 62 Page ID 757). The notice shows in paragraph 3 a statement on the record by
Gillespies former attorney Robert W. Bauer about Mr. Rodems:
3. Mr. Rodems has set a level of animosity in this lawsuit best described by
Gillespies former attorney Robert W. Bauer August 14, 2008 during an
Emergency Hearing on garnishment before Judge Marva Crenshaw (p16, line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Rodems' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated Gillespie's disability to
the point where Gillespie can no longer represent himself at hearings. Gillespie
becomes easily distracted and confused, and can no longer speak coherently
enough during a hearing to represent himself. See Plaintiffs Motion For
Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation Request, and Memorandum of
Law filed May 24, 2011.
(Doc. 36, Page 2 of 62 Page ID 758)
c. The Complaint (Doc. 1) shows Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers estimated on
September 17, 2009 the non-pecuniary cost of this litigation to Gillespie at $100,000 for
physical and emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation. (Doc. 1, 135, page 39).
d. A study by the World Health Organisation shows depression is more damaging
to everyday health than chronic diseases such as angina, arthritis, asthma and diabetes.
Researchers found if people are ill with other conditions, depression makes them worse.
Somnath Chatterji of the World Health Organisation led the study. The most disabling
combination was diabetes and depression, the researchers said. "If you live for one year
with diabetes and depression together you are living the equivalent of 60 percent of full
health," Chatterji said in a telephone interview. News of this study was reported by
Reuters on September 7, 2007. (Exhibit 6). The study is reported in the Lancet Medical
Journal, Vol. 370 No. 9590 pp 851-858. (Exhibit 7).
e. Gillespies ability to perform the kinds of tasks need in this lawsuit, such as
reading and handling documents, has declined further since ADA Request No. 6 was
initially submitted to the state court in February 2010. Gillespies concentration and
short-term memory have declined, and he becomes confused when handling numbers of
physical files and documents. He able to manage PDF files and documents when they are
organized and viewable on his computer. The computer screen helps Gillespie maintain
his concentration. When he looks away from the computer screen to perform manual
tasks, such as looking in a file drawer for a pleading, he often forgets the purpose of the
task. As such, authorization to e-file is a reasonable disability accommodation.
District Clerk Failed to Comply With CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order
17. As set forth in Gillespies letter to District Clerk Sheryl L. Loesch dated April 5,
2012 (Exhibit 8), the Clerk failed to file on PACER Exhibits 1-15 to Gillespies
Complaint (Doc. 1) in case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-DAB. Gillespie provided paper
copies to the Clerk for e-filing as required by CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order,
No. 6:07-MC-0027-ORL-19: (Exhibit 3)
III(C) PRO SE FILER
Unless authorized to file electronically, a pro se filer shall file any pleading and
other paper in paper format. The Clerk will scan and file these papers
electronically and will also maintain a paper file of such documents.
However the Clerk failed to comply with the Order which required the Clerk to scan and
file these papers electronically. Gillespie notified the District Clerk Loesch of multiple
failures by the Clerk, but has not received any response to his letter. (Exhibit 8). Had
Gillespie been authorized to e-file, he could have corrected these mistakes by the Clerk:
THE CLERK FAILED TO PUT VITAL DOCUMENTS ON CM/ECF AND
PACER
2. The Clerk failed to put vital documents I filed in this case on the Case
Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system to view on PACER.
One such document is Doc. 2, Exhibits 1-15 to the Complaint (Doc. 1) filed
September 28, 2010 when I personally commenced the case in the Ocala Division
and hand-delivered the complaint and exhibits to a deputy clerk.
Doc. 2, Exhibit 4 is my Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel
Ryan Christopher Rodems & Baker, Rodems & Cook, PA submitted July 9, 2010
in the state court action; in this Court the motion is Doc. 2, Exhibit 4 to the
Complaint (Doc. 1), but not viewable on PACER. This negatively affected my
case because Magistrate Judge David Baker, who is located in Orlando, could not
view the document located in Ocala when he made rulings in the case. The
document was only viewable in person in Ocala, or by request to send the
physical file to Orlando. There is no evidence that the physical file was sent to
Orlando.
I brought this issue to the attention of Chief Judge Anne Conway by letter dated
March 22, 2012, see Doc. 68, Motion To Amend The Judgment, the letter is
attached as an exhibit to the motion, and contains 33 pages; a three page letter to
Chief Judge Conway and 30 pages of enclosures.
