IN
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
CIRCUIT COURT
TH
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
vs.
Plaint Pla intiff iff and Counter-Defendant, Counter-Defendant,
CASE NO.: 05-CA- 7205
BARKER, RODEMS COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
DIVISION: G
Defendants Defen dants and Counter-Pl Counter-Plaint aintiffs. iffs.
JU
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ......;1 NOTICE OF
RYAN
CLtRK OF CIRCUIT COURT
FRAUD ON TH
CHRISTOPHER
2010
COURT
BY
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FL
RODEMS -DISCOVERY
Plaint Pla intiff iff pro se Gillespie hereby hereby report reportss frau fraud d on the court by Ryan Chri stop her Rodems counsel for Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, and in support support th ere of states: states: 1.
Upon infonnation and belief,
July 12, 2010. A copy 2.
Rodems submitted a letter to Judge
C o o ~
dated
the letter is attached as Exhibit A.
Mr. Rodems stated for item 1: "Mr. Gillespie did not file any response
or
objection to th e request req uest for production." Gille Gillespi spiee object objected ed to the depositio n Jun J unee 14, 2010 with Plaintiffs Motion Moti on To Cancel Deposition Deposition Duces Duces Tecum June J une 18,2010 And For An
Order
Protection. (Exhibit B). GiHespie provided objections to Mr. Rodems by fax
June 21, 2010. (Exhibit C). Gillespie filed the letter with the court June 21, 2010. (Exhibit D). After the th e court denied Gillespie's Moti Motion on For Reconsideration he p rovided rovi ded Mr. Rodems the outstanding discovery by letter dated June 25, 2010. (Exhibit E). 3.
Mr. Rodems stated for item 2: "Mr. Gilles Gillespie pie's 's former former counsel served unsigned unsi gned
the criteria for entry
an Order compelling discovery without a hearing." This is false.
Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories
September 2,2008 were provided by my
former lawyer Robert W. Bauer, October 1,2008. (Exhibit F). Mr. Bauer notified Mr. Rodems October 2,2008 that he was "attempting to comply with your discovery request." (Exhibit G). I signed the verification page and it was notarized October 2,2008. Bauer submitted the signed and notarized verification page to the Clerk
Court October 3,
2008. (Exhibit H). Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal from the case October 13, 2008 before completing discovery. Gillespie submitted the remaining response to Interrogatory No.2 on
April April 28, 2010, 2010, see Affidav Affidavit it And Invent Inventory ory
Personal Personal Propert
Neil Neil
Gillespie And Designated Exemptions. (Exhibit I). 4.
Mr. Rodems lied to the court because he has a conflict representing represe nting himself an
his independent professional judgment is materially limited by the lawyer's ow interest, see Emergency Motion To Disqualify Disqualify Defendants' Defendants' Counsel Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems
Cook, PA submitted July 9,2010.
RESPECTFUL LY SUBMITTED July 27,2010.
Certificate HERE HEREBY BY CERT CERTIF IF th Mr. Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems Tampa, Florida 33602.
Service
fore fore in wa ma mail iled ed July July ,2010 to Cook, PA, 40 As ey . e, S 'te 2100,
Page Page
BARKER, RODEMS
COOK
COpy
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRIS A. BARKER RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS WILLIAM J. COOK
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone 813/489 1001 Facsimile 813/489 1008
July 12, 2010 The Honorable Martha J. Cook Circuit Court Judge Circuit Civil, Division "G 800 E. Twiggs 8treet, Room 511 Tampa, Florida 33602
Re:
Neil Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., a Florida Corporation; an William J. Cook Case No.: 05-CA-7205; Division "G"
Dear Judge Cook: Following the hearing even date, I reviewed, as you requested, the circumstances surrounding the below belo w described described motions to compel to dete rmine they met the criteria under Administrative Administrative Order 8-2008-145, 14, 14, which provides in pertinent part: part: "When "Wh en a motion motio n to to compel complying with Florida Rule Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(2) alleges the absence a response or objection to discovery and there there has been no request for a n extension time to respond, the court, without a hearing, may enter an order requiring compliance wit h the original discovery request .... My review shows as follows: 1.
"Defendant's Motion for an Order compelling compelling Plaintiff to Respond to the Defendant's Request for Production and Attend Deposition"
Mr. Gillespie did not file file any response or objection to the request request for production. Thus, it meets the criteria, and an Order compelling a response is enclosed. As for the depositions that Mr. Gillespie failed failed to attend, attend, he did object. object. Thus, the motion to conlpel his attendance at the deposition does 'not 'not meet the criteria for entry an Order compelling attendance without a hearing. When this mornin g's hearings began, you advised that the purpose was for case mana gement only. only. After Mr. Gillespie asked to be excus ed due to his apparent illness, I advised that this moti on to compel was noticed for hearing hearing today. today. Given that Mr. Gillespie departed before this was clarified, clarified, Defendants would prefer to reschedule the hearing to avoid any claim that Mr. Gillespie was denied an opportunity to to be heard.
A
The Honorable Honorable Martha J. Cook Co ok July 12, 2010 Page 2 2. 2.
"Defendant 's Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff Plaint iff to Respond to the Defendant's Defendant' s Interrogatories" Interrogatories"
Mr. Gillespie's former counsel served unsigned, unsworn answers that were evasive or incomplete. Thus, this circumstance does not meet the criteria for entry an Order compelling discovery without a hearing
We request hearing time on o n the following: 1.
"Defendants' Motion for Proceedings Supplementary for Execution" (10 minutes requested);
2.
"Defendant's "Defendan t's Motion for for an Order compelling compelling Plaintif to Respond to to the Defendant's Request for Production and Attend Deposition" (only on the deposition portion)(5 minutes requested);
3.
"Defendant's "Defenda nt's Motion for an Order Order Compelling Plaintiff Plain tiff to Respond to th Defendant's Interrogatories" Interrogatories" (5 minutes requested);
4. 4.
