IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J . GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
vs. CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: J
a Florida corporation; WILLIAM
J . COOK,
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs.
_________________________________/
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA J. COOKS
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
I, Neil J . Gillespie, under oath, testify as follows:
1. My name is Neil J . Gillespie. I am over 18 years old. I was the Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant in the above-captioned case in Hillsborough County, Thirteenth J udicial Circuit.
(hereinafter this case). This affidavit is given on personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.
2. I made this affidavit to impeach the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se
(the Order), a sham Order entered November 15, 2010 by J udge Martha J . Cook in this case.
(Exhibit 1). The Order is a sham and did not address a bona fide issue. J udge Cook corruptly
entered the Order during a conflict of interest, while she was a Defendant in my federal disability
and civil rights lawsuit. J udge Cook entered the Order with a corrupt motive, to stop legitimate
inquiry showing her personal and business financial affairs violated the Florida Code of J udicial
Conduct. J udge Cook recused herself in this case November 18, 2010, three days after entering
the Order. J udge Cooks recusal shows my motion to disqualify her was legally justified.
2
3. On May 1, 2013 Ryan Christopher Rodems submitted the sham Order, under penalty of
perjury, in his vexatious Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) complaint against me to The Florida
Bar, case 20133090(5) for representing myself and my related interest pro se in other cases.
Consumer assistance required: Protection of an Article III federal judge
4. On the morning of September 28, 2010 I sued J udge Martha Cook, and others, for
violation of my ADA disability rights, and civil rights (section 1983) in this case. I filed my
federal lawsuit, case 5:10-cv-503, by hand-delivery to the Ocala Division, U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida. Pages 1and 2 of my pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), stamped 7:47 AM,
appear at Exhibit 2. I paid a $350 filing fee in cash to the Clerk. Exhibit 3. At all times pertinent
I was a law-abiding consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce.
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Non-Criminal J ustice Act Counsel Appointment
5. On information and belief, the federal district court had authority to appoint counsel to
represent me. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit adopted provisions for furnishing representation for
persons financially unable to obtain adequate representation in cases and situations which do not
fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. 3006A, as amended -- but in which the court believes that
the interests of justice will be served by the presence of counsel. Addenda Five, 11th Cir. R.,
Non-Criminal J ustice Act Counsel Appointment, (b)(2) shows cause for appointment of counsel
because I sought relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the interest of justice would be served by the
presence of counsel, and on the basis of disability and mental impairment.
6. In J une 2011 appointment of counsel was, on information and belief, required under 18
U.S.C. 3006A, and the Sixth Amendment, after Mr. Rodems corruptly obtained a warrant for
my arrest through honest services fraud with J udge Cook, who accepted things of value
(campaign donations) in return for official acts [18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)], improper rulings on
3
summary judgment, and civil contempt with arrest on writ of bodily attachment, and who used
the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud me [18 U.S.C. 1341] of the intangible
right of honest services. [18 U.S.C. 1346]. See U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, C.A.6.
J udge Cook made a false record of the hearing September 28. 2010
J udge Cook ordered me removed from court, falsely stated I elected to leave
7. After filing my federal Complaint, I drove from Ocala to Tampa for a hearing before
J udge Cook at 11:00 AM with opposing counsel Mr. Rodems, also a Defendant in 5:10-cv-503.
8. At the start of the 11:00 AM hearing, the transcript shows I informed J udge Cook that
she was a Defendant in federal case 5:10-cv-503, and I provided her a copy of the Complaint.
9. The transcript shows I made a spoken motion to disqualify J udge Cook on several
grounds, including her conflict as a Defendant in my federal lawsuit, case no. 5:10-cv-503, a
business relationship with husband William H. Sedgeman, J r., and disability discrimination.
10. J udge Cook refused to recuse as trial judge. Instead, J udge Cook ordered me removed
from the hearing, made a false record that I elected to leave, and ruled against me ex parte on
summary judgment, and civil contempt with provision for arrest on writ of bodily attachment, to
benefit Mr. Rodems, and his law partner and law firm who were the Defendants in this case.
Eyewitness impeached J udge Cooks false record that I elected to leave the hearing
Witness Christopher E. Brown, Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office (HCSO)
11. A witness present, a bailiff, impeached J udge Cooks statement that I elected to leave
the hearing. The witness, Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputy Christopher E. Brown, told his
Commander, Major J ames Livingston, that J udge Cook ordered me removed from the hearing.
Major Livingston put Deputy Browns statement in a letter to me J anuary 12, 2011. Exhibit 4.
12. At all times pertinent Mr. Rodems was present, and conspired with J udge Cook to create
a false record that I elected to leave the hearing, as shown in the transcript of the proceeding.
4
Entry of sham Order by J udge Cook November 15, 2010
13. On November 15, 2010 J udge Cook entered Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing
Pro Se, done during a conflict of interest, while she was a Defendant in 5:10-cv-503. Exhibit 1.
14. The Order states This matter is before the Court on the Defendants [Mr. Rodems]
motion for an order to show cause as to why Plaintiff should not be prohibited from henceforth
appealing pro se, filed by Rodems J uly 29, 2010, on his personally biased claim that I was an
abusive litigant. Rodems and his firm have a conflict of interest with me as a former client.
15. The Order states On November 4, 2010, this court issued the order to show cause why
Plaintiff should not be prohibited from appearing pro se., which gave me 20 days to respond.
16. J udge Cook entered the Order November 15, 2010, done ex parte, without a hearing, and
before my response was due November 24, 2010. (Plus an additional five days for mailing).
Motions to disqualify J udge Cook were justified: She recused November 18, 2010
17. The Order further states Among Plaintiffs response were his fourth and fifth attempts to
disqualify this court.. This statement is false. My motions to disqualify J udge Cook were not a
response to the order to show cause. The motions to disqualify were separate from that matter,
and independently justified under the Code of J udicial Conduct, Florida Statutes, and case law.
18. On November 4, 2010 the Division of Elections provided me J udge Cooks Form 6
public disclosure of financial interests for the year 2007 that showed J udge Cook owned a
beneficial interest in Community Bank of Manatee. J udge Cook failed to disclose this conflict
September 28, 2010 when I moved to disqualify her based on my financial or fiduciary
5
relationship with Community Bank of Manatee, husband William Sedgeman
1
, and my account
and other business with Community Bank of Manatee.
19. On November 5, 2010 I obtained a copy of the banks Consent Order, No. FDIC-09-569b
and OFR 0692-FI-10/09. The bank was undercapitalized, poorly managed, and at risk of failing.
20. The bank lost $9.3 million in 2009. The bank lost $1.4 million in 2010.
21. On November 8, 2010 the Florida Commission on Ethics provided me J udge Cooks
Form 6 for the years 2008 and 2009. Since 2007 J udge Cooks net worth had declined by almost
half and she was insolvent or essentially insolvent.
22. On November 10, 2010 I filed Plaintiffs 4th Motion to Disqualify J udge Martha J .
Cook. The motion is 64 pages and accompanies this affidavit in a separate volume appendix.
The motion is also posted on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772018/Plainitiff-s-4th-
Motion-to-Disqualify-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-Nov-10-2010
23. On information and belief, J udge Cook was unfit to serve as a judge in Florida because
her personal and business financial affairs violated the Code of J udicial Conduct
2
. An insolvent
judge lacks judicial independence and is a threat to democracy.

1
William H. Sedgeman, J r. was Chairman & CEO of Community Bank of Manatee. Mr. Sedgeman was
married to J udge Cook. In Florida the relationship to a party or attorney is computed by using the
common law rule rather than the civil law rule. In computing affinity husband and wife are considered as
one person and the relatives of one spouse by consanguinity are related to the other by affinity in the
same degree. State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463. A judge has a duty to disclose information that the litigants or
their counsel might consider pertinent to the issue of disqualification. A judge's obligation to disclose
relevant information is broader than the duty to disqualify. Stevens v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of
Naples, 919 So.2d 713, Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2006. Recusal is appropriate where one of the parties or their
counsel had dealings with a relative of the court. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512, Fla.App.3 Dist.2000.
2
I learned about J udge Cooks finances by accident, while searching online for an explanation of J udge
Cooks contempt for me and disability matters. I found J udge Cook had an adopted daughter who was
disabled. The daughter used the name of her father, Sedgeman. J udge Cook and her daughter appeared in
media stories about the childs hearing loss. J udge Cook was biased on disability, but refused to
disqualify on that basis, or her contempt of my disability. I believe the child is now an adult.
6
Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion for Order of Protection
Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. 2D10-5529 - November 18, 2010
24. On November 18, 2010 I sought removal of trial J udge Cook by writ of prohibition in the
Second District Court of Appeal, case 2D10-5529. J udge Cook recused on her own motion the
same day. J udge Martha Cooks SUA SPONTE ORDER TO RECUSE ASSIGNED JUDGE
appears at Exhibit 5. Pages 1 and 2 of my petition, and the Clerks acknowledgment, appear at
Exhibit 6. Petition No. 2D10-5529 is 37 pages alone, and 763 pages with supporting exhibits.
The petition was denied as moot with respect to J udge Martha Cook December 9, 2010, and in
all other respects. The Order and docket appear at Exhibit 7. The following is posted online:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3852902/Second-District-Court-of-Appeal-Florida
Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Motion for Order of Protection, with
supporting exhibits (763 pages) and without supporting exhibits (37 pages), Nov-18-2010
Notice of Filing Supplemental Information, Nov-20-2010
Defendants Response and Suggestion of Mootness, Nov-23-2010
Plaintiffs Reply to Mootness, Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment, Dec-08-2010
Final Order, December 9, 2010, and case docket
25. J udge Cooks recusal
3
on her own motion shows my efforts to disqualify her were legally
justified. My 4th motion to disqualify, and petition for writ of prohibition, showed J udge Cooks
personal and business financial affairs violated the Code of J udicial Conduct for Florida.
Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed sham Order prohibiting my pleadings
26. Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed J udge Cooks sham Order prohibiting my pleadings.
The Clerk allowed me to file pro se pleadings to the end of the case in defiance of the Order.

