Professional Documents
Culture Documents
'"
'"
'"
o
13' ! I
GENERAL AND SPECIAL FUND
0869PL PLRA Filing Fees
086900 Docketing Fees
322340 Sales of Publications & Opinions
322350 Copy Fees
322360 Miscellaneous Fees
(Includes Certifi tion Fee)
510000 Fees for Judicial ervices
ACCOUNT AMOUNT
0869PL
086900
322340
510000
322350
322360
TOTAL $
Mail
-0 Rail
All checks, money orders, drafts, etc. are accepted subject to collection. Full credit will not be
given until the negotiable i t has een ac . cia' itution on which it
was drawn.
I, "
,,' "
..
ATLANTP<.GA 303
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS _ ... '. ". _.r.... "_ .. "...., _".'_
44
r#t..<. .. y
. ",...
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT , ....."....,,;r:lI!
_ .. ..
OFFICE OF THE CLERK ....- - .__.
56 FORSYTH STREET. N.W.
04i18i2006
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
Mailed From 3.0303
US POSTAGE
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
\
PENALlY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300
t
t
"
:j
ol
o
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 tho Loop
Ocala, FL. 34481
3448i +::::=5:7 111/1,.1,,/,I.. " ,,1111/ 11,,11,,/ ,Ill"1/1,,, 11,1,,1//.11,.1,'
p
Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 121 Filed 12/10/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1363
2
i
BARKER, RODEl\'1S & COOK, P.A.
CLOSIN'C STATEMENT
Style of Case: Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomelleld, and As of: October 31, 2001
Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation.
Our File No.: 99.4766
ATTORNEYS' FEES $ 50,000.00
& COSTS
PAYMENTS TO CLIENTS
EUGENE R. CLEMENT $ 2,000.00
GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD 2,000.00
NEIL GILLESPIE 2,000.00
TOTAL $ 56,000.00
. I
In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that ANISCOT Corporation separately paid
my attomeys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for court
awarded fees and costs. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy ofthe fully executed Release
and Settlement Agreement dated October 30, 2001.
3
-, \ ,
) Ii
....'-' , ....
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM
J. COOK,
DEFENDANTS.
--------------_-----:/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made
arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,
ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.
2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to
dismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this
order within which to file responsive pleadings.
DIVISION" F "
or, 36
-
//1
4
3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike
portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:
a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.
b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.
c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or
failure to comply with 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this
_ day of JAN 13 2006 , 2o_.
RICHARD A. NIELSEN
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33606
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
or' 37
f _
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
111
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
ARTICLE NO.: 7005257000004274 1994
March 20, 2006
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
Dear Mr. Resems,
This request is made pursuant to Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), Rules of Professional Conduct,
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Kindly provide the following:
1. A copy of the executed closing statement of October 31, 2001, reflecting an
itemization of all costs and expenses in the Amscot litigation, together with the amount of
fee received by each participating lawyer or law firm; and
2. A copy ofthe executed contingent fee contract in the Amscot case. This includes
the executed Statement of Client's Rights as well as an Acknowledgment regarding the
investigation of my claim. These three documents encompass the entire agreement between
me and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (See Class Representation Contract, page 3).
Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) requires that each participating lawyer shall retain a copy of the
written fee contract and closing statement for 6 years after execution of the closing
statement. Any contingent fee contract and closing statement shall be available for
inspection at reasonable times by the client, by any other person upon judicial order, or by
the appropriate disciplinary agency. This is a request for a copy of the documents in lieu
of an inspection. In the alternative I will make an inspection. Please indicate how you
wish to proceed. You may contact me by email atNeiIGillespie@PeoplePC.com.
Sincerely,
~ / Z ' h ? ~ k -
Neil J. Gilt{spie .
5
Page 1 ofl
,
~ ~ C _ . c i i i i o _ m _
From: "Chris Rodems" <rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com>
To: <NeiIGillespie@PeoplePC.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 6:05 PM
Attach: Docs responsive to NJG letter of 3-20-6.pdf
Subject: Your document request - March 20, 2006
Dear Neil:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2006. Each of the items requested have been
previously sent to you, and you have attached most of them to your initial complaint filed with the
Florida Bar. Given your threats of physical violence against me during our last telephone
conversation, and given that you have copies of these documents, your letter appears to be an effort
to harass us. Therefore, I contacted the Florida Bar to seek advice on how to respond. I was advised
that because the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not address abuse of the rules by former
clients, the most practical response would be to send the documents to you again. They are attached
in pdf format. In the event you make this request again, I have fulfilled my obligations. If this format
is not to your liking, you may come to our office any business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to
inspect the documents; however, we request 24 hour notice so that we may arrange to have security
present.
