thank you for moral courage

8/22/2019 Thank You for Moral Courage

1/37

NJG v BRC, 05-CA-7205 13th Judicial Circuit - Petition No. 12-7747 U.S. Supreme Court

1. Deputy Christopher E. Brown, Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office (HCSO), whoimpeached Martha marionette judge Cook, her falsehood made in open courtSeptember 28, 2010 that I elected to leave the final summary judgment hearing.Martha Cook ordered me removed after receiving the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.

2. Major James Livingston, HCSO, Commander of Court Operations, who provided me aletter January 12, 2011 with Deputy Browns statement impeaching Martha Cook, amarionette judge to Mr. Rodems. see U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit

3. The Hon. Richard Nielsen, who rejected Mr. Rodems false legal argument to a claimof $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs and established res judicata, forever barringRodems falsehood from this case. See Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss AndStrike, entered January 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.

4. The Hon. Pat Frank, Clerk of Court, Hillsborough Co., who refused for 6 months to obey

a sham order corruptly entered by marionette judge Cook banning my pro se pleadings.5. Florida Bar Counsel William Lance Thompson, who opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C)

June 28, 2004 on my complaint against William J. Cook. Unfortunately Tampa Chief

Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal improperly closed the file February 9,2005 without finding misconduct, and has defended her wrong decision ever since.

6. Tampa attorney David M. Snyder who informed Mr. Rodems September 7, 2006 thatMr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss, and Rodems counterclaim hadlittle chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution and privileged nature....

7. Florida Bar Counsel Theodore P. Littlewood, who opened TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E)September 13, 2012 on my complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems. Tampa Chief

Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the filewithout finding misconduct, by Bar Counsel Leonard Clarks letter May 14, 2013.

8. Florida Bar Counsel Theodore P, Littlewood, who opened TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D)August 17, 2012 on my complaint against Eugene P. Castagliuolo. Tampa Chief BranchDiscipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the file withoutfinding misconduct, see her letter to me dated June 13, 2013.

9. Florida Bar Counsel James A G Davey, Jr. who referred November 5, 2010 my complaintagainst Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) to a local grievance committee thatdismissed; the ABA McKay Report calls local committees crony discipline components.

10. Attorney Seldon Childers who determined September 17, 2009 that actual damages were$7,143, not $6,224 as in my complaint; and $100,000 Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation.

11. Michael Borseth, an independent court reporter who has faithfully made transcripts forme, even when wrongly threatened with litigation by attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo.

12. Allison Raistrick, Clerks Indigent Screening Unit, appointed me counsel May 27, 2011for a civil contempt hearing. Fla. Judge James Arnold relieved the public defender, held

the hearing ex parte, and corruptly ordered my arrest on Mr. Rodems false evidence.

13. Dr. Karin Huffer, my ADA advocate. Author and educator on Legal Abuse Syndrome.

14. Berryhill and Associates, Inc., Court Reporting, and Dempster-Berryhill Court Reporting.To Thomasina Berryhill, Larry Murray, and associates for reporting an unpopular cause.

THANK YOU: To the Persons listed below for showingMoral Courage in the Justice System. - Neil Gillespie


2/37

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 39


3/37

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 39


4/37

3

Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit is of a

substantial or controlling effect, which I intended to, but did not present with my petition March

18, 2013 due to disability related illness, discussed in Part 3. The petition contained 12 pages,

three pages less than the Rule 33.2(b) limit. I move to submit the three pages now.

U.S. v. Terry affirmed a jury conviction against former Judge Steven J. Terry of several

honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an

official from accepting things of value in return for official acts. 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).

In U.S. v. Terry, the government proved to a jury that Terry accepted from political

benefactor Frank Russo campaign donations, a thing of value, in return for official acts, improper

rulings on summary judgment. An FBI wiretap provided evidence of the crime. The government

proved that the defendant used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud another,

18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.

In my case, Respondent Judge Martha J. Cook accepted campaign donations from

Respondent Ryan C. Rodems, and two of my former lawyers, his partners William J. Cook and

Jonathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings on summary judgment, and civil contempt, during

ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.

Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major James Livingston, provided evidence the

Respondents falsified the record of the hearing. The Respondents used the mail to carry out their

scheme or artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.

I only attended one of three hearings before Judge Cook September 28, 2010. The first

was my spoken motion to disqualify Judge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in

Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a 1983 civil rights and

From Petition N

12-7747, Rule Motion to amenreceived-SCOTApril 15, 2013, date of dismiss


5/37

4

disability lawsuit. Judge Cook refused, accused me in open court of feigning disability, and

ordered Deputy Brown to remove me. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. required recusal

because the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be

constitutionally tolerable. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie attests to the above, and appears in

a separate volume appendix. (Also, trial record Doc. 58-2, Exhibit 14, response to show cause).

Judge Cook falsified the record that I elected to leave the hearing, in violation of F.S.

839.13(1) and 837.06. The transcript and errata sheet appear in a separate volume appendix.

