rebuttal to response of robert w. bauer, tfb 2013-00,540 (8b)

7/28/2019 Rebuttal to Response of Robert W. Bauer, TFB 2013-00,540 (8B)

1/51

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296200759 May 28, 2013

Annemarie Craft, Bar CounselThe Florida Bar - ACAP651 East Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL 32399-2300

RE: Rebuttal to response of Robert W. Bauer dated Feb-09-2013/stamped Feb-18-2013The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

Dear Ms. Craft:

Thank you for extending time until today, May 28, 2013, for me to submit this rebuttal.

The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) referred me to Mr. Bauer February 26, 2007.Mr. Bauer was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3). Mr. Bauer churned billsfor his benefit until he bled me dry, whereupon he dropped the case. Mr. Bauer is the only reason

I continued litigation in 2007 against Barker, Rodems & Cook. However this is not a fee dispute.

This complaint is not requesting a refund of $19,212 in fees paid to Mr. Bauer. My complaintagainst Mr. Bauer is well beyond mere money, we are now in the realm of unremittable costs.Currently my home is in foreclosure, I have no savings, and my only income is Social Securitydisability. I relied on the LRS, reposed trust in Mr. Bauer, and The Florida Bar. Unfortunatelythose parties violated that trust, and their obligation to me as a consumer of legal services.

Mr. Bauer responded that my current complaint merely repeats similar allegations dismissed byThe Florida Bar in my 2010 complaint, TFB File No. 2011-00,073(8B). Mr. Bauer is wrong.

First, my 2010 complaint sought a refund of fees, so that I could pay replacement counsel. Thiscomplaint does not seek a refund of fees. Second, Mr. Watsons Letter Report of March 18, 2011closing the complaint in compliance with Rule 3-7.4(k) shows no consideration or adjudicationof any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. My 2010 complaint did not allege Ruleviolations. Mr. Watsons Letter Report was clear: Because the Bar only has the authority toaddress questions of ethics, the committee could not address any legal issues about which youmay feel concerned. Thus, this complaint alleges questions of ethics by Mr. Bauer notpreviously submitted to The Florida Bar or yet considered by a grievance committee:

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 was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3) in litigating my claims.Additionally Mr. Bauer was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3) defending acounterclaim against me, a vexations libel counter suit for which the LRS referred him.


2/51

Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel May 28, 2013The Florida Bar - ACAP Page - 2

Fraudulent Representation and Bill Churning by Robert W. Bauer

Breach of fiduciary duty to client Neil Gillespie

My letter of March 28, 2013 to Gwynne Young requested investigation of similar allegationsagainst Mr. Bauer, questions of ethics raised by Kim Barry, a former Bauer client. In

paragraph number 4 of his February 2013 response, Mr. Bauer stated:

It is Respondent's understanding that Kimberly Pruett-Barry has contacted the Bar anddisallowed any statements made by Neil J. Gillespie and attached as Exhibit "A" is anemail refuting that Ms. Kimberly Pruett-Barry is dissatisfied with my services.

Exhibit A referenced above is Ms. Pruett-Barrys email of Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM,copy enclosed. Subsequently Ms. Pruett-Barry emailed me Monday, March 25, 2013 6:13 PMrefuting her statement in Exhibit A provided by Mr. Bauer. Ms. Pruett-Barry wrote:

From: "kim"

To: Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:13 PMSubject: Whatever you need from me!Neil!

I had to back off from your complaint because we had to keep Bauer as our Atty,BUT NO MORE!! I will call Annemarie Craft first thing in the morning!

I fired Bauer today without even having another Atty to represent us and yesit has been going on this long. He has failed to follow through on EVERYTHING,yet he has racked up a bill that we will never be able to pay.

YOU ARE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY about Bauer following through onANYTHING and then when you ask him why something is not done it is ONE EXCUSEAFTER ANOTHER!

I will be filing Arbitration throught the State Bar to get our fees back.

I am YOUR witness, USE ME!

Sincerely,Kimberly Pruett

A copy of Ms. Pruett-Barrys above email is enclosed.

Also enclosed you will find the documents listed below from Ms. Pruett-Barrys lawsuit againstattorney Peter McGrath showing Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal as counsel April 12, 2013.

The mediation report shows the case did not settle and an impasse was declared on all issues.


3/51


The case shows pending status on the Clerks website. The Register of Actions or docket

printed today shows Mr. Bauer stricken as counsel, and Order on Motion to Withdrawal asCounsel entered May 13, 2013.

Barry vs. McGrath case no. 2012-CA-009323-O, Orange County, Florida

1. 03/06/13 Mediation Report. A mediation conference was conducted on March6, 2013. The conference resulted in the following: 1. The case did not settle andan impasse was declared as to all issues.

2. 04/12/13 Motion to Withdraw of Plaintiffs Attorney, Robert Bauer.3. Register of Actions printed May 28, 2013.4. Orange County Clerks website shows pending case status.

The foregoing court documents, along with Kim Barrys email to me March 25, 2013 (enclosed),is evidence that Mr. Bauer is engaged in an ongoing pattern of misconduct, betrayal of hisclients, as stated in my letter March 28, 2013 to Gwynne Young, President of the Florida Bar:

Mr. Bauer may have discovered the perfect crime: He represents himself to clients as aspecialist in attorney malpractice, and once retained, bleeds the client of funds in a fakerepresentation that is intended to break the client, and intended to protect the subjectattorney. This looks like a pattern of racketeering that is aided and abetted by otherattorneys, such as Ryan Christopher Rodems, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, and CatherineBarbara Chapman in my cases.

Today Donna McMahon of the Bar provided information for RFA 13-12396 by complainantKim Pruett was opened January 25, 2013 and closed May 21, 2013, with no documents. Alsoon May 21, 2013 I received email from Ms. Pruett-Barry with this message: (copy enclosed)

From: "kim" To: Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25 PMSubject: BauerHey Neil,

Just wanted you to know that we FIRED Bauer, he is a SCUMBAG, charged us forstuff 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 thestuff he did, she told me, actually BEGGED me to file a complaint.

I am filing the complaint first thing tomorrow.

Sincerely,Kim Pruett

However The Florida Bar does not show at this time, in response to my query today, a complaintfrom Ms. Pruett-Barry against Mr. Bauer.


4/51


My rebuttal to individually numbered responses by Mr. Bauer, by corresponding number:

1. Mr. Bauer is wrong. This is a new complaint, see page 1.

2. Mr. Bauer failed to respond, therefore the allegation is taken as admitted by Mr. Bauer.


4. Mr. Bauer is wrong. The evidence herein shows Ms. Pruett-Barry is not satisfied.

5. Mr. Bauer is wrong. The evidence herein shows Ms. Pruett-Barry is not satisfied.


7. Acknowledged grievance committee in the first complaint found no probable cause.

Unfortunately the grievance committee is a crony local discipline component asdescribe by the American Bar Associations (ABA) McKay Report.

Local components, such as local bar investigative committees, foster cronyism

as well as prejudice against unpopular respondents. - ABA McKay Report

Local discipline components are a fatal defect in The Bars lawyer discipline system.

However, pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(a) bar counsel Annemarie Craft (ACAP) reviewed mycomplaint/inquiry against Mr. Bauer and determined that the alleged conduct, if proven,would constitute a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the

imposition of discipline. Ms. Craft notified me (October 13, 2010) that she forwarded thecomplaint to The Florida Bar's Tallahassee Branch Office for consideration. Ms. Craftwas the second bar counsel assigned; the initial bar counsel, William Kitchen, wasremoved from the inquiry.

Pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(c) my complaint (July 29, 2010) was in writing and under oath,although the response from Mr. Bauer, and a 13 page diatribe from attorney Ryan C.Rodems were not made under oath. (Note: The Bauer and Rodems correspondencecontained a number of false statements and misrepresentations prejudicial to theadministration of justice.)

Pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(b) bar counsel James A G Davey, Jr. in the Tallahassee BranchOffice decided to pursue an inquiry, opened a disciplinary file as a complaint, and

investigated the allegations contained in the complaint.

Pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(f) Mr. Davey referred the complaint (November 5, 2010) toMelissa Murphy, Chair Eighth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "B" for its furtherinvestigation. Mr. Davey instructed Ms. Murphy assign the complaint to a grievancecommittee member for investigation and enclosed a Notice of Assignment of


5/51


Investigating Member and/or Panel form. Mr. Kramer was assigned as investigating

member (November 15, 2010.

8. Disagree that the Florida Bar complied with all requirements necessary to satisfy Rule 3-7.4(k), see page 1, and my individual rebuttal at number 7 in its entirety.

9. Denied that Mr. Schwait responded appropriately. See my individual rebuttal at number 7in its entirety.

10. Denied that Mr. Schwait responded appropriately. See my individual rebuttal at number 7in its entirety.



13. Mr. Bauer failed to return my file. His charging lien is improper, see the InformationalPacket on Attorney Liens by the Florida Bar Ethics Department.

14. Mr. Bauer failed to comply with Rule 4-1.16(b).

15. There is no exception to my telephone recording policy for Mr. Bauer.

16. Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity to subvert orundermine my initial complaint against Bauer, file no. 2011-00,073 (8B) in violation ofRules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d), and Rule 4-8.3(a).

17. The Florida Bar has both the jurisdiction and a duty to investigate any breach of theRules of Professional Conduct, Rules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d), and 4-8.3(a), by Mr. Rodemsand Mr. Bauer that facilitate or aid and abet racketing and/or obstruction of justice inlitigation and bar complaints.

18. The Florida Bar has both the jurisdiction and a duty to investigate any breach of theRules of Professional Conduct, Rules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d), and 4-8.3(a), by Mr. Rodemsand Mr. Bauer that facilitate or aid and abet racketing and/or obstruction of justice inlitigation and bar complaints.

19. Mr. Bauer is wrong. The settlement agreement is worthless. Mr. Rodems is not theFlorida Attorney General, thereby making his representation of the State of Florida June21, 2011 in my federal lawsuit unlawful and unethical. Only the Attorney General ofFlorida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action, Fla. Const. Art IV 4, F.S. 16.01, and the holding of State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein. That is why JudgeHodges did not grant Mr. Rodems motion(s) to assign my federal claims to Rodems andhis partners, and why Judge Hodges did not dismiss the case with prejudice.

20. The settlement agreement is worthless, see my rebuttal above in paragraph 19.


6/51


21. While the agreement is worthless (See 19), the cooperation between Messrs. Rodems,Bauer, Castagliuolo and others shows a pattern of racketeering and/or obstruction ofjustice to undermine litigation and bar complaints in violation of Rules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d),and Rule 4-8.3(a)

In rebuttal to Mr. Bauers response, pages 6 through 15 show Bauer failed to report misconductof Mr. Rodems, engaged in racketeering and/or obstruction of justice, was not competent (Rule4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3) in his representation of me, in violation of the following:

Rule 4-1.1. Mr. Bauer is not competent.Rule 4-1.3. Mr. Bauer is not diligent.Rule 4-8.4(c). Mr. Bauer engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.Rule 4-8.4(d). Mr. Bauer engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.Rule 4-8.3(a). Mr. Bauer failed to report misconduct of other lawyers, Mr. Rodems.