Sincerely,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
813/489-1001
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com
NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney
client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended
recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any
physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
3/28/2006
6
l'age 1 or 1
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit - The Honorable Claudia R. 1som - Notice of Conflict
General CiVil, Division H
800 E. TWiggs St., Room 513
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 272-6972
NOTICE FROM THE COURT
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT JUDGE ISOM
HAS THE FOLLOWING RELATIVES PRACTICING LAW
OR INVOLVED IN LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES
IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA
Husband, A. Woodson (Woody) Isom, a sole practitioner.
Brother, Dale J.. Rickert, who is a shareholder in the Law Firm of
Dale J. Rickert.
Sister-in-Law, Janice Matson Rickert, who is an associate with
the Law Firm of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., in the "Health
Care Litigation Group".
f you feel the . t be a conflict in your case based on the abm
information, ease raise the issue 0 it can be resolved prior to n
(;
residing over any matters concerning your case.
Thank you,
Claudia Rickert Isom
Circuit Judge
Home DIVISIons 0 t:l1e Courts Judges Directory Leg;)1 Offll:e at t:l1e (
Geneml Informa on MediCI Center Job lIsbngs Lmks Search
10 I et!1Ilh d td Lrcu
http://www.fljud13.org/judgeisom_notice.htm12/3/2006
7
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11S
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 27,2006
The Honorable Claudia R. Isom
Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court, Division H
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 513
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 2005 CA 7205, Division H
Dear Judge Isom,
Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodenls' ranting telephone
message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his subsequent five page diatribe of
even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling, ongoing harassment, and
his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all is evidence that he should be disqualified
as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lost perspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his
perjury before the Court that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen.
Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribe
of wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodems contacts the
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. Apparently Mr. Rodenls has
been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from home during normal business
hOllrs. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line 15). As stated before, I anl
concerned for his well-being and mine. I also requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending
me ad hominem abusive messages and letters.
Thank you.
Enclosures
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney for Defendants
8
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
December 27, 2006
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Dear Mr. Rodems,
This is in response to your ranting phone message of December 13, 2006, and
your subsequent five page diatribe of even date. It appears you have lost perspective in
this matter. Both contacts are evidence supporting your disqualification as counsel.
As for the substance of your communications, your wild accusations and theories
are little more than self-serving fantasies. I consider both to be outside the bounds of
acceptable behavior by an attorney and an officer of the court. I have referred them to the
attention of the Court for appropriate action. Your name calling, that I am a "pro se
litigant of dubious distinction", "cheap", and other such, is harassment. Be advised that I
received your telephone message while at the oral surgery clinic at Shands Hospital in
Gainesville, and was so upset that I had to cancel my appointment and leave.
Mr. Rodems, you may benefit from the following:
Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in
response to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that a program be created to identify
and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse, mental health, or
other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers (Bar Rule 2-9.11). FLA is
independent of The Florida Bar, although it does receive funding from that organization.
Paramount to FLA is the protection of confidentiality for those attorneys who contact
FLA for help. Confidentiality in voluntary cases is protected by a written contract with
The Florida Bar which guarantees the confidentiality of FLA records, as well as by Bar
Rule 3-7.1(i), Chap. 397.482-486, F.S., and other state and federal regulations. Judges,
attorneys, law students, and support personnel who seek the assistance of FLA need not
worry that FLA will report them to the Bar, the Board of Bar Examiners, or their
8.1
I
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Page - 2
Gillespie v. Barker, case no. 05-CA-7205, Div. H Decenlber 27, 2006
, .
employer. Information is shared with these entities only if the participating individual
signs a waiver of confidentiality. FLA's primary purpose is to assist the impaired attorney
in his or her recovery. (The preceding paragraph is from the Florida Bar's web site).
Mr. Rodems, your perjury before the Court, which led to the recusal of Judge
Nielsen, is evidence of a problem with you. Likewise with your ongoing harassment of me.
