Florida Bar Complaint, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Sep-13-2012

Transcript

THE FLORIDA BAR 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG September 13, 2012 Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker 501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790 Tampa, FL 33602-5237 Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Ryan Christopher Rodems The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Dear Mr. Rodems: Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the above referenced complainant(s). Your response to this complaint is required under the provisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and is due in our office by September 28, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages al1d may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please note that any correspondence must be sent through the u.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material. You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your written response, including any documents submitted therewith. Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Discipline, any reports, correspondence, papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s) shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon a disposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the status of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made and the matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline, you are further required to complete and retllm the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form. Furtller, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter. Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems September 13, 2012 Page Two Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your response. Sincerely, Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707 Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint, Notice - Mailing Instructions) cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 1. The enclosed letter is an informal inquiry. Your response is required under the provisions of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4 8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct. Failure to provide a written response to this conlplaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4 8.4(g). If you do not respond, the matter will be forwarded to the grievance committee for disposition in accordance with Rule 3-7.3 of the Rules of Discipline. 2. Many conlplaints considered first by staff counsel are not forwarded to a grievance committee, as they do not involve violatiol1s of the Rules of Professional Conduct justifying disciplinary action. 3. "Pllrsuant to Rule 3-7.1(a), Rules of Discipline, any response by you in these proceedings shall become part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public upon the closure of the case by Bar counselor upon a finding of no probable cause, probable cause, minor misconduct, or recommendation of diversion. Disclosure during the pendency of an investigation may be nlade only as to status if a specific inquiry concerning this case is made and if this matter is generally known to be in the public donlain." 4. The grievance committee is the Bar's "grand jury." Its function and procedure are set forth in Rule 3-7.4. Proceedings before the grievance committee, for the most part, are non­ adversarial in nature. However, you should carefully review Chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. 5. If the grievance committee finds probable cause, formal adversarial proceedings, which ordinarily lead to disposition by the Supreme Court of Florida, will be commenced under 3-7.6, unless a plea is submitted under Rule 3-7. NOTICE Mailing Instructions The Florida Bar is in the process of converting its disciplinary files to electronic media. All submissions are being scanned into an electronic record and hard copies are discarded. Please limit your submission to no more than 25 pages including exhibits. If you have additional documents available, please make reference to them in 'your written submission as available upon request. Should Bar counsel need to obtain copies of any such documents, a subsequent request will be sent to you. Please do not bind, or index your You may underline but do not highlight documents under any circumstances. We scan documents for use in our disciplinary files and when scanned, your document highlighting will either not be picked up or may obscure any underlying text. ** Materials received that do not meet these guidelines may be returned. ** Please refrain from attaching media such as audio tapes or CD's, oversized documents, or photographs. We cannot process any media that cannot be scanned into the electronic record. Please do not submit your original documents. All documents will be discarded after scanning. Please do not submit confidential or privileged information. If information ofthis nature is important to your submission, please describe the nature of the information and indicate that it is available upon request. Bar counsel will contact you to make appropriate arrangements for the protection of any such information that is required as part ofthe investigation ofthe complaint. Thank you for your consideration in this respect. THE FLORIDA BAR 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG September 13, 2012 Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 S.W. 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Re: Ryan Christopher Rodems; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Dear Mr. Gillespie: Enclosed is a copy of our letter to Mr. Rodems which requires a response to your complaint. Once you receive Mr. Rodems's response, you have 10 days to file a rebuttal if you so desire. If you decide to file a rebuttal, you must send a copy to Mr. Rodems. Rebuttals should not exceed 25 pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Please address any and all correspondence to me. Please note that any correspondence must be sent througll the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material. Please be advised that as an arm of the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida Bar can investigate allegations of misconduct against attorneys, and where appropriate, request that the attorney be disciplined. The Florida Bar cannot render legal advice nor can The Florida Bar represent individuals or intervene on their behalf in any civil or criminal matter. Further, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter. Please review the enclosed Notice on mailing instructions for information on submitting your rebuttal. Sincerely, Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707 Enclosures (Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Letter to Mr. Rodems; Notice - Mailing Instructions) cc: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems "'----- -' ...... -..­ THE FLORIDA BAR f \ 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET ; " TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 .. ' .;:' It'G Visit our web site: www.FLORIDABAR.org 016H165073,.56 f1\ (\(\ c 5(\ Qi ':: .a1'" tt\ 09 13 2012 :t' uS PU51AGr: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 S.W. 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 i ".±:35S7 R::iS·7 i51 III.' J J iJ iJ .1111 ill I.Ji II Ii I J IJ I. J Ii J1 ilit Ilii, 111 i.1i I Ji.' IIIIIl!!I!IIIII- - - ---"""""" THE FLORIDA BAR INQUIRy/COMPLAINT FORM PART ONE (See Pa2e I, PART ONE - Required Information.): Your Name: Neil J. Gillespie Organization: _ Address: 8092 SW 115th Loop City: Ocala State: FL Zip Code: 34481 Phone: 352-854-7807 Email: [email protected] ACAP Reference No._n_o_ne _ Attorney's Name: Ryan Christopher Rodems Address: 501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790 City: Tampa State: ~ Zip Code: 33602 Telephone: 813-489-1001 PART TWO (See Pa2e I, PART TWO - Facts/AIle2ations.): The specific thing or thin2s I am comolainin2 about are: Please see accompanying letter and exhibits. PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE - Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached sheet]. PART FOlTR (See Page 1, PART FOUR - Signature.): Under penalties ofperjury, I declare that theforegoingfacts are true, correct and complete. Attorney Consumer Assistance Program September 10, 2012 The Florida Bar 651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32399·2300 Complaint against attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID: 947652, 501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790, Tampa, Florida 33602, telephone (813) 489-1001; Mr. Rodems has committed multiple violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar while representing his law firm and partner in civil litigation against me, a former client on the same or “substantially related” matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases. In August 2005 I sued, pro se, Mr. Rodems’ firm and partner to recover $6,224.78 1 stolen by them from my settlement in a prior case against AMSCOT Corporation (“Amscot”). Amscot was a class action lawsuit over “payday loans” or delayed deposit check cashing schemes that result in usurious rates of interest. The case is Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J. Cook, case no. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough County, Florida. Mr. Rodems countersued me on February 19, 2006. It was a vexatious counterclaim for libel over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, about the litigation and a closed Bar complaint. On September 28, 2010 Rodems voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. I incurred $31,863 2 in legal fees to attorney Robert W. Bauer, a February 26, 2007 referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service to defend the libel suit. Mr. Bauer also reinstated my voluntarily dismissed claims against Rodems’ firm and partner, but latter dropped the case in October 2008 3 . Rodems’ misconduct made lawful resolution of this case impossible. Lying is a habit for Mr. Rodems, and he is guilty of misconduct related to lack of candor, which rules and standards are contained in a publication by The Florida Bar Ethics Department, the Informational Packet entitled “Candor Toward The Tribunal”. Rodems is guilty of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rodems also knowingly disparaged, humiliated, and discriminated against me on the basis of disability. Mr. Rodems’ partner and law firm previously consulted with me on disability and the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR. Mr. Rodems misused discovery, disrupted the tribunal, obtained $11,550 in sanctions, and then a money judgment against me. Much of the case was spent obtaining and executing on the $11,550 judgment. Through a series of ex parte hearings, Mr. Rodems wrongly obtained a warrant for my arrest on civil contempt, a writ of bodily attachment, for allegedly failing to attend a full deposition, post final judgment. On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems announced that he had accumulated another 130 hours of sanctions. That would amount to $45,500 at $350 per hour. On June 21, 2011 I was held in coercive custody at the Tampa Courthouse until I signed a settlement while incompetent. I promptly disaffirmed the agreement upon a meal after release. 