J. Carter Andersen, Chair Thirteenth Circuit JNC Bush Ross, P.A.

1801 North Highland Avenue Tampa, FL 33602 Addendum: Oppose Ryan Christopher Rodems for judge Dear Mr. Anderson:

October 15, 2012

This is an addendum to my letter of October 11, 2012 in opposition to Mr. Rodems for judge. Shortly after I sent my letter to you, the Florida Bar provided me a copy of another complaint against Mr. Rodems, RFA No. 12-15330 submitted by Robert Cash. The complaint alleges that Mr. Rodems improperly used a counterclaim to make immaterial, impertinent and scandalous accusations against Mr. Cash. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Rodems provided no exhibits to substantiate the immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims. By way of example, Mr. Rodems made this scandalous claim at paragraph 68, in his Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaims, in Cash v. Rodgers, et al., case no. 12-CA-239, Hillsborough County Circuit Court: 68. Additionally, Mr. Cash told the owner of Medco Data, LLC that the reason Mr. Cash arrived late at the trade show was because Mr. Cash was "up all night doing coke off a strippers tits." The above quote is incredible. Without commenting on this particular case, it is not believable that an employee would make this statement to an employer, or do so using the quote attributed. A copy of Bar RFA No. 12-15330 accompanies this addendum as Exhibit 19. As noted in my letter to you October 11, 2012, Mr. Rodems made immaterial, impertinent and scandalous claims about witness Eric Bischoff in commenting on the WrestleReunion case after he lost a jury trial as plaintiffs counsel, comments that also include accusations of sexual deviancy. This shows a tendency by Mr. Rodems to make these kinds accusations about litigants. The expert report Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was not even called to testify by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009 before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head of WCW. Mr. Rodems comments about Mr. Bischoff are posted on the DOIWresetling.com website: http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html In my Hillsborough County case no. 05-CA-7205 with Mr. Rodems, he submitted an affidavit attributing an exact quote to me that was later proved false by the Tampa Police Department.

J. Carter Andersen, Chair Thirteenth Circuit JNC

Page - 2 October 15, 2012

Mr. Rodems was also present when law partner Jonathan Alpert, one of my former lawyers, attacked attorney Arnold Levine. A Tampa Police Dept. report dated June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges Mr. Alpert committed battery, Florida Statutes 784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing hot coffee on him. At the time Mr. Levine was a 68 year-old senior citizen. The Tampa Police Dept. report states: The victim and defendant are both attorneys and were representing their clients in a mediation hearing. The victim alleges that the defendant began yelling, and intentionally threw the contents of a 20 oz. cup of hot coffee which struck him in the chest staining his shirt. A request for prosecution was issued for battery. Mr. Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report and failed to inform me that my attorney Mr. Alpert attacked attorney Arnold Levine. Mr. Levine previously sued Mr. Rodems in Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, a $5 million dollar claim for defamation, Buccaneers Limited Partnership v. Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, case 99-2354-CIV-T-23C. Supplemental Information Mr. Rodems Misleading and Incomplete Response, Question 36a Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al., 05-CA-7205 Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, et al., 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB This supplemental information pertains to how Mr. Rodems obtained the Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release of June 21, 2011 in the above two cases. Mr. Rodems improperly extorted a settlement from me during a coercive confinement at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa, held without disability accommodation. Mr. Rodems lied to Judge Martha Cook, and Judge James Arnold, during 3 ex-parte hearings, and obtained a warrant for my arrest on a writ of bodily attachment for civil contempt. The hearings before Judge Arnold in 2011 were after the case was closed and on appeal of Final Summary Judgment in 2D10-5197. I have mental impairments and disability. I can no longer represent myself due to intentional infliction of severe emotional distress by Mr. Rodems, a course of harassing conduct since March 2006 that served no legitimate purpose. The following paragraphs 4 and 5 are from my Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC11-1622, filed January 9, 2012. This petition was filed by notice in my federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit with Judge Hodges, see Notice of Filing Copy, Petition For Writ of Mandamus Supreme Court of Florida, Case No. SC11-1622 which appears at Doc. 62, U.S. District Court case no. 5:10-cv-503, and is on PACER in 2 parts: Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 62 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1733 Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 62-1 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 59 PageID 1735

