VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP296624515 Email gyoung@carltonfields.

com Gwynne Alice Young President, The Florida Bar Carlton Fields, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33601-3239 RE: Catherine Barbara Chapman, RFA No. 13-12194 Dear Madam Bar President:

March 26, 2013

The enclosed letter from Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft of March 15, 2013 misstates the above captioned complaint, and failed to hold Ms. Chapman accountable for professional misconduct. This is further evidence that the lawyer discipline system in Florida is catastrophically broken, as described by Jack Thompson in his letter February 18, 2012 to the Florida legislature. Unfortunately Ms. Craft began her March 15th letter with a false statement: As I understand your complaint, you are alleging that Ms. Chapman violated Rule 4-8.3 for not reporting the professional misconduct of your former lawyer and her client, Robert W. Bauer. ( 1, page 1) My complaint makes no such allegation. This is evidence that Ms. Craft is creating a false record in this matter. Ms. Craft also wrote: As for your allegation that Ms. Chapman should have reported her own client, Mr. Bauer, there is likewise insufficient evidence that Ms. Chapman knows of a violation of the rules by Mr. Bauer which raises a substantial question as to his honesty, trustworthiness ,or fitness as a lawyer. Furthermore, in light of the fact that Ms. Chapman represented Mr. Bauer, she would be bound by her duty of confidentiality as provided in Rule 4-1.6, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. This statement by Ms. Craft is also false. My complaint does not allege that ...Ms. Chapman should have reported her own client, Mr. Bauer... Again, this is evidence that Craft is creating a false record, and that the lawyer discipline system in Florida is catastrophically broken. Ms. Young, what is the discipline procedure for Bar Counsel like Ms. Craft who make patently false statements in a letter closing a complaint, such as I have described above? My complaint alleges that Ms. Chapman knew Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlement agreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I was detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court, and then enter the settlement agreement in a federal court action on behalf of the

Gwynne Alice Young President, The Florida Bar

March 26, 2013 Page - 2

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, three Florida judges, Florida court counsel, and the Florida ADA coordinator, to dismiss 5:10-cv-503 with prejudice, for the benefit of the state actors. My complaint alleges that Ms. Chapman knew this was misconduct by Mr. Rodems because only the Attorney General may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. Ms. Chapman knows Mr. Rodems is not the Attorney General. Ms. Chapman knows Rodems negotiated a settlement of my federal civil rights claims, and disability claims, on behalf of Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, three Florida judges, Florida court counsel, and the Florida ADA coordinator. (and her client as well). Ms. Chapman knows Rodems entered the settlement agreement and assignment in a federal court action. In so doing, Ms. Chapman knows Rodems represented those state actors in a federal court action when he sought voluntarily dismissal with prejudice in the federal court action for the benefit of the state actors. I did not contend, as Ms. Craft suggested, that Mr. Rodems entered his appearance on behalf of the State of Florida. Mr. Rodems initially represented himself and his firm in 5:10-cv-503 until I gave notice of voluntary dismissal against Defendants Mr. Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(1)(A). This was necessary after the federal court failed to disqualify Mr. Rodems, who committed multiple violations of Bar Rules while representing himself and his law firm in civil litigation with me, a former client on the same or substantially related matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 41.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. In addition to and including the above, my complaint alleges a number of specific instances of Ms. Chapmans failure to report Mr. Rodems misconduct, and the legal basis thereof. I suggest you read my complaint, which is provided. Ms. Chapman failed her duty to report misconduct of judges under Rule 4-8.3(b). Ms. Chapman failed her duty to report misconduct of Mr. Rodems representing himself and his law firm in civil litigation with me, a former client on the same or substantially related matter, contrary to Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Ms. Craft apparently believes that in order to violate Rule 4-8.3, Ms. Chapman must first admit in writing that she knew Mr. Rodems violated Bar Rules: You provided an email from Ms. Chapman in which she indicates that she does not believe that Mr. Rodems has committed any violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The rule requires a lawyer to report the conduct of another lawyer when she knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. There is no indication in the record that Ms. Chapman failed to report improper conduct of Mr. Rodems. This response is nonsense. Has The Florida Bar not learned anything from Scott Rothstein? The email from Ms. Chapman shows she knew of Mr. Rodems conduct stated above, and that she failed to report the conduct as misconduct; instead Chapman made a self-serving false statement in her email to me. Ms. Craft has a duty at ACAP to determine whether the alleged conduct, if