In rebuttal to Mr. Bauers response, the remaining portion of Page 16 through first half of Page21 shows Bauer failed to report misconduct of Mr. Rodems, engaged in racketeering and/orobstruction of justice, was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3) in hisrepresentation of me, in violation of the following:

Rule 4-1.1. Mr. Bauer is not competent.Rule 4-1.3. Mr. Bauer is not diligent.Rule 4-8.4(c). Mr. Bauer engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.Rule 4-8.4(d). Mr. Bauer engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.Rule 4-8.3(a). Mr. Bauer failed to report misconduct of other lawyers, Mr. Rodems.

22. I rebut Mr. Bauers gratuitous and blanket denial of wrongdoing, and his failure torespond to specific accusations showing he lied, misrepresented facts, or mademisleading legal arguments to the Florida Bar in his response dated August 18, 2010 tomy initial complaint, file no. 2011-00,073 (8B), contrary to Rule 4-8.4(c) and Rule 4-8.4(d), and should be taken as a failure to respond and as an admission of his guilt.



25. Dr. Woodhull found Mr. Bauer not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3),


7/51


as set forth in her motion for sanctions against Bauer, docket entry December 18, 2009,

Estate of Louise A. Falvo, Case No: 01-2008-CP-1083, Eighth Judicial Circuit, AlachuaCounty, copy on request.

26. Dr. Woodhulls motion for sanctions (25) shows Mr. Bauers charging lien improper.

27. Mr. Bauer is not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3) and must rely onothers to perform legal work that he is not capable of producing, including the work oflaw students and unlicensed law school graduates to draft his pleadings, as well as usinghis clients pro se pleadings and submitting them to the court as his own work.

28. Dr. Woodhull recalls Mr. Bauer making the statement.

29. Exhibit A has been disproved, see above, and the enclosed email of Ms. Pruett-Barrydated March 25, 2013 6:13 PM,Subject:Whatever you need from me!

30. A copy of Anna White Hodgess email is enclosed, help advise! I hired and firedbauer..nightmare, Friday, July 08, 2011 10:56 AM, I plan to raise the ROOF off this mess!

31. A recording of Mr. Phillip Strauss phone call is available, and may be transcribed, thatwill show Mr. Bauer not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3).

32. My knowledge of this complaint is limited, but I believe it shows an ongoing pattern thatMr. Bauer is not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3).

In Summation

Mr. Bauer refused to permit me to attend or testify at hearings in my case because Mr. Rodemswould knowingly make comments to prod me for no better purpose than to anger you. Bauerwrote 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 beable to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame thesituation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. Ibelieve 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 meaccess to court in my case, is not an honorable and professional attorney suitable for judge asMr. Bauer recommended to Gov. Crist. Mr. Bauers inability to fashion a way for me to testifyshows he is not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3).

Mr. Castagliuolo admitted August 30, 2012 in a written response to Theodore P. Littlewood Jr.,Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10,162 (6D), that Mr. Rodems made an unsolicited offer toCastagliuolo to assist him in any future Bar grievance from me. From page 3, 1:

My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher Chris" Rodems.


8/51


Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The Florida

Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer.

This evidence shows how the lawyer discipline process in Florida is subverted and undermined,here by Mr. Rodems, whos misconduct is at the center of this matter, through an ongoing breach

of Rules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d), and 4-8.3(a), where lawyer-adversaries conspire to, and engage in,conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, to obstruct justice and misleadthe Bar or its tribunal, to avoid discipline well in advance of any Bar complaint. This activityraises an immediate conflict between the lawyer-adversaries and the lawyer representing theclient. If the misconduct is not reported as required under Rule 4-8.3(a), the client is not beingrepresented in a zealous, competent or diligent manner because the lawyer has a conflict with hisclient created by the offer of assistance from opposing counsel in any future Bar complaint.

My letter May 16, 2013 to Kenneth Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, shows how DavidRowland of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit misrepresented to Mr. Wilson that I did not provideMr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. A copy of the petition was provided to Gov. Scott

and AG Bondi May 24, 2013. This matter is ongoing.

Conclusion

Robert W. Bauer should be permanently disbarred. This is not a fee dispute. This complaint doesnot seek refund of $19, 212 in fees paid him. My complaint against Mr. Bauer seeks permanentdisbarment for questions of ethics that caused me unremittable suffering and damages.

Thank you Ms. Craft for considering my rebuttal.

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

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481

cc: Robert W. Bauer, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297424766


9/51

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

112&'13 GnWl Per C ~ c i r t d Neil Gillespie

- - - - - - - - - - _ . . . . - ~ - - --Per Complaint of Neil GillespieIdm Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AMReply-To: kim To: "[email protected]"

Dear Sirs/Madam,Mr. Neil Gillespie is using my name WITHOUT my pennission in a complaint againstRobert Bauer, Atty I with the Florida State Bar.Please be seNsed that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of our case andin no way want to be associated with Gillespie and this complaint.I will also be discussing this matter with MaryAnn Crawford.Thank you,Kim Pruett

h t I p s : l l m a i l . g o o g l e . c o o V r n : i I ~ = 2 & i 1 F 2 d 1 g e 6 6 e 2 4 & ~ f N F ~ it'1bcdth= 13c81518b4b9c54a

~ J A


10/51

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" To: Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:13 PMSubject: Whatever you need from me!

Page 1 of 1

3/28/2013

Neil!

I had to back off from your complaint because we had to keep Bauer as our Atty,BUT NO MORE!! I will call Annemarie Craft first thing in the morning!

I fired Bauer today without even having another Atty to represent us and yesit has been going on this long. He has failed to follow through on EVERYTHING,yet he has racked up a bill that we will never be able to pay.

YOU ARE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY about Bauer following through onANYTHINGand then when you ask him why something is not done it is ONE EXCUSE AFTER ANOTHER!

I will be filing Arbitration throught the State Bar to get our fees back.

I am YOUR witness, USE ME!

Sincerely,Kimberly Pruett


11/51

IN' l'HE C I R C U l . l ~ ( ~ ( ) l J R T OF THEN I N ] ~ H . J l J D I ( ~ I A I - J CIRCUIT, IN AN'DFO'R ORANGE ( ~ ( ) l . J N T Y , FLORIDACASE : N O ~ : 2012-CA-009323-0

KIMBERL y P ~ R l J J 3 1 ' T 'BA.R.RY andWILIJ.A.M B,ARR'y,P l a i n t i f f s ~

VSf

PEl'ER R. MCGRAl'H" et aLI)efendants,

----------------_/MEIlIA.TION DISPOSITION REPORT

A mediation confercllce was COllducted on March 6,2013. TIle conferenc.e res'ulted in thefollowillg:1. The case did not settle and an 1m.passe was decla.red as to all issues.

/-14. It/;. /DATED tllis *D day o f . _ L _ / t _ " 1 . - _ / r _ : ~ ~ , , , 2013." t-o R e s p e c ~ ~ l l ~ s u o ed, . !J, // !Q.) ( !:)o(1).c+- ' 1)0 Bo'x ,60354 COrlando, FL 32856 ../

(407) 926-8708cc: Counsel of Record


12/51

Electronically Filed 04/12/2013 01: 12:36 PM ET

IN THE CIRCmT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: 2012-CA-009323-0KlMBERLY PRUETI BARRY andWILLIAM BARRY,Plaintiffs,vs.

PETER R. MCGRATH andPETER R. MCGRATH, P.A. tDefendant._______- --..;1

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSELMovant, Robert W. Bauert Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs, Kimberly Pruett Barry and

William Barry, files this Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel and alleges the following:1. Good cause exists for withdrawal of Movant as counsel because Plaintiffs consent

to this withdrawaL Said consent is evidenced by Plaintiffs' signatures affixed hereto.2. The settings and deadlines in this case are as follows: NONE.3. This Motion is not sought for the purposes of delay.4. A copy of this Motion bearing the enclosed notice has been delivered to the last

known addresses of Plaintiffs.Kimberly Pruett Barry5525 SW 80th PlaceOcala, FL 34476William Barry5525 SW 80th PlaceOcala, FL 34476

5. Plaintiffs are hereby notified in writing of the right to object to this motion.NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THIS MOTION FORWITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL MAY BE SET FOR HEARING AT THETIME AND PLACE TO YET BE DETERMINED. YOU DO NOT HAVETO AGREE TO THIS MOTION. IF YOU WISH TO CONTEST THE


13/51

WITHDRAWAL OF ROBERT W. BAUER, ESQ. AS YOUR ATTORNEY,YOU SHOULD APPEAR AT TIlE HEARING. IF YOU DO NOTOPPOSE ROBERT W. BAUER, ESQ.'S WITHDRAWAL AS YOURATTORNEY, PLEASE SIGN BELOW ACKNOWLEDGING YOURCONSENT TO TIDS MOTION.6. This Motion is based on the above stated reason(s), in addition to any evidence

offered at hearing on this matter.WHEREFORE, Movant requests that the Court enter an order discharging Movant as

attorney of record for Plaintiffs, Kimberly Pruett Barry and William Barry, and grant such otherand further reliefthat may be awarded at law or in equity.

Date: _Kimberly Pruett Barry

Date: _William Barry

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI certify that on APR 12 2013 ,a copy of this Motion was electronically

served on William E. Lawton, Esq. at [email protected] and at [email protected],and the electronic transmission was completed.

Ro . Bauer, Esq.Florida Bar No. 011058The Law Office ofRobert W. Bauer, P.A.2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200EGainesville, FL 32609Tel. (352) 375-5960 I Fax (352) 337-2518E-MaUService - [email protected] - [email protected] - [email protected] Service will not be accepted at any other emailother than the above service address. *

c: Jessica Padin, Judicial Assistant at [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


14/51

l4J 001SPlrl NT04/12/13 08:49 FAX 3523518238

're:E TIME AND PLACE TO YET BE DETERMINED. YOLJ DONOlI HAVE TO AGREE TO THIS MOnON. IF YOU WISEI TOCO:NTEST THE WITHDRAWAL OF ROBERT W. B A U E ~ . l ~ . S Q . ol'8 YOUR ATIORNEY, YOU SHOULD APPEAR AT ::m:OEi\.RING. IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE ROBERT W. B . A [ ~ : & : R , E S ( ~ . ' S WITHDRAWAL AS YOUR ATTORNEY, PLEASE !r:GNBEI,OW ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR CONSENT TO 'rillSMOTION.