"Defendant's "Defendant' s Motion for Final Summary Judgment" Judgmen t" (30 minutes requested); and,
5.
"Defendants' "Defendants' Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section 56.29(2), 56.29(2), Florida Statutes" (5 minutes requested).
Courtesy copies
all nlotions are attached.
We previously requested hearing dates from your judicial assistant for the summary judgment motion, and slle offered August 24, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., but Mr. Gillespie advised me that the hour was too too early, and he refused to agree to that date and time. Given the scarce judicial judi cial resources, we respectfully suggest that Mr. Gillespie should make arrangements to be available during all normal business hours.
RCR/so Enclosures cc Mr. Neil J. Gillespie (w/encl)
IN
TH
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND
COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION HILLSBOROUGH
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs. BARKER, RODEMS COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
DIVISION: G
Defendants.
_____________
----'1
DUCES
TO CANCEL JUNE
18,2010 AND FO
AN ORDER OF
TECUM
PROTECTION
Plaintiff Plaint iff pro pro se, Neil J. Gillespie, moves the Court to cancel Defendants' Deposition Duces Tecum on June 18 ,201 0 and for for an Order 1.
Protection and states
Defendants counsel Ryan C. Rodems failed to coordinate the time and date
the hearing with the Plaintiff. This is an ongoing problem with Rodems. 2.
Plaintiff Plaint iff cannot cannot appear June 18, 2010 and has other commitments.
3.
Plai Pl aint ntif iffs fs Motion to Stay Stay Pending Pending ADA ADA Determination Determination,, filed June 14, 201
requests an Order to Stay all proceedings pending a determination
his ADA
accommodation request. 4.
Mr. Rodems and associates have a history
violence and defamation
against other participants in contentious litigation. This lawsuit is especially contentious, a former client cli ent suing his lawyer l awyer for fraud, fraud, breach
duty, etc., etc.
a. Mr. Rodems and his former law partners were named in a $5 million dollar
defamation lawsuit brought by attorney Arnold Levine, Buccaneers Limited Partnership
B
v.
Alpert, Barker
Rodems, PA, US District Court, Middle District
Florida, Tampa
Division, case 99-2354-CIV-T-23C. In retaliation, a Tampa Police Department report dated June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges Mr. Alpert committed battery, Florida Statutes §784.03, u pon attorney Arnold Levine 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, yelling, and intentionally threw the contents a 20 oz. cup
hot coffee which struck him in the chest staining his shirt. A request reques t for
prosecution was issued for battery." Mr. Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report. A copy
the police report is attached as Exhibit A.
b. Another example
Mr. Rodems' bizarre behavior against participants in
litigation are his defamatory comments about Eric Bischoff, a witnesses in WrestleReunion,
LL
v.
Court, Middle District
Live Nation, Nation, Television Holdings, Holdings, Inc., Inc., United States District
Florida, Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27, trial August 31-September
10, 2009. Mr. Rodems and his client failed to prevail at trial. The comments may be found online at: http://www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corrente91 O.html O.html,, and include, " The expert report Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bisch off was not even called to testify testify by Clear Channel/ Channel/Live Live Nation because B isch off perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009 before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head ofWCW." and "The sad state
professional
wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman, whose previous career highlights include selling meat out
the back
Page Page
truck, before he filed bankruptcy and
had his car repossessed. Today, after running running WCW into the ground, Bis choff cho ff peddles schlock like "G irls Gone Wild" Wild" and reality shows featuring featuring B-listers." A c opy
Rodems'
comments are attached as Exhibit B. 5.
Another stunt used by Mr. Mr. Rodems against participants in co ntentiou
litigation is a sw orn affidavit used to falsely falsely accuse his opponent purpose
wrongdoing for the
advantage. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Mr. Rodems made a verified pleading th at falsely
named Judge Nielsen in an "exact quote" attributed to Plaintiff, putting the trial judge into the controversy. The Tampa Ta mpa Police Department recently recently determined that the swo rn affidavit submitted by Mr. Mr. Rodems to the court about an "exact quote" attributed to Plaintiff Plaint iff was not right and not accurate 6.
participants in contentious litigation, litigation, and Plaint iff fears fears for his safety and well-being. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the Court to cancel Defendants' Deposition Duces Tecum on June
18,2010
and for an Order
Protection.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy
the foregoing has been furnished by US mail
to Ryan Christopher Chri stopher Rodems, Attorney, Attorney, Barker, Rodems th
Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this this 14 day
Page Page
Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley June
010.
A
Et)WhtO f1RS1""
In£/JtA7iOt'{
"
' € M H § ~
.lM.lIlW4
A l M M j ; ) .IJ.!4·1/Eq,i.lau.it¥6i :2.0
¢rk'..rt'
t t v ' ~
Dz.: c..,/J ~ / e ' t <
7 Z £ ' L J c F 4 - ~ 4 V r
? ' M iAz,.-. rt>Er!J1=M TAft:" V ! m f t z '.$z1iJK/-fJ.Nm '
".~."'.'"
l
J
£
p
p
~
Vlc7{/l1 Ay<:J 1Na'ItIE...r:r till .
/1/..1' ...:r,.-bfX
N!'.s A t V j . ! T § N 7.(;..¢k, fk::;r':
STATE FACTS TO ESTABUSHTHAT DEFE."DA1'oi COMMITTED CRIME:
OO-/7'U7EC.
7Zk': ;Lt-¥¢IY't:Uv?'
7HF' ~ L < J 0 i f ' : i 1 E N - r / E & ~ {Mi(#' m1l4'- r!1' , ~ } . ' j l f ~ r r t L ' r i 7 ' (;.J<1"'" t: ,,,,,;..'7 <"'!fA¥<' ,4 S7';f.1"$""&vTj
N'1#A1r-
BY
C O ~ I P L A I : \ A \ T :
7i)
(ELF
t v r 7 ~ ; " r N 7
DISTR,cr
TO BE FILLED !or p r l , . ) ' c { ' u : ! t " ' ~ .