PRE-LITIGATION COMMUNICATION WITH JAMES LEANHEART
3. Prior to personally filing this pro se case, I wrote August 30, 2010 to
James Leanheart, Court Operations Supervisor, about filing documents on the
CM/ECF system and PACER. This is the operative language from paragraph five
of the accompanying letter: (Exhibit 2)
Myclaimsinvolve documents in the state court record from the
Circuit Civil Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, includingan amended
complaint (150 pages), and an emergency motion to disqualify counsel
(190 pages). What is the procedure for including or incorporating these
numerous and sometimes large documents into mycivil rights
complaint?
Mr. Leanheart did not respond in writing, but we spoke by phone September 10,
2010. Following Mr. Leanhearts instructions, I filed all the documents in paper
September 28, 2010. I personally filed the case September 28, 2010 and
personally handed the paper documents to a deputy clerk. But the Clerk did not
put any of the exhibits on the CM/ECF system and/or PACER, not the amended
complaint (Exhibit 3), not the emergency motion to disqualify counsel (Exhibit
4), none of the 15 exhibits were put on PACER. I complained to the deputy clerks
in Ocala more than once to no avail. I complained in person a number of times
and the error was not corrected. I live in Ocala and almost always hand deliver
my documents to a deputy clerk in order to save the cost of postage or courier
service as I am indigent.
My letter dated August 30, 2010 to Mr. Leanheart states I planned to file a pro se
lawsuit in two weeks or so, but I was delayed until September 28, 2010 due to
mental illness and other disabilities, see Doc. 36 for my notice of filing disability
information.
INCORRECT DATE/TIME STAMP ON COMPLAINT BY CLERK
8. The Clerks date/time stamp shows the Complaint (Doc. 1) was filed
2010 SEP 28 AM 7:47 which time is incorrect. The Court does not open until
8:30 AM, and I filed the Complaint myself in person by handing the Complaint
directly to a deputy clerk about 8:47 AM.
INCORRECT PLAINITFF ADDRESS BY CLERK OF COURT
9. The Clerk used an incorrect mailing address for me, necessitating a
corrective motion, see Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Mailing Address, filed
October 5, 2010. (Doc. 9). My correct address is listed on the complaint and every
document filed in this case. My address has not changed since 2005. The motion
states as follows:
Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves Court to correct his mailing address:
1. The Court is sending Plaintiff Gillespie's mail to the wrong
address. Please use the correct address, listed on the complaint: 8092 SW
I15th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481.
INCORRECT PLAINITFF PHONE NUMBER BY CLERK OF COURT
10. The Clerk used an incorrect telephone number for me, necessitating a
corrective motion, see Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Phone Number, filed October
13, 2010. (Doc. 15). My correct phone number is listed on the complaint and
every document filed in this case. My home phone number has not changed since
2005. The motion states as follows:
Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves the Court to correct his phone number
and states:
1. The PACER docket shows an incorrect phone number for Plaintiff pro
se Gillespie. The correct phone number is listed on the complaint: (352)
854-7807.
Gillespie believes the Clerks failure to comply with the Courts CM/ECF Order and scan
and file electronically his paper documents is a violation of due process.
Other U.S. District Courts Offer Online Pro Se E-filing Registration and Instruction
18. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California offers
online e-filing registration instructions for pro se litigants, found at this URL:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ECF/proseregistration
1. A computer, the internet, and email on a daily basis so you can e-file your
documents and receive notifications from the Court.
2. A scanner to scan documents that are only in paper format (like exhibits).
3. A printer/copier because each documents that you e-file will also need to be
sent to the judge in hard copy (the judges copy is called the chambers copy).
4. A word-processing program to create your documents.
5. A .pdf reader and a .pdf writer, which enables you to convert word processing
documents into .pdf format. Only .pdf documents are accepted for e-filing. Adobe
Acrobat is the most common program used. The reader (Adobe Acrobat Reader)
is free, but the writer is not. Some word processing programs come with a .pdf
writer already installed.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California offers an online
pro se ECF Registration form in active PDF format.
Gillespie PACER Account In Good Standing Since 1999
19. Gillespie has maintained a PACER account in good standing since December 22,
1999, thereby demonstrating his ability to competently handle the account. (Exhibit 9).
Gillespie meets the technical requirements for e-filing set forth by the U.S. District Court
for the N.D. of California shown in paragraph 17, and on the Courts website.
Cost to File Paper Documents in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
20. Gillespie incurred time and costs filing paper documents in this Court. The
Eleventh Circuit, located in Atlanta, Georgia, is 376 miles from Gillespies home in
Ocala, Florida, according to Google Maps. A round trip is 752 miles. This distance
requires Gillespie to submit paper documents to this Court by mail or by courier at
considerable expense. There is also a time delay in serving documents by mail or courier,
as compared to filing documents personally by hand delivery to the Court.
uer, et .
