Thank You for Moral Courage Justice System

Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida , SCOTUS Petition No. 12-7747

Thank You for Moral Courage in the Justice System http://www.scribd.com/doc/173453711/Thank-You Neil Gillespie

1.

Deput Deputy y Chri Christ stop opher her E. Bro Brown, wn, Hill Hillsb sbor oroug ough h Count County y Sher Sherif iff’ f’ss Offi Office ce (HC (HCSO SO), ), who who impeached Martha “marionette judge” Cook, her falsehood made in open court September 28, 2010 that I “elected to leave” the final summary judgment hearing. Martha Cook ordered me removed after receiving the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.

2.

Majo Majorr Jam James es Liv Livin ings gsto ton, n, HCS HCSO, O, Com Comma mande nderr of Court Court Oper Operat atio ions ns,, who who provi provided ded me a letter January 12, 2011 with Deputy Brown’s statement impeaching Martha Cook, a “marionette judge” to Mr. Rodems. see U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit. Here as filed in Petition No. 12-7747, http://www.scribd.com/doc/135824951/

3.

Hon. Hon. Ric Richa hard rd A. A. Niel Nielse sen, n, who who rej rejec ecte ted d Mr. Mr. Rode Rodems ms’’ fals falsee lega legall argu argume ment nt to to a “cla “claim im”” of $50,000 in “court-awarded “cou rt-awarded fees and costs” and established res judicata, forever barring Rodems’ falsehood from this case. See Order On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And Strike, entered January 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.

4.

Hon. Hon. Pat Pat Fra Frank nk,, Cler Clerk k of Cour Court, t, Hil Hills lsbo boro roug ugh h Co., Co., who who ref refus used ed for for 6 mont months hs to obey obey a sham order corruptly entered by “marionette judge” Cook banning my pro se pleadings.

5.

Flor Florid idaa Bar Bar Coun Counse sell Wil Willi liam am Lan Lance ce Tho Thomp mpso son, n, who who ope opened ned TFB TFB No. No. 20042004-11, 11,73 734( 4(13 13C) C) June 28, 2004 on my complaint against William J. Cook. Unfortunately Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal improperly closed the file February 9, 2005 without finding misconduct, and has defended her wrong decision ever since.

6.

Tampa Tampa att attor orney ney Davi David d M. M. Snyd Snyder er who who inf infor orme med d Mr. Mr. Rodem Rodemss Sept Septem ember ber 7, 2006 2006 that that “Mr. Gillespie's claim has survived a motion to dismiss”, and Rodems’ counterclaim had “little chance of ultimate success given the limited distribution and privileged nature...”. Mr. Snyder proposed settlement to Rodems, payment to me of $6,224.78, but he rejected.

7.

Atto Attorn rney ey Sel Seldo don n Chil Childe ders rs who who det deter ermi mined ned Sept Septem ember ber 17, 2009 2009 tha thatt actu actual al dam damage agess were were $7,143, not $6,224 as in my complaint; and $100,000 Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation.

8.

Flor Florid idaa Bar Bar Coun Counse sell Theo Theodor doree P. Litt Little lewo wood, od, who who open opened ed TFB TFB No. No. 201 20133-10 10,27 ,271 1 (13E (13E)) September 13, 2012 on my complaint against Ryan Christopher Rodems. Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the file without finding misconduct, by Bar Counsel Leonard Clark’s letter May 14, 2013.

9.

Flor Florid idaa Bar Bar Coun Counse sell Theo Theodor doree P, Litt Little lewo wood, od, who who open opened ed TFB TFB No. No. 201 20133-10 10,16 ,162 2 (6D) (6D) August 17, 2012 on my complaint against Eugene P. Castagliuolo. Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal oversaw the improper closure of the file without finding misconduct, see her letter to me dated June 13, 2013.

Thank You for Moral Courage in the Justice System

Neil J. Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al. Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari U.S. Supreme Court Application No. 12-A215 granted by Justice Thomas Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co. FL

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm 10.

Justicee Clare Justic Clarence nce Thom Thomas, as, grante granted d Applic Applicati ation on No. No. 12A21 12A215 5 extende extended d time time to to file file until until December 10, 2012; consolidated 2 Eleventh Circuit Appeals, 12-11028 and 12-11213. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm

11.

Florid Floridaa Bar Bar Couns Counsel el James James A G Davey, Davey, Jr. who referr referred ed Nove November mber 5, 2010 2010 my comp complai laint nt against Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) to a local grievance committee that dismissed; the ABA McKay Report calls local committees “crony” discipline components.

12.

Michael Michael Borset Borseth, h, an indep independe endent nt court court repor reporter ter who who has has faithf faithfull ully y made made transc transcrip ripts ts for for me, even when wrongly threatened with litigation by attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo.

13.

Alliso Allison n Raist Raistric rick, k, Clerk Clerk’s ’s Indi Indigen gentt Screeni Screening ng Unit, Unit, appoint appointed ed me me counse counsell May May 27, 2011 for a civil contempt hearing. Fla. Judge James Arnold relieved the public defender, held the hearing ex parte, and corruptly ordered my arrest on Mr. Rodems’ false evidence.

14.

Dr. Karin Karin Huff Huffer, er, ADA advocat advocate. e. Ment Mental al heal health th prac practit tition ioner, er, author author,, and educato educatorr on Legal Abuse Syndrome. See Dr. Huffer’s October 28, 2010 letter, “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 wa ys possible...”

15.

Atto Attorn rney ey Jeff Jeffre rey y R. R. She Shelq lqui uist st,, pre prepa pare red d for for me an Assignment of Unliquidated Lawsuit Damages that transferred to my mother a security interest in 05-CA-7205, protection from a $11,500 sanction judgment concocted by Rodems and crony Judge James Barton. Judge Barton’s misconduct was rewarded with The Distinguished Judicial Service Award in 2012 for launching the ONE Campaign, to encourage Florida lawyers to uphold their oath of attorney to “...never...delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice”. Unfortunately Judge Barton relinquished his position of trust as judge to Mr. Rodems in 05-CA-7205 where Barton presided, and permitted Rodems to delay my cause “for lucre and malice”.

16.