I'\/t:)
.:blrc pre;,:. JtWD
SQUAD :r:
C
,jt).{C£q
/ U . I ~
~
S7?tZZ.a .. '
ttVQ. J W ~ L J f £ . . ( /I/..!' tJCP4:AJd?Eg.
Uf At r Ri l vT! #Z lUll # o T W..rt:tYZ:· WltJi,.fJ 2.. A 7 ' 7 ' q ~ L
·
this .:a.c,c ;lnd request
SIG?\ATIJRE
Sta!C Attornc)
D:\TE
Office
to
review
" .~,:'.:,
CITY
ZIP
COMPl:A!NT ISSUED" ISSUED"
DYES CHECK ONE
it'NO
DOIwrestlin DOIwrestling.com g.com - Declaration Declaration
Independents Independents - The Number 1 Independent Pro Wrest Wrestl... l... Page 1
DOIVIDEO.COM
'
Tons of wrestling DVD's including original shoot i n t ~ ~ i e w s
Sal Corrente of WrestleReunion had a lawsuit against Clear Channel/Live Nation because they reneged on a contra ct with him. The case case went before a jury and Mr. Corrente lost the case, which many feel was unjust. But Eric Bischoff made a statement on wrestlezone.com, which is below, that caused Sal's lawyer to send his statement: In my last post regarding the WrestleReunion/Live Nation lawSUit, I suggested that Bill Behrens and Eric Bischoff were were ex pert witnesse fo WrestleReunion. That was not the case case as they were actually witnesses for the Clear Channel/Live Nation side. just spoke with Eric Bischoff who said he agreed to be an expert
witness after reading and taking interest in the case, however he was not called to the stand.
"The case wa wrapped up quickly," Bischoff told Wrestlezone.com, "the j u r y d i d n ' t waste an time and came back w i t h w h a t felt wa the correct decision".
Eric was happy with the outcome, to say the least. "Rob Russen an
business
ba
n a m e , " he stated, "so I'
Sal Corente give the wrestling glad justice prevailed and th bottom feeders d i d n ' t wi
one".
Bischoff wanted to make sure that everyone knew his comments and opinions were solely his and did no reflect those of Clear Channel/Live Nation. In regards to the above statement, we have a statement from Mr. Corrente's lawyer: is od t h a t Eric Bischoff, whose well-documented incompetence caused th demise WCW, should have any c o m m e n t on th outcome of th WrestleReunion, LLC lawsuit. Th expert report Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was no even called to testify by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in deposition in late-July 2009 before running ou and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious problems w i t h alcohol and sexual deviancy at th Gold Club while th head of WCW. To even si in the t h e m o s t distasteful things I've ever ha to do in 17 years f room an question hi was one practicing law. fact, we understand t h a t Bischoff was afraid to even come to Tampa and testify because he w o u l d have to answer questions under oath fo t h i r d t i m e about his embarrassing past. The sad state professional wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oi salesman, th back truck, before he filed whose previous career highlights include selling m e a t ut bankruptcy and ha his car repossessed. Today, a f t e r running WCW into the ground, Bischoff peddles schlock like "Girls Gone Wild" an reality shows featuring B-Iisters.
Sal Corrente, on the other hand, has always been an honorable man, and he delivered on every
promise and paid every wrestler while staging the three WrestleReunlon events. Unlike the cowardly Bischoff, Mr. Corrente t o o k t h e stand In this case. Although his company di n o t prevail, Sal Corrente proved t h a t he was man enough to f i g h t to th finish -- something Bischoff could never understand." Sincerely, Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems &. Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 E-mail:
[email protected]
We just wanted to give Mr. Corrente's lawyer a chance to speak his mind.
Georgie
[email protected] Since I have always had wrestlers autograph signings as a speciality for any website I worked for, I know for sure, Mr. Corrente is an honest promoter who has NEVER stiffed a wrestler working for his shows or conventions. I would have heard about it. There are many promoters who do that in thi s business, which is very sad. The information on this website is exclusive property of the Declaration of Independents and cannot be used elsewtJBfS elsewtJBfS without proper ink credff. All 001 purchases sent to the 00 becomes property of the 001 which allows the DOf to reprint that e·maif In H's entirety by doing so, ff
are non-refundab1e. All mail (electronic or postal) the email is considered newsworthy.
Copyright declarationofindependents.net declarationofindependents.net
dorwrestting.com. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.declarationofmdependents.netldoi/pages/corrente91 http://www.declarationofmdependents.netldoi/pages/corrente9 1 O.ht O.html ml
B
1/28/2010
Neil
Gillespie th
8092 SW 115 Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
June 21, 2010 VIA FAX (813) 489-1008
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker Rodems Cook, PA 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, et al. Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division G Dear Mr. Rodems: This is in response to the last paragraph your letter June 11, 2010 concerning discovery and Rule 1.380(a)(4). This is my good faith effort to provide the discovery without court action and/or response justifying not providing the discovery As you know, much your discovery discovery to me is outstanding, outstanding, some it dating to 2006. Currently the following motions to compel your discovery are pending: 1. December 14, 2006,
2. February 1, 2007, 3. March 30, 2010,
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
Motion to Compel Defendants' Discover
Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
Third Motion to Compel Discovery
Rodems, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery? Mr. Rodems, Your June 11, 2010 letter states "I made sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010 hearing hearing date, but you have not reciprocated." This is a false false statement. statement. Y ou did not make sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010 hearing date with me. Instead you placed calls to a number that you knew or should have known was no longer valid or associated with this litigation. Upon information and belief, the number you called, (352) 502-8409 was associated years years ago with my cell phone and disconnected and reassigned in 2007. See Notice Fra. Fra.ud ud On The Court By Ryan Chri stopher Rodems , filed June Ju ne 17, 2010. 2010.