I urge you to seek help from Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., or a provider of your choice.
Kindly stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. This type of
communication from you is not welcome. Stop harassing me and govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
- ' - . /)/./P : ~ p ' '//
- ~ ~ ./ /' {&? /'"\.
~
{ ~ l J. Gillere / /. ?//
Enclosure: Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006
cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom, w/enclosures
Transcript of Mr. Rodems' telephone message, December 13, 2006
Copy of Mr. Rodems' five page letter dated December 13, 2006
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
lh
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No. 7005 3110 0003 7395 1887
December 22, 2006
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
Dear Mr. Rodems,
Kindly take notice that we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you
address me as "Mr. Gillespie". I have made this request to you several times, in writing,
and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understand the
problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do
not understand your difficulty. Let me remind you that I am ten years your senior, which
only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie".
As for your immature, childish remark left on my voice mail, your statement that
because the greeting on my voice mail says "Hi,this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get
back to you", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use my first
name, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in this lawsuit. It also
calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A).
I am providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it in the
record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will question you about this matter, to
give the Court and the jury some idea about how unprofessional you are, and to provide a
glimpse into the nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Please address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.
Sincer: y,
/ ,. /'/
.// ;/.-:/ <-51'" ..'
. ," ./(;';./1_____
.
/ ell J. GIlIe.spiel" /
t. //
cc: The Honorable Claudia R. Isom
enclosure, page 5, transcript ofMr. Rodems' phone message of Dec-13-06
8.2
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
Telephone 813/4891001
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/4891008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
December 13, 2006
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Neil:
As you know, I called you on Decelnber 12, 2006 to schedule hearings before Judge Isoln on
February 7,2007. You did not answer, so I left you a voice Inail. Later that afternoon, you sent a
letter to Ine by facsilnile. In it, you clailn to be unavailable Febluary 7 and that you "hope to have
representation within 30 days." You have Illade that assertion for several months now, without
retaining counsel, and I cannot delay this proceeding any further on your unfulfilled prolnises of
retaining counsel. You also state in your letter that I have "threatened the lawyers that were
helping" you, which is completely unfounded. I will address that issue below.
Judge ISOI11 has all day on February 5, 2007 open, and we could resolve all pending motions,
excel)t for your ITIotion for sUlnmary judgtnent, on that date. I left you a voice mail on this today.
As has Judge Nielsen, I have endured for severallnonths now disparaging remarks from you, false
allegations, attacks on my credibility and otherwise boorish behavior. I have not responded to
Illuch of it because I recognize that you are a bitter lnan Wll0 apparently has been victilnized by
your own poor choices in life. You also claim to have ITIental or psychological problelns, of which
I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so abnonnal that I
would not disagree with your assertions of Inental problems. I have lnaintained courtesy in every
tneeting with you, including a wann senti111ent following a hearing -- only to be accused after that
of "taunting" you.
I intend to continue treating you with the saIne dignity and respect as I would opposing counsel in
any other case; however, I have First AInendInent rights, too. I aln not obligated to accept your
false statelnents, disparaging relnarks, attacks on IUy credibility and the other tactics you have used
in this case. I want to ensure that you understand IUy position, and so I find it necessary now to
write to COlTect the record.
8.3
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
December 13,2006
Page 2
As for your claims that I "threatened the lawyers" that is simply false. I forwarded bye-mail
portions of your October 18, 2006 to Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Buchholz and Mr. Snyder, and stated "Neil
Gillespie has filed a letter with Judge Richard Nielsen, and has attributed comments to the three of
you. As an officer of the Court, I believe I have a duty to advise you of this. Please review pages
8-10 of the attached letter. Should any of you desire the complete document, with attachments,
please advise." I have received no reply. In fact, the first confirmation that my letter had been
received by these three attorneys was your December 12 facsimile letter.
Let me explain why I sent the portions of the letter to them. Your tactic of naming these three
lawyers as people you had spoken to, and then attributing statements to them anonymously and en
masse is very damaging to them professionally. I sent the portions of the October 18, 2006 letter
to them so that they could review it and do whatever they felt necessary.
I also sent it to them because I questioned the veracity of your letter. I considered four possibilities
about the statements you attributed to them anonymously: First, you may be lying. Second, you
may be taking some or all of the statements out of context. Third, you may be paraphrasing and
changing the meaning of the actual statements. Fourth, one or all of these attorneys may have
never said anything to you, but were being used by you to endorse statements that you would later
use to attempt to recuse Judge Nielsen.