Judge Cook proceeded ex parte with the summary judgment hearing, and Mr. Rodems

complied with her instruction to create a record, which false testimony went unchallenged

because no one represented me. Judge Cook then granted summary judgment for Mr. Rodems,

and immediately signed, without reading, a six page order at Mr. Rodems request, one he

prepared in advance. [Appendix 1]. Judge Cook mailed me a conformed copy order in a postage

prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote1.

Next, Judge Cook proceeded ex parte with the civil contempt hearing, again falsified the

record that I elected to leave in violation of F.S. 839.13(1), and found me guilty. Because this

was civil contempt, and not criminal contempt, appointment of counsel was not required under

Gideon v. Wainwright. (The defender was appointed May 27, 2011, but relieved by the court).

Two days later September 30, 2010 Judge Cook signed an improper order holding me in

civil contempt [Appendix 4], filed October 1, 2010. This is the same proposed order that Mr.

Rodems provided by mail2

, and instructed Judge Cook to sign, together with postage paid

1

The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by orderJanuary 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5,2010 I filed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of Judge Barton, butJudge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time.2 Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.


6/37

5

envelopes. [Appendix 5]. Judge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order

Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contemptstates at footnote 1:

Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

During that hearing, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return.

Fortunately Deputy Brown told his Commander, Major James Livingstion that I did not leave the

hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by Judge Cook. Major Livingstion

in turn provided me a letter dated January 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B.

Judicial elections in Florida are different than those of other elected officials, and as

described in Terry. Judicial elections are nonpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial

office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified to seek

judicial office, there is pressure not to oppose a sitting judge. Lucy Morgan of the Tampa Bay

Times wrote May 2, 2008, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats: [Appendix 8].

...Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races inthe 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to areview of election results over the past 12 years. Judges frequently escape oppositionbecause only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering a

judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges havefaced opposition, and only five have been defeated...

...For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide.Twenty-three of those are open seats and will be contested. Of the 260 remaining seats,only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and DistrictCourt justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another termsince the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s...

As in Terry, Judge Cooks collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002 bid. See

Appendix 9 for the donation records of Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert - $100 each. An

honest services fraud agreement need not spell out which payments control which act, just that

Judge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.

Unfortunately, Judge Cook acted like Mr. Rodems marionette. Terry at p. 11.


7/37

Po. Box 3371Phone (813)247-800www.hcso.tampa.jl.uavid Gee, Sheriff

Jose Docobo, ChiefDeputyHillsborough CountyTampa, Florida 33601

January 12,2011

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW l1S th LoopOcala, Florida 34481Dear Mr. Gillespie:

In response to your letter dated November 13,2010, I made contact with DeputyChristopher E. Brown concerning your request for an explanation regarding why heescorted you out of the courthouse on September 28, 2010 after a hearing with JudgeMartha Cook. Deputy Brown advised that the Judge ordered you to leave after adisruption in the courtroom. He stated that he followed you to the front door as youexited the building without assistance. Other than the official records maintained by theCourt, I am not aware of any other records related to the hearing before Judge Cook.As we discussed on the telephone today, you expressed some concern over yourpersonal safety while in the courthouse due to a disability and due to a potential threatfrom opposing counsel. Please let me know the date and time of your next visit to thecourthouse and we will take action to help ensure a safe and orderly visit. Please feel freeto contact me with any additional questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

James P. Livingston, MajorCourt Operations Division


8/37

-, \ ,) I i.... '-' , .

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OFTHE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,

CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,PLAINTIFF,

vs.BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAMJ. COOK,

DEFENDANTS.--------------_-----:/

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKETIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having madearguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motionto Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motionto Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion toDismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,

ADJUDGED as follows:1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking todismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of thisorder within which to file responsive pleadings.

DIVISION" F "

or, 36


9/37

3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strikeportions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:

a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken orfailure to comply with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this

_ day of JAN 13 2006 ,2o_ .

RICHARD A. NIELSENCIRCUIT JUDGECopies furnished to:Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire300 West Platt Street, Suite 150Tampa, Florida 33606Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115 th LoopOcala, Florida 34481

or' 37f _


10/37

/0

BARKER, RODEMS & COOKJlR()FESSIONAL ASSOCJAT'IONAlaintin: Neil J. G i J l e s p i e ~ fromppearing pro se, and also directin.g the C l e r k ~ s office not to accept any more filing from Mr.illespie. Since tllat time, the Clerk's office has accepted a number of filings from Mr. Gillespie.copy of Judge Cook's Order is enclosed.ould }'OU please explain why your office has not complied ",ith Judge Cook's Order'?

Response and explanation to Mr. Rodems' question to Clerk of Court Pat Frank:

Goose-stepping and blindly "following orders" of fascists like Martha Cook went

out of fashion after the Nuremberg Trials.