C
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker Rodems Cook, PA
Page Page June 21, 2010
r.
response to the motions you improperly set for June 9, 2010, an d the hearing which Judge Cook canceled, the motions are all related to collection the final judgment $11,550. A Motion For Reconsideration the final judgment and other orders and rulings made by disqualified Judge Barton Bart on was filed under Fla.R.Jud.Admin., Ru1e 2.330(h), Prior Ru1ings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified jud ge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended amended by a successor successor judg e based upon a motion for reconsideration. reconsideration. Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, 707 So.2d 868, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1998. held that final judg ment entered by a jud ge who was later lat er disqualified is, like any other order, subject to being reconsidered b y successor judge. judg e. In
Because a motion for reconsideration has been filed, and considering the hold ing Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, it is reasonable to assume that the final judgm ent $11,550 will be voided because the extreme injustice it represents. Therefore your final judgmen of$11,550 are now no w misplaced. motions related to the collection the final the final judgment jud gment is voided, your motions will be moot. Therefore I am justified in not providing the discovery and I am justified in not attending the deposition. Again, when can I expect to receive your outstandin g discovery
r.
Rodems?
Fax From: Neil J. Gillespie
8092 11 th Loop Ocala, FL 34481
To Mr. Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems
Cook, PA
Fax: (813) 489-1008 Date: June 21 , 2010 Pages: three (3), (3), including this page
Re: see accompanying letter with Rule 1.380(a)(4) response
NOTE: This fax and the accompanying infonnation is privileged and confidential and is intended only for use by the above addressee If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this fax and the accompanying communications is strictly strictly prolnbite you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, collect necessary, and return the original message to me at the above address via u.s. mail. Thank you for your cooperation. 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 Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4XaXl) and the holding of Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilo Jefferson-Pilott Lif L if Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
IN TH
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TmRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: 05-CA-7205
vs. BARKER, RODEMS COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; WILLIAM J. COOK,
DIVISION:
Defendants.
NOTICE
FILING LETTERS,
DISCOVERY
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Counter-Defendant Neil J. Gillespie pro se hereby files files copies letters pertaining to discovery and Rule 1.380(a)(4), his good faith effort to provide the discovery discovery without court action and/or response justifying no t providing the discovery. discovery. 1.
Letter and enclosures
Ryan C. Rodems, Barker, Rodems
Cook,
PA
to Neil
J. Gillespie dated June 11, 2010; 2. Letter
Neil J. Gillespie to Mr. Rodems dated June 21, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 21, 2010.
D
Certificate
Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true an d correct copy furnished furnished by mail June 21, 2010 t o the office
the foregoing has been
Ryan Christopher Rodems, attorney for
the Defendants and Counter-Plainti Counter-Plaintiffs, ffs, at Barker, R odems & Cook, PA, 400 No rth Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602.
Page 2
BARKER, RODEMS
COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATIORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS WILLIAM J. COOK
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone 813/489 1001 Facsimile 813/489 1008
June 11, 2010
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW II th Loop Ocala, FloridaFlorida- 34481
Re:
ro COpy
Gillespie v. Barke r, Rodems Rodems Cook, P.A., Case Ca se No.: 05-CA-7205; Division "G"
Dear Mr. Gillespie: have and thank you for your letter even date, transmitted by facsimile. Regardless your accusations that I did not call you, I made multiple telephone calls, some in the presence my start: to coordinate hearings on June 9 and July 12, 2010, and dialed the same telephone number that I have successfully successfully used to call you in the past. What is most troubling about your letter is that you claim a hearing transcript shows that am prohibited from calling you, but you did not include the entirety the transcript excerpt. Here is the pertinent language you omitted:
THE COURT: And as my dear father always say says, s, discretion being the better bet ter part valor, would request that you not engage in any telephonic communication with Mr. Gillespie between now and the next hearing. MR. RODEMS: will not, Your Honor. No phone messages, no direct calls. I'll conduct all communications with Mr. Gillespie in writing.
my
Your Your omission omission the entiret entiret the discussion discussion creates creates misperception; misperception; Judge Isom's Iso m's request limited the request to "between "between now and the next hearing." hear ing." made sincere efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010 hearing date, date, but you have not reciprocated. Although I will not cancel it based on your claim to not be available, I will renew my offer made regarding the motions to compel when they were scheduled for June 9: If you agree to provide the discovery discovery within ten days and attend the deposition, depositi on, then will cancel cancel the hearing on the motions to compel compel (but not the Case Case Management Management Conference). The incentive incent ive for you to consider that may be the prospect of being held liable for my clients' attorneys' fees and costs, under Rule 1.380(a)(4). I look forward to hearing from you.
RCRlso cc: Honorable Martha J. Cook Enclosure
proceed with your l a w s u i t .
you so c h o o s e .
voluntary dismissal
So even
counterclaim.
filed
GILLESPIE:
file
12
MR.
RODEMS:
13
THE
COURT:
MR.
record,
Your Honor, b e f o r e
r u l i n g s today an
MR.
RODEMS:
submit them
them
21
Your Honor.
close
your
you?
Please
Yes, ma'am.
Mr. G i l l e s p i e
"20
we
prepare the orders based
still
THE COURT:
this o t h e r hearings.
need them
Your Honor, b e f o r e
RODEMS:
am
we
we
w i l l hang on
think
case
COpy
Thank you, s i r .
right.
THE COURT:
stuff just
g i v e yo
Thank you, J u d g e .
GILLESPIE:
your
d i s q u a l i f y me, w e ' r e
motion
do
opportunity
22
counterclaim.
t e r m i n a t e t o d a y ' s hearing
MR.
voluntary
you know, a g a i n , b e c a u s e
express desire
14
take
Uh-huh.
THE COURT:
going
they
However,
yo
dismissal t h a t doesn't dismiss MR.
take
course
You
THE COURT:
advance
will
c o u r s e send
s e n d i n g them
my d e a r f a t " h e r a l w a y s s a y s ,
discretion being the better part of valor, r e q u e s t t h a t yo
engage
telephonic
communication with Mr. G i l l e s p i e between now
Berryhill
Associates,
Inc.
would
75
next h e a r i n g .
w i l l n o t , Your Honor.