I also disagree that my actions have hanned your ability to hire counsel. The primary problem is
that your case is weak. You are essentially claiming in this action that our law finn breached its
contract with you by not paying you a portion of the attomeys' fees earned in the Amscot case.
Every attorney knows -- or should know -- that the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the
caselaw prohibit splitting attorneys' fees with a nonlawyer.
It is also clear by reviewing the Closing Statement and your letters to us that you knew that
Amscot was paying all of your attorneys' fees and that you would not have to pay any pOliion of
your settlement for attorneys' fees and costs. In this case, you received 100% of your settlement,
not 60%, and Amscot paid all of your attorneys' fees and costs.
No one has ever rendered an opinion that your case has any merit. You misunderstood the
meaning of a denial of a motion to dismiss. It is not a comment on the merits. In fact, the Court is
required to accept all of your allegations as true. That requirement disappears after the motion to
dismiss is resolved. Now, you are required to prove your specious allegations. Any rational
attomey looking at this situation would not take this case on a contingency fee basis and would
instead require you to pay them by the hour.
You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court filings, are unwilling to pay an attomey
fairly for the work that would need to be done. In fact, you even moved the Court to have an
Mr. Neil J. G'illespie
Decclnbcr 13, 2006
Page 3
attorl1ey appointed for you at the government's expense. Of course, there is no provision under the
ADA for appointlnent of counsel, but the fact tl1at you believe the government should foot the bill
for you to file baseless lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases.
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the required
hourly rates for representation. Yet, you have had no problem paying filing fees for this baseless
lawsuit, the court reporters to transcribe hearings and our telephone calls, and for the frivolous
appeal of the discovery order.
Another lnajor probleln, I gather, in hiring attorneys is your extortion of your fonner attorneys by
threatening to file a Florida Bar complaint if they do not split portions of their earned fees with
you. In fact, you have filed three grievances against Bill Cook in connection with this lnatter -- all
of which were dislnissed, meaning your allegations were unfounded. Rhetorically, why would an
attorney wish to represent you given your past actions against other attorneys?
Additionally, any reasonable attorney would find your conduct in this case to be reprehensible.
1. You have routinely violated tIle Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, only to clailll that
pro se litigants are entitled to special treatlnent. At every hearing, I recall Judge
Nielsen had to advise you to follow the procedural rules and protocol. As I have
pointed out with citations of authority, the law in Florida is clear: You are expected
to follow the rules of procedure, and you are not entitled to special treatment.
When I have cited tIle law to you, you have told lne not to do so.
2. You threatened to "slaIn lne up against the wall." After that, I had to request a
bailiff to attend the hearings. You claimed I "taunted" you when, after a hearing, I
wished you well.
3. You have recorded a telephone conversation without lny pennission. I aSSUlne your
research skills have led you to the statutes and caselaw 011 recording telephone
conversation without pennission. In fact, you only filed a portion of the transcript
of our very first telephone conversation and we both know why: You never told lne
you were recording it.
4. You represented to the Cou11 tllat I "threatened" you, and the COlnlnent on which
you based it was lny COffilnent to you that your libeling of lny clients was
unnecessary, and that act would cause you to have to pay. Which, it will. You
have accused lne of perjury.
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
Decetnber 13, 2006
Page 4
5. You have filed defenses to the counterclailTI that are nonsensical, and yet you
claimed to be well-qualified to represent yourself when I moved for sanctions and
asked the Court to require you to hire counsel.
6. You took a contradictory position and moved to have an attorney appointed for you
because you were not qualified or able to represent yourself, citing your disability,
without proof, and a federal law that does not even address the appointlnent of
counsel in a civil action. In one hearing, when Judge Nielsen asked you for
authority, you replied with words to the effect tllat you have no training in the law.
You have portrayed yourself as the victim wIlen it suits you and the able advocate
when it suits you.
7. You failed to respond to discovery, forcing me to file a motion to cOInpel, which
was granted. You refused to cOInply with that Order, filed a frivolous appeal,
which was dismissed, and then petitioned for writ of certiorari, which was also
disInissed.
8. WIlen I filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause on the discovery Order, you
claimed to be pursuing coverage of the counterclaim by an insurance COInpany.