Gwynne Alice Young President, The Florida Bar

March 26, 2013 Page - 3

proven, would constitute a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline. (Rule 3.7(a)). It is not up to Ms. Chapman to make that determination. Ms. Young, at this time it does not appear that The Florida Bar intends to honestly consider my complaint against Ms. Chapman. Also, I do not believe Ms. Craft has the personal integrity necessary to investigate this complaint. Because Ms. Craft has demonstrated dishonesty in her response of March 15, 2013, she should be removed from RFA No. 13-12194. Ms. Craft misrepresented that my complaint alleged that ...Ms. Chapman should have reported her own client, Mr. Bauer.... My complaint did not make that allegation. Annemarie Craft lied. Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 cc: Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft cc: service list

THE FLORIDA BAR

JOHN

F. HARKNESS, JR.

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

850/561-5600
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

March 15,2013

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 S.W. 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Re: Catherine Barbara Chapman; RFA No. 13-12194

Dear Mr. Gillespie: As I understand your complaint, you are alleging that Ms. Chapman violated Rule 4-8.3 for not reporting the professional misconduct of your former lawyer and her client, Robert W. Bauer. You also contend that Ms. Chapman failed to report the misconduct of Ryan Christopher Rodems for representing the State of Florida in federal court. It appears that the actions which form the basis of your complaint occurred during the course of litigation in the case of Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et aI., 5: 1O-CV-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. Fronl the information I have obtained, it appears that Mr. Rodems has not represented the State of Florida, but rather he has represented himself and his law firm as defendants in the matter. You provided an email from Ms. Chapman in which she indicates that she does not believe that Mr. Rodems has committed any violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The rule requires a lawyer to report the conduct of another lawyer when she knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. There is no indication in the record that Ms. Chapman failed to report inlproper conduct of Mr. Rodems. As for your allegation that Ms. Chapman should have reported her own client, Mr. Bauer, there is likewise insufficient evidence that Ms. Chapman knows of a violation of the rules by Mr. Bauer which raises a substantial question as to his honesty, trustworthiness ,or fitness as a lawyer. Furthermore, in light of the fact that Ms. Chapman represented Mr. Bauer, she would be bound by her duty of confidentiality as provided in Rule 4-1.6, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. At this time there is insufficient evidence to move forward with an investigation of Ms. Chapman. I am therefore closing this inquiry. Pursuant to the Bar's record retention schedule, this file will be disposed of one year from the date of closure. Sincerely,

Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707 Cc: Catherine Barbara Chapman

VIA U.P.S. Tracking No. 1Z64589FP290450115 Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) The Florida Bar 651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 323992300

