ghunise coaxum, florida bar upl counsel, rodems complaint

7/28/2019 Ghunise Coaxum, Florida Bar UPL Counsel, Rodems Complaint

1/25

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297064771 May 29, 2013

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar CounselThe Florida Bar UPL Department, OrlandoThe Gateway Center 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625Orlando, Florida 32801-1050

RE: UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)Complaint Against Ryan Christopher Rodems for Unlicensed Practice of Law

Dear Mr. Coaxum:

Your letter to me dated May 14, 2013, copy enclosed, requested: (Exhibit 1)

Please give us your written position concerning the attached correspondence from RyanChristopher Rodems, Esq.. I would appreciate receiving your written response no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. Responses should not exceed twenty-five (25) pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are availableon request. A reply from you will assist my office in determining whether this is a matter which should be referred to an unlicensed practice of law committee. Any response byyou will become a part of the UPL record in this matter and become accessible to the

public upon closure of the case.

On information and belief, the twenty (20) day time to respond ends Monday June 3, 2013.

My written position herewith is not a response to the allegations of Ryan Christopher Rodemsin the attached correspondence which you failed to identify as his UPL complaint against me.Instead, this is a request for a determination under Rule 105.1(b) whether the alleged conduct, if

proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition against engaging in UPL.

In the alternative I request a 30 day extension of time to respond. Either way, I am making thisUPL complaint part of the appellate review in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and will seek appointment of counsel on my pro se appeal of the foreclosure of my home.

Rule 105.1(b) states:

(b) Review by Bar Counsel. Bar counsel shall review the complaint and determinewhether the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibitionagainst engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. Bar counsel may conduct a

preliminary, informal investigation to aid in this determination and, if necessary, mayemploy a Florida bar staff investigator to aid in the preliminary investigation. If bar counsel determines that the facts, if proven, would not constitute a violation, bar counselmay decline to pursue the complaint. A decision by bar counsel not to pursue a complaintshall not preclude further action or review under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.The complainant shall be notified of a decision not to pursue a complaint and shall begiven the reasons therefor.


2/25

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel May 29, 2013The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 2

In my view, Mr. Rodems UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.

Quite frankly this UPL complainant is vexatious, and a continuation by Mr. Rodems of a long-standing personal vendetta against me for having the temerity to hold him and his crooked law

partners accountable for defrauding me of $7,143 in prior representation.

Mr. Rodems UPL complaint makes false and/or misleading accusations, under penalty of perjury, but he has not provided any dates, nor attached any relevant documents supporting hisaccusations to inform my response. The UPL form states dates and documents are required:

DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT, PROVIDE DATES AND FACTS OF ALLEGEDMISCONDUCT AND ATTACH A COPY OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

The only document I found in the envelope from you is not relevant, and is from a closed case inanother matter, and not part of the allegations in Mr. Rodems complaint. Do I have all thedocuments in this complaint? If not, please provide me the missing documents immediately.

The case law I reviewed does not show grounds for this UPL complaint either. I am not licensed to practice law, and never claimed that I was so licensed. The construction and application of UPL is to protect the public from laypeople who claim to be licensed lawyers:

While the Supreme Court is expressly charged under the Florida Constitution withregulating and disciplining licensed members of the Florida Bar, it also has a duty to

protect the public from laypeople who claim that they are licensed to practice law, but arenot. The Florida Bar v. Abreu, 833 So.2d 752 (2002).

Mr. Rodems has not alleged that I harmed the public, or that I claimed to be a licensed lawyer.

The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular actconstitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)

I represented myself, my interest in an estate and trust, pro se. I was not a court-appointed personal representative of an estate 1. In the trust matter, my co-trustee is represented by counsel.

Florida Constitution, Article I:

Section 21. Access to courts. - The courts shall be open to every person for redress of anyinjury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

1 The Florida Bar should seek clarification in the law for the term personal representative. Theterm is used by a testatrix in a will to appoint a personal representative; and the same term isused by a court to appoint by Order a personal representative. This is confusing to nonlawyers.


3/25


Once a person has made a decision to represent himself, the Supreme Court should notenforce any unnecessary regulation which might tend to hinder the exercise of such right.Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978).

The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice is to protect the public from being advised and represented inlegal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exerciselittle, if any, control. Morrison v. West App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearingdenied. Attorney And Client App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearing denied.

28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.

In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted tomanage and conduct causes therein.