You asked for a continuance of the hearing on that basis. We contacted the
insurer's claims adjuster and negotiated a very favorable settlement for you of tIle
counterclaim, and when you found out, you withdrew the claim, thereby preventing
the counterclaim from being resolved.
9. Facing an imIninent hearing on your contumacious disregard for the Court's July
24, 2006 discovery Order after your appeal of it was denied, you decided to "judge
shop" and attacked Judge Nielsen to force him to recuse himself. In doing so, you
cited unrelated, irrelevant issues and atteInpted to bait hinl witll disparagi11g and
caustic relnarks, even though he was polite and respectful towards you at all tilnes,
allowed you to sublnit additional argulnent when you caIne to the first hearing
unprepared, and gave you additional tilne to find an attorney when we were
scheduled to hear on October 4, 2006 your defiance of the July 24, 2006 discovery
Order. No good deed goes unpunished, rigllt?
You succeeded in having Judge Nielsen step down. There is no effective process
for challenging his recusal or having a Court rule on the motive of your Inotioll to
disqualify hiIn, but if you were an attorney, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
would require Ine to file a bJTievance alld you would likely have faced severe
sanctions.
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
Decell1ber 13, 2006
Page 5
Neil, we offered to settle with you without pursuing our right to attorneys' fees and costs, as
ordered by Judge Nielsen in the July 24,2006 Order. You rejected it. We offered to settle the
coullterclailTI with your insurer. You withdrew the insurance claim. You are spending a lot of
1110ney on filing fees, court reporter fees, and gasoline to hand-deliver motions and whatnot. It
appears you want your day in court, so to speak. Judge Isom has all day on February 5,2007 open.
I urge you to a!:,Tfee to set the hearings on that date. We can then tTIove forward and bring this case
to resolution.
I hope tl1is clarifies lIlY position oIllnatters, and I look forward to workillg with )lOU.
RCRIso
D
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN THE STATE OF FlORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSB)OC)UGH COUNTY
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-7205
-vs
D.ivision: "H
n
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.
A Florida Corporation,
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
-----------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE RECORDING
RECEIVED AT: As Indicated Below
DATE & TIME: December 12 & 13, 2006
TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth
Court Reporte.r
Notary Public
(ORIGINAL
(COpy
Hichael J. Borseth
Court Reporter/Legal Transcription
(813) 598-2703
8.4
2
D
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Plaintiff:
NBIL J. GU,TaSPD 3
8092 SW 115t.h Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481 4
(352) 854-7807
5
6
For the Defendants:
7
RYAN CllRIftOPBBR IQ)BMSI UQUmB
8 .Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive
9 Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
10 (813) 489-1001
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
D
1
* * * * * * * * * *
2 AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHING: - this
3 message -
4 MR. RC>OEMS: Hi Neil, it's Chris Rodems. It's
5 Tuesday, February 7th at about 10:10 in the
6 morning. I have called JUdge 1som' s chambers this
7 morning to find some hearing time for the motions
8 that we're covering and they have offered
9 Februa.ry 7, 2007, at 10 a .m. for two hours. If
10 you're available that day we can start with the two
11 motions for reconsideration or rehearing that you
12 filed. And then depending on her rUling go into
13 the motions that a.re pending that we filed. And
14 that would be the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and
15 Strike -- Counterclatm, dated
16 Fe.bruary 8th, 2006 - actually, that's your motion,
17 that hasn't been finished.
18 As you reca.ll, JUdge Nielsen started hearing
19 it on Apri.l 25th, 2006, and made rUlings on
20 portions of it but did not finish it. So we would
21 need to discuss with JUdge Isom whether she 'wishes
.22 to adopt his partial rUlings or hear the thing from
23 the begi.nning. In the event that she wishes to
24 hear it from the beginning we should be ready to
25 argue it from the beginning_
4
D
1 The other two motions that we have pending are
2 Defendant '5 Motion - Amended Motion for Sanction.s
3 pursuant to Section 57.105 that was filed on
4 Ma.y 3rd, 2006. And then Defendant t s Motion for
5 Order to Show Cause why parties should not be held
6 in contempt of Court, which was dated August 25th
7 of 2006.
8 So if you're available on February 7th, for
9 two hours beginning at ten a.m., we can hear all of
10 those motions. The office number is 813-489-1001.