J. Carter Andersen, Chair Thirteenth Circuit JNC

Page - 3 October 15, 2012

4. My name is Neil Gillespie and I am the Petitioner appearing pro se. I am mentally ill and have other disabilities like type 2 adult onset diabetes, high blood pressure, and communication disorders. (A.3.Part1.2). On June 1, 2011 Judge Arnold issued a politically-motivated warrant to arrest me for the purpose of forcing a walk-away settlement agreement in my civil litigation with Mr. Cook and BRC, as well as to force a walk-away settlement agreement in my federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit against the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., for the misuse and denial of judicial process under the color of law, and denial of disability accommodation. Judge Arnold relived the Public Defender appointed to represent me and I had no counsel at the contempt hearing June 1, 2011. In order to rescind the warrant for my arrest, Judge Arnold required I attend a full deposition, instead of a deposition in aid of execution, even though the case was on appeal on a final summary judgment in 2D10-5197. The civil contempt order was also on appeal. Mr. Rodems asked for a deposition in aid of execution in his efforts to collect $11,550 in 57.105 sanctions against me. Those unjust sanctions were on also appeal 1. [Note: Once final judgment is entered, the need for discovery is over. Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP, 836 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2003)]. 5. At the direction of Judge Arnold I voluntarily appeared June 21, 2011 for a deposition at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa to purge the contempt and rescind the arrest warrant, but that turned out to be a trap to force a walk-away settlement agreement in the lawsuits. Upon my arrival at the courthouse, I was taken into custody and involuntarily confined by two Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputies, Deputy Randy Olding and Deputy Larry Berg. I was denied accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Federal Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq. After being held in custody during the deposition for over four (4) hours without a lunch break, or the usual mid-day meal provided to a prisoner, I became confused and disoriented. The record (A.4.1.125) shows that I was so impaired that I could not make a decision to sign the agreement. 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 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). For twenty-one days, law enforcement tried to arrest me. On June 3, 2011, upon receipt of my monthly disability payment, I hired Mr. Castagliuolo off Craigslist to represent me at the courtWhen appeal jurisdiction has been invoked to review a final order or judgment, the appellate court may review the entire case in the lower court, including all issues preserved for review during the trial and pretrial proceedings. Rule 9.110(h) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes the appellate court to review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice of appeal. An appeal from a final order brings up for review the correctness of all prior orders. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h). The appellate courts are authorized to review all interlocutory rulings and orders of the trial court in plenary appeals from final orders and judgments.
1

J. Carter Andersen, Chair Thirteenth Circuit JNC

Page - 4 October 15, 2012

ordered deposition. Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with Mr. Castagliuolo, or even provide Castagliuolo with a copy of the writ of bodily attachment. Supplemental Information Financial History for Ryan Christopher Rodems On March 8, 2012, Mr. Rodems and wife Tami Rodems borrowed $243,772 from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. against his existing home at 210 Excalibur Ct., Brandon, Florida, 33511, according to a mortgage recorded March 20, 2012 by the Clerk in Hillsborough County, Florida. Oddly Tami Rodems is shown as a borrower on page 1, paragraph (B), but signed the mortgage March 8, 2012 as a Non-Applicant Title Holder as shown on pages 15 and 19. Handwritten numbers 56208362-1216854 appear on page 1 to the left of the word Mortgage centered in the heading of page 1. A copy of the mortgage appears at Exhibit 20. On March 28, 2012, a Subordination Agreement by SunTrust Bank, showing the same handwritten numbers 56208362-1216854 as the J.P. Morgan Chase mortgage, was recorded by the Clerk in Hillsborough County, Florida. The agreement shows Ryan C. Rodems and Tami Rodems, Husband and Wife as the owners of the home at 210 Excalibur Ct., Brandon, Florida, 33511. This agreement shows the an original lien of $81,000 against the property in 2004, with subsequent increases to $141,000 recorded in 2005, and $196,000 recorded in 2007. This agreement shows on page 2 a principal balance to the new lender not to exceed $245,249. This agreement was notarized February 14, 2012, while referring to dates in the future, a loan date of March 8, 2012, and a recording date March 20, 2012, all of which corresponds to the above mortgage. A copy of this Subordination Agreement appears at Exhibit 21. On April 2, 2012 a release of mortgage by J.P. Morgan Chase was recorded by the Clerk in Hillsborough County, Florida for mortgagees Mr. Rodems and wife Tami Rodems, for the property at 210 Excalibur Ct., Brandon, Florida. A copy of the release appears at Exhibit 22. Mr. Rodems may be having financial problems. As noted in my letter of October 11, 2012, there are red flags regarding his finances. Mr. Rodems reported that his gross income equals his net income, he reported W-2 wages instead of the amounts requested, he reported no financial information for his professional association, and he reported YTD earnings of $100,000 in response to question 1, and YTD earnings of $6,000 in response to question 2. It appears from the mortgage information that Mr. Rodems owed $81,000 on his home in 2004, and borrowed increasing amounts over time to $245,249 shown in the Subordination Agreement by SunTrust Bank. (Exhibit 21). This suggests to me that Mr. Rodems earnings from the practice of law reported on his application to the JNC are inflated. Mr. Rodems appears to living beyond his means, and supplementing his income with ever increasing mortgage borrowing. Information about Mr. Rodems financial history is obscured and not reliable because he does not honestly or fully answer the financial questions. This is an ongoing issue with Mr. Rodems. Again, the JNC should require applicants to submit three years of signed federal tax returns.

