Inspector General Complaint Florida 2dDCA-Dec-04-2014

VIA UPS No.
1Z64589FP294762754
Greg White, Inspector General
Office of Inspector General, State Courts System
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
December 4, 2014
VIA Email: [email protected]
VIA Email: [email protected]
Dear Inspector General Greg White:

This complaint is made under the Florida State Courts System Fraud Policy against,
Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA)
1005 E. Memorial Blvd.
P.O. Box 327
Lakeland, FL 33801
Lakeland, FL 33802
Telephone: (863) 499-2290, FAX (863) 413-2649
for failure to have internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the 2dDCA complied
with administrative policies, procedures, and rules as well as applicable statutes. As shown in
this complaint, operations of the 2dDCA did not support the goals and objectives of the State
Courts System, and did not promote the effective and efficient use of state resources.
This complaint is directed only against the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. (hereinafter
called Court or 2dDCA). Misconduct by individual judges will be brought by separate
complaint to the appropriate agency. This is not a Florida Bar complaint.
1.
The case file in docket no. 2D08-2224 was wrongly destroyed April 10, 2014;
2.
13 anonymous decisions entered in case 2D10-5197; none carry the name or

signature of a judge of the 2dDCA; only the name of Clerk appears;
3.
$14 fee for records showing who entered anonymous decisions in 2D10-5197;
4.
The 2dDCA took no judicial action on my notice of appeal December 5, 2013,

contrary to Art. V, sec. 2(a), Fla. Const. and Rule 9.040(b)(1), requiring transfer
of the cause to an appropriate court, the Florida Supreme Court.
5.
The 2dDCA failed to take judicial action in case 2D11-2127 as required by the
Constitution and laws of Florida, including the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
Office of Inspector General
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/oig/index.shtml
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an integral part of the State Courts System.
Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

December 4, 2014
Page - 2
The purpose of the OIG is to provide a central point for coordination of, and responsibility for,
activities that promote accountability, integrity, and efficiency in the State Courts System.
The goal of the OIG is to proactively perform engagements designed to add value and improve
the programs and operations of the State Courts System.
Mission of the Office of Inspector General
To proactively perform engagements designed to add value and improve the programs
and operations of the State Courts System
Jurisdiction for the Inspector General, State Courts System
Florida Constitution, Article V, Judiciary, Section 4, District Courts of Appeal

Florida Statutes, Title V, Judicial Branch, Chapter 35, District Courts of Appeal (35.03)
F.S. 25.382 State courts system. (1) As used in this section, state courts system means
all officers, employees, and divisions of the Supreme Court, district courts of appeal...
F.S. 29.001 State courts system elements and definitions. (1) For the purpose of
implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the state courts system is defined to
include the enumerated elements of the Supreme Court, district courts of appeal...
F.S. 29.004 State courts system.For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State
Constitution, the elements of the state courts system to be provided from state revenues...
Authority for the Inspector General, State Courts System
Section 20.055, Florida Statutes, Agency inspectors general.

(1) As used in this section, the term:
(d) State agency means... the state courts system.
(2) The Office of Inspector General is established in each state agency to provide a
central point for coordination of and responsibility for activities that promote
accountability, integrity, and efficiency in government....
Florida State Courts System Fraud Policy
VI. Investigation of Allegations of Fraud
a. Authority to Investigate Allegations of Fraud
i. The IG is authorized under section 20.055(6), Florida Statutes, to initiate, conduct, supervise,
and coordinate investigations designed to detect, deter, prevent and eradicate fraud, waste,
mismanagement, misconduct, and other abuses in state government. The IG is also authorized to
receive and investigate complaints filed pursuant to the Whistle-blowers Act in section
112.3187-112.31895, Florida Statutes. The IG shall refer complaints involving judges, attorneys
or other licensed or regulated individuals to the appropriate oversight or regulatory body for
investigation and determination of probable cause.

December 4, 2014
Page - 3
ii. In the course of investigating fraud, suspected fraud or other wrong-doing within the scope of
this policy, the IG shall have free and unrestricted access to all records and premises required to
evaluate allegations. When investigating fraud, suspected fraud or other wrong-doing within the
scope of this policy, the IG may inspect, examine, copy or remove SCS records and property
without prior consent of any individual who may have custody of such items.
Background Information
I had six cases in the Second District Court of Appeal related to Hillsborough Case 05-CA-7205,
Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J. Cook. (BRC).
A seventh case was filed November 19, 2014, Docket No. 14-5388, and is currently active.
Attorney Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville represented me in 2007 and 2008, and in two appeals
below. Mr. Bauer was a referral from The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service.
2D06-3803
2D07-4530
2D08-2224
2D10-5197
2D10-5529
2D11-2127
Gillespie v. BRC, discovery sanction appeal, Gillespie appeared pro se

BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal, Robert W. Bauer for Gillespie
Gillespie v. BRC, F.S. 57.105 sanctions, Robert W. Bauer for Gillespie
Gillespie v. BRC, final summary judgment, Gillespie appeared pro se
Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition Judge Cook, Gillespie appeared pro se
Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition Judge Arnold, venue, habeas corpus; pro se
Counts 1 through 5 against the Second District Court of Appeal

Evidence provided or available in support of counts 1 - 5 against the 2dDCA
Set out as an Appendix see attached

Amended Application for Order-2D10-5197-Jun-12-2014-corrected (14p)
Exh 8, 2013, 12-10-13, Order DENIED appeal to SCOTUS
2014, 06-12-14, APPENDIX 2DCA Public Records 18p
Exh 10, 2013, 10-07-13 form letter response Clerk Birkhold
Exh 11, 2014, 06-12-14, docket 2D08-2224 case destroyed
Addendum-Amended Application for Order-2D10-5197-Jun-17-2014-corrected (17p)
Separate Appendix, 2013, 10-01-13, letter NJG to Chief Judge Davis-53p
Emergency Petition Writ of Prohibition; Motion Change Venue, 2D11-2127, May 2, 2011
Remove CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE JAMES D. ARNOLD as trial court judge
Remove the THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, as venue and
jurisdiction in Lower Court Case No. 05-CA-007205
Motion for a Change of Venue (to another District Court of Appeal)
Acknowledgment of New Case, FEE WAIVED, May 3, 2011
Order, DENIED petition for writ of habeas corpus, May 4, 2011
AMENDED Order, DENIED petition for writ of prohibition, May 6, 2011

December 4, 2014
Page - 4
Count 1 - Second District Court of Appeal

1.
The case file in docket no. 2D08-2224 appears wrongly destroyed April 10, 2014;
The wrongful destruction of the case file in docket no. 2D08-2224 is significant because Robert
W. Bauer (Bar ID 11058) represented me and filed, inter alia, a brief on my behalf, before
moving to withdrawal from the case. The 2dDCA denied Mr. Bauers motion to withdrawal, but
he stopped working on the case anyway. Other motions I filed relative to Mr. Bauers
nonperformance, which as essentially contempt of court, were denied.
Clerk of Court James Birkhold provided me a form letter dated October 7, 2013 that
appears at Exhibit 10. This message appears at the bottom of the form letter,
Judge Davis has turned over your lengthy submission to me for a response. 2008-2224
we do not show has been destroyed, although the time has expired to retain the file and it
is possible it has been destroyed and a clerical error may lead to the conclusion that we
retain it. This file if we have it is stored offsite. On our next trip to that storage area we
will check and get back to you on this. The other concerns you express in your
submission do not seem to be matters that would invite appropriate comment from the
court. - signed James Birkhold, Clerk, October 7, 2013.
The case docket appears at Exhibit 11 and shows three relevant entries:
August 23, 2013: Miscellaneous Motion by Neil J. Gillespie to surrender files.
September 20, 2013: Deny Miscellaneous Motion-79a, see order in 11-2127.
April 10, 2014: Case Destroyed
My 8 page letter with 45 pages of attachments to the Chief Judge shows on page 1,
Please advise if any other appellate case shown in the motion has not been destroyed or is
otherwise available. Contrary to his belief, Clerk Birkhold has not answered this
question. The September 20, 2013 order does not address the status of records that may
have been destroyed. My misplaced motion shows:
2D11-2127 - attached docket shows case destroyed 07/05/13
2D10-5197 - attached docket shows case is available
2D08-2224 - attached docket shows returned records 01/13/10
Case 2D08-2224 does not show "destroyed", it only shows returned records 01/13/10. Is
that case file, or any other case file available? Clerk Birkhold was understandably busy
and not able to respond due to mandatory efiling, so I am bringing this matter to your attention.

December 4, 2014
Page - 5

2.
13 anonymous decisions entered in case 2D10-5197; none carry the name or

signature of a judge of the 2dDCA; only the name of Clerk appears;
Section 35.15 requires ... All decisions and opinions delivered by the district courts of appeal or
any judge thereof in relation to any action or proceeding pending in said court shall be filed and
remain in the office of the clerk...
F.S. 35.15 Decisions to be filed; copies to be furnished.All decisions and opinions
delivered by the district courts of appeal or any judge thereof in relation to any action or
proceeding pending in said court shall be filed and remain in the office of the clerk, and
shall not be taken therefrom except by order of the court; but said clerk shall at all times
be required to furnish to any person who may desire the same certified copies of such
opinions and decisions, upon receiving his or her fees therefor.
The 2dDCA, in filing 13 anonymous decisions in case 2D10-5197, does not comply section
35.15 because decisions delivered by the Court must carry the name of a judge.
The paragraphs below appear in my Amended Application for Order, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33:
26. The Clerk required, and I paid, $14 for public records (Appendix) identifying
judges who made decisions in thirteen (13) anonymous orders entered in Appeal No.
2D10-5197 that did not carry the name or signature of any judge. The Clerk provided free
by email (Exhibit 16),
The following orders were entered by non-judicial personnel: November 1, 2010;
November 22, 2010; January 7, 2011; February 3, 2011; February 17, 2011; May 25,
2011; June 23, 2011; June 24, 2011; and July 11, 2011.
The order of March 23, 2011, was entered by Judges Black and Crenshaw.
The order of April 8, 2011, was entered Judges Wallace and Khouzam.
The order of May 2, 2011, was entered by Judges Altenbernd and Northcutt.
The order of July 26, 2011, was entered by Judges Wallace, Black, and LaRose.
Decisions showing less than three judges may violate Rule 2.210(a)(1) Exercise of Powers and
Jurisdiction, Three judges shall constitute a panel for and shall consider each case...
RULE 2.210. DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
(a) Internal Government.
(1) Exercise of Powers and Jurisdiction. Three judges shall constitute a panel for and
shall consider each case, and the concurrence of a majority of the panel shall be
necessary to a decision.

December 4, 2014
Page - 6
NOTE: Suggestion here of judicial misconduct is for context only, for showing a possible reason
why the 2dDCA failed to comply with section 35.15 by filing anonymous decisions and/or
opinions, which ordinarily carry the name of a judge(s).
I understand that complaints against a judge showing the existence of judicial misconduct and
disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida are filed with the
Judicial Qualifications Commission. This is not a judicial complaint.
27. The appeals process is oversight for correcting bad orders. But a review of the
information provided by the Clerk shows two judges who should have recused: Judge
Marva Crenshaw and Judge Anthony Black. Neither judge put their name on Orders in
2D10-5197.
28. Judge Crenshaw entered Order Granting Stay September 9, 2008 in the lower
tribunal case, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205. Thus it appears the Fla.
Code Jud. Conduct Cannon 3E required Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify
himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (b) the judge...was the lower
court judge in the matter in controversy, [the judge participated as a lower court judge in
a decision to be reviewed by the judge;]
29. Governor Crist appointed Hillsborough Judge Marva Crenshaw to the Second
District Court of Appeal in January 2009, and she began serving February 1, 2009.
Governor Crist appointed Hillsborough Judge Anthony Black to the Second District
Court of Appeal in 2010. Prior to appointment, Judge Crenshaw and Judge Black were
colleagues of Hillsborough Judge Martha Cook in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
Therefore, given the proximity of employment with Judge Cook, it appears relative to
Judge Crenshaw and Judge Black that the Fla. Code Jud. Conduct Cannon 3E required
Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which
the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned...
33. Judge Marva Crenshaw and Judge Anthony Black wrongly ruled in two related
appeals:
In appeal 2D10-5529, Civil Prohibition Petition from Hillsborough County for Judge
Martha Cook was Denied December 9, 2010. The petition for writ of prohibition is
denied as moot with respect to Judge Martha Cook and is denied in all other respects.
The petitioner's motion for order of protection is denied. LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and
CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
In appeal 2D11-2127, Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion
for Change of Venue, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied May
4, 2011. LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Petitioner's petition for
writ of prohibition was denied May 6, 2011 (amended order), LaROSE,
CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

December 4, 2014
Page - 7

3.
$14 record charge to see who entered anonymous decisions in 2D10-5197;
The $14 public record charge violates section 35.15 that requires Decisions to be filed; copies
to be furnished. without charge.
The Florida Constitution, Article V, Judiciary, Section 14. Funding. (d) The judiciary shall
have no power to fix appropriations. The 2dDCA, by filing anonymous decisions and opinions
delivered by the Court, then charging $1.00 per page for records that show the judge(s) involved,
is appropriating a new tax for itself, when in fact section 35.15 requires Decisions to be filed;
copies to be furnished. without charge.
4.
The 2dDCA took no judicial action on my notice of appeal December 5, 2013,

contrary to Art. V, sec. 2(a), Fla. Const. and Rule 9.040(b)(1), requiring transfer
of the cause to an appropriate court, the Florida Supreme Court.
The 2dDCAs failure to take judicial action, and transfer my appeal to the correct court likely
violates Art. V, 2(a), Fla. Const., Administration; practice and procedure. (underline added)
(a) The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts
including the time for seeking appellate review, the administrative supervision of all
courts, the transfer to the court having jurisdiction of any proceeding when the
jurisdiction of another court has been improvidently invoked, and a requirement that no
cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought. The supreme
court shall adopt rules to allow the court and the district courts of appeal to submit
questions relating to military law to the federal Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
for an advisory opinion. Rules of court may be repealed by general law enacted by twothirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature.
5.

The 2dDCA failed to take judicial action in case 2D11-2127 as required by the
Constitution and laws of Florida, including the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
Emergency Petition Writ of Prohibition; Motion Change Venue, 2D11-2127, May 2, 2011
Remove CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE JAMES D. ARNOLD as trial court judge
Remove the THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, as venue and
jurisdiction in Lower Court Case No. 05-CA-007205
Motion for a Change of Venue (to another District Court of Appeal)
Acknowledgment of New Case, FEE WAIVED, May 3, 2011
Order, DENIED petition for writ of habeas corpus, May 4, 2011
AMENDED Order, DENIED petition for writ of prohibition, May 6, 2011

December 4, 2014
Page - 8
The 2dDCA failed to review my writ within its original jurisdiction under Rule 9.030(b)(3), Fla.
R.App.Pro., and Rule 2.130, Fla.R.Jud.Admin., and therefore denied my Constitutional rights
under the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

RULE 9.030. JURISDICTION OF COURTS
(b) Jurisdiction of District Courts of Appeal.
(3) Original Jurisdiction. District courts of appeal may issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto, and common law certiorari, and all writs necessary to the
complete exercise of the courts jurisdiction; or any judge thereof may issue writs of
habeas corpus returnable before the court or any judge thereof, or before any circuit
judge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

RULE 2.130. PRIORITY OF FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure shall control all proceedings in the
supreme court and the district courts, and all proceedings in which the circuit
courts exercise their appellate jurisdiction, notwithstanding any conflicting rules of
procedure.
The 2dDCA Denied My Rights Protected by the Florida Constitution

and the Constitution of the United States
The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 21, guarantees every person access to courts for
redress of any injury, where justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
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.
Under section 454.18 of the Florida Statutes, any person, whether an attorney or not . . . may
conduct his or her own cause in any court of this state.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees every person a right to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

December 4, 2014
Page - 9
The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 9, guarantees every person due process.
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.
Due Process, Legal Information Institute, article written and submitted by Peter Strauss.
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the
federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven
words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These
words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government
must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures... Introduction.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 2, guarantees every person Basic Rights.
SECTION 2. Basic rights.All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before
the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life
and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and
protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of
real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law.
No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or
physical disability.
Definition of a Kangaroo Court, The Free Dictionary
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/p/Kangaroo%20Court
[Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh
punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into
their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison inmates; a proceeding and
its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.
The term is still in common usage by defendants, writers, and scholars critical of a court
or a trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has also used it. In in re gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct.
1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), a case that established that children in juvenile court have
the right to due process, the Court reasoned, "Under our Constitution, the condition of
being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." Associate Justice william o. douglas once
wrote, "[W]here police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound
them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived
the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a
legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S.
97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 [1951]).

December 4, 2014
Page - 10
Definition of Star Chamber Proceedings, The Free Dictionary

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/p/star%20chamber%20proceedings
star chamber proceedings n. any judicial or quasi-judicial action, trial, or hearing which
so grossly violates standards of "due process" that a party appearing in the proceedings
(hearing or trial) is denied a fair hearing. The term comes from a large room with a
ceiling decorated with stars in which secret hearings of the privy council and judges met
to determine punishment for disobedience of the proclamations of King Henry VIII of
Great Britain (1509-1547). The high-handed, unfair, predetermined judgments, which
sent the accused to The Tower of London or to the chopping block, made "star chamber"
synonymous with unfairness and illegality from the bench. In modern American history
the best example of star chamber proceedings was the conduct of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee (1938-1975) which used its subpena power to intimidate citizens
by asking them unconstitutional questions about their political beliefs and associations,
and then charging them with contempt of Congress for refusing to answer. Another
example was the conduct of criminal proceedings against black defendants in some
southern states from 1876 until the late 1960s. (See: kangaroo court)
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Phone: (352) 854-7807
Email: [email protected]
Enclosures
Appendix -December 4, 2014

Complaint Against Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2dDCA)
Appendix 1
Amended Application for Order-2D10-5197-Jun-12-2014-corrected (14p)
Appendix 2
Exh 8, 2013, 12-10-13, Order DENIED appeal to SCOTUS
Appendix 3
2014, 06-12-14, APPENDIX 2DCA Public Records 18p
Appendix 4
Exh 10, 2013, 10-07-13 form letter response Clerk Birkhold
Appendix 5
Exh 11, 2014, 06-12-14, docket 2D08-2224 case destroyed
Appendix 6
Addendum-Amended Application for Order-2D10-5197-Jun-17-2014-corrected (17p)
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Florida Statutes, section 35.15 Decisions to be filed; copies to be furnished
Appendix 9
2011, 05-02-11, Petition, Writ of Prohibition; Motion Change Venue, 2D11-2127
Appendix 10 Acknowledgment of New Case, FEE WAIVED, May 3, 2011

Appendix 11 Order, DENIED petition for writ of habeas corpus, May 4, 2011
Appendix 12 AMENDED Order, DENIED petition for writ of prohibition, May 6, 2011
Appendix 13 Kangaroo Court, term used by SCOTUS
Appendix 14 Star Chamber Proceedings, definition
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
Appellate Case: 2D10-5197

Lower Tribunal Case: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs.
________________________________________/
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR ORDER
1.
Applicant Neil J. Gillespie pro se files Amended Application For Order in the first person:
2.
This Courts Order entered November 7, 2013 denied Appellant's application for order
without due process. See the Florida Supreme Court procedure in SC11-1622 and SC11-858.
10
3.
This Courts Order entered December 5, 2013 took no judicial action on my notice of
appeal, contrary to Art. V, sec. 2(a), Fla. Const. and Rule 9.040(b)(1), requiring transfer of the
cause to an appropriate court, the Florida Supreme Court.
4.
The case file in appeal 2D08-2224 appears wrongly destroyed April 10, 2014.:
Table of Contents
Sect. I.
Sect. II.
Sect. III.
Sect. IV.
Sect. V.
P.2
P.2
P.4
P.5
P.9
Amended Application For Order submitted today, June 12, 2014.

Order November 7, 2013 denied relief without due process.
Order December 10, 2013 violated Art. V, sec. 2(a), Fla. Const.
Appeal file 2D08-2224 destroyed April 10, 2014; Robert Bauer attorney.
$14 charge for records showing who entered 13 anonymous court orders.
Appendix 1
Section I.
5.
Amended Application For Order submitted today, June 12, 2014.
Applicant Neil J. Gillespie, reluctantly appearing pro se due to indigence and/or
insolvency, applies to the Second District Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 2.430(g),
Fla.R.Jud.Admin., for an Order requiring the clerk to deliver to the applicant the court records in
Appellate Case No.: 2D10-5197 that are to be destroyed or disposed of.
Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin.:
(g) Disposition Other Than Destruction. Before destruction or
disposition of court records under this rule, any person may apply to the court for
an order requiring the clerk to deliver to the applicant the court records that are to
be destroyed or disposed of. All parties shall be given notice of the application.
The court shall dispose of that court record as appropriate.
All parties shown on the certificate of service were provided a copy of this application.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 12, 2014.
6.
The Florida Supreme Court established procedure to grant my application for order in
SC11-1622 and SC11-858 that must be followed here under the principal of stare decisis.
Stare decisis (pronunciation omitted) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to
respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the
phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand
by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[2] In a legal context, this is understood to
mean that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
Section II.
This Courts Order entered November 7, 2013 denied relief without due process.
Due process, by Peter Strauss http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the
federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven
words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These
words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government
must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures...
7.
On November 7, 2013, this Court entered the Order appearing at Exhibit 1, holding,
BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's application for order is denied.
2
The Order does not carry the name of a judge, and me denied due process.
8.
On September 27, 2013 I submitted my application for order appearing at Exhibit 2,

Applicant Neil J. Gillespie (hereinafter Applicant), reluctantly appearing pro se due to
indigence and/or insolvency, applies to the Second District Court of Appeal pursuant to
Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin., for an Order requiring the clerk to deliver to the
applicant the court records in Appellate Case No.: 2D10-5197 that are to be destroyed or
disposed of.
Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin.:
(g) Disposition Other Than Destruction. Before destruction or
disposition of court records under this rule, any person may apply to the court for
an order requiring the clerk to deliver to the applicant the court records that are to
be destroyed or disposed of. All parties shall be given notice of the application.
The court shall dispose of that court record as appropriate.
All parties shown on the certificate of service were provided a copy of this application.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED September 27, 2013.
9.
The Florida Supreme Court entered an Order in SC11-1622 February 11, 2014. (Exhibit 3),
Petitioner has filed an Application for Order on September 30, 2013, requesting that the
file for this case, in lieu of destruction, be released to him subsequent to the Court's
retention timeline requirement, in compliance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.430(g).
Petitioner's request is attached as Appendix A. All parties have twenty days from the date
of this order to submit, in writing, any objection to Petitioner's request. Any objection
submitted must also be served on all other parties; the parties who are served with
objections have fifteen days to respond.
10.
The Florida Supreme Court GRANTED my application in SC11-1622 April 16, 2014.
The Order appears at Exhibit 4.

There having been no response to this Court's order dated February 11,2014, regarding
petitioner's request for delivery of the court record, and the court having determined that
he has complied with the request provisions of the Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration, the court approves his application and will surrender this court's file to
him in lieu of its destruction. In compliance with rule 2.430(c)(3)(A) of the Rules of
Judicial Administration, petitioner shall make appropriate arrangements with the Office
of the Clerk no more than 30 days prior to June 21, 2017, for the transfer of this file.
11.
The Florida Supreme Court entered an Order in SC11-858 February 11, 2014. (Exhibit 5),
Petitioner has filed an Application for Order on September 30,2013, requesting that the
file for this case, in lieu of destruction, be released to him subsequent to the Court's
retention timeline requirement, in compliance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.430(g).
Petitioner's request is attached as Appendix A. All parties have twenty days from the date
of this order to submit, in writing, any objection to Petitioner's request. Any objection
submitted must also be served on all other parties; the parties who are served with
objections have fifteen days to respond.
12.
The Florida Supreme Court GRANTED my application in SC11-858 April 16, 2014. The
Order appears at Exhibit 6.

There having been no response to this Court's order dated February 11,2014, regarding
petitioner's request for delivery of the court record, and the court having determined that
he has complied with the request provisions of the Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration, the court approves his application and will surrender this court's file to
him in lieu ofits destruction. In compliance with rule 2.430(c)(3)(A) of the Rules of
Judicial Administration, petitioner shall make appropriate arrangements with the Office
of the Clerk no more than 30 days prior to June 17, 2016, for the transfer of this file.
Section III.
13.
This Courts Order entered December 10, 2013 violated Article V, Section 2(a), of
the Florida Constitution; and Rule 9.040(b)(1), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
On December 5, 2013, I appealed this Courts ruling holding Appellant's application for order is
denied to the U.S. Supreme Court during pendency of Petition 13-7280. (Exhibit 7).
14.
The Courts Order December 10, 2013 (Exhibit 8) held,

On December 6, 2013, appellant submitted to this court a notice of appeal, seeking
review in the Supreme Court of the United States of this court's order of November
7,2013. Review of state court judgments in the Supreme Court is governed by United
States Supreme Court Rule 12, and this provision does not provide for the filing of a
notice of appeal with the lower tribunal. As such this court is not empowered to transmit
appellant's notice to the Supreme Court, and no judicial action will be taken upon the
notice by this court.
15.
The Order does not carry the name of a judge, and me denied due process by violating
Art. V, sec. 2(a), Fla. Const., and Rule 9.040(b)(1), requiring transfer of the cause to an
appropriate court, the Florida Supreme Court.
Article V, Section 2(a), of the Florida Constitution
SECTION 2. Administration; practice and procedure.
(a) The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts including the
4
time for seeking appellate review, the administrative supervision of all courts, the transfer to the
court having jurisdiction of any proceeding when the jurisdiction of another court has been
improvidently invoked, and a requirement that no cause shall be dismissed because an improper
remedy has been sought....
Rule 9.040(b)(1), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
(b) Forum
(1) If a proceeding is commenced in an inappropriate court, that court shall transfer the cause to
an appropriate court.
16.
The case docket in 2D10-5197 (Exhibit 9) shows Notice of Appeal February 13, 2014 with a note,
S. Ct. order dated 02/11/14 with attachments. This may be the same Florida Supreme Court
Order that appears at Exhibit 3. I cannot view the document online. Florida citizens are
prohibited from viewing online court documents with the Florida Courts E-filing portal, which is
limited to lawyers. The Florida Courts E-filing portal is an inferior state rendition of federal
PACER, Public Access to Court Electronic Records, that permits public access to United States
federal court documents. I have had a PACER account in good standing since 1999.
Section IV.
17.
The case file in appeal 2D08-2224 appears wrongly destroyed April 10, 2014.
Clerk of Court James Birkhold provided me a form letter dated October 7, 2013 that
appears at Exhibit 10. This message appears at the bottom of the form letter,
The case docket appears at Exhibit 11 and shows three relevant entries:
18.
August 23, 2013: Miscellaneous Motion by Neil J. Gillespie to surrender files.