Please take notice and govern yourself accordingly. - Neil Gillespie


11/37

THE FLORIDA BARMAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR . 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813-875-9821EXEClfflVE DIRECTOR SUITE C-49 SUITE C-49 www.fLABAR.ORG

TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958June 28, 2004

William John Cook, Esq.Barker, Rodems & C O C ~ ( 300 W. Platt St., Suite 150Tampa, Florida 33602-2299RE: Inquiry/Complaint of Neil J. Gillespie

TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C)Dear Mr. Cook:Enclosed please find a copy of Neil J. Gillespie's inquiry/complaint against you. Please let me have yourwritten position on the matters raised within fifteen (15) days and send a copy of your reply to theComplainant. Your response is required pursuant to Rule 4-8.4(g) and will assist this office in determiningwhether this is a matter to be sent to a grievance committee and handled as p ~ o v i d e d for in Rule 3-7.3,Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Rule 4-8.4(g) provides that a written response shall be made within 15days of the date of the initial written investigative inquiry by bar counsel, grievance committee, or board ofgovernors.Also, return a completed copy of the enclosed disclosure form as mandated by Rule 3-7. 1(g), RulesRegulating The Florida Bar.Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(b), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, any response by you in these proceedingsshall become a part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public uponthe closure of the case by Bar counselor upon a finding of no probable cause, probable cause, or minormisconduct. Disclosure during the pendency of an investigation may be made only as to status if a specificinquiry concer ing this case is made and if this matter is generally known to be in the public domain.

WLT/pspEnclosures - Copy of Inquiry/Complaint and Disclosure Formcc: Neil J. Gillespie


12/37

THE FLORIDA BARMAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. 5521 WEST SPRUCE STREET AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 813/875-9821EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUITEC-49 Sll lTE C-49 www.FLABAR.ORG

TAMPA, FL 33607-5958 TAMPA, FL 33607-5958

February 9, 2005

Neil J. Gillespie301 W. Platt St., #155Tampa, Florida 33606RE: Inquiry/Complaint regarding William John Cook, Esq.TFB No. 2004-11,734(l3C)Dear Mr. Gillespie:After evaluating your complaint against the above-referenced attorney, we find that there isinsufficient evidence of a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to warrant furtherproceedings.Mr. Gillespie, the bar has carefully reviewed all the information and documents provided by youand Mr. Cook. Based upon this review, it is the bar's position that the objective evidence isinsufficient to support a finding of misconduct on behalf of Mr. Cook.The appellate court order stated that the parties were to bear their own attorney's fees and costs.The objective evidence indicates that Amscot paid $50,000.00 to satisfy the claims for fees andcosts of the plaintiffs. It appears rather than Amscot paying you and the other two plaintiffs themoney they simply paid the money to the Mr. Cook's firm. In either case, Mr. Cook and his firmwere entitled to fees and costs for services performed. If Amscot had not paid the fees directly tothe firm, Mr. Cook and his firm would have had to recover their fees and costs from you and theother two plaintiffs. If those fees and costs had not been paid in their entirety, Mr. Cook and hisfirm would have had cause to proceed to seek those fees and costs through any legal meansavailable to them. The bar's review of this matter fails to find sufficient evidence to support afinding of misconduct in this regard.Likewise, review of the correspondence fails to support a finding Mr. Cook neglected to provideyou with information such that you could make informed decisions in this case. You haddiscussions with Mr. Cook regarding settlement. The evidence indicates you were activelyinvolved in providing him with your position regarding settlement. The evidence indicates thatyou were informed about the case and the status of the case throughout Mr. Cook'srepresentation. The settlement agreement was fully disclosed to you and you agreed to settle.Likewise, the settlement was fully explained to you and you voluntarily signed the settlementagreement.


13/37

While you do not agree with Mr. Cook's interpretation of the law and the damages you wereallowed to recover under the Truth In Lending Act, the evidence provided is insufficient tosupport a finding Mr. Cook's representat ion was not competent. Moreover, Mr. Cook was ableto get you double the amount he believes you were entitled to under the law.The objective evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Cook acted to mislead youduring his representation. Further the objective evidence is insufficient to support a finding thathe coerced you in any way to enter into a settlement. Finally, the objective evidence isinsufficient to support a finding that the $50,000.00 attorney fee in this case was some sort of"payoff' entered into by Mr. Cook and Amscot's attorney.Accordingly, our file in this matter is now closed. The records regarding this Inquiry/Complaintwill be destroyed one (1) year from today. Our disposition of your complaint has no effect onany legal remedy that you may have.Sincerely,

Susan V. BloemendaalChiefBranch Disciplinary CounselSVB/pspcc: William John Cook, Esq.


14/37

LAw OFFICE O F

DAVID M. SNYDERPROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATiON

ArrORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LA wSUITE FOUR

181 0 SOUTH MACDILL AVENUE ADMITIED IN FLORIDA AND NEW YORKTAMPA, FLORIDA 33629-5960 CERTIFIED MEDIATORTELEPHONE (81 3)258-4501 U.S. DISTRICT COURT. M.D. FLA.FACSIMILE (813)258-4402 CIRCUIT AND COUNTY CJVIL

E-MAIL: [email protected] N.A.S.D. ARBITRATOR & MEDIATOR

September 7,2006

Ryan C. RodemsBarker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.300 W Platt St, Suite 150Tampa FL 33606

Re: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., etc., Case No. 05-7205Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida

Dear Mr. Rodems:Neil Gillespie has engaged this firm to assist him with the above-styled

action.Mr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss. Defendant's

counterclaim for defamation, while it may have stated a cause of action at theoutset, has little chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution andprivileged nature of the publication complained of. See e.g. Nodar v. Galbreath,462 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1984).