. 6. This Motion is based on the above stated reason(s), in addi ion to anyevidence ofi:;ered at hearing on this matter.

, v m ~ R E F O R E , Movant requests that the Court enter an ordet :lischarging,Movant attorney of record for Plaintitfs, Kimberly Pruett Barry and W i U i 8 1 ~ n ~ B a n y , andigrant such o1her and further relief that may be awarded at law or in equity.

Date: ~ ~ L.:.J.3.-Date: _'f..-r"_I_/lo I ~

CEl\IIFIcA'tE OF S E B V I ~ I certi:tY that on 1 a copy of this l \ ~ [ ( ,tion was

electtonicnlly served on William E. Lawton, Esq. at W l a w t Q n @ d r m l - l l w . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l and atMarla@dtml:law.CQ!lb and the electronic r a n s m i s ~ o n was completed.

Robert W. Bauer, Esq.FloridaBar No. 011058The Law Office ofRobert W. Bauer t l' .A.281 SNW 13th Street, Suite 200EGainesville, FL 32609Tel. (352) 3755960 I Fax (352) 3371 18E-MailService-SchedulingCorrespondence 2
mailto:WlawtQn@drml-llw.~~~~~lmailto:WlawtQn@drml-llw.~~~~~l


15/51

Search MenuNew Civil SearchRefine Search Back Location : Orange County

REGISTEROF ACTIONS

CASE NO. 2012-CA-009323-O

BARRY, KIMBERLY PRUETTet al. v s. MCGRATH, PETER Ret al.

Case Type:CA - Malpractice - Other

Professional

Date Filed: 06/04/2012

Location: Div 40

J udicial Officer: Mihok, A Thomas

Uniform Case Number: 482012CA009323A001OX

PARTY INFORMATION

Lead Attorneys

Defendant MCGRATH, PETER R WILLIAM EDWARD LAWTON,

Esquire

Retained407-422-4310(W)

Defendant PETER R MCGRATH PA WILLIAM EDWARD LAWTON,

Esquire

Retained407-422-4310(W)

Plaintiff BARRY, KIMBERLY PRUETT ROBERT W BAUER, Esquire

Retained352-375-5960(W)

Plaintiff BARRY, WILLIAM ROBERT W BAUER, Esquire

Retained352-375-5960(W)

EVENTS & ORDERSOFTHE COURT

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

05/13/2013

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

for pltf05/01/2013

Certified Copy Issued

Plain copies of 4 documents ($6.00) - mailed to customer in SASE04/30/2013 Letter

04/12/2013

Motion to Withdraw

of Pltfs Atty03/06/2013

CANCELED Motion (11:15 AM) (J udicial Officer Mihok, A Thomas)

Cancelled03/06/2013

Mediation Repor t

Mediation Report03/04/2013

Notice of Cancellation

Notice of Cancellation02/18/2013

Notice of Mediation

Notice of Mediation01/17/2013

Letter

COPY REQUEST01/17/2013

Copy/Copies

REQUESTED DOCUMENTS MAILED TO CUSTOMER $3.0001/11/2013

Notice of Hearing

NOTICE OF HEARING12/13/2012

Notice of Cancellation

Notice of Cancellation10/29/2012

Notice of Hearing

12/17/12 2:00 pm08/24/2012

Joint Stipulation

AS TO PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES AND TRIAL DATE08/20/2012

Notice

of Designation of E-Mail Addresses08/14/2012

Notice of Compliance

AND DESIGNATION OF ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESSES07/26/2012 Motion for Mediation

07/26/2012 Letter

07/23/2012

Order

OF REFERRAL TO MEDIATION

http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=

5/28/2013


16/51

07/12/2012

Order Granting Telephonic Appearance

deposition of Cheryl Weisman and David Henry, Esq07/12/2012

Letter

to Judge06/27/2012

Response

TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TELEPHONE DEPOSITIONS06/27/2012 Letter

06/25/2012

Motion

for Approval of Telephone Depositions06/06/2012

Notice of Transfer

ORG TO FILE; COPY MAILED TO DEF VIA REGULAR MAIL; COPY MAILED TO ATTY SASE06/04/2012 Receipt of Transfer

06/04/2012 Receipt of Transfer06/01/2012

Complete Case Transferred

Part 1 of 806/01/2012


Part 2 of 806/01/2012


Part 4 of 806/01/2012


Part 5 of 806/01/2012


Part 6 of 806/01/2012


Part 8 of 806/01/2012


Part 3 of 806/01/2012


Part 7 of 806/01/2012 Notice of Transfer

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

PlaintiffBARRY, KIMBERLY PRUETT

Total Financial Assessment 415.00Total Payments and Credits 409.00

Balanc e Due as of 05/28/2013 6.00

06/04/2012 Transaction Assessment 400.0006/05/2012 Counter Payment Receipt #CV-2012-39566 BAUER, ROBERT W, Esquire (400.00)01/17/2013 Transaction Assessment 3.0002/06/2013 Counter Payment Receipt #CV-2013-09323 . (3.00)05/01/2013 Transaction Assessment 6.0005/02/2013 Transaction Assessment 6.0005/02/2013 Mail Payments Receipt #CV-2013-28119 ANONYMOUS (6.00)

http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=

5/28/2013


17/51


18/51

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25 PMSubject: Bauer

Page 1 of 1

5/28/2013

Hey Neil,

Just wanted you to know that we FIRED Bauer, he is a SCUMBAG, charged us forstuff 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 thestuff he did, she told me, actually BEGGED me to file a complaint.

I am filing the complaint first thing tomorrow.

Sincerely,Kim Pruett


19/51

Neil Gillespie

From: "Anna Hodges" To: Sent: Friday, J uly 08, 2011 10:56 AMSubject: help advise! I hired and fired bauer..nightmare

Page 1 of 1

7/8/2011

Dear Mr. Gillespie,

My name is Anna Hodges. I was servered a redicoulous defamation complaint filed by myhusbands ex wife.Naturally she made sure it was served a few weeks before Christmas. I had a hard tim finding anattorney during that time so ened up with Bauer.Now i know WHY he was a vailable at christmas.The EX's case which is frivolous was dismissed with leave to ammend. After her attorneyammended my attorney had 10 days to answer.I didn't even know there was a hearing or about the 10 days i was in the process of trying to findanother attorney for many OTHER bauer office issues.Anyway i finally got rid of him, it too over a month, and now the case is allowed to continue dueto HIS neglagence. I have more to this story but must run ,another meeting with my new attorney trying to help fix this mess.

I would like to talk with you, if you have the time.I plan to raise the ROOF off this mess!

Thank -youAnna Hodges352-949-2733or email


20/51

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 May 16, 2013

and [email protected]

Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General

Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa

Office of the Attorney General

501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100Tampa, Florida 33602

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. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States,

2. Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

3. Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012

4. Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.

5. 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).


21/51

Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General May 16, 2013

Office of the Attorney General 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 coverletter 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 aresponse, 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.

http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie

8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, FL 34481Enclosures

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.


22/51

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297024724 (Gov. Scott) May 24, 2013

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296600737 (AG Bondi)

Governor Rick Scott Attorney General Pam Bondi

Office of Governor Rick Scott Office of Attorney General

State of Florida, The Capitol State of Florida

400 S. Monroe St. The Capitol PL-01Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

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.


23/51

THE FLORIDA BAR651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR . TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2300 850/561-5600EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.OR

March 14, 2013

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie8092 S.W. 115Th LoopOcala, FL 34481Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Robert W. BauerThe Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)Dear Mr. Gillespie:Enclosed you will find Mr. Robert W. Bauer's response to your complaint. The response sent by Mr.Bauer indicated that a copy was being mailed to you. However based on your recent email to The Floridabar it appears that you did not receive you copy of Mr. Bauer 's response.If you wish to file a rebuttal to the response, please do so in writing by April 1, 2013. Additionally, youmust send a copy to Mr. Bauer.Sincerely,

Annemarie Craft, Bar CounselAttorney Consumer Assistance ProgramACAP Hotline 866-352-0707Enclosurecc: Mr. Robert W. Bauer


24/51

The LawOHices ofRobertW. Bauer, P.A.2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E, Gainesville, FL 32609

www.bauerlegal.com

Robert W Bauer, Esq. Phone: (352)375.5960Maria Perez YoungbJood7 Esq.Timothy C Youngblood, Esq. Fax: (352)337.2518

February 9, 2013Annemarie CraftFlorida Bar Association f D ) r e < C I e D ~ r e ~ 6I5 East Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL 32399-2300 lf1l FEB 1B 2013 llJ)

11IeRonde B8r - ACAPRe: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie T.......,FIoridaFloridaBar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)Dear Ms. Craft:In order to appropriately respond to the complaint alleged by Neil J. Gillespie, I have numberedthe paragraphs of the complaint and have included a copy attached hereto for the Bar'sconvenience.

I. This is not a new complaint; this is a complaint that repeats similar allegationspreviously addressed by the Florida Bar and deternlined that the Respondent did notengage in any unethical activity.2. No substantive statements made in paragraph; therefore, no response.3. No substantive statements made in paragraph; therefore, no response.4. It is Respondent's understanding that Kimberly Pruett-Barry has contacted the Bar

and disallowed any statements made by Neil J. Gillespie and attached as Exhibit"A" is an email refuting that Ms. Kimberly Pruett-Barry is dissatisfied with myservices.

5. See answer to number 4.6. No substantive statements made in paragraph; therefore, no response.7. Acknowledgment of previous complaint was made and it was determined to beunfounded.

Page 1of3


25/51

8. Respondent believes that the Florida Bar complied with all requirements necessaryto satisfy Rule 3-7.4(k).

9. Respondent believes that Mr. Schwait responded appropriately.10. Respondent believes that Mr. Schwait responded appropriately.11. Response is not warranted.12. No substantive claims made in paragraph; therefore, no response.13. There are outstanding fees owed to the finn that the Petitioner has not paid and

Respondent has properly executed a charging lien upon files held with the LawOffice ofRobert W. Bauer.14. No substantive issues stated relating to ethic violations.15. No substantive issues stated relating to ethic violations.16. Relates to civil actions not within the purview of the Florida Bar.17. Relates to civil actions not within the purview of the Florida Bar.18. Relates to civil actions not within the pwview of the Florida Bar.19. The issues of the settlement agreement procured by Mr. Rodems have been litigated

in Federal Court and found to binding and appropriate. This is not a matter ofethics to be put before the Florida Bar.

20. The settlement, in no way, resolved the charging lien exercised by this finn. Itsimply released any claim Mr. Gillespie had against the Respondent and theRespondent's finn. The Settlement Agreement was between Mr. Rodems and Mr.Gillespie. Mr. Rodems did not have the authority to release any claims of this lawoffice.

21. It is not appropriate at this time for the Respondent to advise the Petitioner on legalmatters.Pages 6 through 15 consists of rehashing allegations previously addressed in the Barcomplaint. No additional responses at this time.Remaining portion of Page 16 through frrst half of Page 21 were addressed in firstcomplaint.22. Respondent denies any allegations of lying, misrepresenting the facts, or misleadingthe Florida Bar.23. Respondent denies any allegations ofmisrepresenting or making false statement.

Page 2 of3


26/51

24. Respondent denies any allegations ofmisrepresentation.25. Angela Woodhull is fonner client who terminated our services because she could

not continue to afford our services. Ms. Woodhull had numerous cases and we hadto manage all of them. We had just won a complicated venue issue before Ms.Woodhull terminated our services. I do not know why she would be displeasedwith our services.

26. This finn did assert charging liens against Ms. Woodhull's cases, but they were notimproper.27. Respondent admits that this office has used law students and graduate law studentsto assist in drafting pleadings and research. This is a common practice and is notunethical. It is, in fact, encouraged as a mentoring process.28. Respondent does not recall making any such statement.29. See Exhibit "A."30. No substantive claims made to be able to respond to, and cannot reasonably respond

to the allegation without a waiver of attorney-client privilege.31. Phillip Strauss is a previous complaint. This case was handled by an associate of

the finn and was not handled by myself. This complaint has been reviewed by theFlorida Bar and it was determined that there was no violation.32. This is a complaint that was reviewed by the Florida Bar and it was detennined that

there was no ethical violation. The complaint was closed because the statute oflimitation expired prior to our finn handling. I did this case at no charge.

In conclusion, Mr. Gillespie's complaint is nothing more than a rehashing of previous complaintswherein it has been detemlined that there was no cause and is a waste of the Florida Bar's time.Mr. Gillespie has filed numerous federal actions, state actions, and now, Supreme Court actions,all of which have been dismissed or will be dismissed shortly.

~ R : O ' b e r t W. Bauer, Esq.1-/ Enclosures as stated.cc: Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481

Page 3 of3


27/51

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

112&'13 GnWl Per C ~ c i r t d Neil Gillespie

- - - - - - - - - - _ . . . . - ~ - - --Per Complaint of Neil GillespieIdm Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AMReply-To: kim To: "[email protected]"

Dear Sirs/Madam,Mr. Neil Gillespie is using my name WITHOUT my pennission in a complaint againstRobert Bauer, Atty I with the Florida State Bar.Please be seNsed that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of our case andin no way want to be associated with Gillespie and this complaint.I will also be discussing this matter with MaryAnn Crawford.Thank you,Kim Pruett

h t I p s : l l m a i l . g o o g l e . c o o V r n : i I ~ = 2 & i 1 F 2 d 1 g e 6 6 e 2 4 & ~ f N F ~ it'1bcdth= 13c81518b4b9c54a

~ J A


28/51

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f)) Rules of Discipline, you must execute the appropriate disclosureparagraph below and return the form to this office by JaD ." 22, 1013. The role provides thatthe nature of the charges be stated in the notice to your fnm; however, we suggest that you attacha copy of the complaintCERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ( I day of # ~ 7. ,201----, a true copy ofthe foregoing disclosure was furnished to A,t ... (


29/51

Attorney Consumer s s i s ~ Propam OCtober 31, 2012The Florida Bill'651 East .JoJYenon StreetT a I ~ t FL 32399-2300

Cquplllgt _in" attgmpy Bphert W.Btu.. . Florida 8Ir m N o ~ : 110512815 NW 13tb S1reet, Suite 20GB, ~ , FL 32609. teIepbone (352) 37''960,LNft campl"'tAn'. Robertw.II.aI:This is a new complaint apatMr. BlUet for mJsconductdIriq aod after his repraICII1IItio ofmo in gUleapje Ye 8Idq;r. Rodmw&Cook. PA. et _ 110. O S - C A - ~ , Hilillborouah Co.This DDW complaint seeks dilCiplme for Mr.Bauar'._1 am not .eJdnl retum of$19).12 in fees peid to him!. l1tis complaint is aboutjusdce. SiDce 20111 JeamedMr. Bauer hasburt lot of aood, honest people: Hil own c ~ 80mB ofdle suniYon of Mr. Bauer'1milCODduct have contacted and their infonniIioft ia provided in thi. compIaiaL

I

Mr. Bluer's former clieall tell a aimillr story: Mr. B... is not ~ be is noteIll ._ hetakes the client'. money, . . he fails to CGmpIete the ...uer. A .umber oftile COIIlpllJninalJ) cllentl are disahled lIIdIar elderly, show'"pdIlm ofdisnpnt by Bauer to..m elderly anddisabled c:lJcnta. Mr. Bauer UlCS pro Ie pleadinp.hi. own. ac l die work of law ItUdentl,which be ~ submitl to the court. his 0WIl pledap, CCOftIkw to a motioD filed by fonDerBauer gliOl1t Dr. Anpla Woodhull. This was m)"experitDce with Mr. Bau. too.On October 2012 Bauerclient Kimberly PrueII-Bar!)' called me cIaimiDa be W8I DOt di1iaent.G> Ms. Pruett-Barry lOcI IaJsbend William lelained Bluer to _1D01ber lawyer.PeIIlr R. McOnth.Kim BID)' told me 1 '. 61ck, &Ick 10 JlDIIIIJCh, ,111M II""" ~ llirilrg , ,* gtty, aad tbItMr. Bauer had nm up $40.000 bill and lOOk all the gouplctvilas.,AacoKlinl 10Kiln Barry t theircue is l imit. to mine iR Ibat they IUId 1beir former laW)'. for

( Z \ ~ a c I o i n l . Kim Slya Mr. Bauer it miUdna his clieD, chUllliDa- . and not pUina reIUItI.~ emailedmeItltlna.Baut H._jlnlt.lyjtJllllo-MOWtlctI#jDrwanI...lllrblkIII l11e8 toract", a biU. B...did the same with me too. The ncont inmy cue &boWl Mr. Bauer', lack ofc o m p e t e I l ~ & IaokofdiUpnce IIlpreci Judie Barton. The public needs proteedOIl hil l Bauer.Finally, it IppCIIIB Mr. Bauer may be col1lbontiDawithMr. bdems and Mr. CIIaaIluolo in pattern of ncketeerinIlCtivit)' to UDdennine the:'oUowina BIr complaiDti aDd obstNctjusOce:@ Eupac PCutqliuolo,FileNo. 2013..10.162 (60)RyIft Christopber Rodems. File No .. 2 0 1 3 - 1 0 ~ 7 1 (138)Mr.Castaal1aolo even provided copies orbi. filiDp. .. . . - to the Florida IW D cbeabovo ~ n o d complaiattoMr. Bauor and Rodems." IDcIItaed by the ablnYi8tioa"cc:"precediDa i r names. suuesdnJ this mckelceri.,lCtivity iseuand)'onsoUa.

I

I Mr. . . . ~ me 131.163 In1"" feel. Mucb oftH. . -y or sa pmUadw. iIabIdiaI aaltllO.................1y4ocl.... judicata,. . lS.fOG" nwi Alto. Bluet__ tied ........--plaint ho SJ9t212 pUt10S ray SoaiaI BeouriIJ clilabiUt, 0/1honowlll 011credit ant i or ....... S l 2 . ~ euJiect toea Jmpqw.aame, U..


30/51

The Florida 8Ir,. complaint IpinstRobert w. ~ e r , October 31,2012Repraentation 1Jmellne 01Robm Bauer

FebftIIIY 26, 2007. Refmal to Mr. Bauer for. libel by the FloridaBIt1JtS Refertll Sentice. Mardll, 2007. initial $25 LRS consultadon wiIh Mr. Bauer I t hiI ofllco.I March I, 2007. Paid Mr. Bauer 13,000 on creditCIrd 10 review my pro lawsuit O S a C A - ~ . April 2, 2001. NOIicc ofAppeermce by Mr. Bauer in 05-CA.nos, HiRIborouIb Co.. PL. Apr1124. 2007. Mr. Bauer and 1executed 1f t ~ u r I y fee COIIIIct (S25O per hour). March 31, 2001. Mr. Bauer propolld new....tion caatnctwith h ip . COItB; _lined. October 13.2001. Mr. Bluet IDOved to withdrawal ill 05.cA720S: pmtod 0-09-2009. October 13, 2 _ . Mr. Baler moved 10 witbdraMlIn2008-2224; DENIED 0cI-30-2008. 0cI0ber 27,2001. Sutmittoct my ADA diu.bllliy recJlIfI'IllO Mr. Bauer: DO IeIpOIWIrefuled. Oetober 30, 2008. Order in 2008-2224. 8luer'1 motion to withdraw COUDIOI DBNIED. Mach 9, 2009. Mr. Bauer lUbrnitted but dicllIOt l ip a ccninaent fee ~ dec!IMcL Mach 9 2009. Mr. Baber demanded Ilian .etdcmeatapcment for his 1IIIIpractice; dec1iDed. May 14t 2009. My proposed. continpnt fee apemont to Mr. Bauer; DO MIpOIIIOInIIIod. May 2009. My pavposed ICttIenaeat qrcanaat to Mr. Bluer; DO respcmelretlJIed. OCtober 1.2009. He.inI on Modon to WkhCIrawII. OS-CA-7205.......- an my coDSellt. October 9. 2009. ORIcrOrautina Motion To Witbdrawa1At CounIeL 05.cA-7205. November 23, 2009. Mr. BauerldviJedofSI2,6S0clwaiDllien; S19,212 wupaidto B. . . . . October 23, 2012. Karen Kelly advisedMr. 8au bel DOC paid his 12%US roo; 12305.49.

Previously I made complaint no. 2011-00,073 (IJ) apm_ Mr.. Bauer that... elaMM.m II ,2011 whm JIIneI N. Watson. Jr ChfetBtIICh DiIoipliDc CounIoI, iuued LeUer RIpoltPursuant to Rule 3-7.4(k) ofNo ProbIbJe CaUle FiDdiDI- The letter 1tatecI: (ExbiJit 1).I

P u i 1 ~ to Rule 3-7.4(k), tbil document setVOIli Letter Report ofNa I'nJbdtIe CauIaP l n d i n l ~ On 1hobasisof.diliplltaacI itnpIl1iallD&1ylll of11l1be iofomWlOft avai1IbIe.OIl.Marcb 15,2011, lite Fievanee conunIItee found DO]JIOIUIe aMIIe for fiIrtIlerdisclpU..ry proceed.. . in this matter. The naembcnhipofthecommiaee is JUde up ofboth atlomeys aDd ~ m c y L TbiI cue is DOW cloteel.Because 1bes.r oaly It a the autborit)' to IddrcII questions of eth1ca. tbe con-itteecould DOt Iddresa Illy leJll __..widell you may feel c:oncemed. I fyou havefurther coocems about what10ur Iepl remedies IUY be, Jou must CODaI1twith Ieplcounsel ofyour cboa. The Florida8. iI unable to provide IepI advice in tblllI8pegt.


31/51

,.-3he Florida Bit, compl_ . instRobett w. Bauer, October 31. 2012Mr. WatlOft'. Letter lleporI tiDed to eOJq)ly with Rule 3.7>because it did DOt expJaID wh)'the complaint did not warrant t\artber proceedinP- Also. tho LeattJr Report failed to include Illydocumentation expJainiIla why tile complaint did not W8I1Ut flfther pIOCIed.Jnp. Mr. WItsonforwIrdocI the malter for ~ i e w to CIlI SChwaJ(, .DesipUod Rcvicwet t wbo defcmcl to thermdins of tile lfievlnce coltUlliboe by letter June 27. 2011. (Exhibit 2). Mr. Scbw8il replied:"After comprebeDlively readina all docUlDCllll ill my poIIeIIioa Ja refereGce to cbe above styledcomplaint. J have determined that I wish 10 defer to the findinl oCtile Jricvlltce committee .."Mr. Schwait did not rapoad to my letter dated Jply 31, 2011 (ExhIbIt 3) mquesdna he complywitb RIlle 3-7.4(k) InCl oxplain why die compJaillt did DOt . . . . . . . t\ather)nCIId1up. Mr.Schwait did not Nspond to my llI8IItioa that I JnIde meritorious complaints to tho Florida&.. ins t lawyers pilt) ' ofmultiple tnacbe8 offlle Bat. RuIOl, which QOIDpllintl d1e Bar It. .failed to honestly adjudicate. Mr. Bauer, referral from the Florida BItLRS. dctcnniJlecl that mylonner lawyer Mr. Cook ofBarter, Rodems a Cook, PA. was "allimy attorne)'". Mr. Bauersaid ~ july would love to punish Illimy attorncy". (Truacript. Mar-29-2007. p.29,_ 17).IMr. Schwait did not rapomJ to my ICcllSllion that Mr. ItocIems impoperIy submittod thirteenpaJC di.tribe to tho Bar in Mr. Bauen dcfeuse that \W I a false and mi.lNdiD" mel palpableconOiet of interest, since he is a plltncr wicb Mr. Cook at BRer. Rodems & Cook. P .A. Tbeinformation provided by Mr. Rodema, thea incorponllCd by f ~ iJlto Mr. Bauef.NlponICtrcsulled ~ I1CW brachcl of tile eI1Iicl rules. includin&:

Rule 4-8.4{c), conduct involvtns dlshonesty. hid. deceit,ad misleprelllltldion.:Rule 4-1.4(d). conduct Jftjlldicial to the administration or jUltlcc.I The Florida Supreme Court bas delopted to tho Florida SIr the function of cUscipliniaS itsmembers. The Supnme Court and the Bar blve a f1dIIciary ~ 10 ptVtect memberl of1l10 pubUc

harmed by the uaetbicll practice of law lad Iawycn. The Florida BarunCortuRaIdy is beioaoperated, and demonllnlbly 50, in I fIsbion _ to protDQ _ I f IIId bed lawy.. rather than thepublic. Por example, the Florida Bar'1 claim tl18t tile PIIICO commiuoc it ta MpmcI j u r y ' ~ isprofoundly mislaKtinS as set forth ita my April lIt 2011 email 10 Mr. W. . . . . (Exblbit 4).DNa S. ~ w a a IIIipod. November IS, 201081 the InveIItipIiaa;Maabar in y ~ " " (: : \ \ apiastMr. Bauer. In Marob 20111 provided Mr. Kamermare al1eptionl of .ilCODdact .iast~ Mr. Bauei. Mr. Kramer rapor.dcd by email March 14.2011.8:12 a.m.: (BIhibit S).

I have roccived a lett from you essenrially -ina o Iddadditional around! 10 yourcomplaint .pinatMr. Baler.P l_ be adviled that tIIis is not proper proecdure toalleac additional complaiDtB a p _ Mr. Bauer. To clo 10, you must direct,ourcoiDplain1s to the Florida Bart not to tho Grievance Committee. or 10 the investialdaamember. ~ is weD defined procell or nwiew that every complaint soea tbrouahprior to beiDa -peeS o committee. Itl is not unuual that multiple ~ will bemado by one individual qainst p81ticullr lawyer. Howeya-. C8Ch compWnt must beleViewed a d the notice nquiremcMI ofduo procell (ol io_in order to tho ()OIIJplaint10 be properly p**' apiaBta lawyer. 'loMe direct 1III1dditionIl4:OlllPiaiatsabout Mr.

2 Carl SdaWfltlla. . . . oftile Blr'sBolrd otOCwnoll,..............of..DeJJ Or . - Jaw Ina.


32/51

TheFlorida Barf ccnnplaint aSliDlt Robert w. B8uer, October 31, 2012 p. . . 4B....s eonduet to the Bu. Dircctina thaD to me or to the Committee will not IeIUIt indiscipline apinst Mr. Bauer. PIeIIC let me bow ifyou have au, questions. Thank you.

In view o rb forel0ins, aDd the failure ofMr. Watson'. LderRepod to explain iD complt.eewith Rule 3-7.4(k) why the eompl8inl did notwllllllt tbrtherproceedi.J it appa l l that mycomplaintwu dlflCicm. 1be Lecter Repod .bowI no _ of, or -Uudiclltion anyviolation of the Kulu ofProfeaional Conduct. Therefore 1110 proaeecUnp In file DO. 2011OO.013(IB) did no t make res juclicltaCODIickqdon ofa breIcb 011110 Rules by Mr. BlUer.New Alleptio ApiDltRobert W. a. Limited by the Bar'1 pohibition onlUbmitdnamore thin 2S paps..d lawyer lhould1101 accept repruenlatio" un it L'DPI be compelatlyandproWlptly co. , ted.

.IlL Mr. IlgIE IIl1.Belg"dJ2.Betlr, MIc . lUt -l'Iwt" of JIIe_eb!c 4-1.16(cI) Protection of Oieat. JatereItA ItIW)Wm'" kiD ai, ruollllble . 'p l lO Mid"'" "" _ o!wltlltlnMfIlltJ tJ. cit. . .Justice Tbamaa pnted my Rule 13.5 A p p l ~ to extend time to file until December 10, 2012 petition for writofcertiorari to the U.S. S u ~ Cowl; il lCA.11 cuea 12-11028 _ 1211213, (Exhibit 6). Mr. Bauer andhis rUID l ie C e n d I n t s in each QIC. I need the file to prepuemy petiticm. Mr. B..... refused to Ntum my file for lM'etal yOlll 011 thebail ofaf t improperchqinslien of$12.650. By leuer September Ii , 201210 Mr. B. . . eoII11IeI, I demIncIedreIUm ofq t file &om ~ B. Cbapnllll. (EOibit 7). MI. Cbapman did !lOt respond.In my letter dated September 19, 2012 to ML Chapnum. I raponded to Mr. BaJen letttI dIteclAul'* 2", 2012 that stated, "Ifyou wish to oon1lct me at tbe number listed above I would be

@ hippy to dilcuu nsolvina the lien i I l l lWll lCl. iI ecceptabIe to all ptUtiea.". That offer isl ~ Rjccted.IfMs.ChIpMnor Mr. Bauerw .t to 6cua pIOpORCI raolutioa. I RlqUll8Ced theyrespond witb. wriUeD pmposal. I 1110 reject Bauer's o.1DIdo by emailAupI& 27, 2012,that stllal "Mr. OilJespio is free to contad me 011 I I I UlnGOrded line and I wUl be hippy tospeak with him." Aaaiat i fMr. Bauer has something substadive to say,. I a:quest he submit bisotfer or1houabts in letter. I bellevethil ia . l e *puadcr Rule 4-1.16(b).All calls oil my home office bulinea telephone cxtelllion Ir e rocordcd for quality IIIQrIDCCo purposes to tho bus.ineIa use cxempticn:ofFlorida Swuces cbaJ*r 934. specificaJlyW aeodon 9 3 ~ . 0 2 ( 4 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) IIKI the holdina orRQy.J,HeaItb Carp Seryb Ipc;. y .Jeffeggg:PUot LIfe~ . , 924 F.2d 215 (11th eir. 1991).n.e ~ no exeeptionl to this policy for Mr. Bauer.l!a..Mlll&dust" RIco AcdYib IladtrpliM BlrCowRie". clDWtilatigpRifle e ) . COIIduct iavo1vinl I ~ , &ud t cIeccit, IUd "-pIMDIltadon.

Rule 4-lA(d). conduct prejudicial to tbo ~ ofjusticc.R1lIe +U(a), JePOdiaa misconduct of ~ Jawyca. I ~ Crimelad miscODduct by the lawyers I t B a r b r ~ Ilodeml a Cook, P.A. fOllll the buil ofall my~ B. . complaba.lJId involve 20 Jelllt&ld dvillawiuita md lepI pmceediap. A lilt is found at2Ibibit I. Bauerancl Mr. RocIeDII enppd . petIem orracbteerin. activity to subvert oruadernline my iIIitial complaint apin8t Bauer, 81, 2011-00t013 (88).II


33/51

The Florida Bar, complaint apinstRoberl W. ~ , Qaober 31,2012 r .-5While Ibc: Florida BIrdoes not have jllrildietion 10 consider eivil orcrimhW violatiou of RICO,the hcketeerlDa.lD8ueDCed IIIld CorruptOrpnlzattonl Act. II U.s.C. Sec. 1961-68. It does1[1 have juridcdon and duty to InvadpteRlatedbreIcbeI oflboR" ofProfellioall CoDduct.U RD_ ......c(c), 4-8A(dh end 48.3(a), ...,hes oCclaty r:hat fIclJitate the RICO acdvity.

I

Mr.1lodem1 and Mr. BauerenNed in. pattern of IUCO lCtivity in violatioa ofl lul . 4.I...t(c),4-8.4(


34/51

6he Florida Bar. complaim aaainat Robert W. Bauer, October 31. 2012 p.complaiAts.1Dd civillidptioa. throulb an oaaoiaa pa1tem ofndIcoDduot in vIolMioD of lluIeI4-1.4(c), 4-8.4(d)t ancI4-I.3(a). breaches orduly 1bat fictltIate 1be RICO acdvily.Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems also ..ppclln an eirlfer pttem ofmisooacluct il l violadOlt ofRuJp4-1.4(0), 4-8.4(cl). 8DCI44.3(8). brcIcbea ofduty that flcilitlte RICO 1CtMty. II follows:1ft a leu to Florida GoY. Charlie Crist ct.tcd J...-y 4t 2010 (Exhibit 9) Mr. Bauer eodoncdMr. Rodems for j q l ' mel praised him u 41ononIblo IIIdpofellionallf 11ds Is Impeached byBauer. statement to me that Rodems milleid Judp BII10D durinB heeriDa Ootobar 30t 2007.

TlIIIICript.my Ielephone call with Mr. B. . Feblulry ' . 200!J,]'aIe 1111 MR . ImUBR= . [ I ] thiWt i t clear ly put.12 before the Cour t the mistake or per jury I whichever13 the Court d.etennin.. tha t they wi.h to in terpre t 1.. Mr. Rot3ems mi81e.diDg the Court "hen he . a id t h a t 15 oertain tb iag. were present tha t weren It. I f you16 r d tho motions I clearly i4 Chac in there.

Mr. Bauer i . refenilll toRod_ t false I t*nKR to the Cowt that J l iped re,.....atiOllapeoIIIeId; I cBd DOL An auomcy who mis1e&d tbe Court is D01 "hoaonIbI.1Dd profellionlr.Fint. Mr. Bluerbad a duty UAcler blo 4-&.3(a) to report Mr. ItocIoms' mi8CODduct to 1be B..Second, Mr. Baucr'slettcr is evidence ofa pIItem ofRICO activity In breIdI of the Rules ofProfessioJlll Conduct, Rules 4-894(Clt 4-8.4(d). and4-8.3(a), DeDded to uadenniDe Barcomplain1l. In quid proquo, Mr. Bauer pIOviclecl a leu. to (Joy. Crist IVppOItiDaMr. Rodemsfor judp, llOIIJinltioD to whieh I objected to bYleUcr10 GoY. CriIt. In reIIIrD, Mr. Rodemsprovided 1he Bar. letter In IUppOlt ofMr. Bluer in my complalm apiDIt Bauer. Mr. Roderu'letter was e.entially. 13 pap diatribe of fal8e IIId mlsJeadinl1bltements to obItnJct justb.On July 1 2007. Mr. Bauer tlled OD my bebllr&i,tIfJ'" Motjon PorBcIIwinI of ID Olderarantina Mr. Rodcm.s judgment on the p l e l d i . ~ 1ft it Mr. Baueraleaed Mr. Rodem8 miIIeadthe court described bI yp-t. (Exhibit 20).

2. PlaintiffmovCl for ....m, on the arOw* thIa the Court'ajudpentwu bMecl ORthe DefendaDtl' npN8IIdatioDs 1bIt tbem WIIII iped a1tome)' foe . . . . . . . . ~ BIzter, Rodcas Cook aDd the Plaintlft3. Defendants have not produced asllJIlOd eGJI)' ortbe attIJmey lee t betweenBarbr, Rodema &Coot aDd the Plaintift4. DefeDdants have only prockad. . . . . copy oftileattome)' fee apement betweenAlpert. I l b r ~ R.odoms, Ferrentino a. COok IIMI die PIIIintift:&.

I

P1IjntjtrsMotion For Bthearjg wasliped by IitOmey TillY' M. Bell (nee UId) ID No. '%924.for the Law Ot1iee ofRobort W. Bau., PA. Mr. Baler m ~ ) ' diuvowed this IIIOdon,accotdiag to his response to TFB dated Aupst 11.2010. BuI Ms. Bell conf1mIed to me in .letter dated August " 20 I0 (Exhibit 21) that Bauer made acliJect request that I. thepl_a l . Ma. Boll left die Bauer law finn shortly after this motiou wu .bmittccL


35/51

The Florida Bar. complaint.1IItRobert W.B_1 OCtober 31, 2012 Page 7Durioa' beKiIli ADJUSt 14, 2008 beforo JudI' Marva Crea*wt Mr. Bauer accuNd RocIcms ofnot wortiD8 in a profesafonal manner. An auom.y who does DOtwork in a profu8ional mmneris. by daflnition. not ~ b o D o r a b l e IDd profe&sioDII-.Tnnscript. PlIO 16. bcaianiDa at line 2424 [MR.. BAUBR.] Mr. Rod bas, you knoW, deoided to take II ful l25 nuclear bl t approacb in8tead of U8 trying to work1 ' tb i . out in a profes8ional "DDer. I t 18 my2 mistake for si t t ing back and giving him the3 opportWlity to eake thill fu l l blas t attack.

Mr. Bauer refiJled to permit me to attend or testify atheariDp in my caebecIuso Mr.1lodemawould knowinSIy make C"AMIlmeots to prod me IIfor no better purpose dim to .... y o u r t ~ Bauerwmte me this email July 8, 2008 8t 6.0S p.m. -ina n pert:: I

"No -I do DOt wish for you to attelld beIriap. lam coaamed that )'011 will not beable to properi)' deal with 10)'ofMr.1lodema comnaadI- you wiD edalbC thesituation. lam an hat hemaba them far no better purpoee tbaa to anger you. Ibelieve it Is belt to keep you away ftom him and not allow him to procl7OU. II

Aa attomey wIlo knowinllY prods me with commentl to. . . ad Int1Imeme. ad cIeay meaccess to court in my CIIe, is D01 an 1Ioaorab1o pmfelliODl1" IUama)' IUitabIo forJudie-FiMlIy,Mr .. Bauer determined1UtMr. Cook WII "I slimy attorney" fordehudinlmc il l tt.s c t t l c m e ~ ofthe Amscot cue. I fMr. Cook was :a slimy a1tol'DBy", tbal Mr. Rodems WIS 8slimy Mtomey too. Partners oRPlcd in thepnctice of law IN 0I0h reapoastie for the had ormesUlenoc ofanother pII1Ilerwilen the lateractS widUR the ICOpC ofthe ard1DIry busiDe. of InIUcmcy. Saa.YmaQev*"", lng, vc Bcn*jn. )77 So.2d 16 2 c l D C A ~ 1965). Mr. Rode.ltaailleadift& IeplllJUlDllltl in defeD80 of bispIdIIet aad ftrm CRIItod new ethics broIcbel, leOat)' COIIlplaint apinstMr. Rodcma. File No. 201]-10.271 (138).Mr. Cutqliuolo ldInitted AU8U1t 30, 2012 in a \vriaen teIpOIlIe 10 'IbeocknP. Lialewood Jr.,Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10t 162 (6D), dial Mr. RodemsDIldo III UDIOIci1ed offer toCUlqliuolo to usill him in MY tbtInBar grievance fmJD me. FIOm PIP 3.1I:

"My opposiq cxnlDlclat Gillespio'. depoIidoawu RyIa CbrJJIopbrr " RodemLChriI once renwked to IDe, llftIOlieitod. that he would be hippy 10 . . . .10The Florida_ OD my behalfIfOillolplo Jriaved JIIQme way he did Bob a.uor.W

I

This evidence shows how the lawyerdiseJpUne pIOCeII 1ft FJaridlIl subvcrned. . 1IIldcnnincd,bcrc by Mr. Rodems. w h o ~ . milooaduet is a1 the'__ oltbilllllUer. duvlJlblll 0JllOinI breadao f b _ - 8 . 4 ( ~ ) , 4-1.4(cI), and 4-8.3(a), wbere Iaw)'crldvcrJma conapiro to, lad... iD,oonduct involvina diIhooosty. fraud,. deceit, or 0 I l . to obstnJctjllldcoad mIIIeadthoBIr or:itslribu.uJ. to avoid discipline well 10 IdvIDOOof. , SIr compIaiDI. 1biI activityraIIea. immedia1e conflict betw. . . the 1 a w y ~ " ' . 1 D d die lawyer repesentiDa theclient. Iflhe misconduct i l not reported u NqUheclunder llule 4-8.3(&), the ctielal.DOt beIDaaqnscatcd ia zca1ouI, competent or diUpat JDaIIDCr becauIe the lawyerhas cont1Ict with bisclient created b dieofferof..isIIace from ~ 1 n In futuIe Bar at


36/51

De Florida BaT, complaint apiDIt Robert W. Bauer, October 31, 2012 Pap-II V, SM ' 9r*"AMSCQIcwClosJns Statem.t PIIUd - B.....ch ofBar Rule 4-1.5(1J(5)

My former a1tomcyWil l_ J. Cook pnptedmid siped. huduloat BaItet while~ me In the aettlcmaa BuRP L Q'i'P""a Qt.! AppBke"'eld. tpd NepGil"!. AMSCOT Corporatkm. CueNo. Ol.-14761-.u. U.S. 11th CircuIt CourtofAppeals,in violation ofFIa. B . Rule 4-1.5(1)(5). Mr. 0J0k IDd Barka'. Rodema &; Cook, P.A. ("SRC')repreeeDtcd me md tho 2 c6erplaintifti in Ildption IpiDst AMSCOT CorponIdDD.rArI.rtIxJt'"or AMSCOr). a failed clullCJtion l awd 0". Joens. BRC wu llUCOlllOl firmand IUbstibIte COUI*1 to Mr. Cook' . prevloul firm, ~ F.".ti fto at Cook.P.A.3r Alpllt ftrml f) which commencedmd litipted tho AmICOt IaWlUit for one year.IThe GOntinpnt fee -sr-nent between 1De and Mr. Cook IIld BRC In the AmIcot lawsuitWIInot sipecl by Ill)' of thepartiea. in violation ofPIL BIr Ibde 4-1.5(t)(2). The om, ~ contiDpm f. ap"GOIIKd is with me, Mr_ Coottad 1bo Alpert finn, whkl fInD Gloset.

This ease boila down to the vemcity ofa sinal,..teoee OIl the CIoIina . . . . . . . (Exhibit to))npued and aipod by Mr:Cook for BRC ofOc1obar 31.2001. The iQItmic)C ItateI:"ID sipiaa dais c101iDa statemeDt.1 Kknowlodp that AMSCOT Corporatba leparatelypald my _rnoy. $50,000.00 10 com, . . . .my aam.ys for their claim apiDstAMSCOT for court-4wardec1 feelancl 001II.I t

1blI sentence was later delenninecl faIIc. The clO.ina StlfemIJd: is ftaud. ~ weN DO courtaWMted fees 0($50,000 to Mr. Cook orBRC. TIle CloIinI Stltement_If iI oriclonce offraudby Mr. CO\Ok and SRC Ipiaatme .d the other two dients in the AMSCOT ClIO.As a1UUtTr of law it VIS impouiblc to have the aomt-aWllded C. .c. . . . . by Mr. Cook melBRC 011 the Closiq StatDmeat. bccIu. the IedenI trial courtQIdrI: (Doc. 116) e1I1IIId AupstIt 2001 by U.s. District Juclp RichIftI A. LIrDra dllmillled thole clalma with prejudico inClrmept.BIomefte14 agd QjUggjo It AMSCOT&8IJAmIion, cue DO. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C,U.s. District Court, MD.Fla.. TIRlp8 Division. 1111 Court fouud dial all o f 1 b e ~ . il lthis action occwred before the effecdvo _ ofttle appliclblo law, 65 Foci. ReI- 17129.RepI8tJOD Zt pIOIDulpted pursuanllo tho TILAo, the Trudl-t.LcncUns Act. JudIe Lazzara held:

Afmr considering the arpmeats JIlIde and all die auIloritics DOW before it. the Courtfinds 1hat count I failllO all cWm for reUcfUDder 1111 11LA$. Moreover, . y I'tt*Dptat ltatinl claim UDder 'the 11LA would be ide. HaviDa reacbecI tbil coneluslad, themotion for 01_ certification is now (Duo. 116, pp. 3-4)PACER. C _ 8:9kv-02795-RAL I>cxDnent 116 FJIed 0&'01101 ,. 1 of 11 PlleID 1340.


37/51

The Floridak, complaint asainst Robert W. Beucr, October 31,2012 pago. 9The CtOlJng S1atcmcRt prepIred ad liped by Mr. Cook for BRC otOctobcr 31, ZOOI fBlIedto disclose or itemize 53.580.67 in COltS and eXJ'!'lllll, and failed ~ reflect $2.544.79 paid toattomey Joaa1baD L. Alpert. Mr. Coc*ts failure &0 dilClo8e or bemize a total of'"125.45 inexpenses under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) was done in ftxtbamceofhi. fraud aplnst his clielltl.

Pia, Bar Rule 4- J,SeN 5). 1ft the CVCDt*" II .recovery. upon tJ . GOIIOIusiOll or theRplClCDtation, the lawyer shall prcprc .,clolinB ItIteineDt NfJectinlan itemization ofaU eosta IIDd expelllCs, together with the IIDOUDt or fee mcoived by 0IGh pIdJclpatiDalawyer or law tbm. A copy ofthac IO l i n ,_ .ha l l be executed by all participatinSlawya-s. . . well u the client. and eICb shill e c e i ~ e a copy. EKhpaticipatins JaW)'shAll retain cop)' ofmewritten flO contPct and cIosinasIIItemeDt for 6 years Ifterexecution of tile closing ltatemeot. Any coatlnpnt fee COIdraGt IIICI clolinl stItamCDIshall be IVail.WO tor inIpecdoa at taIOnabJc times by die eJieat. by lOy other perIODuponj\Mlicfal order, or by 1be appropriate.dilcipliDuy 1pDC)'.

Mr. Cook Jn8intains he wanot requimd to_ _ or itemize UDderRule 4-1.5(t)(5) com of53.580.67, or show $2,544.79paid to Mr. A J ~ becaUIO tlAMSCOT CorporadoD 1CJ'III8lI'1ypaid my auomey. $50.000.00 to compeuate m.y atIOrDl)'I fot their claim apIaIt AMSCOT forcourt-awarded fees mel COlts.' But the "claim" to 150.000.00 far ' c x u t ~ _and coati-WIS Iatar dctmmined false. 'I'IHR wu no "claim" 10 $50.000 for "COIIIt-llwmled f ees . costI.'.Mr. Bauer outlillcd this frIud to JucIpBadon t o b e r 30, 2007 durinS heariDs for judpleld0Il1be p ~ . : (Tranecripc. October 30t 2007. ".39-40)

22 (MR. BAUZR] Another i8Bwl to poiDt aut the fac t t h i . 1 . fo r23' their claim of c o u r t - . w ~ e d attorD8Y'1 fee., there24 w no claim.. The claim bad alr: cly been detenained.25. by the court , denied. I t d idn ' t exist any lROre.1 [MR. BAtJBR] Yes, there wu an appeal out.tanding, but that2 doean t re8urrec:t any claim, The only thing tha t ' .3 going to resurrect a clailit is an overruling by the.. appellate court . A claim DO longer exist once it 5 been denied, even i f it'. on appeal. So in6 rt1ng th.re existed 'claim for a t t o ~ . y ' s fe7 i s talae. I t - i t . not there.Mr. Cook'. CID8bI. StatDleIllFrtIIIdwas trick"to eYIde the . . . . . ofID


38/51

The Florida Bu, compliint apinst Robert W" Bauer. October 31, 2012 PIle - 10Mr. 8aueI: WIS rcfarinl to the 45,. coodnpncy fee provided. by Rule 4-1.S(fJ(4XBXi). Mr.Bluer allO knew Plaigjfr. Motion for Sununaa'._was filed but DOtyetbeaJd.

TrllllCript. tDlepboac call, March 29, 2007, piles 16-17:23 MR. GILLaSPIB: Yes, tha t ' . what I argued in24 my SUlllllary judgment. And that might be a good2S place i f you want to review 80:t of the chain of1 documauts and everything.2 MR. B A U I R ~ Your .uaaary judgment: has Dot been3 beard, correct? .4 MR. OILLBSPllz That's correct.5 MR. BAUER Okay. VI. Statemeat olth.Qp. ' gQl t 115...... E! 2.illespie v. Barker, Rodems &: Cook (BRC). 05-CA7205Relladici. IltabJIIW Pro s.-ant. . . . . . . .,. . . .1113.2_

On A ~ II , 2005 I aQOd Mr. Cook and BRC tiy filina a pro I I CompJUd to NCOV. $6.224.7r stolen by them tiom my IIIttlement hi the Am8cot cue.O j n _ y.1mB.pcIems& Cqok. PA. I t II., cal l no. O ~ - C A - 7 2 0 S . R)'ID CJJris&opller Rodems npacIIIIKi hisp8rtDCr aDdlaw firm apinIt me, and . . . ._IDe for libelMt. RodeJU aquod that Ibe "claim" for S 5 0 ~ O O O in-_ fees IDd costs- actually_l ied to fee-shiftin, provision of tile TILA. In ..... the ",,000 "elalm . . . . AMSCOTfor o u r t ~ W I I I d e d feci_ eos1I" is I fnud, amisludina1 c p I - a - b)' Mr. Rodoma to dieCowl Thete were no 8Uorney& fees awarded under tile 11LA ia thll cue. NoDe. There w. DOpossibility of aD awardod ofattomey& fees under the l1LA in this cue because the trial courtQrIIa: entered AUJUlt 1, 2001 by ludge L8rzara i _ tho TILA claim. with prejuclice.

PLEADINGS AND LEGAL ARG1JMENTI CONSIDERED BY JUDGE NIELSENOrder On Det'endu1tt' Motion To DismfM Agd Strik&.lanuary 13. 2006. . Judlea. a.11II R.odems CIaipnJ and CcmtenIiOdl Not Mdorious

AppeIriD, pro Ie , I pevaJ]cd on Mr. Rodcms' JI)tion to dilllli. . 1Dd wbeDJ. RicbarcINielsen anteNd Order On DeCenclmts' Mqtjog ToPI" And Sqjkt, a n ~ 13. 2006.(Exhibit II). Juclp Nielson mjocted Rodema misladiDa lepI qumad , . &be "cJaJm"ofS50.GOO in "court--awarded fea and COltS". Under the IIpI doctrine of l e i judica1ll, Mr. Roclemswas precluded from ev. spin ...rtin, a 'claim" for S50,000 in "COUIt-awanW fees aDd costain this a t t e r ~ aclaim or contention rojcctcd by the Court u DOt meritorious. (Ilule 4.3.1),Judae NJe'lCDt Qrdor On Defcnslealt'Mgd. TpnMdS!dkt (Exhibit I J) refereaccd1I1e followins I ~ which Ire liltedben sbowiDs the most releYlm JeplIlJUDlelltl: Defendpt'l Mgtlgo toDJmdp . Ide- 2 pliO pIc--. . Aupat 29.2005 (Edumt 12)

I PI_If,RebuttIJ19 Der.dan" Motion 10 l J I i M ID4 Strike, 16 p i le i (Bxbibit 13). withNotice ofSeryice of42 .-aa ofcue law (BDibit 14), submittedOctober 7, 2005 afteri'Plarldaateomey ScI. . . J. 0II1cIen 1I1IrdellnDirIed dw& dIIlDlOUIJIIIDI.a WII 87,143,61. _PlJildfCafjdlAmtpIptICmppw.,IW pro.MayS. 2010will bow1edp ofJudie BMon.


39/51

The Florida Bar, COIIlplaint apMstRobort W. B_. October 31, 2012 Paso - 11Ireceipt ofMr. Rodemll' oaseJaw. Beftlu. R'" aDed to eoonlinlte. . time and da1e oftho hoIrinl with me. Iudp Nielsen allowed l1li to - .s 1he baIriIII-lephonlcally, since I

Jakie about 100 mO. from the court. J.lodeIbs URiIaterIIIy set1f tcarl)' 10:30 a.m. time forthe be-S Seprember 26, 2(JOj. Judp Niel. . cmcluded the harina uaftnllbcd.lDddirected Rodems 10 provide me copiel ofhilcae law by D'IIil. siDoe RodemI failed toprovide me the CIIII beforeJJancL Since I IppCINd telephonically, I could DOt le e the CIIOSRodeml prclCllteCL Therefore the Court allowed me to rapood In writiaa.I

My rebuttal stIIed that the Dofendantl owed me andbreached ftduoilry duty.1hat thilaction was oriliDally filed in 1m by another finn, Alped, Baabr. R.odemI. Femmtino &Cook, PAt which abo represented me in otbCrlawsuilB, that durina the Alpert representationthe Defendlnts formed in secret a new firm, Bnr , RodemI " Cook._ COMpiled 10 ta bclients from the Alpert finn. andenppd in a 10lIl 1.. ofmisconduct to hijack 1be cae tortheirown benelllt inoludina. "Defeoclanta also created phony CIosiDa Statom.cat Cal8elyreflectiDa 550,000 in coult-awllded attorneYs feellDd COllI. (p. 6). YN_nl thattile CloIiq StItemeftt is sham. the ...... did not n6ct u itemizldoD aU COItS_expenaes, topther with the amount ofthc fee received by _ putlclpldng lawyer or lawfinn.(p.7). The rebuttalallO notes Rodems' testimoIIy I t the ho8rJnI September 26, 2005admittina 1\0I i i - eontiDgellt fee contr8Ct:

3(a)(i) In his argument, Mr.1lodomaNfemd to Plaintift's EMIblt 1 ofebeCompJUnt. abe .Rcplcsencation COD1IICt, ad IWId tIlat1110 oontr8Ct was not.{pad,but that he WOtIld ageept the COl1tmCt u if it were .iped. Mr. RodemIcontJadlcta the very 1\110 he.. this Court to honor. The Repreaentatlon Omtmctil not lipocl becauac the partie& IlC'VOr exec1ded the coldrKt. I fthe plaiD IIQpIpof this document control.. thea thO docunteat is not executecl. Mr. RodemsappcuI to miltad he Courtabout this fact.

DtfiEept'. Reply to Plaindfr.'*. ' tq tW. . . .Mqtiqn 1DDjRpjg awl9qib, aevcaCJ) PlIO pleacling submittccl October lOt 200'. (Exhibit 15). In this plcadiDa RodemsldInitted on p ip St for the flfSt time, how the &aud ofMr. Q)ok and BRC __Iy workod:4SO, when Mr. Gillespie liped the Closina Sbament,Gillespie knew theS50.ooopaymeat by AmIcot to BIlC WII for dae Jr1IiIIlqaiDlt.Amlcot for C


40/51

The Ploridak. complalDt apiDst Robert W. Bauer, Octo_ 31, 2012 PIp-12I2. Defendaldl breachod their fiducial)' duty to Plaintiff. It II 10nI ellab1ished tbIt he

I'Ilationlhip betweea an attorney &lid his client isone of the most impodalt, IS well . . themOlt 18Ond, known to the law. The msponsibility ofan attomoy topllcehi. diem'.inIenst Ihead ofhis 0 \w in deelinp witb IDIItten upoa which the" 'y is employed isatdie foundation ofour lepl .ystem. (QglY MJao*L 122 So. 2d 41'>' It Is t1dacJaaymlationship involviDl the hipest deane oftru1b IDd CODfidcDcc.1Dd a.aomey i I under duly. at all times. to represent his clicat IIJd haDcIJe bi t cU ,aftiJn with 1ho UIIftOItdepee ofhonelty, o r t h r i ~ (oyall1. aDd ftdeltry.


41/51

The ~ DIr. COIIlplaint1...Robert W. Bluer, October 31.2012 Pap -13ID8""'d JlIdia Barton due 10 his incompetence and delay. s .- even ri*ed my_nwhen he failed to for. CODlempt Mr. Bauer was WlVDS to . . . . . Judge B8rt0n .. Mr ..B. . - wu DOt colllpeteDt IDd DOt


42/51

Tho Florida B a r ~ complaint apiast Robert w. Biuer, October 31, 2012 Pap-14:21 THB COllR'll Right. 22 MR. GILLBSPIBz which i. really Bort of23 outrageou.I24 THB COURT: Right .

Mr. Bluer was not competent _ Dot dUIpat when be 8PPJed Judp BartoD apiaM8rcb20. 2008 wheft he ICpeetedIy moved to eoDtinue hcariaa hewuUIlJftPINd andfailed to hoe an expert witaeM appear.w. S).5 tTHB COURT: So, I llean., we're way down the, liDe beE It 8 been ccnt1nued once and i f we'7 continue it again, for what, a couple of year.?8 Would. tha t be enough time?

Mr. Bauerwa not competent and am dDiacnt when failed to eall meu witDeu orotberwile . . . Mr. RocIcmI' false teI'tiJnony on behalfofhis firm IIId ,.... dIaiDs tieimpfopet . l i t iptioll ofmattca Ibid) ' decicIod res judi. . by JucIp Mellen t Orderentered January 13, 2006. specifically :RocIeIits' pbony "clainat t tQ $5(\000 in "ceut......wfeCi and coatlt t and the exi8toace of I sIpcd eontlnpnt fee......betweeD me andMr.Cook ad Bukwt R.odems I ; Cook. PA In the AMSCOT JawlUit. which ... '". . . . ltY_ PNtt ig yiglatiop orB. Rule +' .'CM).

I Mr. Bauerw. DOt cornpcteat IIDd ROt dUipdt wboD be IlIo'wIcI R.ocIeaIIIIO eacradIlJ)'-"durinl beariap on IU1DIDII)'JudptCRt IIIdJudJn-t on tba pleldl. . eYen thou8b ludICNie1len nded May ]2, 2006 tbata 11lOtioo 10 dilqualify Mr. RDdemI WII not deDied withprejudice on dle bllia that RodemI would be. witness. Mr. Rod_Oj 4 f1epaDlel1t8tioD- i1l thisClIO is esteDtIaJly witness testimony. . Mr. Ba1lCfW8I not CDIIlpetlmt and DOt dlUpnt when he failed to seek ADA diubiIitJa c c _ to allow me to attaId beIriDp aM tadfy il l my cue. Mr. Bauer . .tuaod topermit me to attend court beariDa bee. . be IIicl Mr.1todems would. knowlqly IDIbcomm. . . . to prod me. "for DO better purpose thaD toq e r you Bauer wrote mo this in IDoman July 8. 2008 at 6.0S p.m . statlna in pIit:

"No I do notwiIb for you to attend IIeIIInp. J am cOllCClfted IbIt you will DOt beabJe to properly deaJ wi02any ofMr. ~ COIIIIDOIdIIDd )'011 will ad1IrrIe thosituatioD. I 8m IUI'C that he JUkes them for no beUer puIpOIe tbaD 10 ..,. you. Ibelieve it is belt to keep you away &om him ad not IlJow him to procl JOU."

Mr. Bauer was informed about my di_li ly tommyADA lQCOIIIIIlodationrequeltllUbInittedrc the Court Petxuaa, 20. 2007 _ MaIdl S.2007. M1 ADA ckKunenta show I. . elfl&bJed.dIM Mr. Roct.na bew ofmy disability firom hi.18nn t prior NJlR'SCfttitiOllolme, .....Radom. wu eappd a couneof"" conduct (in vioI6D afSectiOll 784.048(2), FloridaStatutal). the )ntllltioullDfliction ofBnlotioaal DJsVea.. tart by Mr. Rodans to Dillie me byagraYatlnI my exisdna medical COJJdidoIJI. ~ ADA docuaaaat sbowed tIM I aouabt medicaltreatment and was presaibed Eftexor XR to tho maximum ~ . I believe if Mr. Bauer !lad spent to minutes jUlt 10_ig,...aplained to Judae Barron thenature ofMr. Rod&ml' criminal conduct reJatfve, to III)'PTSD and other dJIabiHd-. lind


43/51

Tbc Florida Bar, compIafDtqafDItRobert W. Bauer. October :3 J 2Ol2 P8ae l 'provided tho Court oopy ofmy ADA motion, wbktIlboM Mr. RocIcms'_1hJs cuewould have gone better. But Bauer never infonnecl Judp BartolI. u the CourIIDcII diICUIRd:

Tnnscript, JaDuuy 26. 2010, pile 8.12 [THB COURT] i f you are yiDg your el i .abi l i ty , which i8 yet13 unclear to me, ha8n't been dealt with accordingly14 - - I believe this is the f irs t t i . e we are h riaglS about th is . 1& MR. GILLBSPIS: Actual ly i t 1 . not, your17 Honor. This inforNlt ion va8 pr entecl to yo u when18 you lftIre a Judge way hack CD March 5th, 2007,19 Plaint i ff ' . Am8nded Accommodation Reque_t UDder the20 ADA. Ifhat had happened is short ly af ter that: date,211 Mr. Bauer took the c.se over an d th i s motion wasn t22 beard.oa Aupst 6, 2012 with leave of the UttS. Court ofAppeaII, Jsubmitted Amended Motion forDiJability Accommodllion. showinadilquaJiticatioR ofRocloms w ei Ia)UiIed UDcIcr the ADA. On JuI)' 1, 2008 Mr. a . . was not competent and not elil". wbeD be riIbcI myinC*Ceration and failed to sufficiently , . . . . . for a COIIteGPtbcaiDl July I, 2001. Mr.Rodems souabt to bave me iDcarcemted after Mr. ~ failed to Worm me about aFactInfOtmltiOil Sheet: T!lDlCript, J1IIy It 2008,"

23 MR. RODBNS: That-. the point tbat I . . . going24 to make ia tha t tha t remedy of law may not carry2S the day depending upon what happens with the1 relllllinder of t h i . IlOzu1ng'. hearing time, 80 ehat.2 why we .ought incarceration . . .Mr.. ~ wrote tis to the Bu In his relpoaae Au8UIt 18, 2010: "Because my staff \\'ISmDOVed frcnn his CISC, 1bey did DOt follow our aiandInl operatins poeodare& In reptdl10 Mr.Gillespie's documents. As such, he WIll DOt proYidld with the Fa JoformatioD Sbeet requRd tobe filled aut in eonnection with 1bc F al JlIdImint ordered IJIiDIthim 0-. MaJdl27, 2001. Thiswu ..O\WIisht for wbiell [ IPOJOIized to Mr. Gillespie. CJPPOIinI colllll8l. ad ho Court i111beletter daled July 24. 2008." A copy ofMr. Bauer'.lcIcrappearsat Exhibit 19.Whatwas Mr. Bauer tbinkinl for tho 2 1/2 hoar drive troJR hil oflb n Gainesville, to theTanpa CourdlouIe? What did Mr. BauerpllD to,lellludpBarton i f .__ formy aaest wasissued? ~ did Mr. Bauer WI to all _ -.. eel plio ., OD tbe Ioq drift to T. ., . ,aDd .k .e .boIIt tileF" IafO. . . .tioII 8...7 It seems Ulce Mr. Bauer W8I1ICd me to fire hi...

IXL.Mr. Bl,er IMd "D t DttidI.lK:Jlil.BPpOp. A_1.LH1Ila... UA(e), aonduct n v o l v l q ~ , hud. o c e i t . l D d ~ RaJ. 4-lA(d). conduct1ftjudicial to the Idmwstratlon 01justiceMr. Ba. . . lied. m ~ aclJ, or mIde millaBdiD,l .,..aenu to tho Florida Bar inhlJ reepo8M da1ed Aupst 18. 2010 10 my initial compllint, file 110. 2011-00.073 (88), oomr-yto Rule .a-.8.4(c) ad Rule 4-8.4(d). Mr.Bauer's respoue couistod of24 peaea;. 10 )JBIO letter.and ]4 PlICS ofexbibits.A copy ofMr. Bauer'. rapoose is provided at Blbibit lB.


44/51

The Florida Bitt complaint apinat Robert w. Bauer. OCtober 31.2012 Pap-16Due to theBar'. probIbition on submlttlnl more:thaD 25 p8pI, I cannot in this initial complaintfully lilt amd respond to eY11ie, fallebood, mi&repNsentalion.or mislaldlns lep1llJUDlCDtmade by Mr. Bluer in his response dated ~ 18,

rebuttal to response of robert w. bauer, tfb 2013-00,540 (8b)

Documents