Martha Jean Cook - judge of questionable ethics

As to the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se , the order was entered by MarthaCook ex parte, without hearing, and prior to the expiration of time to respond. When MarthaCook entered the order November 15, 2010, she was a Defendant in my federal lawsuit 2 againsther and others of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and therefore had a duty to recuse. But MarthaCook does not recuse when required, and enjoys making rulings favorable to her interests.

Unfortunately Martha Cook is a judge of questionable ethics, according to a story on the FloridaBar News Summary July 22, 2011, CRITICS: JUDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa Tribune. See Exhibit 2, and the link.

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7aa779e8525688d0073e8f8/b820bfd498a31e31852578d50050dfc9

Martha Cooks sham order entered November 15, 2010 is an honest services fraud in exchangefor Mr. Rodems campaign donation, and for his UPL representation of her and the state of Florida in a federal court action June 21, 2011.

Rule 10 - 2.1. Generally

Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning hereinset 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.

2 Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH


4/25


Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of Law June 21, 2011Improper Representation of the State of Florida in Federal Litigation

Mr. Rodems submitted Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal WithPrejudice (Doc. 32) June 21, 2011 in my federal ADA and civil rights case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. Mr. Rodems motion, which appears at Exhibit 3, states:

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to RyanChristopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. See Exhibit "1".

Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Fortunately U.S. District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant Mr. Rodems motion, and now Iknow why: Only the Florida Attorney General may represent the State of Florida in a federal courtaction. My attorney at the time, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, failed to inform me, and it appears certainthat he and Mr. Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of my rightsguaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.

As set forth in my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747, by September 2010 I needed the assistance and protection of an Article III federal judge, in Hillsborough case 05-CA-7205, due to Mr. Rodemsextreme misconduct representing his firm against me, a former client on the same or substantiallyrelated matter in violation of Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISIInv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.

On the morning of September 28, 2010 I filed by hand delivery to the U.S. District Clerk inOcala, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al ., U.S. District Court, Middle Districtof Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. My Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-cv-00503 pled violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rightsunder section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit, Hillsborough case no 05-CA-7205 commenced fiveyears earlier to recover the money stolen from me by Rodems his partners in the Amscot lawsuit.

Unfortunately things got worse in the Florida case. Hours after I filed my federal civil rightslawsuit, Martha Cook held me in civil contempt, with writ of bodily attachment, during an ex

parte hearing, where she made a false record that I elected to leave. Mr. Rodems aided and abetted that fraud. Fortunately the bailiff, Deputy C.E. Brown, told his commander that JudgeCook ordered me to leave after I provided her a copy of the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.

Mr. Rodems got a warrant to arrest me on the pretext of a court-ordered deposition after the casewas closed and on appeal in 2D10-5197. In 2008 Judge James Barton awarded $11,550 toRodems in attorney-fee sanctions, blaming me for Rodems earlier misconduct and disruption of the tribunal. Later I was incompetently represented by Robert W. Bauer, at a cost of $31,863.Mr. Bauer was a referral from the Florida Bars Lawyer Referral Service. Yesterday I submitted a rebuttal to the response of Mr. Bauer in Florida Bar complaint no. 2013-00,540 (8B) It appearsMr. Bauer and Rodems were engaged in racketeering and obstruction to deprive me of rightsguaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.


5/25


The public defender was appointed to represent me June 1, 2011 at a civil contempt hearing, butthe judge relieved the defender at the hearing and immediately entered an order to arrest me. For twenty-one days law enforcement sought to arrest me while I was at home with the blinds closed working on appeal 2D10-5179. Day after day Marion County Sheriff Deputies came poundingon my door looking for me. On June 3, 2011 I hired attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo off Craigslist to prepare for the deposition, but that was a disaster. I voluntarily appeared June 21,2011 for the deposition but that was a trap to force a coercive custody settlement, which I

promptly rescinded. Castagliuolo also failed to disclose that his daughter was a public defender.

Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlementagreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I wasunlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth Judicial CircuitFlorida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the FloridaAttorney General can represent the State of Florida, which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaClaudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)James M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)Martha J. Cook, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida

State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority toappoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:

Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal courtaction. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorneyto 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).

Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:

16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or criminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in theSupreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.

The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.

(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the officeof the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutor shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of criminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of arelated transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or more

judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed


6/25


by the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicialnominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.

Unfortunately Mr. Rodems mislead in violation of Rule 11, F.R.C.P., the following three federal judicial officers in the performance of their duty in case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH.