CONCLUSION
21. The District Court's denial of Gillespie's motion to e-file denied him equal rights
with all the other parties in this case, all of whom could e-file pleadings and documents
from the comfort of their office or home at little or no extra expense. For the reasons set
forth in this notice, Gillespie was wrongfully denied authorization to e-file in the u.S.
District Court, Middle District of Florida, contrary to the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and suffered damages of not less than
$1,094.94, and sustained the loss of not less than 178.5 hours of labor. This time and
money could have been better spent on G-illespie's actions in the U.S. District Court, and
the payment of fees in this Appellate Court, as well as expenses in his state court actions,
and was a significant factor in the negative outcomes of those actions, thereby creating
new additional Constitutional and other grounds for redress.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED July 27, 2012..
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was provided July 27, 2012 by
email onlytoCatherineBarbaraChapman(catherine@guildaylaw.com).Guilday.
Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A. 1983 Centre Pointe Bo vard, Suite 200.
Tallahassee, FL 32308-7823, counsel for Robert W.
(-----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,
APPEAL NO.: 12-11213-C
Appellants/Plaintiffs,
vs. APPEAL NO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.
_______________________________/
APPENDIX
CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF PRO SE
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING PROHIBITION BY DISTRICT COURT
In support of Disability Accommodation and IFP Fee Waiver
Exhibit 1 Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) information
Exhibit 2 CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Order, No. 6:07-MC-0027-ORL-19
Exhibit 3 Plaintiffs Motion to File Electronically, Case 5:10-cv-00503 (Doc. 6)
Exhibit 4 Order, Denied - Plaintiffs Motion to File Electronically (Doc. 17)
Exhibit 5 Google Maps, mileage and driving time to District Court, Ocala Division
Exhibit 6 Reuters: Depression more damaging than some chronic illnesses
Exhibit 7 Lancet Medical Journal, Vol. 370 No. 9590 pp 851-858, WHO study
Exhibit 8 Letter to District Clerk Sheryl L. Loesch, April 5, 2012
Exhibit 9 PACER welcome letter to Gillespie, December 22, 1999 (Redacted)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
ESTATE OF PENELOPE GILLESPIE,
CASE NO.: 12-11213-C
Appellants/Plaintiffs,
vs. CASE NO.: 12-11028-B
THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.
__________________________________/
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie
Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom
in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co.
Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability Accommodation
Neil J. Gillespie, under oath, testifies as follows:
1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This affidavit
is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.
2. I am disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq., the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq., and 825.101(4), Florida Statutes.
3. I filed May 27, 2011 Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J.
Gillespie in Hillsborough Circuit Court that shows I have Depression, Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD), Diabetes Type II Adult Onset, Traumatic Brain Injury, and
Velopharyngeal Incompetence. I also have impaired hearing, especially under stress.
4. I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against AMSCOT Corporation (Amscot).
Jonathan Alpert filed the Amscot lawsuit December 9, 1999 as partner of the firm Alpert,
10
2
Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. Substitute counsel Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A. (BRC) and William J. Cook (Cook) represented me beginning December 12,
2000. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. BRC and Cook appealed.
5. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and
Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit.
Amscot settled for business reasons before the appeal was decided. The Certificate of
Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1) attached to the Joint
Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this Affidavit:
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.
This stipulation was not provided to me by my former lawyers. I obtained it from the
Court in April 2006 with a records request. (Exhibit 1).
6. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA
with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorneys fees. (Exhibit 2).
7. BRC and Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot.
Cook lied to me about a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the
closing statement. (Exhibit 3). There was no such award. The $50,000 was actually part
of the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned contingent fee agreement, or Florida
Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was later
found to be $7,143.68. I filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Cook for violation
of ethics rules. The Florida Bar failed to properly adjudicate my complaint.
3
8. On August 11, 2005 I sued, pro se, BRC and Cook to recover $6,224.78. The case
was caption was Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook,
Case No. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. BRC partner Ryan Christopher
Rodems defended his firm BRC and law partner Cook.
9. On January 13, 2006 Judge Richard A. Nielsen found by Order that I established
a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Cook. (Exhibit 4). On
information and belief, partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for
the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the
ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There was an actual conflict of interest in Mr.
Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves in this case.
10. On January 19, 2006, BRC and Cook countersued me for Libel over a letter I
wrote to Ian MacKechnie, president of Amscot, about the prior litigation.