September 20, 2013: Deny Miscellaneous Motion-79a, see order in 11-2127.
April 10, 2014: Case Destroyed
I was represented by attorney Robert W. Bauer in Appeal No. 2D08-2224. The case
docket (Exhibit 11) shows Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal October 16, 2008. I filed an
objection, and the Court DENIED Bauers motion to withdrawal October 30, 2008. Still, Bauer
refused to work on the case, failed to file a reply brief, and abandoned both the ongoing trial
court civil case (05-CA-7205) and Appeal No. 2D08-2224. Mr. Bauer was a referral from The
Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service, charged $31,863 for hourly representation, abandoned the
case, and switched sides to join with Mr. Rodems, who represented the Defendants and Counter
Plaintiffs Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J. Cook, who defrauded me of $7,143 in the
settlement of the AMSCOT case, and described in Mr. Bauers Initial Brief filed on my behalf.
19.
Appellants Initial Brief, 2D08-2224, by Robert W. Bauer, Esq. for Neil Gillespie (Appendix),
sought to overturn an $11,550 debt judgment for attorney fees, that later was the basis of bribery.
20.
Robert W. Bauer: STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS, Initial Brief 2D08-2224.
This is a case of an inexperienced, unknowledgeable pro se litigant who filed a motion
which he in good faith believed was supported by material facts being sanctioned
because he does not possess the skills and qualities of an attorney. His motion was a
carbon copy of a motion filed by the opposing counsel. In his confusion about the proper
format of this kind of motion, the pro se appellant used the opposing counsel's motion as
an example. He believed that following the example of practiced attorneys would ensure
that his motion would be properly styled. As a pro se appellant, he should not be held to
the standard of a licensed attorney and should instead be granted leniency by the court.
Barker, Rodems, and Cook represented the appellant in an action against Amscot
Corporation, and it was this case that led to the action before this Court. R. at 11. The
case ended in a settlement in which each of the three plaintiffs, including the appellant,
received $2,000, and Barker, Rodems, and Cook were awarded $50,000 for attorney's
fees and costs. R. at 12. The appellant became suspicious of his attorneys' motives during
the course of settlement discussions because of the attorneys' insistence that the true
barrier to settling the case was paying the plaintiffs. R. at 13-14.
The appellant was told that the $50,000 award of attorney's fees was ordered by the
United States Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit. R at 8. However, this was not true,
as that Court actually dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered each party to pay
their own attorney's fees and costs. R. at 31. Only later did the law firm disclose to the
appellant how much was actually expended in legal fees, and the figure was much less
than the $50,000 the firm received in the settlement. R. at 13. This discrepancy in the
actual costs and expenses and those awarded led the appellant to file a complaint against
his former attorneys for breach of contract and fraud. R. at 8-31.
After the appellant filed his initial complaint, the Defendants responded with a "Motion
to Dismiss and Strike." R. at 32-33. Parts of this motion were not successful1. R. at 36-37.
Later, the Defendants filed their "Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim,"
which made claims against the appellant for libel. R. at 38-48. The appellant responded
to this motion with "Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim," in which the
appellant made claims in paragraphs 3-8 that were almost identical to those made in the
Defendants' previous "Motion to Dismiss and Strike." R. at 49-50. This pleading
prompted the Defendants to file "Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Section
57.105(1), Florida Statutes," which was later amended. R. at 55-57; 82-105.
Attorney's fees were eventually awarded against the appellant on March 27, 2008. R. at
204-205. On April 25, 2008, the appellant filed his "Notice of Appeal." R. at 206-208.
The issue on review for this Court is whether the lower court abused its discretion in
awarding attorney's fees against the appellant. The appellant respectfully asks this Court
to reverse the trial court's award of attorney's fees against the appellant.
21.
Mr. Rodems later represented Mr. Bauer June 21, 2011 against me in the same trial court
civil case (05-CA-7205), and bribed Florida judges and others, see my letter to Virlindia A.
Doss, Executive Director, Florida Commission on Ethics, April 23, 2014, beginning at page 3:
Note: I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against Barker, Rodems &
Cook, PA and Mr. Cook, see Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, entered by
the Hon. Richard A. Nielsen, January 13, 2006: (Exhibit 14)
THIS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made arguments and the court
having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike.
Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike and the
Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and the court being
advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,
ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.
2. 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.
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike portions of the
Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or failure to comply
with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida JAN 13 2006
RICHARD A. NIELSEN CIRCUIT JUDGE
7
Public Officers and Employees corruptly violated the public trust to benefit themselves,
and state of Florida judges, state of Florida employees, attorney Robert W. Bauer and
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., who had corruptly accepted June 21, 2011 a
bribe of $15,870, private legal services, and corrupt settlement benefits, corruptly offered
Ryan Christopher Rodems, a Florida lawyer in private practice, benefiting the
Defendants in my federal 1983 civil rights and ADA disability lawsuit, case no. 5:10-cv00503-WTH-(DAB)-TBS, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala
Division, Neil J. Gillespie v Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida, et al., Mr. Rodems
appeared June 21, 2011 in 5:10-cv-00503 and entered Notice of Assignment of Claims
and Motion for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (Doc. 32) benefiting the Defendants to
settle the case in exchange for satisfaction of Final Judgment of $11,550 against me
(nominal value $15,870 at 11% interest on June 21, 2011, or $1,984 for each of eight (8)
defendants).
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
No. 7
No. 8
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit FL (Chief Judge) $1,984+ bribe

Judge Claudia R. Isom, Thirteenth Circuit
$1,984+ bribe (Bar ID: 200042)
Judge James M. Barton II, Thirteenth Circuit $1,984+ bribe (Bar ID: 189239)
Judge Martha J. Cook, Thirteenth Circuit
$1,984+ bribe (Bar ID: 242640)
David A. Rowland, Gen Counsel 13th Circuit $1,984+ bribe (Bar ID: 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator 13th $1,984+ bribe
Robert W. Bauer, (my counsel, 05-CA-7205) $1,984+ bribe (Bar ID: 11058)
Law Office RWB PA (counsel, 05-CA-7205) $1,984+ bribe
22.
My 77 page letter to Virlindia A. Doss appears in a separate appendix.
23.
My motion to surrender, submitted August 22, 2013, Exhibit 12, shows,

Appearing pro se Neil J. Gillespie, henceforth in the first person, moves pursuant to
Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin., for the files in the following cases to be surrendered to
me prior to being destroyed in accordance with regular destruction schedules. Some
dockets already show the case was destroyed. This request is made to preserve the record,
and get records that may still exist contrary to the docket entry showing case destroyed.
Dockets are attached for:
2DII-2127 - attached docket shows case destroyed 07/05/13
2DI0-5529 - attached docket shows case destroyed 05/17/13
24.
The motion was denied by Order September 20, 2013 without prejudice to file a public
records request under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and appears at Exhibit 13.
Neil Gillespie's motion to surrender files is denied without prejudice to the filing of a
public records requests under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
8
The Order does not carry the name of a judge. The Courts provision of public record copies
under Chapter 119, at a cost of $1 per page, is materially different from the delivery of court
records that are to be destroyed or disposed of, and is not in any way an appropriate substitution.
25.
The Florida Bar informed me May 27, 2014 that it is reviewing the closure of my
complaint against John Gardner; RFA# 14-14647 following my letter May 23rd2. (Exhibit 15).
Section V.
26.
Court required $14 for records of judges who entered thirteen (13) anonymous orders
in Appeal No. 2D10-5197.
The Clerk required, and I paid, $14 for public records (Appendix) identifying judges who
made decisions in thirteen (13) anonymous orders entered in Appeal No. 2D10-5197 that did not
carry the name or signature of any judge. The Clerk provided free by email (Exhibit 16),
On information and belief, this is a matter for referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Gardner testified as an expert witness for Ryan Christopher Rodems March 20, 2008 and
corruptly assisted him get a $11,550 judgment @11% from Judge James M. Barton, II, during a
hearing for attorneys fees in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook case no. 05-CA-7205. My
attorney Robert W. Bauer refused to let me [Neil J. Gillespie] testify in 05-CA-7280.
I notified Mr. Gardner by certified mail July 26, 2010 that Mr. Rodems corruptly got the $11,550
debt judgment for attorney fees for responding to disruptions he himself created in violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, his conflict of interest with me as a former client of Rodems
law firm, and Rodems breach of duty to avoid limitation on independent professional judgment.
On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems bribed [F.S. 838.015, 838.016, 838.022] three Florida judges
and two state employees who were defendants in my federal civil rights and disability lawsuit.
Evidence of the bribe was entered in Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit et al., 5:10-cv-503WTH-[DAB]-TBS, USDC, MDFL, Ocala Div. [See Docs. 32 & 51]. Rodems filed June 21, 2011
Doc. 32, Notice of Assignment of Claims, Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. US Magistrate
Judge Thomas B. Smith entered Doc. 51, ORDER October 6, 2011 denied my motion to strike or
set aside Doc. 32, and explained [the bribe], the settlement agreement was in exchange for a
satisfaction of judgment [$11,550 @11% interest]. On information and belief, US Magistrate
Smith had a duty to report the felony, 18 USC 4 Misprision of felony, to the US Marshal or a
federal investigative law enforcement agency such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
US Federal Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges also had a duty to report the felony [18 USC 4] but he
did not. Judge Hodges did not grant Rodems [Doc. 32] Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice.
Note: US Magistrate Judge David A. Baker presided June 21, 2011 when Rodems filed Doc. 32.

27.
The appeals process is oversight for correcting bad orders. But a review of the
information provided by the Clerk shows two judges who should have recused: Judge Marva
2D10-5197
Crenshaw and Judge Anthony Black. Neither judge put their name on Orders in 2D10-5179.
28.
Judge Crenshaw entered Order Granting Stay September 9, 2008 in the lower tribunal
case, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205. Thus it appears the Fla. Code Jud.
Conduct Cannon 3E required Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in
a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not
limited to instances where: (b) the judge...was the lower court judge in the matter in controversy,
[the judge participated as a lower court judge in a decision to be reviewed by the judge;]
29.
Governor Crist appointed Hillsborough Judge Marva Crenshaw to the Second District
Court of Appeal in January 2009, and she began serving February 1, 2009. Governor Crist
appointed Hillsborough Judge Anthony Black to the Second District Court of Appeal in 2010.
Prior to appointment, Judge Crenshaw and Judge Black were colleagues of Hillsborough Judge
Martha Cook in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Therefore, given the proximity of employment
with Judge Cook, it appears relative to Judge Crenshaw and Judge Black that the Fla. Code Jud.
Conduct Cannon 3E required Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in
a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned...
30.
Judicial candidate Martha Cook accepted campaign donations from attorney Ryan C.
Rodems, and two of my former lawyers, his partners William J. Cook and Jonathan Alpert.
10
Judge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donors as opportunities arose. Judge Cook and
Mr. Rodems engaged in honest services fraud September 28, 2010 with Judge Cook presiding
during an ex parte hearing on final summary judgment in Gillespie v Barker, Rodems & Cook,
05-CA-7205. Judge Cook accepted things of value in return for official acts. 18 U.S.C.
201(b)(2).
31.
Judge Cook falsified the record that I elected to leave the hearing, in violation of F.S.
839.13(1) and 837.06, when in fact she ordered me removed, then ruled favorably for Rodems.
Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major James Livingston, provided evidence
that Judge Cook and Mr. Rodems collaborated and falsified the record of the hearing. Judge
Cook and Rodems used the mail to carry out their scheme or artifice to defraud me of the
intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346. U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, C.A.6.
32.
As in Terry, Judge Cooks collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002
bid, $100 each from Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert. An honest services fraud agreement
need not spell out which payments control which act, just that Judge Cook was expected to act
favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6. Judge Cook failed to discharge her
judicial duties without fraud, concealment, bias, favoritism or conflict of interest, but acted like
Mr. Rodems marionette. Terry at p. 11. See Petition No. 13-7280 SCOTUS, pp. 35-37.
33.
Judge Marva Crenshaw and Judge Anthony Black wrongly ruled in two related appeals:
In appeal 2D10-5529, Civil Prohibition Petition from Hillsborough County for Judge Martha
Cook was Denied December 9, 2010. The petition for writ of prohibition is denied as moot
with respect to Judge Martha Cook and is denied in all other respects. The petitioner's motion
for order of protection is denied. LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
In appeal 2D11-2127, Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion for
Change of Venue, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied May 4, 2011.
LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Petitioner's petition for writ of
prohibition was denied May 6, 2011 (amended order), LaROSE, CRENSHAW and BLACK,
JJ., Concur.
11
Conclusion
34.
35.
Under Article V, sec. 2(c), Fla. Const., Chief Judge Charles A. Davis, Jr. [S]hall be
responsible for the administrative supervision of the court.

WHEREFORE this Court is required to grant the relief requested.
RESPECFULLY SUBMITTED June 12, 2014.
Neil J. Gillespie, applicant pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
12
Certificate of Service
I certify that two previously served pleadings, now corrected by strikeout and text edit box,
1.
Amended Application For Order Appellate Case No. 2D10-5197 (served June 12, 2014)
2.
Addendum to Amended Application For Order Appellate Case No. 2D10-5197 (served
June 17, 2014) were served in corrected paper format June 23, 2014 as indicated below.
All previously served appendices remain unchanged and were not served again today.
Tami McCarroll, Chief Deputy Clerk
Second District Court of Appeal
Lakeland, FL 33801
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296993948
Hon. Pat Frank, Clerk of Circuit Court
Hillsborough County, Florida
County Center
601 E. Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33602-4156
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297321957
Barker & Cook, P.A.

501 E Kennedy Blvd. Suite 790
Tampa, Florida 33602-5258
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297465963
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Associate

Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
20 N Orange Ave.
Orlando, Florida 32801-2414
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP298025972
Neil J. Gillespie, Applicant pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
APPENDIX - Amended Application for Order, June 12, 2014

Lower Tribunal Case: 05-CA-7205; Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, William Cook.
Exhibit 1
Order DENIED application for order, November 7, 2013
Exhibit 2
Gillespies Application for order 2D10-5197, September 27, 2013
Exhibit 3
Florida Supreme Court Order SC11-1622 acknowledgment February 11, 2014
Exhibit 4
Florida Supreme Court Order, GRANTED SC11-1622 surrender file, April 16, 2014
Exhibit 5
Florida Supreme Court Order SC11-858 acknowledgment February 11, 2014
Exhibit 6
Florida Supreme Court Order, GRANTED SC11-858 surrender file, April 16, 2014
Exhibit 7
Gillespies appeal of Order denying application to SCOTUS, December 5, 2013
Exhibit 8
Order DENIED appeal to SCOTUS, no further judicial action, December 10, 2013
Exhibit 9
Online Court Case Docket in Appeal No. 2D10-5197
Exhibit 10
Clerk of Court James Birkhold, form letter to Gillespie dated October 7, 2013
Exhibit 11
Online Court Case Docket in Appeal 2D08-2224
Exhibit 12
Gillespies Motion to Surrender files in six appellate cases, August 22, 2013
Exhibit 13
Order DENIED without prejudice, may request public records, September 20, 2013
Exhibit 14
Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, entered by the Hon. Richard A.
Nielsen, January 13, 2006
Exhibit 15
The Florida Bar, re John Gardner RFA 14-14647
Exhibit 16
October 14, 2013, email of Clerk Birkhold
Separate Appendix: Appellants Initial Brief, 2D08-2224, by Robert W. Bauer, Esq. for Neil Gillespie
Separate Appendix: Letter to Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director, Florida Commission on Ethics
Separate Appendix: Public records, Appeal No. 2D10-5197, October 17, 2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327
December 10,2013
CASE NO.: 2010-5197

L.T. No. : 05-CA-7205
Neil J. Gillespie
v.
Appellant I Petitioner(s),
Barker, Rodems & Cook,

P. A. & William J. Cook
Appellee I Respondent(s).
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

On December 6, 2013, appellant submitted to this court a notice of appeal,
seeking review in the Supreme Court of the United States of this court's order of
November 7,2013. Review of state court judgments in the S~preme Court is governed
by United States Supreme Court Rule 12, and this provision does not provide for the
filing of a notice of appeal with the lower tribunal. As such this court is not empowered
to transmit appellant's notice to the Supreme Court, and no judicial action will be taken
upon the notice by this court.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order.
Served:
NeB J. Gillespie
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.
Pat Frank, Clerk
jc
. James.Brrkhold
Clerk
Appendix 2
JfIII!-!IJ "2'it'
_1111 . . .
I t ? ,
r"
'$
~,.~
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
"
~t-'> Po8,-~
SECOND DISTRICT
rlM!~
UZ~.6IJJlII1I:J~
~z A/~~.......,
P.O. BOX 327
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 338020327
. :l
02 1R
..........
.......
.PfINY.BO'.nI.E5
00.46
~~ 0006557763
DEC10 2013
~ MAlLEOFROMZ1PCODE 33801
JC
2010-5197
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S W 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
3448 i :t:35E:7 RC:o 7
JJJill i-J J IJ f f 11/11 i"
iI j I" J11 i"JlII,' jI' Ji ,', JIJillJIi J,IIi IJ'I
APPENDIX - Amended Application for Order, June 12, 2014

Separate Appendix: Public records, Appeal No. 2D10-5197, October 17, 2013
Appendix 3
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP298081189
October 16, 2013
Hon. James R. Birkhold, Clerk of Court