Mr. Gillespie has authorized me to propose settlement of all claimsbetween him and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Mr. Cook, and the firm'sofficers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns, for payment toMr. Gillespie of $6,224.78, exchange of mutual general releases, and dismissalwith prejudice of the above-styled lawsuit, which each party to bear his/its owncosts and attorneys' fees.

WWW.DMS..LAW.COM


15/37

Ryan C. RodemsSeptember 7,2006. Page 2

Please contact me at your convenience if you have questions orcomments. Thank you for your prompt consideration of and response to thisoffer, which expires at 5 p.m., September 17, 2006.

Very truly yours,L;i. SnyderDMSEnclcc: Neil Gillespie

WWW.DMS-LAW.COM


16/37

THE FLORIDA BAR651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET

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

September 13, 2012

Mr. Ryan Christopher RodemsBarker501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790Tampa, FL 33602-5237Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems

The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)Dear Mr. Rodems:Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by theabove referenced complainant(s). Your response to this complaint is required under theprovisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating The FloridaBar, and is due in our office by September 28, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages al1dmay refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure toprovide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please notethat any correspondence must be sent through the u.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your writtenresponse, including any documents submitted therewith.Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Discipline, any reports, correspondence,papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s)shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon adisposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge thestatus of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made andthe matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline,you are further required to complete and retllm the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form.Furtller, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrativelitigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation shouldnew litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.


17/37

Mr. Ryan Christopher RodemsSeptember 13, 2012Page Two

Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney andthe complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting yourresponse.Sincerely,

~ A ~ _ ~. " r ~ ~ i { . . . + Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar CounselAttorney Consumer Assistance ProgramACAP Hotline 866-352-0707Enclosures (Certificate ofDisclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,Notice - Mailing Instructions)cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie


18/37



October 26, 2012

Mr. Ryan Christopher RodemsBarker501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790Tanlpa, FL 33602-5237Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems

The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)Dear Mr. Rodems:The above- referenced matter has been forwarded to The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office forconsideration. You may expect to hear from Bar Counsel (in that office) in the near future.Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar CounselAttorney Consumer Assistance ProgramACAP Hotline 866-352-0707cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie


19/37

The Florida BarTanlpa Branch Office

4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Suite 2580John F. Harkness, Jr . Tampa, Florida 33607-1496 (813) 875-9821Executive Director www.FLORIDABAR.org

June 14,2013

J\fr. Neil J. Gillespie8092 S.W. 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher RodemsThe Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (6D)Dear Mr. Gillespie:On May 13,2013, I received a letter from you requesting a review of the decision to close yourcomplaint against Mr. Rodems. Pursuant to your request, on May 14,2013, I referred the matterto the Designated Reviewer, Sandra Dianl0nd. That review process has now been completed andit is the decision of Ms. Diamond that the file shall remain closed. Accordingly, pursuant to theBar's records retention sclledule, the computer record and file will be disposed of one year fromthe date of closing.Sincerely yours,

Leonard Evans ClarkBar CounselLEC/leccc: Mr. Ryan Cllristopher RodemsKenneth Lawrence Marvin, Staff Counsel


20/37



August 17, 2012

Mr. Eugene P Castagliuolo801 West Bay Dr Ste 301Largo, FL 33770-3223Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Eugene P CastagliuoloThe Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)Dear Mr. Castagliuolo:Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by theabove referenced complainant(s). YOllr response to this complaint is reqllired under theprovisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professiol1al Conduct of the Rules Regulating The FloridaBar, and is due in our office by August 31, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages andmay refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure toprovide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please notethat any correspondence must be sent through the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your writtenresponse, including any documents submitted therewith.Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Disciplil1e, any reports, correspondence,papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s)shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon adisposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge thestatus of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made andthe matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline,you are further required to complete and return the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form.Further, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrativelitigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation shouldnew litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.


21/37

Mr. Eugene P CastagliuoloAugust 17, 2012Page Two

Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney andthe complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting yourresponse.Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar CounselAttorney Consumer Assistance ProgramACAP Hotline 866-352-0707Enclosures (Certificate ofDisclosure, Notice ofGrievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint,Notice - Mailing Instructions)cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie


22/37



October 25,2012

Mr. Eugene P CastagliuoloCASTAGLIUOLO LAW801 West Bay Dr Ste 301Largo, FL 33770-3223Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Eugene P Castagliuolo

The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)Dear Mr. Castagliuolo:The above- referenced matter has been forwarded to The Florida Bar's Tampa Branch Office forconsideration. You may expect to hear from Bar Counsel (in that office) in the near future.Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar CounselAttorney Consumer Assistance ProgramACAP Hotline 866-352-0707cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie


23/37

The Florida BarTampa Branch Office

4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Suite 2580John F. Harkness, Jr . Tampa, Florida 33607-1496 (813) 875-9821Executive Directo r www.FLORIDABAR.org

June 13,2013

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie8092 S.W. 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Eugene P. Castagliuolo

The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)Dear Mr. Gillespie:I.am in receipt of your correspondence requesting a review of Mr. Clark's decision to close theabove-referenced file. I am Mr. Clark's supervisor, and pursuant to Bar policy I have reviewed,the file andthe:documents provided by you and by Mr. Castagliuolo. I have also considered thearguments -raisedby you. .One of the considerations bar counsel must weigh in deciding whether to close a file is theweight of available evidence. Should the Bar seek to discipline a lawyer, Supreme Court rulesrequire "clear and convincing" evidence that there has been a violation of one or more of theRules Regulating The Florida Bar. Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as,"evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the factfinder to come to aclear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." This burden ofproof is heavier than that which is required in a civil trial.After considering all of your allegations together with the available evidence, I am persuadedthat Mr. Clark's decision was appropriate. Our file will therefore remain closed.