J. Carter Andersen, Chair Thirteenth Circuit JNC

Page - 5 October 15, 2012

Supplemental Information WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc., U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Case No. 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP It appears that Mr. Rodems attacked witness Eric Bischoff July 20, 2009 during a deposition in WrestleReunion. That was my concern too, that Mr. Rodems would pull a stunt to disrupt the proceedings and then seek sanctions against me. Mr. Bischoff was represented by Mr. Gregory W. Herbert of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Mr. Rodems assaulted Mr. Bischoff when he flung a copy of this testimony across the table at Mr. Bischoff, hitting him on the hands, according to Defendants Motion In Limine To Preclude References To Eric Bischoffs Personal Life And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law. (Doc. 104). Based on Plaintiffs Motion in Limine (Dkt. 100), Plaintiff apparently intends not only to elicit testimony from Mr. Bischoff regarding his consumption of alcohol on at least one occasion eight years ago, to damage his credibility, but also to impeach him with similar testimony elicited in a prior criminal case in which Mr. Bischoff was a nonparty witness. Footnote 1: See Dkt. 100, at 6-8. Plaintiffs counsel fails to mention that Mr. Bischoffs deposition was terminated before Mr. Bischoff could answer any questions regarding the prior testimony and incident because Plaintiffs counsel flung a copy of this testimony across the table at Mr. Bischoff, hitting him on the hands, after six and a half hours of deposition testimony. Plaintiff did not challenge the termination nor seek to reconvene the deposition. (Doc. 104, page 1, last paragraph) The transcript shows this statement by Mr. Herbert made immediately after Mr. Rodems assaulted Eric Bischoff by throwing a transcript at him that hit his hand: Transcript, page 279, Eric Bishoff, July 20, 2009 (Exhibit 23). 16 MR. HERBERT: Okay. Mr. Rodems, 17 unfortunately, just flung a document across the table 18 to land in front of Mr. Bischoff.

24 THE WITNESS: Your seven hours are up. The

25 next time you throw something at me, be very careful. Mr. Herbert is one of the finest lawyers in Florida. Greenberg Traurig, LLP is a respected international law firm with approximately 1,800 attorneys. Greenberg Traurig has even represented the Florida Bar. And still Rodems assaulted a witness during a deposition. Imagine the free-for-all with Rodems during a deposition with a lone pro se witness like me. An Order by US District Judge James Whittemore in WrestleReunion (Doc. 81) shows the Defendant made a $75,000 offer of judgment pursuant to 768.79 Florida Statutes. (Doc. 169-1).

J. Carter Andersen, Chair Thirteenth Circuit JNC

Page - 6 October 15, 2012

Mr. Rodems rejected the offer by email sent July 27, 2009. (Doc. 169-2). This is what Rodems wrote to opposing counsel Gregory Herbert: Greg: As I promised, the $75,000 offer you made is rejected, and we have sent our proposal for $12,000,000.00. Tell your client, we can arrange for a wire transfer to our trust account for the $12M. Heck, well even agree not to pursue contempt for Bischoffs arguable perjury. Sincerely, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. After the jury found for the defendant, Mr. Rodems accepted the offer of judgment he mockingly rejected, and then tired to enforce the accepted offer. Judge Whittemore denied Mr. Rodems motion to enforce the previously-rejected settlement as moot, as it was later withdrawn. Mr. Rodems client was taxed costs of $25,729.24 (Doc. 200). An Order granted an unopposed motion for writ of garnishment directed to garnishee HIGHSPOT.COM, INC. to assist in satisfying the costs taxed. (Doc. 202). The cost to Mr. Rodems client of rejecting the $75,000 settlement offer, and costs taxed of $25,729.24, totaled $100,729.24. A compilation of the above Docs. 181, 169-1, 169-2 and 202 appears at Exhibit 24. Chief Inspector General Case #201003040004 June 2010 In 2010 I made a complaint about the conflict of Mr. Rodems law partner Chris A. Baker serving on the JNC during a time when Mr. Rodems applied for every vacancy. Gov. Crist authorized an investigation by the Chief Inspector General, which made a report. I also attended the JNC interviews June 15, 2010. If you care to review the documents in the foregoing, they are posted on Scribed as shown below. My comments to Gov. Crist about the June 15th interviews shows my support for applicants Patrick Bowler Courtney, Kim Suzanne Seace and Christopher D. Watson, each of whom I believe were stronger applicants and would have made better nominees than Mr. Rodems. I believe Kim Suzanne Seace is a current applicant. Chief Inspector General Case #201003040004 June 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/86904333/Chief-Inspector-General-Case-201003040004-June-2010 JNC Complaint to Gov. Crist, 2010 File http://www.scribd.com/doc/109845718/JNC-Complaint-to-Gov-Crist-2010-File JNC Interviews June 15, 2010, Comments to Gov. Crist http://www.scribd.com/doc/109845143/JNC-Interviews-June-15-2010-Comments-to-Gov-Crist Conclusion I have known Mr. Rodems for over 12 years. In my view he has little actual legal ability. Instead Mr. Rodems uses the rules of procedure in a perverse way, along with personal dishonesty and professional misconduct intended to disrupt the tribunal to his advantage. Lying is a habit for Rodems. He relies on crony judges to deny the due process rights opposing counsel and litigants

J. Carter Andersen, Chair Thirteenth Circuit JNC

Page - 7 October 15, 2012

so he can score a win now and then, but his overall success rate is low. As such, Mr. Rodems is little more than a rules troll. I urge the JNC to select nominees based on legal ability and judicial temperament. Mr. Rodems has neither quality himself and should be rejected. Thank you for considering this additional information in opposition to Mr. Rodems for judge. Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 Enclosures

Appendix 2 - Additional Comments to the Thirteenth Circuit JNC Opposition To Ryan Christopher Rodems for judge
October 15, 2012
Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Florida Bar Complaint No. RFA No. 12-15330 against Mr. Rodems J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A, $243,772 Mortgage made March 8, 2012 SunTrust Bank, $245,249 Subordination Agreement made March 28, 2012 Release of mortgage by J.P. Morgan Chase, April 2, 2012 Transcript, page 279, Eric Bishoff, July 20, 2009, WrestleReunion Compilation of Docs. 181, 169-1, 169-2 and 202, WrestleReunion