Lakeland, FL 33801
RE: $14 payment enclosed, judicial branch records, Rule 2.420(b)(1)(A), Fla.R.Jud.Admin
Neil J. Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Appellate Case No.: 2D10-5197; Lower Court Case No. 05-CA-007205
Dear Clerk Birkhold:
Please find enclosed my payment of $14 by money order payable to the Second District Court of
Appeal for judicial branch records of $1 per page as agreed by email today.
Also enclosed is a copy of the cash receipt from Walmart for the purchase of the money order.
You may provide the records in PDF by email if you like to my email address below, to save the
time and expense of mailing. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Phone: (352) 854-7807
Enclosures
Valid Money Order includes: 1. Heat sensitive, red stop sign AND 2. Contains a True Watermark hold up to light to view.
H-JTEHNATIONAL f\;10NEY ORDER
MoneyGram..
To Validate: Touch the stop sign,
then watch it fade and reappear
:L
~~~e~~e~!. ~:~,
( 352 ) 291 - 7512
MANAGER TO on HAUFROY
9510 SW HIGHWAY 200
OCALA FL 31181
ST# 5326 OPt 00002650 TEl 93 TRI 01911
HONEY ORDER 060538896309

ORDER FEE
068113163351
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
CASH TEND
CHANGE DUE
14.00 0
0.10 N
11.10
11.70
20.00
5,30
HONEY ORDER SERIAL NUMBERS

2051328~089
l~.OO
I ITEMS SOLD 2
Tel 6180 6597 4613 2818 2182
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1I1111111111I11111111111111111111
La~awa~
is back. Get started
Sep t. 13 -- Dec. 13
10/16/13
12:01 :01
toda~
0 ... i 6 ... 2 0
1. :~;
86-186
"T03T'
SECOND DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 327
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33802-0327
(863) 499-2290
Date: October 7, 2013
re: Case Number:
In response to your recent communication, please see the paragraph(s) marked below.
_
There appears to be no proceeding pending in the court similar to the one you describe.
I am not authorized to provide the legal advice that would provide answers to your inquiry.
_
This case is pending in this court and you (or your attorney if you are represented) will be notified by mail when
a decision is reached.
The court's mandate was issued on
. It signifies that the appeal is now closed in this court. Only
the original mandate, which is sent to the clerk of the lower court, is accompanied by the opinion issued earlier, which
was provided at that time to the parties.
The panel assigned to this appeal has given no reason for its ruling and is not required to do so.
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from reading or considering your letter.
_
This court cannot act on your request to prompt action by the circuit court unless jurisdiction is conferred upon it
by the filing of an original proceeding in mandamus in this court.
_
This court has not yet received the appeal of which you speak. The brief/motion you filed will be linked up to
that appeal when it arrives from the circuit court.
_
Your filing will not be considered by the court because you have an attorney representing you and the filing is
not authorized.
_
Action will not be taken upon your request, nor will it be docketed. Judicial action results only if a formal motion
that includes a certificate of service on the opposing party or counsel is filed.
_
Copies from this court's file are available at $1 per page. If you are still interested in obtaining copies from this
court, please advise and by return mail we will indicate the number of pages involved. Alternatively, you may wish to
contact your appellate attorney if you have one regarding this request.
The name and address of your current attorney is:
Other: JUdge Davis has turned over your lengthy submission to me for a response. 2008-2224 we do not
show has been destroyed, although the time has expired to retain the file and it is possible it has been
destroyed and a clerical error may lead to the conclusion that we retain it. This file if we have it is stored
offsite. On our next trip to that storage area we will check and get back to you on this. The other concerns
you express in your submission do not seem to be matters that would invite appropriate comment from the
court.
J mes Birkhold
Clerk
w:\document\gillespie
Appendix 4
10
~t,
I'U
' . .
1.1
',..
_, ' , .
T ' r '
' "
'II" 1'lt:LA!IL
.1
...............
T'I"T.
" . . . . . . e'.rlJJ..'. . ."II . .
P.O. BOX 327
I~
'aI'\,
'.
"'
.-3'_
SECOND DISTRICT
~
""~
. zC~~
':iiiIiIrAIJIIIBIIIP'.'..-.
......,.
P.
";:)
)~
............ PItNEY BOVto'ES
02 1R
0006557763
$ 00.46
ocr072013
~Y: ' MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33801
EC
2010-5197
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S W 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
3448 i $356 7 R=:;&7

:&II
l"i""":')""'_.'r"'JI"1I'!l.~_
III I, JIJ' JII J' JIll/"
J' J J"
JIll, fI' I JI' JI' J'}' " IJJJ'I iI JI J111'1
'
http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket
Case Number: 2D08-2224

Final Civil Other Notice from Hillsborough County
NEIL J. GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P. A. & WILLIAM J.

COOK
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 05-CA-7205
06/12/2014 04:53
Date
Docketed
05/02/2008
05/06/2008
05/06/2008
06/10/2008
06/10/2008
06/11/2008
07/07/2008
07/22/2008
08/07/2008
08/28/2008
08/28/2008
09/12/2008
09/16/2008
09/16/2008
10/16/2008
10/17/2008
10/30/2008
Description
Notice of Appeal Filed
Case Filing Fee
order appealed
Mot. for Extension of
time to file Initial Brief
Notice of Filing
Date Due Filed By

Neil J. Gillespie
Notes
Tanya M. Uhl, Esq. 052924

Tanya M. Uhl, Esq. 052924
07/07/2008
ORDER GRANTING
EOT FOR INITIAL
BRIEF
Initial Appellant Brief on
Robert W. Bauer, Esq.
Merits
Motion to Supplement
947652
ORD-TO FILE
08/17/2008
RESPONSE
grant supp/long/return
09/22/2008
materials
Received Records
Supplemental Records
Appellee Answer Brief
947652
Motion For Attorney's
Fees
947652
Motion To Withdraw as
Counsel
OBJECTION
Neil J. Gillespie
Order Denying Withdraw
as Counsel
TRANSCRIPTS OF COURT
PROCEEDINGS
E-FILED 07/03/08
W/ATTACHED
Tic Cab/CM
(wall/CM)
3 VOLUMES BARTON CC COPIES
1 SUPPLEMENTAL VOLUME
e-filed 09/16/08
Objection to motion for w/d of counsel.

(wall/WW)
Appendix 5
11
http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket
Date
Docketed
01/21/2009
Description
Miscellaneous Motion
01/26/2009
Motion To Strike
01/27/2009
Deny Miscellaneous
Motion-79a
01/29/2009
02/05/2009
10/09/2009
10/09/2009
10/28/2009
11/09/2009
11/17/2009
12/04/2009
12/04/2009
01/13/2010
08/23/2013
09/20/2013
04/10/2014
Deny Miscellaneous
Motion-79a
Attorneys Fees/Deny
/Appellee
Affirmed - Per Curiam
Affirmed
Mandate
Motion For Rehearing
Motion For Rehearing
ORD-DENYING
REHEARING
ORD-DENYING
REHEARING
Returned Records
Deny Miscellaneous
Motion-79a
Case Destroyed
Date Due Filed By

Neil J. Gillespie
Notes
FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT REPLY BRIEF
W/EXHIBITS
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. AA'S PRO SE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
947652
SUBMIT REPLY BRIEF
Neil J. Gillespie
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ROBERT W.

BAUER SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN
COMTEMPT OF COURT
(wall/WW) for leave to submit motion to
show cause, etc.
Neil J. Gillespie
Neil J. Gillespie
BELATED
AMENDED BELATED
amended
Neil J. Gillespie
SET VIA AUTO RECORD RETURN

APPLICATION
to surrender files
see order in 11-2127
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,

Lower Tribunal Case: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs.
________________________________________/
ADDENDUM TO
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR ORDER
1.
Applicant Neil J. Gillespie pro se files this Addendum in support of his Amended
Application For Order submitted June 12, 2014, and henceforth in the first person states:
2.
My letter October 1, 2013 to The Hon. Charles A. Davis, Jr. Chief Judge appears in a
separate appendix, and is referenced in a form letter from the Clerk October 7, 2013: (Exhibit 1)
3.
My 8 page letter with 45 pages of attachments to the Chief Judge shows on page 1,
otherwise available. Contrary to his belief, Clerk Birkhold has not answered this
question. The September 20, 2013 order does not address the status of records that may
have been destroyed. My misplaced motion shows:
Appendix 6

Case 2D08-2224 does not show "destroyed", it only shows returned records 01/13/10. Is
that case file, or any other case file available? Clerk Birkhold was understandably busy
and not able to respond due to mandatory efiling, so I am bringing this matter to your
attention.
4.

5.
Appearing at Exhibit 2 is the Order Granting Stay entered by Circuit Judge Marva L.
Crenshaw September 9, 2008 in the lower tribal captioned in this pleading, 05-CA-7205, while
Circuit Judge Crenshaw presided over this case August 14, 2008 during an emergency hearing on
Plaintiffs Motion To Stay filed by Mr. Bauer June 9, 2008 on my behalf, appearing at Exhibit 3,
Plaintiff, NEIL J. GILLESPIE, by and through his undersigned attorney, files this Motion
to Stay Order of Final Judgment, and states in support thereof:
l. This Motion to Stay is filed pursuant to FLA. R. APP. P. 9.310.
2. The Court rendered an a Final Judgment on March 27, 2008 which contained an order
that the Plaintiff pay the sum of $11,550 and shall complete and submit Florida Rules of
Procedure Form 1.977 ( Fact Information Sheet ).
3. Defendant has filed a timely Notice of Appeal with this Court and shall submit an
appeal to the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
4. Defendant will not be prejudiced by the granting of this motion to stay.
5. There are current claims in the still pending in the above styled action which may
serve to off set the damages awarded in the Partial Judgment.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff/Appellant mover this court to grant this Motion to Stay for
Final Judgment.
Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, PA.
By: Robert W. Bauer, Esq. (signed)
6.
The Order Granting Stay set forth conditions impossible for me to meet due to indigence:
shall
ORDERED that(1) Plaintiffs hall post a good and sufficient bond in the amount required
by Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(b)(1) or deposit an equivalent sum of money with a third-party
escrow agent mutually acceptable to Defendants on or before the end of the business day
on August21, 2008; and (2) the Final Judgment entered March 27, 2008 is stayed.
IT IS FURTHERORDERED that the stay of the Final Judgment entered March 27,2008
shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on August 21, 2008 unless Plaintiff posts a good and sufficient
bond in the amount required by Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(b)(1)or deposits an equivalent sum
of money with a third-party escrow agent mutually acceptable to Defendants.
7.
Appearing at Exhibit 4 is Claim of Exemption and Request for hearing, filed by Mr. Bauer
on my behalf August 14, 2008:

Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespie, by and through his undersigned attorneys files this CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, and states in support thereof:
The following exemptions from garnishment apply to the Plaintiff, Neil Gillespie, herein
as stated:
1. Head of family wages.
a. Plaintiff provides more than one-half of the support for a child or other
dependent and have net earnings of $500 or less per week.
2. Social Security benefits.
3. Disability income benefits.
WHEREFORE, Neil Gillespie, requests a hearing to decide the validity of these claims.
8.
Appearing at Exhibit 5 is Emergency Request for a Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Stay,
11
filed August 22, 2008 by Mr. Bauer on my behalf, with Notice of Hearing, and Amended Notice:
Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie, by and through his undersigned attorneys files this Emergency
Request and states in support thereof:
1. On March 27, 2008, the Court entered a Final Judgment on the above styled case.
2. On or about March 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of said judgment.
3. On or about June 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay the Final Judgment entered by
the Court on March 27,2008 containing an order that the Plaintiff pay the sum of $11,550.
4. On or about August 11,2008, Plaintiff was informed by his bank that a Writ of
Garnishment has been served against his accounts.
5. Plaintiff's bank accounts have been frozen.
6. The inability to access funds from his bank account has placed an undue burden on the Plaintiff.
7. Due to the Plaintiff's filing of a timely Notice of Appeal with this Court and a Motion
to Stay Plaintiff requests an emergency hearing to regain access to his bank accounts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Emergency Request for a hearing on Plaintiff's
Motion to Stay for Final Judgment be granted.
9.
A Transcript of Emergency Hearing appears in a Separate Appendix.
10.
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARVA CRENSHAW, Circuit Judge

TAKEN AT: Courtroom 502, George E. Edgecomb Courthouse, Tampa, Florida
DATE & TIME: 14 August 2008
TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter, Notary Public
appeared telephonically
Mr. Bauer appeared for me before Judge Crenshaw August 14, 2008, and complained in open
court about Mr. Rodems full nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work this out in a
professional manner.
Transcript, August 14, 2008, pages 16-17
22 [MR. BAUER] Unfortunately, there has been recently do to
23 apparently some rulings that we have received,
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.
11.
The paragraphs below appear in my Amended Application for Order, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33:
26.
The Clerk required, and I paid, $14 for public records (Appendix) identifying
judges who made decisions in thirteen (13) anonymous orders entered in Appeal No.
2D10-5197 that did not carry the name or signature of any judge. The Clerk provided free
by email (Exhibit 16),
27.
The appeals process is oversight for correcting bad orders. But a review of the
information provided by the Clerk shows two judges who should have recused: Judge
Marva Crenshaw and Judge Anthony Black. Neither judge put their name on Orders in
2D10-5179. 2D10-5197
28.
Judge Crenshaw entered Order Granting Stay September 9, 2008 in the lower
tribunal case, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205. Thus it appears the Fla.
Code Jud. Conduct Cannon 3E required Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify
himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (b) the judge...was the lower
court judge in the matter in controversy, [the judge participated as a lower court judge in
a decision to be reviewed by the judge;]
29.
Governor Crist appointed Hillsborough Judge Marva Crenshaw to the Second
District Court of Appeal in January 2009, and she began serving February 1, 2009.
Governor Crist appointed Hillsborough Judge Anthony Black to the Second District
Court of Appeal in 2010. Prior to appointment, Judge Crenshaw and Judge Black were
colleagues of Hillsborough Judge Martha Cook in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
Therefore, given the proximity of employment with Judge Cook, it appears relative to
Judge Crenshaw and Judge Black that the Fla. Code Jud. Conduct Cannon 3E required
Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which
the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned...
33.
Judge Marva Crenshaw and Judge Anthony Black wrongly ruled in two related
appeals:
12.
In appeal 2D10-5529, Civil Prohibition Petition from Hillsborough County for Judge
Martha Cook was Denied December 9, 2010. The petition for writ of prohibition is
denied as moot with respect to Judge Martha Cook and is denied in all other respects.
The petitioner's motion for order of protection is denied. LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and
CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
In appeal 2D11-2127, Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion

for Change of Venue, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied May
4, 2011. LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Petitioner's petition for
writ of prohibition was denied May 6, 2011 (amended order), LaROSE,
CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Unfortunately Chief Judge Davis did not respond to my letter October 1, 2013, or issues,
On December 10, 2012 I timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court, No. 12-7747. The petition was denied February 19, 2013, and rehearing denied...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html
In May 2013 Chief Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito provided me public
records that show Thirteenth Circuit General Counsel David Rowland concocted with
others a scheme to falsely portray to Kenneth Wilson, Fla. Asst. Attorney General, that I
did not serve Rowland my petition per Supreme Court Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he
relied on Rowlands ruse, and did not submit a brief in opposition due the Court January
14, 2013. See my blog page David Rowland misled Florida AG, SCOTUS Petition
with a PDF of my letter at the bottom of the page.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2013/06/david-rowland-misled-florida-ag-scotus.html
5
13.
Paragraph 25 below appears in my Amended Application for Order,
25.
The Florida Bar informed me May 27, 2014 that it is reviewing the closure of my
complaint against John Gardner; RFA# 14-14647 following my letter May 23rd1. (Exhibit 15).
5
Appearing as a Separate Appendix to this Addendum, is the Separate Appendix updated June 7,
2014 in re: John Gardner; RFA# 14-14647, containing 119 pages, showing,
Appendix 1 Doc. 32, Notice of Assignment of Claims, Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice
Appendix 2 Doc. 51, ORDER, October 6, 2011, by US Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith
Appendix 3 Doc. 43, assigned US Magistrate Judge David A. Baker left Ocala July 29, 2011
Appendix 4 Public record of satisfaction of the $11,500 judgment to Barker, Rodems & Cook,
appears on my consumer credit report May 1, 2014 affecting interstate commerce.
Appendix 5 Letter of dismissal February 28, 2014 by Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood Jr.
Appendix 6 Complaint submitted February 25, 2014 by Neil J. Gillespie to John F. Harkness,
Executive Director & John T. Berry, Legal Director, The Florida Bar. (35 pages)
Appendix 7 TRANSCRIPT, March 20, 2008 hearing, Judge James M. Barton, II. (71 pages)
On information and belief, this is a matter for referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Gardner testified as an expert witness for Ryan Christopher Rodems March 20, 2008 and
corruptly assisted him get a $11,550 judgment @11% from Judge James M. Barton, II, during a
hearing for attorneys fees in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook case no. 05-CA-7205. My
attorney Robert W. Bauer refused to let me [Neil J. Gillespie] testify in 05-CA-7280.
I notified Mr. Gardner by certified mail July 26, 2010 that Mr. Rodems corruptly got the $11,550
debt judgment for attorney fees for responding to disruptions he himself created in violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, his conflict of interest with me as a former client of Rodems
law firm, and Rodems breach of duty to avoid limitation on independent professional judgment.
On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems bribed [F.S. 838.015, 838.016, 838.022] three Florida judges
and two state employees who were defendants in my federal civil rights and disability lawsuit.
Evidence of the bribe was entered in Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit et al., 5:10-cv-503WTH-[DAB]-TBS, USDC, MDFL, Ocala Div. [See Docs. 32 & 51]. Rodems filed June 21, 2011
Doc. 32, Notice of Assignment of Claims, Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. US Magistrate
Judge Thomas B. Smith entered Doc. 51, ORDER October 6, 2011 denied my motion to strike or
set aside Doc. 32, and explained [the bribe], the settlement agreement was in exchange for a
satisfaction of judgment [$11,550 @11% interest]. On information and belief, US Magistrate
Smith had a duty to report the felony, 18 USC 4 Misprision of felony, to the US Marshal or a
federal investigative law enforcement agency such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
US Federal Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges also had a duty to report the felony [18 USC 4] but he
did not. Judge Hodges did not grant Rodems [Doc. 32] Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice.
Note: US Magistrate Judge David A. Baker presided June 21, 2011 when Rodems filed Doc. 32.
Appearing as Exhibit 6 is the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, September 17, 2010, which is
5
part of the Separate Appendix updated June 7, 2014 in re: John Gardner; RFA# 14-14647
14.
submitted to The Florida Bar, and filed in Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205. My Affidavit shows
that my attorney, Robert W. Bauer, refused to allow me to attend hearings in my case due to
harassment and unprofessional behavior of Ryan Christopher Rodems:
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
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. Attorney Robert W. Bauer, Florida Bar ID No. 11058, formerly
represented me in the above captioned lawsuit. While representing me, Mr. Bauer sent
me an email on July 8, 2008, a paper copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
From Exhibit A, in relevant part:
From: "Robert W. Bauer, Esq." <[email protected]>
To: Neil Gillespie'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: attached, Notice of Filing Fact Information Sheet
It was my understanding that my office did contact you. I have already apologized
and have stated that I will correct the error with the court. I can do nothing more.
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....
3. In his email Mr. Bauer wrote he does not wish for me to attend hearings
because he is concerned that Mr. Rodems' comments to me will enflame the situation.
Mr. Bauer wrote the following about Mr. Rodems' comments: "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...
4. Upon information and belief, the behavior Mr. Bauer has attributed to
Defendants counsel Mr. Rodems, comments made "for no better purposes than to anger
you", is unlawful harassment and a violation of section 784.048, Florida Statutes. As

used in section 784.048(1)(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at
a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no
legitimate purpose. As used in section 784.048(1 )(b) "Course of conduct" means a
pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short,
evidencing a continuity of purpose. (relevant portion). As used in section 784.048(2) Any
person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks
another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
5. Since March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems has directed, with malice aforethought,
a course of harassing conduct toward me that has aggravated my disability, caused
substantial emotional distress, and serves no legitimate purpose, as further described in
the following pleadings and documents:
a. Plaintiffs Accommodation Request Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
February 20, 2007
b. Plaintiffs Amended Accommodation Request Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), March 5, 2007
c. ADA Assessment and Report by Ms. Karin Huffer, MS, MFT, February 17,2010.
d. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodation Request of Neil J.
Gillespie, February 19,2010
e. Notice of Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Accommodation Request of
Neil J. Gillespie, February 19,2010
f. Request For Accommodations By Persons With Disabilities And Order, 13th
Judicial Circuit, February 18,2010. Note item 6, Special requests or anticipated problems
(specify): "I am harassed by Mr. Rodems in violation of Fla. Stat. section 784.048". Copy
attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit B
g. Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA July 9, 2010
h. Numerous other pleadings and documents, see the case file.
6. Mr. Rodems set a level of animosity in this lawsuit described by Mr. Bauer
on the record: " ...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." (Transcript,
August 14,2008, Emergency Hearing, the Honorable Marva Crenshaw, p. 16, line 24).
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated this 17th day of September 2010.

NEIL J. GILLESPIE (sworn to and signed before notary public Cecilia Rosenberger)
15.
I provided The Florida Bar notice of my disability February 20, 2007 in Complaint No.
11,162(13D) against Mr. Rodems, Exhibit H. (received February 22, 2007), Separate Appendix.
16.
Bar counsel Troy Matthew Lovell wrongly closed the complaint May 15, 2007 contrary
to Bar Rule 3-7.3(a) because bar counsel determined the alleged conduct, if proven, would
constitute a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of
discipline, and Mr. Lovell opened TFB No. 11,162(13D) against Mr. Rodems.
17.
Mr. Lovell knew that Judge Richard Nielsen ruled against Rodemss motion to dismiss
and strike January 13, 2006, see exhibit C to the bar complaint, Order on Defendants Motion to
Dismiss and Strike. The Order established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract for
me against Mr. Rodems, Defendants William Cook (partner) and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA.
18.
Mr. Rodems at this point also had personal responsibility, because 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 (2dDCA, 1965).
19.
Mr. Lovell personally knew Judge Nielsen, and worked for the judge in private practice
as an associate at Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, PA, June 1998 - August 1992, according to Lovells
application to the JNC February 5, 2013. Mr. Lovell could have called Judge Nielsen if he had
questions, or referred to 356 pages of exhibits I provided in Complaint TFB No. 11,162(13D).
Mr. Lovell did not even request a response from Mr. Rodems, contrary to Bar Rules.
telephoned me
20.
On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems telephoned at home, as counsel for his firm in 05-CA7205, harassing me about dental work, providing unwelcome commentary on how I speak, and
a misplaced lecture for me to study the rules and regulations of the Florida Bar. (attached)
21.
Rodems then filed a false affidavit March 6, 2006 in 05-CA-7205 to disrupt the tribunal
for strategic advantage. An investigation by Tampa Police lawyer Kirby Rainesburger concluded:
I'm not suggesting that Mr. Rodems was right or accurate in representing to the court as
an "exact quote" language that clearly was not an exact quote. I'm only concluding that
his misrepresentation does not, in my judgment, rise to the level of criminal perjury. No
further action is contemplated by this agency at this time.
22.
My Amended Disability Motion, U.S. Eleventh Circuit (Separate Appendix), in full at the
link, shows the Americans With Disabilities Act required disqualification of Rodems as counsel.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11
Conclusion
23.
The Second District Court of Appeal for the state of Florida was created by the
Constitution and the Florida Statutes to administer, apply, and interpret the laws of the state of
Florida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal
self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
24.
25.

WHEREFORE this Court is required to follow the procedure in SC11-1622 and
SC11-858 under the principal of stare decisis.
RESPECFULLY SUBMITTED June 17, 2014.
Neil J. Gillespie, applicant pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
10
UF could not maintain

my speech obturator
Dr. Kusiaks photo of my

oral-nasal fistula, 1985
CPCF Journal, unoperated adult

July 1992, Vol. 29 No.4, page 371
Mr. Rodems breached his duty to avoid a limitation on independent professional judgment, violated
Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10; McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995
Transcript, March 3, 2006, page 6
4
5
6
7
8
9
MR. GILLESPIE: Now, you call here and just

marched into a tirade of insults.
MR. RODEMS: No, actually I haven't insulted
you at all. I've never said anything about you. I
just said that you don't really know the law
because you don't know how to practice law.

24 MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a
25 car so that you could get the cash rebate to get
1 some dental work done? We're going to get to the
2 discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really
3 happen?
4 MR. GILLESPIE: What?
5 MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that
6 you could get the cash rebate to get some dental
7 work done?
8 MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need
9 to be disqualified.
10 MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I
11 know that? Because I know that to be a fact?
12 MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from
13 your previous representation of me.
14 MR. RODEMS: Well, you know, see that's -15 MR. GILLESPIE: If it is -- if it's a fact,
16 anyway.
17 MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and
18 regulations of the Florida Bar because when you
19 make -20 MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a
21 car so I would have something to drive. I don't
22 know why you buy cars, but that's why I bought it.
MR. RODEMS: Okay. Well, I just want to be
20 clear because I understand that in talking with you
21 it's very important to be precise because you don't
22 really have a good command of the language that,
23 you know, lawyers speak.
AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC HOSPITAL
PROGRESS REPORT
Notll prairllss of caslI. complications. chanilll In dlaposls
condition on dlscharill. Instructions to patlllnt
415-13
Rev. ]-8]
CHART COpy
GILLESPIE, Neil
#74123
7/22/85
The patient is a 29 year old white male referred by Dr. Carver

who is status post left unilateral 'Class IV lip and palate repair
at approximately age two years old. He is unclear about the details
of the degree of his defects, the surgical procedures, who performed
this, or exactly where it was done. Apparently, after the initial
bout of surgeries to repair the lip and hard and soft palate, he had
no further surgical intervention. He had no ongoing follow-up for
this problem. At approximately age 13 to 14 years old, he underwent
orthodontic treatment at Temple University Hospital's Dental School
and this ultimately resulted in the placement of a retainer with a
prosthetic left lateral incisor. He has worn this since that time.
He notices drainage of food into the left nasal floor.
His left and
right nostrils are opened, although the left is somewhat stuffy and
occluded.
His main concerns upon presentation are related to the persistent
cleft in the left alveolus, the draining fistula, and the possibility
of foregoing the need fOD a prosthetic device.
In addition, however,
it is obvious on confronting the patient that he has a moderate amount
of nasal deformity, flattening of the left side in the premaxillary
region, and lip distortion, particularly at the vermilion.
In
addition, the patient has a significantly hypernasal speech pattern
with ~bvious velopharyngeal incompetence.
On physical examination beginning externally, the patient has
a slightly large nose with a small dorsal hump. The size of the nose
is slightly larger than proportional to his face, although not
exaggeratedly so. The right alar dome is full.
The left alar
cartilage is posteriorly and laterally displaced and somewhat
hypoplastic compared to the left side. The left alar base is
also laterally displaced. The nostril sill is flattened, and there
is an obvious fistula between the distal nasal floor and the oral
cavity. The left columella, likewise, is somewhat hypoplastic and
twisted. The upper lip scar is well healed and appears to be a
LeMesurier or
Tennison-Randall type repair. The upper lip tubercle
is preserved, but the vermilion border is somewhat irregular.
Length appears, however, to be satisfactory. There is a-lateral
orbicularis bulge of the left upper lip.
Internally, there is a wide
cleft of the left alveolar ridge at the level of the lateral incisor
with a fistula into the nasal floor. This runs posteriorly and nearly
to the end of the secondary palate. The soft palate has a linear scar.
it is very short, and there is lateral movement but no central movement
of note.
continued ...
GILLESPIE, Neil
Page Two .
7/22/85
My impression and recommendation to the patient generated
three specific areas of interest. One relates to the scar revision
of his upper nose and the relationships of his nasal tip, nose,
and secondary deformities in this area. The second area of interest
in importance is the alveolar cleft with the naso-oral fistula.
The third area is the palate with obvious velopharyngeal incompetence
and a foreshort and scarred palate.
My initial recommendations will be that the patient undergo
orthodontic evaluation.
I will arrange for him to see Dr. Rosario
Mayro for evaluation as well as x-rays to assess his occlusal
relationships.
It also should be noted that he, in general, had
a fairly satisfactory occlusal relationship.with some lateral collapse
and crossbite on the minor segment on the left and evaluate his
adequacy as a candidate for bone graftin~which I think he would
qualify. Subsequent to this, I will have him see Dr. Harvey Rosen
concerning the actual surgical procedure and also he will be seen by
Miss Marilyn Cohen, a speech pathologist with special interest in
patients having cleft lip and palate for an evaluation concerning
feasibility of posteropharyngeal flap in a patient of this age group.
Concerning the external revisions, this can be accomplished concerning
the upper lip, possibly at the same time as the fistula closure with
orlllcularis redirection, a revision of the nostril sill and the
lateral alar base, and also possibly tip rhinoplasty or this can
be accomplished at a later date with a formal rhinoplasty in concert
with other procedures.
In addition, the vermilion border should be
repaired.
This can be done by Z-plasty technique.
The patient, therefore, will be seen by the consultants and a
general plan with timing'for surgery, etc., will be made. We will
arrange to make these arrangements and follow-up with the patient.
No letter.
ep
s1ak, M.D.
econstructive Surgery
JK:bsm
T--8/1/85
D--7/23/85
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAllON
AlTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
WILLIAM J. COOK
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150

Tampa, Florida 33606
Telephone 813/4891001
Facsimile 813/4891008
March 27,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Re:
Vocational Rehabilitation
Dear Neil:
I am enclosing the material you provided to us. We have reviewed them and, unfortunately,
we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have. Please understand that our
decision does not mean that your claims lack merit, and another attorney might wish to represent you.
If you wish to consult with another attorney, we recommend that you do so immediately as a statute
oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations is a legal
deadline for filing a lawsuit. Thank you for the opportunity to review your materials.
William 1. Cook
WJC/mss
Enclosures
Neil J. Gillespie
1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt. C-2
Telephone and Fax: (727) 823-2390

March 22, 2001
William 1. Cook, Attorney at Law
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
Dear Bill,
Thank you for agreeing to consider my claim of discrimination/negligence against
the State of Florida and its Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Enclosed please find the
following:
1.
My Second and Third (final) Amended Petitions for Administrative Hearing.
These documents set forth much of my claim.
2.
My Motionfor Summary Final Order. The Administrative Law Judge (Johnston)
failed to rule on my motion. The state's response was to try and expand the issues and
compel another psychiatric exam. Seeing this was going nowhere, I motioned to
withdrawal the request. (See my motion, the order and final order, enclosed).
3.
October 5, 1998 letter from Douglas Ligibel, Fla. DVR. This "addendum" letter
sets forth the state's claim that I was not cooperative as a reason to deny services.
4.
Binder with the Fla. Vocational Rehabilitation web site printed out. (not current)
5.
Photo of me taken June 6, 1994 (at 150 pounds) before afilicted with depression
(current weight 290 pounds).
6.
A brief medical history relevant to VR.
In essence, the state discriminated against me based on disability and refused

services as set forth in the petitions. As a result I became severely depressed. The state is
negligent because its own psychologist (Dr. Justice) warned of my depression risk, a
warning the state ignored. The state also misdiagnosed my condition(s). There may be a
breach ofprivacy relevant to my file. During the time referenced by Mr. Ligibel in his
October 5, 1998 letter (item 3, above) my contact with the state was monitored by a
private lawyer, Mark Kamleiter, who disputes the allegations contained therein.
Ne'.~f:~~
osure~ie""t
en
Ps. Bill, these are mostly original documents, please copy and return if needed. Thanks.
I certify that two previously served pleadings, now corrected by strikeout and text edit box,
1.
Amended Application For Order Appellate Case No. 2D10-5197 (served June 12, 2014)
2.
Addendum to Amended Application For Order Appellate Case No. 2D10-5197 (served
June 17, 2014) were served in corrected paper format June 23, 2014 as indicated below.
All previously served appendices remain unchanged and were not served again today.
Tami McCarroll, Chief Deputy Clerk
Lakeland, FL 33801
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296993948
Hon. Pat Frank, Clerk of Circuit Court
Hillsborough County, Florida
County Center
601 E. Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33602-4156
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297321957
Barker & Cook, P.A.

501 E Kennedy Blvd. Suite 790
Tampa, Florida 33602-5258
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297465963
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Associate

Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
20 N Orange Ave.
Orlando, Florida 32801-2414
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP298025972
Neil J. Gillespie, Applicant pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
APPENDIX - Addendum
Amended Application for Order, June 17, 2014
Exhibit 1
Clerk of Court James Birkhold, form letter to Gillespie dated October 7, 2013
Exhibit 2
ORDER granting stay, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Marva Crenshaw, September 9, 2008
Exhibit 3
Plaintiffs Motion for Stay, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie, June 6, 2008
Exhibit 4
Plaintiff's Claim of Exemption and Request for Hearing, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie Aug-14-2008
Exhibit 5
Emergency Request for Hearing, Mr. Bauer for Gillespie, August 11, 2008
Exhibit 6
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Mr. Bauer prohibited Gillespie from attending hearings
Separate Appendix: Bar Complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, 2007-11,162(13D) Feb-20-2007

Separate Appendix: TRANSCRIPT, Circuit Judge Crenshaw, emergency hearing, August 14, 2008
Separate Appendix: Gillespies letter October 1, 2013 to The Hon. Charles A. Davis, Jr. Chief Judge
Separate Appendix: John Gardner RFA No. 14-14647 separate appendix, update June 5, 2014
Separate Appendix, UPL Complaint against Mr. Rodems, unlawfully represented the state of Florida in a
federal court action; Accompanied the Notice of Appeal, December 5, 2013 to the 2dDCA.
Separate Appendix: Amended Disability Motion, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, 43 page motion only; 251 page
motion and exhibits on Scribd at the link below.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11
Motion shows the Americans With Disabilities Act required disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel.
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297641156
October 1, 2013
The Hon. Charles A. Davis, Jr. Chief Judge

The Second District Court of Appeal
Lakeland, FL 33801
RE: Application For Order - Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin.
Neil J. Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Appellate Case No.: 2D10-5197; Lower Court Case No. 05-CA-007205
Dear Chief Judge Davis:
This letter concerns my Application for Order. I am in receipt of this Courts order dated
September 20, 2013 stating in part:
Neil Gillespie's motion to surrender files is denied without prejudice to the filing of a
public records requests under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
I now believe my motion to surrender files was not the correct pleading under Rule 2.430(g).
Instead the proper pleading is an Application for Order which I filed September 27, 2013, and is
directed only to Appellate Case No. 2D10-5197.
otherwise available. Contrary to his belief, Clerk Birkhold has not answered this question. The
September 20, 2013 order does not address the status of records that may have been destroyed.
My misplaced motion shows:
Case 2D08-2224 does not show "destroyed", it only shows returned records 01/13/10. Is that
case file, or any other case file available? Clerk Birkhold was understandably busy and not able
to respond due to mandatory efiling, so I am bringing this matter to your attention. Enclosed is a
paper copy of my email with Clerk Birkhold, and response Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:05 PM:
We are extremely overtaxed as today begins mandatory efiling by attorneys and lots of
difficulties for all in this domain. I dont have the time to study your email, and may not.
If you have any further specific questions for me, please keep it short and I will endeavor
to answer them to the best of my ability.
Appendix 7

October 1, 2013
Page - 2
Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin., does not require the applicant to state a reason for wanting the
file, so I did not do so. But the Court should be aware of certain issues.
On December 10, 2012 I timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court,
No. 12-7747. The petition was denied February 19, 2013, and rehearing denied April 15, 2013.
Below is a link to the U.S. Supreme Court docket page.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
This is a link to my blog page showing the Reasons for Granting the Petition, with an embedded
PDF of the petition at the bottom of the page.
In May 2013 Chief Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito provided me public records
that show Thirteenth Circuit General Counsel David Rowland concocted with others a scheme to
falsely portray to Kenneth Wilson, Fla. Asst. Attorney General, that I did not serve Rowland my
petition per Supreme Court Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he relied on Rowlands ruse, and did not
submit a brief in opposition due the Court January 14, 2013. See my blog page David Rowland
misled Florida AG, SCOTUS Petition with a PDF of my letter at the bottom of the page.
Without a response by Attorney General Pam Bondi for the State of Florida, my petition was
denied due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court relies on
briefs in opposition as part of its adversarial process to properly litigate and decide a petition.
Floridas opposition brief was due January 14, 2013. Attorney General Bondi did not submit a
response for Florida, and therefore no opposition brief was distributed for the Conference of
February 15, 2013. It is a crime to engaged in fraud or impairment of a legitimate government
activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, a conspiracy against rights, 18 USC 241, and a depravation of rights
under color of law, 18 USC 242.
I suppose one could opine that the Florida Attorney General was part of this scheme, but I rather
leave that accusation to others.
Also in May 2013 Mr. Rodems filed a UPL complaint against me, for appearing pro se for my
own interests, which The Florida Bar opened the Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of
Neil J. Gillespie; Case No. 20133090(5). In turn I contacted federal and international authorities
seeking political refugee status for protection from political persecution by The Florida Bar.
The UPL complaint against me is without merit. Unfortunately lying is a habit for Mr. Rodems.
He lied so much about The Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10, 1997
(Trust) that I made the Trust public. The Trust appears at Doc. 3 in case no. 5:11-cv-00539.
Doc. 4 is my mother Penelope Gillespies Last Will and Testament naming my bother personal
representative, and naming me as an alternative.

October 1, 2013
Page - 3
Mr. Rodems falsely told The Florida Bar that I represented a Trust in state and federal court
litigation. Mr. Rodems is wrong. I only represent my personal interest in the trust as permitted
by law. I appear pro se because I am indigent and financially unable to obtain adequate
representation. My brother Mark Gillespie has an interest in the trust. He and wife Joetta
Gillespie are represented by the law firm Kaufman, Englett and Lynd, PLLC, Orlando Florida,
by and through attorneys Tiffany Caparas and Ryan Ghantous.
Mr. Rodems also falsely told The Florida Bar that I represented as a personal representative of
the Estate of Penelope Gillespie in another case. Mr. Rodems is wrong. I was not appointed
personal representative by court order, and never claimed I was so appointed. Fla. Prob. R., Rule
5.030(a) Exception, allows me to represent my sole interest in matters of estate. No one has
petitioned for formal administration of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie. There are no assets. A
summary administration may be done at some point. Also see Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy.
Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy, - So.3d -, 2011 WL 2135597 (Fla. 4th DCA Jun 01, 2011)
The trial court denied the pro se petition for formal administration of the estate of the
appellant's wife, because the appellant was not represented by an attorney. We reverse,
because the petition states that the appellant is his wife's sole beneficiary. Thus, he is
entitled to file the petition without the necessity of an attorney. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.030(a)
(Every guardian and every personal representative, unless the personal representative
remains the sole interested person, shall be represented by an attorney admitted to
practice in Florida.) (emphasis added); Benedetto v. Columbia Park Healthcare Sys.,
922 So.2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90008415/FL-Rule-5-030-a-Pro-Se-Estate
UPL is defined by Rule 10-1.2(a):
RULE 10-2.1 GENERALLY
Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein
set forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicate a different meaning:
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice of
law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
Rule 10-1.2(a) shows Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL by representing the state of Florida in my
federal court action. I was unaware of Rule 10-1.2(a) until the UPL complaint brought this to my
attention. UPL is also a criminal offense. F.S. 454.23 provides up to 5 years incarceration.
A licensed attorney and member of The Florida Bar can engage in the unlicensed practice of law
if the law practice is prohibited, see Rule 101.2(a). Only the Florida Attorney General may
represent the state in a federal court action. Fla Const Art IV 4, and FS 16.01. State ex rel.

October 1, 2013
Page - 4
Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to appoint counsel to
represent the State of Florida:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorney
to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.
Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
Since Mr. Rodems is not the Florida Attorney General, he committed UPL by representing the
state in my federal court action.
In the past Mr. Rodems unlawfully represented his firm, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and
partner, William J. Cook, against me in six appeals in the Second District Court of Appeal:
2D11-2127, 2D10-5529, 2D10-5197, 2D08-2224, 2D07-4530, 2D06-3803. Mr. Rodems also
unlawfully represented his firm and client as a counter-party against me. Mr. Rodems selfrepresentation and litigation against me, a former client on the substantially same matter as the
prior litigation, was unlawful as provided by Florida Bar Rules and case law:
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and other cases.
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and
partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2) substantial
risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the lawyer's responsibilities
to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems. See Emergency Motion to
Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July
9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on Scribed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-ChristopherRodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another person in
the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are materially adverse
to the interests of the former client. (b) use information relating to the representation to the
disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal information relating to the representation about the
client. Mr. Rodems firm and law partner represented me the Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and
consulted with me on disability matters with Florida DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and
other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in
Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client
when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so. Mr. Rodems has an
imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William Cook previously represented
me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.

October 1, 2013
Page - 5
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995.
[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.
So I do not know how this Court justifies its past rulings favoring Mr. Rodems, or the Courts
failure to disqualify Mr. Rodems. The Second District Court of Appeal for the state of Florida
was created by the Constitution and the Florida Statutes to administer, apply, and interpret the
laws of the state of Florida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
As shown in the attached letters to Messrs. Harkness and Berry, The Florida Bar (Aug-07-13 and
Aug-15-13), Mr. Rodems improperly represented his partner and firm in 52 cases against me,
UPL with up to 260 years imprisonment when counted consecutively. Also, my former counsel
Mr. Bauer should be should be permanently disbarred. On June 21, 2011 I was represented by
Eugene P. Castagliuolo. His failures to me as a client, and to the legal system, shows he likely
committed Misprision of Felony, 18 USC 4, engaged in a conspiracy against rights, 18 U.S.C.
241, and deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242.
Unfortunately the fraud or impairment of my Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate government
activity [18 U.S.C. 371], is not limited to Mr. Rowland. Evidence shows involvement of the
U.S. Eleventh Circuit, and Jeffery Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases at the U.S. Supreme Court,
and perhaps others. I have no evidence, at this time, that any Justice or the Chief Justice is
involved. To the contrary, Justice Thomas granted my Rule 13.5 application September 13,
2012. Below is the docket link for 12A215 on the U.S. Supreme Court website.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
As for the appointment of counsel, including as a disability accommodation, The U.S. Eleventh
Circuit adopted provisions for furnishing representation for persons financially unable to obtain
adequate representation in cases and situations which do not fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C.

October 1, 2013
Page - 6
3006A, as amended -- but in which the court believes that the interests of justice will be served
by the presence of counsel. Addenda Five, 11th Cir. R., Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel
Appointment, (b)(2) shows cause for appointment of counsel by U.S. Judge Hodges in my
district court cases [5:10-cv-503 and 5:11-cv-539] because I sought relief under 42 U.S.C.
1983, the interest of justice would be served by the presence of counsel, and on the basis of
disability and mental impairment. Unfortunately Judge Hodges failed to do so.
In addition, both the American Bar Association (ABA), and the U.N. Special Rapporteur,
Independence of Judges and Lawyers, are calling for a right to counsel for indigent civil litigants
like me. See Legal aid, a right in itself UN Special Rapporteur, May 30, 2013,
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13382&LangID=E
and the ABA Basic Principles of a Right to Counsel in Civil Legal Proceedings.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/civil_right_to_cou
nsel.html
U.S. Supreme Court noted in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69 (1932):
The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the
right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and
sometimes no skill in the science of law. . . .He lacks both the skill and knowledge
adequately to prepare his defense, even though he had a perfect one. He requires the
guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.
International law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides in part, ...all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. I believe the following Treaties of the
United States support appointment of counsel. Otherwise there is no way a nonlawyer can be
assured of the rights, immunities and privileges of the Treaties. See Powell V. Alabama.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Signed by President
Carter October 5, 1977, Ratified by the United States June 8, 1992. The United States
declares that it accepts the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and
consider communications under article 41 in which a State Party claims that another State
Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Signed by the United States
December 9, 2003, and ratified by the United States October 30, 2006.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Signed by the United States July 30,
2009, but not yet ratified by the United States.

October 1, 2013
Page - 7
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Resolution 217(A)(III) of the United

Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948.
The 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.
Finally, I believe Tennessee v. Lane supports counsel for mental impairment disabilities when
considered with Powell v. Alabama and my right to fundamental access to courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) held As it applies to the
class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, Title II constitutes a valid
exercise of Congress authority under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce that
Amendments substantive guarantees. Pp. 423.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 337, 42 U. S. C. 1213112165, provides that no
qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from
participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity,
or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 12132. The question presented in this
case is whether Title II exceeds Congress power under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment...
The ADA was passed by large majorities in both Houses of Congress after decades of
deliberation and investigation into the need for comprehensive legislation to address
discrimination against persons with disabilities. In the years immediately preceding the ADAs
enactment, Congress held 13 hearings and created a special task force that gathered evidence
from every State in the Union. The conclusions Congress drew from this evidence are set forth in
the task force and Committee Reports, described in lengthy legislative hearings, and summarized
in the preamble to the statute. 2 Central among these conclusions was Congress finding that
individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced
with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment,
and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on
characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from
stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals
to participate in, and contribute to, society. 42 U. S. C. 12101(a)(7).
The Eleventh Amendment renders the States immune from any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any
Foreign State. Even though the Amendment by its terms applies only to suits against a State
by citizens of another State, our cases have repeatedly held that this immunity also applies to
unconsented suits brought by a States own citizens. Garrett , 531 U. S., at 363; Kimel v. Florida
Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 7273 (2000) . Our cases have also held that Congress may
abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. To determine whether it has done so in any
given case, we must resolve two predicate questions: first, whether Congress unequivocally

October 1, 2013
Page - 8
expressed its intent to abrogate that immunity; and second, if it did, whether Congress acted
pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Id ., at 73.
My ability to function in real-time is severely impaired, making court appearances without
counsel impossible. In the past Florida and federal courts, judges, judicial officers and court
employees have abused their power by using a position of dominance for advantage over me
knowing I am especially vulnerable because I am disabled with mental and physical
impairments. It has taken me a long time to unravel the confusion caused by this abuse of power.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Page 1 of 7
Neil Gillespie
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Jim Birkhold, Clerk" <[email protected]>

"'Neil Gillespie'" <[email protected]>
Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:05 PM
RE: Please find attached a courtesy copy of an Application for Order and cover letter delivered today
to the Court. This is not e-service.
We are extremely overtaxed as today begins mandatory efiling by attorneys and lots of
difficulties for all in this domain. I dont have the time to study your email, and may not. If
you have any further specific questions for me, please keep it short and I will endeavor to
answer them to the best of my ability.
From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:48 PM
To: Jim Birkhold, Clerk
Cc: Jo Haynes
Subject: Re: Please find attached a courtesy copy of an Application for Order and cover letter delivered today to
the Court. This is not e-service.
Hon. James Birkhold, Clerk of Court

Second District Court of Appeal Florida
Thank you for this information. Okay, so the paper of September 20, 2013 is an order but does not show
the names of the judges who denied the motion. I was confused and thought you may have made the
decision administratively. But in fact this is a judicial decision. Since my motion was misplaced I will not
seek any appeal of its denial.
I show two emails from you below, but no response concerning the status of the other files. Other than
2D10-5197, the other files show "destroyed" except 2D08-2224, it shows returned records 01/13/10 but
not destroyed.
I show the following two emails responses from you, if I am missing something please advise. Recently
my email provider changed how messages are screened, so I may have missed your email.
Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:55 PM: You are welcome to submit such a motion but it may be stricken if
it does not carry a certificate of service. If you do send it off please alert me so that I can be sure it is sent
to the proper piece of the court for consideration, thanks.
Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:48 PM: It is not for me to judge the acceptability of a submission. Send it
along if you choose and confirm that you have, thanks.
Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin., does not require the applicant to state a reason for wanting the file, so I
did not do so. But the Court should be aware of certain issues. You may be aware of this already, if so
please excuse the redundancy.
On December 10, 2012 I timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 127747. The petition was denied February 19, 2013and rehearing denied April 15, 2013. This is a link to the
U.S. Supreme Court docket page http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/127747.htm
10/1/2013
Page 2 of 7
This is a link to my blog page showing the Reasons for Granting the Petition, with an embedded PDF of
the petition at the bottom of the page. http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-ofcertiorari-to.html
In May 2013 Chief Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito provided me public records that show
Thirteenth Circuit General Counsel David Rowland concocted with others a scheme to falsely portray to
Kenneth Wilson, Fla. Asst. Attorney General, that I did not serve Rowland my petition per Supreme
Court Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he relied on Rowlands ruse, and did not submit a brief in opposition
due the Court January 14, 2013. See my blog page "David Rowland misled Florida AG, SCOTUS
Petition" with an embedded PDF of my letter at the bottom of the page.
Without a response by Attorney General Pam Bondi for the State of Florida, my petition was denied due
process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court relies on briefs in opposition as
part of its adversarial process to properly litigate and decide a petition. Floridas opposition brief was due
January 14, 2013. Attorney General Bondi did not submit a response for Florida, and therefore no
opposition brief was distributed for the Conference of February 15, 2013. It is a crime to engaged in fraud
or impairment of a legitimate government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, a conspiracy against rights, 18 USC
241, and a depravation of rights under color of law, 18 USC 242.
I suppose one could opine that the Florida Attorney General was part of this scheme, but I rather leave
that accusation to others.
Also in May 2013 Mr. Rodems filed a UPL complaint against me, for appearing pro se for my own
interests, which the Florida Bar opened the Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie;
Case No. 20133090(5). In turn I contacted federal and international authorities seeking political refugee
status for protection. UPL is defined by Rule 10-1.2(a)
RULE 10-2.1 GENERALLY
Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein set forth unless
the use thereof shall clearly indicate a different meaning:
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice of law, as
prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
The UPL complaint against me is without merit. However Rule 10-1.2(a) shows Mr. Rodems engaged in
UPL by representing the state of Florida in my federal court action. I was unaware of Rule 10-1.2(a) until
the UPL complaint brought this to my attention. UPL is also a criminal offense, F.S. 454.23, which
provides up to 5 years incarceration.
A licensed attorney and member of The Florida Bar can engage in the unlicensed practice of law if the
law practice is prohibited, see Rule 101.2(a). Only the Florida Attorney General may represent the state
in a federal court action. Fla Const Art IV 4, and FS 16.01. State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds
that a circuit court judge does not have authority to appoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. A
circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorney to represent the state in an
action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
10/1/2013
Page 3 of 7
Since Mr. Rodems is not the Florida Attorney General, he committed UPL representing the state in my
federal court action.
In the past Mr. Rodems unlawfully represented his firm, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and partner,
William J. Cook, against me in six appeals in the Second District Court of Appeal: 2D11-2127, 2D105529, 2D10-5197, 2D08-2224, 2D07-4530, 2D06-3803. Mr. Rodems also unlawfully represented his firm
and client as a counter-party against me. Mr. Rodems self-representation and litigation against me, a
former client on the substantially same matter as the prior litigation, was unlawful as provided by Florida
Bar Rules and case law:
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and other cases.
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and partner
against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2) substantial risk that the
representation of his firm and partner materially limited the lawyer's responsibilities to me, a former
client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems. See Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel
Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and
posted on Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-RyanChristopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another person in the same
or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are materially adverse to the interests of
the former client. (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former
client. (c) reveal information relating to the representation about the client. Mr. Rodems firm and law
partner represented me the Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and consulted with me on disability matters with
Florida DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify
Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm.
While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any 1 of
them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so. Mr. Rodems has an imputed disqualification
because his law firm and partner William Cook previously represented me. Id. at Emergency Motion to
Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. [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
10/1/2013
Page 4 of 7
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.
So I do not know how the Court justifies its past rulings favoring Mr. Rodems, or what explaines the
Courts failure to disqualify Mr. Rodems. The Second District Court of Appeal for the state of Florida
was created by the Constitution and the Florida Statutes to administer, apply, and interpret the laws of the
state of Florida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal
self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
As shown in the attached letters to Messrs. Harkness and Berry, The Florida Bar (Aug-07-13 and Aug15-13), Mr. Rodems improperly represented his partner and firm in 52 cases against me, UPL with up to
260 years imprisonment when counted consecutively. Also, my former counsel Mr. Bauer should be
should be permanently disbarred. On June 21, 2011 I was represented by Eugene P. Castagliuolo. His
failures to me as a client, and to the legal system, shows he likely committed Misprision of Felony, 18
USC 4, engaged in a conspiracy against rights, 18 U.S.C. 241, and deprivation of rights under color of
law, 18 U.S.C. 242.
The fraud or impairment of my Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate government activity [18 U.S.C. 371],
is not limited to Mr. Rowland. Evidence shows involvement of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit, and Jeffery
Atkins, Supervisor of New Cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, and perhaps others. I have no evidence, at
this time, that any Justice or the Chief Justice is involved. To the contrary, Justice Thomas granted my
Rule 13.5 application September 13, 2012. Below is the docket for 12A215 U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
As for the appointment of counsel, including as a disability accommodation, The U.S. Eleventh Circuit
adopted provisions for furnishing representation for persons financially unable to obtain adequate
representation in cases and situations which do not fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. 3006A, as
amended -- but in which the court believes that the interests of justice will be served by the presence of
counsel.
Addenda Five, 11th Cir. R., Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel Appointment, (b)(2) shows cause for
appointment of counsel by U.S. Judge Hodges in my district court cases because I sought relief under 42
U.S.C. 1983, the interest of justice would be served by the presence of counsel, and on the basis of
disability and mental impairment. Unfortunately Judge Hodges failed to do so.
In addition, Both the American Bar Association (ABA), and the U.N. Special Rapporteur, Independence
of Judges and Lawyers, are calling for a right to counsel for indigent civil litigants like me. See "Legal
aid, a right in itself" UN Special Rapporteur, May 30, 2013,
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13382&LangID=E
and ABA Basic Principles of a Right to Counsel in Civil Legal Proceedings.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/civil_right_to_counsel.html
U.S. Supreme Court noted in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69 (1932):
The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the
right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and
sometimes no skill in the science of law. . . .He lacks both the skill and knowledge
adequately to prepare his defense, even though he had a perfect one. He requires the
10/1/2013
Page 5 of 7
guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.

International law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides in part, "...all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding." I believe the following Treaties of the United States support appointment of counsel.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Signed by President Carter October 5,
1977, Ratified by the United States June 8, 1992. The United States declares that it accepts the
competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications under article 41 in
which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Signed by the United States December 9,
2003, and ratified by the United States October 30, 2006.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Signed by the United States July 30, 2009, but not
yet ratified by the United States.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Resolution 217(A)(III) of the United Nations General
Assembly, December 10, 1948.
The 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.
Finally, I believe Tennessee v. Lane supports counsel for mental impairment disabilities when considered
with Powell v. Alabama.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) held "As it applies to the class of
cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, Title II constitutes a valid exercise of
Congress authority under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce that Amendments substantive
guarantees. Pp. 423." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. "Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 337, 42 U. S. C. 1213112165, provides that "no qualified individual
with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the
benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any
such entity." 12132. The question presented in this case is whether Title II exceeds Congress power
under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment..."
The ADA was passed by large majorities in both Houses of Congress after decades of deliberation and
investigation into the need for comprehensive legislation to address discrimination against persons with
disabilities. In the years immediately preceding the ADAs enactment, Congress held 13 hearings and
created a special task force that gathered evidence from every State in the Union. The conclusions
Congress drew from this evidence are set forth in the task force and Committee Reports, described in
lengthy legislative hearings, and summarized in the preamble to the statute. 2 Central among these
conclusions was Congress finding that
"individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and
limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political
powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and
resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to
participate in, and contribute to, society." 42 U. S. C. 12101(a)(7).
10/1/2013
Page 6 of 7
The Eleventh Amendment renders the States immune from "any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Even though
the Amendment "by its terms applies only to suits against a State by citizens of another State," our
cases have repeatedly held that this immunity also applies to unconsented suits brought by a States own
citizens. Garrett , 531 U. S., at 363; Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 7273 (2000) . Our
cases have also held that Congress may abrogate the States Eleventh Amendment immunity. To
determine whether it has done so in any given case, we "must resolve two predicate questions: first,
whether Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate that immunity; and second, if it did,
whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority." Id ., at 73.
My ability to function in real-time is severely impaired, making court appearances without counsel
impossible. In the past Florida and federal courts, judges, judicial officers and court employees have
abused their power by using a position of dominance for advantage over me knowing I am especially
vulnerable because I am disabled with mental and physical impairments. It has taken me a long time to
unravel the confusion caused by this abuse of power.
In the past Mr. Birkhold I found you to be an exception to the above abuse of power issue. I appreciate
your professionalism, and trust it sees us through the ultimate resolution of this injustice. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
----- Original Message ----From: Jim Birkhold, Clerk
To: 'Neil Gillespie'
Cc: Jo Haynes
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:47 AM
Subject: FW: Please find attached a courtesy copy of an Application for Order and cover letter delivered today to
the Court. This is not e-service.
In response to your inquiry/cover letter, see responses that follow:
The order of September 20, 2013, does not carry the names of the judges ruling on your
motion, which is this courts policy on all but dispositional orders that conclude the
consideration of a proceeding.
Reasons are frequently not explained in orders and opinions.
The allusion to section 119 Florida Statutes is technically not correct I suppose, because as
you point out access to judicial records is addressed in the rules of judicial administration.
That said, public records requests made per section 119 are received and considered here.
This is a minor misstatement of the correct authority but does not in my view undermine the
ruling itself.
The order does not address the status of records that have been destroyed, but I believe I
shared that information with you earlier.
10/1/2013
Page 7 of 7
The cost associated with judicial records requested is $1 a page. There is no provision for
waiving the fees for indigent applicants.
I am the custodian of records associated with proceedings in this court.
At some point if you believe you are entitled to ADA accommodations, I refer you to this
courts marshal, Jo Haynes. If there comes a time that you believe you are entitled to the
appointment of a guardian ad litem I suggest you address that by motion, as that is
something beyond the authority of the marshal or clerk.
Your application for order has been docketed and will be sent to the court for its
consideration.
James Birkhold, Clerk, 2d DCA
From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 5:43 PM
To: Jim Birkhold, Clerk
Subject: Please find attached a courtesy copy of an Application for Order and cover letter delivered today to the
Court. This is not e-service.
Hon. James R. Birkhold, Clerk of Court

Second District Court of Appeal Florida
Please find attached a courtesy copy of an Application for Order and cover letter delivered today to the
Court. This is not e-service. The documents were served by UPS Ground and delivered today. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
10/1/2013
SECOND DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 327
(863) 499-2290
Date: October 7, 2013
re: Case Number:
In response to your recent communication, please see the paragraph(s) marked below.
_
There appears to be no proceeding pending in the court similar to the one you describe.
I am not authorized to provide the legal advice that would provide answers to your inquiry.
_
This case is pending in this court and you (or your attorney if you are represented) will be notified by mail when
a decision is reached.
The court's mandate was issued on
. It signifies that the appeal is now closed in this court. Only
the original mandate, which is sent to the clerk of the lower court, is accompanied by the opinion issued earlier, which
was provided at that time to the parties.
The panel assigned to this appeal has given no reason for its ruling and is not required to do so.
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from reading or considering your letter.
_
This court cannot act on your request to prompt action by the circuit court unless jurisdiction is conferred upon it
by the filing of an original proceeding in mandamus in this court.
_
This court has not yet received the appeal of which you speak. The brief/motion you filed will be linked up to
that appeal when it arrives from the circuit court.
_
Your filing will not be considered by the court because you have an attorney representing you and the filing is
not authorized.
_
Action will not be taken upon your request, nor will it be docketed. Judicial action results only if a formal motion
that includes a certificate of service on the opposing party or counsel is filed.
_
Copies from this court's file are available at $1 per page. If you are still interested in obtaining copies from this
court, please advise and by return mail we will indicate the number of pages involved. Alternatively, you may wish to
contact your appellate attorney if you have one regarding this request.
The name and address of your current attorney is:
Other: JUdge Davis has turned over your lengthy submission to me for a response. 2008-2224 we do not
show has been destroyed, although the time has expired to retain the file and it is possible it has been
destroyed and a clerical error may lead to the conclusion that we retain it. This file if we have it is stored
offsite. On our next trip to that storage area we will check and get back to you on this. The other concerns
you express in your submission do not seem to be matters that would invite appropriate comment from the
court.
J mes Birkhold
Clerk
w:\document\gillespie
~t,
I'U
' . .
1.1
',..
_, ' , .
T ' r '
' "
'II" 1'lt:LA!IL
.1
...............
T'I"T.
" . . . . . . e'.rlJJ..'. . ."II . .
P.O. BOX 327
I~
'aI'\,
'.
"'
.-3'_
SECOND DISTRICT
~
""~
. zC~~
':iiiIiIrAIJIIIBIIIP'.'..-.
......,.
P.
";:)
)~
............ PItNEY BOVto'ES
02 1R
0006557763
$ 00.46
ocr072013
~Y: ' MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33801
EC
2010-5197
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S W 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
3448 i $356 7 R=:;&7

:&II
l"i""":')""'_.'r"'JI"1I'!l.~_
III I, JIJ' JII J' JIll/"
J' J J"
JIll, fI' I JI' JI' J'}' " IJJJ'I iI JI J111'1
'
VIA United Parcel Service (U.P.S.)

John F. Harkness, Executive Director
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Email to: [email protected]
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294298711
August 7, 2013
John T. Berry, Legal Director
The Florida Bar
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290482724
RE: Letter July 17, 2013 of Ms. Craft closing Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie
against Robert W. Bauer The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Dear Messrs. Harkness and Berry:
This is a request to review the closure by Ms. Craft of my complaint against Robert W. Bauer.
Ms. Crafts letter July 17, 2013 closing my complaint is enclosed. The letter reached me after I
sent my letter of July 19, 2013. Still, I show no response from Linda Calvert-Hanson, Director,
Center for Professionalism.
I do not believe a review by Shanell M. Schuyler will be sufficient. Therefore I am requesting an
in-person review with John T. Berry, or his designee, to review my complaint. I would like the
review video recorded and transcribed.
Ms. Crafts letter, a report of her purported investigation of my complaint, is evidence of
incompetence by The Florida Bar and its complaint process. It should embarrass The Bar.
I request The Florida Bar immediately adopt in its entirety the recommendations of the American
Bar Association (ABA) published in the Report of the Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary
Enforcement by the ABA Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement (1989-1992),
also known as the 1992 ABA McKay Report.
Mr. Berry was a member of the ABA Commission that issued the 1992 ABA McKay Report.
Ms. Crafts review of my complaint was so incompetent that I call into question her fitness and
qualifications as Bar Counsel.
The Florida Bar also has a conflict of interest reviewing my complaint because The Bars
Lawyer Referral Service provided Mr. Bauer as a referral to me February 26, 2007. Exhibit 1. I
retained Mr. Bauer as a result of the referral. The conflict includes LRS fees of twelve percent
(12%) calculated on billing, which I determine amount to $2,305.49 on $19,212.44 I paid Bauer
to represent me. A conflict of interest is defined by Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, copy
of which appears at Exhibit 2: (underline added)
Conflict of interest. Term used in connection with public officials and fiduciaries and
their relationship to matters of private interest or gain to them. Ethical problems
connected therewith are covered by statutes in most jurisdictions and by federal statutes
on the federal level. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Model Rules of
Professional Conduct set forth standards for actual or potential conflicts of interest
John F. Harkness, Executive Director, The Florida Bar

John T. Berry, Legal Director, The Florida Bar
August 7, 2013
Page - 2
between attorney and client. Generally, when used to suggest disqualification of a public
official from performing his sworn duty, term "conflict of interest" refers to a clash
between public interest and the private pecuniary interest of the individual concerned.
Gardner v. Nashville Housing Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davison County, Tenn., C.A.Tenn., 514 F.2d 38, 41. A situation in which regard for one
duty tends to lead to disregard of another. U.S. v. Miller, C.A.Mass., 463 F.2d 600, 602.
A conflict of interest arises when a government employee's personal or financial interest
conflicts or appears to conflict with his official responsibility. 18 U.S.C.A. 203 et seq.
In the past I unsuccessfully requested in my complaint against Mr. Rodems, TFB No. 201310,271 (13E), a Rule 3-3.4(b) Special Grievance Committee to review the closure, because,
Local components, such as local bar investigative committees, foster cronyism as well as
prejudice against unpopular respondents. - ABA McKay Report.
There is a conflict in a profession investigating itself. A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when
an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly
corrupt the motivation for an act in another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
The conflict of interest in the legal profession investigating a member is especially problematic.
One such conflict of interest between The Florida Bar and Scott W. Rothstein prevented The Bar
from seeing a problem with Rothstein until it was too late:
A pamphlet [fn1] published by The Florida Bar Public Information and Bar Services
Department as a service for consumers states: "The Florida Bar disciplinary program has
become the gold-standard for protecting the public." Yet somehow Scott Rothstein, at the
time a member in good standing with the Florida Bar, was able to operate a massive 1.2
billion dollar Ponzi scheme from the law offices of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A. right
under the Bars nose, and while serving on a Florida Bar grievance committee. Rothstein
was also appointed August 25, 2008 by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to serve as a
Commissioner on the Fourth Appellate District Judicial Nomination Commission,
arguably at the height of his racketeering activities, to which he plead guilty and on June
9, 2010 received a 50-year prison sentence.
[fn1] Hiring the Right Person to Help Me With My Legal Problems
The above quote is from my Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which itself was compromised by David Rowland, Court Counsel for the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, and the Florida Attorney General, see my letter May 16, 2013 to Kenneth
Wilson, Asst. Attorney General (Exhibit 3) and Gov. Scott and AG Bondi. Exhibit 4.
Unfortunately, the legal profession is unable to honestly and competently regulate itself.
My complaint against Mr. Bauer shows he should be disbarred as provided by The Florida Bars
Florida Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Approved November 1986 by The Florida
Bars Board of Governors, and updated November 2000.

August 7, 2013
Page - 3
The Florida Bars slogan - Protecting Rights, Pursuing Justice, Promoting Professionalism - is
undercut by The Bars own survey found in the Hawkins Commission on Review of the
Discipline System, completed May 2012. The 2012 Hawkins report shows the lawyer discipline
system in Florida is catastrophically broken.
The survey in Appendix E shows responses from Florida Judges in Circuit, County, and District
Courts of Appeal who have filed bar complaints against lawyers. Within the state judge survey is
Appendix A, Responses to Open-ended Questions. The survey in Appendix F shows responses
from U.S. District Court and Bankruptcy Judges who have filed bar complaints against lawyers.
The survey results show statistical proof of government ineptitude:
Nearly three-fifths (58%) of judge respondents say they are dissatisfied with the disciplinary
job The Bar has done. A staggering 82% of all county, circuit, and appellate judges in the most
populous District (the Third DCA) are dissatisfied with the job The Florida Bar is doing.
In Broward County the level of judicial dissatisfaction is an appalling 65%. This is the county in
which Scott Rothstein served on a Florida Bar grievance committee, and was a Commissioner on
the Fourth Appellate District Judicial Nomination Commission, while operating a $1.2 billion
Ponzi scheme from the law offices of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A. right under the Bars
nose, to which he plead guilty and on June 9, 2010 received a 50-year prison sentence.
Incompetent review by Annemarie Craft of complaint by Neil J. Gillespie
against Robert W. Bauer The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Ms. Crafts letter did not address the substance of my complaint. Ms. Craft wrote All correspondence
and documents submitted in this matter have been carefully reviewed. Not true. My initial complaint
was limited to 25 pages. As indicated in the complaint, Exhibits 1-25 are available, an additional 182
pages of evidence. Ms. Craft did not request, allow, or consider 182 pages of available documents.
Enclosed in my letter to Mr. Harkness, please find enclosed a paper copy of Exhibits 1-25, as returned
to me by the Supreme Court of the United States. Kindly consider these 182 pages in the review.
Ms. Craft wrote There appears to be some overlap in the issues between the first and second
complaint. What overlap does Ms. Craft refer to? Unfortunately Ms. Craft does not say.
First, my 2010 complaint sought a refund of fees, so that I could pay replacement counsel. This
complaint does not seek a refund of fees. Second, Mr. Watsons Letter Report of March 18, 2011
closing the complaint in compliance with Rule 3-7.4(k) shows no consideration or adjudication
of any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
My 2010 complaint did not allege Rule violations. Mr. Watsons Letter Report was clear:
Because the Bar only has the authority to address questions of ethics, the committee could not
address any legal issues about which you may feel concerned. Thus, this complaint alleges
questions of ethics by Mr. Bauer not previously submitted to The Florida Bar or yet considered
by a grievance committee:

August 7, 2013
Page - 4
Breach of Rule 4-1.1. Mr. Bauer is not competent.

Breach of Rule 4-1.3. Mr. Bauer is not diligent.
Breach of Rule 4-8.4(c). Mr. Bauer engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Breach of Rule 4-8.4(d). Mr. Bauer engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Breach of Rule 4-8.3(a). Mr. Bauer failed to report misconduct of other lawyers, Mr. Rodems.
Mr. Bauer failed to file an amended complaint as agreed. Bauer wrote September 7, 2007 he planned
to draft an amended complaint. Exhibit 5. Bauer failed to amended complaint. Bauers letter misstates
we prevailed in our motion and your cause of action has been reinstated. That assertion is false.
Judge Bartons order shows my pro se motion was argued; my voluntary dismissal was not effective.
The case was not dismissed; thus it was not reinstated. See Exhibit 6, text below.
This action, having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Pro Se Motion to Withdraw
Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and the Court, having reviewed the file and
having heard oral argument from counsel for both sides, finds:
1. The Pro Se Plaintiff filed his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on February 7, 2007
prior to retaining his current counsel.
2. Notices of Voluntary Dismissal cannot be filed pursuant to Rule 1.420 when a
counter-claim is pending without first receiving leave of court. Rogers v. Publix
Super Markets, Inc., 575 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1990)
3. Therefore, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was not effective to dismiss the
Plaintiffs cause of action.
4. The Pro Se Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal prior to
retaining his current counsel pursuant to Rule 1.420 on February 7, 2007 and such
motion required a court order for it to be effective.
5. On February 15, 2007 the Pro Se Plaintiff filed a Notice of Withdrawal of
Voluntary Dismissal.
6. Plaintiffs Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal was ineffective to dismiss
the Plaintiffs case.
7. It is further determined that as a matter of law that Plaintiff is not entitled to file a
counter counter-complaint1 in response to Defendant's Counter-Complaint absent a
modification of the current rules of civil procedure.
ORDERED: Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is hereby withdrawn.
Mr. Rodems appealed Judge Bartons ruling to the 2dDCA and lost. This is in my complaint.
1
The incompetent counter-counter complaint was drafted by and submitted by Mr. Bauer.

August 7, 2013
Page - 5
Unfortunately Mr. Bauer failed to seek attorneys fees under F.S. 57.105 for Rodems frivolous
appeal. Mr. Rodems appealed Judge Bartons Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion To Withdrawal
Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Rodems lost. The 2dDCA held in 2D07-4530 that my
claims were not dismissed, citing Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(2), and 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). (Exhibit 23 in the
enclosed separate volume appendix from the U.S. Supreme Court)
The foregoing is one of many examples of Mr. Bauers incompetence. Bar complaint No. 201300,540 (8B) alleged not competent [Rule 4-1.1], not diligent [Rule 4-1.3].
Mr. Bauer angered Judge Barton - Not Competent - Not Diligent
Mr. Bauer angered Judge Barton because Bauer was not competent [Rule 4-1.1], not diligent
[Rule 4-1.3]. From page 14 of the complaint:
Mr. Bauer was not competent and not diligent when he angered Judge Barton again
March 20, 2008 when he repeatedly moved to continue a hearing because he was
unprepared and failed to have an expert witness appear. (Page 5).
5
6
7
8
THE COURT: So, I mean, we're way down the

line here. It's been continued once and if we
continue it again, for what, a couple of years?
Would that be enough time?
Perhaps Ms. Craft does not understand, but when a judge asks if a lawyer if he needs a couple
of years? Would that be enough time?, that is angry sarcasm by the judge, not an actual offer to
continue the matter for a couple of years. And Ms. Craft should understand that it is never, ever,
under any circumstance, helpful to make a judge angry. That is prejudicial to the client.
Unfortunately a judge may become easily angered by an incompetent lawyer like Bauer, and it is
very difficult, sometimes impossible, to fix that broken relationship with the judge.
Mr. Bauer angered Judge Barton time, and time again
Mr. Bauer was not competent and not diligent when he angered Judge Barton by failing to
amend the complaint. A transcript of a hearing October 30, 2007 on Defendants motion for
judgment on the pleadings shows Judge Barton understood the importance of amending the
complaint, since this was a hearing for judgment on the pleadings. The record shows several
exchanges like this with the Judge: (Transcript, October 30, 2007, pp. 14 & 19 respectively).
8 THE COURT: So are we on the pro se version of
9 the complaint?
10 MR. BAUER: Yes, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: How do you feel about that?
12 MR. BAUER: I'd like to amend it and make it

August 7, 2013
Page - 6
4 [MR. BAUER] I don't see that -- I have been on this case

5 for a whole of six months. I don't think my failure
6 to have amended the complaint in six months is
7 overly egregious considering we have had multiple
8 issues to deal with, the hearings that have been
9 required to come down here, the writ of certiorari
10 that has been filed. I don't think there's been any
11 delay on my part or on the part of my firm.
During a hearing on Mr. Bauers motion to withdrawal October 1, 2009, Judge Barton agreed
with me that it was outrageous to be using a pro se Complaint after 4 years: (Page 5).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. GILLESPIE: The thing is we're into our fourth

year on this case.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. GILLESPIE: And we still are working on the
Plaintiff's pro se complaint
THE COURT: Right.
MR. GILLESPIE: which is really sort of
outrageous.
THE COURT: Right....
Florida Standards For Applying Lawyer Discipline, Standard 6.11
Mr. Bauer lied to the Bar in my prior complaint [Rule 4-8.4(c)], conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and [Rule 4-8.4(d)] engaged in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice. Florida Standards For Applying Lawyer Discipline, Standard 6.11
6.11 Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer: (a) with the intent to deceive the court,
knowingly makes a false statement or submits a false document; or it is clear that
Respondent (b) improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant
adverse effect on the legal proceeding
Unfortunately, Robert W. Bauer should be permanently disbarred.
Tellingly Ms. Craft wrote: Mr. Bauer denies lying or misleading the Bar in any way. Apparently this
was the extent of Crafts investigation, and mirrors a response by a Florida judge respondent to The
Bars survey reported in the 2012 Hawkins Commission on Review of Discipline:
I conducted an evidentiary hearing over three or four days and was regrettably required to
find a lawyer had suborned perjury. After finding the lawyer guilty of contempt, I referred this
matter to the Bar. I used to Chair a Grievance Committee when I practiced law, so I am very
familiar with the process. The grievance committee assigned a lawyer/member to investigate.
This lawyer failed to investigate properly. She never spoke to me, she never spoke to any of
the other lawyers in the case, and she never reviewed any transcripts. She merely called the
lawyer whom I found in contempt; he denied suborning perjury and thats all she did. She
recommended a finding of no probable cause. Her investigation was a joke and embarrassed
the legal system and The Florida Bar.

August 7, 2013
Page - 7
Found in Appendix A, Responses to Open-ended Questions [by Florida judges], page 24

(102) under survey question 10: Were you satisfied with the disposition of the referred
case(s)? If dissatisfied, please explain: (OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES).
Mr. Harkness, can you identify the judge who made the above comment, as a records request? If
Ms. Craft was the Bar Counsel involved, this shows she is incompetent and should be fired.
Personally, I agree with that judge. Ms. Crafts investigation was a joke, and embarrassed the
legal system and The Florida Bar.
Mr. Bauer failed to report misconduct2 [Rule 4-8.3(a)] of Ryan C. Rodems, a Florida licensed
attorney in private practice who engaged in UPL [Rule 10-2.1(a)] by representing the state of
Florida in my federal court action - section 1983 civil rights and disability ADA [5:10-cv-503].
Only the Florida Attorney General may represent the state of Florida in a federal court action.
Fla. Const. Art IV 4, and FS 16.01, and State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein.
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorney
to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.
Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).
Mr. Rodems is not the Florida Attorney General, and therefore the settlement agreement and
assignment of claims he concocted June 21, 2011 is void. Mr. Rodems entered this settlement
agreement in my federal lawsuit, 5:10-cv-503 (Doc. 21), and sought assignment of my claims to
him and his firm, and dismissal with prejudice of the federal court action. UPL is also a felony
crime, see F.S. 454.23, which provides for five (5) years incarceration and fines.
This settlement agreement includes Mr. Bauer and his firm, Mr. Rodems and his firm, and six (6)
state of Florida defendant parties. The settlement agreement with Mr. Bauer and his firm failed
to resolve $12,650 owing in fees to Bauer and thus is a one-sided agreement favoring Bauer and
prejudicial me. Depending on the timing of events and Mr. Bauers role, he may have committed
Misprision of Felony, 18 USC 4. Mr. Bauer appears to have engaged in a conspiracy against
rights, 18 U.S.C. 241, and deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242.
2
Mr. Rodems committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in this matter,
see my complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E). Below are Bar Rules
Mr. Rodems violated, which I believe Mr. Bauer should have reported.
Rule 4-3.1, Meritorious Claims and Contentions
Rule 4-3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal
Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation
Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients.

August 7, 2013
Page - 8
That was the point of discussing Bauer holding my file, not the reason Ms. Craft cited.
Mr. Craft wrote, ...an attorney's obligation to report another attorney arises in circumstances where
there is a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
Rule 4-8.3(a) The comment to the rule notes: This rule limits the reporting obligation to those
offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of
judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this rule.
What measure of judgment is required when a lawyer in private practice wrongly represents the
state of Florida in a federal court action? What measure of judgment is required when a lawyer
does not submit an amended complaint after charging $31,000? What measure of judgment is
required when the lawyer angers the judge over and over again? It appears Ms. Craft is working
very hard to cover-up misconduct, and not get to the essence of my complaint.
Mr. Bauer refused to permit me to attend or testify at hearings in my case because Mr. Rodems
would knowingly make comments to prod me for no better purpose than to anger you. Bauer
wrote 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.
An attorney who knowingly prods me with comments to anger and inflame me, and deny me
access to court in my case, is not an honorable and professional attorney suitable for judge as
Mr. Bauer recommended to Gov. Crist. Mr. Bauers inability to fashion a way for me to testify
shows he is not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3).
Messrs. Harkness and Berry, you do not know me, but I am a law-abiding, 57 year-old man, a
graduate of both a non-traditional college on the West Coast, The Evergreen State College, and
well known Ivy League business school, The Wharton School, Evening Division, University of
Pennsylvania, and operated a successful business in Pennsylvania. If Mr. Bauer could not control
the bestial Ryan Christopher Rodems long enough for me to testify, something is terribly wrong.
Kim Pruett-Barry and Ms. Craft
It appears Kim Pruett-Barry and Ms. Craft may have cooperated to undermine my complaint. In
return Ms. Pruett-Barry may have received a favorable settlement in her case allegedly abandoned
by Mr. Bauer, Barry vs. McGrath case no. 2012-CA-009323-O, Orange County, Florida.
Notice of Service of Proposal for Settlement, Peter R McGrath and Peter R McGrath PA, July 27,
2013, appears on the case docket, the online Register of Actions.
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:07 PM Ms. Craft emailed me:

August 7, 2013
Page - 9
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I was out of the office last week
and am just catching up on emails. I will be glad to grant you and extension. I
know you had requested until 5/22/13. Since there was a delay in my responding I
am willing to grant you a few more days. The new due date for your rebuttal is
May 28, 2013. Please keep in mind that the your rebuttal and any enclosures
together cannot exceed 25 pages.
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25 PM Kim Pruett-Barry emailed me:
Hey Neil,
Just wanted you to know that we FIRED Bauer, he is a SCUMBAG, charged us
for stuff he never did, lied to us, never carried through with anything.
Just got off the phone with Ms. Craft and went into detail about some of the
stuff he did, she told me, actually BEGGED me to file a complaint.
I am filing the complaint first thing tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Kim Pruett
Mr. Craft claims Pruett-Barry did not made a complaint against Mr. Bauer. Ms. Crafts letter
commented on other Bauer clients unhappy with him, names of clients and matters provided as
witnesses, but had no actual involvement in my case. Mr. Craft said some did not make a
complaint; why would they? Other Bauer clients made complaints that were dismissed.
Unfortunately Bar complaints are generally a waste of time. The available remedies seldom offer
redress of the clients grievances against the lawyer. Not only is The Florida Bar complaint
process broken, even if the complaint process worked efficiently, the outcome does not really
benefit the client. Really, what client cares if a lawyer gets discipline years after the fact? A
public admonishment or suspension does not fix the damage done, or return money.
Ms. Craft also accepted without investigation this claim by Mr. Bauer: He points out that many
of the issues discussed were the subject of civil litigation and are not matters for the Bar to
handle. Really? What many issues were subject of civil litigation? What civil litigation does
Bauer refer? Does he mean the Supreme Court case undermined by David Rowland of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and undermined by the Attorney General? Is that litigation, or a
further denial of rights under the color of law?
It appears Ms. Craft did not inquire further, but simply accepted Mr. Bauer as the final authority
on The Florida Bar. Bauer decided, not Ms. Craft, that ...many of the issues discussed were the
subject of civil litigation and are not matters for the Bar to handle. Does Mr. Bauer set other Bar
policy too? Yes, through the lawyer-elected bar governors that are part of the catastrophicallybroken Florida Bar discipline system, a practice condemned by the 1992 ABA McKay Report.

August 7, 2013
Page - 10
Ms. Craft determined on or about January 7, 2013 that the alleged conduct, if proven, would
constitute a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of
discipline [Rule 3-7.3(a)] and opened disciplinary No. 2013-00,540 (8B) against Bauer.
Realistically, if the intake investigation concluded the complaint warranted further consideration
[Rule 3-7.3(b)] and was sent ultimately to a local grievance committee, it would be dismissed
then, as was my 2010 complaint, because The Bars catastrophically broken discipline system
relies on crony local discipline components and supervision by lawyer-elected bar governors,
both practices condemned by the 1992 ABA McKay Report.
Ms. Craft also wrote There is insufficient evidence from the materials provided that Mr. Bauer
has violated any of the rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida which govern attorney
discipline. Again, this is standard Bar practice intended to conceal misconduct. Ms. Craft
closed my complaint without ever requesting documents precluded by the Bars 25 page limit.
My complaint indicated that Exhibits 1-25 were available, an additional 182 pages of evidence.
Ms. Craft did not request, allow, or consider 182 pages of available documents, Exhibits 1-25.
Ms. Craft: Accordingly, continued disciplinary proceedings in this matter are inappropriate and
our file has been closed. Pursuant to the Bar's records retention schedule, the computer record
and file will be disposed of one year from the date of closing.
Tellingly, The Florida Bar disposes of the computer record and file one year from the date of
closing, which practice and retention schedule serves to cover-up a pattern of misconduct by a
lawyer, and is prejudicial to justice.
Ryan Christopher Rodems - Conflict of Interest
We all know that the problems in this case were caused by Mr. Rodemss conflict of interest
representing his firm against me, a former client. Even Judge Barton came to this conclusion.
Judge Baron agreed with Judge Nielsens Order, and suggested during a hearing January 26,
2010 that I make a renewed motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems, whose misconduct was the
central obstacle in resolving this case. Transcript, January 26, 2010, page 31:
1 [MR. GILLESPIE]...This is what the Judge wrote: "This
2 motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice
3 except as to the basis that Counsel may be a
4 witness and on that basis the motion is denied
5 without prejudice." Now, for Mr. Rodems being a
6 witness, the nature of this case is essentially he
7 is a perpetual witness. The transcripts show that
8 his representation is essentially on going
9 testimony about factual matters. Many times in the
10 transcripts he is confused. He is saying, Judge,
11 we -- Oh, I don't mean we, I mean I as my attorney
12 for the firm think this about my client, which is
13 actually myself. That confusion is evident in the
14 transcripts over and over again. I really believe
15 he needs to be disqualified because of his ongoing

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
August 7, 2013
Page - 11
testimony in this matter.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I assume there
will be a renewed motion to disqualify that will be
filed and then again set for a hearing once we
establish our procedure, but we can't do that until
we get what I directed you to produce within ten
days from Ms. Huffer.
Mr. Bauer also misled the Bar with this statement: Mr. Gillespie made a motion for rehearing in
December of 2006 which was also denied. No. The motion for rehearing was tabled by Judge
Isom with a referral to law enforcement to investigate Mr. Rodems false affidavit to the Court.
So Bauer simply lied to the Bar when he wrote the motion for rehearing Dec-2006 was denied.
Mr. Bauer further misled the Bar in his statement about allegations in my Bar complaint showing
the disqualification of Rodems was required: These are the same arguments that were made in
support of the February 2006 motion and denied. Mr. Bauer knows this is a false statement, as
set forth in 60-61, Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher
Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July 9, 2010:
60. A hearing on Plaintiffs 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....
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.
Closing Statement Fraud - Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation
William J. Cook and his two partners Ryan Christopher Rodems and Chris A. Baker concocted a
closing statement fraud when they represented me in the Amscot3 case by asserting a phony
claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs. However the district court did not award
3
Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation,
Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

August 7, 2013
Page - 12
any fees. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, and the matter settled for the
business reasons of Amscot while on appeal to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit, no. 01-14761-AA.
Mr. Cook and his partners took a 90% fee of a $56,000 total recovery, instead of a 45% fee
permitted by Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), which denied me and two other clients $9,143 each,
our lawful share of the $56,000 total recovery. This resulted in an unjust enrichment of $21,431
for Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., who paid me and the other two clients $2,000 each instead of
$9,143 each, causing each client a loss of $7,143. The preceding figures are not mine, but
determined in 2009 by Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers for me.
Mr. Cook claimed he was not required to disclose or itemize under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) costs of
$3,580.67, or show $2,544.79 paid to Mr. Alpert, because AMSCOT Corporation separately
paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for
court-awarded fees and costs. But the claim to $50,000.00 for court-awarded fees and costs
was later determined false. There were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. Mr. Cooks Closing
Statement Fraud was a trick to evade the terms of the contingent fee agreement, and payment to
me of $9,143, my lawful share of the $56,000 total recovery. The closing statement is attached.
Prior to litigation I complained to The Florida Bar. In 2003 I called ACAP, RFA 03-18867. In
response Barker, Rodems & Cook accused me of criminal extortion. On June 7, 2004 I made a
written complaint to The Bars Tampa Branch Office. Asst. Staff Counsel William L. Thompson,
opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C). Six months later Thompson was gone. Susan Bloemendaal
was then, and is today, Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel. Ms. Bloemendaal closed the
file by letter February 9, 2005 without a finding of misconduct.
Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Case no. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida
I am a consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce in this case.
I commenced this lawsuit, 05-CA-7205, August 11, 2005 by filing the Complaint and paying a
$255 filing fee, in cash, to the Clerk of the Court. I paid an additional $40 cash August 11, 2005
to the Hillsborough County Sheriff to serve the Complaint on the Defendants.
I sued pro se the Defendants, my former lawyers, to recover the above described loss in Clement,
Blomefield, and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, no. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit.
The Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, is a
court created by statute to administer, apply, and interpret the laws of the state of Florida in a fair
and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal selfenrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
James M. Barton, II, Martha Jean Cook, and Claudia Rickert Isom, were all elected judges for
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and were by virtue of that position of trust, an officer and
employee of state government, responsible for lawfully performing and discharging her duties

August 7, 2013
Page - 13
without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing,
concealment, and conflict of interest.
Barker, Rodems & Cooks Former Representation of Client Neil J. Gillespie
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA is a successor firm to Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook,
P.A. that formerly represented me in some of the same matters.
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (BRC) is a small, three partner law firm and Florida professional
service corporation formed August 4, 2000 with corporate officers, partners and key employee:
a. Chris A. Barker, Florida Bar ID no. 885568, president of BRC. (Barker)
b. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID no. 947652, vice president of BRC. (Rodems)
c. William J. Cook, Florida Bar ID no. 986194, secretary/treasurer of BRC. (Cook)
d. Lynne Anne Spina, notary public and legal assistant. (Spina)
Prior to BRC, Messrs. Barker, Rodems, Cook and Ms. Spina were employed by Alpert, Barker,
Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A., a law firm led by Jonathan Alpert.
Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A (Alpert firm) was a law firm and Florida
professional service corporation that ended on or about December 8, 2000. The Alpert firm had
the following partners, associate, and key employee:
a. Jonathan Louis Alpert, Florida Bar ID no. 121970 (partner)
b. Chris A. Barker, Florida Bar ID no. 885568 (partner)
c. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID no. 947652 (partner)
d. David Dominick Ferrentino, Florida Bar ID no. 908754 (partner)
c. William J. Cook, Florida Bar ID no. 986194 (partner)
d. Scott James Flint, Florida Bar ID no. 85073 (associate)
e. Lynne Anne Spina, notary public and legal assistant
The Alpert firm is not a party to this action. BRC and the Alpert firm coexisted for a period of
four (4) months, August 4, 2000 through December 8, 2000.
The Alpert firm formerly represented me as a client in the AMSCOT case, and ACE Cash
Express case. I do not have a dispute with the Alpert firm. The Alpert firm is not part of this
litigation. I did not make complaints against the Alpert firm.
In addition to the loss sued for in Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation,
no. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
(BRC) represented or consulted with me on other payday loan cases where I did not waive
conflict, did not initiate civil litigation against BRC, and did not make Bar complaints against
lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A:

August 7, 2013
Page - 14
Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, in United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. (Circuit Court, Hillsborough
Consolidated Case No. 99-9730). This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT.
Other Matters Where BRC Formerly Represented Gillespie
William Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA consulted with me on disability and
employment matters where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation against BRC,
and did not make Bar complaints against the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.:
EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater, National Cash Advance, Florida Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and St. Petersburg Junior College. The payday loan
matters with EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater and National Cash Advance began as
Alpert firm matters. The matters with the Florida DVR and St. Pete Junior College were
brought to the Alpert firm during the period of coexistence of the Alpert firm and BRC,
but put on hold until BRC was in full operation.
Documentary evidence that BRC formerly represented me, for the purpose of disqualification:
January 16, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Neil Gillespie about lawsuit EZ Check
Cashing of Clearwater. (Exhibit 7)
March 27, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Neil Gillespie about matter with the Florida
Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation. (Exhibit 8)
May 25, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Neil Gillespie about matter with St. Petersburg
Junior College. (Exhibit 9)
May 30, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Kelly Peterson, branch manager of National
Cash Advance, This firm represents Neil Gillespie (Exhibit 10)
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm
and partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2)
substantial risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the
lawyer's responsibilities to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems. See
Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on
Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-RyanChristopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another
person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are
materially adverse to the interests of the former client. (b) use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal information relating to
the representation about the client. Mr. Rodems firm and law partner represented me the
Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and consulted with me on disability matters with Florida

August 7, 2013
Page - 15
DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to
Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All
Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing
so. Mr. Rodems has an imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William
Cook previously represented me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan
Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, see Exhibit 3.
[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.
Mr. Bauer violated RULE 4-8.3 - REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Rule 4-8.3(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.
Rule 4-8.3 Comment
Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate
disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated
violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover.
Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.
This is a lot more to discuss. Lets plan for a full day to go through this complaint for a real
investigation, not another white-wash. Thank you, I appreciate your time and consideration.

August 7, 2013
Page - 16
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Enclosures, Separate Volume Appendix, Exhibits 1-25 to the Bauer complaint, 182 pages of
evidence not considered by Mr. Craft. Provided to Mr. Harkness only.
Original to John F. Harkness, Executive Director, and John T. Berry, each signed in wet-ink.
Cc: Florida Bar email service list - August 7, 2013
Florida Bar email service list - August 7, 2013

Eugene K. Pettis, President, The Florida Bar
[email protected]
Gregory William Coleman, President-elect 2013-14, The Florida Bar
[email protected]
John F. Harkness, [email protected], an officer of The Florida Bar (Rule 1-5.1), the
Executive Director, with duties prescribed in Chapter 2 (Rule 1-5.2 Duties); and the Records
Custodian for The Florida Bar, Rule 2.420(b)(3), Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
Paul F. Hill, [email protected], General Counsel, The Florida Bar; and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator for The Florida Bar.
John Thomas Berry, Director, Legal Division, The Florida Bar
[email protected]
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, The Florida Bar
[email protected]
Linda Calvert-Hanson, Director of the Center for Professionalism
[email protected]
David Hallman, Chair, TFB Standing Committee on Professionalism
[email protected]
Mary Ellen Bateman, Division Director, Ethics & Advertising, UPL and Special Projects
[email protected]
Annemarie Craft, ACAP Bar Counsel
[email protected]
THE FLORIDA BAR

JOHN
F. HARKNESS, JR.
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
850/561/5600
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
July 17,2013
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie

8092 S.W. 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re:
Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Robert W. Bauer
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:

All correspondence and documents submitted in this matter have been carefully reviewed. This is
the second complaint you have filed against Mr. Bauer. There appears to be some overlap in the
issues between the first and second complaint. I will not revisit issues addressed in the first
complaint. The new issues you have raised can be distilled down to Mr. Bauer's refusal to return
your case file, his failure to report other members of The Florida Bar for misconduct, his lack of
diligence and lack of competence. You also have argued that Mr. Bauer has a pattern or practice
of taking cases not pursuing them diligently and then withdrawing once the client can no longer
afford the attorneys fees.
Mr. Bauer has responded to the new complaint. He claims that in both your case and Dr.
Woodhull's case his liens are valid. Under Florida law Mr. Bauer was not required to tum over
the file while there was a valid lien that remained unresolved. Mr. Bauer denies lying or
misleading the Bar in any way. He points out that many of the issues discussed were the subject
of civil litigation and are not matters for the Bar to handle.
With regard to the pattern or practice you mentioned five clients of Mr. Bauer. While Ms.
Pruett-Barry has expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Bauer as of this date I have not received a
written complaint from her. The Bar investigated complaints filed against Mr. Bauer by Mr.
Strauss and the DeCourseys and closed those investigations. Mr. Bauer briefly outlined what was
done in Dr. Woodhull's case. He stated that Dr. Woodhull terminated him because she could no
longer afford his services. There is nothing currently in the ACAP system regarding Ms. Hodges
filing a complaint against Mr. Bauer. There is not enough evidence to establish any pattern or
practices of "churning" files. Finally an attorney's obligation to report another attorney arises in
circumstances where there is a ' sllbstantial question as to that lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer " Rule 4-8.3(a) The comment to the rule notes: "This
rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie

July 17,2013
Page 2
vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying

with the provisions of this rule."
There is insufficient evidence from the materials provided that Mr. Bauer has violated any of the
rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida which govern attorney discipline. Accordingly,
continued disciplinary proceedings in this matter are inappropriate and our file has been closed.
Pursuant to the Bar's records retention schedule, the computer record and file will be disposed of
one year from the date of closing.
Sincerely,
Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel

Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
cc:
Mr. Robert W. Bauer
Page 1 of2
The Florida Bar's Online Lawyer Referral Service
PrintZlble Version
-. Lawyer Referral Service
Referral Confirmation
PLEASE PRINT AND BRING THIS CONFIRMATION FORM WITH YOU TO THE LAWYER'S
OFFICE.
You have been referred to:

Robert W. Bauer
2815 NW 13th St Ste 200E
Gainesville FL 32609-2865
PH: (352) 3755960
FOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF LAW: Ubel & Slander
THE LAWYERS ON THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE A HALF
HOUR OFFICE CONSULTATION FOR NO MORE THAN $25.00. PLEASE CALL THE LAWYER'S OFFICE TO
MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. THE LAWYER WILL NOT CONTACT YOU. PLEASE REMEMBER TO INFORM THE
OFFICE THAT YOU WERE REFERRED BY THE FLORIDA BAR LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE.
TO HELP YOU PREPARE FOR YOUR CONSULTATION, PLEASE CONSIDER READING THE FOLLOWING FLORIDA
BAR CONSUMER PAMPHLETS:
YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO HIRE THE LAWYER.

THE LAWYER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO TAKE YOUR CASE.
YOU MUST CONTACT THE REFERRED LAWYER BEFORE MAKING ANOTHER REFERRAL REQUEST.
Your lawyer was selected based on the information provided below:

You requested a lawyer who is licensed in: Florida and willing to work in, but not located in a specfic county
What county: Marion
We have several attonery panels, please select the panel you need: Regular
What area of law do you need an attonery for? Libel & Slander
Do you have a special language requirement?
Must the attorney be willing to make a Jail call? No
Personal Information: Nell Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala FL 34481
35218547807
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVPGM/LROnline.nsf/All/CVJTYADWFN6TFL3 ?OpenDocwnent
1
2/26/2007
299
CONFLICT OF LAWS
confirmation document is originally sent by the auditor

to the customer.
In bankruptcy, refers to a judicial approval of a Bank
ruptcy Code Chapter 11, 12, or 13 plan.
The confirmation of a judicial
sale by the court which ordered it is a signification in
some way (usually by the entry of an order) or the
court's approval of the terms, price, and conditions of
the sale.
Confirmation of sale.
Confirmatio omnes supplet defectus, licet id quod

actum est ab initio non valuit Ikonf;}rmeysh(iy)ow
6mniy spbt d;}fekt;}s, lis;}t id kwod rekt;}m est reb

;}nish(iy)ow non vrelyuw;}t/. Confirmation supplies all
defects, though that which had been done was not valid
at the beginning.
Ikonf;}rmeysh(iy)ow p;}fishi
yenz/. A confirmation which makes valid a wrongful
and defeasible title, or makes a conditional estate abso
lute.
Confirmatio
perficiens
Confirmat usum qui tollit abusum Ikonfrm;}t yuwz;}m
kwliy t6bt ;}byuwz;}m/. He confirms the use [of a thing]

who removes the abuse [of it].
Confirmavi Ikonf;}rmeyviy I.
Lat. I have confirmed.

The emphatic word in the ancient deeds of confirmation.
In commercial law, means that the
credit must carry the direct obligation of an agency
which does business in the seller's financial market.
U.C.C. 2-325.
Confirmed credit.
Confirmee Ikonf;}rmiy I.
The grantee in a deed of confir
mation.
A bank which engages either that it
will itself honor a credit already issued by another bank
or that such a credit will be honored by the issuer or a
third bank. U.C.C. 5-103.
Confirming bank.
Confirmor Ik;}nfirm;}r/.
The grantor in a deed of confir
mation.
Confiscable Ik6nfisk;}b;}lIk;}nfisk;}b;}1I. Capable of being
confiscated or suitable for confiscation; liable to forfei

ture.
Confiscare Ikonf;}skeriy/.
In civil and old English law,

to confiscate; to claim for or bring into the fisc, or
treasury.
Confiscate Ik6nf;}skeyt/.
To appropriate property to the

use of the government. To adjudge property to be
forfeited to the public; to seize and condemn private
forfeited property to public use. To take property from
enemy in time of war. See also Confiscation; Forfeiture.
Confiscation Ikonf;}skeysh;}n/. Act of confiscating. The
seizure of private property by the government without

compensation to the owner, often as a consequence of
conviction for crime, or because possession or use of the
property was contrary to law. The provisions of due
process prohibit the confiscation of property without
compensation except where the property is taken in the
valid execution of the police power. See also Condemna-
tion; Confiscate; Eminent domain; Expropriation; Forfei

ture; Seizure.
Certain acts of congress enacted

during the process of the civil war (1861 and 1862) in the
exercise of the war powers of the government and meant
to strengthen its hands and aid in suppressing the
rebellion, which authorized the seizure, condemnation,
and forfeiture of "property used for insurrectionary pur
poses".
Confiscation acts.
The name given to a group of

fifteen cases decided by the United States supreme court
in 1868, on the validity and construction of the confisca
tion acts of congress. Reported in 7 Wall. 454, 19 L.Ed.
196.
Confiscation cases.
With respect to utilities, are rates

which do not afford a reasonable return on value of
property at time it is used in public service; rates which
do not afford net return sufficient to preserve utility's
property and to attract capital necessary to enable utili
ty to discharge its public duties.
Confiscatory rates.
Confisk.
An old form of confiscate.
Confitens reus Ik6nf;}tenz riy;}s/.
An accused person
who admits his guilt.

Evidence offered by plaintiff and
defendant, or prosecutor and defendant which is incon
sistent and cannot be reconciled.
Conflicting evidence.
A division between two or more

courts (generally courts of last resort) on some legal
principal or application of law. May also refer to dis
parity between authorities on a subject. See also Choice
Conflict of authority.
of law; Conflict of laws.
Term used iri connection with

public officials and fiduciaries and their relationship to
matters of private interest or gain to them. Ethical
problems connected therewith are covered by statutes in
most jurisdictions and by federal statutes on the federal
level. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Mod
el Rules of Professional Conduct set forth standards for
actual or potential conflicts of interest between attorney
and client. Generally, when used to suggest disqualifi
cation of a public official from performing his sworn
duty, term "conflict of interest" refers to a clash be
tween public interest and the private pecuniary interest
of the individual concerned. Gardner v. Nashville
Housing Authority of Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davison County, Tenn., C.A.Tenn., 514
F.2d 38, 41. A situation in which regard for one duty
tends to lead to disregard of another. U.S. v. Miller,
C.A.Mass., 463 F.2d 600, 602.
Conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest arises when a government em

ployee's personal or financial interest conflicts or ap
pears to conflict with his official responsibility. 18
U.S.C.A. 203 et seq.
Inconsistency or difference between
the laws of different states or countries, arising in the
case of persons who have acquired rights, incurred obli
gations, injuries or damages, or made contracts, within
Conflict of laws.
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428

and [email protected]
May 16, 2013
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General

Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa
Office of the Attorney General
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States
Dear Mr. Wilson:
So sorry to see you got duped by court counsel David Rowland and paralegal Sandra Burge, who
misrepresented to you that I did not provide Mr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. That
must explain why the petition was not among the 323 pages of public records provided by your
office that arrived here in Ocala May 9, 2013 in response to my records request.
An email (Exhibit 1) from Mr. Rowlands paralegal Sandra Burge to Chief Assistant Attorney
General Diana R. Esposito 12/20/2012 at 12:51 PM, Cc to David Rowland and Chris Nauman,
advanced this material falsehood, which Ms. Esposito sent to you, Cc to Amanda Cavanaugh:
The Plaintiff's Notice of Filing the petition for writ of certiorari was received in the Legal
Department's Office on 12/18/12 is attached as well as the Court's docket indicating a
response is due, if needed, by January 14, 2013. Neither a copy of the petition nor
"separate Volume Appendices" accompanied the Notice.
A letter (Exhibit 2) emailed by you January 8, 2013 repeated the falsehood back to Mr. Rowland:
While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition....
On December 10, 2012 I served Mr. Rowland per Rule 29, proof of service, the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States,
Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.
My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking 1Z64589FP297520287 shows delivery December 11, 2012
at 10:55 AM to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 34481.
FYI, all UPS ground shipping within Florida is delivered next day, unless shipped on Friday.
The UPS proof of delivery for 1Z64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows DAVIS at
the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature D. Davis. A seven
(7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General
May 16, 2013

Page - 2
The document referred to by Ms. Burge in her deceptive email to Ms. Esposito was a Rule 12.3
notice, and notice of waiver to file a response, delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM to the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Unfortunately Ms. Burge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Nauman failed to
inform you that my petition was delivered a week earlier, December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM.
The Thirteenth Circuit gang further mislead you by providing you my December 10, 2012 cover
letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court which they date-stamped December 18, 2012, when this
letter was in fact a second courtesy copy of the one received by Rowland December 11, 2012 but
does not appear date-stamped as such in the records your office provided me May 9, 2013.
Enclosed you will find evidence showing I served by UPS the Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of
waiver to Mr. Rowland December 17, 2012 tracking no. 1Z64589FP291778029, which was
delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, to the Courts address, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa,
Florida. The UPS proof of delivery shows DAVIS at the front desk signed for the delivery. A
composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 4).
The Supreme Court sent me three (s) sets of Rule 12.3 notices, and notices of waiver to file a
response, December 14, 2013 after my petition was docketed, with instructions for notifying
opposing counsel(s) that the case was docketed. (Exhibit 5).
You have my sympathy for any embarrassment caused by the deception of Mr. Rowland and his
accomplices, that caused an inaccurate letter to issue from the Office of the Attorney General
falsely implying I did not provide a copy of my petition to Mr. Rowland. (Exhibit 2).
Enclosed you will find my records request to Mr. Rowland intended to correct the record. If and
when I get an accurate response back, I will provide you the correct date-stamped petition for
inclusion in the record showing it was received by Mr. Rowland December 11, 2012.
Until then you can find Petition No. 12-7747 online at the link below. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
cc: Gov. Rick Scott, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290544836
cc: Attorney General Pam Bondi, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294245643
Email to: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list; Mr.
Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth
Circuit BOG, David Rowland, K. Christopher Nauman, Sandra Burge.
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297024724 (Gov. Scott)

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296600737 (AG Bondi)
Governor Rick Scott
Office of Governor Rick Scott
State of Florida, The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St.
May 24, 2013
Attorney General Pam Bondi

Office of Attorney General
State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States
Dear Governor Scott and Attorney General Bondi:
Please find enclosed copies of Petition No. 12-7747. Unfortunately David Rowland, General
Counsel for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., mislead Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General, when Mr. Rowland misrepresented that I did not provide him a copy of
Petition No. 12-7747. Enclosed is a copy of my letter (only) to Mr. Wilson of May 16, 2013.
Also enclosed is my public records request (only) to Mr. Rowland, which so far he has not
responded to, or acknowledged. In lieu of the date-stamped petition from Mr. Rowland, I have
provided separately to each of you a computer copy of Petition No. 12-7747. If Mr. Rowland
ever provides the date-stamped petition I requested from him, I will provide you each a copy.
Unfortunately the Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, found
in the enclosed two-page AG Case #Tampa Monitor, is not factually accurate. I attribute the
errors to Mr. Rowlands falsehoods to Ms. Esposito and Mr. Wilson about the petition.
I will respond directly to Ms. Esposito about the Synopsis of Major Issues in the AG Case
#Tampa Monitor, to accurately inform and correct the record in Petition No. 12-7747.
Thank you for considering this matter affecting Floridas consumers of legal and court services.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
Cc: Diana R. Esposito, Chief-Assistant Attorney General, 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33602, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297792743; and email.
Cc email: ABA service list; the Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit
JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth Circuit BOG; David Roland, et al.
LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT W. BAUER, P.A.
2815 NW 13th Street

Suite 200
Gainesville, FL 32609
Tele: 352.375.5960
Fax: 352.337.2518
Internet address:
RWB@bauerlegaLcom
September 5, 2007
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 11 5th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ref: Case Status
Dear Mr. GilIespie,
This letter is to provide you with a brief description of what occurred at last month's hearing on
your motion to withdraw voluntary dismissal. As I indicated in my telephone messages after the
hearing, we prevailed in our motion and your cause of action has been reinstated.
I believe it is necessary at this time to reevaluate the initial complaint and draft an amended
complaint to include alIegations of malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. I believe that it is
likely from the comments of opposing counsel that at this time, they are going to attempt to seek
an interlocutory appeal in regards to the issue ofjurisdiction over this case.
The issue ofjurisdiction is more clearly stated in that they believe the court no longer has
jurisdiction to hear your causes of action after the voluntary dismissal. I, of course, am willing to
handle any appeal that is filed in this action and will advise you as soon as possible for a need to
respond to this. However, I must advise you that the defendant seeking interlocutory appeal while
the case is pending is going to cause us to have two cases to focus our attention on at one time.
This is going to cause a significant amount of work on the part of our office. I only advise you of
this so that you will not be surprised when the monthly attorney's bills increase significantly over
the coming months.
I do not anticipate any problems from you in regard to the payment of your bilIs as you have been
most courteous and prompt in your responses and payments to bilIs that have been forwarded. I
simply advise you of this to give you advance warning of what might be a financial difficulty for
you.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this, please contact me.
RWB/kam
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFF'S

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
This action, having come before the Court on Plaintiff s Pro Se Motion to
Withdraw Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and the Court, having reviewed the
file and having heard oral argument from counsel for both sides, finds:
1. The Pro Se Plaintiff filed his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on February 7,2007
prior to retaining his current counsel.
2. Notices of Voluntary Dismissal cannot be filed pursuant to Rule 1.420 when a
counter-claim is pending without first receiving leave of court. Rogers v. Publix
Super Markets, Inc., 575 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1990)
3. Therefore, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was not effective to dismiss the
Plaintiff s cause of action.
4. The Pro 8e Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal prior to
retaining his current counsel pursuant to Rule 1.420 on February 7,2007 and such
motion required a court order for it to be effective.
5. On February 15, 2007 the Pro Se Plaintiff filed a Notice of Withdrawal of
Voluntary Dismissal.
6. Plaintiffs Motion for an Order of Voluntary Dismissal was ineffective to dismiss
the Plaintiff s case.
7. It is further determined that as a matter of law that Plaintiff is not entitled to file a
counter counter-complaint in response to Defendant's Counter-Complaint absent

a modification of the current rules of civil procedure.
ORIGINAl SIGNED
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is hereby withdrawn.
AUG 3 1 2007
,Jp.~.~F~ M. BARTON
l",;w~"\,,;Iu ... oJUOG.;:'
The Honorable James M. Barton, II

Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL was served to the following by U.S. Mail this _ day of
_ _ _ _ _ 2007:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esq.
400 N Ashley Dr., Ste 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
2815 NW 13 th St., Ste 200E
Gainesville, FL 32609
Judicial Assistant
.,
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,
P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
300 WEST PLATT STREET, SUITE 150

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33606
CHRIS A. BARKER
WILUAM J. COOK
TEL 813/489-1001
FAX: 813/489-1008
January 16,2001
Neil J. Gillespie
1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt. C-2
Re:
EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater, Inc. v. Gillespie
Dear Neil:
I wanted to follow up on my previous letter to you. This confirms that we are not going
to represent you in connection with your lawsuit against EZ Check Cashing.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
William 1. Cook
WJC/so

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAllON
AlTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
WILLIAM J. COOK

March 27,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
Re:
Vocational Rehabilitation
Dear Neil:
I am enclosing the material you provided to us. We have reviewed them and, unfortunately,
we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have. Please understand that our
decision does not mean that your claims lack merit, and another attorney might wish to represent you.
If you wish to consult with another attorney, we recommend that you do so immediately as a statute
oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations is a legal
deadline for filing a lawsuit. Thank you for the opportunity to review your materials.
William 1. Cook
WJC/mss
Enclosures
BARKER, RODEMS
& COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
WILLIAM J. COOK

Telephone 813/489.1001
Facsimile 813/489.1008
May 25,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
Re:
St. Petersburg Junior College
Dear Neil:
I have and thank you for your May 22, 2001 letter with enclosures. We have reviewed the
materials that you provided, and while we do not disagree with your criticisms of the St. Petersburg
Junior College, we are not in the position to pursue litigation. Of course, another attorney may have
a different opinion. If you wish to consult with another attorney, you should do so immediately, as
a statute oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations
is a legal deadline for filing a lawsuit.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review your potential claims.
Sincerely,
WJC/so

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAnON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
WILLIAM]. COOK

Telephone 813/489.1001
May 30,2001
Kelly Peterson
Branch Manager
National Cash Advance
2840 341h Street North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
Re:
Neil Joseph Gillespie
Soc Sec No.

160-52-5117
D.O.B
3/19/56
Amount Due
$368.00
Dear Ms. Peterson:

This firm represents Neil Gillespie. Mr. Gillespie has provided us with a copy of your May
17, 2001 letter notifying him that he is in default because check number 13 84 in the amount of
$338.00 was dishonored. Your letter is inaccurate. I am enclosing copies ofcorrespondence from Mr.
Gillespie to National Cash Advance along with National Cash Advance's response. As these materials
clearly indicate, Mr. Gillespie is not in default. In fact, National Cash Advance agreed to pay him
$584.00 in exchange for Mr. Gillespie's agreement to release any claims he may have.
Your efforts to collect from Mr. Gillespie are therefore unlawful and in breach of the
agreement Mr. Gillespie reached with National Cash Advance. Please cease your collection efforts
immediately.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
S;~/t/
William 1. Cook
WJC/so
Enclosures
/
cc: Neil Gillespie
10
VIA United Parcel Service (U.P.S.)

John F. Harkness, Executive Director
The Florida Bar
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290057158
August 15, 2013

John T. Berry, Legal Director
The Florida Bar
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP291642764
RE: Correction and update, my letter August 7, 2013, review of Ms. Crafts improper
closure of my complaint against Robert W. Bauer TFB File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Gentlemen:
This letter is to correct and update my letter to you August 7, 2013 and Ms. Crafts improper
closure of my complaint against Mr. Bauer.
1.
I requested an in-person review of my complaint against Mr. Bauer:

I do not believe a review by Shanell M. Schuyler will be sufficient. Therefore I am
requesting an in-person review with John T. Berry, or his designee, to review my
complaint. I would like the review video recorded and transcribed. (page 1)
This is a lot more to discuss. Lets plan for a full day to go through this complaint for a real
investigation, not another white-wash. (page 16)
Unfortunately my declining health and indigent finances make that plan unworkable. Instead I
would like to conduct the review by telephone on a recorded line, limited to 30 to 45 minute
sessions. I regret not considering the demands of my request more carefully beforehand.
2.
As indicated in my communication with Ms. Calvert Hanson August 14, 2013, a lawyer
has suggested getting a federal inspector general involved. I am working on that effort.
3.
Also as indicated in my communication with Ms. Calvert Hanson August 14, 2013:
There is one correction needed concerning the number of cases where Mr. Rodems
unlawfully represented his partner and firm against me, prohibited by case law, Bar
Rules, UPL Rule 10-2.1(a), and F.S. 454.23. My initial count was too low. The attached
list shows 19 legal actions were Mr. Rodems was served pleadings as counsel of record.
In legal actions between January 19, 2006 and September 28, 2010, Mr. Rodems
improperly represented as counterparty his partner and firm. My revised count is 52 cases
of UPL or a maximum 260 years imprisonment when counted consecutively. While some
of the cases may not ultimately be determined as engaging in UPL, many others may be
determined UPL.
4.
This is a records or information request for, Under what authority does The Florida Bar
exist? Is it the integration rule, or something else?, a question posed to Ms. Calvert Hanson
August 14, 2013, copy enclosed.

August 15, 2013

Page - 2
5.
This is a records or information request showing why The Florida Bar did not adopt in its
entirety recommendations of the American Bar Association (ABA) published in the Report of
the Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement by the ABA Commission on
Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement (1989-1992), the 1992 ABA McKay Report.
Mr. Berry was a member of the ABA Commission that issued the 1992 ABA McKay Report. Is
there a reason The Florida Bar would not adopt all its recommendations? Has The Florida Bar
recommend to the Fla. Supreme Court to invite an ABA review of Floridas discipline process?
Finally, another word about conflict of interest and the $1 million value of a law license. The
ABA Journal Law News Now reported July 17, 2013, Whats the value of a law degree? $1M
in a lifetime, report says written by Debra Cassens Weiss. The ABA story discussed the value
of a law degree, but it is the law license that holds the value - just ask Jack Thompson. His
law degree is unchanged from graduation day. His license to practice law and earn a livelihood
with that license ended with his disbarment.
Bar complaints and discipline proceedings put a lawyers law license, a $1 million dollar asset,
in jeopardy. This creates multiple conflicts of interest that undermine the discipline process.
Lawyers accused of wrongdoing may resort to any means necessary to keep that license, and
may even commit crimes like perjury to keep a license. Bar Counsel is understandably sensitive
to the issue and may overlook misconduct that would require disbarment.
Clients who make legitimate Bar complaints face conflict and inequality due to information
asymmetry; many consumers simply lack sufficient skill and training to make effective Bar
complaints. Complaining clients also lack knowledge and understand of The Rules Regulating
The Florida Bar to equally participate in the complaint and discipline process.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Enclosures
Originals each signed in wet ink to John F. Harkness, and John T. Berry
cc: Florida Bar email service list
cc: Robert Bauer, by U.S. mail only
Linda Calvert Hanson, Director

Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism
The Florida Bar
August 14, 2013

via e-mail only
Dear Ms. Calvert Hanson,

Thank you for your comprehensive response. I appreciate you pointing-out that the Florida
Supreme Court ordered the formation of a discipline component independent of The Florida Bar.
Has this ever happened before? Since The Florida Supreme Court has delegated to The Florida
Bar the function of "disciplining" its members, I was under the impression that the Florida Bar
had exclusive jurisdiction of the discipline franchise. This seems like a major policy change.
The Florida Supreme Court is Constitutionally-designated by Article V, Section 15, to regulate
lawyers and admission to the practice of law, and F.S. 454.021. Under what authority does The
Florida Bar exist? Is it the integration rule, or something else?
My concern with local professionalism panels is that of the ABA McKay Report and its rebuke
of local discipline components, which the Report says Local components, such as local bar
investigative committees, foster cronyism as well as prejudice against unpopular respondents.
While Order SC13-688 shows the Professionalism Commission proposed using ACAP for
initiating, processing, and resolving professionalism complaints, local components still exist.
Sorry to hear the Center for Professionalism cannot act as an ombudsperson, and that there is
nothing the Center can do to assist me in this matter. That is unfortunate. However a lawyer has
suggested getting a federal inspector general involved. So I am working in that possibility.
There is one correction needed concerning the number of cases where Mr. Rodems unlawfully
represented his partner and firm against me, prohibited by case law, Bar Rules, UPL Rule 102.1(a), and F.S. 454.23. My initial count was too low. The attached list shows 19 legal actions
were Mr. Rodems was served pleadings as counsel of record. In legal actions between January
19, 2006 and September 28, 2010, Mr. Rodems improperly represented as counterparty his
partner and firm. My revised count is 52 cases of UPL or a maximum 260 years imprisonment
when counted consecutively. While some of the cases may not ultimately be determined as
engaging in UPL, many others may be determined UPL.
Thank you again for your response. Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Legal actions related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
RCR - denotes cases where Ryan Christopher Rodems represented his firm and partner against former client Gillespie
1.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 to
Jun-21-2011, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009).
2.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, Jan-19-2006
to Sep-28-2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009)
3.RCR 2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
4.RCR 2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
5.RCR 2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed)
6. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
7. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
8. RCR 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
9. RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
10.RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed)
11.RCR Federal Ct. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA (closed, appeal)
12.
Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, 1983, ADA, etc.
13.
C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, 1983, ADA, etc.
14.RCR C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA, (closed, appeal)
15.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
16.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se)
Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858
17.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 review Fla.Sup.Ct. case no. SC11-1622,
Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time.
18.RCR SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas, Granted September 13, 2012, No. 12A215
19.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 12-7747, December 10, 2012, C.A.11 12-11028, 12-11213
Petition denied February 19, 2013; rehearing denied April 15, 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Original Case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT, December 9, 1999

Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp., August 20, 2001
What's the value of a law degree? $1M in a lifetime, report says - ABA Jo...
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/whats_the_value_of_a_law_deg...
Careers
Whats the value of a law degree? $1M in a lifetime, report says

Posted Jul 17, 2013 7:42 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Two professors are battling the conventional wisdom about the lowered value of a law degree with a research paper finding a
JD more than pays for itself.
Over a lifetime, a law grad will make $1 million more, on average, than a college grad, according to the authors, Seton Hall
University law professor Michael Simkovic and Rutgers University economics and business professor Frank McIntyre. The
median increase in earnings is $610,000. Inside Higher Ed summarizes their findings.
The median value of a JD is $350,000 for those in the 25th percentile and $1.1 million in the 75th percentile. People with law
degrees are still doing a lot better than people with only bachelors degrees, Simkovic told Inside Higher Ed.
Simkovic and McIntyre used data from the Census Bureaus Survey of Income and Program Participation, which records
whether individuals have law degrees, and the National Education Longitudinal Study. About two-fifths of those with JDs in the
sample studied were not employed as lawyers.
The data covers four panels of graduates from 1996 through 2008 and looks at salaries through 2011. The study does not
factor in tuition costs since they vary so much. Nor does it compare the value of a law degree from higher-ranked versus lowerranked schools. Future earnings are estimated based on historic data.
The data does not suggest that law graduates were unaffected by the recession, the study says. Rather, earnings dropped
for both law graduates and college graduates after the late 2000s recession, and law graduates maintained their relative
advantage. It is this relative advantagenot absolute outcomesthat measures the value of the law degree.
Predictions of structural change in the legal industry date back at least to the invention of the typewriter, the study says. But
lawyers have prospered while adapting to once threatening new technologies and modes of workcomputerized and modular
legal research through Lexis and Westlaw; word processing; electronic citation software; electronic document storage and
filing systems; automated document comparison; electronic document search; email; photocopying; desktop publishing;
standardized legal forms; will-making and tax-preparing software. Through it all, the law degree has continued to offer a large
earnings premium.
Kyle McEntee, who co-founded Law School Transparency, told Inside Higher Ed that the professors have missed the point.
Law schools have made a habit out of capturing as much value out of their students as possibleand for a long time, used
deceptive and immoral marketing tactics to do so, McEntee told Inside Higher Ed in an email. Tens of thousands of law
graduates leave school each year wondering how they're going to manage to pay off their six-figure loans. That's what
motivates critics and frightens prospective law students.
Updated at 9:35 a.m. to clarify that McIntyre is not a law professor.
Copyright 2013 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
7/17/2013 12:13 PM
1 of 1
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0035/Sections/0035.15.html
Select Year:
The 2014 Florida Statutes

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Chapter 35
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
View Entire Chapter
35.15
Decisions to be filed; copies to be furnished. All decisions and opinions delivered by the
district courts of appeal or any judge thereof in relation to any action or proceeding pending in said court shall
be filed and remain in the office of the clerk, and shall not be taken therefrom except by order of the court;
but said clerk shall at all times be required to furnish to any person who may desire the same certified copies
of such opinions and decisions, upon receiving his or her fees therefor.
History.s. 1, ch. 57-248; s. 200, ch. 95-147.
Copyright 1995-2014 The Florida Legislature Privacy Statement Contact Us
Appendix 8
SECOND DISTRICT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
Case No.:
~__
Related Appeal: 2D 10-5197
Lower Court Case No. 05-CA-007205
vs.
BARKER, ROD EMS & COOK, PA
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,
R EC
MAY 02 2011
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE JAMES D. ARNOLD,

THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,
E IYED
CLERK DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL:

SECOND DISTRICT
.
Defendants/Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
VERIFIED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
Neil J. Gillespie ("Gillespie") Petitions the Second District Court of Appeal for an
Emergency Writ of Prohibition to remove CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE JAMES D.
ARNOLD as trial court judge, and to remove the THIRTEENTH JUDI CAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, as venue and jurisdiction in Lower Court Case No. 05-CA-007205, and
motion for a Change of Venue, and states:
Verified Emergency Petition For Writ of Prohibition, Judge James D. Arnold
I.
The "Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se" was issued in the lower
tribunal September 15, 20 10 by Judge Cook. (Exhibit A). On its face the Order is a sham
because Judge Cook issued the Order before the time expired to respond. Judge Cook's
Appendix 9
Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Prohibited From Appearing Pro Se
was issued November 4, 2010 (Exhibit B) and mandates:
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL RESPOND to the motion, in
writing, within twenty days of the date of this order and SHOW CAUSE, if any,
why the Clerk of Court should not be instructed to reject for filing any future
pleadings, petitions, motions or other documents which he submits for filing
unless they are signed by a member of The Florida Bar.
The twenty day time period to respond would have run through November 24, 2010 plus
an additional 5 days for service by mail, or November 29, 2010. Order Prohibiting
Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se was issued in the lower tribunal September 15, 2010
thereby denying Gillespie nine (9) days to respond.
2.
The Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se (Exhibit A) states this
case is presently pending appellate review of a final summary judgment order and There
is nothing left to litigate at this time. Yet Mr. Rodems continues to file spurious
pleadings in the trial court, each of which must be reviewed and evaluated by Gillespie,
members of the lower court staff, and now this Court.
3.
On April 25, 2011 Gillespie served upon this Court Appellants Verified
Emergency Motion To Stay Pending Appeal, Motion For Order Of Protection, And
Motion For Extension Of Time because opposing counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems is
seeking Gillespies incarceration that will disrupt the appellate process. This Court
granted Gillespies motion for leave to file an amended initial brief, to be served within
30 days, which is May 8, 2011. Mr. Rodems evidentiary hearing set for May 3, 2011 in
the lower tribunal on Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt is
Page - 2
seeking Gillespies incarceration on a Writ of Bodily Attachment that will deny Gillespie
time to file the brief in contempt of this Courts Order.
4.
Pursuant to Fla. R. App. P., Rule 9.600(b), the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal
has been divested by an appeal from a final order, making any further hearings improper
in the lower tribunal unless the appellate court by order permits the lower tribunal to
proceed with specifically stated matters during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore
Defendants Evidentiary Hearing is unlawful because Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J.
Gillespie in Contempt is part of a final order appeal in Case No. 2D10-5197.
5.
Mr. Rodems unilaterally set for hearing without coordinating the time and date
with Gillespie, an Evidentiary Hearing on the Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J.

Gillespie In Contempt (currently on appeal in 2D10-5197) for May 3, 2011 at 11:30AM.
6.
Gillespie filed a Notice of Unavailability in the lower court that he is unavailable
during the time set by this Court, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, to file his
amended initial brief, and reply brief, and requested that no appointments, mediations,
conferences, hearings, depositions, depositions duces tecum, or other legal proceedings
be scheduled during that time, or prior to June 20, 2011.
7.
Gillespie requested Mr. Rodems cancel the improperly set Evidentiary Hearing by
letter. Mr. Rodems has not responded or canceled the hearing.

8.
Gillespie informed the Honorable James D. Arnold of the foregoing by letter.
Judge Arnold has not responded or canceled the hearing.

9.
Gillespie filed a Motion To Stay Pending Appeal in the lower court. Mr. Rodems
moved to strike on the basis that Gillespie cannot appear pro se and must have all
pleadings signed by a member of the Florida Bar. (Exhibit C).
Page - 3
10.
Because of the forgoing Gillespie fears he cannot have a fair hearing before Judge
Arnold and moved to disqualify the Judge May 2, 2011. (Exhibit D). However since
Gillespie cannot appear pro se, and is unable to have his pleadings signed by a member of
the Florida Bar, this Court is his last resort.
Verified Emergency Petition For Writ of Prohibition, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Petitioner Gillespie Faces Risk To His Life And Health
11.
Dr. Karin Huffer is Gillespies disability advocate and wrote ...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. (October 28, 2010). Dr. Huffers
letter is attached as Exhibit E.
Introduction
12.
Petitioner sued his former lawyers Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA for defrauding
him of $6,224.78 in prior representation. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA is unlawfully

representing itself against a former client on matter that is substantially the same as the
prior representation1. The case is in its 6th year. The case is on its 5th trial judge. There
have been 4 appeals to the 2dDCA and a previous Petition for Writ of Prohibition to
remove Judge Martha J Cook, who recused sua sponte the same day. Petitioner was
represented by counsel, Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville, but he dropped the case when it
became too difficult. Attorney Seldon J. Childers subsequently reviewed the case for
Petitioner and determined Barker, Rodems & Cook actually defrauded him of $7,143, not
$6,224.78 claimed in the original pro se complaint. Petitioner filed Plaintiffs First
Page - 4
Amended Complaint May 5, 2010 but the trial court refused to consider even one
amended complaint. This case shows that the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit obstructed
justice to help Barker, Rodems & Cook avoid paying Gillespie $7,143 lawfully owed
him. Therefore Gillespie brought a federal Civil Rights and ADA lawsuit, Gillespie v.
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., case no.: 5:10-cv-00503, US District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, September 28, 2010.
Court Counsel David A. Rowland - Behind The Scene Control of Judges, ADA
13.
Court Counsel David A. Rowland has been preemptively defending the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit against Petitioners lawsuit formally announced July 12, 2010 in the
notice of claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes but first raised in
Gillespies letter to Mr. Rowland of January 4, 2010 requesting information about section
768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes. Mr. Rowland is controlling the judges in this case from
behind the scene since at least January 4, 2010.
14.
On July 9, 2010 Mr. Rowland seized control of Petitioners ADA accommodation
request from Gonzalo B. Casares, the Courts ADA Coordinator, and issued his own
letter denying the request. Likewise there is evidence that Mr. Rowland controlled Judge
Cook in this case from behind the scene.
15.
On July 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM Gillespie spoke by phone with Mr. Rowland about
his letter of July 9, 2010 denying Gillespies ADA request. Gillespie and Mr. Rowland
discussed the notice of claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes. They also
discussed Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and Gillespies emergency motion to
disqualify Rodems pending before Judge Cook. Mr. Rowland expresses surprise when
1
See Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker,
Page - 5
Gillespie informed him that the motion, filed July 9th, was still pending. Later that day
Judge Cook denied the motion without a hearing. Judge Cooks Order was filed with the
Clerk July 22, 2010 at 3.17 PM according to the Clerks time stamp on the Order.
16.
Gillespie believes the timing of events is not circumstantial, and that following the
aforementioned phone call Mr. Rowland instructed Judge Cook to deny Gillespies
emergency motion to disqualify Rodems pending before her. The Order itself is unlawful,
see Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook falsified an
official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie due process on the disqualification of
Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel, filed November 1, 2010.
Thirteenth Judicial Circuits Unlawful Conduct So Extreme Gillespie Cant Retain Counsel
17.
The Thirteenth Judicial Circuits unlawful conduct toward Gillespie is so extreme
as to discourage counsel from representing him. Small firms and sole proprietors do not
want to represent Gillespie and cite full caseloads as an excuse. But even Tampas
premiere Big Law firm Holland & Knight would not represent Gillespie for a courtordered deposition at its full hourly rate. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuits departure from
the rule of law offends public policy when litigants cannot obtain counsel lest they incur
the courts wrath. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has denied Gillespie the basic
requirements of justice, fairness and equality that we should all expect from our courts. The
Thirteenth Judicial Circuits behavior is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
substantially injurious to Gillespie. Bradford D. Kimbro, Holland & Knights Executive
Partner of the Tampa Bay Region, declined to represent Gillespie. Mr. Kimbro wrote I
have not read the letter, which was screened (but not studied) by my legal assistant... This
Rodems & Cook, P.A. submitted July 9, 2010. (Exhibit 19)
Page - 6
is to notify you that Holland & Knight LLP will not represent you.... This is one of many
firms who declined representation.
Major James Livingston, Commander Court Operations Division,
Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office (HCSO)
18.
Major James Livingston provided Gillespie a letter January 12, 2011 that
impeached Judge Cooks Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt issued
September 30, 2010. See Appellants Verified Emergency Motion To Stay Pending
Appeal, Motion For Order Of Protection, And Motion For Extension Of Time.
19.
On April 20, 2011 Gillespie requested Major Livingston prosecute violations under
chapter 825, Florida Statutes, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of Elderly Persons and
Disabled Adults. Major Livingston responded today, May 2, 2011 by email You are under
a misunderstanding concerning my official role at the Courthouse - my primary
responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of the Courthouse Complex facilities, its
occupants, and members of the public who are visiting or conducting business here. Any
investigation of Judge Cook will have to be done by another investigative entity.
Disability Discrimination by HCSO, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
20.
The St. Petersburg Times reported February 13, 2008 about quadriplegic Brian
Sterner who was dumped out of a wheelchair and onto a jail floor by HCSO Deputy
Charlette Marshall-Jones. The Sheriff's Office video shows Deputy Marshall-Jones
dumping Sterner from his wheelchair like cargo from a wheelbarrow, pushing up the
handles as he fell to the ground. The other deputies in the video do not intervene. One
walked away smiling. A CNN video about the incident is posted on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huRYZAJ8wzA&feature=player_embedded
Page - 7
21.
HCSO Deputy Marshall-Jones dumped quadriplegic Brian Sterner out of a
wheelchair and onto a jail floor because she believed Mr. Sterner was faking disability. In
this case Judge Cook accused Gillespie in open court September 28, 2010 of feigning
illness. (Transcript, page 3). Opposing counsel Mr. Rodems routinely accuses Gillespie
of feigning illness or disability, even though his firm previously represented Gillespie on
disability matters. Dr. Huffer noted this in her letter of October 28, 2010 (Exhibit E):
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.
Dr. Huffer is correct but for one detail, in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit they dump
paraplegics out of their wheelchair and accuse them of faking disability.
Gillespie Marked
Retaliation Against Gillespie by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
22.
As a result of Gillespies accusations of wrongdoing against the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit, he finds himself in a position not unlike Judge Gregory P. Holder who during 2001
and 2002 cooperated with the FBI in the courthouse corruption investigation. According to
testimony by Detective Bartoszak, the courthouse corruption investigation team was
concerned that Judge Holders activities were being monitored by targets of the
Page - 8
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.]. Detective Bartoszak testified that because of Judge
Holders cooperation, the investigations 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.]. At this time Gillespie fear retribution from judges,
employees, and third party supporters of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit as a result of his
accusations of wrongdoing.
23.
The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) also retaliated against Judge
Holder. The JQC filed Notice of Formal Charges against Judge Holder July 18, 2003
alleging Judge Holder plagiarized 10 pages of a 21 page research report to the Faculty of
the Air War College Directorate of Nonresident Studies, Air University, titled "An
Analysis of the Anglo-American Combined Bomber Offensive in Europe During World
War II, 1942-45." At the time Judge Holder held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, United
States Air Force Reserve. Like Gillespie, Judge Holder was accused of faking, in his case
plagiarizing a research paper; Gillespie is accused of feigning disability.
24.
During the trial, Judge Holder presented compelling evidence that the purported
Holder paper was fabricated to retaliate against him for participating in the courthouse
corruption investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7, 12-13, at App. 3.] On June 23, 2005, the
Hearing Panel of the JQC voted unanimously to dismiss the charges against Judge
Holder. [Order of Dismissal, at App. 4.] Research indicates that this is the first trial
defense verdict against the JQC in almost twenty years. The JCQ commenced two bogus,
retaliatory inquires against Judge Holder:
Page - 9
a. Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 01-303, Supreme Court Case Number: SC02-33
b. Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 02-487, Supreme Court Case Number: SC03-1171
25.
Judge Holder fought back and was awarded $70,000 by the Florida Supreme
Court for successfully defending an unsuccessful JQC Inquiry. On September 15, 2009
the Supreme Court of Florida, Case No. SC03-1171, ordered entry of judgment for Judge
Gregory P. Holder for recovery of costs from the Judicial Qualifications Commission in
the amount of $70,000 for successfully defending Inquiry No. 02-487. Judge Holders
actual expenses were $1,779,691.81 in legal fees, and cost of $140,870.79.
Jurisdiction - Petition For Writ of Prohibition
26.
A party may seek review of an order denying a motion for disqualification by
filing a petition for writ of prohibition in the appellate court. In this case Gillespie is
prohibited from filing a motion to disqualify. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Carter, 768
So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Carrow v. The Florida Bar, 848 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2003); Castro v. Luce, 650 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Aberdeen Property
Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Bristol Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 8 So. 3d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA
2009); J & J Towing, Inc. v. Stokes, 789 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Cardinal v.
Wendy's of South Florida, Inc., 529 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Hayslip v. Douglas,
400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
27.
The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is a defendant in a federal Civil Rights and ADA
lawsuit, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit et al., Case No. 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTHDAB, US District Court, MD Florida, Ocala Division. Judges have intentionally inflicted
severe emotional distress on Gillespie. Judge Cook in particular misused and denied
Gillespie of judicial process under the color as described in the following affidavits:
Page - 10
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook, falsified
record of Gillespies panic attack; ADA
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook falsified an
official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie due process on the
disqualification of Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook ordered
Gillespie removed from the hearing of September 28, 2010, and accused Gillespie
in open court of feigning illness; ADA
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, November 1, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook ordered
Gillespie removed from the hearing on Defendants Final Summary Judgment
Count I, proceeded without Gillespie, granted SJ for Defendants on TILA fees
previously denied with prejudice and by three different federal courts
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, November 1, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook ordered
Gillespie removed from the hearing on Defendants Motion for an Order of
Contempt and Writ of Bodily Attachment, then falsified the Order stating
Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, April 25, 2011, letter of Major Livingston
impeaches Judge Cooks Order Adjudging Neil J. Gillespie in Contempt
Standard On Disqualification
28.
The basic principles underlying the procedure for disqualification are the same as
those expressed in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3E(1) provides that a judge has
an affirmative duty to enter an order of disqualification in any proceeding in which the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The object of this provision of the
Code is to ensure the right to fair trials and hearings, and to promote confidence in a fair
and independent judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of partiality.
29.
The central question in every motion for disqualification is whether the moving
party has cause to believe that he or she will be treated unfairly. While it may be true that
the judge could treat the litigant fairly in spite of the alleged facts, that is immaterial to
the motion. As the supreme court explained the question of disqualification focuses on
Page - 11
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. Livingston v.
State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983).
30.
The standard in determining legal sufficiency is whether a reasonable person
would fear that he or she could not get a fair trial with the present judge under the
circumstances outlined in the motion. See Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services v. Broward County, 810 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Jimenez v. Ratine,
954 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Jarp v. Jarp, 919 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006);
Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So. 2d 124, 49 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002);
Baez v. Koelemij, 960 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Winburn v. Earl's Well Drilling
& Pump Service, 939 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
31.
Rule 2.330(d) defines the general grounds for disqualification and identifies
several specific grounds. As previously noted, the legal procedure for disqualification is
intended to serve the same general goals as the Code of Judicial Conduct. A judge is
obligated by the Code of Judicial Conduct to enter an order of disqualification in any of
these circumstances even if a party has not filed a motion for disqualification. It follows
that a motion for disqualification is legally sufficient if it alleges any of these matters
listed in Canon 3E(1).
32.
A motion for disqualification can be based on the actions of the trial judge as well
as the statements made by the judge. Improper conduct on the part of the judge may serve
as a ground for disqualification if that conduct could prejudice the rights of a party to the
case. Conflict arising from an association between the trial judge and a litigant may serve
as a ground for disqualification depending on the circumstances of the case. So too, a
Page - 12
personal conflict that develops during the course of a proceeding may support a motion
for disqualification. There are a number of Florida cases involving a trial judge's
comments about a litigant. The appellate courts have generally sustained a request for
disqualification if the trial judge has expressed a general opinion on the character or
credibility of the litigant. A judge who renders an opinion on the character or credibility
of a litigant should ordinarily be disqualified. See Brown v. St. George Island, Ltd., 561
So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1990); De-Metro v. Barad, 576 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991.
33.
Ordinarily the fact that a party has filed a civil lawsuit against the judge is not a
legally sufficient basis for disqualification. May v. South Florida Water Management
Dist., 866 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). But May and similar cases do not apply in the
instant case. In this case Court Counsel David A. Rowland began preemptively defending
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit against Petitioners lawsuit formally announced July 12,
2010 in the notice of claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes, but first
raised in Gillespies letter to Mr. Rowland of January 4, 2010 requesting information
about section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes. (Exhibit 2). Mr. Rowland is controlling the
judges in this case from behind the scene since at least January 4, 2010.
34.
Successive Motions. A judge may evaluate the facts alleged in a motion for
disqualification if the moving party had previously disqualified another judge. Rodriguez
Diaz v. Abate, 598 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). A second motion by a party is
reviewable under the stricter legal sufficiency standard. In Fogan v. Fogan, 706 So. 2d
382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court reversed an order by a successor judge denying a
motion for disqualification because the record showed that the judge could not be
impartial. In this case the record is clear that the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit can not be
Page - 13
impartial. The basic tenet for disqualification of a judge is that justice must satisfy
appearance of justice, and this tenet must be followed even if record is lacking of any
actual bias or prejudice on judge's part, and even though this stringent rule may
sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best
to weigh scales of justice equally between contending parties. Kielbania v. Jasberg 744
So.2d 1027. Florida courts hold that when trial judge leaves realm of civility and directs
base vernacular towards attorney or litigant in open court, there is sufficient grounds to
require disqualification. Olszewska v. Ferro 590 So.2d 11. In this case the court accused
Gillespie in open court of feigning illness at a prior hearing. Tampa Fire Rescue treated
Gillespie immediately following the prior hearing and produced a record supporting
Gillespies claim of illness. The Court left the realm of civility and directed base
vernacular toward Gillespie when it made a gratuitous, unsupported claim of feigning
illness. A judge should be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, ... lawyers, and
others with whom he deals in his official capacity.... Fla. Bar Code Jud. Conduct, Canon
3(A)(3) (1991). When a trial judge leaves the realm of civility and directs base vernacular
towards an attorney or litigant in open court, there are sufficient grounds to require
disqualification. See, e.g., Lamendola v. Grossman,439 So.2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983);
Brown v.Rowe, 96 Fla. 289, 118 So. 9 (1928) (once a basis for disqualification has been
established, prohibition is both appropriate and necessary). It is a fundamental right that
every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, and
it is the duty of a judge to scrupulously guard this right and refrain from attempting to
exercise jurisdiction in any matter where his qualification to do so is seriously brought in
question. Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181. Judge not only must be free of evil intent but he
Page - 14
must also avoid appearance of evil. It is party's right to have judge free from any obvious
source of possible unconscious bias. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Thorn, 319 So.2d 82.
Motion for Change of Venue to Marion County, Florida
35.
Because of the foregoing Gillespie cannot have a fair hearing in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit and moves for a change of venue to Marion County, Florida, where he
resides. In the alternative Gillespie moves to consolidate this case with the federal
lawsuit Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit et aI., Case No. 5:IO-cv-503-oc-WTH
DAB, US District Court, MD Florida, Ocala Division.
WHEREFORE, Gillespie pro se demands Writ of Prohibition to remove Circuit
Court Judge James D. Arnold as trial judge in the lower tribunal, and to remove the
THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, as venue and jurisdiction in Lower
Court Case No. 05-CA-00n05, and change Venue to Marion County, Florida or the
federal lawsuit Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit et aI., Case No.5: 10-cv-503-ocWTH-DAB, US District Court, MD Florida, Ocala Division.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED May 2, 20
VERIFICATION
I, Neil J. Gillespie, under penalty of perjury, swear that the facts alleged in herein
are true and accurate, and I swear that the documents attached hereto are true and correct
copies.
DATED May 2, 2011.
Page - 15
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
Sworn to (or affinned) and subscribed before me May 2, 2011, by Neil J. Gillespie, who
personally known to me or presented identification.
,""I~
{.~ ~..
:
~~~~ ~~
MY
9233611
eXPIRES: January fl, 2014
IondI.G TIIIu ~OIIIY rrullllO U~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed May 2, 2011 to
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite
2100, Tampa, Florida 33602.
Page - 16
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed May 2, 2011 to the
following:
The Honorable James D. Arnold

Circuit Court Judge
Circuit Civil Division "J"
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 514
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel

Administrative Offices Of The Courts
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida
Legal Department
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
CASE ID:
05-CA-7205
DIVISION:
v.
a Florida corporation; and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
------------_.-:/
ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM APPEARING PRO SE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' "motion for an order to show cause as
to why Plaintiff should not be prohibited from henceforth appearing pro se," filed on July 29,
2010. It is alleged that Plaintiff is an abusive litigant who should not be permitted to file further
pleadings in this cause unless they are first reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice
law in this state. Defendants allege that Plaintiff's prosecution is an affront to the dignity of the
judicial systen1 and an unacceptable burden on its resources. On November 4, 2010, this court
issued the order to show cause why Plaintiff should not be prohibited from appearing pro se.
Among Plaintiff s response were his fourth and fifth attempts to disqualify this court. This
response is typical of Plaintiff's litigation style. And his continuing course of conduct in this case
is all the more troublesome because this case is presently pending appellate review of a final
summary judgment order. There is nothing left to litigate at this time. Yet Plaintiff continues to
file spurious pleadings with this court, each of which must be reviewed and evaluated by members
of the court staff. For these reasons and the reasons enumerated in the motion, the Court hereby
finds that Plaintiff is an abusive litigant and, in order to preserve both the dignity and the efficient
operation of the judicial system, his right to full access to the court should be curtailed to the
extent described in this order. Plaintiff is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any paper with this
court which is not signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.
lof2
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff SHALL CEASE filing any pleading, correspondence, or other document in this
case unless the document is signed by an attorney who is duly licensed to practice law in
the State of Florida.
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL REJECT for filing any document received from Plaintiff
which does not bear the clear and conspicuous signature of an attorney duly licensed to
practice law in this state.
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL NOT DOCKET any pleading, correspondence or other
document received from Plaintiff which is prohibited by this order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough County, Florida, this 15 th day of

November, 2010.
ORlGINAL SjGi\JED
NOV 15 20IJ
--------------MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Judge l:,i<THA J
coo~
CIRCUIT JUDGr
Send copies to:

Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW 115 th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
400 N Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
2of2
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
CASE ID:
05-CA-7205
DIVISION:
v.
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
--------------,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF
SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM APPEARING PRO SE
to why Plaintiff should not be prohibited from henceforth appearing pro se," filed on July 29,
2010. It is alleged that Plaintiffis an abusive litigant who should not be permitted to file further
pleadings in this cause unless they are first reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice
law in this state. The catalogue of Plaintiffs disruptive conduct is extensive.
The court is ever mindful of the constitutional right each citizen enjoys to access the courts
of this state for the redress of their grievances. l The court is equally mindful that this is a right
shared by all of this state's citizens. Without each court's attention to the efficient administration
ofjustice and without each litigant's exercise of decorum, discretion and competence in the
pursuit of their claims, the right of all to access the courts becomes, in application, one which is
exercised only by the litigant whose voice is loudest and whose presence is most disruptive. This
the constitution does not require. The constitution grants no particular individual the right to
waste those judicial resources which are vouchsafed to us all equally - judicial resources are
scarce and they must be allocated prudently so that all citizens may benefit from them. And so
there are standards, both of competence and of decency, which each litigant is expected to meet in
the pursuit ofjustice. The pro se litigant is held to the same standard of competency as an
See Article I, s. 21, Florida Constitution.
lof2
attorney. 2 And he must adhere to the rules of court and of civil procedure as would any member
of the Bar. 3 There is no reason to hold the pro se litigant to a lesser standard of decency. So we
may justly look to the rules of professional conduct as well as to our common notions of decorum
to find what conduct is required of every litigant. The motion alleges many facts which contradict
these ideals. An abusive litigant will not be tolerated to handicap the judicial function upon which
all citizens depend. 4
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL RESPOND to the motion, in writing,
within twenty days of the date of this order and SHOW CAUSE, if any, why the Clerk of Court
should not be instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions or other
documents which he submits for filing unless they are signed by a member of The Florida Bar.
Failure to file a timely response to the motion may result in its being granted.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough County, Florida, this __ day of
November, 2010.
Send copies to:

Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW IIS th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
400 N Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
See Kohn v. City ofMiami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538,539-40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
See Carr v. Grace, 321 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1977).
4 See e.g. Day v. State, 903 So. 2d 886, 888 (Fla. 2005); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhies & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303,
304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
20f2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIDRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCillT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
Division:
vs.
05-CA-007205
J

a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PRO SE FILINGS BY PLAINTIFF
Defendants Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook move to strike all pro se
filings by PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie on or after November 15, 2010, and as grounds therefor would
state:
1.
On November 15, 2010, this Court entered the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from
Appearing Pro Se (November 15,2010 Order), which Plaintiff did not appeal. A true and correct
copy of the November 15, 2010 Order is attached hereto.
2.
In the November 15, 2010 Order, the Court found "that Plaintiff is an abusive
litigant and, in order to preserve both the dignity and the efficient operation of the judicial system
... Plaintiff is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any paper with this court which is not signed by
an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Florida." (Emphasis in original).
3.
The November 15, 2010 Order also directed the Clerk to reject any filings from
Plaintiff and to not docket any filings from Plaintiff.

4.
In contumacious disregard of the November 15, 2010 Order, Plaintiff continues to
file documents without the signature of an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of Florida.
WHEREFORE, Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs' filings on or after November 15,

2010 that are not signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of Florida.
DATED this 26th day of April, 2011.
STOPHER RO EMS, ESQUIRE

Florida B No. 947652
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Telephone:
813/489-1001
Facsimile:
813/489-1008
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via
U.S. Mail to Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala Florida 34481 this 26th day of A ril,
2011.
'
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIR'fEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCIDT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
CASE ID:
OS-CA720S
DIVISION:
v.
BARKERJ RODEMS & COOI{, P.A.,
WILLIAMJ. COOI{,
Defendants.
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - J
ORDER PROHmITING PLAINTIFF FROM APPEARING PRO SE
to why Plaintiff should not be prohibited ftom henceforth appearing pro se/' filed on July 29,
2010. It i~ alleged that 'PI~ntiff is a~' abusive li~igatit who sho:u1d 'not be permitted to fJ.l~ further
pleadings in'this cause' u~less they are:f1rs~
revi~w~d and ~igned\; ~~' atto~'riey lice~~ed t~ practice
law in this state. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs proseclltion is an affront to the dignity of the
judicial system and an unacceptable burden on its resources. On November 4, 2010, this court
issued the order to show cause why Plaintiff should not be prollibited from appearillg pro se.
Among Plaintiff's response were his fourth and fifth attempts to disqualify this court. This
respollse is typical of Plaintiffs litigation style. And his continuing course of conduct in this case
is all the more troublesome because this case is presently pending appellate review of a final
summary judgment order. There is nothing left to litigate at this tinle. Yet Plaintiff continues to
file spurious pleadings ,vith this court, each of which must be reviewed and evaluated by members
of the court staff. For these reasons and the reasons ellumerated in the motion, the COUtt hereby
finds that Plaintiff is an abusive litigant and, in order to preserve both the dignity and the efficient
operation of the judicial systenl, his right to full access to tIle court should be curtailed to the
extent described in this order. Plaintiff is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any paper with this
.
court which is not signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice la\v in the State of Florida.
10f2
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff SHALL CEASE filing any pleading t correspondence or other document ill this
t
case unless the document is signed by an attorney who is duly licensed to practice law in
the State of Florida.
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL REJECT for filing any document received from Plaintiff
which does not bear the clear and conspicuous signature of an attorney duly licensed to
practice law in this state.
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL NOT DOCKET any pleading~ correspondence or other
document received from Plaintiff which is prohibited by this order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough County, Florida, this 15th day of .~ ",,' ..... U
November, 2010.
OR\G\Nf\\.. S\GNE
"0'4 1 5 26\0
i\lJ\H1HAJ. coo~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--~(!'R,GUrfJUOGE
MARTHA J. COOK t Circuit Judge
Send copies to:

Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
400 N Ashley Dtive
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
20f2
BARKER, RODEMS
& COOK
copy
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
WILLIAM J. COOK
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100

Tampa, Rorida 33602
April 26, 2011
The Honorable James D. Arnold

Circuit Court Judge
Circuit Civil, Division "1"
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 514
Tampa, Florida
33602
Re:
Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation; and William J. Cook
Case No.:
05-CA-7205; Division "J"
Dear Judge Arnold:

Enclosed please fmd a courtesy copy of Defendants' Motion to Strike Pro Se Filings by Plaintiff
which was filed on even date in the above-referenced matter. By Order of this Court entered
November 15,2010, Mr. Gillespie is prohibited from filing any documents pro se.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Christopher Rodems

RCR/so
Enclosure
cc: Neil J. Gillespie (w/encl)

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
DIVISION: J
Defendants.
_________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE ARNOLD
1.
Plaintiff pro se Gillespie moves to disqualify Circuit Court Judge James D. Arnold as
trial judge in this action pursuant to chapter 38 Florida Statutes, Rule 2.330, Florida Rules of
Judicial Administration, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2.
Canon 3E(1) provides that a judge has an affirmative duty to enter an order of
disqualification in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. The object of this provision of the Code is to ensure the right to fair trials and
hearings, and to promote confidence in a fair and independent judiciary by avoiding even the
appearance of partiality.
3.
On April 26, 2011 Plaintiff telephoned Judy D. Williams, the Judicial Assistant for Judge
Arnold at (813) 272-6991 to discuss an improperly set hearing by opposing counsel Ryan C.
Rodems. Ms. Williams would not speak with Plaintiff and hung up on a pretext that the phone
call was recorded1.

4.
In question is Defendants Evidentiary Hearing set for hearing May 3, 2011 at 11:30 AM
on Defendants' Verified Motion for An Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be
Held In Contempt of Court and Writ of Bodily Attachment Should Not Be Issued. The hearing
was set without coordinating the date and time with Plaintiff. This is an ongoing problem with
Mr. Rodems, his contumacious disregard for rules, regulations, law, and statutes in this case due
to his unlawful representation of his law firm against Plaintiff, a former client, in a matter that is
the same or substantially the same as the prior representation. The problems in this case are due
to Mr. Rodems unlawful behavior toward a former client as set forth in the Affidavit of Neil J.
Gillespie of April 25, 2011.
5.
Previously this matter was scheduled for hearing January 26, 2011, also without
coordinating the date and time. In relation to that improperly set hearing Plaintiff called Ms.
Williams January 14, 2011 who informed him that Mr. Rodems is required to clear the hearing
time with Plaintiff. Ms. Williams instructed Plaintiff to send Mr. Rodems a letter about the
matter. Plaintiff told Ms. Williams that hearing concerned the Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J.
Gillespie in Contempt entered September 30, 2010 and currently on appeal in Case No. 2D105197. Ms. Williams confirmed this online during the call with Plaintiff. Ms. Williams told
Plaintiff that the hearing would not take place because Judge Arnold was on medical leave and
did not want the covering senior judge to hear the motion.
6.
Mr. Rodems had, in fact, already canceled the hearing January 12, 2011.
All calls on plaintiff's home office business telephone extension are recorded for quality assurance purposes
pursuant to the business use exemption of Florida Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4Xa)(1) and the holding of
Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991), See Plaintiffs Notice
of Telephone Hearing filed December 30, 2009.
Page - 2
7.
Plaintiff followed Ms. Williams instruction relative to the improperly hearing set for
May 3, 2011 at 11:30AM, wrote Mr. Rodems April 16, 2011 and requested he cancel the
hearing. Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Unavailability for the duration of Case No. 2D10-5197, a
final appeal of Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie in Contempt and Final Summary
Judgment As to Count 1. Mr. Rodems did not respond to Plaintiffs letter, Notice of
Unavailability, or cancel the hearing.
8.
Plaintiff separately wrote Judge Arnold April 16, 2011 and provided him copies of his
letter to Mr. Rodems and Plaintiffs Notice of Unavailability. Plaintiff also requested Should
Mr. Rodems fail to cancel the hearing, I request the Count cancel it sua sponte. Judge Arnold
did not respond to Plaintiff or cancel the hearing.
9.
Pursuant to Fla. R. App. P., Rule 9.600(b), the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal has been
divested by an appeal from a final order, making any further hearings improper in the lower
tribunal unless the appellate court by order permits the lower tribunal to proceed with
specifically stated matters during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore Defendants Evidentiary
Hearing is unlawful because Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie in Contempt is part of
a final appeal in Case No. 2D10-5197.
10.
Plaintiff is a person with a disability who needs accommodation in order to participate in
any proceeding in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, including depositions. Plaintiff so notified the
ADA Coordinator, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 604 Tampa, FL 33602 on February 19, 2010.
Court Counsel David Rowland notified Plaintiff by letter July 9, 2010 that it refused his ADA
accommodation request. Accordingly Plaintiff filed a federal ADA/Civil Rights lawsuit,
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., case no.: 5:10cv-00503, US District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, September 28, 2010. Rule 3, FRCP, Commencement
Page - 3
of Action, a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.

Disclosure under Rule 2.330(c)(4), Fla.R.Jud.Admin
11.
Pursuant to Rule 2.330(c)(4), a motion to disqualify shall include the dates of all
previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this rule in the case and the dates of the
orders granting those motions. The case is in its 6th year. The case is on its 5th trial judge. There
have been 4 appeals to the 2dDCA and a Petition for Writ of Prohibition to remove Judge Cook.
The problems in this case are due to Mr. Rodems unprofessional behavior. Rodems independent
professional judgment is materially limited by his own interest and conflict, as further described
in paragraph 4, and numerous pleadings such as Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants
Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA filed July 9, 2010, Plaintiffs
First Amended Complaint filed May 5, 2010, and Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie of April 25, 2011.
a. Judge Richard A. Neilsen recused sua sponte November 22, 2006.
b. Judge Claudia Isom Rickert recused sua sponte February 13, 2007.
c. Judge James M. Barton was disqualified May 24, 2010.
c. Petition for Writ of Prohibition was filed November 18, 2010 to remove Judge
Martha Cook and she recused sua sponte the same day.
12.
Because of the forgoing Plaintiff fears he cannot receive a fair hearing before Judge
Arnold. Given the totality of the prejudice against Plaintiff cited above, should Judge Arnold fail
to disqualify himself, that itself would either be dishonest and proof that Plaintiff could not
receive a fair hearing, or show that Judge Arnold is not of sound judgment and therefore unfit to
preside. While Ms. Williams told Plaintiff that Judge Arnold was on medical leave in January
2011, she did not specify why Judge Arnold was disabled or the extent of his disability.
Page - 4
WHEREFORE, the undersigned movant certifies that the motion and the movant's
statements are made in good faith.
Submitted and Sworn to May 2, 2011.
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 produced
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 May 2, 2011.
"'~~:tV~ CECILIA ROSENBERGER

i'A~":i Commission DO 781620
~~~~~i Expires June 6, 2012
~~iff.~~'"
Banded ThN Troy Fain tnsuranoe 800-385-7018
Notary PUbliC:
Sta~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was faxed and mailed May 2,2011 to
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100,
Tampa, Florida 33602.
Page - 5
Gillespie p1 of 2
DR. KARIN HUFFER

Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082
ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist
Counseling and Forensic Psychology
3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588
www.lvaallc.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 litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
Gillespie p2 of 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 public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (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 regarded 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. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, 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 welldocumented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than
two years.

SECOND DISTRICT
1005 E. MEMORIAL BOULEVARD
(863)-499-2290
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE

DATE:
May 3, 2011
STYLE:
NEIL 1. GILLESPIE
2DCA#:
2Dll-2127
V.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,

P A & WILLIAM 1. COOK
The Second District Court of Appeal has received thePetition reflecting

a filing date of5/2/11
The county of origin isHillsborough.
The lower tribunal case number provided is05-CA-00n05
The filing fee is Waived.
Case Type: Prohibition Civil
The Second District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence
filed in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE
ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER.
Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment.
cc: Neil J. Gillespie
Ryan Christopher
Rodems, Esq.
Pat Frank, Clerk
Appendix 10

SECOND DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 327
II
BL
~t-~'_
~~~.=J_
:l
......._
~
pnN[V BO\lVES
00.44
02 1R
0006557763
MAY03 2011
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33801
2011-2127
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S W 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
::i4481 $355-;:: R045

___
. J.uiJ..14.4JJ,~il" i""",,",, I, '"""1,,,1',1,,,,',",,1,1

--l-
"

May 4,2011
CASE NO.: 2011-2127

L.T. No. : 05-CA-007205
Neil J. Gillespie
v.
Appellant / Petitioner(s),
P A & William J. Cook
Appellee / Respondent(s).

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie
Pat Frank, Clerk
aw
Appendix 11
~t-~-4...
_ _~_JI
SECOND DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 327
9":>
----
00.44
'~~'
z ---.-,.
. :l
PITNEY BO\IVE5
02 1R
0006557763
MAY04 2011
. . MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33801
AW
2011-2127
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 S W 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
:::i:::j.:::~EJi :::::i5E:? ROE:?
f
aLL
'111111'11',' ,,1/ "I" ,,111111 ,,',I "II ,,111111"11111 ,1111'"
gg
.i

May 6,2011
CASE NO.: 2D11-2127

L.T. No. : 05-CA-007205
Neil J. Gillespie
v.
P A & William J. Cook
Appellee / Respondent(s).
Appellant / Petitioner(s),
AMENDED ORDER
Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied.
LaROSE, CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie
Pat Frank, Clerk
aw
Appendix 12

SECOND DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 327
AW
~t-'3~oO\L..
SIij~_~_1f
:)
, 'I
::-.;.=::;;'
~
2011-2127
8092 S W 115th Loop

Ocala, FL 34481
i;; ji;; j i j; Iii; i

II I
I I; II
$ 00.44
02 1R
0006557763
MAY06 2011
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33801
Neil J. Gillespie
3448 i ::355-; R=::S?
PITNEY oov.I'ES
jiI; jiI; iI j; I j iI; i; I; jiii III/ iI Ji11 ill
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/p/Kangaroo Court
Kangaroo Court
[Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized
trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison
inmates; a proceeding and its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.
The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of
itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and
in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court
comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire
to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.
The term is still in common usage by defendants, writers, and scholars critical of a court or a trial. The U.S. Supreme
Court has also used it. In IN RE GAULT, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), a case that established that
children in juvenile court have the right to DUE PROCESS, the Court reasoned, "Under our Constitution, the condition of
being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." Associate Justice WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS once wrote, "[W]here police take
matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt
that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a
legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774
[1951]).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
kangaroo court n. 1) a mock court set up without legal basis, such as a fraternity, sports team or army squad might
set up to punish minor violations of organizational decorum. 2) slang for a court of law in which the violations of
procedure, precedents, and due process are so gross that fundamental justice is denied. It usually means that the judge
is incompetent or obviously biased. (See: star chamber proceedings)
Copyright 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
Copyright 2014 Farlex, Inc. a Mode PartnerSource URL: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Kangaroo+Court
Appendix 13
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/p/star chamber proceedings
star chamber proceedings n. any judicial or quasi-judicial action, trial, or hearing which so grossly violates
standards of "due process" that a party appearing in the proceedings (hearing or trial) is denied a fair hearing. The term
comes from a large room with a ceiling decorated with stars in which secret hearings of the privy council and judges met
to determine punishment for disobedience of the proclamations of King Henry VIII of Great Britain (1509-1547). The
high-handed, unfair, predetermined judgments, which sent the accused to The Tower of London or to the chopping block,
made "star chamber" synonymous with unfairness and illegality from the bench. In modern American history the best
example of star chamber proceedings was the conduct of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (1938-1975)
which used its subpena power to intimidate citizens by asking them unconstitutional questions about their political beliefs
and associations, and then charging them with contempt of Congress for refusing to answer. Another example was the
conduct of criminal proceedings against black defendants in some southern states from 1876 until the late 1960s. (See:
kangaroo court)
Copyright 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
Copyright 2014 Farlex, Inc. a Mode PartnerSource URL: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/star+chamber+proceedings
Appendix 14

Inspector General Complaint Florida 2dDCA-Dec-04-2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inspector General Complaint Florida 2dDCA-Dec-04-2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inspector General Complaint Florida 2dDCA-Dec-04-2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the complaint about?

What is the complaint about?

What is the purpose and mission of the Office of Inspector General?

What is the purpose and mission of the Office of Inspector General?

VIA UPS No.

Dear Inspector General Greg White:

13 anonymous decisions entered in case 2D10-5197; none carry the name or

The 2dDCA took no judicial action on my notice of appeal December 5, 2013,

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Florida Constitution, Article V, Judiciary, Section 4, District Courts of Appeal

Section 20.055, Florida Statutes, Agency inspectors general.

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Gillespie v. BRC, discovery sanction appeal, Gillespie appeared pro se

Counts 1 through 5 against the Second District Court of Appeal

Set out as an Appendix see attached

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Count 1 - Second District Court of Appeal

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Count 2 - Second District Court of Appeal

13 anonymous decisions entered in case 2D10-5197; none carry the name or

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Count 3 - Second District Court of Appeal

$14 record charge to see who entered anonymous decisions in 2D10-5197;

The 2dDCA took no judicial action on my notice of appeal December 5, 2013,

Count 5 - Second District Court of Appeal

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

The 2dDCA Denied My Rights Protected by the Florida Constitution

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Greg White, Inspector General - 2dDCA COMPLAINT

Definition of Star Chamber Proceedings, The Free Dictionary

Appendix -December 4, 2014

Amended Application for Order-2D10-5197-Jun-12-2014-corrected (14p)

Exh 8, 2013, 12-10-13, Order DENIED appeal to SCOTUS

2014, 06-12-14, APPENDIX 2DCA Public Records 18p

Exh 10, 2013, 10-07-13 form letter response Clerk Birkhold

Exh 11, 2014, 06-12-14, docket 2D08-2224 case destroyed

Addendum-Amended Application for Order-2D10-5197-Jun-17-2014-corrected (17p)

Separate Appendix, 2013, 10-01-13, letter NJG to Chief Judge Davis-53p

Florida Statutes, section 35.15 Decisions to be filed; copies to be furnished

2011, 05-02-11, Petition, Writ of Prohibition; Motion Change Venue, 2D11-2127

Appendix 10 Acknowledgment of New Case, FEE WAIVED, May 3, 2011

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Appellate Case: 2D10-5197

Amended Application For Order submitted today, June 12, 2014.

Amended Application For Order submitted today, June 12, 2014.

Applicant Neil J. Gillespie, reluctantly appearing pro se due to indigence and/or

Due process, by Peter Strauss http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

On September 27, 2013 I submitted my application for order appearing at Exhibit 2,

The Order appears at Exhibit 4.

Order appears at Exhibit 6.

The Courts Order December 10, 2013 (Exhibit 8) held,

August 23, 2013: Miscellaneous Motion by Neil J. Gillespie to surrender files.

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit FL (Chief Judge) $1,984+ bribe

My 77 page letter to Virlindia A. Doss appears in a separate appendix.

My motion to surrender, submitted August 22, 2013, Exhibit 12, shows,

The following orders were entered by non-judicial personnel: November 1, 2010;

responsible for the administrative supervision of the court.