1 Florida attorney Seldon J. Childers later determined that the amount stolen was $7,143.68, see Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed pro se May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton. 2 $12,650 remains unpaid; the rest was paid from Social Security disability benefits or borrowed. 3 Judge Barton entered Order Granting Motion To Withdrawal As Counsel October 1, 2009. The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 2 Mr. Rodems continued his misconduct in my related federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., 5:10-cv-503, U.S. District Court, M.D., Fla. A list of twenty (20) related cases appears at Exhibit 1. Currently I am preparing a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. My Rule 13.5 Application to extend time to file a petition for writ of certiorari was docketed August 31, 2012, Docket No. 12A215. I. Overview of the Misconduct of Ryan Christopher Rodems A. Represented his partner/firm against me, a former client on a “substantially related” matter. B. Represented his partner/firm at ex parte hearings and mislead the Court. C. His exercise of independent professional judgment was materially limited by conflict. D. Lack of Candor Toward The Tribunal; Rodems failed to correct earlier false testimony. E. Misused discovery and obtained sanctions thorough a pattern of racketeering activity. F. Disrupted the tribunal to improperly influence and prejudice the Court. G. Disparaged, humiliated, and discriminated against me on the basis of disability. II. Bar Rules And Case Law Violated by Ryan Christopher Rodems Mr. Rodems was admitted to the Florida Bar September 23, 1992, and was Board Certified in Civil Trial Law in 2007. The misconduct described in this complaint cannot be attributed to mistake or inexperience. This is knowing, willful misconduct, committed with malice aforethought, and utterly lacking independent professional judgment. Mr. Rodems crossed the line from misconduct to criminal behavior when he presented false testimony during several ex parte official proceedings to obtain a warrant for my arrest. The following is my layman’s understanding of Mr. Rodems’ misconduct and crimes, and the applicable rule or law. Rule 3-4.3 The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline. Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent. Rule 4-1.6(b) requires a lawyer to reveal information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime. Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm and partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2) substantial risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the lawyer's responsibilities to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems. See Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, July 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on Scribed. http://www.documento.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan- Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010 The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 3 Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client. (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal information relating to the representation about the client. Mr. Rodems’ firm and law partner represented me the Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and consulted with me on disability matters with Florida DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010. Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so. Mr. Rodems has an imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William Cook previously represented me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems July 9, 2010. McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich: [1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of action. [3] In determining whether 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. Rule 4-1.16 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law. Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. (i.e., Vexatious libel claim, later voluntarily dismissed) The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 4 Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal, (a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (b) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. (c) Ex Parte Proceedings. In an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. (d) Extent of Lawyer's Duties. The duties stated in this rule continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6. Rule 4-3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, A lawyer shall not: (a) A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding... (b) prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness to testify falsely. (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal... (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; (g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter; or Rule 4-3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal (a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge.... (b) Communication with Judge or Official. In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge. (c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. Rule 4-8.4(a) Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act Rule 4-8.4(c) Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation Rule 4-8.4(d) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 5 The Florida Bar’s Ethics Department Information Packet Candor Toward the Tribunal notes: To permit or assist a client or other witness to testify falsely is prohibited by section 837.02, Florida Statutes (1991), which makes perjury in an official proceeding a felony, and by section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1991), which proscribes aiding, abetting, or counseling commission of a felony. (page 6, ¶4) Florida caselaw prohibits lawyers from presenting false testimony or evidence. Kneale v. Williams, 30 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration of a fraud is outside the scope of the professional duty of an attorney and no privilege attaches to communication between an attorney and a client with respect to transactions constituting the making of a false claim or the perpetration of a fraud. Dodd v. The Florida Bar, 118 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1960), reminds us that "the courts are . . . dependent on members of the bar to . . . present the true facts of each cause . . . to enable the judge or the jury to [decide the facts] to which the law may be applied. When an attorney . . . allows false testimony . . . [the attorney] . . . makes it impossible for the scales [of justice] to balance." See The Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1981), and The Fla. Bar v. Simons, 391 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1980). (page 6, ¶5) Ex parte proceedings. Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting 1 side of the matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary injunction, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision. (pages 6-7) III. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - All Courts 1. 2005-present. Mr. Rodems improperly represented his law firm and partner against me in 16 cases (Exhibit 1), a former client on the same or “substantially related” matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. Mr. Rodems did this to cover-up the fraud and other wrongdoing committed against me by his partner and law firm. No other lawyer outside this firm could have ethically presented the same defense without violating Bar rules, because Mr. Rodems’ defense is merely perpetration of the original fraud. As shown below, Mr. Rodems’ “representation” of his law firm essentially consisted of his presenting false testimony on behalf of his firm and partner, while harassing me and committing other fraud on the court. Mr. Rodems is guilty of misconduct, conflict of interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and lack of independent professional judgment. (Exhibit 2). IV. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - Hillsborough Co., Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL Reverse Chronology, with some exceptions as shown. Limited by the Bar’s prohibition on submitting more than 25 pages. The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 6 2. June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems improperly extorted a settlement from me during a coercive confinement at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa, held without disability accommodation. From ¶5, Florida Supreme Court petition SC11-1622, January 9, 2012: “5. At the direction of Judge Arnold I voluntarily appeared June 21, 2011 for a deposition at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa to purge the contempt and rescind the arrest warrant, but that turned out to be a trap to force a walk-away settlement agreement in the lawsuits. Upon my arrival at the courthouse, I was taken into custody and involuntarily confined by two Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputies, Deputy Randy Olding and Deputy Larry Berg. I was denied accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Federal Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq. After being held in custody during the deposition for over four (4) hours without a lunch break, or the usual mid-day meal provided to a prisoner, I became confused and disoriented. The record (A.4.1.125) shows that I was so impaired that I could not make a decision to sign the agreement. My counsel Eugene Castagliuolo (A.7), whom I hired from Craigslist a couple weeks earlier, made the decision to settle because “judges have mud on their shoes”. I signed the agreement while confused and in a diminished state. Castagliuolo disobeyed my prior written and verbal instructions not to accept a walk-away settlement agreement. Once I was released from custody and had a meal, I realized the settlement was a mistake and promptly disaffirmed the agreement by written notice to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo and Major James Livingston of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. (A.2.1.2-3).” Mr. Castagliuolo admitted August 30, 2012 in a written response to Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10,162 (6D), that Mr. Rodems made an unsolicited offer to Castagliuolo to assist him in any future Bar grievance from me. From page 3, ¶1: “My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher “Chris" Rodems. Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The Florida Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer.” This shows how the discipline process is compromised, in this case by Mr. Rodems, who’s misconduct is at the center of this matter. It suggests a pattern of racketeering activity where adversaries know in advance how to position themselves to avoid discipline. In this case it may have caused Mr. Castagliuolo to work for the benefit of Mr. Rodems instead of me, his client. Mr. Bauer stated in a letter to me August 24, 2012 that the settlement only binds me, not him. 3. June 16, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied about my income during a hearing before Judge James Arnold on Plaintiff’s Motion To Quash Writ of Bodily Attachment And To Rescind Warrant For Plaintiff’s Arrest, where I was represented by Mr. Castagliuolo. I was subject to an arrest warrant and did not attend the hearing. Castagliuolo informed the court I would sit in jail for two weeks if arrested before transfer from Marion to Hillsborough Co. Rodems refused to allow 60 days to attend a deposition with counsel. Mr. Rodems lied about my income to Judge Arnold. Transcript, page 7: 8 [MR. RODEMS] Mr. Gillespie receives income from a trust. Transcript, page 13: 21 MR. RODEMS: There is one matter, Judge. And 22 I'm just trying to head off a problem in the past. 23 Mr. Gillespie is trying very hard not to show 24 to me the trust documents, where he gets income. The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 7 Mr. Rodems’ statement to Judge Arnold is false because I do not receive income from a trust. My income is from Social Security disability. No one receives income from the trust because the trust does not have any money. The trust has no assets other than my home. My home is valued at $85,584. The outstanding mortgage is $108,056. The home is ‘underwater’ with negative equity of -$22,532. The delinquent HOA fees are $6,902. A copy of The Gillespie Family Living Trust was filed September 20, 2011 with the District Court and is on PACER along with my Affidavit of Indigency, Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Document 3 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 37 PageID 76. I did not create the trust and do not know its purpose. The grantor trustees are all dead. No living person knows the purpose of the trust. 4. June 3, 2011 through June 21, 2011. Mr. Rodems refused to provide upon request of my attorney Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily attachment. 5. June 1, 2011 through June 21, 2011 For twenty-one days, law enforcement tried to arrest me. On June 3, 2011, upon receipt of my monthly disability payment, I hired Mr. Castagliuolo off Craigslist to represent me at the court-ordered deposition. Mr. Rodems and his staff refused to cooperate with Mr. Castagliuolo, or provide him a copy of a writ of bodily attachment. In his email to me June 10, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo stated in part “Last but not least, Rodems' useless assistant put me into his voicemail, where I left a professional but unhappy message.” On June 14, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo called Rodems an “asshole” in an email to me: “Based on what I know right now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you.” This example is representative of Mr. Rodems’ uncooperative behavior with Mr. Castagliuolo. Ex parte Hearings: Civil Contempt, Writ of Bodily Attachment, Arrest Warrant 6. September 28, 2010 to June 1, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied to Judge Martha Cook, and Judge James Arnold, during 3 ex-parte hearings, and obtained a warrant for my arrest on a writ of bodily attachment for civil contempt. The hearings before Judge Arnold in 2011 were after the case was closed and on appeal of Final Summary Judgment in 2D10-5197. I have mental impairments and disability. I can no longer represent myself due to intentional infliction of severe emotional distress by Mr. Rodems, a course of harassing conduct since March 2006. Florida Bar Rule 4-1.14 Comment - Rules of procedure in litigation generally provide that minors or persons suffering mental disability shall be represented by a guardian or next friend if they do not have a general guardian. (I do not have a general guardian) I also filed the following and provided Judge James Arnold courtesy copies May 27, 2011: May 27, 2011 letter to Judge Arnold informing him that Rodems lied at earlier hearings, and that I cannot represent myself. This letter was cross-filed in the District Court and is on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 35 Filed 07/07/11. May 24, 2011 I filed Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of Counsel, ADA Accommodation Request, and Memorandum of Law in 05-CA-7205, cross-filed in the District Court and is on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 37 Filed 07/07/11 (449 pages). The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 8 May 27, 2011 I filed Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J. Gillespie in 05-CA-7205. Dr. Huffer’s report is found at Exhibit 1 therein. Cross-filed in District Court on PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11. 7. June 1, 2011. The public defender was appointed to represent me September 27, 2011, but Judge Arnold relieved the public defender, and I had no counsel. Judge Arnold proceeded with the hearing ex parte and issued a warrant for my arrest at the demand of Mr. Rodems. 8. May 3, 2011. Mr. Rodems lied during an ex parte hearing before Judge James Arnold demanding my arrest on a writ of bodily attachment. Mr. Rodems lied about my cooperation to attend a deposition. Rodems also lied about my disability, and failed to tell Judge Arnold that I must be represented by counsel at a deposition due to Mr. Rodems’ past behavior, such as making a false affidavit against me March 6, 2006, and his intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, see Plaintiff’s Amended Accommodation Request (ADA) Mar-05-2006. I cannot have unmoderated contact with Mr. Rodems because of his antics and the imbalance of power between us. Rodems also made this false statement to Judge Arnold: Transcript, page 9 20 There is no possibility that Mr. Gillespie is 21 going to voluntarily show up for a deposition. This is false. In my letter to Mr. Rodems November 8, 2010 I provided three dates where I would appear: Wednesday November 10, 2010, Thursday November 11, 2010, Friday November 12, 2010. I filed this letter with the Clerk November 8, 2010. Mr. Rodems Filed False Information In Court Pleading November 3, 2010 9. November 3, 2010. Mr. Rodems filed false information with the court in his Response To Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion To Disqualify Judge Martha J. Cook” And Amended Motion For An Order To Show Cause As To Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Prohibited From Henceforth Appearing Pro Se. Mr. Rodems stated on page 2 “The transcript shows that Plaintiff elected to leave” [the hearing]; in fact Judge Cook ordered me removed from the hearing. The bailiff who removed me, HCSO Deputy Christopher E. Brown, impeached Judge Cook’s assertion that I left voluntarily. HCSO Major James Livingston put Deputy Brown’s statement in a letter to me dated January 12, 2011 on Hillsborough County Sheriff Office letterhead, and it appears as Exhibit E to the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie of April 25, 2011. Judge Cook ordered me removed after I provided her the Complaint in my federal ADA and §1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, 5:10-cv-503. Mr. Rodems also stated in his pleading that I “concocted illness” during a hearing July 12, 2010. This is false. I became ill and was treated by Tampa Fire Rescue, as shown by treatment records, and described in Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment of Counsel, ADA Accommodation Request, and Memorandum of Law filed May 24, 2011, see ¶¶37, 43-49. From ¶44: 44. Gillespie suffered a panic attack July 12, 2010 during a hearing. The Court excused Gillespie from the hearing. Deputies of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office saw Gillespie was in distress and offered assistance. Tampa Fire Rescue was called. Corporal Gibson was by Gillespie’s side and walked him to the lobby of courthouse where he waited for the paramedics. Tampa Fire Rescue arrived and Gillespie received medical attention at 10:42 AM by EMT Paramedic Robert Ladue and EMT Paramedic Dale Kelley. Later Gillespie obtained a report of the call, incident number 100035129. The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 9 (Exhibit 35). The narrative section states “found 54yom sitting in courthouse” with ‘tight throat secondary to stress from court appearance”. The impressions section states “abdominal pain/problems”. The nature of call at scene section states “Resp problem”. See Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Judge Martha J. Cook ,falsified record of Gillespie's panic attack; ADA, October 28, 2010. (Exhibit 32). Ex Parte Hearings: Final Summary Judgment, and Civil Contempt, September 28, 2010 10. September 28, 2010. Mr. Rodems collaborated with Judge Cook during hearings on Final Summary Judgment, and Civil Contempt, and created a false record to show that I left the