3
A judge has a duty to remain on a case assigned to him or her unless he or she is legally
disqualified. State ex rel. Palmer v. Atkinson, 116 Fla. 366, 156 So. 726, 96 AL.R. 539 (1934);
Micale v. Polen, 487 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1986).
7
27. J udge Cook entered Order Directing Clerk To Close Case (Exhibit 8) that stated:
THIS MATTER is sua sponte before the court subsequent to the final order of summary
judgment and the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all remaining issues by
Defendants. At this time, there are no pending issues before the court. The court therefore
ORDERS the Clerk TO CLOSE the case. The Clerk may only re-open this case in the
event that a mandate is issued by a reviewing court or a proper pleading, signed by a duly
licensed member in good standing of The Florida Bar, is filed in this matter.
28. Clerk of Court Pat Frank disobeyed this second order, also entered November 15, 2010.
The Clerk allowed me to file pro se pleadings to the end of the case in defiance of the order.
29. Mr. Rodems wrote to the Clerk May 11, 2011 as follows: (Exhibit 9).
Dear Ms. Frank:
I am counsel for William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. in case number 05-
CA-7205.
On November 15, 2010, J udge Cook entered and Order barring the Plaintiff, Neil J .
Gillespie, from appearing pro se, and also directing the Clerks office not to accept any
more filing from Mr. Gillespie. Since that time, the Clerks office has accepted a number
of flings from Mr. Gillespie.
A copy of J udge Cooks Order is enclosed.
Would you please explain why your office has not complied with J udge Cooks Order?
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
30. Dale Bohner, Clerks Counsel, notified me that the Clerk did not respond to Rodems.
Motions to disqualify J udge Cook were a public service
Information benefited the citizens and state of Florida
31. Community Bank of Manatee sold a controlling interest to a Brazilian billionaire named
Marcelo Faria de Lima. He and others invested millions of dollars in J udge Cooks bank, and
saved J udge Cook, husband William H. Sedgeman, J r., and the bank, from financial ruin.
8
32. During the review process with OFR, the Office of Financial Regulation, Mr. Lima failed
to disclose that his past employer ABN AMRO Bank faced one of the largest Money Laundering
and Trading With The Enemy cases ever brought by the Department of J ustice.
33. Mr. Limas tenure at ABN AMRO Bank in Chicago coincides with accusations of
significant criminal activity. On December 19, 2005 a Cease and Desist Order, FRB Dkt. No. 05-
035-B-FB, was issued against ABN AMRO Bank, including the Chicago Branch where Mr.
Lima worked. ABN AMRO Bank agreed to stop its unlawful money laundering operations
which date to 1995 during Mr. Limas tenure. The matter was widely reported in the press,
including the Wall Street J ournal on December 20, 2005 "ABN Amro to Pay $80 Million Fine
Over Iran, Libya", but Mr. Lima claimed he never knew and failed to disclose the information as
required by law on his Interagency Biographical and Financial Report submitted to OFR.
34. OFR failed to conduct a sufficient background check on Mr. Lima that would have
disclosed criminal activity during his tenure at ABN AMRO Bank that was not reported on his
application to acquire a controlling interest in the bank as required by Florida law. Much of this
information can be found in my Petition for Public Hearing in the Application To Merge
Community Bank & Company with First Community Bank of America, OFR Admin. File No.
0828-FI-03/11. The petition is also on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51601224/Merger-
of-Community-Bank-and-Company-OfR-Petition-for-Public-Hearing
35. My Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for Public Hearing alleged OFR Commissioner J .
Thomas Cardwell used his office to benefit the special interest of J udge Cook, et al, over the
citizens of Florida. The notice is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/53002574/2011-04-14-
11-Notice-of-Withdrawal-Admin-File-0828-FI-03-11
9
36. A letter from the Office of Gov. Rick Scott February 22, 2011 thanked me for contacting
the Governor about changes needed to the Office of Financial Regulation. (ORF), and suggested
I share my concerns with the Florida Cabinet about my recent experience with OFR. Exhibit 10.
37. I shared my concerns with the Florida Cabinet. Brooke McKnight responded for
Commissioner Adam H. Putnam by letter to me May 17, 2011. Exhibit 11. Ms. McKnight wrote:
Thank you for contacting Commissioner Putnam to share your concerns with the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation (OFR). He has requested that I contact you on his behalf.
Commissioner Putnam agrees that politics have no role in detern1ining the future of a
financial institution and believes that consistent regulation of our state's financial
institutions will provide for the growth and stability of sound community banks and
thrifts. Please know that it remains of paramount importance to the Commissioner that
Florida's financial institutions receive fair and equal treatment among regulators -
whether State or Federal.
The Commissioner has directed me to make sure your concerns are brought to OFR's
attention and properly addressed.
38. Brandon Brooks responded on behalf of Attorney General Pam Bondi May 24, 2011 that
my complaint was forwarded the Attorney Generals legal staff for further review, and made a
referral to the Office of Inspector General. The letter appears at Exhibit 12.
39. Gov. Scott choose Tom Grady to replace Mr. Cardwell as OFR Commissioner.
Tampa Tribune: Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures
by Shannon Behnken, J uly 21, 2011
40. Home mortgage foreclosure defense lawyers, and homeowners in foreclosure, also
benefited from information in my motion to disqualify J udge Cook. Martha Cook is a judge of
questionable ethics according to a story in the Tampa Tribune by Shannon Behnken, J uly 21,
2011: "Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures". Exhibit 13. A number of
Florida legal authorities have publicly criticized J udge Cook, including Henry P. Trawick J r., a
Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice and Procedure.
10
Henry P. Trawick J r., a Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice
and Procedure, a textbook used by lawyers, said it's good that Cook
disqualifies herself from hearing cases that involved her husband's
bank. But he said she should go a step further.
"I think she shouldn't hear foreclosure cases," Trawick said. "That's what
I would do if I had that close of a connection, but perhaps my ethical
standards are higher."
The problem, Trawick said, is whether or not Cook shows favor to the
banks; those representing homeowners may feel like she might.
This story was profiled J uly 22, 2011 on The Florida Bars Daily News Summary. Exhibit 14.
41. On J uly 20, 2011, attorney Mark P. Stopa wrote J udge Cook about presiding over
foreclosure cases. Mr. Stopas letter appears at Exhibit 15. Mr. Stopa wrote in part:
Respectfully, I am concerned at your decision to continue presiding over mortgage
foreclosure cases given your personal ties to the banking industry and that of your
husband. While I do not profess to have personal knowledge of the veracity of the
following facts, it seems as if these facts are true, particularly since I have seen
documents bearing your signature containing this information:
1. Your husband is the Chairman and CEO of Community Bank of Manatee (and
has been for quite some time);
2. You have/had more than a 5% ownership interest in that bank;
3. Your personal net worth decreased by nearly half in recent years, largely
because of the near-failure of Community Bank.
Mr. Stopa, and other legal authorities, were quoted in the Tampa Tribune story by Shannon
Behnken, Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures:
"It's reasonable that a homeowner would fear they aren't going to get a
fair hearing before her," said Mark Stopa, a foreclosure defense
attorney. "There's no way I could go into court before her without
thinking about this."...
...Stopa, the foreclosure defense attorney, said Cook once told him in
court that she thought the "only way to improve the economy is to push
through foreclosures as soon as possible."
Cook said she was misquoted, but she declined to correct the statement.
Mike Wasylik, a foreclosure defense attorney, said he's had few cases
11
before Cook but is uncomfortable with her connection to a local bank.
"A judge has the duty to avoid even the appearance of bias," Wasylik
said. "She may have personal opinions about the need to push
foreclosures through quickly."
Phyllis Kotey, a professor at FIU School of Law, said the connections
show an "appearance of personal and financial interest."
"At the very least, parties before her should be put on notice and have
the opportunity to object to her hearing their cases."
Mr. Stopas letter was widely distributed on the Internet, and featured by a number of websites.
42. On information and belief, Hillsborough Chief J udge Manuel Menendez, J r. reassigned
J udge Cook to the criminal division because she refused to recuse from foreclosure cases.
Same-sex Husband and Husband mortgage vesting
J udge Cooks bank, then called Community Bank & Company
43. J udge Cooks bank favored its new CEO, an associate of the Brazilian billionaire who
invested millions of dollars to bailout J udge Cook, and save her from financial ruin, by making a
Husband and Husband mortgage for him, perhaps the first same-sex mortgage in the state of
Florida (Page 1 of the mortgage appears at Exhibit 16), but contrary to the Florida Constitution:
Article 1, Section 27: "Marriage defined.Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of
only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as
marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
44. Personally I believe all eligible couples wanting a same-sex mortgage should get one as a
matter of law. Such right should not be limited to a single wealthy benefactor of a Florida judge.
45. The Florida Attorney General wrote me about same-sex mortgage by email August 10,
2012 at 4.17 PM, by Samantha Santana, Office of Citizen Services, who wrote in relevant part:
Hello Mr. Gillespie,
The Florida Attorney General's Office received your most recent email and
postal correspondence in which you request opinions relating to...mortgages
entered into by same-sex couples.
12
Attorney General Bondi has asked that I respond.
To date, this office has not issued an Attorney General Opinion (AGO) in
regard to mortgages entered into by same-sex couples....
46. Florida Gov. Rick Scott wrote me August 6, 2012 about same-sex mortgage in response
to my letter of J uly 20, 2012, by Martha Lynn, Office of Citizen Services, who wrote in part:
The person who can best assist you with your question/concerns about "Husband and
Husband" mortgage is an attorney.
You should contact the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) about your complaint
against J udge Cook.
Regarding your views on same-sex marriage, you can influence legislation by contacting
your local legislative delegation.
The letter of Martha Lynn, Office of Citizen Services for Gov. Scott, appears at Exhibit 17. My
33 page letter to Gov. Scott is posted on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/100665091/Letter-
to-Gov-Rick-Scott-Husband-and-Husband-Mortgage-C1-Bank
J udicial Qualifications Commission - J QC
47. Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar Unlicensed Practice of Law
Department, Orlando Branch Office, emailed me On May 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM in part:
I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct
by J udge Cook as such matters are handled by the Florida J udicial Qualifications
Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com
48. Previously I made three (3) meritorious complaints against J udge Martha J . Cook to the
J udicial Qualifications Commission
4
, all of which were dismissed:

4
On information and belief, the J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) is an independent
agency created by the Florida Constitution solely to investigate alleged misconduct by Florida
state judges. It is not a part of the Florida Supreme Court or the state courts and operates under
rules it establishes for itself. Authority for The J udicial Qualifications Commission is found in
the Florida Constitution, Article V J udiciary, Section 12 Discipline; removal and retirement.
13
JQC Docket No. 12554, Complaint against J udge Martha J . Cook November 26, 2012 in
this case for judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the
State of Florida, including:
Lied and was dishonest in judicial proceedings before her, and created a false record.
Abdicated her role as judge, and improperly allowed opposing counsel a judicial role.
Entered as her own authorship a six page order prepared by opposing counsel.
Violated criminal law, 837.06, 838.022, 839.13(1), to favor and assist opposing
counsel in judicial proceedings before her, and to harm me and my cause.
Disparaged, humiliated and discriminated against me on the basis of disability.
Denied J anuary 24, 2013 by letter of Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel. Posted on Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/147841154/J QC-Docket-12554-J udge-Martha-J -Cook
JQC Docket No. 11375, Complaint August 17, 2011, for misconduct reported in the
Tampa Tribune J uly 21, 2011, a news story by reporter Shannon Behnken, "Critics: J udge with
interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures". Denied September 13, 2011 by letter of Michael L.
Schneider, General Counsel. Posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/109873211/J QC-
Complaint-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-Docket-No-11375
JQC Docket No. 10495, Complaint against J udge Martha J . Cook October 5, 2010 in
this case for judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the
State of Florida. Denied J anuary 7, 2011 by letter of Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel.
Posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/109873802/J QC-Complaint-J udge-Martha-J -Cook-
Docket-No-10495
49. February 20, 2011 I emailed the Brennan Center for J ustice, but got no response to my
complaint that Floridas discipline of judges is not credible. I wrote in part:
In the state of Florida there have been forty (40) disciplinary cases against judges for the
last 10 years (2000-2010) according to the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission.
At least two cases that I know of were dismissed without a finding of wrongdoing. (J udge
Gregory Holder). http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
14
This amounts to an average of four (4) cases per year. There are 774 judges in the state of
Florida.
7 supreme court
61 DCA
448 circuit court
258 county court
774 total
Based on these figures just over one half of one percent (0.52%) of Florida J udges have
been subject to inquiry for 2000-2010. This number seems so low as to be not credible.
50. On information and belief, people who complain about wrongdoing in the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit face retribution, and worse, as happened to a sitting judge. Florida Circuit J udge
Gregory Holder paid a heavy price for speaking out against wrongdoing in the Thirteenth
J udicial Circuit, almost $2 million and years of legal abuse. As set forth in my Response to Order
to Show Cause (Doc. 58) in case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS: (page 5)
The Thirteenth Circuit is notorious for wrongdoing. The price is high for confronting
judicial misconduct. In one example, Circuit J udge Gregory Holder spoke to the media
about judicial misconduct, and was a cooperating witness (2001-2002) in a federal
criminal investigation of corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. In retaliation
the Florida J udicial Qualifications Commission (J QC) pursued two failed inquiries
against him, J QC Inquiry Nos. 01-303 and 02-487. J udge Holder spent many years and
$1.92 million successfully defending himself. On J une 23, 2005, the Hearing Panel of the
J QC voted unanimously to dismiss the charges against J udge Holder. This was the first
trial defense verdict against the J QC in almost twenty years. On September 15, 2009 the
Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC03-1171, ordered entry of judgment for J udge
Holder for recovery of costs from the J QC in the amount of $70,000 for successfully
defending J QC Inquiry No. 02-487. J udge Holders actual expenses were $1,779,691.81
in legal fees, and cost of $140,870.79.
Public files in the above J QC cases are online on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
According to the public file, J udge Holders life was at risk for reporting judicial misconduct:
During 2001 and 2002, J udge Holder cooperated with the FBI in the courthouse
corruption investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 4-5, at App. 3.] Because of J udge Holders
cooperation, the investigations targets had motive and resources to seek retribution
against him. [Id. at pp. 7-8] Indeed, these targets faced not just loss of position but
15
potential incarceration. [Id.] Detective Bartoszak testified at trial that the courthouse
corruption investigation team was concerned that J udge Holders activities were being
monitored by targets of the investigation. J udge Holder was advised by federal law
enforcement agents to carry a weapon, and he was provided with a secure cell phone to
communicate with the authorities. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7-8, at App. 3.]
Page 7, Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS.
An appendix of key documents in the J QC Inquiry of J udge Holder, J QC No. 02-487, Supreme
Court No. SC03-1171, are posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/147143787/Vexatious-
J QC-Inquiry-No-02-487-of-J udge-Gregory-P-Holder-Fla-sup-Ct-No-SC03-1171
All the documents are online at the link on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/03/03-1171/index.html
David A. Rowland, General Counsel
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
51. On May 16, 2013 I notified Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Civil
Litigation Bureau, that David Rowland misrepresented to him that I did not provide Rowland a
copy of my Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In turn the Attorney General did not file a response that was due J anuary 14, 2013. Without a
response, a petition has much less chance of success in my opinion, because the issues are not
debated through response and rebuttal briefs permitted under the Rules of the U.S. Supreme
Court. Therefore I believe Mr. Rowland knowingly and willfully obstructed justice in my
petition with malice aforethought. My letter (only) to AAG Wilson appears at Exhibit 18, and
with exhibits (24 pages) is posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/142305243/Kenneth-
Wilson-Fla-AAG-Records-Missing-Petition-No-12-7747
52. My 4th motion to disqualify J udge Cook shows that Mr. Rowland was active in this case,
that he seized control of my ADA disability accommodation request (Exhibit 19), and that he
was likely instructing J udge Cook how to make rulings in this case. Beginning on page 12, 36:
16
36. J udge Cooks poor state of financial affairs suggests why Court Counsel David A.
Rowland has been so active in Gillespies lawsuit since the case was reassigned to J udge
Cook May 24, 2010 after J udge Barton was disqualified when it was learned that
opposing counsel paid thousands of dollars to the J udges wifes business.
37. On J uly 9, 2010 Mr. Rowland seized control of Gillespies ADA accommodation
request from Gonzalo B. Casares, the Courts ADA Coordinator, and issued his own
letter denying the request. Likewise there is evidence that Mr. Rowland is controlling
J udge Cook in this case from behind the scene.
38. On J uly 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM Gillespie spoke by phone with Mr. Rowland about
his letter of J uly 9, 2010 denying Gillespies ADA request. Gillespie and Mr. Rowland
discussed the notice of claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes. They also
discussed Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and Gillespies emergency motion to
disqualify Rodems pending before J udge Cook. Mr. Rowland expresses surprise when
Gillespie informed him that the motion, filed J uly 9th, was still pending. Later that day
J udge Cook denied the motion without a hearing. J udge Cooks Order was filed with the
Clerk J uly 22, 2010 at 3.17 PM according to the Clerks time stamp on the Order.
39. Gillespie believes the timing of events is not circumstantial, and that following the
aforementioned phone call Mr. Rowland instructed J udge Cook to deny Gillespies
emergency motion to disqualify Rodems pending before her. The Order itself is unlawful,
see Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie, October 28, 2010, Judge Martha J. Cook falsified an
official court record, and unlawfully denied Gillespie due process on the disqualification
of Ryan Christopher Rodems as counsel, filed November 1, 2010.
40. As Court Counsel Mr. Rowland was preemptively defending the Thirteenth J udicial
Circuit against Gillespies lawsuit formally announced J uly 12, 2010 in the notice of
claim made under section 768.28(6)(a) Florida Statutes, but first raised in Gillespies
letter to Rowland of J anuary 4, 2010 requesting information about section 768.28(6)(a)
Florida Statutes. (Exhibit 10).
J udge Cook: marionette to Mr. Rodems
U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
53. I am a consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce in this case.
54. I commenced this lawsuit August 11, 2005 by filing the Complaint and paying a $255
filing fee, in cash, to the Clerk of the Court. I paid an additional $40 cash August 11, 2005 to the
Hillsborough County Sheriff to serve the Complaint on the Defendants.
55. The Circuit Court of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, is a court created by statute to administer, apply, and interpret the laws of the state of
17
Florida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal
self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
56. Martha J ean Cook is an elected judge for the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, and was by
virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible for
lawfully performing and discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
56. As shown in this affidavit, J udge Cook did not lawfully perform and discharge her duties,
but served as Mr. Rodems marionette as that term is used in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S.
Sixth Circuit, which affirmed a jury conviction against former J udge Steven J . Terry of several
honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an
official from accepting things of value in return for official acts. 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).
57. The following is from my Rule 21 motion to correct and supplement my petition for
rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari. Unfortunately my Rule 21 Motion was
delayed one day in transit, and another day at the Supreme Courts separate quarantine location,
and did not arrive to the Court until the rehearing was denied April 15, 2013. The Rule 21
motion was not heard, and was returned to me. This scenario may have been avoided if the Court
permitted e-filing like other federal courts. PACER and CM/ECF would allow the Supreme
Court to provide access to court services in an effective and expeditious manner as required by
the Constitution and laws of the United States. My Rule 21 motion is currently posted on Scribd
at the link below for anyone in the world to read, except perhaps the J ustices of the Supreme
Court of the United States. http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/Rule-21-Motion-12-7747-
With-Appendicies-Apr-10-2013
18
See my letter (only) to Kathleen L. Arberg, Public Information Officer, U.S. Supreme Court at
Exhibit 20, and with exhibits on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/144645896/SCOTUS-
Public-Information-Officer-Kathleen-L-Arberg
58. In U.S. v. Terry, the government proved to a jury that Terry accepted from political
benefactor Frank Russo campaign donations, a thing of value, in return for official acts, improper
rulings on summary judgment. An FBI wiretap provided evidence of the crime. The government
proved that the defendant used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud another,
18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
59. In my case, J udge Cook accepted campaign donations from Mr. Rodems, and two of my
former lawyers, his partners William J . Cook and J onathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings
on summary judgment, and civil contempt, during ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in this
case. H.C.S.O. Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major J ames Livingston, provided evidence
that J udge Cook and Rodems falsified the record of the hearing. J udge Cook and Rodems used
the mail to carry out their scheme or artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest
services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
60. I only attended one of three hearings before J udge Cook September 28, 2010. The first
was my spoken motion to disqualify J udge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a 1983 civil rights and
disability lawsuit. J udge Cook refused, accused me in open court of feigning disability, and
ordered Deputy Brown to remove me. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. required recusal
because the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be
constitutionally tolerable. The Affidavit of Neil J . Gillespie attests to the above, and appears in
a separate volume appendix. (Also, trial record Doc. 58-2, Exhibit 14, response to show cause).
19
61. J udge Cook falsified the record that I elected to leave the hearing, in violation of F.S.
839.13(1) and 837.06. The transcript and errata sheet appear in a separate volume appendix.
62. J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the summary judgment hearing, and Mr. Rodems
complied with her instruction to create a record, which false testimony went unchallenged
because no one represented me. J udge Cook then granted summary judgment for Mr. Rodems,
and immediately signed, without reading, a six page order at Mr. Rodems request, one he
prepared in advance. [Appendix 1]. J udge Cook mailed me a conformed copy order in a postage
prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote
5
.
63. Next, J udge Cook proceeded ex parte with the civil contempt hearing, again falsified the
record that I elected to leave in violation of F.S. 839.13(1), and found me guilty. Because this
was civil contempt, and not criminal contempt, appointment of counsel was not required under
Gideon v. Wainwright. (The defender was appointed May 27, 2011, but relieved by the court).
64. Two days later September 30, 2010 J udge Cook signed an improper order holding me in
civil contempt [Appendix 4], filed October 1, 2010. This is the same proposed order that Mr.
Rodems provided by mail
6
, and instructed J udge Cook to sign, together with postage paid
envelopes. [Appendix 5]. J udge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order
Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt states at footnote 1:
Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
During that hearing, Plaintiff Neil J . Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return.
Fortunately Deputy Brown told his Commander, Major J ames Livingstion that I did not leave the

5
The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by order
J anuary 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5,
2010 I filed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of J udge Barton, but
J udge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time.
6
Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.
20
hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by J udge Cook. Major Livingstion in turn
provided me a letter dated J anuary 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B.
65. J udicial elections in Florida are different than those of other elected officials, and as
described in Terry. J udicial elections are nonpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial
office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified to seek
judicial office, there is pressure not to oppose a sitting judge. Lucy Morgan of the Tampa Bay
Times wrote May 2, 2008, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats: [Appendix 8].
...Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races in
the 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to a
review of election results over the past 12 years. J udges frequently escape opposition
because only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering a
judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges have
faced opposition, and only five have been defeated...
...For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide.
Twenty-three of those are open seats and will be contested. Of the 260 remaining seats,
only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and District
Court justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another term
since the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s...
As in Terry, J udge Cooks collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002 bid. See
Appendix 9 for the donation records of Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert - $100 each. An
honest services fraud agreement need not spell out which payments control which act, just that
J udge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.
Unfortunately, J udge Cook acted like Mr. Rodems marionette. Terry at p. 11.
Conflict of Ryan Christopher Rodems and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
with former client Neil J . Gillespie
66. In this case I sued pro se the Defendants, my former lawyers, for stealing $6,224.78
(Attorney Seldon Childers later determined the amount was $7,143) from my settlement in a
payday loan case, a concocted closing statement fraud in Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie
21
v. AMSCOT Corporation, Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in
violation of Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), and for fraud, and breach of contract.
67. Mr. Rodems, a partner in Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., unlawfully represented his firm
and partner against me, a former client in the same or substantially related matter, contrary to
Florida Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, and the holding in McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland was entered J une 30, 1995 by United States
J udge Elizabeth Kovachevich. The case appears at Exhibit 21 and holds as follows:
[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 attorney-client 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.
68. William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (BRC) represented or consulted with
me on other payday loan cases where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation
against BRC, and did not make Bar complaints against lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A:
Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, in United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. (Circuit Court, Hillsborough
Consolidated Case No. 99-9730). This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT.
EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater. a payday loan case like AMSCOT. (settled pro se)
22
National Cash Advance. This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT. (settled pro se)
William Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA consulted with me on disability and
employment matters where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation against BRC,
and did not make Bar complaints against the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.:
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), DLES Case No. 98-066-DVR, found my
disability too severe for services to result in employment. (Exhibit 22)
St. Petersburg J unior College, job placement for students with disabilities, the program
did not exist as advertised. Encountered age discrimination (over age 40). (Exhibit 23)
Federal Bureau of Investigation - FBI - Civil Rights, Color of Law Abuses
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
69. From the Federal Bureau of Investigation website, Civil Rights, Color of Law Abuses:
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security
guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government
agenciesauthority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country.
These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize
property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in
certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our
nations democracy. Thats why its a federal crime for anyone acting under color of
law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the
Constitution or U.S. law. Color of law simply means that the person is using authority
given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include
acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of
their lawful authority...
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures....
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of
law statute, taking away the persons rights of due process and unreasonable seizure....
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment
prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these
rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment).
23
The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should
not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal
process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect
local communities. If its shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual
from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts, upon personal
knowledge, and information and belief, are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
Dated this 14th day of J une 2013.

NEIL J . GILLESPIE
Index to Exhibits
Exhibit 1 J udge Cooks Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se, November 15, 2010
Exhibit 2 Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 5:10-cv-503, Complaint (Doc. 1), Pages 1-2
Exhibit 3 U.S. District Clerk receipt, $350 filing fee Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit
Exhibit 4 Letter of Major J ames Livingston, J anuary 12, 2011, statement of Deputy Brown, HCSO
Exhibit 5 J udge Cooks Sua Sponte Order To Recuse Assigned J udge, November 18, 2010
Exhibit 6 Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, 2D10-5529, November 18, 2010
Exhibit 7 Order 2D10-5529, Denied Writ of Prohibition to J udge Cook, Denied Order of Protection
Exhibit 8 J udge Cooks Order Directing Clerk To Close Case, November 15, 2010
Exhibit 9 Letter of Mr. Rodems to Clerk of Court Pat Frank, disobeyed J udge Cooks Order
Exhibit 10 Letter of Gov. Rick Scott to Gillespie, re Office of Financial Regulation, Apr-13-2011
Exhibit 11 Letter of Commissioner Adam Putnam to Gillespie, re Office of Financial Regulation
Exhibit 12 Letter of Attorney General Pam Bondi to Gillespie, re Office of Financial Regulation
Exhibit 13 Tampa Tribune, Critics: J udge with Interest in Bank Shouldn't Hear Foreclosures
Exhibit 14 Florida Bar, Daily News Summary, J uly 22, 2011, re J udge Cooks bank
Exhibit 15 Attorney Mark Stopa letter to J udge Martha Cook, re recusal on foreclosure cases
Exhibit 16 Husband and Husband vested mortgage, J udge Martha Cooks bank
Exhibit 17 Letter of Gov. Rick Scott to Gillespie, re Husband and Husband vested mortgage
Exhibit 18 Gillespie letter to Kenneth Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, got duped by Mr. Rowland
Exhibit 19 Disability letter of David Rowland to Gillespie, no ADA accommodation to stop Rodems
Exhibit 20 Gillespie letter to Kathleen L. Arberg, SCOTUS Public Information Officer, May-13-2013
Exhibit 21 Case law, McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, USDC, Tampa, 1995
Exhibit 22 William Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook letter to Gillespie, re Vocational Rehabilitaton
Exhibit 23 William Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook letter to Gillespie, re J ob Placement Serv., SPJ C
Exhibit 24 FBI - Color of Law violations
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIR'fEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASEID:
Plaintiff,
v.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOI{, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; and
WILLIAM J. COOI{,
Defendants.

ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM APPEARING PRO SE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' "motion for an order to show cause as
to why should not.be prohi?!ted :fl:om henceforth appeal'ingpro se," filed on July 29,
2010. It is alleged that "Plaintiff is an abusive who should 'not be permitted to fue fiuiher
pleadings in this cause" they are reviewed and signed:b; practice
law in this state. Defendants allege that s prosecution is an affront to the dignity of the
judicial system and an unacceptable burden on its resources. On November 4, 2010, this court
issued the order to sho\v cause why Plaintiff should not be prollibited from appearillgpro se.
Among Plaintiff's response were his fourth and fifth attempts to disqualify this court. This
response is typical of Plaintiff's litigation style. And his continuing course of conduct in this case
is all the more troublesome because this case is presently pending appellate review of a final
surrunary judgment order. There is nothing left to litigate at this tinle. Yet Plaintiff continues to
file spurious pleadings \vith this court, eacll of which must be reviewed and evaluated by members
of the court staff. For these reasons and the reasons enumerated in the nlotion, the Court hereby
finds that Plaintiff is an abusive litigant and, in order to preserve both the dignity and the efficient
operation of the judicial systenl, his right to full access to the court should be curtailed to the
extent described in this order. Plaintiff is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any paper with this
court which is not signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice la\v in the State of Florida.
10f2
1
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
I. Plaintiff SHALL CEASE filing any pleading, correspondence, or other document in this
case unless the document is signed by an attorney who is duly licensed to practice law in
the State of Florida.
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL REJECT for filing any document received from Plaintiff
which does not bear the clear and conspicuous signature of an attorney duly licensed to
practice law in this state.
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL NOT DOCKET any pleading, correspondence or other
document received from Plaintiff which is prohibited by this order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough Florida, this 15
th
day of '. '. '
.
November, 2010. OR\G\Nl\l b\\;)\ ..,
"Q'J 1 5 20\0
r': <\\{IHll J,
______________o.""wo
JUOGE.
MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Judge
Send copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW 115
lh
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Roderns, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
400 N Ashley DrIve
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
20f2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 39
2
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 39
RECEIPT FOR PAY"EHT
DISTRICT COURT OF "IDDLE
FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
WWW.Fl"D.USCOURTS.GOV
C8888J5
RECEIVED FRort:
HEll J GILLESPIE
Case NUlber: 5:18CV80583
F/U/B/O:
P a r t ~ ID:UHKNOWN
GILLESPIE V13TH CIRCUIT ET AL
Tender lype:
18-886488
CASH
$19S.90
Civil Filing-886488
Rema"rks:
18-086988 fDB.Be
Civil Filing-886988
Relarks:
18-510888 $198.88
Civil Filing-S1808B
Relarks:
Subtotal: $358.88
Receipt Total: $358.88
==================================
*Checks and drafts are accepted
subject to collections and full
credit will only be given when
the check Dr draft has been
accepted by the financial
institution on which it was drawn.
Date: 9/28/18 0'
Clerk:------------------
"T
3
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 58-2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 24 of 42 PageID 1597
4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
------------_._----=-==--.:....==-==-=-..:--'--==-=-..:....::.=..:=-=-=--'-------
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
and
Case No:
Division:
05-CA-007205
G

G.:":; i'.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
A Florida Corporation, and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
-----------,----,----,/
SUA SPONTE ORDER TO RECUSE ASSIGNED JUDGE Ul
Pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(i), it is ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the undersigned hereby recuses herself from further hearing of this cause.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO RE-ASSIGN the matter to another division under the
blind filing system that is presently in effect in this Circuit.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on
November -L..t:.-, 2010.

. Martha 1. Cook
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Copies Furnished To:
Neil J. Gillespie, pro se (Plaintiff)
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. (for Defendants)
400 North Ashley Drive, Ste. 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
5

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
PlaintifflPetitioner,
Case No.: _
Lower Court Case No. OS-CA-00720S
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA
a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK,
DefendantslRespondent.
---------- --....;1
R E C f I YE ~
NOV 18 2010
CLERK DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL i
SECOND DISTRICT I
VERIFIED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
PlaintifflPetitioner pro se Neil J. Gillespie Petitions the Second District Court of
Appeal for an Emergency Writ of Prohibition to remove CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
MARTHA J. COOKas trial court judge, and for an Order ofProtection, and states:
Petitioner Gillespie Faces Risk To His Life And Health
1. Dr. Karin Huffer is Gillespie's disability advocate and wrote "...Neil Gillespie
faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion ofthe ability to continue to pursue justice
with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to respond effectively to the request
for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates." (October 28, 2010). Dr. Huffer's
letter is attached as Exhibit I, together with a Cu"icu!um Vitae. Circuit Court Judge
Martha J. Cook is intentionally inflicting severe emotional distress on Gillespie with
malice aforethought, as set forth in Emergency Motion To Disqualify Judge Martha J.

6
Cook, November 1,2010. (Exhibit 7). This must stop immediately. This case ended
September 28,2010 when Final Summary Judgment was rendered, but Judge Cook
reopened the case to continue a personal vendetta against Gillespie. Currently pending
before Judge Cook is a "Verified Motion For An Order To Show Cause Why Plaintiff
Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court And Writ Of Bodily Attachment Should Not
Be Issued". Petitioner seeks an Order of Protection to stop the threat of incarceration.
Introduction
2. Petitioner sued his former lawyers Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA for defrauding
him of $6,224.78 in prior representation. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PAis unlawfully
representing itself against a former client on matter that is substantially the same as the
prior representationI. The case is in its 5th year. The case is on its 4th trial judge. There
have been 4 appeals to the DCA. Petitioner was represented by counsel, Robert W. Bauer
of Gainesville, but he dropped the case when it became too difficult. Attorney Seldon J.
Childers subsequently reviewed the case for Petitioner and determined Barker, Rodems &
Cook actually defrauded him of$7,143, not $6,224.78 claimed in the original pro se
complaint. Petitioner filed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Exhibit 18) but the court
refused to consider even one amended complaint. This case shows that the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit obstructed justice to help Barker, Rodems & Cook avoid paying
Petitioner $7,143 lawfully owed him. Therefore Petitioner brought a federal Civil Rights
and ADA lawsuit, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Florida, et al., case no.: 5:10
cv-00503, US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, September 28,
I See Emergency Motion To DisqualifY Defendants' Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems
& Cook, P.A. submitted July 9, 2010. (Exhibit 19)
Page - 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND DISTRICT
1005 E. MEMORIAL BOULEVARD
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801-0327
(863)-499-2290
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE
DATE: November 19,2010
STYLE: NEIL 1. GILLESPIE V. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,
P. A., ET AL
2DCA#: 2DIO-5529
The Second District Court of Appeal has received thePetition reflecting
a filing date ofll/18/10
The county of origin isHillsborough.
The lower tribunal case number provided is05-CA-007205
The filing fee is Waived.
Case Type: Prohibition Civil
The Second District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence
filed in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE
ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER.
Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment.
cc: Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Honorable Martha J.
Pat Frank, Clerk Rodems, Esq. Cook, Circuit Judge
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327
December 9, 2010
CASE NO.: 2010-5529
L.T. No. : 05-CA-007205
Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P. A., Et AI
Appellant I Petitioner(s), Appellee I Respondent(s).
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied as moot with respect to Judge Martha
Cook and is denied in all other respects.
The petitioner's motion for order of protection is denied.
LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order.
Served:
Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Hon. Martha J. Cook
Pat Frank, Clerk
ag
James Birkhold
Clerk
7
Case Number: 2D10-5529
Civil Prohibition Petition from Hillsborough County
NEIL J. GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P. A., ET AL
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 05-CA-007205
06/13/2013 02:18
Date
Docketed Description Date Due Filed By Notes
11/18/2010 Petition Filed Neil J . Gillespie WITH EXHIBITS AND 2 DISKS.
11/18/2010 Motion To Appear Forma
Pauperis
Neil J . Gillespie
11/19/2010 fee waiver approved -
writ

11/22/2010 Notice of Filing Neil J . Gillespie SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
11/29/2010 RESPONSE Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.
947652
Response and suggestion of mootness to
petitioner's "verified emergency petition
for writ of prohibition".
12/08/2010 REPLY Neil J . Gillespie Reply to respondent's suggestion of
mootness and motion for leave to amend
petition for writ of prohibition...
12/08/2010 Miscellaneous Motion Neil J . Gillespie To amend petition for writ of prohibition
(contained in the reply).
12/08/2010 Miscellaneous Motion Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.
947652
For dissolution of writ of garnishment
(contained in the reply).
12/09/2010 denial of prohibition as moot
12/09/2010 Deny Miscellaneous
Motion-79a

12/09/2010 Denied - Order by J udge LaRose, Khouzamand Crenshaw
12/29/2010 Case Closed
03/03/2011 Case Permanent SET VIA AUTO PERMANENT
APPLICATION
05/17/2013 Case Destroyed
Second District Court of Appeal Case Docket http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket
1 of 1 6/13/2013 2:18 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE ID: OS-CA-720S
Plaintiff,
v.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: G
a Florida corporation; and
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
THIS MATTER is sua sponte before the court subsequent to the final order of summary
judgment and the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all remaining issues by Defendants. At
this time, there are no pending issues before the court. The court therefore ORDERS the Clerk
TO CLOSE the case. The Clerk may only re-open this case in the event that a mandate is issued
by a reviewing court or a proper pleading, signed by a duly licensed member in good standing of
The Florida Bar, is filed in this matter.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough County, Florida, this 15
th
day of

November, 2010.
tl)V 15 2010
1. ,. r,ill,c,J COUto
. BJDGt
MARTHA J. COOK, Circuit Judge
Send copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Plaintiff
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
400 N Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, FL 33602
1 of 1
8
/0 L.f-
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
JlR()FESSIONAL ASSOCJAT'ION
A<T'fORNF:YS l\ T Ll\W
C1UU$ A. MRKER Tt.,.lt+pl...:me 813/489... 1-(101
400 Nortlt Ashley Drive. Suire Z100
KYAN CllRlSTOMlEA ROOEMS
MtOlimile 8' 1/489.. 1008
WIUJ.-\M J. COOK
Tanlpa. r':lori(la 1,602
May 31, .2011
'+.
HOllorable Pat Frank
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Post Office Box 989
Tanlpa, Florida 33601
Re: :Ncil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
a FI()rida Corporation; and William .J. Cook
No.: OS-CA-7205; I)ivision "J"
Dear Ms. Frank:
I am counsel for William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. in case number 05-CA-7205.
011 Novetllber 15,2010, Judge Cc)ok c:utcrcd an Order barring the J>laintin: Neil J. from
appearing pro se, and also directin.g the office not to accept any more filing from Mr.
Gillespie. Since tllat time, the Clerk's office has accepted a number of filings from Mr. Gillespie.
A copy of Judge Cook's Order is enclosed.
Would }'OU please explain why your office has not complied ",ith Judge Cook's Order'?
RCRIso

9
STATE OF FLORIDA
<l&ffire of tbe ~ o l J e r n o r
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001
RICK SCOTT
GOVERNOR
www.flgov.com
850-488-7146
850-487-0801 fax
April 13, 2011
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting Governor Rick Scott's office about changes to the Office of
Financial Regulation. The Governor asked that I respond on his behalf.
Governor Scott wants to know how people feel about the many issues we face and
your input is important to him. As you know, the Governor and the Cabinet serve over
the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) together as the Financial Services
Commission and make decisions about its functions. You may also wish to share your
concerns with the Florida Cabinet: Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief Financial Officer
Jeff Atwater and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. Please do not hesitate to
write again to share your concerns and ideas about issues that are important to you.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the Governor's Office.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Jordan
Office of Citizen Services
JAJ/cas
10
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER THE CAPITOL
400 SOUTH MONROE STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0800
(850) 488-3022
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
COMMISSIONER ADAM H. PUTNAM
May 17,2011
Mr. Neil J. G-illespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Tharlk you for contacting Commissioner Putnam to share your concerns with the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation (OFR). He has requested that I contact you on his behalf.
Commissioner Putnam agrees that politics have no role in detern1ining the future of a
financial institution and believes that consistent regulation of our state's financial institutions
will provide for the growth and stability of sound community banks and thrifts. Please know that
it remains of paramount importance to the Commissioner that Florida's financial institutions
receive fair and equal treatment among regulators - whether State or Federal.
The Commissioner has directed n1e to make sure your concerns are brought to OFR's
attention and properly addressed.
If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact our Cabinet
Affairs Office at (850) 617-7747.
Sincerely,
Brooke R. McKnight
Deputy Cabinet Affairs Director
cc: Linda Charity, Director
Division of Financial Institlltions
Office of Financial Regulation
,\ II,.
~ . ~
~
,---ao-o--H-E-L-PF-L-A------------ltKia.---------w-W-w-.-Fr-es-h-F-ro-m-F-Io-rid-a-.c-o-m
11
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Office of Citizen Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
PAM BONDI
Toll-free In Florida: (866) 966-7226
Telephone: (850) 414-3990
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Fax: (850) 410-1630
STATE OF FLORIDA
May 24,2011
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Attorney General Pam Bondi received your correspondence regarding your experiences with the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation (bPR). Attorney General Bondi asked that I respond. I am sorry for your
difficulties.
We have reviewed your correspondence to determine if our agency can in any way be of assistance to
you. Your complaint has been forwarded to the Attorney General's legal staff for further review. What
action, if any, this office may take is unknown at this time. However, please be aware our office does not
mediate on behalf of private individuals.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your concerns by OFR, you may wish to contact the OFR
Inspector General for any assistance which may be available. The contact information is:
Office of Inspector General
Office of Financial Regulation
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0370
Telephone: (850) 410-9712
,I
As the OFR is an agency under the direct authority of the Governor's Office, you may also wish to
contact the Chief Inspector General for the State of Florida at (850) 922-4637.
Please consult a private attorney/for any legal guidance you may need. The Florida Bar offers a Lawyer
Referral Service toll-free at (800) 342-8060. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for
low cost or pro bono assistance through a local legal aid office. The Florida Bar can assist you with this
process.
I hope you will understand the Attorney General's duties are prescribed by law. Thank you for taking the
time to share your concerns with the ~ t t o m e y General's Office.
Sincerely,
Brandon Brooks
Office of Citizen Services
12

NEWS WEATHER COMMUNITY ENTERTAINMENT SPORTS LIFESTYLES TOOLS Jobs Autos Real Estate Deals Classifieds Services

Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Search: Search Stories, Photos, Video & Keywords Search
Tampa 87.0 Cloudy
A DV E R T I S E ME N T
President Lowers Mortgage
If you owe under $729k you
probably qualify for the Govt
Refi Program.
MortgageRatesExperts.com
Ads by Yahoo!

By SHANNON BEHNKEN | The Tampa Tribune
Published: J uly 21, 2011
Updated: 07/21/2011 05:56 pm
TAMPA - A Hillsborough County judge seeking to tame a backlog of
thousands of foreclosure lawsuits is raising questions from critics who
wonder whether she should be hearing foreclosure cases at all.
J udge Martha J . Cook has an ownership interest in Community Bank,
where her husband, William H. Sedgeman J r., serves as chairman and
chief executive, public documents show.
The bank, known formally as Community Bank of Manatee, has 17
locations throughout the Tampa Bay area. The bank has been hard-hit
by the foreclosure crisis and has struggled to shed troubled assets.
Like most banks, Community Bank often finds itself as a plaintiff against
homeowners in foreclosure cases.
"It's reasonable that a homeowner would fear they aren't going to get a
fair hearing before her," said Mark Stopa, a foreclosure defense
attorney. "There's no way I could go into court before her without
thinking about this."
But Cook said she is not prejudiced.
"I don't have bias," Cook said. "I listed my connection, as required by the
law. Beyond that, my personal life is my personal life."
The state's J udicial Qualifications commission's code of conduct does
not expressly prohibit judges from owning stock in companies they may
see in the courtroom, but it does require disclosure.
The financial disclosures must be filed yearly with the Florida
Commission on Ethics. On forms filed for 2007 and 2008, Cook checked
a box indicating she had more than 5 percent interest in the bank. In
2009 and 2010, Cook indicated she still had an interest but that it was
less than 5 percent.
Cook told the Tribune she disclosed this because of her husband's
interest in the bank. She said she doesn't hear cases involving his bank
and doesn't feel she has a conflict of interest by overseeing foreclosures
by other banks.
The 13th J udicial Circuit, which includes Hillsborough County, has
nearly 30,000 foreclosure cases at some stage in the court system.
Cook is one of 10 judges assigned those cases. This time last year, the
state implemented a program to shed the backlog. Retired senior judges
were brought back to hear foreclosure cases.
But the program was controversial, and judges were accused of rubber-
stamping foreclosures and not checking documents. This came to a boil
late last year when some banks admitted that employees fabricated
documents and forged signatures. The legislature discontinued Florida's
foreclosure program, and starting this month, it's now up to elected
judges, such as Cook, to hear cases.
TBO > NEWS > BREAKING NEWS
Critics: Judge with interest in bank shouldn't hear
foreclosures
A DV E R T I S E ME NT
Castellano Cosmetic Surgery Center -
$25 for $50 worth of Any Cosmetic
Trea...
A DV E R T I S E ME NT



TBO Deals
Get $1 off any WhoNu? Nutrition Rich
cookies with coupon!
Deal Details 9:03 a.m.
Beginning Sept 10, students get
admission to Adventure Island for only
$24.99!
Deal Details 8:07 a.m.
Today's deal: Only $25 for $50 worth of
any cosmetic treatment at Castellano
Cosmetic Surgery Center
Deal Details 7:04 a.m.
More TBO Deals

Page 1of 2 Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures
8/31/2011 http://duke1.tbo.com/content/2011/jul/21/211756/critics-judge-with-interest-in-bank-shoul...
13

Mike Bridenback, court administrator for Hillsborough County, said Cook
was the first to add foreclosure cases to her J uly calendar. Working
through the backlog is important to the circuit, he said, but judges still
want to give homeowners who chose to fight their foreclosure a chance
to be heard.
Bridenback said he wasn't aware of Cook's relationship with the local
bank. He said each judge has to decide whether they have a conflict of
interest and that he's not aware of any problems with her cases.
"J udges have lives beyond the bench," Bridenback said.
Henry P. Trawick J r., a Sarasota lawyer and author of Florida's Practice
and Procedure, a textbook used by lawyers, said it's good that Cook
disqualifies herself from hearing cases that involved her husband's
bank. But he said she should go a step further.
"I think she shouldn't hear foreclosure cases," Trawick said. "That's what
I would do if I had that close of a connection, but perhaps my ethical
standards are higher."
The problem, Trawick said, is whether or not Cook shows favor to the
banks; those representing homeowners may feel like she might.
Hillsborough's other nine judges have not owned bank stock over at
least the past four years, according to state disclosure documents.
Stopa, the foreclosure defense attorney, said Cook once told him in
court that she thought the "only way to improve the economy is to push
through foreclosures as soon as possible."
Cook said she was misquoted, but she declined to correct the
statement.
Mike Wasylik, a foreclosure defense attorney, said he's had few cases
before Cook but is uncomfortable with her connection to a local bank.
"A judge has the duty to avoid even the appearance of bias," Wasylik
said. "She may have personal opinions about the need to push
foreclosures through quickly."
Phyllis Kotey, a professor at FIU School of Law, said the connections
show an "appearance of personal and financial interest."
"At the very least, parties before her should be put on notice and have
the opportunity to object to her hearing their cases."
sbehnken@tampatrib.com (813) 259-7804 Twitter:
@TBORealtyCheck


Coupons and Deals Games, Puzzles & Trivia

Advergaming and Branded Media
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online 2011 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company. Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
TBO.com:Feedback | Advertise With Us | Email Alerts | SMS/Text Alerts | Make Us Your Home Page | Member Center | Contact Us | Site Map | Media General Operations Credit Terms and
Conditions
WFLA: See news developing? Email or call our Tipline at 1-800-348-WFLA | 8 on Your Side | 8's Army | Links We Mentioned | EEO Public Filings | Children's Programming | FCC Form388
The Tampa Tribune: Subscribe | Place an Ad | Electronic Edition | Photo Reprints | Public Research | Archive | Corrections
Page 2of 2 Critics: J udge with interest in bank shouldn't hear foreclosures
8/31/2011 http://duke1.tbo.com/content/2011/jul/21/211756/critics-judge-with-interest-in-bank-shoul...
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
Daily News Summary
An electronic digest of media coverage of interest to members of The Florida Bar compiled each workday by the Public Information and Bar Services Department.
Electronic links are only active in today's edition. For information on previous articles, please contact the publishing newspaper directly.
Links to online newspapers
July 22, 2011
--Judiciary--
NEW CIRCUIT JUDGE NAMED-- Palatka Daily News, http://www.palatkadailynews.com, July 22,
20111. [Also: GOVERNOR APPOINTS NEW JUDGE-- Daytona Beach News-Journal,
http://www.news-journalonline.com, July 22, 2011; MENDOZA SELECTED FOR CIRCUIT JUDGE
JOB-- St. Augustine Record, http://staugustine.com, July 22, 2011].
St. Augustine Assistant City Attorney Carlos Mendoza is Putnam County's newest circuit judge.
Mendoza was selected Thursday [July 21] by Gov. Rick Scott to fill a vacancy created by Seventh Circuit
Judge Terry LaRue, who is transferring to Volusia County to replace Circuit Judge Julianne Piggotte, who
retired July 1. Mendoza is scheduled to start work in Putnam County on Aug. 29. The Seventh Circuit
includes Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns and Volusia counties.
CRITICS: JUDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa
Tribune, http://www.tbo.com, July 22, 2011.
A Hillsborough County judge seeking to tame a backlog of thousands of foreclosure lawsuits has critics
wondering whether she should be hearing foreclosure cases at all.
Judge Martha J. Cook has an ownership interest in Community Bank of Manatee, where her husband,
William H. Sedgeman Jr., serves as chairman and chief executive, public documents show. The bank has
been hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis and has struggled to shed troubled assets. Like most banks,
Community Bank often finds itself as a plaintiff against homeowners in foreclosure cases. Cook said she
is not prejudiced and that she listed her connection, as required by the law. The state's Judicial
Qualifications Commission's code of conduct does not expressly prohibit judges from owning stock in
companies they may see in the courtroom, but it does require disclosure. Cook said she disclosed the
connection because of her husband's interest in the bank. She said she doesn't hear cases involving his
bank and doesn't feel she has a conflict of interest by overseeing foreclosures by other banks.
--Legal Profession--
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, TWO FIRED LAWYERS IN PUBLIC DISPUTE-- Orlando Sentinel,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com, July 22, 2011.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and two recently fired employees, Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson, are
embroiled in a public fight over whether her office fired the two lawyers for being too aggressive
against mortgage lenders involved in foreclosure fraud cases or whether the lawyers engaged in
unprofessional conduct.
LONGTIME DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO JOIN PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE-- Panama City News Herald,
http://www.newsherald.com, July 22, 2011.
Robert Sombathy, a board certified criminal defense attorney, will fill a position in the 14th Circuit State
Attorney's Office that opened up when John O'Brien left the Major Crimes Division last week. State
Attorney Glenn Hess said he was looking for an experienced trial attorney to replace OBrien, who was
also an accomplished defense attorney earlier in his long career. Sombathy has taken more than 85
Daily News Summary http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7...
1 of 2 6/12/2013 3:50 PM
14
felony cases to trial since being admitted to the Bar in 1993. He will start Aug. 1.
--Criminal Justice Issues--
KIDNAPPERS WILL LIKELY GO FREE NEXT YEAR-- Orlando Sentinel,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com, July 21, 2011.
Two men who as teenagers were sentenced to life in prison for abducting a 16-year-old Ocoee boy and
forcing him into the trunk of his car where he suffered permanent brain damage from the heat will
be released from prison by next summer, lawyers say. Michael Daymon and Terrence Jenkins were 16
and 17 in 1993 when they kidnapped Philip Chandler one hot July day, forced him into the trunk and
then drove around the Orlando area for more than three hours. They were convicted of armed
kidnapping, attempted murder and armed robbery, and both were sentenced to life in prison without
the possibility of parole. However, they must now be resentenced because of a U.S. Supreme Court
decision last year in an unrelated case. The court ruled that, except in cases of murder, it is cruel and
unusual punishment to order a juvenile to prison for life with no possibility of ever regaining freedom.
# # #
[Revised: 07-25-2011]
2013 The Florida Bar | Disclaimer | Top of page |
Daily News Summary http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7...
2 of 2 6/12/2013 3:50 PM


TAMPA
2202 N. Westshore Blvd.
Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
ORLANDO
4700 Millenia Blvd.
Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32839
JACKSONVILLE
10151 Deerwood Park Blvd.
Building 200, Suite 25
Jacksonville, FL 32256
FORT LAUDERDALE
1560 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy
4
th
Floor
Sawgrass, FL 33323

Telephone: (727) 667-3413
STOPA LAW FIRM Mark P. Stopa, Esq.

J uly 20, 2011

Honorable Martha Cook
Circuit Court J udge
800 E. Twiggs St.
Room 511
Tampa, FL 33602

RE: Honorable Martha Cook presiding in foreclosure cases

Your Honor:

It is with the utmost respect for you and our system of justice that I write you this letter. I
hope you realize it is a difficult letter for me to write but one that, under the circumstances, I feel
I must.

Respectfully, I am concerned at your decision to continue presiding over mortgage
foreclosure cases given your personal ties to the banking industry and that of your husband.
While I do not profess to have personal knowledge of the veracity of the following facts, it seems
as if these facts are true, particularly since I have seen documents bearing your signature
containing this information:

1. Your husband is the Chairman and CEO of Community Bank of Manatee (and has
been for quite some time);
2. You have/had more than a 5% ownership interest in that bank;
3. Your personal net worth decreased by nearly half in recent years, largely because of
the near-failure of Community Bank.

I realize that every judge has a personal life and a right to make personal investments and earn a
living (and be married to someone who does). And Im certainly not trying to say you or your
husband has done anything wrong. However, from someone sitting on the homeowners/defense
side of the foreclosure crisis, I find it eminently reasonable for my clients to fear their ability to
get a fair hearing/trial before you, in foreclosure lawsuits, given your personal, financial ties to
the banking industry.

My concern in this regard came to a head at a recent hearing before you. After the
hearing was concluded, I engaged in a 20-30 minute discussion with you (and opposing counsel),
in open court, about the mortgage foreclosure crisis. What really sticks in my mind was your
15


TAMPA
2202 N. Westshore Blvd.
Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
ORLANDO
4700 Millenia Blvd.
Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32839
JACKSONVILLE
10151 Deerwood Park Blvd.
Building 200, Suite 25
Jacksonville, FL 32256
FORT LAUDERDALE
1560 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy
4
th
Floor
Sawgrass, FL 33323

Telephone: (727) 667-3413
repeated indications that the only way to improve the economy was to push through
foreclosure cases as quickly as possible.

I understand your desire to improve the economy. Heck, everyone wants the economy to
improve. However, with all due respect, your role as a judge is not to improve the economy (or
to use the cases before you as a mechanism to improve the economy). More significantly, I
cannot help but wonder how much of your stated objective to push through foreclosure cases is
predicated not on helping the economy, but on the personal, financial interests shared by you and
your husband and your clear ties to the banking industry. And if Im wondering this, then
undoubtedly others are/will as well.

Let me put it this way. I have been in the middle of the foreclosure crisis for quite some
time. Bankers always take the position that pushing through foreclosures as quickly as possible
is the correct approach. Hence, when I heard you say those things, it very much sounded to me
like you were speaking not as a neutral and detached judge, but as a part-owner of a bank and as
the spouse of a CEO of a bank.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to criticize you or your ties to the banking
industry. Im sure it is very difficult to separate your judge hat from your bankers hat. But
thats precisely the point. When youre a sitting judge who owns a local bank and whose
husband runs a local bank, it is fair for homeowners to question your ability to preside over
foreclosure cases in a neutral and detached manner.

I suppose my clients and I could address this with you on a case by case basis. However,
rather than start drafting motions to disqualify that could be deemed accusatory or inflammatory,
I thought Id try to write you a respectful letter expressing my concerns. J udge Cook, given your
ties to the banking industry, I am respectfully requesting that you remove yourself as judge from
all foreclosure cases.

I realize that may sound harsh to you. I also realize you may find my request to be totally
misplaced and out of line. Respectfully, however, the publics distrust in the judicial system is at
an all-time high. The fact that I have learned the facts in this letter means that others will as
well. I respectfully submit it would bode well for our system of justice and the appearance of
propriety in our justice system if you did not preside on foreclosure cases going forward.

It is a miserable experience for homeowners to lose their homes. When they do, it is
important that they know they lost their home because that was the correct legal result. It would
not bode well for anyone if homeowners started wondering (correctly or not) if the results in
their foreclosure cases were the lawful and just result or the result of a judge who has ties to the
banking industry. Again, that is not meant to be accusatory. Rather, Im sure you can see that it
would be easy for anyone to question whether your rulings are the rulings of a neutral and
detached judge, or the rulings of an owner of a local bank and the spouse of a CEO of that bank.
Heck, I wondered that myself after our last hearing, and if I did, then undoubtedly others will as


TAMPA
2202 N. Westshore Blvd.
Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
ORLANDO
4700 Millenia Blvd.
Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32839
JACKSONVILLE
10151 Deerwood Park Blvd.
Building 200, Suite 25
Jacksonville, FL 32256
FORT LAUDERDALE
1560 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy
4
th
Floor
Sawgrass, FL 33323

Telephone: (727) 667-3413
well.

There are many other, equally capable judges who can preside over foreclosure cases in
Hillsborough County. As such, in my view, it only makes sense to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and have those cases assigned to other judges.

In concluding, I reiterate that this was an awkward and difficult letter for me to write. I
have many cases (foreclosure and otherwise) before you and other judges in Hillsborough
County. The last thing Im trying to do here is to come across as disrespectful or accusatory.
That said, given the circumstances, I thought it incumbent upon me to apprise you that, from the
perspective of someone on the defense side of these cases, it is eminently reasonable for
homeowners to question your neutrality given your personal circumstances.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful attention to this matter.


Sincerely,
STOPA LAW FIRM




Mark P. Stopa



16
STATE OF FLORIDA
C!&fftcr of tbr <!Pol1rrnor
THE CAPITOL
TALI ,AHASSEE. FLORIDA 32399-000]
www.flgov.com
850-488-7146
RICK SCOTT
GOVERNOR
August 6, 2012
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting Governor Rick Scott. The Governor appreciates your concerns
and asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Florida Constitution limits the Governor's intervention in matters that should be
resolved through the court system. The person who can best assist you with your
question/ concerns about "Husband and Husband" mortgage is an attorney. If you need help
finding an attorney, the Florida Bar offers a Lawyer Referral Service which you may contact by
calling toll-free: (800) 342-8011. For those unable to afford a lawyer, Florida Legal Services or
your local legal aid office has information about the availability of pro bono counsel. The main
telephone number for Florida Legal Services is The Florida Bar can assist you
with this process. Please contact the Florida Bar directly or visit the web site
www.f1oridabar.org..
You should contact the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) about your complaint
against Judge Cook. The Commission considers situations where it is alleged that a judge's
personal conduct and behavior violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. All complaints must be
put in writing. To contact the Commission, please use the information provided below.
Judicial Qualifications Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
(850) 488-1581
Regarding your views on same-sex marriage, you can influence legislation by contacting
your local legislative delegation. To contact your legislators and track bills as they proceed
through the legislative process, please visit www.1eg.state.fl.us.
Thank you again for contacting the Governor's office.
.. ......
! .:' I
; --.J..;' /,.,
f .. t:." --- i -, - ....
, :
'.;" . .
Martha Lynn .
Office of Citizen Services
Executive Office of the Governor
ML/cas
17
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 May 16, 2013
and kenneth.wilson@myfloridalegal.com
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa
Office of the Attorney General
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States
Dear Mr. Wilson:
So sorry to see you got duped by court counsel David Rowland and paralegal Sandra Burge, who
misrepresented to you that I did not provide Mr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. That
must explain why the petition was not among the 323 pages of public records provided by your
office that arrived here in Ocala May 9, 2013 in response to my records request.
An email (Exhibit 1) from Mr. Rowlands paralegal Sandra Burge to Chief Assistant Attorney
General Diana R. Esposito 12/20/2012 at 12:51 PM, Cc to David Rowland and Chris Nauman,
advanced this material falsehood, which Ms. Esposito sent to you, Cc to Amanda Cavanaugh:
The Plaintiff's Notice of Filing the petition for writ of certiorari was received in the Legal
Department's Office on 12/18/12 is attached as well as the Court's docket indicating a
response is due, if needed, by J anuary 14, 2013. Neither a copy of the petition nor
"separate Volume Appendices" accompanied the Notice.
A letter (Exhibit 2) emailed by you J anuary 8, 2013 repeated the falsehood back to Mr. Rowland:
While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition....
On December 10, 2012 I served Mr. Rowland per Rule 29, proof of service, the following:
1. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States,
2. Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
3. Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
4. Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.
5. My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012
United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking 1Z64589FP297520287 shows delivery December 11, 2012
at 10:55 AM to the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 34481.
FYI, all UPS ground shipping within Florida is delivered next day, unless shipped on Friday.
The UPS proof of delivery for 1Z64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows DAVIS at
the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature D. Davis. A seven
(7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).
18
Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General May 16, 2013
Office of the Attorney General Page - 2
The document referred to by Ms. Burge in her deceptive email to Ms. Esposito was a Rule 12.3
notice, and notice of waiver to file a response, delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM to the
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit. Unfortunately Ms. Burge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Nauman failed to
inform you that my petition was delivered a week earlier, December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM.
The Thirteenth Circuit gang further mislead you by providing you my December 10, 2012 cover
letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court which they date-stamped December 18, 2012, when this
letter was in fact a second courtesy copy of the one received by Rowland December 11, 2012 but
does not appear date-stamped as such in the records your office provided me May 9, 2013.
Enclosed you will find evidence showing I served by UPS the Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of
waiver to Mr. Rowland December 17, 2012 tracking no. 1Z64589FP291778029, which was
delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, to the Courts address, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa,
Florida. The UPS proof of delivery shows DAVIS at the front desk signed for the delivery. A
composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 4).
The Supreme Court sent me three (s) sets of Rule 12.3 notices, and notices of waiver to file a
response, December 14, 2013 after my petition was docketed, with instructions for notifying
opposing counsel(s) that the case was docketed. (Exhibit 5).
You have my sympathy for any embarrassment caused by the deception of Mr. Rowland and his
accomplices, that caused an inaccurate letter to issue from the Office of the Attorney General
falsely implying I did not provide a copy of my petition to Mr. Rowland. (Exhibit 2).
Enclosed you will find my records request to Mr. Rowland intended to correct the record. If and
when I get an accurate response back, I will provide you the correct date-stamped petition for
inclusion in the record showing it was received by Mr. Rowland December 11, 2012.
Until then you can find Petition No. 12-7747 online at the link below. Thank you.
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures
cc: Gov. Rick Scott, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290544836
cc: Attorney General Pam Bondi, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294245643
Email to: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list; Mr.
Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit J NC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D, Thirteenth
Circuit BOG, David Rowland, K. Christopher Nauman, Sandra Burge.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-1 Filed 07/07/11 Page 61 of 62 PageID 817
19
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-1 Filed 07/07/11 Page 62 of 62 PageID 818
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP299560632 May 13, 2013
Kathleen L. Arberg
Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
RE: Petition No. 12-7747, Gillespie v. Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, FL, et al
Application No. 12-A215 granted by J ustice Thomas extending time to file
Dear Ms. Arberg:
This is a request for public information about the Supreme Courts disability accommodation
policy for litigants, e-filing, and public information relative to the above Supreme Court cases.
This is not a request to perform research for, nor provide legal advice. This is a request for public
information, which is why I contacted you as the Public Information Officer, for the following:
1. Public information or records in Application No. 12-A215 showing why it was granted.
2. Public information or records for the cert. pool memo in Petition No. 12-7747, or other
records or information that show how my petition, and rehearing, was considered and/or denied.
3. Public information or records for any law clerks memo in Petition No. 12-7747, or other
records that show how my petition, and rehearing, was considered and/or denied.
4. Public information or records about the Supreme Courts cert. pool policy and practices.
5. Public information or records about the Supreme Courts e-filing policy and practices.
6. Public information or records about the Supreme Courts disability accommodation
policy for unrepresented pro se parties, represented parties, and disabled counsel, and how to
request disability accommodation. Does the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the ADA apply?
7. Public information or records about my disability accommodation request submitted to
the Hon. William K. Suter August 28, 2012, & resubmitted with my petition December 10, 2012.
I am concerned that the Supreme Court does not permit e-filing, or use the federal CM/ECF
system and PACER, which resulted in a denial of access for me, and prevented full consideration
on the merits in my petition for rehearing. On April 10, 2013 I sent by U.P.S. a Rule 21 motion
to correct and supplement my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.
Unfortunately my Rule 21 Motion was delayed one day in transit, and another day at the
Supreme Courts separate quarantine location, and did not arrive to the Court until the rehearing
20
Kathleen L. Arberg, Public Information Officer May 13, 2013
Supreme Court of the United States Page - 2
was denied April 15, 2013. The Rule 21 motion was not heard, and was returned to me. This
scenario may have been avoided if the Court permitted e-filing like other federal courts.
PACER and CM/ECF would allow the Supreme Court to provide access to court services in an
effective and expeditious manner as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
My Rule 21 motion is currently posted on Scribd at the link below for anyone in the world to read,
except perhaps the J ustices of the Supreme Court of the United States. This irony is an injustice.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/Rule-21-Motion-12-7747-With-Appendicies-Apr-10-2013
My Rule 21 motion presented two important issues to the Supreme Court:
A. A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit
was of a substantial or controlling effect in my case. In Terry, the government proved that
the Defendant, J udge Terry, used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud
another, 18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
Terry was recommended for full publication, and was on point in my rehearing.
B. Consideration of the nexus requirement in disability accommodation, as
presented by Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable
Accommodations Law, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013). The Supreme Court has never
addressed the nexus requirement directly. (p. 1394).
Existing disability of pro se parties in civil litigation may create a second case within the
original case which may be more difficult than the original matter due to the personal nature of
disability, and the indifference or hostility of opposing counsel and courts toward the disabled
party. For example, an intelligent person with mental impairment may not be able to effectively
advocate for themselves when the mental impairment is a barrier to effective self representation.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Enclosures


Page 1
890 F.Supp. 1029
(Cite as: 890 F.Supp. 1029)

United States District Court,
M.D. Florida,

Tampa Division.
.
Frank J . McPARTLAND, and Economic & Invest-
ment Technologies, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
ISI INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., F/K/A In-
vestment Services Holding Corp., Defendant.
No. 95-704-CIV-T-17E.

J une 30, 1995.

In action concerning settlement of employment
agreement and payment for services and products,
plaintiffs sought to disqualify defendants' counsel.
The District Court, Kovachevich, J., held that re-
cord established both prior representation of
plaintiffs by law firm representing defendants and
substantial relationship to the present issues, thus
requiring disqualification of entire law firm under
Florida law.

Disqualification ordered.

West Headnotes

[1] Attorney and Client 45 19

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k19 k. Disqualification in General.
Most Cited Cases

Attorney and Client 45 21.20

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k21.20 k. Disqualification Proceedings;
Standing. Most Cited Cases

Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appear-
ance of professional impropriety, and any doubt is
to be resolved in favor of disqualification.

[2] Attorney and Client 45 21

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k20 Representing Adverse Interests
45k21 k. Interests of Former Clients.
Most Cited Cases
To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant
must show existence of prior attorney-client rela-
tionship and that the matters in pending suit are
substantially related to the previous matter or cause
of action.

[3] Attorney and Client 45 21

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k20 Representing Adverse Interests
45k21 k. Interests of Former Clients.
Most Cited Cases
In determining whether attorney-client 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.

[4] Attorney and Client 45 21.20

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k21.20 k. Disqualification Proceedings;
Standing. Most Cited Cases
For purposes of motion to disqualify defendants'
counsel in action involving settlement of employ-
ment agreement, statements of plaintiff that he had
repeatedly sought legal advice from a representat-
ive of defendants' law firm and that such represent-


2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2of 5
4/29/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?ifm=NotSet&prft=HTMLE&pbc=F299C...
21
Page 2
890 F.Supp. 1029
(Cite as: 890 F.Supp. 1029)
ative had provided such legal advice was sufficient
to establish that attorney-client relationship previ-
ously existed between plaintiff and member of the
firm.

[5] Attorney and Client 45 21

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k20 Representing Adverse Interests
45k21 k. Interests of Former Clients.
Most Cited Cases
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 reason-
able persons would understand as important to the
issues involved.

[6] Attorney and Client 45 21.5(1)

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k20 Representing Adverse Interests
45k21.5 Particular Cases and Problems
45k21.5(1) k. In General. Most
Cited Cases
For purposes of motion to disqualify defendants'
counsel, prior representation of plaintiff in obtain-
ing funding through drafting and issuance of offer-
ing memoranda was substantially related to present
action involving agreement to pay plaintiff spe-
cified amounts for services and products provided
by plaintiff to defendant, in that it was not unreas-
onable that customer might consider financial sta-
bility and wherewithal of supplier when contracting
to purchase goods and services over extended peri-
od.

[7] Attorney and Client 45 21.20

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities


45k21.20 k. Disqualification Proceedings;
Standing. Most Cited Cases
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] Attorney and Client 45 21.15

45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities
45k20 Representing Adverse Interests
45k21.15 k. Partners and Associates.
Most Cited Cases
Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm
on basis of prior representation of opposing party
necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, un-
der Florida law. West's F.S.A. Bar Rules 4-1.9,
4-1.10(a).
*1030 Terrence Scott Buchert, Cohrs, McQueen &
Ford, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL, for plaintiffs.

Robert MacFarlane Mayer, Kelley, Drye & Warren,
Miami, FL, for defendant.



ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DIS-
QUALIFY KELLEY DRYE & WARREN

KOVACHEVICH, District J udge.

This cause of action is before the Court on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Kelley Drye &
Warren (KDW). Plaintiffs claim that KDW has, at
times, represented Mr. McPartland, Economic &
Investment Technologies, Inc. (EIT), and ISI In-
vestment Services, Inc. (ISI).

This representation is asserted to be sometimes con-
current and at other times discrete. Plaintiffs aver
that during KDW's representation of McPartland
and EIT, KDW acquired confidential information
which, if used by KDW in the current dispute,


2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3of 5
4/29/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?ifm=NotSet&prft=HTMLE&pbc=F299C...
Page 3
890 F.Supp. 1029
(Cite as: 890 F.Supp. 1029)
would be advantageous to ISI. Plaintiffs profess
that the matters embraced in the current action are
substantially related to matters involving KDW's
previous representation of McPartland and EIT.

The dispute described in Plaintiffs' Complaint al-
legedly arose out of discussions and agreements
between Plaintiffs and ISI regarding the terms of
two (2) documents attached to the Complaint as Ex-
hibits A and B. The terms of Exhibit A ad-
dress the payment to McPartland of specified
amounts in settlement of an employment agree-
ment. Exhibit B relates to an agreement to pay
EIT specified amounts over a three (3) year period
for services and products to be provided by EIT to
ISI.

[1] The professional conduct of all members of the
Bar of this Court is governed by the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct of the American Bar Associ-
ation, as modified and adopted by the Supreme
Court of Florida. Rule 2.04(c), Local Rules of the
Middle District. While the Code of Professional
Conduct does not contain an express provision pro-
hibiting the appearance of impropriety, Florida law
clearly retains this requirement. In State Farm Mut.
Auto. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991),
the Florida Supreme Court ruled that attorneys must
still avoid the appearance of professional impropri-
ety. It has been held that even an appearance of
impropriety may, under the *1031 appropriate cir-
cumstances, require prompt remedial action from
the court ... Consequently, any doubt is to be re-
solved in favor of disqualification. Rentclub, Inc.
v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp.
651, 654 (M.D.Fla.1992).

[2] The precedent governing the instant issue is
clear. To prevail on a motion to disqualify, the
movant must show: 1) the existence of a prior attor-
ney/client relationship and 2) that the matters in the
pending suit are substantially related to the previ-
ous matter or cause of action. Smalley Transp. Co.
v. Prime Computer, Inc., 137 F.R.D. 397, 398
(M.D.Fla.1991); Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe
Co., 847 F.2d 725, 728 (11th Cir.1988); Duncan v.


Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 646
F.2d 1020, 1028 (5th Cir. (Fla.) 1981), cert. denied,
454 U.S. 895, 102 S.Ct. 394, 70 L.Ed.2d 211
(1981).
FN1


FN1. The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v.
City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207
(11th Cir.1981) (en banc) declared that de-
cisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered
prior to October 1, 1981 are binding on
this Circuit.

[3][4] In the case at bar, KDW disputes whether
there was ever an attorney/client relationship
between KDW and McPartland. McPartland asserts
that he repeatedly sought personal legal advice
from Mr. Brodrick, a member of the KDW firm. In
determining whether an attorney/client relationship
existed, the court may focus on the subjective ex-
pectation of the client that he is seeking legal ad-
vice. Smalley at 399 (citing Glover v. Libman, 578
F.Supp. 748, 757 (N.D.Ga.1983)). Clearly from the
Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Kelley Drye &
Warren (Docket No. 8), McPartland states that he
repeatedly sought legal advice from Mr. Brodrick, a
representative of KDW, and claims that Mr.
Brodrick provided such legal advice. Therefore, un-
der guidance from Glover, McPartland's Motion to
Disqualify leaves little doubt that McPartland con-
sulted KDW for legal advice. The law does not re-
quire a long-term or complicated attorney/client re-
lationship to fulfill the first prong of the test for dis-
qualification. The weight of the evidence indicates
an attorney/client relationship existed between Mc-
Partland and Brodrick, and the Court, for the pur-
poses of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify, there-
fore finds such a relationship. The parties do not
dispute that there was a attorney/client relationship
between EIT, the other Plaintiff, and KDW.

[5] Having satisfied the first prong for disqualifica-
tion, the Court must consider the second prong:
whether the matters handled by KDW in the past
for McPartland and EIT were substantially related
to the disputes in the case at bar. To be
substantially related the matters need only be


2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4of 5
4/29/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?ifm=NotSet&prft=HTMLE&pbc=F299C...
Page 4
890 F.Supp. 1029
(Cite as: 890 F.Supp. 1029)
akin to the present action in a way reasonable per-
sons would understand as important to the issues
involved. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust
Litigation, 659 F.2d 1341, 1346 (5th Cir.1981);
Ruff v. Ivey, 102 B.R. 868 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989).

McPartland asserts that Broderick (and therefore
KDW) provided legal advice to McPartland regard-
ing modification and acceptance of Exhibits A
and B. This advice was allegedly provided to Mc-
Partland at the same time KDW was representing
ISI as general counsel regarding the drafting and fi-
nalization of the same documents. Therefore, as to
McPartland, not only were the matters
substantially related, the matters were identical.

[6] KDW represented EIT in obtaining funding
through the drafting and issuance of offering
memoranda to potential investors. This representa-
tion of EIT poses the question to this Court whether
the matters of EIT obtaining funding and the sub-
stance of the Exhibits are akin to the present ac-
tion in a way reasonable persons would understand
as important to the issues involved. Id. It is not un-
reasonable that a customer might consider the fin-
ancial stability and wherewithal of a supplier when
contracting to purchase goods and services over an
extended period of time (the subject of Exhibit
B). Since any doubt is to be resolved in favor of
disqualification, the conservative position most
likely to achieve justice is for this Court to hold
that the matters were substantially related.
Rentclub Inc., at 654.

*1032 [7][8] This Court, having found a substantial
relationship between the instant case in which
KDW represents ISI and both the McPartland and
EIT issues, arrives at a irrebuttable presumption
that confidential information was disclosed to
KDW by both McPartland and EIT. Therefore, cur-
rent counsel for ISI must be disqualified. Duncan at
1028. Further, the disqualification of even one at-
torney, such as Mr. Brodrick, at KDW necessitates
the disqualification of the firm as a whole. Rule
4-1.10(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, entitled Imputed


Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm, clearly
applies. This rule provides that While lawyers are
associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
represent a client when any one of them practicing
alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule ...
4-1.9. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a
lawyer's ethical obligations to former clients gener-
ally require disqualification of the lawyer's entire
firm where any potential for conflict arises. Castro
v. State, 597 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla.1992).

It is this Court's duty to not only dispense justice,
but, equally as important, to maintain the integrity
of the judicial system. The public's trust and confid-
ence in the system is essential to the ability of the
system to function efficiently and justly. As this
Court previously noted, even an appearance of im-
propriety may, under the appropriate circumstances,
require prompt remedial action from the court ...
Consequently, any doubt is to be resolved in favor
of disqualification. Rentclub, Inc., at 654. Accord-
ingly, it is

ORDERED that Kelley Drye & Warren be dis-
qualified from representing the Defendant in this
cause of action and the Defendant shall have thirty
(30) days from the date of this order to obtain new
counsel and have that counsel file a notice of ap-
pearance with this Court. This Court reminds the
Defendant that a corporation is required by the loc-
al rules to proceed with counsel, so failure to file a
notice of appearance may result in the imposition of
sanctions, even including entry of default. It is fur-
ther

ORDERED that all other outstanding motions be
denied, with leave to refile if appropriate within fif-
teen (15) days of appearance by new counsel.

DONE AND ORDERED.

M.D.Fla.,1995.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.
890 F.Supp. 1029

END OF DOCUMENT

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5of 5
4/29/2010 http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?ifm=NotSet&prft=HTMLE&pbc=F299C...

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAllON
AlTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
Telephone 813/4891001
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/4891008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33606
March 27,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Re: Vocational Rehabilitation
Dear Neil:
I am enclosing the material you provided to us. We have reviewed them and, unfortunately,
we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have. Please understand that our
decision does not mean that your claims lack merit, and another attorney might wish to represent you.
If you wish to consult with another attorney, we recommend that you do so immediately as a statute
oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations is a legal
deadline for filing a lawsuit. Thank you for the opportunity to review your materials.
William 1. Cook
WJC/mss
Enclosures
22
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone 813/489.1001
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/489.1008
WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33606
May 25,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Re: St. Petersburg Junior College
Dear Neil:
I have and thank you for your May 22, 2001 letter with enclosures. We have reviewed the
materials that you provided, and while we do not disagree with your criticisms of the St. Petersburg
Junior College, we are not in the position to pursue litigation. Of course, another attorney may have
a different opinion. If you wish to consult with another attorney, you should do so immediately, as
a statute oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations
is a legal deadline for filing a lawsuit.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review your potential claims.
Sincerely,
WJC/so
23
Col or of Law Abuses
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges,
prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous
power by local, state, and federal government agencies
authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice
in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and
arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal
charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in
certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally
necessary to the health of our nations democracy. Thats why
its a federal crime for anyone acting under color of law willfully
to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. Color of
law simply means that the person is using authority given to himor her by a local, state, or federal
government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts
carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.
Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
During 2012, 42 percent of the FBIs total civil rights caseload involved color of law issuesthere were
380 color of law cases opened during the year. Most of the cases involved crimes that fell into into five
broad areas:
Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep fromharm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are
allowed to use whatever force is reasonably necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is
vastfromjust the physical presence of the officerto the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law
occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully unreasonable or excessive.
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other
settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual
compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the
person if he or she doesnt comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees
the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided
under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them
and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary powersuch as an unlawful detention or
illegal confiscation of propertythat a violation of a persons civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute,
taking away the persons rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of
property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a persons
property, which oversteps or misapplies the officials authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of
cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of
force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed
the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded
the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local
communities. If its shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual fromharm, that official could
be in violation of the color of law statute.
Filing a Complaint
To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The
following information should be provided:
All identifying information for the victim(s);

Key Civi l Ri ghts Links
Civil Rights Home
Priority Issues
- Hate Crime
- Human Trafficking/Involuntary Servitude
- Color of Law Abuses
- Freedomof Access to Clinic Entrances
Report Civil Rights Violations
- File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
- File a Report on Our Internet Tip Line
Home About Us What We Investigate Civil Rights Color of Law
FBI Color of Law http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
1 of 2 6/14/2013 11:01 AM
24
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice
Close
As much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
agency employed;
Date and time of incident;
Location of incident;
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
A complete chronology of events; and
Any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorneys Office in your district or send a written complaint to:
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S.
Attorneys Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of J ustice in Washington, D.C.,
which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.
Civil Applications
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow
officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the
Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the
Department of J ustice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have
policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an
agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice
investigation include:
Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers actions;
Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.
Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of J ustice has the ability to initiate civil actions
against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention
facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized
persons.
Report Civil Rights Violations
File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
File a Report over Our Internet Tip Line
Visit Our VictimAssistance Site
Resources
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Statute
Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf)
Addressing Police Misconduct
FBI Color of Law http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
2 of 2 6/14/2013 11:01 AM