January 18, 2013

Complaint against attorney Catherine Barbara Chapman, Florida Bar ID: 0148814 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200, Tallahassee, FL 32308, (850) 224-7091 This complaint is for Ms. Chapmans violation(s) of Rule 4-8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct, in connection with her representation of my former lawyer Robert W. Bauer in Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH, my federal ADA and civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. Mr. Bauer was referred to me by the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service for a case in Hillsborough County, Florida, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-7205. During and after that representation Mr. Bauer violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct, see Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B), which complaint does not seek return of $19,212 in fees paid to him1, but his disbarment for a pattern of incompetence and lack of diligence by Mr. Bauer in my case, and toward his other elderly and disabled clients who contacted me to complain about him. Mr. Bauer is also involved in racketeering to undermine civil litigation and Bar complaints as discussed below. At the center of this matter, now before the Supreme Court of the United States, Petition No. 127747 for writ of certiorari, is Ryan Christopher Rodems, who conspired with my last attorney, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, in a pattern of racketeering activity to undermine Bar complaints, Florida case 05-CA-7205, federal litigation in 5:10-cv-503, and obstruct justice, see Eugene P Castagliuolo, File No. 2013-10,162 (6D), sent to Tampa October 25, 2012 Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), sent to Tampa October 26, 2012 Mr. Castagliuolo even provided copies of his filings and responses to the Florida Bar in the above captioned complaint to Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems, as indicated by the abbreviation cc: preceding their names, suggesting this racketeering activity is currently ongoing. Complaint Against Catherine Barbara Chapman, Fla. Bar ID No. 0148814 Ms. Chapman is part of this pattern of racketeering activity to undermine my federal litigation in 5:10-cv-503, and obstruct justice, for failing to report in violation of Rule 4-8.3(a), misconduct of Mr. Rodems, who on June 21, 2011 unlawfully obtained a Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release for the State of Florida, Mr. Bauer, and The Law Offices of Robert W. Bauer, to assign my civil rights and disability claims to Rodems and his partners. Mr. Rodems then entered
Mr. Bauer charged me $31,863 in legal fees. Much of the money was wasted or not productive, including costs to re-litigate matters previously decided res judicata, and $5,600 in travel time. Also, Bauer never filed the amended complaint he promised. $19,212 was paid to Bauer from my Social Security disability benefits or borrowed. $12,650 remains unpaid and subject to an improper attorney charging lien.
1

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 2

the agreement in case no. 5:10-cv-503 with a Notice Of Assignment And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice (Doc. 32) to dismiss my case with prejudice. This representation of the State of Florida in a federal court action by Mr. Rodems was major misconduct because only the Attorney General may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. Ms. Chapman violated RULE 4-8.3 - REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT Rule 4-8.3(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority. Rule 4-8.3(b) Reporting Misconduct of Judges. A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. Rule 4-8.3 Comment Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense. Mr. Rodems Not Authorized To Represent State of Florida in Federal Litigation Mr. Rodems is a lawyer in private practice who engaged in a type of unauthorized practice of law when he represented the State of Florida June 21, 2011 in my federal lawsuit. Previously I complained in general terms that Mr. Rodems representation of the State of Florida was improper. Recently I determined Mr. Rodems violated certain provisions of the Constitution and laws of Florida. Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action, Fla Const Art IV 4, and FS 16.01. Mr. Rodems conduct is prejudicial to justice in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d). Mr. Rodems also intentionally mislead several federal judicial officers in the performance of their duty in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) and (d). Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Unfortunately Ms. Chapman failed to report Mr. Rodems misconduct as requited by Rule 48.3(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. Ms. Chapman also failed to report the misconduct of federal judicial officers under Rule 4-8.3(b) Reporting Misconduct of Judges, which judge and magistrates had a duty to disclose on the record Rodems misconduct. Also, I asked Ms. Chapman about her duty under Rule 4-8.4 and she stated in an email to me August 13, 2012 at 7:03 AM I do not believe [Mr. Rodems] has committed any misconduct. (Exhibit 3).

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 3

Ms. Chapmans Misconduct Related To Doc. 32 Filed June 21, 2011 in 5:10-cv-503 Ms. Chapman was served by electric transmission on June 21, 2011 in Case 5:10-cv-00503WTH-DAB, Document 32, Filed 06/21/11 by Mr. Rodems, Notice Of Assignment And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice, (Exhibit 1), according to the Certificate of Service: I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served this 21st day of June, 2011 by electronic transmission to Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer. No other defendant has been served. /s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Mr. Rodems Notice Of Assignment And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice stated: On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. See Exhibit "1". Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Ms. Chapman knew Exhibit 1 was a Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release, and assignment of my claims in federal litigation involving the State of Florida, Mr. Bauer, and The Law Offices of Robert W. Bauer, to Mr. Rodems and his law partners. Ms. Chapman knew the Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release, and assignment of my claims involved Mr. Bauer, his law firm, and the following State of Florida Defendants: Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida Claudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 200042) James M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 189239) Martha J. Cook, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 242640) David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987) Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida Ms. Chapman knew only the Florida Attorney General can represent the State of Florida in federal litigation, and that Mr. Rodems was not the Florida Attorney General. Ms. Chapman knew Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlement agreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I was detained and in custody of one of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court, and enter the settlement agreement in federal litigation on behalf of Florida to dismiss 5:10-cv-503 with prejudice.