Tampa Tampa Fire Fire Rescue Rescue EMT Parame Paramedic dic Robert Robert Ladue Ladue and and EMT EMT Parame Paramedic dic Dale Dale Kell Kelley ey treated me July 12, 2010 at the Edgecomb Courthouse. A report of the call, incident number 100035129, impeaches “marionette judge” Cook’s written account of the incident in her order filed July 30, 2010: “Mr. Gillespie refused medical care from emergency personnel when called ca lled by bailiffs and left the courthouse immediately after learning that the conference was completed.” Page 1, footnote 2, Notice of Case Management Status and Order on Outstanding Res Judicata J udicata Motions.”

17.

Berryh Berryhill ill and Asso Associat ciates, es, Inc. Inc. court court report reporting ing,, and Demps Dempster ter-Be -Berry rryhil hilll Court Court Repor Reportin ting. g. To Thomasina Berryhill, Larry Murray, and associates for reporting an unpopular cause. 2


Links below to Petition No. 12-7747 on the Justice Network blog Left image: Evidence of a crisis in the practice of law in the state of o f Florida. Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (r) to Scott Rothstein (l): "Scott - You are amazing!" - Rothstein pled guilty to racketeering and on June 9, 2010 received a 50-year prison sentence. http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2013/06/david-rowland-misled-florida-ag-scotus.html 18.

Diana Diana R. Esp Esposi osito, to, ChiefChief-Ass Assist istant ant Attorn Attorney ey Gener General, al, Tamp Tampaa Flori Florida, da, for for hone honestl stly y providing incriminating documents in response to my records request. Yes, Ms. Esposito might have done more sooner. However Ms. Esposito’s ultimate disclosure against Florida’s unjust and corrupt legal system is valued, redemptive, and thus acknowledged. Public records show David A. Rowland, General Counsel for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, concocted with others a fraud to falsely portray to Kenneth Wilson, Fla. Asst. Attorney General, that I did not serve Mr. Rowland my petition per Supreme Court Co urt Rule 29. Mr. Wilson claims he relied on Rowland’s fraud, and did not submit a brief in opposition due the Supreme Court January 14, 2013. My letter to Mr. Wilson May 16, 2013 shows how the fraud worked, see Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/142305243/ Without a response, Florida Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi denied me due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court relies on opposition briefs as part of its adversarial process to properly properly litigate and decide a petition. Florida’s opposition brief was due January 14, 2013. AG Bondi did not respond for Florida, thus no opposition brief was distributed for the Supreme Court Conference February 15, 2013. Fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, 12-7747 , a legitimate government activity, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, a deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and a conspiracy against my rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241.

19.

Attorn Attorney ey Woody Woody Isom, Isom, who who emai emailed led me Marc March h 23, 23, 2010 2010 with with evidenc evidencee that that impe impeache ached d his wife Claudia Rickert Isom, a trial judge in 05-CA-7205. Judge Claudia Isom perjured herself in open court February 1, 2007 during conflict check hearing. Judge Isom failed to disclose husband Woody Isom and Jonathan Alpert were partners at Fowler-White. The Alpert firm’s fee contract with me was the only one signed in the litigation. Judge Isom was required to recuse; instead she made biased rulings in favor of Mr. Rodems. Judge Isom also ruled contrary to her law essay, Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323 (1998) that favors intensive case management - not sanctions. Judge Isom wrote, “Perhaps the perceived backlash of cracking down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's circuit judges who are elected officials. officials. However, that perception shapes the judicial response, even when responding theoretically at a seminar.” (p. 2, ¶ 2). So Judge Claudia Isom sanctions pro se people, not crony lawyers. Judge Isom’s misconduct was rewarded with the 2013 Distinguished Judicial Service Award presented by Chief Justice Ricky Polston P olston Jan. 31 at the Florida Supreme Su preme Court. 3


“I sometimes think that the problem at bottom is really a lack of respect by lawyers for other people.” - The Hon. Dennis Jacobs, Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007)

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss6/4

20.

Kirby Rainesburger, a Tampa Police lawyer, who concluded February 22, 2010 that Mr. Rodems was not right and not n ot accurate in representing to Judge Richard Nielsen in his sworn affidavit as an “exact quote” language that clearly was not an exact quote of Neil Gillespie. Judge Nielsen recused sua sponte after learning details of Mr. Rodems’s deception and intentional disruption of the tribunal by strategic maneuver to gain an unfair litigation advantage. Unfortunately Tampa Chief Branc h Discipline Counsel Susan Bloemendaal once again excused Mr. Rodems misconduct in response to my complaint.

21.

Deputy Deputy Roger Roger Devall Devall,, U.S. U.S. Mars Marshal hall’s l’s Servic Servicee Tampa, Tampa, Jun Junee 3, 2013 2013 for for stat stating ing during during our 2:00 PM telephone call that the U.S. Marshall will serve a federal complaint c omplaint on judges as provided by law. An Ocala Division deputy clerk denied this September 28, 2010 when I filed the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503. Deputy Devall also advised the Clerk might not issue summons for judges. Transcript, Deputy Devall, June 3, 2013, page 14: DEPUTY DEVALL: 11 ...You might have issues getting summons -12 summons issued by the Clerks court for Judges.

Florida judges and state employees were served pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P, Rule 4(d), waiver of summons, a last ditch effort when the Clerk of Court will not issue summons. http://www.scribd.com/doc/172064977/Thirteenth-Judicial-Circuit-Service-of-Process 22.

James James Worl Worley, ey, vide videogr ographe apher, r, who who film filmed ed for for me me grati gratiss the the Thirte Thirteenth enth Circui Circuitt Judic Judicial ial Nominating Commission exit interviews June 15, 2010. Also interviewer Shadira O. Pressley, a student intern at the Connecticut School of Broadcasting, appeared gratis. http://youtu.be/KtswMgV0lkE

My notes as a public observer ob server to the JNC interviews June 15, 2010 show the Commission has a screening process to eliminate honest judicial applicants. During the interview, a Commission member will ask if the applicant has seen in court any unprofessional behavior from a judge. Applicants who respond with examples of bad judicial behavior they witnessed are not selected. One applicant June 15, 2010 responded that a judge said to a very pregnant woman words to the effect “Would you like this garbage can moved closer to you in case you have the baby?” This exchange was memorialized by email with the JNC Chair Pedro Bajo. I noted this and other observations in several letters to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. The letters are p osted on Scribd. http://www.scribd.com/doc/109845143/JNC-Interviews-June-15-2010-Comments-to-Gov-Crist 4


“The whole system of justice in America is broken,” Tribe said. “The entire legal system is largely structured to be be labyrinthine, inaccessible, unusable.” - Larry Tribe, U.S. Justice Department, Access to Justice Initiative, and Harvard Law School Professor ABA Journal, July 22, 2010 by Debra Cassens Weiss http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/middleclass_dilemma_cant_afford_lawyers_cant_qualify_for_legal_aid 23.

Sonja Sonja Mulle Mullerin rin v John John Hayte Hayter, r, et et al., al., 1:121:12-cvcv-001 0019090-SPM SPM-GR -GRJ, J, Unit United ed State Statess Distr District ict Court, Northern District of Florida, Civil RICO, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961-68, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights, against attorney John Hayter, landlord land lord Judith Yesha Brill, Judge David Kreider, his JA Debbie Spivey, and Judge Denise Ferrero of Alachua County Florida. This case shows the District Clerk would not issue summons for Florida judges. The Plaintiff was previously an attorney licensed in Colorado but not licensed in Florida. Mullerin v Hayter alleges a Florida state court operated as a corrupt RICO enterprise. The Plaintiff alleged a Florida court deprived her of rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 through a pattern of racketeering activity to benefit a local attorney and law firm that used the court for “asset stripping” - to obtain fraudulent court orders requiring money or property to be transferred from the true owners - persons targeted by the enterprise - to the law firm and its clients. The suit alleges the Alachua County Florida court was not operated op erated in an effective and expeditious ex peditious manner for which it was created by statute - but as a corrupt RICO enterprise for the private benefit of the law firm and its clients. Doc. 16. First Amended Complaint, Civil RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983, October 18, 2012. Doc. 19. Motion for Order Directing Issuance of Summons, October 30, 2012. Doc. 20. Letter to U.S. Judge Stephan P. Mickle, re summons, November 15, 2012. Doc. 21. Order, Gary R. Jones, U.S. Magistrate Judge, in part...January 15, 2013. “Plaintiff alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 and of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims stem from state civil court proceedings involving a dispute with her landlord. She contends that her landlord and her landlord’s attorney violated RICO by using the courts to strip Plaintiff of her assets and that the attorney, three state court judges, and a judicial assistant conspired to obstruct justice and violate Plaintiff’s civil rights. The state court proceedings were pending pe nding at the time Plaintiff filed her complaint. Plaintiff requests damages, permanent injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees....” Doc. 23. Order, dismissed w/o prejudice, U.S. Magistrate Gary Jones, March 4, 2013. Sonja Mullerin was formerly known as Alison “Sunny” Maynard. Thanks Sunny! A composite of documents in Mullerin v Hayter is posted on Scribd here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/163229364/Sonja-Mullerin-v-John-Hayter-1-12-Cv-190 5


U.S. Judge James D. Whittemore, Middle District of Florida Basic Federal Practice 2007 CLE - The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education 24.

Thanks Thanks to to Tom Miller Miller,, Progr Program am Admi Adminis nistra trator tor of The The Flori Florida da Bar’ Bar’ss Conti Continui nuing ng Legal Legal Education (CLE) program, for both the audio CD #0444C (of the live presentation of Course #0444R - Basic Federal Practice) and permission to made a written transcript. Comments, U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore on the erosion of professionalism Transcript, p. 23, #0444R - Basic Federal Practice 2007. [Mr. Alpert’s] coffee-throwing. 6 If you think that's the only example of 7 wayward lawyer conduct during depositions just get 8 on the internet and search around. It's just 9 hilarious some of the things that go on. There 10 have been fist fights in Tampa. There has been 11 coffee thrown across the table by one lawyer 12 against another in a Federal deposition room in the 13 Federal courthouse. There have been lawyers 14 clipping their nails during depositions. That kind 15 of conduct is reprehensible.

A Tampa Police Department report June 5, 2000, case number 00-42020, alleges Mr. Alpert committed battery, F.S. §784.03, upon attorney Arnold Levine by throwing hot coffee on him. Mr. Levine Lev ine was then 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 c offee which struck him in the chest staining his shirt. A request for prosecution was issued for ba ttery.” Ryan Christopher Rodems is listed as a witness on the police report but failed to inform me that my lawyer Mr. Alpert was named na med in the report for battery on Arnold Levine. A composite of the above documents, with the CLE transcript, and a $5M defamation lawsuit by Mr. Levine, is posed on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/170766008/ The coffee-throwing incident and Mr. Rodems’ Rode ms’ professional failing to report the battery to me is plead at ¶¶ 21-22 in my Complaint (Doc. 1), Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Doc. 1 Filed 09/28/10 Page 10 of 39 25.

Thanks Thanks to to attorn attorney ey Jory Joryn n Jenki Jenkins, ns, she met and info informe rmed d me Apri Aprill 20, 20, 2006 2006 about about the the above. above.

6

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB 5:10-cv-00503- WTH-DAB Document 1

Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 39

1

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB 5:10-cv-00503- WTH-DAB Document 1

Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 39

Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

From Petition No. 12-7747, Rule 21 Motion to amend, received-SCOTUS April 15, 2013, the date of dismissal.

A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit is of a substantial or controlling effect, which I intended to, but b ut did not present with my petition March 18, 2013 due to disability related illness, discussed in Part 3. The petition contained 12 pages, three pages less than the Rule 33.2(b) limit. I move to submit the three pages pa ges now. U.S. v. Terry affirmed a jury conviction against former Judge Steven J. Terry of several honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an official from accepting things of value “in return for” official acts. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). In U.S. v. Terry, the government proved to a jury that Terry accepted from political benefactor Frank Russo campaign donations, a thing of value, in return for official acts, improper rulings on summary judgment. An FBI wiretap provided evidence of the crime. The government proved that the defendant used the mail to carry out a “scheme or artifice to defraud” another, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, of “the intangible right of honest services.” 18 U.S.C. § 1346. In my case, Respondent Judge Martha J. Cook accepted campaign donations from Respondent Ryan C. Rodems, and two of my former lawyers, his partners William J. Cook and Jonathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings on summary judgment, judg ment, and civil contempt, during ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205. Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major James Livingston, provided evidence the Respondents falsified the record of the hearing. The Respondents used the mail to carry out their “scheme or artifice to defraud” me of “the intangible right of honest services.” 18 U.S.C. § 1346. I only attended one of three hearings before Judge Cook September 28, 2010. The first was my spoken motion to disqualify Judge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a § 1983 civil rights and

3

2

disability lawsuit. Judge Cook refused, accused me in open court of feigning disability, d isability, and ordered Deputy Brown to remove me. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. required recusal because “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or dec isionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable”. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie attests to the above, and appears in a separate volume appendix. (Also, trial record Doc. 58-2, Exhibit 14, response to show cause). Judge Cook falsified the record that I “elected to leave” the hearing, in violation of F .S. § 839.13(1) and § 837.06. The transcript and errata sheet appear in a separate volume appendix. Judge Cook proceeded ex parte with the summary judgment hearing, and Mr. Rodems complied with her instruction to create a record, which false testimony went unchallenged because no one represented me. Judge Cook then granted summary judgment for Mr. Rodems, and immediately signed, without reading, a six page order at Mr. Rodems’ request, one he prepared in advance. [Appendix 1]. Judge Cook mailed me a conformed copy o rder in a postage prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote1. Next, Judge Cook proceeded ex parte with the civil contempt hearing, again falsified the record that I elected to leave in violation of F.S. § 839.13(1), and found me guilty. Because this was civil contempt, and not criminal contempt, appointment of counsel was not required under Gideon v. Wainwright. (The defender was appointed May 27, 2011, but relieved by the court). Two days later September 30, 2010 Judge Cook signed an improper order holding me in civil contempt [Appendix 4], filed October 1, 2010. This is the same proposed order that Mr. Rodems provided by mail2, and instructed Judge Cook to sign, together with postage paid

1

The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by order January 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5, 2010 I filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of Judge Barton, but Judge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time. 2 Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems’ notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim. 4

envelopes. [Appendix 5]. Judge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order states at footnote 1: Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt states Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment. During that hearing, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return. Fortunately Deputy Brown told his Commander, Major James Livingstion that I did not leave the hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by Judge Cook. Major Livingstion in turn provided me a letter dated January 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B. Judicial elections in Florida are different than those o f other elected officials, and as described in Terry. Judicial elections are nonpartisan. n onpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified q ualified to seek judicial office, there is pressure not to oppose a sitting judge. Lucy Morgan of the Tampa Bay Times wrote May 2, 2008, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats: [Appendix 8]. ...Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races in the 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to a review of election results over the past 12 years. Judges frequently escape opposition because only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering a judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges have faced opposition, and only five have been defeated... ...For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide. Twenty-three of those are open seats and will be contested. Of the 260 2 60 remaining seats, only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and District Court justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another term since the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s... As in Terry, Judge Cook’s collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002 bid. See Appendix 9 for the donation records of Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert - $100 each. An honest services fraud agreement need not no t spell out which payments control which act, just that Judge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6. Unfortunately, Judge Cook acted like Mr. Rodems’ “marionette”. Terry at p. 11.

5

2

3

Response and explanation to Mr. Rodems' question to Clerk of Court Pat Frank: Goose-stepping and blindly "following orders" of fascists like Martha Cook went out of fashion after the Nuremberg Trials. Please take notice and govern yourself accordingly. - Neil Gillespie

4

5

6

TEL 866.996.6104

Jeff Childers

Attorney at Law Law

FAX 407.209.3870 URL www.smartbizlaw.com

[email protected]

Thursday, September 17, 2009 Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 RE: Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Dear Neil, In this letter, I will explain my thoughts and assumptions relative to the economic analysis of your case, as represented by the spreadsheet which you should have received contemporaneously contemporaneously with this letter. The spreadsheet concludes that the case’s return on investment is negative. There are four columns. The “Item” column represents either a potential recovery, which increases the net value of the case, or a projected cost, which decreases the net value of the case. Costs can be either “hard” costs such as attorneys fees and court costs, or “soft” costs such as the cost of litigation-related illnesses and emotional harms. The “Amount” column represents the best estimate of the actual recovery or cost for the category. The “Prob%” column represents the probability of achieving the recovery or incurring the cost. The “Eco Value” column represents the economic value of the item, i.e. the projected amount times the probability the amount will actually be recovered or incurred.

Next I will discuss each individual item. Actual Damages.1 I calculated actual damages damages as follows. The award award of $56,000 was reduced by 45%, the amount a jury would likely allow the Defendants for their contingent fee. This figure is based on the unexecuted contract attached to the Complaint. Complaint. Furthermore, the Bar allows that attorneys may pay actual costs before application of the contingent contingent fee. Accepting the costs as recited in the Complaint, the award is reduced by $6,125.46. Next, the amount is

1

The Complaint calculates actual damages a little differently. I went with my figures because they are more

favorable (and I believe, correct).

Sixth Street Executive Center 1330 NW 6th Street, Suite C Gainesville, FL 32601

37 North Orange Ave., Suite 500 Orlando, FL 32801

7

Page 2 of 5

divided by three to obtain the amount that should have been paid to the Plaintiff, and further reduced by the $2,000 that was already paid to Plaintiff. I.e.: Actual Award

$56,000

$56,000

-Costs

-$6,125.46

$49,874

- 45% Contingent Fee

-$22,443

$27,431

- 2/3 due to the 2 other clients

-$18,286

$9,143

- $2,000 already paid

-$2,000

$7,143

============== Total Actual Damages

$7,143.00 2

Thus, as you can see, the maximum recoverable actual damages in this case are likely to be $7,143. Next, the spreadsheet adjusts the maximum maximum actual damage figure by the probability of prevailing, which I calculated as 51%, or just more likely than not. Of course, these estimates are largely subjective. I would have calculated the chance of prevailing on the merits as 75% at the outset of the case, but given the case’s history and the events which have transpired since inception, I am forced to reduce the probability of succeeding on the merits to 51%. Thus, the economic value of the actual damages in this case is $3,643.00. Punitive Damages. As you know, punitive damages are more difficult to obtain. There are both legal and factual barriers to pleading and proving punitive damages. damages.3 The Defendants may convince the court that punitive damages were not plead properly or are not available in this case, in which event the jury is not permitted to consider punitive damages. Also, punitive damages are granted up to three times actual damages, and there is no guarantee that a jury would award the full treble damage amount. Still, I used treble damages, which is a maximum recoverable amount of $21,431. Furthermore, any punitive damages damages award can be overruled by the judge, and appealed separately. Therefore, the probability of succeeding succeeding with punitive damages is accounted for as half of the probability of succeeding with actual damages, or 25%. Therefore, the economic value of the punitive damages at this point in the case is only $5,357.00. 2

As you can see, I did an independent calculation of damages, which amount was very close to your own figures.

3

In fact, on January 13, 2006, the court ordered the demands for punitive damages to be stricken from the

Complaint, so, actually, no current demand for punitive damages exists (presumably it might be re-plead in an amended complaint). Also, to the extent that the suit succeeds on a breach of contract and not tort claim, puniti ve damages are excluded. Farnsworth,

Contracts,

§ 12.3, at 157 (3d ed. 1999) ("Punitive damages should not be

awarded for breach of contract because they will encourage performance when breach would be socially more desirable.").

Page 3 of 5

Award of Attorney’s Fees . Under the American Rule, each party must pay its own attorneys fees and costs. Unless an exception is granted by agreement between the parties or by statute, there is no provision for the prevailing party to recover its fees and costs. The unexecuted representation contract attached to the Complaint contains no provision for attorneys fees. I am aware of of no other such agreement or statute that would apply in this case, beyond a bare equitable appeal to the court. The spreadsheet therefore allows allows for no recovery from the Defendants of fees and costs.

Subtotal, Forecast Recovery. Recovery. Thus, the maximum recovery at 100%, i.e. full certainty of succeeding in the litigation as to both actual and punitive damages, is $28,574. However, adjusted for the probability of succeeding on the merits at this point in the case , the maximum economic recovery is only $9,001. Bauer’s Outstanding Outstanding Fees. Mr. Bauer has a claim to his fees of $12,517.41, $12,517.41, at least as of the most current invoice invoice that I was provided. On the one hand, he may have have difficulty proving his entitlement to the fees, due to some evidence that an attempt was made to renegotiate the contract to a contingency contingency basis. However, since that evidence is not conclusive and represents a triable issue of fact, the probability of incurring additional costs to litigate the fees issues offsets the reduction in probability that Mr. Bauer can recover them. Furthermore, Furthermore, generally speaking, most ethical attorneys would require the Plaintiff to resolve the fees issue with predecessor counsel before agreeing to take the case (as I would). Thus, there will be pressure to pay the fees or come to an amicable settlement. Accepting Bauer’s figures, the economic cost of the outstanding outstanding fees to Mr. Bauer at this point in the case is $12,517.41. New Attorney’s Fees. A new attorney would would be required to litigate the case through through trial. Given the extensive history of the case, some non-trivial cost would be incurred in reviewing and understanding the almost four-year history of this litigation (8 hrs). Then, amendment of the complaint (4 hrs), response to various outstanding motions and issues including the garnishment and counter-claims (26 hrs), preparation for trial on the substantive issues and defenses (30 hrs), and the trial itself (30 hrs) will require substantial attorney time. At an estimated $250 per hour, for 98 estimated attorney hours (loosely including paralegal time, costs etc as part of the hours estimate), the fee for completing the case would be $24,500. Note that any new attorney would have to consider the highly aggressive and acrimonious nature of this particular litigation. This cost to complete the case is certain to be incurred, accounted therefore at 100% probability. The economic value of this cost is $24,500. 4

4

It is unlikely a new attorney will offer a discounted, flat-rate, or contingency fee to take this case. The Defendants

have shown there is NO lik elihood of a positive-cash settlement. Thus, there is no possible reward offsetting the risks posed by this case. The only conceivable basis for a new attorney to proceed would be on a strict time and materials basis with a substantial up -front retainer.

Page 4 of 5

Cost to Litigate Appeal. Based on their litigious behavior to date, the Defendants in this case are almost certain to appeal any favorable ruling. Thus the spreadsheet reflects a probability of 99% that any favorable favorable verdict would be appealed. An average state-court appeal appeal is typically valued at $25,000, making the economic cost of this item $24,750. Unpaid Judgment to Rodeems. Defendants are entitled to collect on their judgment for sanctions in the amount of $11,550. As I understand the present status, some $400-$600 were garnished by the bank and are awaiting an order of the court for release. If Plaintiff prevails at trial, it is likely any award will be setoff by this amount if it is not already paid. Thus, 100% probability the entire cost will be incurred, economic value $11,550. Subtotal, Projected Costs. Costs. The total projected costs, which will likely be incurred whether or not Plaintiff prevails, are $73,317.41. This amount should be considered the direct costs avoided by ceasing litigation at this point . I note that the smallest smallest cost in this category, the Unpaid Unpaid Judgment, eliminates eliminates almost entirely the projected recovery. Non-Pecuniary Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome, the book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the nonpecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate the physical and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both short and long-term effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time invested in the case but also by loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards. There is 100% probability these costs will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation. Net Value of Case. The net value of the case is calculated calculated on the spreadsheet by netting netting all the projected costs of litigation from the projected economic recovery. In this case, the spreadsheet calculates that the net value of the case is negative $164,316. In summary, even if the figures are manipulated in the most favorable way, such as by raising the probability of succeeding with actual and punitive damages to 100%, erasing Mr. Bauer’s attorney’s fees, forecasting that no appeal would be filed, and waiving the emotional and physical costs to Plaintiff, the case still would still be in the red by over $7,000 ((7,143+21,431)-24,500-11,550). The assumptions that the costs would be limited in this way are, obviously, unrealistically optimistic.

Page 5 of 5

The issue to my mind, therefore, is how to exit the case with the lowest possible cost. Please see my letter regarding a recommended course of action for my suggestions in this regard.

Respectfully,

Jeff Childers

8

9

10

Docket for 12A215

No. 12A215 Title:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm

Neil J. Gillespie, Applicant v.

Docketed: Lower Ct Ct: Case Nos.:

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, et al. Au gu st 31, 2012 Unit nited St States Co Court urt of of App Appe eals for the the Elev leventh nth Ci Circuit uit (12-11028, 12-11213)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) (12A215) to extend the th e time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to Justice Just ice Thomas. Sep 13 2012 2012 Application Application (12A215 (12A215)) granted by b y Justice Thomas Thomas extending extending the time to file until December 10, 2012.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

~~~~~~~Addr ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~ ess~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

~~Phone~~~

8092 SW 115th Loop

(352) 854-7807

At to rn eys fo r Pet i ti o n er: Neil J. Gil lespie

Ocala, FL 34481 Party name: Neil J. Gillespie

11

12

13

Gillespie p1 of 2

ARIN HUFFER DR . K ARIN Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082 ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist Counseling and Forensic Psychology 3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146 702-528-9588 www.lvaallc.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 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 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 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 from being effectively applied. In our adversarial system, the 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, un represented, 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 cann ot be overestimated and this bell

1

14

Gillespie p2 of 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 pe r Federal and Florida mandates. It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests for reasonable reasonable accommodation accommodations, s, includi including ng a response response in in writing. writing. It is is against against my 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 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 u nder 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 p rovides 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 op portunity to participate in or benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services.î (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Justice, Title II, Technical Assistance Manual (1993) ß II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not require ìexcruciating details as to how the p laintiff'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 focused and limited stance for equality 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 welldocumented 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 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.

2

15

16

17

18

Docket for 12-7747

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-77...

No. 12-7747 Title:

Neil Neil J. Gillespie, Gill espie, Petitioner Petitioner

v. Thirteenth Thirteenth Judicia Jud iciall Circuit of Fl orida, et al. Docketed: December 14, 2012 Linked with 12A215 Lower Ct: Unite nited d Sta State tes s Court urt of of App Appe eals for for the the Elev leventh nth Ci Circuit uit Case Nos.: (12-11028-B) Decisi cisio on Date: te: July July 13, 2012 Rule 12.4 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aug 13 2012 2012 Application Application (12A215 (12A215)) to extend extend the time to file a petition for a writ writ of certiorari certiorari from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to Justice Thomas. Sep 13 2012 2012 Application Application (12A215 (12A215)) granted by Justice Thomas exte extending nding the t he time to file until December 10, 2012. Dec 10 2012 2012 Petition Petition for a writ of certiorari certiorari and motion for leave leave to proceed proceed in forma f orma pauperis filed. (Response due January 14, 2013) Dec 20 20 2012 2012 Waive Waiverr of right of respondents Rayan Rayan Christopher Rodems; Rodems; and Barker, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. to respond filed. Jan 24 2013 2013 DISTR DISTRIBU IBUTED TED for Conference Conference of February 15, 15, 2013. 2013. Feb 13 2013 2013 Feb 19 2013 2013 Mar Mar 18 2013 2013 Mar Mar 27 2013 2013 Apr 15 2013 2013

Supplemental Suppl emental brief brief of petitioner petitioner Neil Neil J. Gillespie filed. (Distributed) (Distributed) Petitio Petition n DENIE DENIED. D. Petiti Petition on for Rehear Rehearing ing filed. DISTR DISTRIBU IBUTED TED for Conference Conference of April 12, 2013. 2013. Rehearing Rehearing DENIED. DENIED.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

~~Phone~~~

8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 [email protected]

(352) 854-7807

Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.

(813)-489-1001

At to rn eys fo r Pet i ti o n er:

Neil J. Gillespie

Party name: Neil Neil J. Gillespie At to rn eys fo r Resp Res p o n d ent s:

Ryan Christopher Rodems

f

/

/

Docket for 12-7747

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-77...

Counsel of Record

501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790 Tampa, FL 33602 Party name: Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.

f

/

/

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428 and [email protected]

May 16, 2013

Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa Office of the Attorney General 501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100 Tampa, Florida 33602 RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al. Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States Dear Mr. Wilson: So sorry to see you got duped by court counsel David Rowland and paralegal Sandra Burge, who misrepresented to you that I did not provide Mr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. That must explain why the petition was not among the 323 pages of public records provided by your office that arrived here in Ocala May 9, 2013 in response to my records request. An email (Exhibit 1) from Mr. Rowland’s paralegal Sandra Burge to Chief Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito 12/20/2012 at 12:51 PM, Cc to David Rowland and Chris Nauman, advanced this material falsehood, which Ms. Esposito sent to you, Cc to Amanda Cavanaugh: The Plaintiff's Notice of Filing the petition for writ of certiorari was received in the Legal Department's Office on 12/18/12 is attached as well as the Court's docket indicating a response is due, if needed, by January 14, 2013. Neither a copy of the petition nor "separate Volume Appendices" accompanied the Notice. A letter (Exhibit 2) emailed by you January 8, 2013 repeated the falsehood back to Mr. Rowland: While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition.... On December 10, 2012 I served Mr. Rowland per Rule 29, proof of service, the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Rule 29 proof of service, service, December 10, 2012 Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices. My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, Court, December 10, 2012

United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking 1Z64589FP297520287 shows delivery December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 34481. FYI, all UPS ground shipping within Florida is delivered next day, unless shipped on Friday. The UPS proof of delivery for 1Z64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows “DAVIS” at the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature “D. Davis”. A seven (7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents do cuments is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).

Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General

May 16, 2013 Page - 2

The document referred to by Ms. Burge in her deceptive email to Ms. Esposito was a Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of waiver to file a response, delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Unfortunately Ms. Burge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Nauman failed to inform you that my petition was delivered a week earlier, December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM. The Thirteenth Circuit gang further mislead you by providing you my December 10, 2012 cover letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court which they date-stamped December 18, 2012, when this letter was in fact a second courtesy copy of the one received by Rowland December 11, 2012 but does not appear date-stamped as such in the records your office provided me May 9, 2013. Enclosed you will find evidence showing I served by UPS the Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of waiver to Mr. Rowland December 17, 2012 tracking no. 1Z64589FP291778029, which was delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, to the Court’s address, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida. The UPS proof of delivery de livery shows “DAVIS” at the front desk signed for the delivery. A composite of the UPS proof of delivery d elivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 4). The Supreme Court sent me three (s) sets of Rule 12.3 notices, and notices of waiver to file a response, December 14, 2013 after my petition was docketed, with instructions for notifying opposing counsel(s) that the case was docketed. (Exhibit 5). You have my sympathy for any embarrassment caused by the deception of Mr. Rowland and his accomplices, that caused an inaccurate ina ccurate letter to issue from the Office of the Attorney Gen eral falsely implying I did not provide a copy of my petition to Mr. Rowland. Ro wland. (Exhibit 2). Enclosed you will find my records request to Mr. Rowland intended to correct the record. If and when I get an accurate response back, I will provide you the correct date-stamped petition for inclusion in the record showing it was received by Mr. Rowland December 11, 2012. Until then you can find Petition No. 12-7747 online at the link below. Thank you. http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Enclosures cc: Gov. Rick Scott, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290544836 cc: Attorney General Pam Bondi, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294245643 Email to: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee “D”, Thirteenth Circuit BOG, David Rowland, K. Christopher Nauman, Sandra Burge.

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297024724 (Gov. Scott) VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296600737 (AG Bondi) Governor Rick Scott Office of Governor Rick Scott State of Florida, The Capitol 400 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

May 24, 2013

Attorney General Pam Bondi Office of Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al. Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States Dear Governor Scott and Attorney General Bondi: Please find enclosed copies of Petition No. 12-7747. Unfortunately David Rowland, General Counsel for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., mislead Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, when Mr. Rowland misrepresented that I did not provide him a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. Enclosed is a copy of my letter (only) to Mr. Wilson of May 16, 2013. Also enclosed is my public records request (only) to Mr. Rowland, which so far he has not responded to, or acknowledged. In lieu of the date-stamped petition from Mr. Rowland, I have provided separately to each of you a computer copy of Petition No. 12-7747. If Mr. Rowland ever provides the date-stamped petition I requested from him, I will provide you each a copy. Unfortunately the Attorney General’s Synopsis of Major Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, found in the enclosed two-page “AG Case #Tampa Monitor”, is not factually accurate. I attribute the errors to Mr. Rowland’s falsehoods to Ms. Esposito and Mr. Wilson about the petition. I will respond directly to Ms. Esposito about abou t the Synopsis of Major Issues in the AG Case #Tampa Monitor, to accurately inform and correct the record in Petition No. 12-7747. Thank you for considering this matter affecting Florida’s consumers of legal and court services. Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Enclosures Cc: Diana R. Esposito, Chief-Assistant Attorney General, 501 East Kenned y Blvd., Suite 1100 Tampa, FL 33602, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP297792743; and email. Cc email: ABA service list; the Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Cha ir, Thirteenth Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee “D”, Thirteenth Circuit BOG; David Roland, et al.

Page Page 1 of 1

Neil Neil Gill espie From: "Woody Isom" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Jonathan Alpert He and I were shareholders at Fowler White for a period of time prior to my leaving the firm in Jan. 1985.

A. Woodson Isom, Jr. Attorney Merlin Law Group, P.A. 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 229-1000 Fax: (813) 229-3692 Web: www.merli www.merlinlawgroup.com nlawgroup.com

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachment immediately. immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the content to any person. Thank you.

From: From: Neil Gillespie To: To: Woody Isom Sent: Sent: Tue Mar 23 16:15:25 2010 Subject: Subject: Jonathan Alpert Mr. Isom, While researching a disability issue claimed by Jonathan Alpert, I found his affidavit of September 11, 2003 naming you as his former law partner (paragraph "c"). Is that true, where you a law partner with Mr. Alpert? A PDF of the affidavit is attached. If I don’t hear from you I will assume the affidavit is correct and that you were in fact a law partner of Mr. Alpert. Thank you. Neil Gillespie

19

PROFESSIONALISM AND LITIGATION ETHICS Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom* My first assignment as a newly elected circuit judge was to the family law division. Although I considered myself to be an experienced trial attorney, I was somewhat naive about my role as a judge presiding over discovery issues. I assumed that the attorneys assigned to my division would know the rules of procedure and the local rules of courtesy. I also assumed that, being knowledgeable, they would comply in good faith with these provisions. I soon learned that attorneys who were entirely pleasant and sociable creatures when I was counted among their numbers, assumed a much different role when advocating for litigants. For example, take Harvey M. (not his real name). Harvey and I had bantered for years, having many common interests. Perhaps this familiarity gave rise to, while not contempt, a certain lackadaisical attitude about complying with case management and pretrial orders. Harvey challenged me to establish my judicial prerogative and assist him in achieving goals not of his own making. A common assumption regarding family law is that clients receive the quality of legal representation that they deserve. However, my time in the family law division has convinced me that this is not necessarily true. Often times, a case that has wallowed along, seemingly hung up in endless depositions and discovery problems, becomes instantly capable of resolution by bringing all parties together in the context of a pretrial conference. Apparently, some attorneys feel that “cutting up” is a large part of what their clients expect them to do. When this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectively bring cases to resolution, the judge must get involved to assist the process. Recently, the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges con-

* © 1998, Claudia Claudia Rickert Isom. All rights rights reserved. Circuit Judge, Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 1991–Present; B.S.Ed., University of Iowa, 1972; J.D., Florida State University, 1975; Vice-Chair and member, Florida Bar Standing Committee on Professionalism; Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 1979–1982; District VI Legal Counsel, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1984–1986; Shareholder, Isom, Pingel and Isom-Rickert, P.A., 1986–1990.

324

Stetson Law Review

[Vol. XXVIII

ducted an educational seminar designed to guide circuit judges in appropriately responding to unprofessional and unethical behavior.1 Various scenarios were presented on video, after which the judges voted on what they felt would be the appropriate court response. A surprising number of judges voted to impose sanctions or report unethical behavior to the Florida Bar Grievance Section. However, the most common response was to do nothing or to privately counsel the offending attorney. A common theme at meetings of the Florida Bar Standing Committee on Professionalism is that, while attorneys can aspire to greater professionalism, the courts can be a bully pulpit to encourage professional behavior. Perhaps the perceived backlash of cracking down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's circuit judges judges who are elected elected officials. However, that perception perception shapes the judicial response, even when responding theoretically at a seminar. The Joint Committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar and the Conferences of Circuit and County Court Judges' 1998 Handbook on Discovery Practice admonishes trial judges to fully appreciate their broad powers to end discovery abuses and the 1998 Handbook reassuringly states that the appellate courts will sustain the trial court's authority if it is exercised in a procedurally correct manner. 2 Once again, this rallying cry ignores the reality of our situation. As a new judge, the lessons urged by bar leadership leadership have been a matter of trial and error (pun intended). Harvey quickly established his reputation, not as a fellow member of my legal community, but as a problematic litigator whose behavior had to be controlled and modified by court order for the legal process to smoothly progress. For example, hearing time was made available to address discovery issues, very specific orders were entered regarding who was to do what, when, and how, verbal commitments were elicited on the record about document production and interrogatory responses, in an attempt to avoid additional hearings. Cases involving Harvey were, by necessity, intensely case managed.

1. See A NNUAL NNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES : PROFESSIONALISM PROBLEM SOLVING (1998). 2. See JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE TRIAL L AWYERS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA B AR AND CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGES 1998 H ANDBOOK 8–9 (1998).

1998]

Litigation Ethics

325

Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive case management. Attorneys may perceive that the court is trying to prevent them from earning additional attorney fees by streamlining the process. However, clients rarely complain once they realize that the underlying purpose is to bring the case to timely resolution. In Harvey's case, extreme tools — reporting Harvey to the Florida Bar, striking responses, striking witnesses, imposing financial sanctions, and conducting contempt hearings — were never implicated. What did happen was that Harvey trained me to be a better judge by showing me how, in a nonconfrontational manner, I could effectively case manage Harvey and similar counsel without having to take off the gloves. Fortunately, not every litigator requires the case management skills of a Harvey situation. Most attorneys are well-intentioned, have a legitimate interest in pursuing discovery efficiently, and do not seek to unnecessarily delay the resolution of a case. What a relief it is to have a case with opposing counsel who are both of this school of thought. New attorneys, or attorneys who are appearing in front of a judge for the first time, must remember that their reputation is primarily built on the judge's personal experiences with them. No bench book exists with a list of which attorneys are trustworthy professionals and which are not. Instead, the individual judge keeps a mental catalog of experiences. For example, does this attorney routinely generate complaints from opposing counsel in other cases about not clearing depositions with their office? Is this attorney often the subject of motions to compel? Can this attorney be trusted when he tells you that the responses to interrogatories are “in the mail”? Once a negative reputation has been established with the court, an attorney's job will be much more challenging in establishing credibility with the court. And certainly, with so many issues up to the court's discretion, an attorney's reputation as trustworthy and ethical is of utmost importance. And, what about Harvey? Do his clients suffer? Of course they do. But, with effective case management and an experienced judiciary, the damage and delay caused by the Harveys of this world can be minimized while still allowing clients the freedom to choose their own counsel.

20

14

1 2

DEPUTY DEVALL:

As long as you have their

addresses and names, that shouldn't be an issue.

3

MR. GILLESPIE:

Well, they're Judges, so I'm

4

sure you have the names.

5

DEPUTY DEVALL:

Well, then you need to

6

check -- well, you need to be careful and check --

7

make sure you check Federal local rules, although

8

these aren't subpoenas that you're getting, so that

9

may not be -- I would probably speak to an attorney

10

then, because I can't speak to the legal aspect of

11

it.

12

summons issued by the Clerks court for Judges.

13

You might have issues getting summons --

MR. GILLESPIE:

Uh-huh.

They're Judges and

14

other officials, like an ADA Coordinator and a

15

General Counsel --

16

DEPUTY DEVALL:

Okay.

17

MR. GILLESPIE:

-- down in the Thirteenth

18 19

Circuit. DEPUTY DEVALL:

Again, for stuff like that you

20

will probably need to speak to an attorney to see

21

how that works.

22 23 24 25

MR. GILLESPIE: attorneys.

Okay.

Yeah, I have spoken to

That is not the answer.

DEPUTY DEVALL:

Well, sir, that is the only

answer that I can give you.

As far as just

Mi Michael J. Borseth

Court Reporter/Legal Transcription (813) 598-2703

21

Page Page 1 of 4

Neil Neil Gill espie From: To: Sent: Subject:

"Pedro Bajo" "Neil Gillespie" Thursday, July 01, 2010 8:08 PM RE: see attached letter to Rick Folio

Dear Mr. Gillespie I recall the question and the answer, but I do not recall who asked the question or which court was referred to by Ms. Hooper. I am sorry that I cannot be more help in that regard. Pedro

Pedro F. Bajo, Jr., Esq. Bajo Cuva, P.A. 100 N. Tampa Street Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 813-443-2199 (telephone) 813-443-2193 (fax) 813-785-6653 (cell) [email protected] From: Neil From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 1:00 PM To: Pedro To: Pedro Bajo Subject: Re: Subject: Re: see attached letter to Rick Figlio

Dear Mr. Bajo, Thanks, appreciate your response. I have another question about the interviews on June 15, one committee member asked applicant Carolle Hooper if she had seen any behavior from a judge in court that was unprofessional. The applicant responded that one judge said to a woman who was obviously pregnant and about to give birth, words to the effect "would you like this garbage can moved closer to you in case you have the baby?" The judge was referring to a trash can in the courtroom. I plan to include this in my comments to Gov. Crist (without identifying Ms. Hooper) and want

22 9/16/2010

Page Page 2 of 4

to know if you recall which committee member asked the question (great que stion) and if you recall in what kind of court this allegedly occurred, i.e. criminal, family, etc. or any o f the circumstances about the matter or statement? Thank you. Sincerely, Neil Gillespie ----- Original Message ----From: Pedro Bajo To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Wednesday, Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:19 PM Subject: RE: Subject: RE: see attached letter to Rick Fi glio

Mr. Gillespie You are correct that the three listed members were not able to attend. Pedro

Pedro F. Bajo, Jr., Esq. Bajo Cuva, P.A. 100 N. Tampa Street Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 813-443-2199 (telephone) 813-443-2193 (fax) 813-785-6653 (cell) [email protected] From: Neil From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:30 PM To: Pedro To: Pedro Bajo Subject: Re: Subject: Re: see attached letter to Rick Figlio

Dear Mr. Bajo, Thank you for the information about the amended press release. Going over my notes from the interviews of June 15, 2010, I show three members missing, Mr. Barker, Mr. Gerecke and Ms. Wilcox, is that right? As noted in my letter to Rick Figlio today, I plan to submit a letter in opposition to Mr. Rodems for judge based on the information learned by my attendance at the interviews. I want the

9/16/2010

Case 1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ Document 19 Filed 10/30/12 Page 1 of 3

23



Case 1:12-cv-00190-SPM-GRJ Document 19-1 Filed 10/30/12 Page 1 of 1



24

Thank You for Moral Courage Justice System

Recommend Documents