MR. RODEMS: messages, no
direct
I'll
calls.
No phone
conduct
my
communications w i t h Mr. G i l l e s p i e i n w r i t i n g .
t h i n k t h a t would
THE COURT:
That way we d o n ' t have there's
MR.
an
be
advisable.
concerned with whether
o t h e r improper s t a t e m e n t s
GILLESPIE:
THE COURT:
Thank
Okay.
(Thereupon,
contact.
you, J u d g e .
Thank you,
sir.
hearing c o n c l u d e d . )
11
COpy
12 13
14
17 18
21 22
23 24
25
Berryhill
Associates,
Inc.
Neil
Gillespie th
8092 SW II Loop Ocala, Florida 3448
June 21, 2010 VIA FAX (813) 489-1008 Attorney at Law Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney Barker Rodems Cook, PA 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 T a m ~ Florida 33602 RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, et ale Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division G
ro COpy
Dear Mr. Rodems:
This This is in response to the las paragr paragraph aph you letter letter June 11 2010 concernin concernin discovery discovery and Rule 1.380(a)(4 1.380(a)(4). ). This is my good faith effort to provide th e discovery without court action and/or response justifying not providing the discovery. discovery. As you know, know, much your discover discovery y to me is outstan outstanding ding,, some it dating to 2006. Currently Currently the following motions to compel your discovery discovery are pending: 1.
December 14,2006, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
2. February 1, 2007, Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Defendant s' Discovery 3. March 30,2010, Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel Discovery receive your outstanding discovery? Mr. Rodems, wh en can I exp ect to receive Your June 11, 2010 letter state "I made sincere efforts efforts to coordinate the July 12, 2010 hearing date, but you have no t reciprocated. reciprocated."" This is a false false statement. Yo u did n ot make sincere sincere efforts to coordinate th e July 12, 2010 hearing date with me. Instead you placed calls calls to a number that you k new or should have known was no longer valid or associated with this litigation. litigation. Up on information and belief, belief, the number you called, (352) 5 02-8409 was associated years ago with my cell phone and disconnected disconnected and reassigned in 2007. See Notice Fraud On The Court By Ryan Christopher Rodems, filed Ju ne 17, 2010.
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law
Barker Rodems
Cook, PA
Page Page June 21, 2010
response to the motions you improperly set for June 9, 2010, and the hearing which Judge Cook canceled, the motions are all related to collection the final judgment $11,550. A Motion For Reconsideration the final judgment and other orders and rulings made by disqualified Judge Barton wa filed under Fla.R.Jud.Admin., Rule judg e may be 2.33O(h), Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration. Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, 707 So.2d 868, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1998. held that final judgment entered by ajudge wh wa later disqualified is, like any other order, subject to being reconsidered by successor judge. In
Because a motion for reconsideration has been filed, and considering the holding Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, it is reasonable to assume that the final judgment $11,550 will be voided because the extreme injustice it represents. Therefore your motions related to the collection of the fmaljudgment are now misplaced. If the fmal judgment is voided, your motions will be moot. Therefore I am justified in not providing the discovery and I am justified in not attending the deposition. Again, Again, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery
r. Rodems?
ro opie
(opy
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115 th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
June 25,2010 Mr. Ryan Christo pher Rodems, Attorney at Law Barker Rodems Cook, PA 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems Cook, PA, et al. Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division G Dear Mr. Rodems: This is a follow-up to my June 21,2010 fax good faith effort to provide the discovery without court action and/or response justifying not providing the discovery pursuant to Rule 1.380(a)(4). I received Judge Cook's Order Denying Motion For Reconsideration June 22, 2010 yesterday, June 24,2010. Since I am no longer justified justifi ed in not providi ng the discovery, di scovery, please find e nclosed the following: Exhibit
1.
Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories
September 2, 2008
Exhibit 2. Responses to Defendants' Request for Production submitted Sept. 2,2008 Exhibit 3. Responses to Defendants' Request for Production submitted October 13, 2009 Note: this request for production was made in violation Judge Judge Ba rton's Order October 9, 2009: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above action be shall be stayed for 60 Days to al low the Pla intiff to find replacement counsel. counsel. (relevan t portion). Exhibit 4. Responses to Defendants' Request for Production submitted June 1,2010 Exhibit 5. Responses to Defendants' Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section 56.29(2), Florida Statutes, submitted June 1,2010. As you know, much your discovery to me is outstanding, some it dating to 2006. Currently the following motions to compel your discovery discovery are pending:
E
Mr. Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney Attorney at Law Barker Rodems & Cook, PA
Page 2 June 25, 2010
1.
December 14,2006, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
2.
February 1,2007, Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
3.
March 30, 2010, 2010, Plai P lai nti ffs Third Motion to Compel Compel Discovery
A letter from you dated December 19, 2006 falsely falsely states "documents have already been produced" but I have not received any documents from you. Mr. Rodems, when can I expect to receive your outstanding discovery?
Enclosures
Responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories of September 2, 2008 were provided by my former lawyer Robert W. Bauer, October 1, 2008, see attached. The verification page was signed and notarized by me October 2, 2008. Mr. Bauer submitted the signed and notarized verification page to the Clerk of Court October 3, 2008. New information. Interrogatory No. 1. Mr. Bauer previously provided bank records. There are no other records available to provide any additional a dditional information that would allow the Plaintiff to answer this question. On November 16, 2009 I requested my client file from Mr. Bauer. He responded by letter November 23, 2009 that he was exercising a charging lien and refused to provide the file. The matter is currently subject to regulatory process. In response to Mr. Rodems’ speculation contained in “Defendant’s Motion For An Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond To The Defendant’s Interrogatories” that “Defendant in good faith believes Plaintiff uses more than one bank account, has debit cards or credit cards, and operates a business or makes purchases using PayPal or other similar payment services”: Plaintiff has no bank account. Plaintiff has no credit card. Plaintiff uses throw-away debit cards that have no records. Plaintiff does not operate a business or make purchases for the business using PayPal or other similar payment services. Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff provided the answer by way of his “Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie and Designated Exemptions” submitted to the court April 28, 2010, see copy attached.