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 4

Ms. Chapman knew State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to appoint counsel to represent the State of Florida: Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorney to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978). Ms. Chapman knew Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states: 16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General: (4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or criminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in the Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state. Ms. Chapman knew The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet, states: (b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the office of the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutor shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of criminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a related transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or more judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed by the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicial nominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law. Ms. Chapman knew Mr. Rodems mislead in violation of Rule 11, F.R.C.P., the following three federal judicial officers in the performance of their duty in case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. United States District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge, Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 - present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398) United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893) Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to July-29-2011 United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269) Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 July-29-2011 to February-27-2012 Ms. Chapman knew the above federal judicial officers had a duty to stop Mr. Rodems fraud on the court, a fraud introduced in Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB, when Rodems filed June 21, 2011 Doc. 32, Notice Of Assignment And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice, (Exhibit 1), but that the above federal judicial officers failed to do so, other than U.S. District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant Mr. Rodems motion.

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 5

Ms. Chapman knew she had a duty under Rule 4-8.3(a) to report Mr. Rodems misconduct described above, but she did not report Rodems misconduct, and choose instead to engage in racketeering activity and obstruct justice to benefit her client, Robert W. Bauer and his law firm. Ms. Chapman knew she had a duty under Rule 4-8.3(b) to report misconduct of the above federal judicial officers, but she did not report the misconduct, and choose instead to engage in racketeering activity and obstruct justice to benefit her client, Robert W. Bauer and his law firm. Ms. Chapmans Misconduct Related To Doc. 40 Filed July 14, 2011 in 5:10-cv-00503 Ms. Chapman was served by electric transmission on July 14, 2011 in Case 5:10-cv-00503WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 by Mr. Rodems, Response to Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Motion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice [DKT 33]. The Certificate of Service states: I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed using the Courts CM/ECF filing system, which will send an electronic notice of filing to: Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer and anyone else registered to receive such filings. No other defendant has been served. /s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Mr. Rodems Response at Doc. 40 stated in part: (Pages 1 and 2 appear at Exhibit 2) Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract the settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action. Mr. Rodems violated his duty under Rule 11 on July 14, 2011 when he submitted (Doc. 40). Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of Florida and therefore he cannot represent the State of Florida in federal litigation. Moreover, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that the proper method of challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). Therefore I filed a Notice of Objection (Doc. 63). The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). Ms. Chapman knew only the Florida Attorney General can represent the State of Florida in federal litigation, and that Mr. Rodems was not the Florida Attorney General, as set forth in more detail in the above section Ms. Chapmans Misconduct Related To Doc. 32 Filed June 21, 2011 in 5:10-cv-00503

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 6

Ms. Chapman knew she had a duty under Rule 4-8.3(a) to report Mr. Rodems misconduct and Rule 11 violation(s), but she did not report Rodems misconduct, and choose instead to engage in racketeering activity and obstruct justice to benefit her client, Robert W. Bauer and his law firm. Ms. Chapman knew she had a duty under Rule 4-8.3(b) to report misconduct of the above federal judicial officers, but she did not report the misconduct, and choose instead to engage in racketeering activity and obstruct justice to benefit her client, Robert W. Bauer and his law firm. Ms. Chapmans Open Defiance of Rule 4-8.3(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers In an email to Ms. Chapman August 13, 2012 at 6:19 AM I asked her about Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct. (Exhibit 3). Thank you Ms. Chapman. Are there currently any outstanding documents? Also when can I expect a reply to my November 17, 2011 question to you: On another matter, I dont see how Mr. Rodems can lawfully or ethically represent your client, and my former counsel, Robert W. Bauer, and the Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, in this matter, through the so-called Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release of June 21, 2011. What is your view? Members of the bar have a duty to report professional misconduct. Have you made a complaint against Mr. Rodems for his misconduct in this case? Florida Bar Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority. You know of the misconduct of Mr. Rodems representing his firm and law partner against me, a former client, contrary to ethics rules and McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. That is only one example of Mr. Rodems' misconduct. Neil Gillespie Ms. Chapman responded by email August 13, 2012 at 6:58 AM: (Exhibit 3) The document served last week. I do not believe Mr. Rosemary has committed any misconduct. I replied by email August 13, 2012 at 7:03 AM: (Exhibit 3)