United States District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge,Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 - present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398)

United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893)Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to July-29-2011

United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269)Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 July-29-2011 to February-27-2012

Mr. Rodems again violated his duty under Rule 11 on July 14, 2011 when submitted (Doc. 40)Response to Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Motion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice [DKT 33], whichappears as Exhibit 4, w/o attachment. Mr. Rodems wrote in part:

Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subjectmatter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract the settlement agreement Gillespieasks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.

Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of Florida and therefore he cannot represent the State of Florida in federal litigation. Moreover,U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). The Order appears at Exhibit 5. Therefore I filed a Noticeof Objection (Doc. 63) which appears at Exhibit 6.

The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). Exh 7.

Florida Bar Complaint January 4, 2013 - Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of LawComplaint closed, Response by Leonard Clark May 16, 2013

Due to mental impairment and disability, it took me a long time, about 1 year, 5 months, and 14days, to figure out why Judge Hodges did not grant Rodems UPL motions. Once I understood that Rodems engaged in UPL, I made a Bar complaint January 4, 2013 to ACAP in Tallahassee,

but I did not hear back until Mr. Clark wrote me May 16, 2013 with the excuse Your secondarycomplaint was incorporated into your original complaint against Mr. Rodems. and dismissed.

Today I reached the understanding that since Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL, I failed to make thenecessary or proper UPL complaint, and submit it to the UPL office. Ironically this knowledgecame thanks to Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me.


7/25


Enclosed is my letter to Florida Bar President Young of May 22, 2013 requesting a Rule 3-3.4(b)Special Grievance Committees, which unfortunately Kenneth Marvin subsequently denied.

Mr. Coaxum, I believe this letter gives you sufficient information under Rule 105.1(b) todetermine that Mr. Rodems alleged UPL, conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the

prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. The Orlando UPL office has jurisdiction because Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL in the Ocala Division of the U.S. DistrictCourt. Also, I live in Ocala and am a survivor of Mr. Rodems UPL. I am also a member of the

public, and protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular actconstitutes the (unlicensed) practice of law. I was harmed by Mr. Rodems UPL.

The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular actconstitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)

Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response, hopefully a dismissal of UPL against me,and the criminal prosecution of UPL against Mr. Rodems with a term of imprisonment.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481

NOTE: The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen was not a defendant in any lawsuit by me. It wrongly statesin the Attorney Generals Synopsis of Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, in the 2 page AGCase #Tampa Monitor that [Gillespie] now brings this claim against his former attorney and law firm and all the judges who had any involvement in his 13th Judicial Circuit Case.

The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems misleading legal argument, a phony claimof $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs in his Order On Defendants Motion To DismissAnd Strike, entered January 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.

Judge Nielsen did his best, until Rodems strategically disrupted the tribunal to gain advantage. Irequest the Attorney General correct its Synopsis of Major Issues to show this important fact, anerror I blame on David Rowlands failure to provide Petition No. 12-7747 to the AGs office.

Cc: Gov. Rick Scott, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP298992794Attorney General Pam Bondi, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295720789Chief-Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297480802

Email Cc: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list;Mr. Anderson, Chair, 13th Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D.


8/25

The Florida BarThe Gateway Center

1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625

John F. Harkness, Jr .Orlan do, Florida 32801-1050

(407) 425-0473Executive Director www.FLORIDABAR.org

May 14, 2013

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481

Re: Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie;

Case No. 20133090(5)

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

Please give us your written position concerning the attached correspondence from RyanChristopher Rodems, Esq .. I would appreciate receiving your written response no later thantwenty (20) days from the date o f this letter. Responses should not exceed twenty-five (25)pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Areply from you will assist my office in determining whether this is a matter which should bereferred to an llnlicensed practice o f law committee. Any response by you will become a part o fthe UPL record in this matter and become accessible to the public upon closure o f the case.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Ghunise L. CoaxumBar CounselUPL Department, Orlando

GLC/ctEnclosurecc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.

1


9/25

The Florida BarUnlicensed Practice of Law

Complaint Form

Please carefully review this complaint form once you have included all information. Note that there is arequirement for you to execute the oath at the end of this form. False statements made in bad faith orwith malice may subject you to civil or criminal liability. A copy of your complaint may be sent to thenonlawyer during the course of the investigation. Additionally, i f the nonlawyer asks who complained,your name will be provided. Further information may be found in the pamphlet llFiling an UnlicensedPractice of Law Complaint."