11 And if you could call me back as soon as possible
12 and let me know, I p.romised the Judge's judicial
13 assistant, Joyce, that I would call her back
14 probably today one way or the other.
15 So I look forward to hea.ring from you. I m
16 out of the office now. If you have caller 10 t.his
17 is actually my home phone I'm call.ing you from and
18 I will be here for a little bit longer this
19 morning. But if you could call me back at the
20 office and leave me a message, 813-489-1001. And I
21 look .forward to hearing from you. Thank you Neil.
22 Bye-bye.
23 AUTOMA.TED ANSWERING MA.CHING: To replay this
24 message press 1. To delete press 7. To return the
25 message sender's call press 8. To save press 9.
5
D
1 For more options press 6.
2 (Whereupon, the above message was
3 concluded. )
4
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5 MR. RODEMS: Hi Neil, it's Chris Rodems. It s
6 about ten 0
1
clock on Wednesday, December 13th and
7 I'm following up from your fax yesterday. By the
8 way, you're greeting says; hi, this is Neil, leave
9 me a message and I
1
11 get back to you. So that's
10 what I'm doing.
11 Judge 180m does have February 5th ava.ilable
12 all day. So we can cover all of the motions at
13 that time. I understand you're not available on
14 Fe.bruary 7th, so let me know of your availabi.lity
15 on February 5th.
16 What I cannot do is wait to schedule hearing.s
17 on your claims that you're going to hire counsel.
18 You have been saying this since October, and you
19 have done nothing. You had plenty of time to hire
20 counsel. I know that you have talked to a numbe.r
21 of counsel, because you say so every time you file
22 a court pleading.
23 I also disagree with your fax in that it says
24 that I threatened lawyers that were helping you. I
25 ha:ve not even spoken to any of the lawyers about
6
D
1 your case ever. What I did do is I sent to those
2 three lawyers that you claimed made al.l of these
3 disparaging and despicable conments about Judge
-4 Nielsen, I sent them a copy of the letter that you
5 filed in the court file in which you att.ributed
6 anonj1InOus statements to the three of them. Because
7 as an Officer of the Court and as a Member of the
8 Bar, I do think that they are entitled to know when
9 someone is out there spreading statements
10 attributed to them to the Judges, to be very
11 damaging on somebody' s career to have someone I.ike
12 you, a pro se litigant of dubious distinction,
13 spreading claims that these attorneys have made
14 disparaging conments about the Judge. I thought
15 they were entitled to know. That's why I sent them
16 that letter.
17 Obviously, if any of the three of them feel
18 they need to correct your statements or deny
19 attribute - the statements you attribute to them,
20 they're free to do that. But I have had no
21 discussions with them and I do have the E-Mail that
22 I sent to them. And your cla.im that I threatened
23 them is just another fabrication on your part.
24 I would also point out that the problem that
25 you t re having in retaining counsel is probab.ly more
0
7
1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and
2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're
3 usual hours rates are for litigat.ion like this, or
4 the fact that your history of filing Bar grieva.nces
5 against attorneys is well known.
6 That you threatened to file three against Bill
7 Cook in this case, all three of which were denied
8 out of hand. And you also filed claims against a
9 Judge in Pinellas County. And I suspect that
10 you're probably drafting a complaint against me
11 right now as we speak for, you know, my zealous
12 represent.ation of my clients, which I know you
13 dontt agree with.
14 They also are aware of the statements that you
15 have made aga.inst Judge Nielsen, obviously, since
16 this is a public record now your .lette.rs that you
17 filed in October and the motion that you filed to
18 disqua.lify him. And quite frankly, the letters are
19 so bizarre and. filled with ju.st despicable
20 allegations unrelated to the case, that I suspect
21 that they don't want to have anything to do with
22 you because they question your veracity and your
23 credibility. I certainly do. But I think that
24 that more than likely explains the reasons that
25 youtre not retaining counsel, not the fact that I
8
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sent them a one-line letter that said; here's the
letter that Bill Gillespie filed, you probably
should take a look at it, as an Officer of the
Court, of course.
So there has 'been no effective threatening of
anybody. I 1 ve never threatened you at any time.
You keep saying this in all of your Court filings.