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 7

Which document served last week? There were several. Who is Mr. Rosemary? Ms. Chapman responded by email August 13, 2012 at 7:19 AM: (Exhibit 3) The last document. My apologies. I meant Mr. Rodems. As set forth above, Ms. Chapman knew only the Florida Attorney General can represent the State of Florida in federal litigation, and that Mr. Rodems was not the Florida Attorney General. Ms. Chapman knew she had a duty under Rule 4-8.3(a) to report Mr. Rodems misconduct, but she did not report Rodems misconduct, and choose instead to engage in racketeering activity and obstruct justice to benefit her client, Robert W. Bauer and his law firm. Ms. Chapman knew she had a duty under Rule 4-8.3(b) to report misconduct of the above federal judicial officers, but she did not report the misconduct, and choose instead to engage in racketeering activity and obstruct justice to benefit her client, Robert W. Bauer and his law firm. The foregoing examples are not Ms. Chapman only violations of her duty under Rule 4-8.3(a) to report Mr. Rodems misconduct. Mr. Rodems has committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct while representing his law firm and partner in civil litigation against me, a former client on the same or substantially related matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 41.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. The Florida Bar Discipline Program Is Intended To Protect the Public A pamphlet Hiring the Right Person to Help Me With My Legal Problems , published by The Florida Bar Public Information and Bar Services Department as a service for consumers states: "The Florida Bar disciplinary program has become the gold-standard for protecting the public." Background of the Complaint Against Ms. Chapman Ms. Chapman represented and defended Mr. Bauer in the following lawsuits: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al., 5:10-cv-503; C.A.11, 12-11213-C Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, 5:11-cv-539; C.A.11, 12-11028-B I am a law-abiding consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce. The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service referred to me Robert W. Bauer, a lawyer who was not

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 8

competent and not diligent in his representation of me. I complained to the Florida Bar in 2010 about Mr. Bauer, see File No. 2011-00,073 (8B). The Bar issued a Letter Report Pursuant to Rule 3-7.4(k) of No Probable Cause Finding that failed to comply with Rule 3-7.4(k) because it did not explain why the complaint did not warrant further proceedings. Also, the Letter Report failed to include any documentation explaining why the complaint did not warrant further proceedings. The Bar opened a second complaint January 7, 2013, File No. 2013-00,540 (8B). Fraud and misconduct of Tampa attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, and his partners Chris A. Barker and William J. Cook, of the law firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, form the basis of this matter, and has led to 21 related legal actions (Exhibit 4) and 14 Bar complaints. (Exhibit 5). Prior to filing any lawsuits I complained to the Florida Bar beginning in 2003. (Exhibit 5). The early complaints were considered by the Tampa Branch Office prior to central ACAP intake. Susan Bloemendaal was then, and is today, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for the Tampa Branch Office of The Florida Bar. Over the period 2004-2010 Ms. Bloemendaal improperly obstructed my complaints, and aided and abetted Mr. Rodems and his partners in taking 90% of a contingent fee case instead of 45% allowed under Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(i), for an unjust enrichment of $21,431. Ms. Bloemendaals own statements in the matter show she acted as a partner in fraud with Mr. Rodems and his law firm, not an independent discipline counsel. Mr. Rodems, his partners, and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA represented me as substitute counsel in the AMSCOT case, 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT, U.S. District Court, M.D.Fla., Tampa. The case settled on appeal before a decision was entered, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, No. 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp. Mr. Rodems and his partners concocted a closing statement fraud (Rule 4-1.5(f)(5)), to take $50,000 as a claim for court-awarded fees and costs and thereby steal $7,143 from my settlement. This was decided by Hillsborough Judge Richard Nielsen by his order January 13, 2006 and established res judicata a case of fraud and breach of contract. This ruling was the basis of Robert W. Bauer litigating the case. This was also the basis of Seldon Childers litigation report of September 16, 2009, who determined $7,143 was stolen, not $6,224 first alleged. Duty and Authority to Discipline Attorneys: The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar Rule 13.1. Composition The membership of The Florida Bar shall be composed of all persons who are admitted by the Supreme Court of Florida to the practice of law in this state and who maintain their membership pursuant to these rules. Right to practice law is not a constitutionally protected privilege or immunity. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587, 133 U.S.P.Q. 157 (1962), certiorari granted 83 S.Ct. 148, 371 U.S. 875, 9 L.Ed.2d 113, 135 U.S.P.Q. 503, vacated 83 S.Ct. 1322, 373 U.S. 379, 10 L.Ed.2d 428, 137 U.S.P.Q. 578, on remand 159 So.2d 229.