11. On February 4, 2006 I moved to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. On
information and belief, disqualification was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge
Kovachevich, U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida, Tampa Division:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional
impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification.
[2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show
existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in
pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for
purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing
party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court
must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal
advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related
4
to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial
relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant
and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information
was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of
even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
McPartland cites State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 75 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991), a
Florida Supreme Court case. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I found
McPartland and other similar cases in 2010.
12. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify
him and an argument ensued. During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech,
and threatened me. Rodems said you will pay for writing a letter to Ian MacKechnie,
president of Amscot. All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-
7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use exemption
of Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health
Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
13. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with a sworn
affidavit under the penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of the Judge Nielsen in
Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions. Mr. Rodems falsely
named Judge Nielsen in an exact quote attributed to me. Upon information and belief,
it was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage.
14. A voice recording of the call impeached Mr. Rodems sworn affidavit. Kirby
Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department, investigated the matter and
wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing
5
to the Court as an exact quote language that clearly was not an exact quote. The
investigation did not show any wrongdoing by me.
15. Beginning on March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems has directed, with malice aforethought,
a course of harassing conduct toward me that aggravated my disabilities, caused
substantial emotional distress and served legitimate purpose.
16. On March 20, 2006 I requested from Mr. Rodems pursuant to Bar Rule 4-
1.5(f)(5) settlement documents at the heart of the lawsuit. The documents were in dispute
as to their existence or whether the documents were signed. (Exhibit 5).
17. On March 27, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a hostile email in response to my Bar
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) request, with his typical false reference to threats of physical violence.
(Exhibit 6). Mr. Rodems wrote:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requested
have been previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to your
initial complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Given your threats of physical
violence against me during our last telephone conversation, and given that you
have copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort to harass us.
Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I was
advised that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse of
the rules by former clients, the most practical response would be to send the
documents to you again. They are attached in pdf format. In the event you make
this request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format is not to your
liking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. to inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that we
may arrange to have security present.
18. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard.
Judge Richard Nielsen failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI
Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of
McPartland. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c)
when he failed to disclose McPartland to Judge Nielsen:
6
61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be
directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing
counsel, in this instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v.
ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal
authority directly adverse to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are
just two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the
Table of Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully
inform the court on applicable law whether favorable or adverse to position of
client so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of
the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced by
this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr. Rodems and
BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems.
Paragraph 61, Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. July 9, 2010, also Exhibit 10 to the Complaint
in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
19. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment. It was set
for a hearing before Judge Nielsen August 1, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Rodems objected by
email the same day. I canceled the hearing with the intention of resetting the hearing, and
hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was never heard.
20. On April 25, 2006 Mr. Rodems waited outside Judge Nielsens chambers to taunt
me following a hearing. At the next hearing June 28, 2006 I requested protection from the
Court to prevent a reoccurrence. Judge Nielsen did not provide the requested protection:
(Transcript, June 28, 2006, page 21, beginning at line 20)
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.
Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallway
and I dont want that to happen today.
THE COURT: Well, you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and then
you can decide what you want to do, sir.
21. Initially I had a good working relationship with Judge Nielsen and his judicial
assistant Myra Gomez. After Rodems stunt Judge Nielsen did not manage the
7
case lawfully, favored Defendants in rulings, responded to me sarcastically, and
sanctioned me for failing to comply with Mr. Rodems discovery requests, even though I
complied with the discovery requests to the best of my ability. I moved to disqualify
Judge Nielsen, which he denied, but recused himself sua sponte November 22, 2006.
22. Upon information and believe, the right to bodily integrity and security of person
includes mental integrity, that is, freedom from mental and psychological abuse. The
right to safely pursue justice is a fundamental civil right that underscores a litigants right
not to be subjected to physical, sexual, mental or emotional violence inside or outside the
court, either by private attorneys or by judges and people acting on the part of the state.
The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. Litigants in civil proceedings
must be free from mental or emotional violence, which may be a form of torture, or their
Constitutionally protected rights, including due process, are rendered meaningless.
23. My case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006.
24. On December 3, 2006 I read a notice on Judge Isoms web page that advised that
the judge had a number of relatives practicing law and If you feel there might be a
conflict in your case based on the above information, please raise the issue so it can be
resolved prior to me presiding over any matters concerning your case. One relative
listed was husband A. Woodson Woody Isom, Jr.. (Exhibit 7).