1
Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production submitted Sept. 2, 2008 1. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not entitled to an attachment to subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is not available even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla. 474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of express statutory authorization. McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937. 2. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 3. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 4. None. 5. None. 6. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise. 7. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise. 8. None. 9. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise. 10. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want it again, please advise. 11. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what is owned to Barker, Rodems & Cook. 12. None 13. None. 14. None. 15. None. 16. None.
1
2
17. None. 18. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want. 19. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance. 20. None. 21. None that I can recall. 22. None. 23. None. 24. None. 25. None. 26. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010, and related documents. 27. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 28. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 29. None. 30. None. 31. None. 32. None. 33. None. 34. None. 35. None. 36. None. 37. “All contracts undue which you currently have any legal rights.” Request makes no sense. 38. Objection, vague, what is a trust instrument? Otherwise see #1
2
39. None. 40. Objection vague. Otherwise none. 41. Repeated request, see the response to #26 42. Repeated request, see the response to #27 43. Objection, vague. Otherwise none. 44. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 45. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 46. I do not have a copy of my credit report.
3
Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production submitted October 13, 2009 1. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not entitled to an attachment to subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is not available even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla. 474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of express statutory authorization. McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937. 2. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 3. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 4. None. 5. None. 6. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise. 7. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise. 8. None. 9. Already provided. If you want them again, please advise. 10. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want it again, please advise. 11. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what is owned to Barker, Rodems & Cook. 12. None 13. None. 14. None. 15. None. 16. None.
1
3
17. None. 18. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want. 19. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance. 20. None. 21. None that I can recall. 22. None. 23. None. 24. None. 25. None. 26. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010, and related documents. 27. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 28. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 29. None. 30. None. 31. None. 32. None. 33. None. 34. None. 35. None. 36. None. 37. “All contracts undue which you currently have any legal rights.” Objection, request makes no sense. 38. Objection, vague, what is a trust instrument? Otherwise see #1
2
39. None. 40. Objection vague. Otherwise none. 41. Repeated request, see the response to #26 42. Repeated request, see the response to #27 43. Repeated request, see the response to #40 44. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 45. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 46. I do not have a copy of my credit report.
3
Responses to Defendants’ Deposition Duces Tecum submitted June 1, 2010 1. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not entitled to an attachment to subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is not available even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla. 474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of express statutory authorization. McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937. 2. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 3. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 4. None. 5. “All contracts undue which Gillespie currently have any legal rights.” Objection, request makes no sense. 6. Objection, vague, what is a trust instrument? Otherwise see #1 7. None. 8. Objection, vague. Otherwise none. 9. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010, and related documents. 10. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 11. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 12. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. 13. I do not have a copy of my credit report. 14. None. 15. None.
1
4
16. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 17. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 18. None. 19. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 20. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want it again, please advise. 21. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what is owned to Barker, Rodems & Cook. 22. None. 23. None. 24. None. 25. None. 26. None. 27. None. 28. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want. 29. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance. 30. None. 31. None that I can recall. 32. None. 33. None. 34. None. 35. None. 36. Repeated question, see response to #9. 37. Repeated question, see response to #10.
2
38. Already provided, if you want it again, please advise. 39. None. 40. None. 41. None. 42. None. 43. None. 44. None. 45. None.
3
Responses to Defendants’ Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section 56.29(2), Florida Statutes, submitted June 1, 2010 4a. Objection, relevance, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment. The Gillespie Family Living Trust has a spendthrift provision. The creditors of the trustee are not entitled to an attachment to subject trust property held by the trustee to the payment of the trustee's debts. Tillman v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 1326, 128 So. 846, Fla. 1930. The remedy is not available even if the debt is chargeable to the trust itself. Johnston v. Smith, 76 Fla. 474, 80 So. 184, Fla. 1918. The equitable interest of a defendant as beneficiary of a trust is not subject to garnishment, at least in the absence of express statutory authorization. McLeod v. Cooper, 88 F.2d 194, C.A.5 1937. b. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. c. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. d. None. e. “All contracts undue which you currently have any legal rights.” Request makes no sense. f. Objection, see #1 g. None. h. Objection vague. Otherwise none. i. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010, and related documents. j. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want it again, please advise. k. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. l. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. m. I do not have a copy of my credit report. n. None. o. None. p. Already provided. If you want again, please advise.
5
q. Already provided. If you want again, please advise. r. None s. Already provided. If you want again, please advise. t. The quit claim deed was provided. If you want again, please advise. u. There is no list of documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist. Otherwise none, other than what is owned to Barker, Rodems & Cook. v. None. w. None. x. None. y. None. z. None. aa. None. bb. None. I opted out of receiving paper documents, see insurer for whatever you want. cc. None. I do not own a home. I do not have renters insurance. dd. None. ee. None that I can recall. ff. None. gg. None. hh, None. ii. None. jj. See Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property of Neil J. Gillespie, Designated Exemptions, and Motion for Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment, filed April 28, 2010, and related documents. kk. IRS EIN from 2002, already provided, if you want again, please advise.
ll. Already provided, if you want again, please advise. mm. None. nn. None. oo. None. pp. None. qq. None. rr. None. ss. None.
The
Offices
Robert Robe rt W . Bauer, P .A 2815
NW
13th Street, Suite 200, Gainesville, FL 32609 www.bauerlegal.com
Rober t W Bauer, Bauer, Esq. Tanya Uhi, Esq.