Sincerely,

Susan Varner BloemendaalG h i e f ~ B t a i 1 c h Discipline Counsel' .SYB/sb


24/37

THE FLORIDA BARTALLAHASSEE BRANCH OFFICE

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR . 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET (850) 561-584WWW.FLORIDABAR.OREXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2300

November 5, 2010

Melissa Jay Murphy, ChairEighth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "B"P.O. Box 357399Gainesville, FL 32635-7399Re: Robert W. Bauer; The Florida Bar File No. 2011-00,073(8B)Complaint by Neil GillespieDear Ms. Murphy:Please assign the enclosed complaint to a grievance committee member for investigation. Foryour convenience, enclosed is a Notice of Assignment of Investigating Member and/or PanelForm.The documents will soon be posted to the Grievance Committee Webpage for the Committee'sconvenience. As always, if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,~ 4 , {;.IJ O+ey I tJames A.G. Davey, Jr.Bar CounselEnclosurescc: Robert W. Bauer, RespondentNeil Gillespie, Complainant


25/37

TEL866.996.6104 Attorney at Law Jeff ChildersFAX 407.209.3870URL www.smartbizlaw.com

Sixth Street Executive Center1330 NW 6th Street, Suite CGainesville, FL 32601

37 North Orange Ave., Suite 500

Orlando, FL 32801

[email protected]

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Neil Gillespie

8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481

RE: Economic Analysis Spreadsheet

Dear Neil,

In this letter, I will explain my thoughts and assumptions relative to the economic

analysis of your case, as represented by the spreadsheet which you should have received

contemporaneously with this letter.

The spreadsheet concludes that the cases return on investment is negative.

There are four columns. The Item column represents either a potential recovery,

which increases the net value of the case, or a projected cost, which decreases the net value of the

case. Costs can be either hard costs such as attorneys fees and court costs, or soft costs such

as the cost of litigation-related illnesses and emotional harms. The Amount column representsthe best estimate of the actual recovery or cost for the category. The Prob% column represents

the probability of achieving the recovery or incurring the cost. The Eco Value column

represents the economic value of the item, i.e. the projected amount times the probability the

amount will actually be recovered or incurred.

Next I will discuss each individual item.

Actual Damages.1 I calculated actual damages as follows. The award of $56,000 was

reduced by 45%, the amount a jury would likely allow the Defendants for their contingent fee.

This figure is based on the unexecuted contract attached to the Complaint. Furthermore, the

Bar allows that attorneys may pay actual costs before application of the contingent fee. Accepting

the costs as recited in the Complaint, the award is reduced by $6,125.46. Next, the amount is

1The Complaint calculates actual damages a little differently. I went with my figures because they are more

favorable (and I believe, correct).


26/37

Page 2 of 5

divided by three to obtain the amount that should have been paid to the Plaintiff, and further

reduced by the $2,000 that was already paid to Plaintiff. I.e.:

Actual Award $56,000 $56,000

-Costs -$6,125.46 $49,874- 45% Contingent Fee -$22,443 $27,431

- 2/3 due to the 2 other clients -$18,286 $9,143

- $2,000 already paid -$2,000 $7,143

==============

Total Actual Damages $7,143.002

Thus, as you can see, the maximum recoverable actual damages in this case are likely tobe $7,143. Next, the spreadsheet adjusts the maximum actual damage figure by the probability

of prevailing, which I calculated as 51%, or just more likely than not. Of course, these estimates

are largely subjective. I would have calculated the chance of prevailing on the merits as 75% at

the outset of the case, but given the cases history and the events which have transpired since

inception, I am forced to reduce the probability of succeeding on the merits to 51%. Thus, the

economic value of the actual damages in this case is $3,643.00.

Punitive Damages. As you know, punitive damages are more difficult to obtain. There

are both legal and factual barriers to pleading and proving punitive damages.3 The Defendants

may convince the court that punitive damages were not plead properly or are not available inthis case, in which event the jury is not permitted to consider punitive damages. Also, punitive

damages are granted up to three times actual damages, and there is no guarantee that a jury

would award the full treble damage amount. Still, I used treble damages, which is a maximum

recoverable amount of $21,431. Furthermore, any punitive damages award can be overruled by

the judge, and appealed separately. Therefore, the probability of succeeding with punitive

damages is accounted for as half of the probability of succeeding with actual damages, or 25%.

Therefore, the economic value of the punitive damages at this point in the case is only $5,357.00.

2

As you can see, I did an independent calculation of damages, which amount was very close to your own figures.