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman

January 18, 2013 Page - 9

Rule 18.1. Responsibility of board of governors Among its other duties, the board of governors is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Rules of Discipline and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 110.1. Compliance All members of The Florida Bar shall comply with the terms and the intent of the Rules of Professional Conduct as established and amended by this court. Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component of the administration of justice, and, as such, his conduct is subject to judicial supervision and scrutiny. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Evans, 94 So.2d 730 (1957). Florida Supreme Court has power to authorize investigations of professional conduct for purpose of determining whether formal charges shall be made against an attorney. Swanson v. The Florida Bar, 1967, 381 F.2d 730, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 468, 389 U.S. 972, 19 L.Ed.2d 463. Rule 31.1. Privilege to practice A license to practice law confers no vested right to the holder thereof but is a conditional privilege that is revocable for cause. A lawyer should view his work not as mere money getting but as service of highest order; not as a mere occupation but as a ministry. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Dawson, 111 So.2d 427 (1959). Rule 33.1. Supreme Court of Florida; disciplinary agencies The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered in the following manner subject to the supervision and review of the court. The following entities are hereby designated as agencies of the Supreme Court of Florida for this purpose and with the following responsibilities, jurisdiction, and powers. The board of governors, grievance committees, and referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers as are necessary to conduct the proper and speedy disposition of any investigation or cause, including the power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to take or cause to be taken the deposition of witnesses, and to order the production of books, records, or other documentary evidence. Each member of such agencies has power to administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses in any matter within the jurisdiction of the agency. Where state bar and its staff counsel are designated as agencies of Supreme Court for purpose of administering its jurisdiction to regulate admission of persons to practice of law and discipline of persons admitted, state bar is an arm and part of judiciary, one of three co-equal branches of state government; thus, state bar and its agents acting within the scope of their office are protected from liability for publication of defamatory matter by absolute privilege. Mueller v. The Florida Bar, App. 4 Dist., 390 So.2d 449 (1980). The Supreme Court alone has power to discipline attorneys by grant of exclusive jurisdiction.

The Florida Bar ACAP Complaint - Catherine Barbara Chapman Pantori v. Stephenson, App. 5 Dist., 384 So.2d 1357 (1980).

January 18,2013 Page - 10

Power to render ultimate judgment in attorney's disciplinary proceeding rests in the Supreme Court. The Florida Bar v. Abramson, 199 So.2d 457 (1967). Rule 3-4.1. Notice and Knowledge of Rules; Jurisdiction Over Attorneys of Other States and Foreign Countries Every member of The Florida Bar and every attorney of another state or foreign country who provides or offers to provide any legal services in this state is within the jurisdiction and subject to the disciplinary authority of this court and its agencies under this rule and is charged with notice and held to know the provisions of this rule and the standards of ethical and professional conduct prescribed by this court. Jurisdiction over an attorney of another state who is not a member of The Florida Bar shall be limited to conduct as an attorney in relation to the business for which the attorney was permitted to practice in this state and the privilege in the future to practice law in the state of Florida. Rule 3-4.2. Rules of Professional Conduct Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing The Florida Bar is a cause for discipline. Attorney may not hide behind client's instructions in order to perpetrate fraud against third party. The Florida Bar v. Feige, 596 So.2d 433 (1992). Attorney found to have violated disciplinary rules by assisting client in conduct known to be fraudulent, failing to reveal fraud to affected person, accepting employment where his professional judgment will be affected by his own personal interest, and accepting employment when he is witness in pending litigation, will be suspended from practice of law for two years. The Florida Bar v. Feige, 596 'So.2d 433 (1992). Conclusion: Reiteration of Rule 4-8.3 Comment Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete. Sincerely, Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Enclosures: Signed Co