Phone: (352)375.5960 Fax: (352)337.2518
October Octobe r 1, 2008
Only
Hillsborough County Clerk Court PO Box 989 Tampa, Tampa, Florida 33601-0989
Re Dear C
No A c t ~ o n Necessary
Case .No.: 05-CA-007205 I ~ r k
the Court:
Enclosed for filing in connection with the above referenced case please find the following: Notic Notic J. Gillespie. Plaintiff
Service
Respo Response nse to Interr Interroga ogator torie ie
PlaintiffNei PlaintiffNei
you have any questions, questions, th en please contact me at 352-375-5960. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
s t m e ~ ~ / Meghan E. Godby RWB/meg Mr. Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Ocala, Florida Florid a 34481 Ryan C. Rodems Esq. 400 N Ashley Dr Ste 2100 Tampa, Florida Flori da 33602
F
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TH THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Case No.: 2005-CA-7205 Division: C
-----------
Plaintiff, vs. BARKER, RODEMS, COOK, P .A. a Florida Corporation, and WILLIAM J. COOK, an individual, Defendants.
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE
-
-
-
-
SERVICE
-
_
RESPONSES
PLAINTIFF NEIL
The Plaintiff, Plaintiff, NEI notice
J.
/ INTERROGATORIES TO
GILLESPIE
GILLESPIE, through their undersigned attorney, attorney, hereb y gives
serving the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
NEIL J. GILLESPIE GILLESPIE with out verification page, verification page to follow. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THE UNDERSIGNED Robert W. Bauer, Esq., Esq., atto rney for the Defendants hereb y certifie certifiess that a true and correct copy OCT
the foregoing was furnished to each person listed below
US Mail on
2008
Ryan C. Rodems, Esq. Drive, 210 400 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, FL 33602
T.he
...
..
"'
..
Robert W. Bauer
By: Robert W. Bauer, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Florida Ba No. 0011058 Tanya M. Uhl Esq Florida Ba No. 0052924 th 2815 13 Street, Suite 200E Gainesville, Florida Telephone: (352) 375-5960 Fax: (352) 337-2518
INTERROGATORIES 1.
For each such payment since January 1, 2005, identify the name and address of each person who gave you cash o r other payments for any reason (including but not limited to payments made by cash, credit card, PayPal, check, in-kind) and state why the person gave you cash or any other payments. payments. See Attached.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems
Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F. ag
7
2.
Identify with specificity each and every item tangible personal property you own whether individually or jointly, including but not limited to: to: motor vehicles, articles clothing, furniture (e.g., bed, dresser, table, desk), guns, knives, exercise equipment (e.g., bicycles, treadmills), electronic device (e.g., computer, IPOD, television, stereo, calculator, printer, camera, videocamera, videogame console), jewelry, artwork, appliances (e.g., washer, dryer, oven, microwave, dishwasher), equipment, tools, animals (including domestic and farm), stocks, bonds, savings, retirement accounts (e.g., 401K, IRA, annuities), lawn or garden equipment, cleaning equipment, equipment, linens, items made cloth, items made plastic, items made iron, copper, bronze, silver, platinum, gold, clay, ceramic or marble. For each such item, item, identify the date obtained, the market value, the serial number (i the item has one). See Attached.
Gillespie
v.
Barker, Rodems
Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. Page 3
7
F.
3.
For each transaction since January 1,2 005 , identify with specificity specificity each item tangible tangible personal property you owned, owned, individually or jointly, but have sold, donated, donated, gifted or otherwise disposed own whether individually or jointly, including but not limited to: motor vehicles, articles clothing, furniture (e.g., bed, dresser, dresser, table, desk), guns, knives, knives, exercise exercis e equipment equipmen t (e.g., bicycles, bicycles, treadmills), electronic device (e.g., computer, IPOD, television, stereo, calculator, printer, camera, videocamera, videogame console), jewelry, artwork, appliances (e.g., washer, dryer, oven, microwave, dishwasher), equipment, tools, animals (including domestic and fann), stocks, bonds, savings, retirement accounts (e.g., 401K, IRA, annuities), lawn or garden equipment, cleaning equipment, linens, items made cloth, items made of plastic, items made of iron, copper, bronze, silver, platinum, gold, clay, ceramic or marble. For each such item, item, identify the date sold, sold, donated, gifted or otherwise disposed of, the name of the person or entity the item was so given, the market value, the serial number (if the item has one). See Attached.
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems
Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. 7
F.
4.
Do you own, jointly or individually, any real property? Do you have any interest as a beneficiary, trustee or other legal status, in any real property or trust? so, identify with specificity the real property owned or the interest as a beneficiary, trustee in any real property or trust. See Attached.
Gillespie v. v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F. Page 5
7
RESPONSES
1.
TO INTERROGATORIES TO NEIL GILLESPIE
Please Please see bank records that have been previously provided. provided. There are no other
records available available to to provide any additional information that would allow the Plaintiff to to answer this question.
2.
Th Plaint Plaintiffis iffis stil stil comp compil ilin in
list list
hi pers persona ona prope propert rt at this this time time.. The
Plaintiffrequests an additional fifteen (15) days to complete this list. 3.
No
s·uch
records exist at this tinle that \vould enable the Plaintiff to provide the
requested infonnation. 4.
The Plainti tf does not own
allY
real property in any capacity and does not have
any interests in real property or trust at this tinle.
The La
Offices
Robert Robe rt W . Bauer,
.A
2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200, Gainesville, FL 32609 www.bauerlegal.com
Rob ert W Bauer, Bauer, Esq. Tanya M Uhi, Esq.
Phone: Fax:
(352)375.5960 (352)337.2518
October 2, 2008 Ryan C. Rodems Esq. 400 N Ashley Dr te 2100 Tanlpa, Florida 33602
FY Only
client: Neil Gillespie
Dear Sir: We are still still attempting to comply with your discovery discov ery request. request. Please allow allow an additional additional 15 days for my client to gather all all the documents requested. I will further further the production along with the requested inventory when it is is completed. Thank you in advance advance for for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bauer, Esq.
Mr. Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481
G
The
La
Robert
Offices
Bauer, P.A.
2815 2815 N W 13t h Street, Suite 200, 200, Gainesville, www.bauerlegal.com
FL
32609
Rober t W Bauer Esq. Tanya M Uhl, Esq.
Phone: (352)375.5960 (352)337.2518
Fax:
October 3,2008
o Action Necessary
Hillsborough Hillsborough County Cl erk Court PO Box 989 Tampa, Florida 33601-0989 Re:
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems,
Dear Clerk
FYI Only
Cook, P.A. et al 2005-CA-007205
the Court:
Enclosed for filing filing in connection with the above referenced case please find the followin following: g: •
If
PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTI FF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF VERIFICATION VERIFICA TION PAGE FOR RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
you have any questions, then please contact me at 352-375-5960.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely, i
'.
l.'/
I
)1' i:
/.
'0"II".'--J
: . . . . .'.0' .. /7
0.""
't
r- ..,11, :,' ' U ~ .
,oJ
.",
.'/
Meghan E. Godby Mr. Neil Gillespie 8092 SW I 5th Loo Ocala, Florida Florid a 3448 Ryan C. Rodems Esq. 400 N Ashley Dr Ste 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
H
IN THE CIRCUIT CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEEN TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: Division:
2005-CA-007205 .o:::C'
NEIL 1. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, vs. BAKER, RODEMS, COOK, a Florida Corporation and WILLIAM 1. COOK, a n individual Defendants. ----------------_/
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF VERIFICATION PAGE FOR RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE The Plaintiff, NEIL 1. GILLESPIE, thro ugh his undersigned attorney, hereby gives notice serving the PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF VERIFICATION PAGE FO RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE. On October 1, 2008, the Plai ntiff served served the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO NEIL 1. GILLESPIE without the verification page, as the ver ification page was to follow. follow.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THE UNDERSIGNED Robert W. Bauer, Esq., attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certifies
that a true and correct copy on CT 2008
the foregoing was furnished to each per son listed below by US Mail
Ryan C. Rodems, Esq. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, FL 33602
The By:!/
.--:
~ S J . w - B f j i c e
.'
d ' : ~ '
/Z/V.
~ a u e r , E s q
Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Zc
Attorney for Plaintiff Florida Bar No. 0011058 Tanya M. Uhl, Esq. Florida Ba No. 0052924 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E Gainesville, FL 32609 Telephone: (352) 375-5960 Fax: (352) 337-2518
BY
.7fwper
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF _ . . . ; . l _ \ l \ _ c _ ~ , _ r _ ,
'v_"j_"_
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this
.It e. sf
personally appeared answers to this Interrogatory
are true
personally known to me or produced
DAVID S, liNDAHL Notary Public· State of Florida Commission Expires Jan 2;), 2010 Commission II DO 511509
" " ~ ~ " ' : ~ ~ ' "
: ' ~ ~ ' . f ~ : ; i \
(: r!ct).J:).
';..J. >d::~'~ ,o\'~' ':
Bonded Bv
~II~/";, :\\~\"'" ~ . F ~ : : i · ~ : ·
,::,,-J. ~"t;
....,.:i1;."""" c,.:",:-ot,."
Nation.:=tl ,':If·'
Notary Assn.
::\,..> ~ ' . . J . . ' » ~ i ' \ ' t ! - " 4 . / , ~ ~ "
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems
-F'
eta
y>
.JJ c,',
~ . " ; . I e
r:
l:::r; Gj L,:::'
I'
'e
is either
as identification.
Print name -b C\. '" J.e! ..:5, h C ) ~ 1.-\ Notary Public, State at Large (commission number and expiration date)
Cook, P.A, Case No.:05-CA-7205, Div. F. Page
of
200
who deposes and says that the foregoing
t::.
and correct.
day
oZ
7
AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT AND INVENTORY OF PERSONAL PRO PERTY OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE AND DESIGNATED EXEMPTIONS Before me, the undersigned, undersigned, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, who being fITSt duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a b ona fide resident Marion County, Florida. Florida. I am over the age am competent to mak e this affidavit 1.
18
years,
I filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition, Chapter 7 case 02-14021-8B7, US Bankruptcy Court. Middle District Florida. Florida. The case was discharged March 5, 2003. The case was terminated December 30, 2003. 2.
3. I was homeless for the period approximately September 2002 through February 2005. 2005. 4. In February 2005 I moved to 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, Marion County, to care for my elderly mother, an unremarried widow. 5. The premises at 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, Marion County is owned by The Gillespie Family Living Trust. The contents are owned by the trust. 6. The following inventory contains a true and correct schedule all personal property owned by me in the state Florida, including its fair market value: Clothing and personal effects, $348 Used laptop computer, $150 Proceeds from the Reuter V. Check Go Settlement Fund, $394.32 Social Security Disability benefits $22,049 a year (2009) 1990 1990 Dodge Grand Caravan, serial #IB4FK54R 6LX309555, $300.00 7.
According to F.S. 222.061(1), affiant elects to apply the following exemptions: (a) Debto r's interest in personal property, property, n ot to exceed $4,000, pursuant to section 222.25(4), Florida Statutes: Clothing and personal effects, $348 Used laptop computer $150 Proceeds from the Reuter V. Check
Go Settlement Fund, $394.32
Total: 892.32 (b) 1990 Dodge Dodge Grand Caravan pursuant to section 222.25(1), 222.25(1), Florida Statutes, Statutes, a debtor' s interest, not to exceed $1,000 i n value, in a single motor vehicle. vehicle. Total: $300.00
I
(c ) Social Security Disability benefits pursuant to section 222.18 Florida Statutes. SWORN to this
day
April, 2010.
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MARION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authority authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments in the State Florida, personally appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, known to me, who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the above matters contained in this document are true and correct to the best her knowledge and belief. WITNESS my hand and official seal this
day ~ ~ ~ ~ -
._-' -
April, 2010.
- - - ~
ER CINDY L. BORDIEN BAUMBAR Notary Public, State of F l o r i · - - - - ~ ..
My Comm. Expires Aug. 25, 2011 Now
00690208
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy
the foregoing has been furnished by mail to
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney, Barker, Rodems Drive, Drive, Suite 2100, 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, this
Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley day
April, 2010.