3In fact, on January 13, 2006, the court ordered the demands for punitive damages to be stricken from the

Complaint, so, actually, no current demand for punitive damages exists (presumably it might be re-plead in an

amended complaint). Also, to the extent that the suit succeeds on a breach of contract and not tort claim, punitive

damages are excluded. Farnsworth, Contracts, 12.3, at 157 (3d ed. 1999) ("Punitive damages should not be

awarded for breach of contract because they will encourage performance when breach would be socially more

desirable.").


27/37

Page 3 of 5

Award of Attorneys Fees. Under the American Rule, each party must pay its own

attorneys fees and costs. Unless an exception is granted by agreement between the parties or by

statute, there is no provision for the prevailing party to recover its fees and costs. The un-

executed representation contract attached to the Complaint contains no provision for attorneys

fees. I am aware of no other such agreement or statute that would apply in this case, beyond a

bare equitable appeal to the court. The spreadsheet therefore allows for no recovery from the

Defendants of fees and costs.

Subtotal, Forecast Recovery. Thus, the maximum recovery at 100%, i.e. full certainty of

succeeding in the litigation as to both actual and punitive damages, is $28,574. However,

adjusted for the probability of succeeding on the merits at this point in the case, the maximum

economic recovery is only $9,001.

Bauers Outstanding Fees. Mr. Bauer has a claim to his fees of $12,517.41, at least as of

the most current invoice that I was provided. On the one hand, he may have difficulty proving

his entitlement to the fees, due to some evidence that an attempt was made to renegotiate thecontract to a contingency basis. However, since that evidence is not conclusive and represents a

triable issue of fact, the probability of incurring additional costs to litigate the fees issues offsets

the reduction in probability that Mr. Bauer can recover them. Furthermore, generally speaking,

most ethical attorneys would require the Plaintiff to resolve the fees issue with predecessor

counsel before agreeing to take the case (as I would). Thus, there will be pressure to pay the fees

or come to an amicable settlement. Accepting Bauers figures, the economic cost of the

outstanding fees to Mr. Bauer at this point in the case is $12,517.41.

New Attorneys Fees. A new attorney would be required to litigate the case through

trial. Given the extensive history of the case, some non-trivial cost would be incurred inreviewing and understanding the almost four-year history of this litigation (8 hrs). Then,

amendment of the complaint (4 hrs), response to various outstanding motions and issues

including the garnishment and counter-claims (26 hrs), preparation for trial on the substantive

issues and defenses (30 hrs), and the trial itself (30 hrs) will require substantial attorney time. At

an estimated $250 per hour, for 98 estimated attorney hours (loosely including paralegal time,

costs etc as part of the hours estimate), the fee for completing the case would be $24,500. Note

that any new attorney would have to consider the highly aggressive and acrimonious nature of

this particular litigation. This cost to complete the case is certain to be incurred, accounted

therefore at 100% probability. The economic value of this cost is $24,500.4

4It is unlikely a new attorney will offer a discounted, flat-rate, or contingency fee to take this case. The Defendants

have shown there is NO likelihood of a positive-cash settlement. Thus, there is no possible reward offsetting the

risks posed by this case. The only conceivable basis for a new attorney to proceed would be on a strict time and

materials basis with a substantial up-front retainer.


28/37

Page 4 of 5

Cost to Litigate Appeal. Based on their litigious behavior to date, the Defendants in this

case are almost certain to appeal any favorable ruling. Thus the spreadsheet reflects a

probability of 99% that any favorable verdict would be appealed. An average state-court appeal

is typically valued at $25,000, making the economic cost of this item $24,750.

Unpaid Judgment to Rodeems. Defendants are entitled to collect on their judgment forsanctions in the amount of $11,550. As I understand the present status, some $400-$600 were

garnished by the bank and are awaiting an order of the court for release. If Plaintiff prevails at

trial, it is likely any award will be setoff by this amount if it is not already paid. Thus, 100%

probability the entire cost will be incurred, economic value $11,550.

Subtotal, Projected Costs. The total projected costs, which will likely be incurred

whether or not Plaintiff prevails, are $73,317.41. This amount should be considered the direct costs

avoided by ceasing litigation at this point. I note that the smallest cost in this category, the Unpaid

Judgment, eliminates almost entirely the projected recovery.

Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and

emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome, the

book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the non-

pecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate the physical

and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both short and long-term

effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time invested in the case but also by

loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this

figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards.

There is 100% probability these costs will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.

Net Value of Case. The net value of the case is calculated on the spreadsheet by netting

all the projected costs of litigation from the projected economic recovery. In this case, the

spreadsheet calculates that the net value of the case is negative $164,316.

In summary, even if the figures are manipulated in the most favorable way, such as by

raising the probability of succeeding with actual and punitive damages to 100%, erasing Mr.

Bauers attorneys fees, forecasting that no appeal would be filed, and waiving the emotional

and physical costs to Plaintiff, the case still would still be in the red by over $7,000

((7,143+21,431)-24,500-11,550). The assumptions that the costs would be limited in this way are,

obviously, unrealistically optimistic.


29/37

Page 5 of 5

The issue to my mind, therefore, is how to exit the case with the lowest possible cost.

Please see my letter regarding a recommended course of action for my suggestions in this

regard.

Respectfully,

Jeff Childers


30/37

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDAGENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE NUMBER: 05-CA-7205Plaintiff, DIVISION: JVS.BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,a Florida corporation; WILLIAM 1. COOK

Defendants.______________ ---elOFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

COMES NOW, the undersigned on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, to seekclarification of a Clerk's Detenninat ion dated May 27, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit A, allegedlyappointing the Office of the Public Defender on behalf of the plaintiff, Neil Gillespie, in this causebased upon the following:

I. An Application for Criminal Indigent Status and Clerk's Detennination attachedhereto as Exhibit A purports to appoint the Office of the Public Defender to represent theplaintiff in this cause.

2. It appears from the docket in this cause that Neil Gillespie is the plaintiff in thiscause and that he is before the Court based upon an Order to Show Cause.

3. Section 27.51, Florida Statutes, sets forth the duties of the Public Defender. Theduties of the Public Defender under Section 27.5 I (b)(3), Florida Statutes, provide that the Public

belief that the plaintiff in this cause, Neil Gillespie, is facing an action for criminal contempt.I


31/37

WHEREFORE. the undersigned seeks to clarify with the Court the applicability of theApplication for Criminal Indigent Status and Clerk's Detennination as evidenced in Exhibit A,

attached hereto.I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing motion has been furnished to Neil

Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, FL 34481, Ryan C. Rodems, Esq. of Barker, Rodems &Cook, P.A., 400 North AsWey Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, FL 33602, and to Richard L. Coleman,Esq., P.O. Box 5437, Valdosta, GA 31603, by hand or U.S. mail delivery, this 1st day of June,2011.

Mi acockFlorida Bar # 0303682Post Office Box 172910Tampa, Florida 33672-0910(813) 272-5980(813) 272-5588 (fax)[email protected]

Ikm

2
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


32/37

IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.STATE OF FLORIDA vs. t1-e.. \ LQJ I\ ' I tDefendant/Minor Child ./" APPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL INDIGENT STATUS_ ~ _ I A SEEKING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER .ORI HAVE A PRIVATE ATIORNEY OR AM SELF-REPRESENTED AND SEEK DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCE STATUS FOR COSTSNotice to Applicant: The provision of a public defenderlcourt appointed lawyer and costs/due process services are not free. AjUdgment and lien may be imposed agains.t all real orpersonal property you own to pay for legal and other services provided on your behalf or on behalf of the person for whom you are making this application. There is a $50.00 fee fQr eachapplication filed. If the application fee is not paid to the Clerli of the Court within 7days, it will be added to any oosts that may be assessed against you at the oonclusion of this case. Ifyou are aparent/guardian making this affidavit on behalf of a minor or tax-dependent adult, the information contained in this application must include your income and assets.1. I have Udependents. (Do not incl!,hildren not living at home and do not include a working spouse or yourself.) .2. 1have a take home income of $ ~ paid ( ) weekly () bi-weekly ( ) semi-monthly () monthly ( ) yearly(Take home inoome equals salary, wages, bon;;ies, commissions, allowances, overtime, tips and similar payments, minus deductions required by law and other court-ordered

support payments) ~ 3. I have other inco.me paid ( ) weekly ( ) i - W e e k J Y ~ s e m i - m p Q 1 l 1 ~ ~ t h I Y ( ) yearly: (Circle "Yes" and fill in the amount ifyou have this kind of noome, otherwise c i r c l ~ o ? Social 5ecurilybenefits es $ -1-1---- No Veterans' benefit............................... Yes $,------I(!9i.Unemployment oompensation................. s $ Child suppor! or other regular support ~ ..nion Funds Yes $ . 0 from family members/spouse...... . Yes $ . .Workers oompensation : Yes $ I Rental incOme................................. Yes $. .Retirement/pensions Yes $ . Dividendsor interest.. :............. Yes $Trusts or gifts Yes $ 0 Other kinds of inoome not on the lis!...... Yes.$

, Ih,w , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ : : ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , " ' s ' " ~ """""" 0 No' 'No' U" : ~ . . . ~ t o ~ " " " " " ' ~ 1 :=l = ~ ~ : ~ ~ c : ~ } ( ~ ~ ~ ~ f t ~ ; Yes $ ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ i ' ~ ~ ~ ' i ~ ~ d ~ d i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ) ' ~ : ~ ' ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ' money market accounts Yes $ ~ "Equity means value minus loans. Also i s t : a n y e x p e ~ c y "Equity in Motor VehiclesIBoatsi ~ / " " In an interest in such property.Other tangible property.................. ~ e I ~ V ~ No Ust the address of this property: . '. ~ Us! the year/make/model and tag#: I ~ i J ? ~ ~ . ~ Address ---,_