THE FLORIDA BAR INQUIRY/COMPLAINT FORM

PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE - Required Information.): Your Name: Robert Cash Organization: Address: 4113 W. San Luis Street City: Tampa State: FL Zip Code: 33629 phone: 813-839-4576 Email: cash@addisonemerson.com ACAP Reference No. PART TWO (See Page 1, PART TWO - Facts/Allegations.): The specific thing or things I am complaining about are: On January 27th, 2012, Mr. Christopher Rodems filed the Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim to Case No. 12-CA-329. The document is attached. This ethics complaint is being filed against Mr. Rodems based upon Rule 4-8.4 Misconduct. Specific sections include; (a), Rules of Professional Conduct (c), Misrepresentation (d), engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice (e), ...achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct In support of this complaint, the impertinent and scandalous matters are identified on located within pages 5 and 6 within the attached Counterclaim. Mr. Rodems demonstrates a recluse use of his legal position and in submittal of the Counterclaims provides no exhibits to substantiate the claims made. As submitted in the Motion to Strike, Mr. Rodems comments produce no Affirmative Defenses, false and unsupported Counterclaims. They are immaterial, impertinent and scandalous. It is clear that Mr. Rodems Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims are intended to injure and humiliate. Attorney's Name: Ryan Christopher Rodems Address: 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790 City: Tampa Zip Code: 33602 State: FL Telephone: 813-489-1001

PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE - Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached sheet].

PART FOUR (See Page 1, PART FOUR - Signature.): Under penalties of perjury, I declare thatjheforegoingfacts true, correct and complete. - ^

are

Signature

Date

19

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

ROBERT C. CASH, JR. Plaintiff,

V.

J1361 ft
Case No. 12-CA-329 Division: "G"

DANIEL E. RODGERS; and, MEDCO DATA, LLC. Defendants.

ANSWER. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS Defendants Daniel E. Rodgers (Rodgers) and Medco Data, LLC (Medco) answer Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr.'s Complaint, assert affirmative defenses and counterclaims, demand trial by jury, and state: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Without knowledge and therefore denied. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted that venue is proper; otherwise denied. Denied. Admitted. Without knowledge and therefore denied. Admitted. The Florida Bar-/ Tallahassee, Florida

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Denied. Denied. Admitted that Plaintiff was an employee and performed services as an employee;

otherwise, denied. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Denied. Admitted that Plaintiffs employment was terminated; otherwise, denied. Without knowledge and therefore denied. Defendants reallege their responses to paragraphs 1-16. Denied that Plaintiff was a manager or member, denied that he was removed as a

manager or member; otherwise, denied. 20. Denied that Plaintiff was a manager or member, denied that he was removed as a

manager or member; otherwise, denied. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Without knowledge and therefore denied. Without knowledge and therefore denied. Defendants reallege their responses to paragraphs 1-16.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

Defendants reallege their responses to paragraphs 1-16. Denied that Plaintiff was a manager or member; otherwise, denied. Denied that Plaintiff was a manager or member; otherwise, denied. Denied that Plaintiff was a manager or member; otherwise, denied. Any allegation not specifically admitted is denied. To the extent permitted by contract or statute, Defendants claim entitlement to an

award of attorneys' fees from Plaintiff. 57. First Affirmative Defense: The Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Defendant Rodgers is not a proper party to Count I or II because Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant Medco that governs the relationship between the parties, and therefore Defendant Rodgers is not a proper party as to any disputes raised by Counts I or II. Furthermore, the terms of the contract defeat the claims raised by Plaintiff. 58. Second Affirmative Defense: The agreement alleged in Count II the complaint

was not in writing and signed by either defendant or by some other person authorized by one or more of both Defendants, and therefore the action is barred by the statute of frauds. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand trial by jury, judgment in their favor, costs of this action, attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNTERCLAIMS Defendant Medco Data, LLC counterclaims against Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr., demands trial by jury and alleges: 59. This is an action for damages that exceed $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs

or attorneys' fees.

60. Complaint. 61.

Defendant Medco Data, LLC incorporates paragraphs 1 and 3 of Plaintiff s

Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr. was hired as an employee of Defendant Medco Data,

LLC's in July 2009 and was terminated in September 2011. 62. Mr. Cash signed a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement on October 8,

2009. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 1. 63. In February 2011, Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr. attended a medical trade show in

New Orleans, Louisiana as an employee of Medco Data, LLC, and he was expected to provide service as an employee to Medco Data, LLC during trade show hours. He did not. 64. Instead, during the trade show hours, Mr. Cash, Jr. drank alcohol to excess,

visibly appearing intoxicated. 65. Additionally, during the time between February 3-7, 2011, Mr. Cash expended in

excess of $2,200.00 on Medco Data, LLC credit cards, without authorization, in a strip club known as "Rick's Cabaret." 66. Upon learning of this charge, Medco Data, LLC's owner assumed the company's

credit card in Mr. Cash's possession had been stolen, and he contacted Mr. Cash about the matter. 67. Mr. Cash admitted to using the company's credit card, telling the owner there is

an elevator in Rick's Cabaret, and when a patron pays to go upstairs, "anything goes." Mr. Cash admitted to taking the elevator and engaging in "anything goes" at the strip club. 68. Additionally, Mr. Cash told the owner of Medco Data, LLC that the reason Mr.

Cash arrived late at the trade show was because Mr. Cash was "up all night doing coke off a strippers tits."

69.

Medco Data, LLC's owner advised Mr. Cash that his actions were beyond

tolerable, unprofessional, and the expenditures were unauthorized. Medco Data, LLC's owner told Mr. Cash that he "definitely wasn't okay with him using company assets to fund illicit sexual adventures or drugs and that he would need to pay back the money," and that he was sure Mr. Cash's "wife wouldn't be pleased." Mr. Cash said he was "really sorry," that his actions were "something [he was] going to have to live with," and he denied having a drug problem. 70. During the term of his employment, Mr. Cash collected a salary while using

Medco Data, LLC's assets and resources and Confidential Information, as defined in Exhibit 1, to form a business venture which Mr. Cash intended to convert to his own use. Mr. Cash expended thousands of dollars of Medco Data, LLC's money and resources, exploited Confidential Information, as defined in Exhibit 1, and made unauthorized business decisions costing Medco Data, LLC additional expenses and losses of revenue. Specifically, Mr. Cash made commitments to vendors and potential employees without approval of Medco Data, LLC's owner. 71. Upon being confronted when the owner of Medco Data, LLC discovered this

information, Mr. Cash admitted that he was "not happy" working for Medco Data, LLC, and had not been "happy" for quite some time, that his intentions were to start his own company, using the relationships he developed while employed at Medco Data, LLC, and while using its assets and resources, and that he intended to resign and take a number of Medco Data, LLC's clients with him to provide immediate cash flow to fund his venture. COUNTERCLAIM I - CONVERSION 72. 73. Defendant Medco Data, LLC realleges 59-71. During the term of his employment, and on and after February 1,2011, Plaintiff

Robert C. Cash, Jr. converted to his own use money, assets, business opportunities, and Confidential Information, as defined in Exhibit 1, that was then the property of Defendant Medco Data, LLC of a value in excess of $15,000. WHEREFORE, Defendant Medco Data, LLC demands trial by jury, judgment for damages against Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr., interest, costs of this action, and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNTERCLAIM II- BREACH OF CONTRACT

74. 75. 76. Defendant Medco Data, LLC realleges paragraphs 59-71. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have occurred. Under the contract attached as Exhibit 1, Plaintiff Robert C. Cash had a duty not

to disclose or use for his own benefit Confidential Information, as defined by Exhibit 1. 77. Plaintiff Robert C. Cash breached his contract with Medco Data, LLC by

misappropriating for his own use money, assets, business opportunities, and Confidential Information, as defined in Exhibit 1. 78. Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr. has breached the contract attached as Exhibit 1 by

failing to return all Confidential Information, as defined by Exhibit 1, upon his termination of employment. 79. As a direct result of Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr.'s actions, as alleged herein,

Defendant Medco Data, LLC has suffered damages in excess of $15,000. 80. Defendant Medco Data, LLC is entitled recover from Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr.,

its "complete legal costs" incurred in enforcing the contract attached as Exhibit 1, including attorneys' fees, taxable costs and non-taxable costs. .. WHEREFORE, Defendant Medco Data, LLC demands trial by jury, judgment for

damages against Plaintiff Robert C. Cash, Jr., interest, attorneys' fees, taxable and non-taxable costs of this action, and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. DATED this 27th day of January, 2012.

lYAN^HRISTOPHER-R'ODEMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 947652 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 813/489-1008 (facsimile) Attorneys for the Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by regular U.S. Mail to John P. Holsonback, Esquire, 400 N. Ashley St., Suite 1500, Tampa, Florida 33602 this 27th day of January, 2012.

RYA

PHE^RDDEMSTESQUIRE

Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement

THIS CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT dated this Today's Date* X^ X ~

BETWEEN:

AND

WHEREAS: 1. EMPLOYEE is currently or may be employed as an employee with MEDCO DATA for the position or responsibility of servjce technician in addition to any other position or responsibility now or later held with MEDCO DATA (inc jDiupiuymcni;. 1). ^ ij\ (the^'Employment _. J neceive/rom MEDCp DATA,,or develop ojfthe beha'tf'ofMEDCO DATA, 2. EMPLOYEE will receive/ Confidential Inform'atipnJ n'atipnas^aresultJdfA&Employment. I* ' :<'' t\ ',\$

I r" rdf ' m & -:i & if

-I iS s- L ;.-!

IN CONSIDERATION oi|nd|asfi <&n<3jfion d|MEDgO]DAT^ |n^^||MgjLgYEE and MEDCO DATA providing the Confidential Information to EM*PLOYEE in'additiorffo other valuablejconsideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Agfpsement agree as follows: Confidential Information 1. EMPLOYEE acknowledges in any position EMPLOYEE may hold, in and as a result of EMPLOYEE'S employment by MEDCO DATA, EMPLOYEE will, or may, be making use of, acquiring or adding to information about certain matters and things which are confidential to MEDCO DATA, and which information is the exclusive property of MEDCO DATA including, without limitation: a. 'Confidential Information' means all data and information relating to the business and management of MEDCO DATA, including proprietary and trade secret technology and accounting records to which access is obtained by EMPLOYEE, including Work Product, Other Proprietary Data, Business Operations, Marketing and Development Operations, and Customers. Confidential Information will also include any information which has been disclosed by a third party to MEDCO DATA, and governed by a non-disclosure agreement entered into between the third party and MEDCO DATA. Confidential Information will not include information that: x i. is generally known in the industry of MEDCO DATA; ii. is now or subsequently becomes generally available to the public through no wrongful act of EMPLOYEE; Location: 1410 N Westshore Blvd. Suite 700 * Tampa, FL 33607 Mailing: 4532 W Kennedy Blvd #298 * Tampa, FL 33609 888-321-1550 * 888-239-8149-fax www.medcodata.com EXHIBIT

iii. iv. v.

EMPLOYEE rightfully had-t'h its possession prior to the disclosure to EMPLOYEE by MEDCO DATA ; is independently created by EMPLOYEE without direct or indirect use of the Confidential Information; or EMPLOYEE rightfully obtains from a third party who has the right to transfer or disclose it.

b. "Work Product' means work product resulting from or related to work or projects performed or to be performed for MEDCO DATA, or for clients of MEDCO DATA, of any type or form in any stage of actual or anticipated research and development; c. 'Other Proprietary Data' means information relating to MEDCO DATA'S proprietary rights prior to any public disclosure of such information, including but not limited to the nature of the proprietary rights, production data, technical and engineering data, test data and test results, the status and details of research and development of products and services, and information regarding acquiring, protecting, enforcing and licensing proprietary rights (including patents, "copyrights and trade secrets); d. 'Business Operations' means internal personnel and financial information, vendor names and other vendor information (including Vendor characteristics, services and agreements), purchasing and internal fCOS^information, interiiaLservices and operational manuals, and the manner and methods of Conducting MEDCO DATA'S business; , ;
!")

e. 'Marketing and Development Operations' means marketing and .development plans, price and cost data, price and fee amounts, pricing and billing policies* quoting procedures, marketing "techniques and methods of obtaining business, forecasts and forecast assumptions and volumes, and future plans and potential strategies of MEDCO DATA, which have been or are being discussed; and f. 'Customers' means names and customers and their representatives, contracts and their contents and parties, customer services, data provided by customers and the type, quantity and specifications of products and services purchased, leased, licensed or received by clients of MEDCO DATA.

. s" I

I \

Confidential Obligations 2. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Confidential Information will remain the exclusive property of MEDCO DATA, and will only be used by EMPLOYEE for the Permitted Purpose defined by MEDCO DATA, EMPLOYEE will not use the Confidential Information for any purpose which might be directly or indirectly detrimental to MEDCO DATA, or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. 3. The obligations to ensure and protect the confidentiality of the Confidential Information imposed on EMPLOYEE in this Agreement and any obligations to provide notice under this Agreement will survive the expiration or termination, as the case may be, of this Agreement and will continue for a period of one (1) year from the date of such expiration or termination. Location: 1410 N Westshore Blvd, Suite 700 * Tampa, PL 33607 Mailing: 4532 W Kennedy Blvd #298 * Tampa, FL 33609 888-321-1550 * 888-239-8149-fax www.medcodata.com

4. EMPLOYEE may disclose any of the Confidential Information: a. to such of its employees, agents, representatives and advisors that have a need to know for the Permitted Purpose provided that: i. . ii. iii. iv. EMPLOYEE has informed such personnel of the confidential nature of the Confidential Information; such personnel agree to be legally bound to the same burdens of confidentiality, non-use and non-disclosure as EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE agrees to take all necessary steps to ensure that the terms of this Agreement are not violated by such personnel; and EMPLOYEE agrees to be 3 esponsible for and indemnify MEDCO DATA, for any breach of this Agreement by its personnel.

b. to a third party where MEDCO DATA, has consented in writing to such disclosure; and c. .to the extent required by law or by the request or requirement of any judicial, legislative, administrative or other governmental body. Avoiding Conflict'of Opportunities _ .'

5. It is understood and agreed that any business opportunity relating td qrsiimlarito MEDCO DATA 's current or anticipated business opportunities coming to thfe attention of EMPLOYEE during EMPLOYEE'S employment is an opportunity belonging to MED<|oiDktA ' Accordingly, EMPLOYEE will advise MEDCO.DATA, of the opportunity and cannot pursu'e&he opportunity, directly or indirectly, without the written consent of MEDCO DATA, 6. Without the written consent of MEDCO DATA EMPLOYEE further agrees not to: a. Perform work or provide products to any individual(s) or business (es) that is in conflict with services or products that MEDCO DATA, can produce. Non-Solicitation 7. Any attempt on the part of EMPLOYEE to induce others to leave MEDCO DATA'S employ, or any effort by EMPLOYEE to interfere with MEDCO DATA's relationship with its other employees and contractors would be harmful and damaging to MEDCO DATA, EMPLOYEE agrees that during the term of the Employment and for a period of one (1) year after the end of term of the Employment, EMPLOYEE will not in any way, directly or indirectly: a. induce or attempt to induce any employee or contractor of MEDCO DATA, to quit employment or retainer with MEDCO DATA; b. otherwise interfere with or disrupt MEDCO DATA'S relationship with its employees and contractors; Location: 1410 N Westshore Blvd. Suite 700 * Tampa, FL 33607 Mailing: 4532 W Kennedy Blvd #298 * Tampa, FL 33609 888-321-1550 * 888-239-8149-fax www.medcodata.com

- "T i V

c. discuss employment opportunities or provide information about competitive employment to any of MEDCO DATA'S employees or contractors; or d. solicit, entice, or hire away any employee or contractor of MEDCO DATA. This obligation will be limited to those that were employees or contractors of MEDCO DATA when EMPLOYEE was employed by MEDCO DATA. Non-Acceptance 8. For a period of one (1) year from the date of termination or expiration, as the case may be, of the Employment, EMPLOYEE will not divert or attempt to divert from MEDCO DATA or accept any business, compensated or not compensated from any clients MEDCO DATA had enjoyed or solicited prior to termination or expiration, as the case may be, of the Employment. Ownership and Title 9. EMPLOYEE acknowledges and agrees that all rights, title and interest in any Confidential Information will remain the exclusive property of MEDCO DATA, Accordingly, EMPLOYEE specifically agrees and acknowledges that EMPLOYEE will have no interest in the Confidential Information, including, without limitation, no interest in know-how, copyiight, trade-marks or trade names, notwithstanding the fact that EMPLOYEE may have created or contributed to the creation of the same. 10. EMPLOYEE does hereby waive any moral rights that EMPLOYEE may have with respect to the Confidential Information. -] ; ' - , ' ' t 11. This Agreement will.not apply,inYesspect of any intellectual property, process,.design, development, creation, research, invention, know-how, trade names, trade-marks or copyrights for which: a. no equipment, supplies, facility or Confidential Information of MEDCO DATA, was used, b. was developed entirely on EMPLOYEE'S own time, and c. does not: i. relate to the business of MEDCO DATA ii. relate to EMPLOYEE'S actual or demonstrably anticipated processes, research or development or iii. result from any work performed by EMPLOYEE for MEDCO DATA. 12. EMPLOYEE agrees to immediately disclose to MEDCO DATA, all Confidential Information developed in whole or in part by EMPLOYEE during the term of EMPLOYEE'S employment with MEDCO DATA, and to assign to MEDCO DATA, any right, title or interest EMPLOYEE may have in the Confidential Information EMPLOYEE agrees to execute any instruments and to do all other things reasonably requested by MEDCO DATA, (both during and after EMPLOYEE'S employment with MEDCO DATA, ) in order to vest more fully in MEDCO DATA, all ownership rights in those items transferred by EMPLOYEE to MEDCO DATA .

Location: 1410 N Westshore Blvd, Suite 700 * Tampa, FL 33607 Mailing: 4532 W Kennedy Blvd #298 * Tampa, FL 33609 888-321-1550 * 888-239-8149-fax www.medcodata.com

Remedies 13. EMPLOYEE agrees and acknowledges that the Confidential Information is of a proprietary and confidential nature and that any disclosure of the Confidential Information to a third party in breach of this Agreement cannot be reasonably or adequately compensated for in money damages and would cause irreparable injury to MEDCO DATA, . Accordingly, EMPLOYEE agrees that MEDCO DATA, is entitled to, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to it at law or in equity, to an injunction restraining EMPLOYEE and any agents of EMPLOYEE, from directly or indirectly committing or engaging in any act restricted by this Agreement in relation to the Confidential Information. Return of Confidential Information 14. EMPLOYEE agrees that, upon request of MEDCO DATA, or upon termination or expiration, as the case may be, of the Employment, EMPLOYEE will turn over to MEDCO DATA, all documents, disks or other computer media, or other material in the possession or control of EMPLOYEE that: a. may contain or be derived from ideas, concepts, creations, or trade secrets and other proprietary "and Confidential Information as defined in this Agreement; or b. connected with or derived from EMPLOYEE'S services to MEDCO DATA. >" i .' ' > If I Notices , 15. In the event that EMPLOYEE is required.in a civil, criminal or regulatory proceeding to disclose any part of the Confidential,Mormation,' EMPLOYEE will give to 'MEDCO DATA, prompt written notice of such request so MED'CO DATA, may seek an| appropriate remedy or alternatively to waive EMPLOYEE'S compliance with the provisions of this Agreement in regards to the re'quest. 16. If EMPLOYEE loses or makes unauthorized disclosure of any of the Confidential Information, EMPLOYEE will immediately notify MEDCO DATA, and take all reasonable steps necessary to retrieve the lost or improperly disclosed Confidential Information.

17. The address for any notice to be delivered to any of the parties to this Agreement is as follows: a. MedCo Data, LLC,. 1410 N West Shore Blvd. Suite 700, Tampa, FL 33607 b. .EMPLOYEE: 18. In providing the Confidential Information, MEDCO DATA, makes no representations, either expressly or impliedly, as to its adequacy, sufficiency, completeness, correctness or its lack of defect of any kind, including any patent or trademark infringement that may result from the use of such information. Termination 19. This Agreement will automatically terminate two years after EMPLOYEE'S Employment with MEDCO DATA,, terminates or expires, as the case may be. Location: 1410 N Westshore Blvd. Suite 700 * Tampa, FL 33607 Mailing: 4532 W Kennedy Blvd #298 * Tampa, FL 33609 5-321-1550 * 888-239-8149-fax www medcodata.com

Assignment 20. Except where a party has changed its corporate name or merged with another corporation, this Agreement may not be assigned or otherwise transferred by either party in whole or in part without the prior written consent of the other party to this Agreement. Amendments 21. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by a written instrument executed by both MEDCO DATA, and EMPLOYEE.

Governing Law 22. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. General Provisions 23. Headings are inserted, for the convenience of the parties only "and are notito be considered when interpreting this Agreement. Words in the singular .mean anji include.the plural and vice versa. Words in the masculine mean and include the feminine and vice versa.. ^ ,>,f * " " 24. EMPLOYEE is liable for all cost, expenses and expenditures including, and without limitation, the complete legal costs incurred by MEDCO DATA, in enforcing this Agreement as a result of any default of this Agreement by EMPLOYEE.
i

25. MEDCO DATA, and EMPLOYEE acknowledge that this Agreement is reasonable, valid and enforceable. However, if a court of competent jurisdiction finds any of the provisions of this Agreement to be too broad to be enforceable, it is the parties' intent that such provision be reduced in scope by the court only to the extent deemed necessary by that court to render the provision reasonable and enforceable, bearing in mind that it is EMPLOYEE'S intention to give MEDCO DATA, the broadest possible protection against disclosure of the Confidential Information. 26. No failure or delay by MEDCO DATA, in exercising any power, right or privilege provided in this Agreement will operate as a waiver, nor will any single or partial exercise of such rights, powers or privileges preclude any further exercise of them or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege provided in this Agreement. 27. This Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, as the case may be, of MEDCO DATA, and EMPLOYEE. 28. This Agieement may be executed in counterpart. Location: 1410 N Westshore Blvd. Suite 700 * Tampa, FL 33607 Mailing: 4532 W Kennedy Blvd #298 * Tampa, FL 33609 888-321-1550 * 888-239-8149-fax www.medcodata.com

29. Time will be of the essence of this Agreement. 30. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and there are no further items or provisions, either oral or otherwise.

IN WITNESS-WHEREOF MEDCO DATA, has duly affixed its signature by a duly authorized Officer under seal and EMPLOYEE has duly signed under hand and seal on this , 2009. X day of

MEDCO DATA, LLC per:

f-fr tf

(SEAL)

<"*\*

Witness:

.u

>!t

Location: 1410 N Westshore Blvd. Suite 700 * Tampa, FL 33607 Mailing: 4532 W Kennedy Blvd #298 * Tampa, FL 33609 5-321-1550 * 888-239-8149-fax www.medcodata.com

THE FLORIDA BAR

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2300S

(850) 561-5600
WWW.FLABAR.ORG

March 13, 2012

Mr. Robert Cash 4113 West San Luis Street Tampa, FL 33629 Re: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems; RFA No.: 12-15330

Dear Mr. Cash: Your inquiry concerning the above-referenced attorney has been referred to me for my review. After careful consideration, I conclude that the matters referenced in your inquiry do not constitute violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and accordingly, your inquiry does not fall within the purview of the grievance system framework. Consequently, I have closed our record in this matter. I must conclude that your complaint constitutes a civil dispute which is best resolved through the civil system. The Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that the disciplinary process and proceedings are not to be used as a substitute for civil proceedings and remedies. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction makes findings in your civil case which suggest misconduct by the attorney, you may re-file your complaint at that time, enclosing the relevant findings. Please be advised that my action does not preclude you from consulting with private counsel, nor does it preclude you from exercising any legal remedy which may be available to you. Pursuant to the Bars records retention schedule, the computer record and file will be disposed of one year from the date of closing. Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707

cc:

Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems

20

21

22

Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 100

Filed 08/21/09 Page 18 of 26 PageID 3633

23

Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 181

Filed 10/06/09 Page 1 of 1 PageID 5022

24

Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 169-1

Filed 09/24/09 Page 1 of 2

Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 169-1

Filed 09/24/09 Page 2 of 2

Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 169-2

Filed 09/24/09 Page 1 of 1

Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 202

Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5184

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

WRESTLEREUNION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LIVE NATION TELEVISION HOLDINGS, INC. Defendant. _________________________/ ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Defendants unopposed motion for issuance of writ of garnishment (doc. 201). Pursuant to Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27MAP

Procedure and ch. 77, Florida Statutes, Defendant seeks the issuance of a writ of garnishment directed to garnishee HIGHSPOT.COM, INC. to assist in satisfying the costs taxed in its favor in the amount of $25,729.24 (doc. 200). Plaintiff does not oppose the relief requested. After consideration, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendants unopposed motion for issuance of a writ of garnishment (doc. 201) is GRANTED. 2. Prior to the issuance of the writ of garnishment, Defendant shall comply with the fee requirements of Fla. Stat. 77.28. 3. Upon receipt of the applicable fee, the Clerk is directed to issue the writ of

Case 8:07-cv-02093-JDW-MAP Document 202

Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5185

garnishment attached to Defendants motion (doc. 201). DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on February 25, 2010.

cc:

Counsel of Record