25. On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For Disclosure of Conflict,
and moved for disclosure of conflict with the Court or the Court's relatives, or any other
conflict of interest in this case. My motion noted the following possible conflicts:
Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 by
check to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002. (3, page 2)
8
Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002,
and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002.
(4, page 2)
My motion informed Judge Isom of the significance of Jonathan Alpert to this case:
Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protges and former law partners, and the contract
that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000,
between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook,
P.A. (4, page 2)
On January 5, 2007 I served Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict.
26. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Discovery, to reconsider a July 24, 2006 Order by Judge Richard Nielsen for discovery
sanctions against me.
27. On December 12, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Disqualify Counsel, to reconsider Judge Nielsen's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to
Disqualify Counsel (Mr. Rodems and BRC) entered May 12, 2006.
28. On December 12th and December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems left voice mail messages
on my cell phone. (Exhibit 8.4). Rodems called me cheap and other such:
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24)
24 I would also point out that the problem that
25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probably more
(Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 7, beginning at line 1)
1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and
2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're
3 usual hours rates are for litigation like this,
19. ..And then on top of all
20. that you always fall back on your medical
21. condition, which I have never seen any
22. documentation of, that you always allude to that in
23. your Court fillings. And quite frankly, you play
24. the victim when it suits you and you play the
9
25. advocate when it suits you
29. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a five page letter of insults,
including ridicule of mental illness: (Exhibit 8.3)
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your
own poor choices in life. You also claim to have mental or psychological
problems, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in
this case has been so abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of
mental problems. (P1, 3)
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay
the required hourly rates for representation. (P3, 2).
30. On December 27, 2006 I responded to Mr. Rodems letter. (Exhibit 7.1).
Dear Mr. Rodems,
This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, and
your subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lost
perspective in this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting your
disqualification as counsel.
As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theories
are little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside the
bounds of acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I have
referred them to the attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your name
calling, that I am a pro se litigant of dubious distinction, cheap, and other
such, is harassment. Be advised that I received your telephone message while at
the oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, and was so upset that I
had to cancel my appointment and leave.
Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in
response to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created to
identify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse,
mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers
(Bar Rule 2-9.11).
Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of Judge
Nielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoing
harassment of me. I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.,
or a provider of your choice.
10
Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type of
communication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourself
accordingly.
31. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to Judge Isom about Mr. Rodems harassment of
me. (Exhibit 8). I provided Judge Isom a transcript of Rodems ranting phone message of
December 13, 2006. I provided Judge Isom a copy of Rodems five page diatribe to me of
December 13, 2006. (Exhibit 8.3).
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephone
message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his subsequent five page
diatribe of even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling,
ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all is
evidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lost
perspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that led
to the recusal of Judge Nielsen.
Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribe
of wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodems
contacts the Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. Apparently
Mr. Rodems has been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from home
during normal business hours. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line
15). As stated before, I am concerned for his well-being and mine. I also
requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and
letters.
32. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiffs Motion For An Order To Compel
Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop Harassing Behavior. (Exhibit 9).
33. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing Plaintiffs Amended
Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Mary
Elizabeth Blazer and is part of the record. Judge Isom denied the existence of any
conflict. The transcript shows that Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husband
Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at the
11
law firm Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and
Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White.
34. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom engaged in deception and dishonesty
prejudicial to the administration of justice February 1, 2007 when she lied by omission
and failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners
and shareholders at Fowler White:
a. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or their counsel
might consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to
disclose relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v.
Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006.
b. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the
common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and
wife are considered as one person and the relatives of one spouse by
consanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the same degree. State v.
Wall, 41 Fla. 463.
c. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their counsel had dealings
with a relative of the court, or whenever a modicum of reason suggests that a
judge's prejudice may bar a party from having his or her day in court. The
function of the trial court on motion to recuse the trial judge is limited to a
determination of the legal sufficiency of an affidavit, without reference to its truth
and veracity. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla. App. 3 Dist., 2000.
d. Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides a judge shall
disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned. The Commentary to 3E(1) states that under this
rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.
The question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on those
matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality
rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially.
e. In Garcia v. Manning, 717 So.2d 59, the Court held that it is the ethical
responsibility of all judges to know the law and to faithfully follow it. Code of
Jud. Conduct, Canon 3.
12
35. In 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. While
researching accusations in one of Rodems harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit
signed by Jonathan Alpert in Alperts divorce case that stated in 3c: (Exhibit 10).
I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in
last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called
to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel;
36. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed in an email to me that he practiced
law with Jonathan Alpert. (Exhibit 11). Woody Isom wrote: He and I were shareholders
at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.
37. On February 5, 2007 Judge Isom presided over a hearing in the case.
a. The hearing was recorded and transcribed by Denise L. Bradley, and is part of
the record. Judge Isom considered the following matters:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify Counsel
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery (Sanctions)
Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ABA)
On February 6, 2007 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter with two proposed Orders. (Exhibit 20)
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration - Discovery (Sanctions)
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim
Neither Order was signed by Judge Isom, and neither Order was entered into the record.
These motions were not considered by any successor judge.
b. Judge Isom did not rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify
Counsel. The Court considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as shown in the
transcript, from page 22 through 40, which is presented as Exhibit 21, but then Mr.
Rodems objected, as shown on pages 36-37 of the transcript, February 5, 2007:
12 MR. RODEMS: You know, I object at this point,
13 Your Honor, because this is what we were getting into
13
14 earlier. This is a telephone conversation that he
15 didn't get my consent to record. And Florida statutes
16 say that that conversation is illegal and cannot be
17 considered for any purposes by the court in any
18 hearing, except for a hearing prosecuting Mr. Gillespie
19 for illegally recording the conversation.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to not address
1 the motion for reconsideration and the motion to
2 disqualify today.
(Note: Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Department,
investigated this matter and wrote February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not
right and not accurate in representing to the Court as an exact quote language
that clearly was not an exact quote. The investigation did not show any
wrongdoing by me.)
c. Judge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions. Upon
information and belief, Judge Isom failed to follow her own law essay on discovery
sanctions, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. (Exhibit 12).
Judge Isoms essay describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors intensive case
management for lawyers to avoid costly sanctions, because Florida judges are elected and
need the financial support of lawyers. Judge Isom acknowledged that lawyers behave
badly in court, and this bad behavior - which Judge Isom calls cutting up - is intended
to churn more fees for themselves. Judge Isom refused to provide me the same kind of
intensive case management to avoid sanctions. Judge Isom denied me the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of the court, specifically mediation services:
(Transcript, February 01, 2007, page 15, line 20)
THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolve
this without litigation?
MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
Judge Isom did not offer me mediation. Judge Isom let the sanction Order stand. Upon
information and belief the sanction Order is contrary to the law on discovery:
14
Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to encourage
the settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d
517 (Fla. 1996). The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedy
determination every action (In re Estes Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast Dental
Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure that
judgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd.
Partnership v. Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not
upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division of
Administration, State Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d
Dist. 1977).
The sanction Order was later used by Judge James M. Barton to penalize me with a
$11,550 sanction. Mr. Rodems used this sanction to extort a settlement from me.
d. Judge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems counterclaim for libel
against me. The counterclaim was a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to Ian
MacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are interested parties on the
Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Exhibit 1). My
letter complained about the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation by BRC and
Cook. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom should have, but did not, disqualify
Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems pursued vexatious litigation against me
that began January 19, 2006 and continued through September 28, 2010, whereupon
Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I retained counsel to
defend against the vexatious lawsuit and incurred over $33,000 in legal fees by attorney
Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for libel.
e. Judge Isom conducted an ADA assessment of me during the February 5,
2007 hearing. This matter is more fully described in Verified Notice of Filing Disability
Information of Neil J. Gillespie, submitted May 27, 2011 in Hillsborough County. (And
15
later filed in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Ocala, case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc (Doc. 36),
and case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc (Doc 15, Appendix 2).
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is
7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even
8 hearing you. But it sounded all right.
9 THE COURT: What's is the nature of your
10 disability?
11 MR. GILLESPIE: It's depression and
12 post-traumatic stress disorder.
13 THE COURT: Are you under the care of a doctor?
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.
15 THE COURT: And do you have a disability rating
16 with the Social Security Administration?
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge. In the early '90s,
18 I'm going to say '93 or '94, I was judged disabled by
19 Social Security. And I applied for vocational
20 rehabilitation. And to make a long story short, I
21 guess it was in about '98 or '99 I received a
22 determination from vocational rehabilitation that my
23 disability was so severe that I could not benefit from
24 rehabilitation.
25 I would say in the interim that they had prepared
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 46, beginning at line 1)
1 a rehabilitation plan for me and they didn't want to
2 implement it. And that's the reason that they gave for
3 not implementing it. I brought that cause of action to
4 the Barker, Rodems and Cook law firm and they reviewed
5 that. And apparently they were in agreement with it
6 because they decided not to represent me on that claim.
7 And a copy of their letter denying that is part of my
8 motion for punitive damages. You can read that letter.
9 I think I have it here.
After taking testimony about my disability, Judge Isom offered to abate the matter
for three months so I could find counsel, but Mr. Rodems objected. I retained attorney
Robert W. Bauer one month later.
16
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 46, beginning at line 10)
10 THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of direction
11 today, do you want to just stop everything and abate
12 this proceeding for three months so that you can go out
13 and try to find substitute counsel or --you know, I
14 realize there's a counterclaim.
15 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge.
16 THE COURT: But originally, at least, it was your
17 lawsuit. So if you feel that you're at a disadvantage
18 because of your lack of counsel, I guess I could abate
19 it and give you additional time to try to find an
20 attorney.
21 MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, we would oppose that.
22 And let me tell you why.
Mr. Rodems continued with a self serving diatribe and accused me of criminal
extortion for trying to resolve this matter through the Florida Bar ACAP Program, and
other such. Then Mr. Rodems made this accusation in open court:
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 49, beginning at line 12).
12 [MR: RODEMS:] In any event, at every stage of the proceedings
13 when Mr. Gillespie is about to be held accountable for
14 his actions he cries that he's got a disability or he
15 complains about the fact that he can't get a lawyer.
16 The reason he can't get a lawyer is because he's not
17 willing to pay a lawyer by the hour for the services he
18 wants.
And I responded: (Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 50, beginning at line 14).
14 MR. GILLESPIE: I am willing to pay an attorney
15 by the hour. I have sent a payment of $350 an hour to
16 an attorney with the promise of a retainer if they
17 would take the case. So Mr. Rodems calling me cheap
18 and all of this name-calling and not willing to pay,
19 that's not true. In fact, I offered Rick Mitzel who
20 said the cost would be $200 an hour, I gladly offered
21 to pay him $200 an hour. He wouldn't take the case.
22 These lawyers don't want to litigate against this firm
23 because they're aware of what this firm does and what
24 they're capable of.
17
38. Judge Isom went against her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused to
abate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to continue the
lengthy hearing due to disability. I was too confused:
(Transcript, February 5, 2007, page 45, beginning at line 6)
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Right now, Judge, my head is
7 swimming to the point where I'm having a hard time even
8 hearing you.
39. Upon information and belief, Judge Isom misused and denied me judicial
process under the color of law. Two days later on February 7, 2007 I gave notice
of voluntary dismissal (Exhibit 13) and submitted a motion for an order of
voluntary dismissal. (Exhibit 14). Mr. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his
counterclaim. If Rodems did so, that would have ended the case February 7, 2007.
40. On February 26, 2007 The Lawyer Referral Service of The Florida Bar provided
me a referral to Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville (Florida Bar ID: 11058) for Libel &
Slander. (Exhibit 15). I was not able to find counsel in Tampa. After reviewing my case,
Mr. Bauer told me the jury would love to punish a slimy attorney. (Transcript,
March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer encouraged me to reinstate my claims.
41. Mr. Bauer reinstated my voluntarily-dismissed claims in Hillsborough County.
Mr. Rodems appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA),
Case No. 2D07-4530. The 2dDCA denied Mr. Rodems Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
and held as follows: (Exhibit 22).
PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix Super
Markets, Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that when
counterclaim is pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint without
order of court).
18
42. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems sent threatening email to Mr. Bauer in
May 2007. Mr. Rodems objected to Mr. Bauers leave to amend, threatened Bauer with
sanctions under 57.105, Fla. Stat., and reiterated his usual laundry list of alleged bad
acts against me, which had no bearing on the matter at hand. (Exhibit 16). Rodems wrote:
I am serving the 57.105 motion today...we object to the motion for leave to
amend because there is no such thing as a "counter-counter complaint", and you
are flat wrong on the motion to withdraw the dismissal. Have you even looked at
Rule 1.100(a)? I assume you are aware of the line of cases that hold that a
mislabeled pleading or motion is not a nullity. We'll send you a 57.105 motion,
and you can decide how to proceed.
Given Gillespie's bizarre and inappropriate behavior in this case (asking for a
court appointed attorney under the ADA, pleading, among other inappropriate
defenses, the economic loss rule to our defamation claims, moving twice to DQ
the trial judges, appealing a discovery order, writing inflammatory and false
statements about a judge in a letter to the court, threatening to slam me against the
wall, and telling an insurance company not to indemnify him in the counterclaims),
I am surprised you would rely on any portions of the pleadings Gillespie filed.
This example is representative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior.
43. On August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an Emergency
Hearing on garnishment before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24):
24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full
25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work
1 this out in a professional manner. It is my
2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the
3 opportunity to take this full blast attack.
Mr. Rodems' "full nuclear blast approach" has aggravated my disability to the
point where I can no longer represent my at hearings. I become easily distracted and
confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent
himself. See Plaintiffs Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011.
19
44. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case. Mr. Bauer
sent me this email July 8, 2008 at 6.05PM stating in part:
No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be
able to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the
situation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I
believe it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You
have had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much more
difficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be
avoided.
See Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie filed September 18, 2010,
Exhibit 10 to the Complaint in U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., case no. 5:10-cv-503-oc.
I was denied access to court in my own case due to Rodems conflict and misconduct.
45. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 13, 2008; it was granted October 1,
2009. Mr. Bauer charged me $31,863 in legal fees. $12,650 remains unpaid.
46. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with
Eugene P. Castagliuolo (Florida Bar ID 104360) who represented me in June 2011. Mr.
Rodems refused to cooperate with or provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of a writ of bodily
attachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Castagliuolo stated in part Last but not
least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but
unhappy message. (Exhibit 17). On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an
asshole in an email to me. (Exhibit 18). Castagliuolo wrote (in part): Based on what I
know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged
in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you. This example is
representative of Mr. Rodems boorish behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo.
47. There are now fifteen (15) additional related cases in this matter due to Judge
Isoms dishonesty and denial of justice. (Exhibit 19). Judge Isom was dishonest when she
failed to disclose a conflil;t with husband Woody Isom and Mr. Alpert. Judge Isom
denied me justice under t ~ 1 e color of law when she failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems and
BRC as counsel as required by McPartland. Judge Isom denied me justice under the color
of law when she failed to provide intensive case management as she advocated in her law
review, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, and when she failed to abate the hearing
February 5, 2006 until Mr. Bauer could be retained. The cost of Judge Isom's dishonesty
and denial ofjustice has been enormous to me, all the lawyers, and the court system.
FURTHER AFF]ANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated this 30th day of July 2012.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments
in the State of Florida, appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, personally known to me or provided
identification who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the above matters
contained in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 30th day of July 2012.
I ~ W ' CECIUA ROSENBERGER ..: ~ ~
i: ~ Cormission # EE 191610
~ ~
~ 1 Expires m6, 2016
Notary Public, State of Florida
"... !Ii Bonded Thru na,Flirt......800-315-7019
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was provided July 30, 2012 by
email onlytoCatherineBarbaraChapman(catherine@guildaylaw.com).Guilday.
Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A. 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200.
20
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John Ley
Clerk of Court
July 16, 2012
For rules and forms visit
www.ca11.uscourts.gov
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
Appeal Number: 12-11028-B
Case Style: Estate of Penelope Gillespie, et al v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, F, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS
Enclosed is your "Response to Order", which should go to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and is being returned to you. The procedure for filing a notice of appeal from a decision
of a United States Court of Appeals was abolished by statute effective September 25, 1988.
Please note that a copy of this court's opinion, the judgment, and any order on rehearing should
be attached as an appendix to any petition for writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme Court. See
Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i).
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Melanie Gaddis, B
Phone #: (404) 335-6187
SPCT-5 NOA to SC rtrnd to prose
Case: 12-11028 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 1 of 1 (5 of 5)
11
Case: 12-11028 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 5)
Case: 12-11028 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 2 of 4 (2 of 5)
Case: 12-11028 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 3 of 4 (3 of 5)
Case: 12-11028 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 4 of 4 (4 of 5)
18 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
1. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Hillsborough County,
Florida (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009)
2. Case No. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, January 19, 2006 -
September 28, 2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)
Cases in the Second District Court of Appeal, Florida
3. Case No. 06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
4. Case No. 07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
5. Case No. 08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
6. Case No. 10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
7. Case No. 10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
8. Case No. 11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
Cases in the Supreme Court of Florida
9. Case No. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
10. Case No. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
Cases in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division
11. Case No. 10-cv-00503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA
(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)
12. Case No. 11-cv00539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA
(Gillespie pro se) (closed, appeal)
Cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
13. Case No. 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA
(Gillespie pro se) (closed)
14. Case No. 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA
(Gillespie pro se)
12
Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States
15. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
16. Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed/considered. (Gillespie pro se)
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
Original Litigation
17. Case No. 01-14761-AA, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT
Corporation, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed August 20, 2001
18. Case No. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, class action complaint in
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, filed December 9, 1999