hearing voluntarily, when in fact Judge Cook ordered me removed by the bailiff after I provided her the Complaint in my federal ADA and §1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al., 5:10-cv-503, U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. Judge Cook continued the hearings ex parte after ordering me removed by the bailiff, ruled against me, then lied about my removal in a contempt order September 30, 2010. It was a classic Star Chamber proceeding. Thankfully the bailiff who removed me, HCSO Deputy Christopher E. Brown, impeached Judge Cook’s assertion that I left voluntarily. HCSO Major James Livingston put Deputy Brown’s statement in a letter dated January 12, 2011, and appears as Exhibit E to the Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie April 25, 2011. Rodems has an ongoing duty to correct the record. A transcript of the hearing on Final Summary Judgment shows Mr. Rodems did not comply with Rule 4-3.3(c), and did not inform the tribunal of all material facts known to him to enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts were adverse. Rodems stated: Pages 5-6 [MR. RODEMS] The following facts that are in my motion are undisputed. All the facts Mr. Rodems presented were, in fact, disputed. See Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment filed April 25, 2006, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint submitted May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton. Mr. Rodems did not inform the Court that he lied October 30, 2007 to Judge Barton when he testified that I signed a contingent fee agreement with BRC, when in fact I did not sign one. His falsehood was the basis of earlier favorable judgments. A transcript of the hearing on Civil Contempt shows Mr. Rodems did not comply with Rule 4- 3.3(c), and did not inform the tribunal of all material facts known to him to enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts were adverse. Mr. Rodems failed to correct the record when Judge Cook lied and said that I leave the hearing voluntarily (p.19, lines 8-11). Mr. Rodems failed to inform the Court that his representation of his firm and partner was contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland; Rodems failed to inform the Court that I was entitled to ADA disability accommodation at a deposition. Robert W. Bauer Shows Mr. Rodems’ Fraud - No Claim For Court-Awarded Attorney’s Fees 11. October 30, 2007. Robert W Bauer outlined Mr. Rodems’ fraud to Judge Barton October 30, 2007 during a hearing for judgment on the pleadings: (Transcript, October 30, 2007, p.39) 22 [MR. BAUER] Another issue to point out the fact this is for 23 their claim of court-awarded attorney's fees, there The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 10 24 was no claim. The claim had already been determined 25 by the court, denied. It didn't exist any more. 1 [MR. BAUER] Yes, there was an appeal outstanding, but that 2 doesn't resurrect any claim. The only thing that's 3 going to resurrect a claim is an overruling by the 4 appellate court. A claim no longer exist once it's 5 been denied, even if it's on appeal. So in 6 asserting there existed a claim for attorney's fees 7 is false. It - it's not there. Robert W. Bauer Shows Mr. Rodems’ Perjury Before The Court 4 12. October 30, 2007. Mr. Rodems lied in open court October 30, 2007 before Judge James Barton, essentially testifying as a witness for his law firm and partner, claiming that I signed a contingent fee agreement with BRC. There is no signed contract because I did not sign one. (October 30, 2007, p.20, beginning at line 2) 2 MR. RODEMS: Wait just a second. I have a 3 written signed copy of that contract. I'm not the 4 one that filed this lawsuit. Gillespie did. And 5 Gillespie filed an unsigned version of that 6 contract. 24 MR. RODEMS: That is completely incorrect. 25 There is a signed contract. It exists. 13. July 20, 2010. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, No Signed Contingent Fee Agreement with BRC, filed July 20, 2010 and swears that I did not sign a contingent fee contract with BRC. 14. October 30, 2007. Mr. Rodems, as counsel for his firm and partner, essentially testified as a witness, and clearly lacked independent professional judgment, or a modicum of decorum. (October 30, 2007, p.31, line 23) 23 [RODEMS] We are being shaken down by Mr. Gillespie. 24 That's what's happening here. (October 30, 2007, p.45, beginning at line 20) 20 [RODEMS] But, you know, we believe that if you will 21 carefully consider this matter, you will see that, 22 you know, Mr. Gillespie is basically trying to shake 23 us down. 4 During a February 9, 2009 telephone call Mr. Bauer and I discussed Mr. Rodems perjury before Judge Barton about the unsigned contingent fee agreement. (Transcript, p11, Feb-09-09) MR. BAUER:...[I] think it clearly puts 12 before the Court the mistake or perjury, whichever 13 the Court determines that they wish to interpret as 14 Mr. Rodems misleading the Court when he said that 15 certain things were present that weren't. If you 16 read those motions I clearly said that in there. The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 11 15. Because of the foregoing false witness testimony by Mr. Rodems, I asked Mr. Bauer if I should attend hearings to rebut Rodems’ perjury. Mr. Bauer prohibited me from appearing as a witness in my own case, and sent me an email July 8, 2008 at 6.05 p.m. stating in part: “No - I do not wish for you to attend hearings. I am concerned that you will not be able to properly deal with any of Mr. Rodems comments and you will enflame the situation. I am sure that he makes them for no better purpose than to anger you. I believe it is best to keep you away from him and not allow him to prod you. You have had a very adversarial relationship with him and it has made it much more difficult to deal with your case. I don't not wish to add to the problems if it can be avoided.” Because I was not present at hearings, Mr. Rodems lied with impunity about factual matters in 2007 and 2008 while Mr. Bauer represented me. Mr. Rodems was essentially a witness for his firm and law partner. I was not present at the hearings to present rebuttal testimony. Mr. Rodems’ Full Nuclear Blast, Harassment - Unfairness to Opposing Party or Counsel 16. August 14, 2008, Mr. Bauer made this statement during an Emergency Hearing on garnishment before Judge Marva Crenshaw (page 16, beginning at line 24): 24 Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full 25 nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work 1 this out in a professional manner. It is my 2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the 3 opportunity to take this full blast attack. Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal as counsel October 13, 2008. The motion was granted a year later October 1, 2009. The case was inactive for a year. I was unrepresented thereafter. 17. September 17, 2010. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Mr. Bauer prohibited me from attending hearings due to Mr. Rodems’ “full nuclear blast approach” harassment, filed September 18, 2010. 18. Mr. Rodems' “full nuclear blast approach” was unprofessional as stated by Mr. Bauer, and was a tort, the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress on me. Mr. Rodems’ “full nuclear blast approach” has aggravated my disability to the point where I can no longer represent myself at hearings. I become easily distracted and confused, and can no longer speak coherently enough during a hearing to represent himself. I retained Dr. Karin Huffer as my ADA disability advocate. Dr. Huffer prepared a disability report for me in February 2010 which the court essentially ignored. On October 28, 2010 Dr. Huffer wrote a letter stating I had been denied disability accommodations and improperly threatened with arrest. (page 1 ¶2). See Exhibit 3. As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the Judge and now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 12 Dr. Huffer also wrote “He is left with permanent secondary wounds.” (page 2). Also: It is against my medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of bullies to sort out a legal problem. (page 2, ¶1) Additional Affidavits, Notices, Motions of Rodems’ Fraud and Misconduct Filed in 05-CA-7205 19. July 27, 2010. Notice of Fraud on the Court by Ryan C. Rodems, Discovery. 20. July 26, 2010, Mr. Rodems filed “Motion For Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Prohibited From Henceforth Appearing Pro Se”. To deny me access to court. 21. June 28, 2010. Motion to Strike Mr. Rodems’ Improperly Notarized Affidavit of Mr. Cook. Rodems notarized the affidavit of his law partner to garnish my funds, contrary to notary law. 22. June 17, 2010. Sworn Notice of Mr. Rodems Fraud on the Court, re: Coordinating Hearing 23. June 14, 2010. Motion For Order of Protection, cancel deposition, Stay pending ADA ruling. 24. May 5, 2010. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Mr. Rodems as a Defendant personally. 25. February 22, 2010, Perjury Complaint against Mr. Rodems to Tampa Police, re: his Motion For Bailiff and Sanctions, March 6, 2006; outcome: Rodems not right, not accurate. 26. February 19, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, ADA Disability. 27. January 5, 2010. Motion for Order of Protection Against Mr. Rodems, Harassment. 28. December 15, 2009. Motion To Hold Mr. Rodems in Contempt, Violated Stay Order 29. January 29, 2007. Plaintiff's Motion with Affidavit For Order to Show Cause, Rodems’ Criminal Contempt, his false affidavit Mar-06-2006. See Perjury Complaint to TPD, ¶25. 30. April 25, 2006. Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment, BRC Fraud & Breach of Contract Motions To Disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as Counsel for BRC and Mr. Cook 31. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard. Judge Nielsen did not to disqualify Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of McPartland and did not argue it. The following is Paragraph 61 from my Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. filed July 9, 2010. It was not heard. 61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel, in this instance The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 13 Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal authority directly adverse to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are just two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the Table of Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully inform the court on applicable law whether favorable or adverse to position of client so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced by this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr. Rodems and BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems. On February 13, 2006 I prevailed on Mr. Rodems’ motion to dismiss the Complaint, and thereby established a cause of action for Fraud and Breach of Contract. This established personal liability for Mr. Rodems. Partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965). Mr. Rodems and BRC had an actual conflict. Disqualification of Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel was required. Also see Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Disqualify Counsel, December 11, 2006. 32. Judge Nielsen’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Counsel held: THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and counsel and Mr. Gillespie having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice. Under Florida law the question is not whether Mr. Rodems may be a witness but whether he "ought" to be a witness. Proper test for disqualification of counsel is whether counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[l] Matter of Doughty, 51 B.R. 36. Disqualification is required when counsel "ought" to appear as a witness. [3] Florida Realty Inc. v. General Development Corp., 459 F.Supp. 781. Rodems ought to be a witness on his affidavit of Mar 6, 2006. In addition, no judge has considered disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel for his vexatious libel counterclaim against me. Mr. Rodems should have been disqualified because my letter to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, was “substantially related” to the prior litigation and a related Bar complaint. See Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Judge Cook falsified Order, Rodems disqualif, September 27, 2010. Also on Scribd: http://www.documento.com/doc/105438019/Affidavit-of-Neil- J-Gillespie-Judge-Cook-Falsified-Order-Rodems-Disqualif-Sep-27-2010 Mr. Rodems’ Misuse of Discovery - Civil RICO Pattern of Racketing Activity 33. Mr. Rodems misused discovery with the help of presiding judges to whom he either paid money to as campaign contributions, or to whom his partners paid money as campaign contributions. Judge Claudia Isom, the second trial judge authored an essay, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323, that describes a racket or scheme where the Court favors intensive case management for lawyers to avoid costly discovery sanctions, because judges are elected and need the support of lawyers. The essay acknowledges that lawyers behave badly in The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 14 court (like Mr. Rodems in this case), and this behavior, which Judge Isom calls “cutting up”, is intended to churn more fees for themselves. In my case Judge Isom refused to provide me the same intensive case management, but instead held me to rigid standards, and set the stage for the next trial judge, Judge James Barton, to slam me with $11,550 in sanctions, which in turn Mr. Rodems used to obtain a money judgment, and used that to extort a settlement. In the case of Judge Barton, Mr. Rodems’ law firm paid money to the business of Judge Barton’s wife, Chere Barton, president of Regency Reporting Service. Chere Barton transcribed my deposition in the Amscot case May 14, 2001. The transcript, which contains much information about my disabilities, has apparently been stored in the home office of Judge Barton. It was not until May 2010 that all the dots were connected during a hearing. Judge Barton was disqualified as trial judge May 24, 2010 for cause, a long-standing business relationship between Mr. Rodems’ law firm and the court-reporting business of Judge Barton’s wife. The $11,550 sanction award is contrary to the law on discovery: Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to encourage the settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996). The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedy determination every action (In re Estes’ Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure that judgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd. Partnership v. Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (2dDCA 1977). Because Mr. Rodems’ firm and partner previously represented me in the Amscot case, and the current litigation was about the Amscot case, Mr. Rodems already had most, if not all, my discovery on file. On June 21, 2011 Mr. Rodems announced at the court-ordered deposition that he had accumulated another 130 hours of sanctions against me. At $350 per hour, that would amount to $45,500. The Civil RICO pattern of racketeering activity is more fully described in Motion to Reconsider, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 12-11028-B, and on Scribd: http://www.documento.com/doc/95369974 34. March 28, 2006. Rule 4-3.4(d). Improper Interrogatory requests by Mr. Rodems, such as 10 years of medical history (#8), a list of bar complaints filed (#11), information on any complaints to any government agency ever made, including the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which complaints Mr. Rodems knows are confidential. (#12). Same with RFP. I tried my best to comply, but Rodems did not really want the discovery, (which he already had from his firm’s prior representation of me), Rodems wanted to get discovery sanctions against me to use as extortion to force a settlement. My discovery requests to Mr. Rodems were essentially the same as he sent me. But Mr. Rodems refused to provide any documents in response to my RFP, not a single page. He objected to many of the same Interrogatories he sent me. See, Motion for Reconsideration, $11,550 Sanctions, 05- CA-7205, June-18-2010, and Motion for Reconsideration, Discovery Sanctions, Dec-11-2006. 35. July 29, 2010. Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Mr. Rodems false letter about his discovery. Mr. Rodems refused to provide documents in response to my RFP. Instead, Rodems sent me a letter dated December 19, 2006, stating “The documents have already been produced...”, which was false. In fact, much of Mr. Rodems’ discovery is still outstanding. The Florida Bar, Complaint: Ryan Christopher Rodems September 10, 2012 Page - 15 V. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems - U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. 5:10-cv-503 36. In 5:10-cv-503, Mr. Rodems' misconduct was so bad that I dismissed him and BRC under Rule 41 September 29, 2010. Mr. Rodems' misconduct in violation of Rule 11 (b) is found at Doc. 58 Plaintiffs Response To Order To Show Cause, beginning on page 28, ~ 1 9 . In pleadings Mr. Rodems told the Court that my Complaint was filed AFTER the state court "disposed of' all my claims, which is false; my Complaint was filed BEFORE. Rodems also told the Court that I sued "the four judges" in the state court action. This is false, I did not sue Judge Richard Nielson because he too was duped by Rodems' false affidavit of March 6, 2006. On June 21,2011 Mr. Rodems gave notice of assignment of claims, and moved for dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 (a)(2), but that was not granted. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges dismissed the case without prejudice on other grounds and noted Rodems' assignment. (Order, Doc. 64.) VI. Specific Misconduct of Mr. Rodems Regarding Disability 37. I am an indigent fifty-six (56) year-old single man, law-abiding, college educated, and a former business owner, disabled with physical and mental impairments that substantially limit my life activities. The Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DRV) determined that my disability was too severe for rehabilitation services to result in employment. In March 2001 I consulted with Mr. Cook and BRC on disability and DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR. Social Security determined I was totally disabled in 1994. I have a record of impairment since birth. I am also regarded by others as being impaired. The record shows I suffer from depression, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), diabetes type II adult onset, traumatic brain injury (TBI), velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI), craniofacial disorder, and impaired hearing. Mr. Rodems' strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on me who he knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, in an effort to deny me due process of law, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct, conflict of interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the administration ofjustice. On August 6, 2012 with leave of the U.S. Court of Appeals, I submitted Amended Motion for Disability Accommodation. This shows disqualification of Mr. Rodems was required under the ADA. The Motion and Appendixes 1-3 are posted on Scribd, 251 pages, http://www.documento.com/doc/l 02585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-l1. Rule 4-8.4(d), "A lawyer shall not engage in conduct. ..prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants... on any basis, including, but not limited to... disability....". Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this complaint is available upon request. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete. Thank you for considering this complaint. 20 Cases Related to Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, 05-CA-007205 RCR - denotes cases where Ryan Christopher Rodems represented his firm and partner against former client Gillespie 1.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Aug-11-2005 to Jun-21-2011, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 through October 1, 2009). 2.RCR Hillsborough Co. 05-CA-7205, Vexatious libel counterclaim, BRC v. Gillespie, Jan-19-2006 to Sep-28-2010, (Mr. Bauer appeared for Gillespie April 2, 2007 - October 1, 2009) 3.RCR 2dDCA, 2D06-3803: Gillespie v. BRC, discovery related appeal (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 4.RCR 2dDCA, 2D07-4530: BRC v. Gillespie, voluntary dismissal (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed) 5.RCR 2dDCA, 2D08-2224: Gillespie v. BRC, § 57.105 sanctions (Mr. Bauer for Gillespie) (closed) 6. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5197: Gillespie v. BRC, appeal final summary judgment (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 7. RCR 2dDCA, 2D10-5529: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition, remove Judge Cook (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 8. RCR 2dDCA, 2D11-2127: Gillespie v. BRC, prohibition/venue, Judge Arnold (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 9. RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-858: Gillespie v. BRC, habeas corpus, prohibition (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 10.RCR Fla.Sup.Ct. SC11-1622: Gillespie v. BRC, mandamus, other relief (Gillespie pro se) (closed) 11.RCR Federal Ct. 5:10-cv-503: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights/ADA (closed, appeal) 12. Federal Ct. 5:11-cv-539: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Civil Rights, ADA (closed, appeal) 13. C.A.11, 12-11028-B: Estate/Gillespie v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir., FL., Estate claims, Civil RICO (closed, appeal) 14.RCR C.A.11, 12-11213-C: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Fla., Civil Rights, ADA, (closed, appeal) 15.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas May 31, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se) Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858 16.RCR SCOTUS Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas June 11, 2011, not docketed. (Gillespie pro se) Emergency Petition for Stay or Injunction, re: Supreme Court of Florida SC11-858 17.RCR SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 20, 2012 review Fla.Sup.Ct. case no. SC11-1622, Returned August 23, 2012 because the petition was determined out-of-time. 18.RCR SCOTUS Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas August 13, 2012 docketed August 31, 2012, No. 12A215 extend the time to file a petition for a writ, C.A.11, cases, 12-11028-B and 12-11213-C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. Original case 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corp. class action Dec-09, 1999 20. Original Appeal 01-14761-AA, Clement, Blomefield, Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corp, filed August 20, 2001 1 I. Prior Representation of Neil Gillespie by Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. et al. 1. I was a plaintiff in a class action suit against AMSCOT Corporation (“Amscot”). Jonathan Alpert filed the Amscot lawsuit December 9, 1999 1 as partner of the firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. The action was based on “payday lending” and alleged violations of federal and state lending laws. Myself and another plaintiff intervened in November 2000 to save the case from dismissal, because the first plaintiff was unqualified. 2. Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A. also represented me in another class action suit, one against ACE Cash Express filed April 14, 2000, Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Tampa Div. (“ACE”) 3. A Tampa Police Department report dated June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges Mr. Alpert committed battery, Florida Statutes §784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing hot coffee on him. At the time Mr. Levine was a 68 year-old senior citizen. The report states: “The victim and defendant are both attorneys and were representing their clients in a mediation hearing. The victim alleges that the defendant began yelling, and intentionally threw the contents of a 20 oz. cup of hot coffee which struck him in the chest staining his shirt. A request for prosecution was issued for battery.” Mr. Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report and failed to inform me that Mr. Alpert attacked attorney Arnold Levine 2 in the Bucs case, during the same time Mr. Alpert and the Alpert firm represented me in Amscot and ACE. 4. On or about July 20, 2000 Mr. Alpert became a candidate for state attorney for Hillsborough County 3 . The vacancy was created by the suicide of State Attorney Harry Lee Coe who shot himself July 13, 2000. 5. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Barker executed Articles of Incorporation for Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A (“BRC”), a new law firm formed in secret from Jonathan Alpert. The new firm was not announced until December 6, 2000. Prior to that time, Mr. Cook told me that he and Messrs. Barker and Rodems formed their own law firm, and asked me to keep the information secret from Mr. Alpert. This double-dealing and deception against Mr. Alpert placed me in a position of conflict and divided loyalties with the lawyers and law firm representing me. 6. During the four month period between the formation of Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (“BRC”) in August 2000, and the formal announcement in December 2000, Mr. Cook secretly sought to bring cases and clients from the Alpert firm to BRC. Mr. Cook offered me a number of incentives to sue Amscot, and bring my cases from the Alpert firm to BRC. Mr. Cook said I would get special attention as a favorite client of his newly formed law firm. The new firm would be anxious for business which he and his partners hoped I would provide. Mr. Cook said once they were free from the control of Mr. Alpert they would be able to decide themselves what cases to accept and litigate. Following the breakup of the Alpert firm, I brought new claims to BRC. In a March 22, 2001 letter to Mr. Cook, I requested representation on disability matters and the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. (DVR). DVR determined that my disability was too severe for rehabilitation services to result in employment. I provided Mr. Cook documents in the matter, DLES case 98-066-DVR. Mr. Cook responded March 27, 2001 that “...we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have.” 7. Mr. Rodems and his partners announced the formation of their new law firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (“BRC”) by letter December 6, 2000. Substitute counsel BRC and William J. Cook represented me beginning December 12, 2000 in both the Amscot and ACE cases. Both cases were contingent fee, but BRC did not sign a contingent fee agreement with me. The only contingent fee agreement in each case was with the closed Alpert firm. 8. The Amscot lawsuit was dismissed August 1, 2001. The court held that the transactions involved predated the applicable law. BRC and Mr. Cook appealed. I was an appellant in the appeal, Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit. Amscot settled for business reasons before the appeal was decided. The Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement attached to the Joint Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice shows persons relevant to this complaint: Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq. Amscot Corporation Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Barker, Chris A., Esq. Cook, William J., Esq. Gillespie, Neil 1 , Eugene R. Clement v. AMSCOT Corporation, 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, US District Court, Tampa 2 Mr. Levine previously sued Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, a $5 million dollar defamation claim, Buccaneers Limited Partnership v. Alpert, Barker & Rodems, PA, 99-2354-CIV-T-23C. 3 Mr. Alpert was defeated and eliminated in the September 5, 2000 primary election. 2 2 MacKechnie, Ian Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq. 9. An Order filed December 7, 2001 granted dismissal of appeal no. 01-14761-AA with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorney’s fees. 10. BRC and Mr. Cook defrauded me of $6,224.78, my share of the settlement in Amscot. Mr. Cook lied to me about a claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs shown on the closing statement. There was no $50,000 award. The closing statement was a fraud. The $50,000 was actually part of the total settlement, subject to either an unsigned contingent fee agreement, or Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) on contingent fees. The amount stolen by BRC and Cook was later found to be $7,143.68. The closing statement did not comply with Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) in that no costs or expenses were itemized, and payment of $2,544.79 to Mr. Alpert was not shown. 11. This case boils down to the veracity of a single sentence on the closing statement prepared and signed by Mr. Cook for BRC as of October 31, 2001. The sentence states “In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that AMSCOT Corporation separately paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs.” This sentence was later determined false. The closing statement is a fraud. There were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. As a matter of law it was impossible to have court-awarded fees as claimed by BRC and Mr. Cook because the federal court dismissed those claims with prejudice and held that the transactions involved predated the applicable law. 12. During the course of litigation with me, Mr. Rodems argued that the “claim” for “court-awarded fees and costs” actually refers to a fee-shifting provision of the federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA). In fact, the $50,000 “claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees and costs” is a fraud, a deliberate misrepresentation by Mr. Rodems. There were no attorneys fees awarded under TILA in this case. None. There was no possibility of an awarded of attorneys fees under TILA in this case because of prior court decisions in other cases known to Rodems, specifically the ACE 4 and Payday Express 5 cases litigated by BRC. Three different federal courts ruled that the transactions complained-about predated the TILA rule. This happened in all three separate TILA lawsuits brought by Mr. Rodems’ predecessor firm (Alpert) and acquired by Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA. This is one example of Rodems’, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 13. The foregoing is more fully described in two pleadings to large to submit with this complaint: a. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (151 pages with exhibits) was filed May 5, 2010 with permission of Judge Barton and a motion for leave, and is posted on Scribed. http://www.documento.com/doc/55956605/Plaintiffs-First-Amended- Complaint-Gillespie-v-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-May-5-2010 b. Emergency Motion To Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (190 pages with exhibits) was filed July 9, 2010. Also on Scribed. http://www.documento.com/doc/55960451/Emergency- Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-July-09-2010 II. “Substantially Related” Litigation - Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al. Case No. 05-CA-7205 14. My litigation against BRC and Mr. Cook was to recover $6,224.78 stolen by them from me, from my settlement in prior litigation in the Amscot case. I filed the original complaint pro se August 11, 2005 alleging fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Mr. Cook. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed with permission of Judge James Barton May 5, 2010. Seldon Childers, Esq. later found the amount stolen by BRC was $7,143.68. 15. On August 29, 2005 Mr. Rodems entered his appearance on behalf of BRC and Mr. Cook by way of filing Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Strike. I responded September 6, 2005 and denied Mr. Rodems the assertions in his motion. Rodems set his motion for hearing Monday, September 26, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. without coordinating the time and date with me. Because I live in Ocala which is 100 miles from the Tampa courthouse, Judge Richard Nielsen allowed me to attend the hearing telephonically. The hearing commenced as noticed September 26, 2005 but Mr. Rodems failed to provide me copies of case law prior to the hearing. Since I was attending telephonically, Judge Nielsen directed Mr. Rodems to provide the case law to me by mail, and allowed me to file a written response, which I did October 7, 2005. Mr. Rodems filed a reply October 10, 2005, where he revealed BRC and Cook’s fraud on me: (page 6, ¶2) 4 Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B 5 Eugene R. Clement v. Payday Express, Inc., case no. 99-2768-CIV-T-23C 3 Because the Closing Statement Mr. Gillespie signed shows that he knew the payment was for a claim for court-awarded fees, not for an award of fees by the Court, Mr. Gillespie cannot claim to have relied on the presumed-to-be-true allegation that Mr. Cook told him that the Court awarded BRC $50,000 in fees. I responded October 31, 2005 to the court in a second rebuttal after Rodems’ admission of how the fraud worked: 1. Defendants’ central argument implodes on page 5 of its Reply dated October 10, 2005, paragraph 3 b. ii. Here Defendants argue that the $50,000 is for a claim for court-awarded fees, and not an actual fee award. This begs the question - without an actual court-awarded fee, there is no claim for a court-awarded fee. Because Defendants did not prevail in court, they cannot rely on a statutory claim for court-awarded fees, because there is none. This is how Defendants created the impression that the Appellate Court awarded fees, when in fact the it ruled that the parties bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. This is Defendants’ fraud on its own clients. Fraud is an exemption to the parole evidence rule, blocking Defendants reliance on Franz Tractor v. Case, 566 So. 2d 524. 16. Judge Richard Nielsen agreed in his Order On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And Strike, February 13, 2006. My complaint stated a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract against BRC and Mr. Cook. Judge Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems’ “claim” for court-awarded fees. Under the legal doctrine res judicata, Mr. Rodems was precluded from again raising this defense of a “claim” for court-awarded fees in this matter. Mr. Rodems at this point also had personal responsibility, because partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence of another partner when the later acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965). Mr. Rodems and BRC now had an actual conflict. Disqualification of Rodems was required. 17. On January 19, 2006, Mr. Rodems countersued me for Libel over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, about the prior litigation and a related closed Bar complaint. 18. On February 4, 2006 I filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel. In 2006 I did not know about the McPartland case. I found McPartland and other similar cases in 2010. Disqualification was required by the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. McPartland has been a mandatory authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered June 30, 1995 by Judge Kovachevich. [1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of action. [3] In determining whether 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. 19. On March 3, 2006 Mr. Rodems called me at home about the motion to disqualify him and started an argument. During the phone call Mr. Rodems ridiculed my speech, and threatened me saying “you will pay” for writing the letter to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot. Rodems also threatened to reveal confidential medical information learned about my payment for dental treatment from his firm’s prior representation of me. This is from the March 3, 2006 phone call: (Page 7) 24 MR. RODEMS: Didn't you at one time purchase a 25 car so that you could get the cash rebate to get (Page 8) 1 some dental work done? We're going to get to the 2 discovery, anyhow, so just tell me, did that really 3 happen? 4 MR. GILLESPIE: What? 4 5 MR. RODEMS: Did you purchase a car so that 6 you could get the cash rebate to get some dental 7 work done? 8 MR. GILLESPIE: Listen, this is why you need 9 to be disqualified. 10 MR. RODEMS: No, I mean, that's -- because I 11 know that? Because I know that to be a fact? 12 MR. GILLESPIE: You know it to be a fact from 13 your previous representation of me. 14 MR. RODEMS: Well, you know, see that's -- 15 MR. GILLESPIE: If it is -- if it's a fact, 16 anyway. 17 MR. RODEMS: You need to study the rules and 18 regulations of the Florida Bar because when you 19 make -- 20 MR. GILLESPIE: I think, I think I bought a 21 car so I would have something to drive. I don't 22 know why you buy cars, but that's why I bought it. 20. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Rodems intentionally disrupted the tribunal with his sworn affidavit made under the penalty of perjury that falsely placed the name of trial Judge Richard Nielsen in Defendants’ Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions. Mr. Rodems falsely named Judge Nielsen in an “exact quote” attributed to me. Rodems falsely told the Court that I planned to attack him in chambers. It was a strategic maneuver to gain an unfair advantage by improperly influencing the judge. And it worked, because after that date Judge Nielsen was hostile toward me. Prior to that time I had a good working relationship with Judge Nielsen and his JA Myra Gomez. 21. A recording of the call 6 impeached Mr. Rodems’ sworn affidavit. Judge Nielsen recused himself November 22, 2006 after I provided him a transcript of the phone call and a motion to disqualify. In a letter dated February 22, 2010, Kirby Rainsberger, Legal Advisor to the Tampa Police Dept., provided the results an investigation of matter and wrote that Mr. Rodems was not right and not accurate in representing to the Court as an “exact quote” language that clearly was not an exact quote. The investigation did not show wrongdoing by me. 22. On April 25, 2006 my motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems as counsel was heard. Judge Nielsen did not to disqualify Rodems as required by McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. At the time I was not aware of McPartland and did not argue it. 61. Mr. Rodems violated FL Bar Rule 4-3.3(c) when he failed to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel, in this instance Gillespie pro se. Rodems failed to disclose McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, or U.S. v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394, legal authority directly adverse to the position of his client. McPartland and Culp are just two of a number of cases Rodems failed to disclose, see this motion, and the Table of Cases that accompanies this motion. Counsel has a responsibility to fully inform the court on applicable law whether favorable or adverse to position of client so that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of the matter before it. Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So.2d 176. As evidenced by this motion, legal authority directly adverse to the position of Mr. Rodems and BRC was not disclosed to the court by Rodems. 23. Judge Nielsen’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Counsel held: THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and counsel and Mr. Gillespie having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and on that basis, the motion is denied without prejudice. Under Florida law the question is not whether Mr. Rodems may be a witness but whether he "ought" to be a witness. Proper test for disqualification of counsel is whether counsel "ought" to appear as a witness.[l] Matter of Doughty, 51 B.R. 6 All calls on home office business telephone extension (352) 854-7807 are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use exemption of Florida Statutes, chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). In addition, Mr. Rodems provided written authorization to record our calls, which I filed with the court. Furthermore, on December 30, 2009 I filed Plaintiff's Notice of Telephone Recording in this case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co. 5 36. Disqualification is required when counsel "ought" to appear as a witness. [3] Florida Realty Inc. v. General Development Corp., 459 F.Supp. 781. Rodems ought to be a witness on his affidavit of Mar 6, 2006. In addition, no judge has considered the disqualification of Mr. Rodems as counsel for his vexatious libel counterclaim against me. Mr. Rodems should have been disqualified because my letter to Ian MacKechnie, President of Amscot, was “substantially related” to the prior litigation and a related Bar complaint. 24. On April 25, 2006 I filed Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment. It was set for a hearing before Judge Nielsen August 1, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Rodems objected by email the same day. I canceled the hearing with the intention of resetting, and hiring counsel to argue the motion. My motion for summary judgment was not heard and I was denied due process. Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment filed April 25, 2006 predated, and should have lawfully precluded, Defendants Final Summary Judgment September 28, 2010. 25. Following the April 25, 2005 hearing Mr. Rodems lay-in-wait outside Judge Nielsen’s court to harass me. Rodems claimed it was to wish a warm greeting, belying his fear of attack. 26. This case was reassigned to Judge Claudia R. Isom November 22, 2006. On December 15, 2006 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure of Conflict, and moved for disclosure of conflict and noted the following possible conflicts: “…Plaintiff learned that Defendant William J. Cook apparently paid $100.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about July 2, 2002.” (¶3, page 2) “…Jonathan Alpert paid $150.00 by check to Woody Isom on or about August 22, 2002, and $100.00 by check to The Honorable Claudia R. Isom on or about May 1, 2002.” (¶4, page 2) My motion informed Judge Isom of the significance of Jonathan Alpert to this case: “Defendants are Mr. Alpert's protégées and former law partners, and the contract that forms the basis of this lawsuit was entered into on November 3, 2000, between Plaintiff and the law firm Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A.” (¶4, page 2) On January 5, 2007 I served Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. 27. On December 12th and 13th, 2006 Mr. Rodems left this voice mail for me: (Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 6, beginning at line 24) 24 I would also point out that the problem that 25 you’re having in retaining counsel is probably more (Transcript, December 13, 2006, page 7, beginning at line 1) 1 likely related to the fact that you are cheap and 2 you don't want to pay the attorneys what they're 3 usual hours rates are for litigation like this,… 19. …..And then on top of all 20. that you always fall back on your medical 21. condition, which I have never seen any 22. documentation of, that you always allude to that in 23. your Court fillings. And quite frankly, you play 24. the victim when it suits you and you play the 25. advocate when it suits you… 28. On December 13, 2006 Mr. Rodems sent me a letter of insults and ridicule of mental illness: “I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own poor choices in life. You also claim to have mental or psychological problems, of which I have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of mental problems.” (P1, ¶3) “So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the required hourly rates for representation.” (P3, ¶2). 29. On December 27, 2006 I wrote to Judge Isom about Mr. Rodems’ harassment of me. I provided Judge Isom a transcript of Rodems’ ranting phone message of December 13, 2006. I provided Judge Isom a copy of Rodems’ five page diatribe to me of December 13, 2006. Dear Judge Isom, Enclosed you will find the transcript I promised of Mr. Rodems' ranting telephone 6 message of December 13, 2006, along with a copy of his subsequent five page diatribe of even date. In my view Mr. Rodems' behavior, his name calling, ongoing harassment, and his refusal to address me as "Mr. Gillespie", all is evidence that he should be disqualified as counsel. Mr. Rodems has lost perspective in this matter, as demonstrated by his perjury before the Court that led to the recusal of Judge Nielsen. Also enclosed is a copy of my letter responding to Mr. Rodems' five page diatribe of wild accusations, theories, and self-serving fantasies. I hope Mr. Rodems contacts the Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., suggested in my letter. Apparently Mr. Rodems has been missing work, as evidenced from his calling me from home during normal business hours. (See enclosed transcript, page 4, beginning line 15). As stated before, I am concerned for his well-being and mine. I also requested that Mr. Rodems stop sending me ad hominem abusive messages and letters. 30. On February 2, 2007 I submitted Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order To Compel Ryan Christopher Rodems To Stop Harassing Behavior. 31. On February 1, 2007 Judge Isom held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Disclosure of Conflict. The hearing was transcribed and is part of the record. Judge Isom denied the existence of any conflict. The transcript shows that Judge Isom failed to disclose the fact that husband Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White in Tampa. Mr. Rodems failed to disclose that Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were previously law partners and shareholders at Fowler White. 32. In March 2010 I learned that Woody Isom practiced law with Jonathan Alpert. While researching accusations in one of Mr. Rodems’ harassing letters to me, I found an affidavit signed by Mr. Alpert in his divorce case that stated in ¶3c: I contributed to Judge Sierra's opponent, my former law partner Woody Isom, in last fall's election and supported him, which fact has now been specifically called to Judge Sierra's attention in "summaries" prepared by Elizabeth Alpert's counsel; 33. On March 23, 2010 Woody Isom confirmed by email that he practiced law with Mr. Alpert. Woody Isom wrote: “He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.” 34. During a hearing February 5, 2007 Judge Isom denied reconsideration of an Order on discovery sanctions, contrary to her own law essay on discovery sanctions that favors intensive case management instead, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323. Judge Isom denied my motion to dismiss Mr. Rodems’ counterclaim for libel against me, a vexatious lawsuit over a letter I wrote to Ian MacKechnie of Amscot Corporation, both of whom are interested parties on the Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement. My letter was “substantially related” to the Amscot lawsuit and the prior representation of BRC and Cook. Judge Isom should have, but did not, disqualify Mr. Rodems and BRC as counsel under the holding of McPartland on the counterclaim. Judge Isom went against her initial judgment February 5, 2007 and refused to abate the proceeding after Mr. Rodems complained. I was not able to continue the lengthy hearing due to disability. 35. By February 7, 2007 I could no longer tolerate Mr. Rodems’ bully tactics, harassment, name-calling, hate mail, and rude phone calls. Mr. Rodems refused to call me “Mr. Gillespie” as I requested, and called me “Neily” instead. This is in addition to Judge Isom’s misconduct. So on February 7, 2007 I gave notice of voluntary dismissal and submitted a motion for an order of voluntary dismissal. Rodems did not voluntarily dismiss his counterclaim. If Mr. Rodems did so, that would have ended the case in 2007. But Rodems wanted vengeance. 36. In March 2007 I retained counsel Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville for the libel counterclaim through the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service. Mr. Bauer reviewed the case and said this about Rodems’ law partner William Cook: “…the jury would love to punish a slimy attorney.” (Transcript, March 29, 2007, page 28, line 9). Mr. Bauer reinstated my voluntarily-dismissed claims. Rodems appealed the decision in 2D07-4530, which denied Mr. Rodems’ petition for writ of certiorari February 8, 2008, and ruled: PER CURIAM. Denied. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(2); Rogers v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 575 So. 2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that when counterclaim is pending, plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss complaint without order of court). The information in the foregoing paragraphs 1-36 is more fully described in Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Conflict of Interest and ADA denial by Florida Judge Claudia R. Isom in case 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co. , Submitted in Support of Motion for Disability Accommodation, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, case 12-11213-C, and is posted on Scribd at http://www.documento.com/doc/101764386/Affidavit-of-Neil-Gillespie-Conflict-of-Judge-Claudia-R-Isom-ADA-July-30-2012 Gillespie p1 of 2 1 DR. KARIN HUFFER Li censed Marri age and Fami l y Therapi st #NV0082 ADAAA Ti t l es II and III Speci al i st Counsel i ng and Forensi c Psychol ogy 3236 Mount ai n Spri ng Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146 702-528-9588 www. l vaal l c. com October 28, 2010 To Whom It May Concern: I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the Judge and now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter. While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case, I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases and protect themselves. Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigantís ability to maintain health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespieís case is one of those. At this juncture the harm to Neil Gillespieís health, economic situation, and general diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell 3 Gillespie p2 of 2 2 cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds. Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates. It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of bullies to sort out a legal problem. I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II of the ADA. While ìpublic entities are not required to create new programs that provide heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons.î (Townsend v. Quasim (9th Cir. 2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely ìregardedî as having a disability with no formal diagnosis. The United States Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services.î (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II, Technical Assistance Manual (1993) ß II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not require ìexcruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by the impairment,î even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been denied Neil Gillespie. The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well- documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it ñ particularly under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than two years.