Appointment of Counsel UPL Complaint 20133090(5)

7/28/2019 Appointment of Counsel UPL Complaint 20133090(5)

1/16

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP298344878 June 14, 2013

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar CounselThe Florida Bar UPL Department, OrlandoThe Gateway Center1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625

Orlando, Florida 32801-1050

RE: Case No. 20133090(5), UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie

Dear Mr. Coaxum:

This is a motion or request for the following in your UPL investigation of me:

1. Appointment of counsel

2. Exclusion of evidence

3. Change to a venue outside Florida

4. Strike the sham Order of Judge Martha Cook (Submitted by Mr. Rodems)

5. Disqualification of Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, from this matter for cause

1. Appointment of counsel

I request appointment of counsel under the laws and Constitution of Florida, and the laws andConstitution of the United States, including the Sixth Amendment, and the holding of Gideon v.Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and any other case requiring legal counsel in this matter.

Engaging in the unlicensed practice of law in Florida is a third degree felony, punishable by five(5) years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.00. A conviction of UPL may result in criminalpenalties against me under F.S. 454.23, including fines, incarceration and loss of liberty.

F.S. 454.23 Penalties. - Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice lawin this state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out to the public asqualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes oruses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified, orrecognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the thirddegree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

I am indigent and cannot afford to hire counsel to advise or represent me. Previously I wasdetermined indigent or insolvent, and granted leave to proceedin forma pauperis in the casesshown below, with evidence thereof attached, Exhibits 1-6.

Florida Supreme Court, No. SC11-858, No. SC11-1622.Florida Second District Court of Appeal, 2D10-5197, 2D10-5529, and 2D11-2127.Hillsborough Co., Florida, 05-CA-7205, F.S. 27.52 appointed public defender.


2/16

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel June 14, 2013The Florida Bar UPL Department, Orlando Page - 2

2. Exclusion of evidence

You failed to inform me that this is a criminal matter. Case No. 20133090(5), while initiallypresented as Bar regulatory action, is essentially similar to F.S. 454.23. Tellingly you failed toinform me in connection with your investigation of my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

I move to exclude any evidence previously given until counsel is appointed to represent me.

3. Change of venue

In the interest of justice I request a change to a venue outside the state of Florida. I do notbelieve The Florida Bar will fairly adjudicate this matter because of prejudice or bias against me.

I have filed meritorious Bar complaints with The Florida Bar against lawyers guilty of multiplebreaches of The Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, whichcomplaints The Bar has failed to properly adjudicate. The two most recent were improperly

dismissed without probable cause:

Ryan Christopher Rodems File No. 2013-10,271 (13E)Eugene P. Castagliuolo, File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)

The complaints were found meritorious by intake Bar Counsel Theodore Littlewood, whodetermined under Rule 3-7.3(a) that in each case the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitutea violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar warranting the imposition of discipline.

Mr. Littlewood opened a disciplinary file in each case, and pursuant to Rule 3-7.3(b), hisinvestigation concluded each complaint warranted further consideration. Mr. Littlewood sent

each complaint to the Bars Tampa Branch Office, which corruptly dismissed each case.

Each case was dismissed without probable cause by Bar Counsel Leonard Clark, with theconsent and advice of Ms. Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel, Michael Stofer, Chairof the Sixth Judicial Circuit, and Sandra Fascell Diamond, Designated Reviewer.

The Rule 3-7.3(d) determination in each case of no probable cause by Bar Counsel andCommittee Chair was a sham because the determination did not address a bona fide issuecomplained about. Email between Mr. Clark and the parties show the determination in each casewas a foregone conclusion to dismiss without probable cause.

4. Strike sham Order of Judge Martha Cook (submitted by Mr. Rodems)

Enclosed you will find my affidavit made to impeach the Order of Judge Cook submitted by Mr.Rodems. The Order is a sham on its face and was entered by Judge Cook with a corrupt motive,to stop legitimate inquiry showing her personal and business financial affairs violated the FloridaCode of Judicial Conduct. Judge Cook recused herself in this case November 18, 2010, threedays after she entered the Order. Judge Cooks recusal shows my motion to disqualify her was

legally justified, and that Cook was unfit to serve as a judge in Florida.


3/16


5. Disqualification of Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar Counsel, from this matter for cause

Unfortunately, your response to my letter of May 29, 2013 would cause a reasonable person toconclude that you are not conducting this UPL investigation fairly, and that you are biased

against me. You may also be engaged in prosecutorial overreach and/or misconduct.

You responded by email Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:19 PM as follows: (Copy enclosed)

Mr. Gillespie:

It appears that you are requesting an advisory opinion in that you are asking for adetermination. The branch offices are not permitted to render advisory opinions, suchmatters are handled through headquarters in Tallahassee. I can grant you a 30 dayextension until July 3, 2013 for either you or your counsel to provide a written response.