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32

Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 600

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32

Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID 601

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32

Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID 602

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 32

Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID 603

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40

Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1350

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB vs. THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, et al. Defendants. ____________________________________/ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIES MOTION TO STRIKE OR SET ASIDE MR. RODEMS NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT 33] On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. Dkt 32, Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the Assignees moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt 32. Gillespie now moves this Court to set aside the settlement agreement reached wherein he assigned the claims in this action to Assignees. Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract -- the settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.1

Notwithstanding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gillespies recitation of the events surrounding the settlement are belied by the record. The settlement agreement was signed by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie stated to his attorney, Ill defer to your judgment on this. Gillespies attorney stated, Ive already given you judgment in private, and Ill give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is an agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest. (Exhibit 1). Gillespie now claims that he signed under duress, lacked informed consent, and asserts other reasons it should be set aside, none of which are supported by the record of the settlement conference.
1

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40

Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1351

The Court should deny Gillespies motion and grant the Assignees motion to dismiss the action, Dkt 32. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of July, 2011.

/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 947652 Attorney for Assignees BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 489-1001 Fax: (813) 489-1008 E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 14, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed using the Courts CM/ECF filing system, which will send an electronic notice of filing to: Catherine Barbara Chapman, Esquire, catherine@guildaylaw.com, counsel for Defendants The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., and Robert W. Bauer and anyone else registered to receive such filings. No other defendant has been served. /s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE

Page 1 of 2

Neil Gillespie
From: To: Sent: Subject: "Catherine Chapman" <catherine@guildaylaw.com> "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net> Monday, August 13, 2012 7:19 AM RE: please see attached, thank you

The last document. My apologies. I meant Mr. Rodems.

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:04 AM To: Catherine Chapman Subject: Re: please see attached, thank you

Which document served last week? There were several. Who is Mr. Rosemary?
----- Original Message ----From: Catherine Chapman To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:58 AM Subject: Re: please see attached, thank you

The document served last week. I do not believe Mr. Rosemary has committed any misconduct. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 13, 2012, at 7:19 AM, "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote: Thank you Ms. Chapman. Are there currently any outstanding documents? Also when can I expect a reply to my November 17, 2011 question to you: "On another matter, I dont see how Mr. Rodems can lawfully or ethically represent your client, and my former counsel, Robert W. Bauer, and the Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, in this matter, through the so-called Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release of June 21, 2011. What is your view?" Members of the bar have a duty to report professional misconduct. Have you made a complaint against Mr. Rodems for his misconduct in this case? Florida Bar Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other

3
1/17/2013

Page 2 of 2

respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority. You know of the misconduct of Mr. Rodems representing his firm and law partner against me, a former client, contrary to ethics rules and McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. That is only one example of Mr. Rodems' misconduct. Neil Gillespie
----- Original Message ----From: Catherine Chapman To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:26 PM Subject: RE: please see attached, thank you

Mr. GillespieIn light of my schedule, I am not able to forward to Mr. Rodems all documents you may file. Please make alternative arrangements. Thank you, Catherine B. Chapman
Attorney

Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A.

1983 Centre Pointe Blvd, S-200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Direct Line: 850.701.4341 Phone: 850.224.7091 | Facsimile: 850.222.2593 catherine@guildaylaw.com
NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail are legally privileged and confidential, and intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity(ies) named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. Review by any individual other than the intended recipient shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, any evidentiary privilege, or any proprietary rights in the information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone (850/224-7091). Thank you.