Your Name: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire Nonlawyer's Name: Neil J. GillespieAddress: 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790 Address: 8092 SW 115 th LoopTampa, FL 33602 Ocala, Florida 34481Telephone: (813) 489-1001 Telephone: ( _ _ ..1-) _DESCRIBE YOUR COfVlPLAINT,PROVIDE DATES AND FACTS OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AND AITACH A COPY OFRELEVANT DOCUMENTS.YOUR COMPLAINT AND DOCUMENTS WILL BE SCANNED. PLEASE LIMIT COMPLAINTAND AITACHMENTS TO 25 PAGES. (Use a separate sheet if necessary. Do no t write on the back of this form!)

Neil J. Gillespie is not a lawyer. He has, however, represented a Trust in state and federal court litigation,and as a "personal representative" of the "Estate of Penelope Gillespie" in another case.

The cases are: (1) Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc v. Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trusteesof the Gillespie Family Living Trust, et aI., pending in the Florida 5

thJudicial circuit, Case No. 42-2013

CA-000115-AXXX-XX; Mr. Gillespie., acting as Trustee, removed the case to the United States DistrictCourt, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No. 5: 13-cv-00058-0C-WTH-PRL; (2) Estate ofPenelope Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, which was filed in the United States DistrictCourt, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No. 5:11-cv-539-0C-10TBS.

A non-lawyer trustee may not act as attorney for the trust. It constitutes an unlicensed practice of law.EHQF Trust v. S & A Capital Partners, Inc., 947 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)("The notice of appealfiled by appellant, a trust, was not signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Section 454.23,Florida Statutes (2006), prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law, provides no exception for representationof a trust. Although Florida has not previously addressed the issue, other states have concluded that a trusteecannot appear pro se on behalf of the trust, because the trustee represents the interests of others and wouldtherefore be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.").

Similarly, a non-lawyer may not act as an attorney in the role of "personal representative" of an Estate. Mr.Gillespie's allegations that he was the "personal representative" of the "Estate of Penelope Gillespie" appearto be false. There is no record of an action to open such an estate, and no Order appointing him to be the"personal representative."

In a case in which I was counsel of record, Mr. Gillespie previously represented himself in the Florida 13th

Judicial Circuit and was found by the Court to be an abusive litigant and barred from further selfrepresentation. A copy of the Order is attached hereto.

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read th d that to th e best of my knowledgeand belief the facts stated in it are true.

~ 0 1 3 30,/0(s ' ) 0 IgnatuS n ~ I : N ~ _-Da-te-' - . . - - . . . ; . - - - " " " - - - - - - - - - -I


10/25

IN TH E CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIR'fEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITOF TH E STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FO R HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASEID: O S - C A ~ 7 2 0 5 Plaintiff,

v.

BARKER, RODEMS & COOI{, P.A., DIVISION: Ga Florida corporation; an dWILLIAM J. COOI{,

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 P I ~ i n t i f f should not.be prohi?!ted :fl:om henceforth appeal'ingpro se," filed on July 29,

2010. It is alleged that "Plaintiff is an abusive l i ~ i g a n t who should 'not be permitted to fue fiuiher

pleadings in this cause" ~ l e s s they are f I r s ~ reviewed and signed:b; ~ a t t o r ~ e y l i c e ~ s e d t ~ practice

law in this state. Defendants allege that P l a i n t i f f ~ s prosecution 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 sho\v cause why Plaintiff should not be prollibited from appearillgpro 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

surrunary judgment order. There is nothing left to litigate at this tinle. Yet Plaintiff continues to

file spurious pleadings \vith this court, eacll of which must be reviewed and evaluated by members

of the court staff. Fo r these reasons and the reasons enumerated in the nlotion, 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 systenl, 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 la\v in the State of Florida.

10f2


11/25

The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:

I. 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 C o u n t y ~ Florida, this 15 th day of '. '. ' _ ~ ~ ; . . : ~ . l . " ~ ~ " \ \ E { )

November, 2010. OR\G\Nl\lb\\;)\ ..,-

"Q'J 1 5 20\0r':


12/25

The Florida Barwww.floridabar.org

Daily News Summary

An electronic digest of media coverage of interest to members of The F lorida Bar compiled each workday by the Public Information and Bar S ervices Department.Electronic links are only active in today's edition. For information on previous articles, please contact the publishing newspaper directly.

Links to online newspapers

July 22, 2011

--Judiciary--

NEW CIRCUIT JUDGE NAMED -- Palatka Daily News, http://www.palatkadailynews.com , July 22,20111. [Also: GOVERNOR APPOINTS NEW JUDGE -- Daytona Beach News-Journal,http://www.news-journalonline.com , July 22, 2011; MENDOZA SELECTED FOR CIRCUIT JUDGEJOB -- St. Augustine Record, http://staugustine.com , July 22, 2011].St. Augustine Assistant City Attorney Carlos Mendoza is Putnam County's newest circuit judge.Mendoza was selected Thursday [July 21] by Gov. Rick Scott to fill a vacancy created by Seventh CircuitJudge Terry LaRue, who is transferring to Volusia County to replace Circuit Judge Julianne Piggotte, whoretired July 1. Mendoza is scheduled to start work in Putnam County on Aug. 29. The Seventh Circuitincludes Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns and Volusia counties.

CRITICS: JUDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES -- The TampaTribune, http://www.tbo.com , July 22, 2011.A Hillsborough County judge seeking to tame a backlog of thousands of foreclosure lawsuits has criticswondering whether she should be hearing foreclosure cases at all.Judge Martha J. Cook has an ownership interest in Community Bank of Manatee, where her husband,Will iam H. Sedgeman Jr., serves as chairman and chief executive, public documents show. The bank hasbeen hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis and has struggled to shed troubled assets. Like most banks,Community Bank often finds itself as a plaintiff against homeowners in foreclosure cases. Cook said sheis not prejudiced and that she listed her connection, as required by the law. The state's JudicialQualifications Commission's code of conduct does not expressly prohibit judges from owning stock incompanies they may see in the courtroom, but it does require disclosure. Cook said she disclosed theconnection because of her husband's interest in the bank. She said she doesn't hear cases involving hisbank and doesn't feel she has a conflict of interest by overseeing foreclosures by other banks.

--Legal Profession--

FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, TWO FIRED LAWYERS IN PUBLIC DISPUTE -- Orlando Sentinel,http://www.orlandosentinel.com , July 22, 2011.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and two recently fired employees, Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson, areembroiled in a public fight over whether her office fired the two lawyers for being too aggressiveagainst mortgage lenders involved in foreclosure fraud cases or whether the lawyers engaged inunprofessional conduct.

LONGTIME DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO JOIN PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE -- Panama City News Herald,http://www.newsherald.com , July 22, 2011.Robert Sombathy, a board certified criminal defense attorney, will fill a position in the 14th Circuit StateAttorney's Office that opened up when John O'Brien left the Major Crimes Division last week. StateAttorney Glenn Hess said he was looking for an experienced trial attorney to replace OBrien, who wasalso an accomplished defense attorney earlier in his long career. Sombathy has taken more than 85

News Summary http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7..

5/29/2013 112


13/25

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 600

3


14/25



15/25



16/25



17/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants. ____________________________________/

RESPONSE T O PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIES MOTION TO STRIKE OR SETASIDE MR. RODEMS NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AND MOTION

FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT 33]

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan

Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. Dkt 32, Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the

Assignees moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt 32.

Gillespie now moves this Court to set aside the settlement agreement reached wherein he

assigned the claims in this action to Assignees. Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion,

and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract -- the

settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action. 1

1 Notwithstanding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gillespie s recitation of theevents surrounding the settlement are belied by the record. The settlement agreement was signed

by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespiestated to his attorney, Ill defer to your judgment on this. Gillespies attorney stated, Ivealready given you judgment in private, and Ill give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this isan agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest. (Exhibit 1). Gillespienow claims that he signed under duress, lacked informed consent, and asserts other reasons itshould be set aside, none of which are supported by the record of the settlement conference.


4


18/25

2

The C ourt should deny Gillespies motion and grant the Assignees motion to dismiss the action,

Dkt 32.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14 th day of July, 2011.

/s/ Ryan Christopher RodemsRYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIREFlorida Bar No. 947652Attorney for AssigneesBARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790Tampa, Florida 33602Telephone: (813) 489-1001Fax: (813) 489-1008

E-mail: [email protected] OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

filed using the Courts CM/ECF filin g system, which will send an electronic notice of filing to:

Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, [email protected] , counsel for Defendants The

Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer and anyone else registered to receive

such filings. No other defendant has been served.

/s/ Ryan Christopher RodemsRYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE



19/25


OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10DAB

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA,et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________

ORDER

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies Motion to Strike or

Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of

Action with Prejudice and Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and

General Mutual Release (Doc. 33).

When Mr. Gillespie instituted this lawsuit he included as defendants the law firm

of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (the Firm) and attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems

(Doc. 1). Mr. Gillespie sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 13)

but he chose instead to voluntarily dismiss his claims against the Firm and Mr. Rodems

(Doc. 22). Upon receipt of Mr. Gillespies notice of voluntary dismissal the Court

directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing all claims against the Firm and Mr.

Rodems without prejudice (Doc. 25). The Judgment was entered on November 23,

2010 (Doc. 26).

On June 21, 2011, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker and William J.

Cook (the Assignees), filed their Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for

Dismissal of Action with Prejudice (the Notice) (Doc. 32). Attached to the Notice is a

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 51 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1444

5


20/25

document entitled Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release (the

Settlement Agreement) ( Id.). The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Mr.

Gillespie, the Assignees and the Firm. In the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Gillespie

assigned all claims pending or which could have been brought, based on the

allegations of [Mr. Gillespie], against any person or entity, without limitation, in [this

case]. In return, he received the satisfaction of a judgment.

Mr. Gillespie has motioned this Court to strike or set aside both the Notice and

the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 33). The Assignees served a response to the motion

in which they dispute certain facts alleged by Mr. Gillespie, assert that he does not have

standing to bring his motion to strike and they say this Court does not have subject

matter jurisdiction (Doc. 40).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that [t]he court may strike from a

pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

scandalous matter. (Emphasis supplied). The only pleadings allowed are: (1) a

complaint; (2) the answer to the complaint; (3) the answer to a counterclaim; (4) the

answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party

complaint; and (7) if the Court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.

Because the Notice and Settlement Agreement are not pleadings they are not subject

to a motion to strike. McNair v. Monsanto Co. , 279 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1298 (M.D. Ga.

2003)(motion to strike is only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the

pleadings.); Merritt v. Hubb Intern. Southwest Agency Ltd. , 2011 WL 4026651, *2

(N.D. Ga. 2011)(motion to strike declaration held procedurally improper because Rule

12(f) only applies to pleadings.); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Belu , 2009

2



21/25

WL 2848995, *3 (N.D. Ga. 2009)(explaining that Rule 12(f) only applies to pleadings);

and Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988)(noting

that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection).

Therefore, Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespies Motion to Strike or Set Aside Mr. Rodems

Notice of Assignment of Claims and Motion for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice and

Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release (Doc.

33) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on the 6 day of October, 2011.th

Copies furnished to:

Neil J. GillespieCounsel of Record

3



22/25


6


23/25



24/25


OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J . GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

-vs- Case No. 5:10-cv-503-Oc-10TBS

THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT,FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________ ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se , has filed a Complaint against eleven (11)

Defendants which, by its title, purports to state a claim under the Americans With

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq. , as well as various violations of his

constitutional rights.1

(Doc. 1). The Complaint is due to be dismissed for several reasons.First, the Plaintiff has never effected service of summons on any of the Defendants,

or complied with any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second, the Complaint

consists of 39 pages of rambling, largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth

a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Third, the Complaint fails to allege the basis for the

Courts subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) the parties are

clearly all citizens of Florida and therefore not diverse, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any

1 The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two (2) of the Defendants, BarkerRodems & Cook, P.A., and Ryan Christopher Rodems, on October 29, 2010 (Docs. 22, 25-26).


7


25/25

intelligible facts that would support a finding of the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. And fourth, it appears that the Plaintiff has assigned all of

his claims in this case to Defendants Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and

William J . Cook, who have moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(2). (See Doc. 32). 2

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs

Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,

terminate all pending motions, and close the file.IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 27th day of February, 2012.

Copies to: Counsel of RecordNeil J . Gillespie, pro se

2 The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has challenged the validity of the settlementagreement and assignment of claims on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, executedunder duress, and without informed consent (Docs. 33, 39, 61, 63). However, the core of thesettlement agreement containing the assignment involved the resolution of various matters

pending in state court, and the settlement agreement itself appears to have been executed as partof a state court proceeding. (Doc. 32, 40). As such, the state court is the appropriate judicialbody with the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the validity and/or enforceability of thesettlement agreement and assignment. This Court will not (absent subject-matter jurisdiction)entertain any disputes within the purview of the settlement agreement unless and until the statecourt enters a judgment declaring the settlement agreement and assignment invalid. Cf. Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).

2


ghunise coaxum, florida bar upl counsel, rodems complaint

Documents