The complaint in question consisted of the signed form from Mr. Rodems and JudgeMartha J. Cook's two page order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se in casenumber 05-CA-7205.

I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconductby Judge Cook as such matters are handled by the Florida Judicial QualificationsCommission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com

Thank you,Ghunise L Coaxum

Henceforth, please respond to me through the U.S. mail. I will not accept email from you.

You are mistaken that I requested an advisory opinion. I did not request an advisory opinion.Instead, I asked for compliance with Rule 105.1(b):

Rule 105.1(b) Review by Bar Counsel. Bar counsel shall review the complaint anddetermine whether the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of theprohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. (relevant portion)

Your absence of a reply responsive to my question and required by Rule 10-5.1(b) shows thisinquiry is not legitimate, but vexatious. It appears you are facilitating Mr. Rodems use TheFlorida Bar for the untoward purpose of retribution against me. There is no evidence youcomplied with Rule 105.1(b). Mr. Rodems UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, ifproven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you should not pursue the complaint.

Your referral to the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) for Martha Cooks sham orderentered November 15, 2010 is misplaced. Judge Cook committed a crime, not misconduct, whichcriminal activity is a denial of judicial under the color of law. See my enclosed affidavit.


4/16


Unfortunately Mr. Coaxum, you did not respond to my UPL complaint against Mr. Rodems, set

forth in part below.

Mr. Coaxum, I believe this letter gives you sufficient information under Rule 105.1(b)to determine that Mr. Rodems alleged UPL, conduct, if proven, would constitute a

violation of the prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. TheOrlando UPL office has jurisdiction because Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL in the OcalaDivision of the U.S. District Court. Also, I live in Ocala and am a survivor of Mr.Rodems UPL. I am also a member of the public, and protection of the public is theprimary goal in determining whether a particular act constitutes the (unlicensed) practiceof law. I was harmed by Mr. Rodems UPL.

The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular actconstitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)

Your failure Mr. Coaxum to respond to my UPL complaint against Mr. Rodems is remarkable.

You have apparently dispensed with any pretext that this is legitimate investigation. Instead, youare improperly protecting Mr. Rodems unlicensed practice of law, his representation of the stateof Florida in a federal court action, case no. 5:10-cv-503, my federal ADA disability and section1983 civil rights lawsuit against the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, state judicial officers,and state employees.

Mr. Rodems engaged in the unlicensed practice of law as defined by Rule 105.1(b):

RULE 10-2.1 GENERALLY

Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein

set forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicate a different meaning:

(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practiceof law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.

http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/6F7CBB2BCCBD2AC285257A2C00687BA2

Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the state of Florida and negotiate a settlementagreement and assignment of my federal claims to himself and his law partners while I wasunlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth Judicial CircuitFlorida, in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the FloridaAttorney General can represent the State of Florida, which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaClaudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)James M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)Martha J. Cook, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida


5/16


State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority toappoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:

Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court

action. A circuit court judge was without the authority to appoint an acting state attorneyto represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).

Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:

16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil orcriminal or in equity, in which the state may be a party, or in anywise interested, in theSupreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.

The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.

(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the officeof the attorney general the position of statewide prosecutor. The statewide prosecutorshall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations ofcriminal laws occurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of arelated transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or has affected two or morejudicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointedby the attorney general from not less than three persons nominated by the judicialnominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.

Mr. Coaxum, acting under color of law to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive me of rightsprotected by the Constitution or U.S. law is a federal crime.

Please remove yourself immediately from this matter.

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie

8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481Enclosures

Cc: Gov. Rick Scott, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295160885Attorney General Pam Bondi, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297592898Chief-Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP292600931

Email Cc: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar servicelist; Mr. Anderson, Chair, 13th Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee D


6/16

Neil Gillespie

From: "Ghunise Coaxum" To: "Neil Gillespie" Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:19 PMSubject: Re: UPL Investigation of Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)

Page 1 of 5

6/2/2013

Mr. Gillespie:

It appears that you are requesting an advisory opinion in that you are asking for a "determination." The branch offices are not permitted to

render advisory opinions, such matters are handled through headquarters in Tallahassee. I can grant you a 30 day extension until July 3,

2013 for either you or your counsel to provide a written response.

The complaint in question consisted of the signed form from Mr. Rodems and Judge Martha J. Cook's two page order Prohibiting Plaintiff

From Appearing Pro Se in case number 05-CA-7205.