But what you keep referring back to is my statement
to you that because of your defamation of my
clients that you will pay. And Ultimately, in the
end, I believe that that will be the case. I
believe that you will have to pay because yo'u
canno't just go around and defame people without
expecting to be held accountable for that. And
that' s all that we have ever tried to do is a.sk you
to honor the agreement that you made and to act
decently. And in.stead, what we always seem to
receive fram you are grievances, complaints,
scandalous allegations. And then on top of all
that you alway.s fall back on your medical
condition, which I have never seen any
documentation of, that you always allude to that in
your Court filing.s. And quite frankly, you play
the victim when it suits you and you play the
advocate when it suits you and you try to double
9
D
1 deal against people all the time. Your mi.sdea.lings
2 and your mult.iple lawsuits over the years certainly
3 support that.
4 If you would care to ta.lk about any of this I
5 would be more than happy to talk to you about it.
6 We will have a chance to inquire about all of this
7 when we get to take your deposition. But I _.
8 AUTOMATED ANSWERING MACHING: To replay this
9 message press 1. To delete press 7. To return the
10 message sender's call press 8. To save press 9.
11 For more options press 6.
12 ~ r o replay this message press 1. To delete
13 press 7. To return the message sender's call press
14 8. To save press 9. For more options press 6.
15 To replay this message press 1. To delete
16 p.ress 7. To return the message sender '5 call press
17 8 . To save press 9. For mo.re options press 6.
18 Main menu. To listen to your messages press
19 1. To send a message press 2.. To create a
20 greeting press 3. For more box options press 4.
21 For all security press 5. For help press O.
22 Main menu. To listen to your messages press
23 1. To send a message press 2. To create a
24 greeting press 3. For more box options press 4.
25 For password security press 5. For help press O.
10
D
1 Main menu. T'o listen to your messages press
2 1. To send a message press 2. To create a
3 greeting press 3. For more box options press 4.
-4 For password security press 5. For help press O.
5 Thank you for using T-Mobile Voice Mail. Goodbye.
6 (Whereupon,
7 concluded. )
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the above message was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,.. ....... - . ,v
...~ ~ ........
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
If Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter
for the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for
Hillsborough County, 00 HEREBY CERTIEY, that I was
authorized to and did transcribe a tape/CD recording of
the proceedings and evidence in the above-styled cause,
as stated in the caption hereto, and that the foregoing
pages constitute an accurate transcription of the tape
recording of said proceedings and evidence, to the best
of my ability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I tlave hereunto set my hand
in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of
Florida, this 17 December 2006.
MICHAEL J. BORSETH, Court Reporter
--------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: H
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J. COOK,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS TO STOP HARASSING BEHAVIOR
Plaintiff pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves the Court for an Order compelling Ryan
Christopher Rodems to stop his ongoing harassing behavior directed at him, and as
grounds therefor would state:
1. Ryan Christopher Rodems made a false verification against Plaintiff in
Defendants Verified Request For Bailiff and for Sanctions submitted March 6, 2006. It
was a stunt that backfired when a tape recording proved Mr. Rodems lied under oath to
gain an advantage over Plaintiff. Mr. Rodems' perjury led to the recusal of the Honorable
Richard A. Nielsen and embarrassed the Court. While these stunts may be commonplace
for lawyers of Mr. Rodems' ilk, they are very upsetting to normal people. Currently
there is a motion before the Court to show cause why Mr. Rodems should not be held in
criminal contempt for perjury.
2. In an ongoing effort to annoy, offend, and harass Plaintiff, Mr. Rodems
refuses to address him by his surname, "Mr. Gillespie", and instead calls Plaintiff by his
Page - 1 of3
9
first name "Neil" or "Neily". Plaintiff requested Mr. Rodems not to do this, by certified
letter dated December 22, 2006, but Rodems persists. (Exhibit 1). If Mr. Rodems invokes
"Neily" as a term of love and endearment, Plaintiff states he is not interested in man-love,
and considers Mr. Rodems' overture an unwanted sexual advance.
3. Mr. Rodems has engaged in name-calling directed at Plaintiff, specifically
calling Plaintiff "cheap". Plaintiff views this as an ethnic insult derogatory to his Scots
Irish heritage. In a five-page diatribe dated December, 13, 2006, Mr. Rodems wrote that
"... you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rate for representation."