3 Think about the environment before printing out this message

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:neilgillespie@mfi.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 6:08 PM To: Catherine Chapman Subject: please see attached, thank you

1/17/2013

21 Related legal actions to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205
RCR - denotes cases where Ryan Christopher Rodems represented his firm and partner against former client Gillespie

1.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 to Jun-21-2011, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009). 2.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, Jan-19-2006 to Sep-28-2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009) 3.RCR 2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 4.RCR 2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed) 5.RCR 2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed) 6. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 7. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 8. RCR 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 9. RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 10.RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 11.RCR Federal Ct. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA (closed, appeal) 12. 13. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, 1983, ADA, etc. C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Hobbs Act, Title 15, 1983, ADA, etc.

14.RCR C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA, (closed, appeal) 15.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se) Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858 16.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se) Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858 17.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 review Fla.Sup.Ct. case no. SC11-1622, Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time. 18.RCR SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas, docketed August 13, 2012, No. 12A215 19.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 12-7747, December 10, 2012, C.A.11 12-11028, 12-11213

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20. 21. Original Case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT, December 9, 1999 Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp., August 20, 2001

Florida Bar ethics complaints substantially related to Ryan Christopher Rodems* *Partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. William J. Cook RFA No. 03-18867 June 12, 2003 (ACAP Central) William J. Cook TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C) June 7, 2004 (Tampa Branch) William J. Cook TFB No. 2006-11,194 (13D) March 6, 2006 (Tampa Branch) William J. Cook TFB No. 2007-10,004 (13D) June 27, 2006 (Tampa Branch) Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D) February 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch) Chris A. Barker TFB No. 2007-11,792(13A) June 18, 2007 (Tampa Branch) Ryan Christopher Rodems File not opened/no number June 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch) Troy Matthew Lovell File not opened/no number June 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch) Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) July 15, 2010 (ACAP Central) Seldon J. Childers RFA No. 11-4718 August 25, 2010 (ACAP Central) Eugene P. Castagliuolo TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D) August 17, 2012 (ACAP Central) Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Sep-13, 2012 (ACAP Central) Robert W. Bauer RFA No. 13-7675 October 31, 2012 (ACAP Central); denied Nov-09-12; submitted in SCOTUS Petition no. 12-7747. Reconsidered Jan-07-13, No. 2013-00,540 (8B). Ryan Christopher Rodems, complaint submitted January 4, 2013. Current status unknown.

McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995 has been a mandatory authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich: [1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of action. [3] In determining whether attorneyclient relationship existed, for purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court must focus on subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be substantially related to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons would understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship between instant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295864526 Email gyoung@carltonfields.com Gwynne Alice Young President, The Florida Bar Carlton Fields, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33601-3239 RE: Catherine Barbara Chapman, RFA No. 13-12194 Dear Madam Bar President:

March 28, 2013

This is an addendum to my letter to you March 26, 2013 about Bar Counsel Annemarie Crafts improper closure of RFA No. 13-12194 captioned above. I neglected to remind you that the federal court rejected Mr. Rodems representation of the state of Florida June 21, 2011 in 5:10-cv-5031. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not respond to Rodems motion submitted June 21, 2011 to assign my federal claims to him and his firm and dismiss the federal court action with prejudice. This is described further in my Rule 12.6 notice of no party interest submitted January 22, 2013 in SCOTUS Petition No. 12-7747. On June 21, 2011 Respondents Rodems and BRC improperly, and unsuccessfully, attempted to reenter the case. The Court henceforth did not respond to any of Respondents Rodems/BRCs pleadings. Respondents Rodems and BRC took no other action at that time and abandoned any alleged interest. The case was dismissed by the Court February 27, 2012. Neither Respondent Rodems or BRC filed an appeal for any alleged interest in the Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) entered February 27, 2012, or in the Judgment (Doc. 65) entered February 28, 2012. I regret a second letter on this issue, due to my working memory deficit and mental impairments. Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 cc: Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft (letter only) cc: email service list
1

Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., 5:10-cv-503, U.S. District Court, Middle District, Florida, Ocala Division.