. r "lgtb- " L ~ ~ Y;cf City, State, Zip . ."I ....' : . .. '" County of Residence Z5. I have a total amount of liabilities and debts in the amount of lf7; ~ W6. I receive: (Circle "Yes" or "No? U lTemP9rary Assistance for Needy Families-Cash Assistance :... "Als ~ Poverty-related veterans' benefits.................................................................................................................................................... Yes . ~ Supplemental security Inoome (551) :............................ Yes CJ'I"""7. I have been released on bail in the amount of $ ~ . Cash__ Surety __ Posted by: Self __ Family __ OtherApersen who knowingly provides false information to the clerk or the oourt in seeking a determination of indigent status under s. 27.52, F.5., oommits a misdemeanor of the first degree,punishable as provided in s. 775.082, F.S., or s. 775.083, F.S. I attest that the information I have provided on this Application is true and accurate to the best of mknowledge. ~ ./ ~ . # : _/------..:...Signed this A7 day of .Mil! ,2olL ~ -r',,?/. _"

SigDate of Birth S pIC; ,- 1 7 ~ G Print Full L al Name

. . / ? .r.ao. Address 'Driver's license or ID numberU i t y , State, Zip'Phone l1umberCLERK'S DETERMINATION

V-; ; : :ed n the inf rmation 'in this Application, I have determined the applicant tobe e n t ( ) Not Indigent= - _ V ; ; : _ T h ~ P blic Def nder is hereby appointed to the case listed above until relieved by the Court.M' ,. (

-D1te) P A T F R A ' N K - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - ... -_ ..Clerk of the Circuit CourtThis fonn was completed with the assistance of__ Clerk/Deputy Clerk/Other authorized person

APPLICANTS FOUND NOT INDIGENT MAY"SEEK REVIEW BY ASKING fO R A HEARING TIME, Sign here if you want the judgeto review the clerk's decision of not indigent

06/18/10 EXHIBIT "A"


33/37

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

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDAGENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE NUMBER.: 05-CA-7205Plaintiff,DIVISION: J

v.BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J.COOK Defendants. /

ORDER RELIEVING THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THETHIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FROM REPRESENTATION

OF PLAINTIFF NEIL GILLESPIETHIS CAUSE having come to be heard on the Motion of the Office of the Public Defender

for Clarification and the Court being fully advised in the premises does hereby relieve the Office ofthe Public Defender of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit from representation of the pla intif f in this causeas there is no lawful basis for the appointment of the Office of the Public Defender to represent theplaintiff in the cause currently before the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida on this __ ay ofJune, 2011.

HONORABLE JAMES D. ARNOLDCIRCUIT COURT JUDGETHIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITHILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Copies furnished to:Neil-GilJ'pi8092-SW-l-lS th L o o p , ~ , I 1 - . f : : . : J 4 4 3 - 1 . B__ . -- . .. - ~ - - - - _ -- .... m. . .. .. - - -

Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, 400 North Ashley Dr., Ste. 2100, Tampa, FL 33602Richard L. Coleman, Esq., P.O. Box 5437, Valdosta, GA 31603Mike Peacock, Office of the Public Defender/km

ORIGINAL ~ ! G N E D J U i ~ - 1 2Ull

J A ~ ~ S !:'.. . ~ N O t D CIRCUITJUDGE


34/37


35/37

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDAGENERAL CIVIL

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,Plaintiff, Case No. OS-CA-720SVs. Division: "J"BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A,A Florida corporation; WILLIAM J.COOK,

Defendants.- - - - - - - - -_ . /

ORDER RESCINDING WRIT OF BODILY ATTACHMENTTHIS CAUSE having come before the Court on June 21, 2011 and the Plaintiff,

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, having complied by volunteering to appear and producing alldocuments under the Deposition Duces Tecum and the court being otherwise being fullyadvised in the premises, it is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court's Writ of Bodily Attachment ofNEIL J. GILLESPIE of June 1,2011, is hereby rescinded.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Florida, Hillsborough County,Florida, this __ day of June, 2011.JAMES D. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge

Copies furnished to:Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 11S th Loop ORIGINAL SIGNEOOcala, FL. 34481 J U ~ 'l t 2011

JAMES D. ARNOLO'Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire CIRCUIT JUDGEBarker, Rodems & Cook, PA400 North Ashley DriveSuite 2100Tampa, FL. 33602


36/37

Gillespie p1 of 2

1

DR. KARIN HUFFER

Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082

ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist

Counseling and Forensic Psychology

3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146

702-528-9588 www.lvaallc.com

October 28, 2010

To Whom It May Concern:

I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The

document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right

to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being

afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been

subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities

As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and

testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways

possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the Judge and

now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with

arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a

paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is

precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.

While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,

I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,

psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is ableto communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases

and protect themselves.

Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of

judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to

accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too

often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and

oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court

personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and

bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing

them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. Thiscreates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In

our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an

unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the

demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain

health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this

juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general

diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell


37/37

Gillespie p2 of 2

cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability

to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to

respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.

It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests

for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against mymedical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly

being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of

bullies to sort out a legal problem.

I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree

that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes

to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II

of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide

heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir.

2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative

duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded ashaving a disability with no formal diagnosis.

The United States Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by

Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of

opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the

specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals

with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or

benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II,

Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not

require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by

the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and

limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been

denied Neil Gillespie.

The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-

documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression

and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly

under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without

a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level

of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than

two years.

thank you for moral courage

Documents