(Rodems' letter, Dec-13-06, p.3, ~ 1 ) . Mr. Rodems is insinuating that Plaintiff wants a
lawyer "Scot-free". In a ranting telephone message of even date, Mr. Rodems again called
Plaintiff "cheap". This is what Mr. Rodems said: "I would also point out that the problem
that you're having in retaining counsel is probably more likely related to the fact that you
are cheap and you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're usual hours rates are for
litigation like this... ". And again in his letter of December 13,2006, Mr. Rodems made a
very broad, damming statem_ent: "You, apparently, from your comments to me and in court
filings, are unwilling to pay an attorney fairly for the work that would need to be done. In
fact, you even moved the Court to have an attorney appointed for you at the government's
expense. Of course, there is no provision under the ADA for appointment of counsel, but
the fact that you believe the government should foot the bill for you to file baseless
lawsuits is entirely consistent with your actions in this case and past cases." (Rodems'
letter, Dec-13-06, p.2, ~ 7 ) . Again, Mr. Rodems is making an ethic slur against Plaintiff's
Scots-Irish background. In the instant case, Mr. Rodems will be liable for attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to 768.79 Florida Statutes when Plaintiff prevails.
Page - 2 of3
4. In addition to ethnic slurs, Mr. Rodems has engaged in name-calling
throughout this litigation, including this from his five-page diatribe: " ... 1recognize that
you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own poor choices in
life." (Rodems' letter, l)ec-13-06, p.1, Mr. Rodems appears to be projecting his own
fears, like his poor choice when he decided to lie to Judge Nielsen in his false, perjurious
verification of March 6, 2006. Mr. Rodems also called Plaintiff a "pro se litigant of
dubious distinction". (Rodems' phone message, Dec-13-06, p.6, line 12). In fact, Mr.
Rodems is only jealous because Plaintiff recently prevailed as a pro se litigant against
HSBC Bank in federal court (Gillespie v. HSBC, 5:05-cv-362-0c-10GRJ), and has been
able to move the instant case along despite his dirty tricks, name-calling, and harassment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an Order requiring
Mr. Rodems to address him as "Mr. Gillespie", to stop engaging in ethic slurs, and cease
and desist all ad hominem abusive messages and letters.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2
nd
day of February, 2007.
':---h // ()7.
.,/.-:7 /' /,// _
________
e . GilleSpie, Plaint .
8692 SW t15
th
Loop'
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by fax and
US mail to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400
North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this 2
nd
day of February, 2007.
-,,}
o ... /'..../
//;7
/h __
J. Gill pe /,.
..,/
Page - 3 of3
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala., Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 502-8409
lJS CERrrIF'IED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No. 7005 3110 0003 7395 1887
l)ecember 22, 2006
Christopher Rodems, Attorlley at Law
13arker, "Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
rratnpa, f'lorida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., case no.: 05-CA-7205, Div. H
[)ear Mr. Rodems,
Kindly take notice tllat we are not on a first name basis, and I request that you
address l1le as lOlOMr. Gillespie"". I have made this request to you several times, in writing,
and still you refuse to comply. I address you as "Mr. Rodems", so I do not understalld the
problem. Mature adults in civilized society do this as a matter of course, so again, I do
not lltlderstand yo"ur difficulty. Let me remind you that I atn ten years YOllr senior, which
only reinforces the social protocol that you address me as "Mr. Gillespie".
As for your immature, childisll remark left on lny voice mail, your statement tllat
because tlle greeting on my voice mail says "Hi, this is Neil, leave a message and I'll get
back to YOll", that you somehow construe this as giving you permission to use IllY first
natTIe, this is further evidence that you are unfit to serve as counsel in tllis lawsuit. It also
calls into question your mental fitness to be a lawyer, in my view. (Exhibit A).
I al11 providing a copy of this letter to the Court, and I am including it ill the
record. At trial, with you on the witness stand, I will questioll you about tllis lnatter, to
give tIle C:ou11 and the jury some idea about how ul1professional you are, and to provide a
glinlpse itltO tIle nightmare of being your client at Barker, Rodems & Cool<, P.A.
l>lease address me as "Mr. Gillespie" at all times and govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely.,
Neil J. Gillespie
cc: 'fhe Claudia R. Isom
enclosure., page 5, transcript of Mr. Rodems' phone n1essage ofDec-13-06
EXHIBIT
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA