SCOTUS Rule 13 Application, Guardian Ad Litem, Certiorari Extend Time

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001
August 17, 2012
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems and Cook, et al.
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the above-entitled case was sent by commercial carrier August 13, 2012 and
received August 15, 2012. The papers are returned for the following reason(s):
The lower court opinion must be appended. Rule 13.5.
The application does not specify the amount of additional time requested. Rule 13.5.
The application does not set forth with specificity the reasons why the granting of an
extension of time is thought justified. Rule 13.5.
It is impossible to determine the tinleliness of your application for an extension of
time withollt the lower court opinions.
A copy of the corrected application must be served on opposing counsel.
If your are attempting to file the extension of time to file your petition for writ of
certiorari seeking review of both state and federal court orders, you must file separate
extension requests. You may not consolidate state and federal court orders.
Sincerely,
Willianl K. Suter, Clerk
By: ~ -{(. Jf:::\ /.
Clayton R. Higgins, ~ ~
(202) 479-3019
Enclosures
August 13,2012
Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Dear Clerk of Court:
Enclosed is my Rule 13(5) Application to Justice Clarence Thomas for the following:
Application to Extend Time To File A Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, with
Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, and
Notice of Extraordinary Circunlstances; and Appendix.
Also enclosed are ten (10) copies of the Application. Thank you.
,

/,/ L/ .,y., "
I"

7 eil1. ille pie'
.8092 SW 15th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: [email protected]
Enclosures
AUG 15 20J2
OFFICE OF THE CtEfIIl<
SUPREME caUR U.
No: _______________________
_______________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________
NEIL J. GILLESPIE - PETITIONER
VS.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA, et al. - RESPONDENTS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL. - RESPONDENTS
________________________
Application to Justice Clarence Thomas
____________________
Application to Extend Time To File A Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem
Notice of Extraordinary Circumstances
______________________
Orders of The Supreme Court of Florida, Case No. SC11-1622
Orders of The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, 12-11213-C
Orders of The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Case No. 12-11028-B
____________________
Submitted August 13, 2012 by
Neil J. Gillespie
Petitioner, pro se, non-lawyer
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
(352) 854-7807
[email protected]
2
I. Application To Justice Clarence Thomas
1. Petitioner pro se, Neil J. Gillespie (“Gillespie”), makes application to Justice Clarence
Thomas under Rule 13(5) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Gillespie
also seeks appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem, gives Notice of extraordinary circumstances,
and includes a general request for other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
2. Gillespie is a fifty-six (56) year-old single man, law abiding, college educated, and a
former business owner, disabled with physical and mental impairments. Gillespie’s litigation
against his former lawyers, Barker, Rodems & Cook. PA, is to recover $7,143 stolen during their
prior representation of Gillespie. Ryan Christopher Rodems is unethically representing his firm
against Gillespie, a former client of the small three-partner firm, contrary to well-established law
and ethics rules, see McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995.
Mr. Rodems’ strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on Gillespie who
he knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted Gillespie leave to amend his motion
for disability accommodation, and it was submitted August 6, 2012. (Exhibit 1). Gillespie argues
for a Right to Mental Integrity as a Fourteenth Amendment Liberty Interest, see Washington Et
Al. v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990). Gillespie has a record of impairment since birth. Gillespie is
also regarded by others as being impaired. The record shows Gillespie has major depression,
post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), diabetes type II adult onset, traumatic brain injury (TBI),
velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI)(a speech disorder), craniofacial disorder, and impaired
hearing. Gillespie argued in his amended disability motion, Exhibit 1, paragraph 8:
8. 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 litigant’s right not to be subjected to physical,
sexual, mental or emotional violence inside or outside the court, either by private
3
attorneys or by judges and people acting on the part of the state. Law already recognizes
the tort of intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Litigants in civil
proceedings must be free from mental or emotional violence, or their Constitutionally
protected rights, including due process, are rendered meaningless.
Gillespie is also indigent and his home is in foreclosure. See the Clerk’s online letter in the U.S.
11th Circuit, case no. 12-11028-B, returning Gillespie’s Response To Order stating it “…should
go to the Supreme Court of the United States…”. (Public Communication 07/06/2012).
II. Jurisdiction and Judgments Sought to be Reviewed
3. Gillespie seeks review on petition for writ of certiorari of the following:
a. Orders of the Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC11-1622, denied/dismissed March
12, 2012, rehearing denied May 22, 2012. (Exhibit 2).
b. Orders of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, case no. 12-11213-C, denied
IFP July 16, 2012, dismissed August 7, 2012. (Exhibit 3).
c. Orders of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, case no. 12-11028-B,
rehearing and IFP denied June 19, 2012, dismissed July 13, 2012. (Exhibit 4).
4. On July 23, 2012 Gillespie contacted the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court about
consolidation of the above cases and an extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari,
since Gillespie believes the time in Florida case no. SC11-1622 expires August 22, 2012. The
Clerk responded July 25, 2012 as follows: (Exhibit 5)
In response to your letter of July 23,2012, you may only submit a single petition for a
writ of certiorari when two or more judgments are sought to be reviewed to the same
lower court. Rule 12.4. This also applies to an application for an extension of time within
which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Gillespie read Rule 12.4 and believes Florida case no. SC11-1622 can have a petition for writ of
certiorari; and the two U.S. 11th Circuit cases can have one petition for writ of certiorari.
Gillespie seeks direction from the Court on consolidation of the Florida and 11th Circuit cases.
4
III. Argument
5. Generally related claims and parties are joined or consolidated that rise from one set of
facts or events in the interest of economy. The issues in Florida case no. SC11-1622 are the
proximate cause of both 11th Circuit cases.
a. The parties in Florida case no. SC11-1622 are Gillespie, Plaintiff and Counter
Defendant, and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J. Cook, Defendants and Counter
Plaintiffs. As set forth in the Petition in SC11-1622 (Exhibit 6), in 2005 Gillespie sued Barker,
Rodems & Cook to recover $7,143 stolen during their prior representation of Gillespie. Barker,
Rodems & Cook counter-sued Gillespie for libel over a letter about a bar complaint. Mr.
Rodems’ conflict made lawful resolution of this case impossible. Mr. Rodems intentionally and
strategically disrupted the tribunal on March 6, 2012 with a false affidavit to the court about an
attack in chambers. This was later disproved by a police investigation. Mr. Rodems obtained
$11,550 sanctions against Gillespie for a misplaced defense to the counterclaim, and discovery
mistakes. Almost the entire case, from 2006 through 2011, was spent by Mr. Rodems securing
sanctions and executing on the $11,550 judgment, including garnishment of Gillespie’s exempt
Social Security, and later Gillespie’s arrest on a writ of bodily attachment, a coercive
confinement to force a settlement. In 2007 Gillespie retained out-of-town counsel Robert W.
Bauer for the libel counterclaim. Mr. Bauer encouraged Gillespie to reinstate his dismissed
claims, which he did. But Mr. Bauer was unable to overcome the misconduct of Mr. Rodems,
and his false testimony. Although Mr. Bauer charged Gillespie $31,863
1
in legal fees, much of it
was wasted, such $5,600 in travel time, and Bauer never filed an amended complaint. Mr. Bauer
withdrew in 2009 and Gillespie was on his own. After the case was closed and on appeal of a

1
$12,650 remains unpaid; the rest was paid from Social Security disability benefits or borrowed.
2006
5
final summary judgment (2D10-5197), Mr. Rodems obtained an arrest warrant for Gillespie
through a series of ex-parte hearings where Rodems presented more false testimony.
b. The case in the 11th Circuit, 12-11213-C, is an appeal of District Court case 5:10-cv-
503-oc-WTH-TBS, a civil rights and ADA case for denial of accommodation under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the misuse and denial of judicial process under the color of
law, in Gillespie’s lawsuit with Barker, Rodems and Cook. The parties include:
Plaintiff: Neil J. Gillespie
Defendants: Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge and individually
James M. Barton, II, Circuit Judge and individually
Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge and individually
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel and individually
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator and individually
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Ryan Christopher Rodems
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Robert W. Bauer
c. The case in the 11th Circuit, 12-11028-B, is an appeal of District Court case 5:11-cv-
539-oc-WTH-TBS, for claims by the Estate of Penelope Gillespie and Gillespie on civil RICO
related to Gillespie’s lawsuit with Barker, Rodems and Cook. The parties include:
Plaintiffs: Estate of Penelope Gillespie, Neil J. Gillespie
Defendants: Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
James M. Barton, II, Circuit Court Judge, and individually
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Robert W. Bauer
IV. Notice of Extraordinary Circumstance - Reputation of Mr. Rodems
6. As set forth in the Complaint (Doc. 1) in the District Court case 5:10-cv-503-cv-WTH-
TBS, Mr. Rodems is a bully. (Doc. 1, ¶20). Mr. Rodems’ is a well known as a bully in the legal
community. A Tampa Police Department report June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges
6
Mr. Rodems’ former partner 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 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 Gillespie about the attack during a time that
the lawyers represented Gillespie in another matter. (Doc. 1, ¶22). U.S. District Judge James D.
Whittemore repudiated the infamous coffee-throwing incident as speaker for the Florida Bar’s
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program. (Doc. 1, ¶21). Mr. Levine also sued Mr. Rodems, 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. Mr. Rodems has a practice of accusing civil litigants of committing crimes, and accused
Gillespie of felony extortion for making a complaint to the Florida Bar. Mr. Rodems is a fan of
professional wrestling, brings that mentality to the legal profession. While real professional
wrestlers may leave the persona behind in their personal life, Mr. Rodems believes boorish
behavior is a legitimate part of winning a case. Mr. Rodems lost a case as plaintiff’s counsel in
WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc., U.S. District Court, Middle
District of Florida, Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27, and commenced another trademark
misbehavior, writing disparaging letters to litigants, such as his diatribe attacking the credibility
of witness Eric Bischoff in the WrestleReunion lawsuit. A copy of the letter is Exhibit 7, and it is
also posted online http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html.
One question in Gillespie’s petition for writ of certiorari is the role of bullying in litigation.
7
V. Notice of Extraordinary Circumstance - Threat By Eugene P. Castagliuolo
7. On July 25, 2012 attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo threatened Gillespie with litigation
over a disclosure about Castagliuolo’s admission to having mental problems. Mr. Castagliuolo
formerly represented Gillespie, see the Florida Supreme Court Petition, SC11-1622. (Exhibit 6).
Gillespie reported the threat, which included a threat against Michael Borseth, a court reporter,
to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi August 1, 2012. Gillespie’s 11 page letter and exhibits
are posted on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/102656505/Letter-to-AG-Pam-Bondi-
Eugene-Castagliuolo-August-1-2012. On August 10, 2012, Gillespie received an email response
from Samantha Santana of the Florida Attorney General's Office. Ms. Santana wrote in part:
It appears that you provided a copy of your complaint about Attorney
Eugene Castagliuolo to The Florida Bar, which is the appropriate agency to
address this matter. Please follow up with The Bar directly for further assistance.
Gillespie took that to mean a formal Bar complaint, which was submitted August 11, 2012.
(Exhibit 7). Gillespie Mr. Castagliuolo’s “health issues” resulted in the ineffective assistance of
counsel at a time when Gillespie was incarcerated. On June 21, 2011 Gillespie voluntarily
appeared for a deposition at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa to purge civil contempt and
rescind the arrest warrant. It was a trap. This is from Gillespie’s petition in the Supreme Court of
Florida SC11-1622, paragraph 5: (Exhibit 6).
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 Sheriff’s 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
in custody or involuntarily confined
believes
8
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 Sheriff’s Office. (A.2.1.2-3).
Mr. Castagliuolo failed to disclose a conflict with his daughter, attorney Maria E. Castagliuolo
who works for the public defender. The public defender was appointed to represent Gillespie
June 1, 2011 at the contempt hearing, but Judge Arnold dismissed the public defender and issued
a warrant to arrest Gillespie on Mr. Rodems’ motion for writ of bodily attachment. Maria
Castagliuolo was promoted shortly after her father secured a settlement agreement
benefiting the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Gillespie’s lawsuit. Gillespie spent a week
responding to the threat by Mr. Castagliuolo, first in reporting his threat to AG Bondi, and then
with a formal Bar complaint.
VI. Notice of Extraordinary Circumstance - Reputation of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
8. Another extraordinary circumstance is the complete imbalance of power between
Gillespie, a private citizen, and the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida. This imbalance of power
has inflicted permanent damage on Gillespie, as determined by Dr. Huffer in her letter of
October 28, 2010. Even a sitting Florida Circuit Judge, the Hon. Gregory Holder paid a heavy
price for speaking out against wrongdoing in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, almost $2 million.
As set forth in Gillespie’s Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) in District Court case
5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS: (Page 5)
The Thirteenth Circuit is notorious for wrongdoing. The price is high for confronting
judicial misconduct. In one example, Circuit Judge Gregory Holder spoke to the media
about judicial misconduct, and was a cooperating witness (2001-2002) in a federal
criminal investigation of corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. In retaliation
the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) pursued two failed inquiries
against him, JQC Inquiry Nos. 01-303 and 02-487. Judge Holder spent many years and
$1.92 million successfully defending himself. On June 23, 2005, the Hearing Panel of the
9
JQC voted unanimously to dismiss the charges against Judge Holder. This was the first
trial defense verdict against the JQC in almost twenty years. On September 15, 2009 the
Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC03-1171, ordered entry of judgment for Judge
Holder for recovery of costs from the JQC in the amount of $70,000 for successfully
defending JQC Inquiry No. 02-487. Judge Holder’s actual expenses were $1,779,691.81
in legal fees, and cost of $140,870.79.
Public files in the above JQC cases are online on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
According to the public file, Judge Holder’s life was at risk for reporting judicial misconduct:
During 2001 and 2002, Judge Holder cooperated with the FBI in the courthouse
corruption investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 4-5, at App. 3.] Because of Judge Holder’s
cooperation, the investigation’s targets had motive and resources to seek retribution
against him. [Id. at pp. 7-8] Indeed, these targets faced not just loss of position but
potential incarceration. [Id.] Detective Bartoszak testified at trial that the courthouse
corruption investigation team was concerned that Judge Holder’s activities were being
monitored by targets of the investigation. Judge Holder was advised by federal law
enforcement agents to carry a weapon, and he was provided with a secure cell phone to
communicate with the authorities. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7-8, at App. 3.]
Page 7, Gillespie’s Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) in District Court case 5:10-cv-
503-oc-WTH-TBS.
VII. Notice of Extraordinary Circumstance - Demands of Related Cases
9. On June 19, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit granted Gillespie’s
motion to amend his request for disability accommodation. (Exhibit 4). Gillespie has spent much
of his time preparing that amended motion. (Exhibit 1). The Clerk posted it online as a “Public
Communication” because it arrived the same day that the Court closed the case. In support of his
amended disability motion, Gillespie made a Consolidated Notice of Pro Se Electronic Case
Filing Prohibition by District Court, July 27, 2012, that shows e-filing is a reasonable disability
accommodation. (Exhibit 9). Only the Notice is provided, without exhibits, in the interest of
economy. The Notice is also attached to a Motion to Apply Funds Toward Filing Fees in the
District Court, case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 70 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 88 PageID
10
1863. The Notice shows that electronic filing (e-filing) prohibition in the District Court cost
Gillespie not less than $1,094.94, and 178.5 hours labor. This money could have been used to
pay filing fees. The time could have been used to make better pleadings. Also in support of
Gillespie’s motion for amended disability accommodation is the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, on
the Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205,
Hillsborough Co., July 30, 2012. (Exhibit 10). Only the Affidavit is provided, without exhibits,
in the interest of economy. The full Affidavit with Exhibits is posted on Scribd at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101764386/Affidavit-of-Neil-Gillespie-Conflict-of-Judge-Claudia-
R-Isom-ADA-July-30-2012. All together there are 18 related cases. (Exhibit 12).
VIII. Notice of Extraordinary Circumstance - Disability and Home Foreclosure
10. Gillespie is disabled as set forth in his Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation.
(Exhibit 1). Gillespie is indigent and/or insolvent. On June 8, 2012 Gillespie received Notice of
Default and Intent to Foreclose on his home. (Exhibit 11). Gillespie is preparing a defense to the
Notice because he cannot pay the $108,056.19 demanded by RMS. Gillespie has nowhere else to
move and would become homeless if his defense to the foreclosure is not successful.
IX. Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem
11. Because of the foregoing, there is an incredible imbalance of power against Gillespie. In
turn Gillespie is a disabled adult and vulnerable. Past representation of Gillespie was either not
competent or not zealous because of professional consideration to Mr. Rodems and his firm.
When a person involved in a suit cannot adequately represent his or her own interests, the
court may appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the person's interests. See Francine M. Neilson
v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 f.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1999). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17(c), the Court can appoint Gillespie a guardian ad litem. It is clear that Gillespie has not been
able to completely represent himself in this litigation. Following G-illespie's head injury in 1988
he has not been able to competently manage money, and twice declared bankruptcy. Prior to that
time Gillespie was self-sufficient and prosperous. (Exhibit 1). In addition, the record shows
Gillespie can become easily confused, and would therefore benefit from either a guardian ad
litem, or a schedule setting out deadlines, as well as an extension of tin1e in to file a petition for
writ of certiorari in Supreme Court of Florida case SC11-1622, unless the Court decides to
consolidate the Supreme Court of Florida case with the two cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE Gillespie petitions the Court under Rule 13(5) to extend the time to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari, or consolidate the state and federal cases on a new timeline.
Gillespie n10ves for appointment of a guardian ad litem, or a schedule setting out deadlines, and
includes a general request for other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED August 13,2012.
11
----------
No:
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NEIL J. GILLESPIE - PETITIONER
YS.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA, et al. - RESPONDENTS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL. - RESPONDENTS
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Neil J Gillespie, do swear or declare that on this date, August 13, 2012, as required by
Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed
Application to Extend Tinle To File A Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, with
Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, and
Notice of Extraordinary Circunlstances; and Appendix.
on each party to the above proceeding or that party's counsel, by depositing an envelope
containing the above docunlent in the U.S. mail addressed to each of them and with first-class
postage prepaid. The Appendix is in PDF on CD. The names and addresses of those served are:
Ryan Christopher Rodems David A. Rowland, Court Counsel
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida
501 E. Kennedy Blvd, suite 790 Legal Department
Tampa, Florida 33602 800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603
Tampa, Florida 33602
Catherine Barbara Chapman (For Robert W. Bauer, et al)
Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz & Sinlpson, P.A.
1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32308-7823
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
"-. )' , / ~ ~ ' 7 . '7
. / . /' / ?':
Executed on August 13,2012. / ./ ;;::7 . . / ~
// ~ ~
./
No: _______________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________
NEIL J. GILLESPIE - PETITIONER
VS.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA, et al. - RESPONDENTS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL. - RESPONDENTS
________________________
Appendix - Rule 13(5) Application
Exhibit 1 Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation, August 6, 2012, U.S.C.A.11
(Motion only; the Motion and Appendixes 1-3 are posted on Scribd, 251 pages,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disabiliy-Motion-12-11213-C-C-a-11)
Exhibit 2 Orders of the Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC11-1622
Exhibit 3 Orders of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, case no. 12-11213-C
Exhibit 4 Orders of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, case no. 12-11028-B
Exhibit 5 Letter of the Clerk of The United States Supreme Court, July 25, 2012
Exhibit 6 Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC11-1622
Exhibit 7 Mr. Rodems’ attack on the credibility of witness Eric Bischoff in WrestleReunion
Exhibit 8 Bar Complaint against attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Florida Bar ID: 104360
Exhibit 9 Consolidated Notice of Pro Se Electronic Case Filing Prohibition by District Court, July 27, 2012
(Notice only; Notice and Exhibits are posted on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102594266/Notice-of-CM-ECF-Prohibition-by-the-District-Court)
Exhibit 10 Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, on the Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia
R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co., July 30, 2012. (Affidavit only; Affidavit and Exhibits
are posted in Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101764386/Affidavit-of-Neil-Gillespie-Conflict-of-
Judge-Claudia-R-Isom-ADA-July-30-2012)
Exhibit 11 Response to Order, Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose.
Exhibit 12 List of 18 related cases.
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 1 of 42 (1 of 43)
1
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 2 of 42 (2 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 3 of 42 (3 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 4 of 42 (4 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 5 of 42 (5 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 6 of 42 (6 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 7 of 42 (7 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 8 of 42 (8 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 9 of 42 (9 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 10 of 42 (10 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 11 of 42 (11 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 12 of 42 (12 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 13 of 42 (13 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 14 of 42 (14 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 15 of 42 (15 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 16 of 42 (16 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 17 of 42 (17 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 18 of 42 (18 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 19 of 42 (19 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 20 of 42 (20 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 21 of 42 (21 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 22 of 42 (22 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 23 of 42 (23 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 24 of 42 (24 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 25 of 42 (25 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 26 of 42 (26 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 27 of 42 (27 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 28 of 42 (28 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 29 of 42 (29 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 30 of 42 (30 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 31 of 42 (31 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 32 of 42 (32 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 33 of 42 (33 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 34 of 42 (34 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 35 of 42 (35 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 36 of 42 (36 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 37 of 42 (37 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 38 of 42 (38 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 39 of 42 (39 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 40 of 42 (40 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 41 of 42 (41 of 43)
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 42 of 42 (42 of 43)
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
August 09, 2012
For rules and forms visit
www.ca11.uscourts.gov
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
Appeal Number: 12-11213-C
Case Style: Neil Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, F, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS
I am returning to you unfiled the papers which you have submitted. This case is closed.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Walter Pollard, C
Phone #: (404) 335-6186
PRO-3 Letter Returning Papers Unfiled
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 1 of 1 (43 of 43)
((ourt of jflortba
MONDAY, MARCH 12,2012
CASE NO.: SC11-1622
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2D10-5197,
05-CA-7205
NEIL J. GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS &
COOK, ET AL.
Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
The petitioner has filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Court. To
the extent the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directed towards the district
court, the petition is denied because a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct
the manner in which a court shall act in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. State
ex reI. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla.
1943); see also Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62,63 (Fla. 4th DCA
1982) (stating that mandamus "is not an appropriate vehicle for review of a merely
erroneous decision nor is it proper to mandate the doing (or undoing) of a
discretionary act"), approved, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983). To the extent the
petitioner seeks any additional relief, the petition is dismissed as facially
insufficient.
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, J1., concur.
A True Copy
Test:

Clerk, Supreme Com1
kb
Served:
NEIL 1. GILLESPIE /
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
HON. PAT FRANK, CLERK
HON. JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERK
2
((ourt of jfloriba
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2012
CASE NO.: SC 11-1622
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2D10-5197,05-CA-7205
NEIL J. GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,
ET AL.
Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
Petitioner's "Motion for Leave to File a Proper Motion for Reconsideration
on Single Issue" has been treated as a Motion for Extension of Time to file a
Motion for Rehearing, and said motion is hereby denied.
Petitioner's Addendum, Request to Toll Time, Amended Certificate of
Service" has been treated as a Motion to Toll Time, and said motion is denied.
A True Copy
Test:

Clerk Supreme Comt
ab
Served:
NEIL 1. GILLESPIE
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
HON. PAT FRANK, CLERK
HON. JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Petitioner, Case No.: SC11-1622
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2D10-5197,
05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, ET AL.
Respondents.
________________________________________/
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PROPER
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON SINGLE ISSUE
1. Petitioner Gillespie moves for leave to file a proper motion for reconsideration of
this Court’s Order of March 12, 2012 on a single issue, to rescind the walk-away
settlement agreement attached hereto, further described as “Settlement Agreement And
General Mutual Release” dated June 21, 2011. (Exhibit 1). In support Petitioner states:
2. Defense counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems has unlawfully represented his firm and
law partner in this action, and should have been disqualified as counsel April 25, 2006
during a motion to disqualify counsel before Judge Richard Nielsen, pursuant to 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. I raised this issue (among others) in Emergency
Motion To Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems
& Cook, P.A., provided to this Court in the Appendix. (A.9)
3. McPartland v. ISI Investment Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, (US District Court,
MD of Florida, Tampa Division) held as follows:
Page - 2
[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”
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.
4. McPartland relied on a Supreme Court of Florida case, State Farm Mut. Auto. Co.
v. K.A.W., 75 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991). Petitioner cited to McPartland seven times in his
Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (A.9) as follows:
McPartland, paragraph 22, page 13
McPartland, paragraph 23, page 14
McPartland, paragraph 28, page 17
McPartland, paragraph 50, page 29-30
McPartland, paragraph 53, page 31
McPartland, paragraph 56, page 32
McPartland, paragraph 61, page 34
5. Petitioner established, by Order dated January 13, 2006 (A.11.9), a cause of action
for Fraud and Breach of Contract against Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J.
Cook. (Petition, beginning at paragraph 51). 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,
Page - 3
177 So.2d 16 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965). There is an actual conflict of interest in
Mr. Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA representing themselves in this case.
6. The lawsuit Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, 05-CA-007205
Hillsborough County, FL is “substantially related” to the earlier representation, the Amscot
lawsuit, as held in McPartland:
“[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.”
Counsel for Amscot, Charles L. Stutts of Holland & Knight, provided Petitioner a letter to
this effect February 13, 2007. Mr. Stutts wrote: (Exhibit 2)
“The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in 2001 dismissed all
claims brought by you, Eugene R. Clement and Gay Ann Blomefield, individually
and on behalf of others, against Amscot in connection with its deferred deposit
transactions. This former action is, of course, at the heart of your pending action
against Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.”
7. The following is from Petitioner’s Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants’
Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (A.9).
“60. A hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel was held April 25,
2006. Mr. Rodems presented the following case law in support of his position. The
cases are largely irrelevant to this matter and set of facts. Rodems failed to disclose
to the court 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.
The hearing was transcribed by Denise L. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public, of
Berryhill & Associates, Inc., Court Reporters. The transcript of the hearing was
filed with the clerk of the court. Mr. Rodems presented the following case law
April 25, 2006:
a. Frank, Weinberg & Black vs. Effman, 916 So.2d 971
b. Bochese vs. Town of Ponce Inlet, 267 F. Supp. 2nd 1240
c. In Re: Jet One Center 310-BR, Bankruptcy Reporter, 649
d. Transmark USA v State Department of Insurance, 631 So.2d, 1112-1116
e. Cerillo vs. Highley, 797 So.2d 1288
f. Singer Island Limited vs. Budget Construction Company, 714 So.2d 651”
Page - 4
“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.”
8. Because of the foregoing, Mr. Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA should
have been disqualified April 25, 2006. Petitioner had a clear legal right to have his case
lawfully adjudicated. In turn the circuit court had an indisputable legal duty to lawfully
adjudicate the case. Had the circuit court disqualified Mr. Rodems as required by
McPartland this case would have been resolved years ago. But the circuit court did not
disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland. Instead Mr. Rodems prevented the
lawful adjudication of this case, made numerous false statements of material fact to the
court, failed to cooperate with opposing counsel, and disrupted the tribunal for strategic
advantage. As set forth in the Petition, Mr. Rodems made false representations to the court
to have an arrest warrant issued for the Petitioner for the purpose of forcing a walk-away
settlement agreement in the case, and to force a walk-away settlement agreement in
Petitioner’s federal civil rights and ADA disability lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner moves for leave to file a proper motion for
reconsideration of this Court’s Order of March 12, 2012 on a single issue, to rescind the
walk-away settlement agreement attached hereto, further described as “Settlement
Agreement And General Mutual Release” dated June 21, 2011. (Exhibit 1). In the
alternative Petitioner moves the Court to rescind the "Settlement Agreement And General
Mutual Release" sua sponte as set forth in the Petition, paragraphs 68, 69 and 70, and grant
such other and further relief as it deems just and equitable.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED March 19,2012.
r pro se
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed by U.S. Postal
Service first class mail March 19,2012 to the following:
Robert E. O'Neill, US Attorney Robert W. Bauer, Esquire
US Attorney's Office Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
400 N. Tampa St., Suite 3200 2815 NW 13
th
Street, Suite 200E
Tampa, FL 33602-4798 Gainesville, FL 32609-2865
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
Page - 5
-
t­
m
:f"""
)(
w
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 4 PagelD 602
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL MUTUAL RELEASE
This settlement agreement and general mutual release, executed on Iune 21,2011, by and
between Neil J. Gillespie, hereinafter "Party A" and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., its agents and
employees, and Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook, and Ryan Christopher Rodems, hereinafter
''Party B".
WHEREAS disputes and differences have arisen between the parties, as detailed in the
pleadings and records filed in the case styled Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.A..
and WilliamJ. Cook. Esquire, Case No. 05CA7205, pending in the Circuit Court ofthe Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida and Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit. Florida. et a1., 5: 1O-cv-00503-WTH-DAB, pending in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division; WHEREAS, the parties wish to fully and finally
resolve all differences between them from the beginning of time through June 21,2011;
WHEREAS, the parties represent that none ofthe claims released herein have been assigned to a
third-party;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe assignment to Party "B" ofall claims pending
or which could have been brought, based on the allegations of Party "A", against any person or
entity, without limitation, in Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Florida. et aI.,
5:1O-cv-00503-WTII-DAB and dismissal with prejudice oftheir claims in the case styled Neil J.
Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.An and William J. Cook. ESQuire, Case No. 05CA7205,
and dismissal ofthe appeal, Case No. 2DlO-5197, pending in the Second District Court ofAppeal,
with the parties to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, and the agreement of Party "B" to
record a Satisfaction ofJudgment regarding the Final Judgment entered on March 27,2008, in Neil
J. Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems & Cook. P.A.. and William J. Cook. Esquire, Case No. OSCA720S:
Each party (the releasing party) hereby releases, without limitation, the other party (the
released party) from any and all actions, suits, claims, debts, accounts, bills, bonds, attorneys' fees
or costs, judgments, or any claims, without limitation, whether in law or equity, and whether
known or unknown, which the releasing party now has or ever had resulting from any actions or
omissions by the released paqy from the beginning of time through June 21, 2011.
This mutual release shall be acknowledged before a notary public and may be signed in
counterpart.
Cpse 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 4 PagelD 603
STATE OF J L
COUNTY OF Vff'"
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.2r" day of J , 20II, by
NEILJ. GILLESPIE.
- State ofFlorida
Personally Known OR Produced Identification V'
Type of Identification Produced-flu r, $\)ci\fGrlJ---'ULe""--n.'"
. 'MBERlY HIMES
4:t: Go If'),...\ ".3°. 51:," () '{q
tiJm: Nolal \ . "pile· Siale of florid;
i' • ." .§My ComIII tAPIr88 Nov 18, 201
CommissIon /I DO 909877
STATE OF FL9,RP,:>A .,,;tnr,f$"'· Bonded Through NalloMl Notary Ass
COUNTY OF /fi
...............-.....­
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
WILLIAM J. COOK.
te ofF. ri
NOTARY Pl.'BLlC-STATE OF1LO,RID!
Personally Known j OR Produced Identification _ ... Lynne Anne Spma
W \ CODunlIlSioD # DD941173
Type of Identification Produced. _
Expires: DEC:26,2013

BOMDiDTHllc Al'U.,"CBo.\llI:fOoo,lKC,
STATF; OF FL9lWlJ\ .f- .
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me of ,2011, by
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS.
Personally Known OR Produced Identification v"
Type ofIdentification Produced fl. ok tblrCtO
KIMBERLY HIMES
f * '\ Notlry Public. State of AOI
"It: «. 35'"1.· '1 lot.. 444-· b
i' •i My Comm. fxplres Nov 16. 2
CommissIon # DO 90987
, I'".... BOnded ,ll/ough NallonJl NotIty A
. COUNTY OF
1<J- 4
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ...1.J4'K. ,2011,
by CHRIS A. BARKER, individually and as officer fo BARKER ODEM COOK, P.A.
fFI ida
NOTARY PL'BLlC·STATE OF FLOlUD!
Lynne Anne Spina
Personally Known OR Produced Identification J _
{Wj Commlaslon # DD941173
Type ofIdentification _
DEC:26.2013
BQl'G)IID'lllRC ATLA.\"C BONDINO co..1NC.
Tel 813 227 8500 Holland & Knight LLP
Holland+ Kntght
Fax 813 229 0134 100 North Tampa Street. Suite 4100
Tampa. FL 33602-3644
www.hklaw.com
Charles L. Stutts
8132276466
[email protected]
February 13, 2007
VIAFEDEX
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., et al.; Case No. OS-CA-720S
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Amscot Corporation has asked me to respond to your letter of February 10, 2007 in
which you request that Mr. Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, agree to his deposition in the
above-referenced matter.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in 2001 dismissed all claims
brought by you, Eugene R. Clement and Gay Ann Blomefield, individually and on behalf of
others, against AnlSCOt in connection with its deferred deposit transactions. This former action
is, of course, at the heart of your pending action against Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Mr. MacKechnie views the prior litigation as closed, and neither he nor others at Amscot
have any interest in voluntarily submitting to deposition or otherwise participating in the pending
matter. Accordingly, Mr. MacKechnie nlust decline your request.
Please contact me if you have questions or care to discuss the matter.
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
:PI
cc: Ian MacKechnie
Atlanta • Bethesda • Boston • Chicago • Fort Lauderdale • Jacksonville • Los Angeles
Miami • New York • Northern Virginia • Orlando • Portland • San Francisco
Tallahassee • Tampa • Washington. D.C. • West Palm Beach
Beijing • Caracas* • Helsinki* • Mexico City • Tel Aviv* • Tokyo • *Representative Office
2
-----------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Petitioner, Case No.: SCII-1622
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2D10-5197,
05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, ET AL.
Respondents.
/
ADDENDUM, REQUEST TO TOLL TIME, AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
RE: PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PROPER
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON SINGLE ISSUE
1. Petitioner Gillespie hereby makes an addendum to his motion served March 19, 2012, for
leave to file a proper motion for reconsideration on a single issue, and states:
2. Paragraph 8 of the motion states:
"Because of the foregoing, Mr. Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA should have
been disqualified April 25, 2006. Petitioner had a clear legal right to have his case
lawfully adjudicated. In tum the circuit court had an indisputable legal duty to lawfully
adjudicate the case. Had the circuit court disqualified Mr. Rodems as required by
McPartland this case would have been resolved years ago. But the circuit court did not
disqualify Mr. Rodems as required by McPartland. Instead Mr. Rodems prevented the
lawful adjudication of this case, made numerous false statements of material fact to the
court, failed to cooperate with opposing counsel, and disrupted the tribunal for strategic
advantage. As set forth in the Petition, Mr. Rodems made false representations to the
court to have an arrest warrant issued for the Petitioner for the purpose of forcing a walk­
away settlement agreement in the case, and to force a walk-away settlement agreement in
Petitioner's federal civil rights and ADA disability lawsuit."
3. Petitioner makes this addendum to the above paragraph 8:
a. Mr. Rodems pursued vexatious litigation against Gillespie in the form of a libel
counterclaim in the Circuit Court, case 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough County, as further
described in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Volume 8 of the Appendix. (A.8). Petitioner
alleged "Abuse of Process" at Count II for a libel counterclaim commenced by Mr. Rodems
against the Petitioner, and pursued vexatiously by Mr. Rodems from January 19, 2006 through
September 28, 20 I0, whereupon Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without
prejudice. Petitioner retained counsel to defend the vexatious litigation brought by Mr. Rodems
on behalf of Mr. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and incurred over $30,000 in legal
fees by attorney Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for
libel. Mr. Bauer then encourage Petitioner to reinstate dismissed claims in the litigation.
SEPARATE REOUEST TO TOLL TIME
4. Pursuant to Rule 9.300(d)(lO), Petitioner belatedly requests the Court to toll time.
AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5. Petitioner belatedly served his motion of March 19,2012, for leave to file a proper
motion for reconsideration on a single issue, March 21, 2012 as follows:
HON. JAMES BIRKHOLD, Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal, 1005 E.
Memorial Blvd., P.O. Box 327, Lakeland, FL 33801.
HON. PAT FRANK, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, P.O. Box 989, Tampa, FL 33601-0989.
HON. JAMES D. ARNOLD, Circuit Court Judge, Hillsborough County, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 514, Tampa, Florida 33602.
HON. MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Court Judge, Hillsborough County, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, 401 N. Jefferson Street, Room 615- Annex, Tampa, Florida 33602.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED March 22, 2012.
Page - 2
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed by u.S. Postal Service
first class mail March 22, 2012 to the following:
Robert E. O'Neill, US Attorney R o ~ e r t W. Bauer, Esquire
US Attorney's Office Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
400 N. Tampa St., Suite 3200 2815 NW 13
th
Street, Suite 200E
Tampa, FL 33602-4798 Gainesville, FL 32609-2865
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
HON. JAMES BIRKHOLD, Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal, 1005 E.
Memorial Blvd., P.O. Box 327, Lakeland, FL 33801.
HON. ;PAT FRANK, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, P.O. Box 989, Tampa, FL 33601-0989.
HON. JAMES D. ARNOLD, Circuit Court Judge, Hillsborough County, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 514, Tampa, Florida 33602.
HON. MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Court Judge, Hillsborough County, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, 401 N. Jefferson Street, Room 615- Annex, Tampa, Florida 33602.
Page - 3
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 1 of 1 (1 of 2)
3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
______________
No. 12-11213-C
______________
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllPlaintiff - Appellant
versus
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,
GONZALO B. CASARES,
ADA Coordinator, and Individually,
DAVID A. ROWLAND,
Court Counsel, and individually,
JUDGE CLAUDIA RICKERT ISOM,
Circuit Court Judge, and individually,
JUDGE JAMES M. BARTON, II,
Circuit Court Judge, and individually, et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llDefendants - Appellees,
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllDefendants.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
__________________________________________
ENTRY OF DISMISSAL: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want
of prosecution because the appellant Neil J. Gillespie has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees
to the district court within the time fixed by the rules, effective August 07, 2012.
JOHN LEY
Clerk of Court of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
by: Walter Pollard, C, Deputy Clerk
FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 2
Case: 12-11028 Date Filed: 06/19/2012 Page: 1 of 1 (2 of 2)
4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
______________
No. 12-11213-C
______________
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllPlaintiff - Appellant
versus
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,
GONZALO B. CASARES,
ADA Coordinator, and Individually,
DAVID A. ROWLAND,
Court Counsel, and individually,
JUDGE CLAUDIA RICKERT ISOM,
Circuit Court Judge, and individually,
JUDGE JAMES M. BARTON, II,
Circuit Court Judge, and individually, et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llDefendants - Appellees,
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllDefendants.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
__________________________________________
ENTRY OF DISMISSAL: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want
of prosecution because the appellant Neil J. Gillespie has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees
to the district court within the time fixed by the rules, effective August 07, 2012.
JOHN LEY
Clerk of Court of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
by: Walter Pollard, C, Deputy Clerk
FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001
July 25,2012
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
RE: Neil J. Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, et al.
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
In response to your letter of July 23,2012, you may only submit a single petition for a
writ of certiorari when two or more judgments are sought to be reviewed to the same
lower court. Rule 12.4. This also applies to an application for an extension of time
within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.
The Rules of this Court are enclosed.
Sincerely,
William K. Suter, Clerk
By: /) U I
. /
. / / ~
Jeffre n
(202 4 ~
~
Enclosures
5

.R£CIMI)
1NOM\SD. fWJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE JAN. 09 2012
STATE OF FLORIDA
QSIC,_C01M
ft _
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Petitioner, Case No.: SCII-1622
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2DI0-5197,
05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. and
WILLIAM 1. COOK,
Respondents.
------------------..,;/
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
1. In compliance with the Fla. R. App. P. 9.100 and leave of this Court,
Petitioner pro se NEIL J. GILLESPIE respectfully submits this petition for a writ
of mandamus addressing why the proceedings in the Second District Court of
Appeal (2dDCA) should not have been dismissed.
2. In compliance with Rule 9.l00(g) the petition is accompanied by an
Appendix(es) as prescribed by Rule 9.220. The Appendix will be cited as follows:
"A.[v].[e].[p]" referring to the Volume number, the Exhibit number, and the Page
number only if referringtoa specific page. For multi-page citations, the ending
I
page is provided after adas9. For quotations from a transcript, line numbers will
include the word "line" followed by the" line number. Appendix Volume 3 has Parts
6
2
1 through 4 and will be cited “A.3.Part[#].[e].[p]”. There may be a few unavoidable
deviations from this citation plan, and I apologize for any unintended confusion. A
list of the Appendixes, 1-16, follows the last page of the petition.
3. In compliance with Rule 9.100(i) the Record is not submitted because the
Court has not so ordered. However the Index and Record was prepared by the
Clerk of the lower tribunal and is available. A copy of the Index and Record is
provided. (A.1.5). The Clerk’s Progress Docket is provided. (A.1.6). Also provided
is a copy the Clerk’s Certificate that shows two affidavits are missing from the
lower tribunal file. (A.1.4). The affidavits disappeared from the Clerk’s file while
Circuit Judge Martha J. Cook presided over the case. Copies of the missing
affidavits are provided. (A.10). The affidavit at A.10.2 shows the Respondents
failed to sign a representation agreement with me in a contingent fee case. The
affidavit at A.10.3 shows Mr. Rodems unlawfully notarized his own firm’s
garnishment documents.
OPENING STATEMENT
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 Respondents
3
BRC and Mr. Cook, as well as to force a walk-away settlement agreement in my
federal civil rights and ADA 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 appeal also.
1
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

1
When 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.
4
settlement agreement in the lawsuits. Upon my arrival at the courthouse, I was
taken into custody and involuntarily confined by two Hillsborough County
Sheriff’s 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 Sheriff’s Office. (A.2.1.2-3).
6. I am departing from the usual practice of writing in the third person because
that has not worked for me in the past. Doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, and I am not insane,
5
just mentally ill. The lawyers at Respondent Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. know
about my disabilities from their prior representation of me and my efforts with
Florida Vocational Rehabilitation. (A.14). Messrs. Barker, Rodems and Cook also
previously represented me in the Amscot action which is at the heart of my
pending action against Barker, Rodems & Cook. (A.8)(A.13)(A.14). That is why
this case is so difficult: The Respondents’ lawyer, Ryan Christopher Rodems, a
partner at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., his exercise of independent professional
judgment is materially limited by his own interest and conflict. (A.9). As such, this
is not a legitimate legal proceeding, but rather, as Mr. Castagliuolo noted, a
“pissing contest” - one that began in 2005. Mr. Rodems would not cooperate with
Mr. Castagliuolo, who in turn emailed me June 14, 2011 at 7:46 p.m.:
“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.” (A.7.page 4, and exhibit 8)
Prior to Mr. Castagliuolo’s representation, attorney Rober W. Bauer represented
me, and stated on the record August 14, 2008 during an Emergency Hearing on a
garnishment before the Honorable Marva Crenshaw (Transcript page 16, line 24):
" ... Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full nuclear blast approach
instead of us trying to work this out in a professional manner. It is my
mistake for sitting back and giving him the opportunity to take this full blast
attack."
6
After charging me over $30,000, Mr. Bauer dropped the case. When I complained
to the Florida Bar, Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems joined forces and mislead the Bar in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. (A.15). Until Mr. Rodems is
disqualified as counsel for the Respondents, this litigation may also meet the
colloquial definition of insanity. (A.9).
7. I retained at my own expense Dr. Karin Huffer as my ADA advocate. I
applied February 19, 2010 to the Hillsborough Circuit Court for reasonable
accommodation under the ADA, and submitted a disability report by Dr. Huffer.
Court Counsel David Rowland denied my ADA request. To my knowledge no
medically qualified person has reviewed Dr. Huffer’s report, which states I have
the following mental illness: Depression 296/3,and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
309.81 with chronic and acute symptoms anxiety. (A.3.Part1.2).
Dr. Huffer assessed the foregoing in a letter dated October 28, 2010. (Attached).
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 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. This is like threatening to arrest a paraplegic if he does not show
7
up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is precedent setting in
my experience.” (p1, ¶2). “He [Gillespie] is left with permanent secondary
wounds” (p2, top). “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.” (p2, ¶1). “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.”
Because of its significance, a copy of Dr. Huffer’s letter is attached to this petition.
II. PARTIES
8. I am the Petitioner Neil J. Gillespie, and the Appellant in Case No. 2D10-
5197, 2dDCA, which is an appeal (A.1.1) of the following Orders of Circuit Judge
Martha J. Cook in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, et al., Case No. 05-CA-
7205, Hillsborough County:
a. Final Summary Judgment As To Count 1; September 28, 2010
b. Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie Contempt; September 30, 2010
I am a non-lawyer, disabled, indigent and/or insolvent litigant appearing pro se at
this time. I sued the Respondents Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J.
Cook for stealing $7,143 from my settlement in the Amscot case. (A.8).
8
9. Respondent Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (“BRC”) is a Tampa law firm
that formerly represented me in the Amscot case (A.8)(A.9)(A.11)(A.13), a case at
the heart of the present case, and also represented me on disability matters. (A.14).
BRC is representing itself against me in all courts, by partner Ryan Christopher
Rodems, Bar ID No. 947652. (“Rodems”). On January 19, 2006 Mr. Rodems
brought a counterclaim against me on behalf of Respondents for libel. (A.11.14).
Mr. Rodems is a named Defendant in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed
May 5, 2010 with a motion to amend. (A.8).
10. Respondent William J. Cook, Bar ID No. 986194, formerly represented me
in the Amscot case, a case at the heart of the present case (A.8)(A.9)(A.11)(A.13),
and also represented me on disability matters. (A.14). (“Cook”).
11. Respondent 2dDCA is the appellate tribunal in the appeal of the following
Orders of Circuit Judge Martha J. Cook in Case No. 05-CA-7205: (A.1.1)
a. Final Summary Judgment As To Count 1; September 28, 2010.
b. Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie Contempt; September 30, 2010.
NOTE: There have been six (6) interlocutory actions in the 2dDCA. (A.1.3).
12. Respondent Hillsborough County Circuit Court is the lower tribunal trial court
in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, et al., Case No. 05-CA-7205.
13. Respondent Circuit Judge James D. Arnold (“Judge Arnold”) succeeded
Judge Cook and presided in the lower tribual November 18, 2010 to June 21, 2011.
9
14. Respondent Circuit Judge Martha J. Cook (“Judge Cook”) presided May 24,
2010 to November 18, 2010, entered the following Orders on appeal in 2D10-5197:
a. Final Summary Judgment As To Count 1; September 28, 2010 (A.1.1)
b. Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie Contempt; September 30, 2010
After I filed a Notice of Appeal in 2D10-5197 on October 22, 2010 Judge Cook
entered seven (7) additional orders, including:
c. Order To Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Prohibited From
Appearing Pro Se, entered November 4, 2010, with 20 days to respond.
d. Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se, entered November 15,
2010, 14 days prior to the expiration of the time to respond. (with mailing time).
NOTE: See APPELLANT’S MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL
(A.1.13) for a reason Judge Cook was trying to silence me. The timing of Judge
Cook’s Order, November 15, 2010, is suspect and coincides with her Order
Denying Fourth Motion To Disqualify Trial Judge of even date which showed
Judge Cook was insolvent. Judge Cook’s Order prohibiting me from appearing pro
se was an effort to silence legitimate inquiry into her financial affairs, which
showed that Judge Cook was insolvent due to a near-collapse of the family
business, Community Bank of Manatee, which was operating under Consent
Order, FDIC-09-569b and OFR 0692-FI-10/09. Judge Cook’s financial affairs
violated the Code of Judicial Canons 2, 3, 5 and 6. Judge Cook’s small ($276M)
10
nonmember FDIC insured bank lost over $10 million dollars in 2009 and 2010. In
2009 the bank sold a controlling interest to a foreign national, who during the
review process in Florida, failed to disclose that his past employer, ABN AMRO
Bank, faced one of the largest Money Laundering and Trading With The Enemy
cases ever brought by the Department of Justice.
e. Order Directing Clerk To Close Case, November 15, 2010.
f. Sua Sponte Order To Recuse Assigned Judge, November 18, 2010. Judge
Cook recused sua sponte November 18, 2010 upon my Verified Emergency Petition
for Writ of Prohibition, and Motion for Order of Protection, filed November 18,
2010, 2dDCA Case No. 2D10-5529. Previously Judge Cook denied five (5) motions
to disqualify. I will provide copies of the forgoing upon request of the Court.
III. BASIS FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION
15. This Court granted jurisdiction August 22, 2011 for me to file a petition for
writ of mandamus addressing why the proceedings in the district court of appeal
should not have been dismissed, pursuant to the Court’s authority under Article V,
section 3(b)(8) of the Florida Constitution. In addition, The Florida Supreme Court
possesses discretionary jurisdiction over cases that “pass upon a question certified
to be of great public importance” under Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), and
under Article V, section 3(b)(4). One such question may be whether an indigent,
disabled, mentally ill, civil contemnor facing incarceration is entitled to counsel at
11
a hearing to issue the arrest warrant. The United States Supreme Court in Turner v.
Rogers, U.S. Docket 10-10, 564 U. S. ____ (2011), Argued March 23, 2011 and
Decided June 20, 2011, found no automatic right to counsel for indigent civil
defendants facing jail time, though it ruled on behalf of a father who served a year
in prison for failing to pay child support and was deprived of his 14th Amendment
right to due process. The Court found that counsel was not required because in
child support hearings the opposing party is not usually represented, and requiring
appointed counsel would be unfair to the unrepresented part. In my case the
opposing party is my former lawyers, the Respondents BRC and Mr. Cook, who
are representing themselves through Mr. Rodems. In my effort to obtain counsel
prior to the June 1, 2011 contempt hearing with Judge Arnold, I personally
contacted many, if not all of the law firms listed on SCOTUSblog as interested in
Turner, and almost obtained counsel. On May 25, 2011 Krista Sterken, an associate
of Foley & Lardner LLP, called offering me legal representation. Ms. Sterken was
co-counsel with Michael D. Leffel, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, who filed an
amicus brief in Turner. Mr. Leffel declined the offer May 27, 2011. (A.12).
In addition, Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 5, Section 15 of
the Florida Constitution “to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law
and the discipline of persons admitted.” In this case there has been considerable
misconduct by attorneys. In Gillespie v. Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar File No.
12
2011-073(8B), Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems joined forces and mislead the Bar in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. (A.15). Mr. Bauer wrote a letter
January 4, 2010 to the 13th Circuit JNC recommending Mr. Rodems for judge.
(A.15.11). In return Mr. Rodems wrote a letter of support for Mr. Bauer August 13,
2010 in the Bar complaint. (A.15.2). Mr. Castagliuolo failed to disclose a conflict
with his daughter, attorney Maria Castagliuolo, who works for the Public Defender
appointed to represent me. (A.7.page 4 and exhibit 4). Mr. Castagliuolo also
admitted having “mental problems”. (A.7.page 4 and exhibit 10, page 7-8).
IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Recent Case History
16. Three days before Judge Arnold ordered my arrest, I hand delivered a letter
to the office of Judge Arnold at the courthouse May 27, 2011. (A.3.Part1.1).
“Dear Judge Arnold:
Please find enclosed courtesy copies of the following:
1. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, ADA
ACCOMODATION REQUEST, and MEMORANDUM OF LAW
2. VERIFIED NOTICE OF FILING DISABILITY INFORMATION
OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Please note that Mr. Rodems mislead you during the hearing about my
attempts to resolve this matter. Please read the motion for appoint of
counsel, and my letter to Mr. Rodems dated November 8, 2010, copy
attached with notice of filing. Mr. Rodems also mislead you about my
13
disability and ADA requests. Please see the notice of filing disability
information.
I cannot appear at any contempt hearing without counsel. I cannot have
unmoderated contact with Mr. Rodems, his partners or employees. I may file
an emergency stay with the US Supreme Court. If the hearing is not canceled
or I do not obtain counsel I may file chapter 7 bankruptcy which will dispose
of defendants' judgment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie:
My letter to Judge Arnold was clear, concise, stated that Mr. Rodems mislead the
court, a claim substantiated in the accompanying documents, such as a copy of
“Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Letters, Mr. Rodems & Gillespie” served November 8,
2011. I filed Mr. Rodems’ letter to me dated October 26, 2010, and my responsive
letter dated November 8, 2010. (A.3.Part1.1.1-11).
17. My May 27, 2011 letter to Judge Arnold was also accompanied by
“PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, ADA
ACCOMODATION REQUEST, and MEMORANDUM OF LAW” filed in the
lower tribunal May 24, 2011, and provided to the 2dDCA July 18, 2011. The
motion is provided with this petition. (A.3.Part1.Exhibit 3.1). The memorandum of
law is provided with this petition. (A.3.Part1.Exhibit 3.2). Forty-five (45) exhibits
14
to the motion are provided with this petition. (A.3.Part2.Exhibits 1-22)
(A.3.Part3.Exhibits 23-45).
18. My May 27, 2011 letter to Judge Arnold was also accompanied by
“VERIFIED NOTICE OF FILING DISABILITY INFORMATION OF NEIL J.
GILLESPIE” filed in the lower tribunal May 27, 2011, and provided to the 2dDCA
July 18, 2011. My disability information is provided with this petition.
(A.3.Part1.2). In addition, I made a separate, prior ADA accommodation request to
the 2dDCA November 18, 2010 addressed to the ADA Coordinator: (A.1.18)
Marshal Jacinda Suhr, ADA Coordinator
Second District Court of Appeal
1005 E. Memorial Blvd.
Lakeland, FL 33801
I hand delivered the following to Marshal Suhr for use in cases 2D10-5197, and a
petition for writ of prohibition to remove Judge Cook, 2D10-5529. (A.1.18)
1. Florida State Courts System ADA Title II Accommodation Request Form
2. ADA Assessment and Report, Dr. Karin Huffer, February 17, 2010
3. ADA Accommodation Request of Neil J. Gillespie, February 18, 2010
4. Notice of ADA Request of Neil J. Gillespie, February 19, 2010
5. Transcript, hearing before the Honorable Claudia Isom, February 5, 2007
6. Letter of Dr. Huffer, October 10, 2010, re Neil Gillespie
7. CV of Dr. Karin Huffer
As of today the 2dDCA has not responded to my ADA request, at least as far as I
can recall at this time.
15
19. As stated in my letter to Judge Arnold of May 27, 2011, I planned, and later
filed, not one, but two (2) emergency Rule 22 Application to Justice Thomas in the
United States Supreme Court. As with all my communication with Judge Arnold,
he simply ignored it. Copies were provided to Mr. Rodems and Court Counsel
David Rowland, the Clerk, and others. The two Rule 22 Applications, without
exhibits, and email and fax notices, accompany this petition. (A.16)
20. My May 27, 2011 letter to Judge Arnold gives notice that I was considering
bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 to discharge the $11,550 final judgment to
Respondents on sanctions awarded under § 57.105, Florida Statutes. This was also
the plan of Mr. Castagliuolo, a bankruptcy specialist, but he failed to do so:
“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.” June 14, 2011 at 7:46 p.m. (A.7.page 4 & exh 5)
21. On May 3, 2011, I filed an Emergency Petition For Writ of Habeas
Corpus/Prohibition, The Supreme Court of Florida, Case No. SC11-858, to stop an
Evidentiary Hearing on the writ of bodily attachment on "Order Adjudging Neil J.
Gillespie In Contempt" that was on appeal as part of a Final Summary Judgment
final order in case no. 2D10-5197. The Court denied my petition May 18, 2011.
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie - Representation by Eugene P. Castagliuolo
22. My affidavit made January 6, 2012 sets forth the representation of me in this
matter by attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo, FL Bar ID no. 104360. (A.7).
16
23. After Judge Arnold ordered me arrested for allegedly failing to appear for a
deposition after the case was closed and on appeal in 2D10-5197, I hired on June 3,
2011 attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo from an ad on Craigslist to prepare for, and
represent me at, the deposition in order to purge the contempt and rescind the arrest
warrant. (A.7.page1). (A.2.1.3-4, Exhibit F). Mr. Castagliuolo responded to my ad
on Craigslist within about one (1) hour of posting. Mr. Castagliuolo’s email states
that the Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for
bankruptcy relief. (A.7.page 2;Exhibit 2). We signed a $1,000 flat fee agreement.
(A.7.page 2;Exhibit 3). I paid Mr. Castagliuolo the full $1,000 flat fee in advance
from my monthly disability income that arrived June 3, 2011. Because I am
indigent and live hand-to-mouth, I was not able to afford private counsel for the
hearing June 1, 2011 where Judge Arnold ordered me arrested. And because of the
animosity created by Mr. Rodems’ conflict representing his firm against me, a
former client, no one wanted to represent me, I was persona non grata.
(A.3.Part1.Exhibit3.1,page3).
Mr. Castagliuolo Failed To Disclose Conflict With Public Defender
24. At the time of hire, Mr. Castagliuolo failed to disclose a conflict with his
daughter, Maria E. Castagliuolo, an attorney with the Public Defender previously
appointed to represent me. The Public Defender was hostile to my cause as set
forth in my affidavit (A.7.4), Exhibit 4, Notice of Conflict: Eugene P. Castagliuolo,
17
Maria E. Castagliuolo, and The Law Offices of Julianne M. Holt, Public Defender
of the 13th Judicial Circuit. Shortly after the walk-away settlement agreement was
signed Maria E. Castagliuolo received a job promotion.
25. I first visited the Public Defender May 24, 2011 and spoke with attorney
Moira Freeman about my case, and provided Ms. Freeman a cover letter and copy
of “Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment of Counsel, ADA Accommodation
Request, and Memorandum of Law”. (A.7.4). The Public Defender was appointed
to represent me May 27, 2011 by Allison Raistrick of Clerk’s Indigent Screening
Unit, and I paid the $50 indigent fee. (A.7.4)(A.2.1.5).
26. I met attorney Anthony Lopez May 27, 2011, the Public Defender supervisor
of Moira Freeman. After a short discussion, Mr. Lopez said he would not recognize
the Clerk’s appointment of the Public Defender to represent me. (A.7.4).
27. Attorney Mike Peacock of the Public Defender’s office appeared June 1,
2011 before Judge Arnold on a hearing for me to show cause on contempt with
arrest on a writ of bodily attachment. Mr. Peacock filed Office of the Public
Defender’s Motion For Clarification seeking relief from representing me. The
Court granted the motion and I did not have representation. The Court did not
allow time for me to find other counsel, and immediately ordered my arrest. A
transcript of this June 1, 2011 hearing is provided. (A.3.Part4.6).
18
28. On July 15, 2011 I requested by email and phone call a conflict check with
the Public Defender’s office and it’s employee attorney Maria E. Castagliuolo and
Mr. Castagliuolo. The phone call only revealed that Maria E. Castagliuolo was
recently promoted to the felony unit. An email response July 18, 2011 from
Julianne M. Holt, the Public Defender, stated: (A.7.page3;Exhibit4)
“Without further explanation for your request, I do not feel it is appropriate
to respond to this request.”
29. On July 19, 2011 I received a threatening email from Mr. Castagliuolo.
(A.7.page3;Exhibit4). Mr. Castagliuolo’s threatening response suggests he has
been working as a shill against my interests.
Mr. Castagliuolo Failed To Seek ADA Accommodations
30. I have diabetes type II adult onset, and other disabilities, and gave notice of
my disabilities to Mr. Castagliuolo by email June 4, 2011 at 7.50 p.m. with PDF
copies of seven (7) ADA documents. (A.7.page 2-3;exhibit 5). Mr. Castagliuolo
was aware of my disabilities but failed to seek reasonable accommodations for me
during the June 21, 2011 deposition. (A.7.page2-3). Instead, Mr. Castagliuolo told
Judge Arnold this June 16, 2011 at a hearing to quash the arrest warrant:
13 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Judge, I've known
14 Mr. Gillespie for about, oh, I'm going to say,
15 almost 14 days. Not longer than that. And, it's
16 readily -- readily apparent to me that this
17 gentleman has some problems, which cause him to be
18 contentious, to say the least.
19
(A.3.part 4, exhibit 5, page 3, lines 13-18)
3 And the linchpin of all this, Judge, is that,
4 for the last 21 months, he's been without counsel.
5 So he's been on the internet. He's been left to
6 his own devices and his own -- he's my client and
7 I've had this discussion with him. He's left to
8 his own delusions about the way this process should
9 work.
(A.3.part 4, exhibit 5, page 5, lines 3-9)
Mr. Rodems Failed To Cooperate with Mr. Castagliuolo
31. Mr. Castagliuolo complained that Mr. Rodems and his staff failed to
cooperate with him. (A.7.page3-4). Rodems would not return phone calls or
provide a copy of the writ of bodily attachment. (A.7.14). Mr. Castagliuolo became
angry over Rodems’ failure to cooperate and sent me this message June 14, 2011 at
7:46 p.m. calling Rodems an “asshole”:
“As for a new agreement, this is my suggestion. Give me another $1,000.00
on July 1, and I won't take another dime from you. Consider it a flat fee to
get you out from under this writ (BUT WITHOUT entering an appearance in
this state court case) and/or to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for you. The only
other things you would have to pay for if we go the bankruptcy route(and
these are NOT my fees, they are costs) is the filing fee of $299.00, a credit
report fee of $30.00, and the credit counseling fee(s) which will be at most
$80.00 (sometimes you can find a cheaper vendor). 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.” (A.7.page 4;exhibit 8)
20
32. I agreed to bankruptcy and provided Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of
“Assignment of Unliquidated Lawsuit Proceeds” (A.7.page 4;exhibit 9) prepared in
2008 by attorney Jeffery Shelquist who researched and believed the assignment
would survive my filing for bankruptcy, and allow the case to continue for
adjudication on its merits. Mr. Castagliuolo did not mention bankruptcy again. I
take this to mean that Mr. Castagliuolo did not want me to file bankruptcy if the
case would continue as suggested by Mr. Shelquist. Mr. Castagliuolo wanted to
end the case for his benefit, to quickly earn his flat fee, and for his daughter’s
benefit at her job with the Public Defender.
Mr. Castagliuolo’s Disabilities - Ineffective Counsel
33. Mr. Castagliuolo failed to disclose that he has “mental problems” when I
retained him. (A.7.page 4;exhibit 10). This is how Castagliuolo explained his
strategy for the heating June 16, 2011 to quash the arrest warrant:
“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 ?"”
(A.7.page 5;exhibit 12)
I believe Mr. Castagliuolo’s disabilities prevented him from effectively
representing me.
Mr. Castagliuolo Complained About Flat Fee Agreement - Terminated
21
34. Mr. Castagliuolo complained that he was not earning his usual hourly rate of
$295 per hour under our flat fee agreement. At one point Castagliuolo demanded
$5,000 from me. Mr. Castagliuolo became more and more angry, so I terminated
him as counsel by email June 9, 2011 at 12.44 p.m. Mr. Rodems was not
cooperating with Castagliuolo which added time and difficulty to the case. In
response Mr. Castagliuolo launched one of his trademark threats, which often end
with some reference to a former role as prosecutor for added intimidation.
(A.7.page 5;exhibit 13). Castagliuolo apologized 29 minutes later but refused to
make a refund in exchange for canceling our agreement. Since an active arrest
warrant was outstanding against me, I had no viable alternatives to hire other
counsel, and consented to Castagliuolo’s later requests for a promise of more
money. (A.7.pages 5-6).
Mr. Castagliuolo Threatened to Quit Prior to The Deposition
35. Mr. Castagliuolo notified me by email Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 7:43
p.m. that he would no longer represent me after the hearing June 16, 2011 to vacate
the writ of bodily attachment. (A.7.page 6;exhibit 15). Castagliuolo wrote in part:
“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….Tomorrow, I will be your
staunch advocate, but after tomorrow, my role in this matter will be over.”
Mr. Rodems’ Threatening Email to Mr. Castagliuolo June 20, 2011
22
36. On the eve of the deposition, Mr. Rodems sent the following threatening
email to Mr. Castagliuolo, Monday, June 20, 2011, 1:22 PM. (A.2.1.10-13)
a. Mr. Rodems announced a “walk-away” settlement, followed by a number of
threats if I did not agree to a settlement agreement attached to the email in PDF. I
believe this shows the actual purpose of the deposition, to force a settlement.
“Please advise Gillespie of the following:
We will offer a walk-away once again, and for the final time. Gillespie can
avoid the deposition and have the writ of bodily attachment dissolved if he
settles his case with us. We offer a “walk-away,” with a release in the form
attached. What this means is Gillespie pays us nothing and all of our claims,
potential claims, and disputes occurring before tomorrow are fully and
finally resolved. You can tell him that If he rejects it, it will never be offered
again.”
b. Mr. Rodems threatened the following if I did not agree to a settlement:
“And, if he rejects it, here is what tomorrow will look like: Once Gillespie
arrives at the courthouse, he will be taken into custody by the HCSO
deputies and brought before Judge Arnold. He should make no mistake,
from the moment he walks in, Gillespie will be in custody. The writ of
bodily attachment is in effect, and must be executed the moment any law
enforcement office identifies him.”
“I expect Judge Arnold will advise Gillespie that until the deposition is
complete, the writ of bodily attachment will remain in full force and effect.
What that would mean is that Gillespie will remain in custody until such
time as Judge Arnold announces that the writ is dissolved – which will not
occur until the deposition is complete.”
“The deputies will be either inside the room or right outside during the
deposition. If Gillespie does not bring the documents or he refuses to answer
questions, or behaves like he has in past hearings, I will stop the deposition,
and advise the deputies that we need to see Judge Arnold. Obviously, Judge
23
Arnold is extremely busy, and he is not going to stop his docket or hearings
to rule immediately, and so the HCSO deputies will hold Gillespie in
custody until we can find time on the Judge’s calendar to resolve the issues.”
“Gillespie needs to understand that I will not accept any refusals by him to
answer my questions, and I will not tolerate any intemperate behavior. He
will not threaten to “slam me against the wall,”
2
like he did in the past, he
will not yell
3
at me or interrupt me, like he has done in the past. The first
time he goes “off the reservation,” like he did when Judge Isom ruled
against him
4
, and like he did at the summary judgment hearing before Judge
Cook
5
, and like he did when he threatened me on the telephone
6
, I will
suspend the deposition, ask the deputies to take him into custody, and
contact Judge Arnold.”
“Also, because this is a deposition under oath, I will need to be assured,
through questions and answers, that Gillespie is not under the influence of
any substances, legal or otherwise, that affect his memory. I want to be
certain that if Gillespie gives me an answer that later proves to be false, he
cannot claim physical or mental impairment
7
.”
“This will not be a short deposition. I have no choice but to be as thorough
as possible because I will likely not have another opportunity to depose him.
He has been spending a lot of money on filing fees
8
, service f process
9
,

2
This is typical of Mr. Rodems’ false and disparaging remarks he has made against Gillespie
throughout this litigation. The Tampa Police Department investigated Mr. Rodems’ accusation,
made in a sworn affidavit dated March 6, 2006. Kibry Rainesberger of the TPD concluded that
Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing to the Court a quote Rodems
attributed to Gillespie.
3
Gillespie did not yell at Mr. Rodems
4
The transcript of the hearing does not reflect Mr. Rodems’ accusation.
5
The transcript of the hearing does not reflect Mr. Rodems’ accusation.
6
Gillespie did not threaten Mr. Rodems on the telephone.
7
Gillespie has disabilities that affect his memory. See Verified Notice of Filing Disability
Information of Neil J. Gillespie, May 27, 2011.
8
This is a false statement by Rodems. The Courts have waived Gillespie’s last four filing fees.
9
This is a false statement by Rodems. The last service of process fees Gillespie paid were $20
each ($40 total) in 2005 to serve Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and Mr. Cook with this lawsuit.
Gillespie was unable to pay $160 in fees to serve four (4) subpoenas for the hearing June 1,
2011.
24
certified letters
10
, court reporters
11
, his website
12
, etc., so I need to find out
where this money is coming from
13
.”
“If Gillespie finds the deposition process exhausting, as he has claimed in
the past, and cannot complete it tomorrow, we can go as many days as he
requires, but he needs to understand that he will remain in the custody of the
HCSO until it is complete
14
.”
“The settlement offer is open until 5:00 p.m. today. If he accepts
15
, then you
can communicate it by telephone before 5:00 p.m. He can sign the attached
tomorrow, but it must be hand-delivered before 10:30 a.m. If it is hand-
delivered before 10:30 a.m., I will advise the Judge of the settlement, you
and he can probably appear by telephone.”
I Rejected Mr. Rodems’ Settlement Agreement June 20, 2011
37. I did not accept Mr. Rodems’ “walk-away” settlement offer by the 5:00 PM
deadline June 20, 2011. I rejected the offer Monday, June 20, 2011 2:53 PM.
(A.2.14-15). I told Mr. Castagliuolo I’m not interested in his walk-away offer:

10
The cost of certified mail is $2.85 per letter and is paid from Gillespie’s monthly Social
Security disability payment of $1,741.
11
Court reporters have made payment arrangements, such as allowing Gillespie to postpone
payment until arrival of his monthly Social Security disability payment of $1,741.
12
Gillespie’s website is billed quarterly at $59.97 or about $20 per month, and is paid from his
monthly Social Security disability payment of $1,741. On one occasion when Gillespie could not
pay the bill, court reporter Susan DeMichelle paid the quarterly website bill of $59.97.
13
Mr. Rodems knows Gillespie’s financial background from his firm’s prior representation of
Gillespie, from depositions in the AMSCOT and ACE Cash Express lawsuits.
14
This threat to incarcerate Gillespie on an ongoing basis is designed to intimidate him to agree
to a settlement.
15
Gillespie responded to, and rejected the offer in writing by email, through Mr. Castagliuolo
Monday, June 20, 2011 at 2.53 PM.
25
“Eugene,
Thanks for Rodems’ email. Now you know why I could not appear
unrepresented with him at a deposition. Rodems’ email is a MILD example
of how he has conducted himself in this case.
So long as you are by my side I feel confident attending the deposition and
getting it behind me.
From what I read in the transcript of the June 16th hearing, Judge Arnold is
reasonable, even if he doesn’t read much about the case beforehand. If
problems develop with Mr. Rodems I think Judge Arnold will be able to
resolve the issues, so long as you are present to represent me.
I’m not interested in his walk-away offer. His last walk-away offer was
presented in equally dramatic fashion. As I noted before, Mr. Rodems has
repeatedly offered a walk-away settlement because if he looses the appeal in
2D10-5197 that could jeopardize his legal career, and that of his partners’,
who stand accused of fraud and breach of contract against a former client.
Today I was in contact with James Birkhold, Clerk of the 2d DCA about a
motion to extend the time for my amended initial brief. After Mr. Birkhold
explained the procedure, I drafted another motion to extend the time for 14
days, with the brief due July 6th, see attached.
Mr. Rodems’ walk-away agreement mentions the federal lawsuit, Gillespie
v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB,
pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala
Division. While I voluntarily dismissed him from the case due to some
unbelievable antics, the rest of the case is active, and on June 1, 2011 in
response to another matter in the case, I noted that Mr. Rodems previously
mislead this Court in violation of Rule 11 (b) in pleadings he submitted, and
in turn the Court relied upon Mr. Rodems' pleadings as correct and
incorporated false or untrue statements in the Court's orders. I sought leave
to move for sanctions against Mr. Rodems under Rule 11(C)(2) for making
false or untrue statements to this Court in his pleadings. I’m waiting on a
response.
26
Thirdly, Mr. Rodems may have some concern with action by the Florida
Bar, where he assisted Mr. Bauer regarding my bar complaint against Bauer.
The grievance committee found no probable cause on a 5-0 vote. That
decision was so inappropriate that Jim Watson, Chief Branch Discipline
Counsel of the Tallahassee Branch, forwarded my concerns to Carl Schwait,
the Designated Reviewer. Attached is the email about that, and I’m still
waiting for a reply.
So Mr. Rodems may be feeling some heat. If you are a good negotiator and
see my point, you might offer a settlement where Rodems pays me. On a
contingent basis you would be entitled to whatever the going percentage is;
it may be 45% since this is on appeal.
I’m as cool as can be under the circumstances. Nothing Rodems has said
today is a surprise to me.
Thanks again.
Neil Gillespie.
I Voluntarily Appeared June 21, 2011 For A Deposition - It Was A Trap
38. I voluntarily appeared June 21, 2011 for a deposition at the Edgecomb
Courthouse in Tampa to purge the civil contempt and rescind the arrest warrant.
Mr. Castagliuolo arrived separately. I was taken into custody and involuntarily
confined by two Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputies, Deputy Randy Olding
and Deputy Larry Berg, for the duration of the deposition. I was not given anything
to eat during the time I was involuntarily confined. The deposition went from about
10:30 a.m. through approximately 3:00 p.m. and did not break for lunch. My last
meal was at McDonald’s, about 20 minutes before arriving at the Twiggs Street
27
Garage across from the courthouse at 6:47 a.m. (A.7.page 6) (A.3.Part4.4.1-3)
39. On June 21, 2011 I was talking the following medication: (A.7.pages 6-7).
a. Lisinopril 20mg, one a day for high blood pressure.
b. Hydrochlorothiazide 25mg, one a day for high blood pressure.
c. Metformin 1000 MG, one twice a day for type 2 diabetes. (Note:
Metformin was insufficient to control my diabetes, and on September 29,
2011 my doctor prescribed Glipizide, 5 mg, one twice a day, in addition to
Metformin).
40. The June 21, 2011 deposition transcript shows at page 118: (A.4.1.118)
21 [GILLESPIE] I need to use the restroom again.
22 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Let's take a break.
23 (Recess from 1:41 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.)
41. At 1:41 p.m. I felt the urge to urinate and went to the restroom flanked by
Deputies Olding and Berg. I was unable to urinate. One of the deputies knocked on
the door and asked if I was all right. I felt cold and confused and left the restroom
without urinating and returned to the deposition room. (A.7.page 7). When I
returned from the restroom, Mr. Rodems made a number of threats to me in
response to a question from Mr. Castagliuolo to Rodems about how long the
deposition would continue and whether I would be incarcerated that night. Ms.
Himes, the court reporter, was present while Mr. Rodems threatened me, but she
did not report this in the transcript. My recollection of Mr. Rodems’ threats is
memorialized as follows: (A.7.pages 7-8) (A.5.2.8)
“Mr. Rodems also launched a new round of threats against Gillespie. Mr.
Rodems stated that he had accumulated 130 hours of attorneys fees
28
responding to Gillespie’s pleadings that Rodems considered inappropriate.
Rodems said he would seek sanctions against Gillespie for 130 hours of
attorneys fees. In the past the Court awarded Mr. Rodems $11,550 in
sanctions at $350 per hour in attorney’s fees for Gillespie’s discovery errors
and a misplaced defense of economic loss to Rodems’ libel counterclaim (at
footnote 26, The libel counterclaim was an abuse of process, which Rodems
later dismissed.) Based upon Rodems’ threat, 130 hours of sanctions would
amount to $45,500. Mr. Rodems also threatened something about bringing
the Marion County Sheriff to Gillespie’s home in his effort to collect a
judgment for attorney’s fees. And Rodems made reference to Gillespie
wearing “orange pajamas” issued by the HCSO. The details of the threats
were not clear to Gillespie because he was disoriented and Rodems was
yelling at a fast pace.”
42. On the day of the deposition I was taking the medication Metformin at the
maximum daily dose, a 1000 MG tablet by mouth twice a day to control diabetes.
It was not working well enough, and on September 29, 2011 my doctor prescribed
Glipizide, 5 mg, one twice a day, in addition to Metformin. (A.7.pages 6-7). I
likely suffered Hypoglycemia or low blood sugar. (A.3Part4.4.2-3). Near the end
of my confinement I had to ask Deputy Olding to repeat himself 4-5 times before I
understood what he was saying; Deputy Olding spoke clearly, I just could not
understand due to confusion. (A.3.Part4.4.2).
43. In those treated for diabetes a diagnosis of hypoglycemia can be made based
on the presence of a low blood sugar alone. However the Court and my jailers
failed to monitor my blood sugar. However resolution of the symptoms occurred
once I had a meal. In addition to hypoglycemia, I may have been dehydrated,
which also causes confusion. I was taking hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic, 25mg,
29
one a day for high blood pressure. Going a long time without food would cause
dehydration, along with a loss of sodium, loss of magnesium, and a loss of
potassium. There is evidence that I was dehydrated, I was unable to produce urine
during the recess from 1:41 p.m. to 2:12 p.m. In addition, I was taking lisinopril, an
ACE inhibitor, 20mg, one a day for high blood pressure. The lack of food may
have increased the concentration of lisinopril in my body and further lowered my
blood pressure to the point of confusion or diminished state. Again, the Court and
my jailers failed to monitor my blood pressure.
Mr. Rodems Mislead The 2dDCA In “APPLELLEES' RESPONSE”
44. Mr. Rodems mislead the 2dDCA July 15, 2011 in “APPLELLEES'
RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION TO REINSTATE DISMISSED
APPEAL” as follows: (A.1.12.1)
“On June 21, 2011, Appellant Neil J. Gillespie voluntarily appeared, with his
attorney, for a deposition in aid of execution relating to Appellees' Final
Judgment entered March 28, 2011.”
Once again Mr. Rodems lied to the Court in referencing a “deposition in aid of
execution.” This was an improper, full deposition (line 18) insisted upon by Judge
Arnold at the hearing June 16, 2011: (A.3.Part 4.exhibit 5.page 15, line 18)
13 THE COURT: And, I -- at this point in time,
14 his coming here is on a voluntary basis. If he
15 comes in on a voluntary basis on Tuesday, he brings
16 the documents, including the trust documents, which
17 I'll review in camera -- okay -- and willing to sit
30
18 for a deposition under oath, a full deposition
19 under oath, then I'll take that all into
20 consideration; and, and as far as I'm concerned, if
21 he does produce the documents, he does sit for
22 deposition, at that point in time, I'd be inclined
23 to withdraw any pick-up order.
Mr. Rodems’ Lied to Judge Arnold - “Mr. Gillespie receives income from a trust”
45. Throughout the litigation Mr. Rodems has lied repeatedly that I receive
income from a trust. This is what Rodems told Judge Arnold June 16, 2011:
6 MR. RODEMS: The various types of things that
7 one would expect in a collection case.
8 Mr. Gillespie receives income from a trust.
9 We wanted to see the trust documents.
(A.3.Part4.exhibit 5.page 7, line 8)
21 MR. RODEMS: There is one matter, Judge. And
22 I'm just trying to head off a problem in the past.
23 Mr. Gillespie is trying very hard not to show
24 to me the trust documents, where he gets income.
(A.3.Part4.exhibit 5.page 13, lines 23-24)
Mr. Castagliuolo tried to set the record straight:
7 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: I've been told that the
8 only thing in the trust document is the house,
9 which is underwater, and if there were any rumors
10 of income --
(A.3.Part4.exhibit 5.page 14, lines 7-10)
The Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Agreement made February 10, 1997, known as
The Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement, is provided with this petition, the
31
exact same document to which Mr. Rodems affixed “Exhibit 4” June 21, 2011.
(A.6.4). The trust shows NO IMCOME TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE. The only
trust asset, a family homestead where I live at 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala,
Florida, has recently dropped in market value from $91,057 to $85,564. The
balance on the reverse mortgage has increased to $106,313 as of November 30,
2011. The negative equity of the only trust asset was negative -$20,749 as of
November 30, 2011. See (A.6.4) for the trust and related documents. My only
reason in objecting to producing the trust was to protect the privacy of my sister
who is shown in the trust as not repaying a mortgage on the home. Otherwise
disclosure of this trust is unlawful for purposes of my debts:
13 Fla. Jur 2d, Creditors' Rights § 91, Property held in trust
The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to
garnishment. The Gillespie Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision.
The creditors of the trustee are not entitled to an attachment to subject trust
property held by the trustee to the payment of the trustee's debts. Tillman v.
Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is not available
even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla.
474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as
beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of
express statutory authorization. McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5
1937.
As shown on the accompanying notes (A.6.4) the trust was made by my parents
and not discussed. The trust favors my brother and sister, not me. I was not
originally named a successor trustee, and I was not listed as a vested beneficiary.
32
My parents were high school graduates and not sophisticated in matters of trust
law. It appears this trust was made either on the advice of a neighbor, or as the
result of attending a financial lecture with a free diner. This is speculation;
neither me nor my siblings are certain since it was not discussed.
Deposition Transcript Shows Gillespie Too Confused To Decide
47. The deposition transcript shows I was unable to make a decision to sign a
settlement agreement, yet Mr. Rodems argued otherwise in “APPLELLEES'
RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION TO REINSTATE DISMISSED
APPEAL submitted July 15, 2011. (A.1.12.2):
“In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Appellant stated to his attorney, "I'll
defer to your judgment on this." Gillespie's attorney stated, "I've already
given you judgment in private, and I'll give it to you on the record. I think
this is -- this is an agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your
best interest."”
In fact, Mr. Castagliuolo said this to me June 14, 2011 at 7:46 p.m.:
“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.” (A.7.page 5)
48. APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT REPLY (A.1.14)
shows clear evidence that I lacked capacity to decide for myself, when I told
Castagliuolo "I'll defer to your judgment on this." I already told Castagliuolo not to
accept a walk-away settlement agreement. I rejected the offer Monday, June 20,
2011 2:53 PM. (A.2.14-15). I told Mr. Castagliuolo I’m not interested in his walk-
33
away offer. Castagliuolo failed to obey my written instructions. The 2dDCA
denied my motion for leave to submit a reply.
I Promptly Disaffirmed The Walk-Away Settlement Agreement
49. I was confused and signed a “walk-away” settlement agreement while in a
diminished state June 21, 2011. Once I was released from custody, left the
courthouse, and had a meal, my senses returned and I realized that signing the
settlement agreement was a mistake. I promptly gave written notice that I
disaffirmed the settlement agreement to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo
and HCSO Major Livingston. (A.2.1.page 2;exhibit 2). I notified Castagliuolo the
same day and Rodems and Livingston the next day.
Walk-Away Settlement Agreement Too Confusing For Castagliuolo
50. It appears Mr. Castagliuolo himself does not understand the terms of the so-
called "walk away" settlement agreement that he recommend I sign June 21, 2011
while confused and in a diminished state. Mr. Castagliuolo refused to discuss the
deposition or settlement agreement after June 21, 2011. Instead Castagliuolo
demanded that I pay him $1,000 on July 1, 2011. (A.7.page 8). Mr. Castagliuolo
threatened me in a letter dated July 1, 2011 with criminal prosecution under section
812.012(6)(b), Florida Statutes, and section 772.11 Florida Statutes (2011).
(A.7.page 8;exhibit 17). Castagliuolo wrote:
34
“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.”
Castagliuolo never discussed with me what the agreement actually meant, and
reading it now I still do not understand the agreement, but it seems to dismiss with
prejudice all claims pending or which could have been brought, based on the
allegations any party against any person or entity, without limitation. That would
include the so-called claims by Mr. Castagliuolo, even though he never performed
bankruptcy services for me, and disobeyed my instructions not to settle. Pro bono
counsel Danialle Riggins of Ocala, referred to me unofficially by NAMI, the
National Alliance on Mental Illness, advised that Castagliuolo’s threat of criminal
prosecution was not legitimate and that I did not violate any criminal statutes. In
turn I notified Mr. Castagliuolo by certified letter. (A.7.page 9;exhibit 18). This in
turn launched a new wave of threats and insults by Mr. Castagliuolo against me.
(A.7.pages 9-11;exhibits 19-20). This behavior calls into question Castagliuolo’s
fitness to practice law.
LOWER TRIBUNAL, 05-CA-7205 - STATEMENT OF FACTS
35
51. This six and a half year-long lawsuit is to recover $7,143 stolen by my
former lawyers, Respondents BRC and Mr. Cook, from the settlement in earlier
litigation, the Amscot lawsuit. I commenced this lawsuit, pro se, August 11, 2005
by filing a Complaint for fraud and breach of contract. (A.11.1). This case boils
down to the veracity of a single sentence on the closing statement prepared and
signed by Respondents BRC and Mr. Cook as of October 31, 2001, attached to the
Complaint as Exhibit 2. (A.11.1.exhibit 2). The sentence states the following:
“In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that AMSCOT
Corporation separately paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my
attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and
costs.”
This sentence was later determined false. The closing statement is a fraud. There
were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. As a matter of law it was impossible to
have court-awarded fees as claimed by Respondents BRC and Mr. Cook because a
federal court dismissed those claims with prejudice, as did at least two other
federal courts. This is Respondents’ fraud against me, their client. U.S. District
Judge Richard A. Lazzara dismissed the TILA claims with prejudice August 1,
2001 in the underlying case, Clement et al. v AMSCOT, case no. 8:99-cv-2795-T-
26-EAJ. Judge Lazzara held:
After considering the arguments made and all the authorities now before it,
the Court finds that count I fails to allege a claim for relief under the TILA.
Moreover, any attempt at stating a claim under the TILA would be futile.
36
A copy of Judge Lazzara’s Order is Exhibit 8 to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint filed May 5, 2010. (A.8.exhibit 2).
52. During the course of litigation Mr. Rodems argued that the “claim” for
“court-awarded fees and costs” actually refers to a fee-shifting provision of the
federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA). In fact, the $50,000 “claim against
AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs” is a fraud, a deliberate
misrepresentation by Mr. Rodems against me. There were no attorneys fees
awarded under TILA in this case. There was no possibility of attorneys fees
awarded under TILA in this case because of prior court decision, and in other cases
known to Mr. Rodems. Therefore, there were no claims to attorneys fees awarded
under TILA in this case. Three (3) different federal courts ruled that the
transactions complained about predated the TILA rule. (A.8.pages 17-19; exhibits
7-8). This happened in all three (3) separate TILA lawsuits brought by Rodems’
predecessor firm and acquired by Barker, Rodems & Cook.
53. Robert W Bauer, one of my former lawyers, outlined Mr. Rodems’ fraud to
Judge Barton October 30, 2007 during a hearing for judgment on the pleadings:
22 [MR. BAUER] Another issue to point out the fact this is for
23 their claim of court-awarded attorney's fees, there
24 was no claim. The claim had already been determined
25 by the court, denied. It didn't exist any more.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 39) (A.10.4)
37
1 [MR. BAUER] Yes, there was an appeal outstanding, but that
2 doesn't resurrect any claim. The only thing that's
3 going to resurrect a claim is an overruling by the
4 appellate court. A claim no longer exist once it's
5 been denied, even if it's on appeal. So in
6 asserting there existed a claim for attorney's fees
7 is false. It - it's not there.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 39) (A.10.4)
TILA Claims Not Valid in Payday Express Lawsuit
54. Clement v. Payday Express, Inc. case no.: 8:99-cv-2768-T-23EAJ. On April
6, 2001, United States District Judge Steven D. Merryday issued an Order in the
Payday Express lawsuit that dismissed with prejudice the TILA and RICO claims,
and dismissed without prejudice the remaining state law claims of usury and
FDUTPA. Judge Merryday held that “Because TILA’s mandatory disclosures were
not required of the defendants before October 1, 2000, TILA cannot form a basis
for relief of the plaintiff’s claims.” (A.8.page 18)
TILA Claims Not Valid in ACE Cash Express Lawsuit
55. Clement & Gillespie v ACE Cash Express, case no.: 8:00-cv-593-T-26C. On
December 21, 2000 United States District Court Judge James S. Moody, Jr. issued
an Order in the ACE lawsuit that dismissed with prejudice Count I, Plaintiff’s
TILA claims, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Count II, the alleged violation of state usury laws pursuant to sections
687.02, 687.03, and 687.04 Florida Statutes, and Count III alleged violation of the
38
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, sections 501.201 to 501.23
Florida Statutes. Judge Moody explained his decision to dismiss with prejudice the
TILA claims on page 3, paragraph 3 of the Order. “On March 31, 2000, the Federal
Reserve Board ("FRB'') promulgated revisions to a regulation that interprets TILA
as applying to check-cashing transactions. See 65 Fed. Reg. 17129, 30 (2000), to
be codified at 12 C.F.R. pt. 226. The revision to the regulation states, however, that
the effective date of the new rule is March 24, 2000, but that compliance is
"optional" until October 1, 2000. Id. The Court agrees with Defendant that the
plain language of the regulation means that compliance was not mandated until
October 1, 2000. The transactions at issue in this case occurred prior to the FRB's
regulation. Since Plaintiffs' transactions occurred prior to October 1, 2000, TILA is
not applicable and cannot form a basis for relief against Defendant. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' claims under TILA are dismissed.” (A.8.page 17; exhibit 7).
56. I prevailed on Mr. Rodems motion to dismiss (A.11.2) filed August 29, 2005
where Rodems argued entitlement to $50,000 “claim against AMSCOT for court-
awarded fees and costs”. Judge Neilsen rejected that argument by Order January
13, 2006 (A.11.9), as did three federal judges before. The doctrine of res judicata
bars future action on matters that have been "definitively settled by judicial
decision.” The TILA claims were gone forever.
39
57. Specifically, this was how I prevailed: Respondents moved to Dismiss and
Strike August 29, 2005. (A.11.2). I responded September 6, 2005. (A.11.3). A
hearing on Respondents Motion to Dismiss and Strike was held before Judge
Nielson September 26, 2005. (A.11.4). I was granted verbal permission to appear
telephonically as I live about 100 miles from the court and Mr. Rodems did not
coordinate the time and date of hearing with me. The Court granted me leave to
respond in writing after receipt by mail of case law presented by Mr. Rodems. My
Rebuttal to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike was served October 7,
2005 (A.11.5) along with case law (A.11.6). Respondents replied to my rebuttal
October 10, 2005. (A.11.7). I served a second rebuttal October 31, 2005. (A.11.8).
The Court ruled February 13, 2006 for me and held “Those portions of Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to dismiss the Complaint are denied.
Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this order within which to file
responsive pleadings.” (A.11.9). Mr. Rodems responded with a counterclaim for
libel January 19, 2006. (A.11.14). It was an Abuse of Process (A.8.page 48) that
Rodems voluntarily withdrew September 28, 2010.
58. I filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment April 25, 2006 (A.11.10)
with an affidavit in support. (A.11.11). On May 4, 2005 I served notice of hearing.
(A.11.12). The same day Mr. Rodems objected by email. (A.11.13).
40
59. Because of Mr. Bauer’s incompetence, or to generate additional fees, he
allowed Mr. Rodems to re-litigate entitlement to $50,000 “claim against AMSCOT
for court-awarded fees and costs” in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a
motion for summary judgment was also pending. That has been Mr. Rodems
strategy throughout, to keep repeating the lie about entitlement to $50,000 “claim
against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs”.
Mr. Rodems Lied In Open Court About A Signed Representation Contract
Mr. Rodems lied in open court October 30, 2007 on a hearing for judgment on the
pleadings before Judge Barton, with Robert Bauer represented me.
2 MR. RODEMS: Wait just a second. I have a
3 written signed copy of that contract. I'm not the
4 one that filed this lawsuit. Gillespie did. And
5 Gillespie filed an unsigned version of that
6 contract.
24 MR. RODEMS: That is completely incorrect.
25 There is a signed contract. It exists.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 20, beginning line 2) (A.10.4)
1 Mr. Gillespie has a copy of it.
2 THE COURT: But not in the pleading and not
3 attached to a pleading.
4 MR. RODEMS: No. But that was Mr. Gillespie's
5 decision not to do that. I don't know why he
6 didn't.
7 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then that was his
8 decision. And maybe he should have, but I can't
9 make a ruling on the pleadings as they should have
10 been filed.
41
11 MR. RODEMS: Exactly.
12 THE COURT: So the pleadings as they exist
13 allege a contract between Cook and the law firm on
14 the one hand and Gillespie on the other hand, and we
15 have an unsigned copy of a written contract between
16 a law firm and Gillespie.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 21, beginning line 1) (A.10.4)
8 THE COURT: Right. Is there anything in the
9 complaint that says the plaintiff had a contract
10 with Cook individually?
11 MR. BAUER: Your Honor, no, there is nothing in
12 the complaint. And it was my understanding, and the
13 reason that I felt that it was still appropriate to
14 include Cook is that there was no actual written
15 contract between Barker, Rodems & Cook that was
16 signed. So there was an issue whether or not in the
17 failure to execute a new contract after the
18 termination of the predecessor firm may have opened
19 up Mr. Cook to the liability.
20 I will concede that if there exists a written
21 contract that clearly shows that the issue is only
22 between Barker, Rodems & Cook and Mr. Gillespie that
23 we have only a contract claim for breach of contract
24 against Barker, Rodems & Cook.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 22, beginning line 8) (A.10.4)
23 [RODEMS] We are being shaken down by Mr. Gillespie.
24 That's what's happening here.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 31, beginning line 23) (A.10.4)
1 MR. BAUER: Your Honor, first of all
2 THE COURT: Let me ask this: And we are still
3 on this original complaint?
4 MR. BAUER: Yes, Your Honor.
42
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 33, beginning line 1) (A.10.4)
20 [BAUER] exactly what those findings were. But this really
21 appears to be an attempt to do nothing more than
22 appellate review within the circuit court just
23 simply because counsel has gotten a different judge
24 to be able to argue the same in front of .
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 34, beginning line 20) (A.10.4)
3 MR. BAUER: Once the negotiations were settled,
4 there was a fraud committed to procure the
5 modification of the agreement. The modification of
6 the agreement would be the settlement.
7 There's actually two different contracts.
8 There was the original contract that was breached,
9 then there was a fraud committed to procure the
10 second agreement, the settlement agreement, in
11 saying this is what is fair and going to be
12 distributed.
13 As far as whether or not he agreed by saying
14 these are the claims, if you read it -it took me
15 several times reading it. I was constantly
16 confused. I can't find awards of attorney's fees.
17 I can't find awards of attorney's fees. And I
18 finally caught their argument that they are saying
19 it was a claim of attorney's fees that -and it
20 says claim of court-awarded -past tense, awarded,
21 not claim for attorney's fees that would be award.
22 There's no future. There's court-awarded. That's a
23 past tense. It's very easy to understand how a
24 layperson would confuse that situation and think
25 that there had been awarded attorney's fees.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 38, beginning line 3) (A.10.4)
1 [BAUER] It's paramount within the attorney-client
2 relationship that the attorney is supposed to make
3 sure that the client understands. I believe,
43
4 that -or my client believes that this was an
5 intentional misleading. It was -the facts are
6 sufficient in this to, are alleged, to see that
7 there was a false statement that was made. There
8 were no court-awarded attorney's fees -or we
9 allege that it was a false statement. And that's
10 all we have to do. We've alleged that there's a
11 false statement. And it will be up to a jury to
12 decide whether there was a false statement.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 39, beginning line 1) (A.10.4)
20 [RODEMS] But, you know, we believe that if you will
21 carefully consider this matter, you will see that,
22 you know, Mr. Gillespie is basically trying to shake
23 us down.
(Transcript, October 30, 2007, page 45, beginning line 20) (A.10.4)
Prior Judges
60. Circuit Judge James M. Barton, II (“Judge Barton”) presided February 13,
2007 to May 24, 2010, and was disqualified for cause, a business relationship
involving thousands of dollars paid by Respondent BRC to Regency Reporting
Service, Inc. owned by Chere Barton, wife of Judge Barton. Ms. Barton also
transcribed my deposition May 14, 2001 in the underlying litigation, Gillespie v.
Amscot Corporation, case no: 8:00-CV2795-T-26EAJ. The transcript was stored in
a home office of Judge Barton and contained substantial information about my
disabilities. The transcript is part of my disability filing.
(A.3.Part1.2.page6;exhibit4). Judge Barton failed to provide me accommodation
44
under the ADA, and sanctioned me $11,550 for discovery errors, for “discovery”
already in Respondents possession from their earlier representation of me. Part of
the sanction was for and a misplaced defense to Respondents’ counterclaim, an
Abuse of Process without merit that Rodems dismissed September 28, 2010.
61. Respondent Circuit Judge Claudia Rickert Isom (“Judge Isom”) presided
November 22, 2006 to February 13, 2007, recused sua sponte after denying motion
to disqualify. Judge Isom failed to honestly respond during a conflict hearing
February 1, 2007. Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that her husband, attorney
Woody Isom, practiced law with the attorney in the underlying case, Jonathan
Alpert. Judge Isom also failed to follow her own law review on the subject of
discovery sanctions set forth in Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28
STETSON L. REV. 323, 324 (1998). The law review shows Judge Isom avoids
discovery sanctions against lawyers, who elect judges. The record shows that
Judge Isom favored discovery sanctions against Gillespie, a disabled, nonlawyer
pro se litigant in litigation against his former attorneys who had a conflict.
62. Respondent Circuit Judge Richard A. Nielsen (“Judge Nielsen”) presided
from August 11, 2005 when the case commenced, to November 22, 2006, recused
sua sponte after denying a motion to disqualify. Judge Nielsen found by Order
February 13, 2006 that I stated a cause of action against Respondents BRC and Mr.
Cook for fraud and breach of contract. While a motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as
45
counsel was pending, Rodems filed with malice aforethought a false affidavit
swearing under oath that I planned an attack in Judge Nielsen’s chambers, a
strategic maneuver to intentionally disrupted the tribunal and gain an unfair
advantage in the litigation. Thereafter Judge Nielsen believed Mr. Rodems and
acted with bias toward me. In 2010 the Tampa Police Department investigated and
determined that Rodems’ affidavit was not right and not correct. I can provide
additional documentation about this matter.
IV. RELATED LITIGATION IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT
63. Neil J. Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., case no.
5:10-cv-00503-oc, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division,
September 28, 2010. Alleges misuse and denial of process under the color of law,
and failure to provide disability accommodation. For more about Mr. Rodems’
efforts to subvert the JNC process, see PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE, Docket 58. Upon leave, I will provide more information.
64. The Estate of Penelope M. Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
Florida, et al., case no. 5:11-cv-539-oc, U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, Ocala Division, September 16, 2011. Wrongful death complaint.
VI. THE NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT
65. The Court should rescind the walk-away settlement agreement so that the
litigation may be considered on its merits. Mr. Rodems and Barker, Rodems &
46
Cook, P.A. must be disqualified from representing themselves. This case must be
transferred to another jurisdiction, it simply cannot be fairly heard in Hillsborough
County. I also include a general request that the Court grant such other and further
relief as it deems just and equitable.
VII. ARGUMENT
66. This petition is about the basic requirements of justice, fairness and equality
that we should all expect from our courts. In this case the most basic protections
are either missing from of the Florida Constitution or have been violated.
Article 1. SECTION 2. Basic rights
No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national
origin, or physical disability.
Why do Florida Courts allow depravation of rights because of mental disability? 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 and signed a document
to get out of custody. In addition to mental illness I have diabetes, high blood
pressure, and communication disorders.
67. Mr. Rodems’ representation of his firm and partner against me has denied
me access to courts, resulted in excessive fines in the form of § 57.105 sanctions,
47
and denied my right to due process, a politically-motivated warrant for my arrest
without due process.
Article 1. SECTION 21. Access to courts.—The courts shall be open to
every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered
without sale, denial or delay.
Article 1. SECTION 17. Excessive punishments Excessive fines
Article 1. SECTION 9. Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy
for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness
against oneself.
68. The walk-away settlement agreement must be canceled. Mr. Rodems did not
have the right to settle my claims against the Thirtieth Judicial Circuit, Mr. Bauer,
or anyone other than himself and his clients. The agreement is confusing, so
confusing that even now I still do not understand the agreement, but it seems to
dismiss with prejudice all claims pending or which could have been brought, based
on the allegations any party against any person or entity, without limitation. That
would include the so-called claims by Mr. Castagliuolo. So my so-called lawyer at
the deposition does not understand the agreement either. In 2008 I assigned and
transferred to Penelope M. Gillespie, my Mother, for her use and benefit a security
interest in all my rights to receive any proceeds in the case. Since the death in 2009
of Ms. Gillespie the security interest was an asset of the estate. Mark Gillespie was
the personal representative of the estate June 21, 2011 and he did not agree to the
48
disposition of the estate asset. Relief by way of cancellation may be sought after
the death of a party to the instrument by those succeeding to the decedent’s rights.
Peacock v. Du Bois, 90 Fla. 162, 105 So. 321 (1925).
69. To rescind a contract is not merely to terminate it but to abrogate and undo it
from the beginning. Borok v. Holewinshi, 459 So. 2d 405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th
Dist. 1984). The prime object of rescission is to undo the original transaction and
restore the former status of the parties. Walker v. Eris, 886 So. 2d ,414 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2004). The power of a court of equity to grant relief by way of
cancellation or rescission of contracts or other instruments is well recognized,
Hartsfield v. Williams, 145 Fla. 709, 200 So. 220 (1941)
70. Equity may order the rescission or cancellation of an instrument that was
procured by duress. Sheldon v. Wilfore, 136 Fla. 312, 186 So. 508 (1939); Burton
v. McMillan, 52 Fla. 469, 42 So. 849 (1907). "Duress" is a condition of mind
produced by improper external pressure that destroys the free agency of a party
compelled to act in a manner not of his or her own volition. Smith v. Paul Revere
Life Ins. Co., 998 F. Supp. 1412 (S.D. Fla. 1997). Duress may include moral
compulsion and certain threats, as well as actual violence; when a claim of
rescission is based on duress from threats, the question is whether the person was
so threatened as to be bereft of the quality of mind essential to making the contract.
3Am. Jur. 2d, Cancellation of Instruments § 23. The age, sex, state of health, and
49
knowledge of the complainant may be taken into consideration in determining
whether the complainant was actually acting against his or her free will in entering
into the contract. Motor Credit Corp. v. Woolverton, 99 So. 2d 286, 72 A.L.R.2d
334 (Fla. 1957); Burton v. McMillan, 52 Fla. 469, 42 So. 849 (1907). The
complainant's power of resistance, under all the surrounding circumstances of the
transaction, is relevant in ascertaining whether there was duress of sufficient
magnitude to authorize the intervention of the equity court by way of rescission.
Burton v. McMillan, 52 Fla. 469, 42 So. 849 (1907). In the context of rescission
and cancellation, the ground of undue influence is not susceptible of precise
definition; Pratt v. Carns, 80 Fla. 243, 85 So. 681 (1920). The character of the
transaction, the mental condition of the person whose act is in question, and the
relationship of the parties concerned to each other are all elements that may be
taken into consideration in applying the rule. Peacock v. Du Bois, 90 Fla. 162, 105
So. 321 (1925); Pratt v. Carns, 80 Fla. 243, 85 So. 681 (1920).
Conclusion
71. This inadequate, flawed petition is the best I can do today under the burden
of mental illness and disability. If I had another couple weeks this petition could be
improved. It took a long time for me to figure out a strategy. In a whale of a case
like this I spent considerable time thinking about how to take the first bite. Just
making the appendixes was a significant task. Use of the existing Index and Record
would have enhanced this petition significantly.
Georgia Judge Dennis Blackmon, in Phillips v. U.S. Bank, Superior Court of
Carroll County, Case No. II-CY-00504, wrote "Sometimes, only the courts of law
stand to protect the taxpayer. Somewhere, someone has to stand up. Well,
sometimes is now, and the place is the Great State of Georgia. The defendant's
motion to dismiss is hereby denied."
This Court has an opportunity to stand up and protect the citizens of Florida
in that black hole of injustice known as the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. I will do
everything in my power to assist in that effort.
WHEREFORE, I move the Supreme Court of Florida to GRANT my
petition for writ of mandamus. I also include a general request that the Court grant
such other and further relief as it deems just and equitable.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED January 9, 2012.
"-,
50
List of Appendixes
Appendix 1 Record in the Second District Court of Appeal
Appendix 2 Record in the Second District Court of Appeal
Appendix 3 Record in the Second District Court of Appeal
Appendix 4 Deposition Transcript, June 21, 2011
Appendix 5 Verified Corrections and Amendments, Depo Transcript
Appendix 6 Gillespie Family Trust, Exhibit 4, Deposition Transcript
Appendix 7 Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, re Eugene P. Castagliuolo
Appendix 8 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, May 5, 2010, LT
Appendix 9 Emergency Motion to Disqualify Mr. Rodems, BRC, LT
Appendix 10 Clerk’s Certificate, Missing Affidavits; Transcript, LT
Appendix 11 Record, Plaintiff Established Cause of Action, LT
Appendix 12 Offer/Decline Representation, Foley & Lardner, LLP
Appendix 13 Plaintiff’s Motion Punitive Damages, § 768.72, LT
Appendix 14 Respondents’ Representation of Petitioner, DVR
Appendix 15 Gillespie v. Robert W. Bauer, TFB No. 2011-073(8B)
Appendix 16 Rule 22 Applications, Justice Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a paper copy of the Petition and an
electronic PDF copy of the Petition and Appendixes on CD was mailed by
US Postal Service, First Class Mail, January 9, 2012 to:
1. MR. RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd, suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602.
If service is required on allY other party, I ask the Court to advise me and I
will serve those parties immediately.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned certifies that this Petition has been prepared in accordance
with Rule 9.100(1) and is submitted in Times New Roman, l4-point font.
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Li censed Marri age and Fami l y Therapi st #NV0082
ADAAA Ti t l es II and III Speci al i st
Counsel i ng and Forensi c Psychol ogy
3236 Mount ai n Spri ng Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www. l vaal l c. com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
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
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. This is like threatening to arrest a
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigantís ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespieís case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespieís health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

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.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While ìpublic entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons.î (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely ìregardedî as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services.î (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) ß II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require ìexcruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment,î even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
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 ñ 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.
Sal Cor r ent e of Wr est l eReuni on had a l awsui t agai nst Cl ear Channel / Li ve Nat i on because t hey r eneged on a
cont ract wi t h hi m. The case went befor e a j ur y and Mr. Cor r ent e l ost t he case, whi ch many feel was unj ust .
But Er i c Bi schoff made a st at ement on wr est l ezone.com, whi ch i s bel ow, t hat caused Sal ' s l awyer t o send hi s
st at ement :
I n my l ast post r egar di ng t he Wr est l eReuni on/ Li ve Nat i on l awsui t , I suggest ed t hat Bi l l Behr ens and Er i c
Bi schoff wer e exper t wi t nesses for Wr est l eReuni on. That was not t he case as t hey wer e act ual l y wi t nesses
for t he Cl ear Channel / Li ve Nat i on si de. I j ust spoke wi t h Er i c Bi schoff who sai d he agr eed t o be an exper t
wi t ness aft er r eadi ng and t aki ng i nt er est i n t he case, however he was not cal l ed t o t he st and.
" The case w as w r apped up qui ck l y ," Bi schof f t ol d Wr est l ezone.com, " t he j ur y di dn' t w ast e any
t i me and came back w i t h w hat I f el t w as t he cor r ect deci si on" .
Er i c was happy wi t h t he out come, t o say t he l east . " Rob Russen and Sal Cor ent e gi v e t he w r est l i ng
busi ness a bad name," he st at ed, " so I ' m gl ad j ust i ce pr ev ai l ed and t he bot t om f eeder s di dn' t w i n
one" .
Bischoff want ed t o make sur e t hat ever yone knew his comment s and opinions wer e solely his and did not
r eflect t hose of Clear Channel/ Live Nat ion.
I n r egar ds t o t he above st at ement , we have a st at ement fr om Mr. Cor r ent e' s l awyer :
" I t i s odd t hat Er i c Bi schof f , w hose w el l - document ed i ncompet ence caused t he demi se of WCW,
shoul d hav e any comment on t he out come of t he Wr est l eReuni on, LLC l aw sui t . The ex per t r epor t
Bi schof f submi t t ed i n t hi s case bor der ed on i l l i t er acy , and Bi schof f w as not ev en cal l ed t o t est i f y
by Cl ear Channel / Li v e Nat i on because Bi schof f per j ur ed hi msel f i n a deposi t i on i n l at e- Jul y 2009
bef or e r unni ng out and r ef usi ng t o answ er any mor e quest i ons r egar di ng hi s ser i ous pr obl ems
w i t h al cohol and sex ual dev i ancy at t he Gol d Cl ub w hi l e t he head of WCW. To ev en si t i n t he r oom
and quest i on hi m w as one of t he most di st ast ef ul t hi ngs I ' v e ev er had t o do i n 17 y ear s of
pr act i ci ng l aw . I n f act , w e under st and t hat Bi schof f w as af r ai d t o ev en come t o Tampa and t est i f y
because he w oul d hav e t o answ er quest i ons under oat h f or a t hi r d t i me about hi s
embar r assi ng past .

The sad st at e of pr of essi onal w r est l i ng t oday i s di r ect l y at t r i but abl e t o t hi s snak e oi l sal esman,
w hose pr ev i ous car eer hi ghl i ght s i ncl ude sel l i ng meat out of t he back of a t r uck , bef or e he f i l ed
bank r upt cy and had hi s car r epossessed. Today , af t er r unni ng WCW i nt o t he gr ound,
Bi schof f peddl es schl ock l i k e " Gi r l s Gone Wi l d" and r eal i t y show s f eat ur i ng B- l i st er s.

Sal Cor r ent e, on t he ot her hand, has al w ay s been an honor abl e man, and he del i v er ed on ev er y
pr omi se and pai d ev er y w r est l er w hi l e st agi ng t he t hr ee Wr est l eReuni on ev ent s. Unl i k e t he
cow ar dl y Bi schof f , Mr . Cor r ent e t ook t he st and i n t hi s case. Al t hough hi s company di d not pr ev ai l ,
Sal Cor r ent e pr ov ed t hat he w as man enough t o f i ght t o t he f i ni sh - - somet hi ng Bi schof f coul d
nev er under st and."

Si ncer el y ,

Ry an Chr i st opher Rodems
Bar k er , Rodems & Cook , P.A.
400 Nor t h Ashl ey Dr i v e, Sui t e 2100
Tampa, Fl or i da 33602
813/ 489- 1001
E- mai l : r odems@bar k er r odemsandcook .com
We j ust want ed t o gi ve Mr. Cor r ent e' s l awyer a chance t o speak hi s mi nd.

Geor gi e GMakpoul os@aol .com

Si nce I have al ways had wr est l er s aut ogr aph si gni ngs as a speci al i t y for any websi t e I wor ked for, I know for
sur e, Mr. Cor r ent e i s an honest pr omot er who has NEVER st i ffed a wr est l er wor ki ng for hi s shows or
convent i ons. I woul d have hear d about i t .
Ther e ar e many pr omot er s who do t hat i n t hi s busi ness, whi ch i s ver y sad.
The information on this website is exclusive property of the Declaration of Independents and cannot be used elsewhere without proper link credit. All DOI purchases are
non-refundable. All mail (electronic or postal) sent to the DOI becomes property of the DOI which allows the DOI to reprint that e-mail in it's entirety by doing so, if the email
is considered newsworthy.
Copyright declarationofindependents.net & doiwrestling.com. All Rights Reserved.
DOIwrestling.com - Declaration of Independents - The Number 1 Indepen... http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente910.html
1 of 3 8/13/2012 12:01 PM
7
THE FLORIDA BAR
INQUIRy/COMPLAINT FORM
PART ONE (See Pa2e 1, PART ONE - Required Information.):
Your Nan1e: Neil J. Gillespie
Organization: _
Address: 8092 SW 115th Loop
City: Ocala State: FL
Zip Code: 34481 Phone: 352-854-7807
Email: [email protected]
ACAP Reference No._n_o_ne _
Atton1ey's Name: Eugene P. Castagliuolo
Address: 801 West Bay Dr. Ste 301
City: Largo State: FL
Zip Code: 33770 Telephone: 727-712-3333
PART TWO (See Pa2e 1, PART TWO - Facts/Alle2ations.): The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:
Please see accompanying written complaint and exhibits.
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 ofperjury, I declare that theforegoingfacts are
true, correct and cOlllplete.
8
VIA U.S. Certified Mail, RRR August 11, 2012
Article No. 7010 1670 0001 9008 0352
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399·2300
RE: Complaint against attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Florida Bar ID: 104360
801 West Bay Dr. Suite 301, Largo, Florida 33770-3223, Telephone: 727-712-3333
Upon information and belief, Eugene P. Castagliuolo is mentally ill and should not be practicing
law. On July 25, 2012 Mr. 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. Castagliuolo’s 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. Castagliuolo’s “health issues” 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 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/77963112/
On August 1, 2012 I reported Mr. Castagliuolo’s threat to Attorney General Pam Bondi, with
copies emailed to the following persons affiliated with the Florida Bar:
Michael J. Cohen, Executive Director, Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.
Paul F. Hill, General Counsel, The Florida Bar
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation
A copy of my eleven-page (11) complaint to the Florida Attorney General is Exhibit 2 to this
complaint. Only the letter to Ms. Bondi is enclosed; in compliance with the twenty-five (25)
page limit set by the Florida Bar for complaints, I cannot provide the 42 pages of exhibits.
On August 10, 2012 I received an email response from Samantha Santana of the Florida
Attorney General's Office. Ms. Santana wrote in part:
It appears that you provided a copy of your complaint about Attorney
Eugene Castagliuolo to The Florida Bar, which is the appropriate agency to
address this matter. Please follow up with The Bar directly for further
assistance.
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
The Florida Bar August 11, 2012
Page - 2
Chronology of Mr. Castagliuolo’s representation of Gillespie
1. On June 3, 2011 I retained Mr. Castagliuolo through an ad on Craigslist and paid him
$1,000 cash for preparation and representation at a court-ordered deposition. A copy of our bare-
bones one page agreement is enclosed. (Exhibit 3). Mr. Castagliuolo failed to disclose to me at
the time of hire that he has “health issues” that resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel.
2. On June 9, 2011 it became apparent that Mr. Castagliuolo had 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 previously appointed to represent me.
3. On June 15, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo notified me by email at 10:03 p.m. that he planned to
argue his own “health issues” to Judge Arnold at the hearing the next day: (Exhibit 4)
“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. Castagliuolo’s “health issues” were an issue in the
representation. He lacks stamina for litigation that resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel.
4. Mr. Castagliuolo failed to prepare me for the June 21, 2011 deposition as agreed.
5. Mr. Castagliuolo failed to see that disability accommodations were in place for me during
the June 21, 2011 deposition. I provided Castagliuolo my disability information June 4, 2011.
6. On June 21, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo disobeyed my instructions not to accept a walk-away
settlement agreement in my litigation with Mr. Rodems. Castagliuolo never explained the
settlement to me and ran out after it was signed. 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. Mr. Castagliuolo
failed to see that disability accommodations were in place, 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 he 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, a big part of the problem is years of unethical behavior by opposing
counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems.
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
The Florida Bar August 11, 2012
Page - 3
7. On June 21, 2011 I voluntarily appeared for a deposition at the Edgecomb Courthouse in
Tampa to purge the civil contempt and rescind the arrest warrant. It was a trap. This is from my
petition in the Supreme Court of Florida SC11-1622, paragraph 5:
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 Sheriff’s 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 Sheriff’s Office. (A.2.1.2-3).
Mr. Castagliuolo has repeatedly falsely accused me of criminal acts
For the past year Mr. Castagliuolo has repeatedly falsely accused 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 communicate.
The following is a list of threats or other inappropriate behavior by Mr. Castagliuolo:
8. 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.
9. 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 5)
10. 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.”
11. Civil Theft Notice, July 1, 2011, Mr. Castagliuolo threatened criminal prosecution under
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program Page - 4
The Florida Bar August 11,2012
section 812.0 12(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 6).
Attorney Danialle Riggins of Ocala advised n1e that Castagliuolo's threat of criminal prosecution
was not legitin1ate 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 crin1inal statutes, and
set forth his wrongdoing. (Exhibit 7).
12. 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 Sheriffs
Office", followed by big crazy font type. (Exhibit 8).
13. August 5, 2011, Mr. Castagliuolo demanded $3,000 because "my Civil Theft claim
against you has been perfected". Again, attorney Danialle Riggins advised n1e that
Castagliuolo's threat of criminal prosecution was not legitimate and that I did not violate any
criminal statutes. (Exhibit 9).
14. 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.
This does not sound like a n1entally healthy person:
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 Sheriffs Office.
Mr. Castagliuolo was a disaster as an attorney. In my view he should not be representing people,
especially in court. Ifhe 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 7).
Thank you for considering this complaint.
-"'

•
..' ..
,,",
,1 ,/
.1"
Nei ." i es i;? 7"
SW 115tyLoop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures

Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>
To: "Gillespie" <[email protected]>
Cc: "MICHAEL BORSETH" <[email protected]>
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. Castagliuolo’s 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. Castagliuolo’s 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 Alzheimer’s 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. Rainsberger’s 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 layman’s 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. Castagliuolo’s 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 Sheriff’s 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. Castagliuolo’s “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. Castagliuolo’s “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 Castagliuolo’s 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
Castagliuolo’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Gillespie’s 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 ñ 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. Plaintiff’s 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 don’t 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: [email protected]
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::ET£RMJN£b6

www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com
3

Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: documents
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>
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." <[email protected]>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: documents
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <[email protected]>
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." <[email protected]>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
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: [email protected] ]
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
[email protected]

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.UI••II••1111
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 Gillespie’s 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 Court’s 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 District’s CM/ECF Order is discriminatory on its face to pro se filers,
and contrary to PACER’s mandate - “Public Access” to Court Electronic Records. The
Court’s 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 “Plaintiff’s 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 Clerk’s office:
Pursuant to local Rule 1.0t(a) Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves to file documents
electronically in this lawsuit.
The Court’s 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, Gillespie’s motion to e-file. (Exhibit 4). The Court held:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 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 Court’s 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, Plaintiff’s Motion
To File Electronically (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED.
The Court’s 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 Gillespie’s 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 week’s 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 Clerk’s 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. Gillespie’s motion to e-file is a reasonable disability accommodation request.
a. Gillespie’s disability request submitted to the District Court September 28,
2010 in case no. 5:10-cv-503, and resubmitted publicly in Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie’s
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).
Gillespie’s 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 purpose…Gillespie 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
Gillespie’s former attorney Robert W. Bauer about Mr. Rodems:
3. Mr. Rodems has set a level of animosity in this lawsuit best described by
Gillespie’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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. Gillespie’s 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. Gillespie’s 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 Gillespie’s letter to District Clerk Sheryl L. Loesch dated April 5,
2012 (Exhibit 8), the Clerk failed to file on PACER Exhibits 1-15 to Gillespie’s
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)
“My…claims…involve documents in the state court record from the
Circuit Civil Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, including…an 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 my…civil rights
complaint?”
Mr. Leanheart did not respond in writing, but we spoke by phone September 10,
2010. Following Mr. Leanheart’s 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 Clerk’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Clerk’s failure to comply with the Court’s 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 judge’s 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 Court’s 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 Gillespie’s 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([email protected]).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 Plaintiff’s Motion to File Electronically, Case 5:10-cv-00503 (Doc. 6)
Exhibit 4 Order, Denied - Plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Nielsen’s 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 don’t 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 litigant’s 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 Isom’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 protégées 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Alpert’s 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 Isom’s 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. Bauer’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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
Isom’s 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([email protected]).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