I do not have the authority to address any issues of what you perceive to be misconduct by Judge Cook as such matters are handled by the

Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. You may access information at www.floridajqc.com

Thank you,

Ghunise L Coaxum

Bar Counsel

The Florida Bar

Unlicensed Practice of Law Department

The Gateway Center

1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625

Orlando, Florida 32801-5200

(407) 425-0473

(407) 841-5403 (fax)

From: "Neil Gillespie" To: "Ghunise Coaxum" , "Neil Gillespie" Cc: "Gov. Rick Scott" , "AG Pam Bondi" , "Diana R Esposito" , "Laurel G

Bellows" , "James R. Silkenat" , "Ellyn Rosen" , "Myles Lynk" , "Joseph

Bluemel" , "Nancy Cohen" , "Dolores Dorsainvil" , "Linda Gosnell" , "James Hill"

, "James A Kawachika" , "Amy Lin Meyerson" , "Cleaveland Miller" , "William W Wilhelm"

, "Theodore P Littlewood" , "Susan Varner Bloemendaal" , "Paul F Hill" , "Leonard E Clark"

, "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" , "John Thomas Berry" , "John F Harkness" , "Jeffrey Carter

Andersen" , "James N Watson" , "Gwynne Alice Young" , "Eugene Keith Pettis" ,

"Annemarie Craft" , "Mary Ellen Bateman" , "Gregory Harrison Fisher" , "Belinda Barndollar Lazzara" , "Maribeth L. Wetzel" , "Michael G Stofer" , "Sandra Fascell Diamond" Date: 05/29/2013 03:04 PMSubject: UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297064771

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Bar CounselThe Florida Bar UPL Department, OrlandoThe Gateway Center1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625Orlando, Florida 32801-1050

RE: UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)Complaint Against Ryan Christopher Rodems for Unlicensed Practice of Law

Dear Mr. Coaxum:

Your letter to me dated May 14, 2013, copy enclosed, requested: (Exhibit 1)

Please give us your written position concerning the attached correspondence from Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq.. I would appreciatereceiving your written response no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. Responses should not exceed twenty-five (25)

pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. A reply from you will assist my office in


7/16

determining whether this is a matter which should be referred to an unlicensed practice of law committee. Any response by you will becomea part of the UPL record in this matter and become accessible to the public upon closure of the case.

On information and belief, the twenty (20) day time to respond ends Monday June 3, 2013.

My "written position" herewith is not a response to the allegations of Ryan Christopher Rodems in the "attached correspondence" which youfailed to identify as his UPL complaint against me. Instead, this is a request for a determination under Rule 105.1(b) whether the allegedconduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition against engaging in UPL.

In the alternative I request a 30 day extension of time to respond. Either way, I am making this UPL complaint part of the appellate review inthe U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and will seek appointment of counsel on my pro se appeal of the foreclosure of my home.

Rule 105.1(b) states:

(b) Review by Bar Counsel. Bar counsel shall review the complaint and determine whether the alleged conduct, if proven, would constitute aviolation of the prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. Bar counsel may conduct a preliminary, informal investigationto aid in this determination and, if necessary, may employ a Florida bar staff investigator to aid in the preliminary investigation. If barcounsel determines that the facts, if proven, would not constitute a violation, bar counsel may decline to pursue the complaint. A decision by

bar counsel not to pursue a complaint shall not preclude further action or review under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Thecomplainant shall be notified of a decision not to pursue a complaint and shall be given the reasons therefor.

In my view, Mr. Rodems UPL complaint does not allege conduct that, if proven, would constitute a violation of UPL, therefore you shouldnot pursue the complaint.

Quite frankly this UPL complainant is vexatious, and a continuation by Mr. Rodems of a long-standing personal vendetta against me forhaving the temerity to hold him and his crooked law partners accountable for defrauding me of $7,143 in prior representation.

Mr. Rodems UPL complaint makes false and/or misleading accusations, under penalty of perjury, but he has not provided any dates, norattached any relevant documents supporting his accusations to inform my response. The UPL form states dates and documents are required:

DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT, PROVIDE DATES AND FACTS OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AND ATTACH A COPY OFRELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

The only document I found in the envelope from you is not relevant, and is from a closed case in another matter, and not part of theallegations in Mr. Rodems complaint. Do I have all the documents in this complaint? If not, please provide me the missing documentsimmediately.

The case law I reviewed does not show grounds for this UPL complaint either. I am not licensed to practice law, and never claimed that I wasso licensed. The construction and application of UPL is to protect the public from laypeople who claim to be licensed lawyers:

While the Supreme Court is expressly charged under the Florida Constitution with regulating and disciplining licensed members of theFlorida Bar, it also has a duty to protect the public from laypeople who claim that they are licensed to practice law, but are not. The FloridaBar v. Abreu, 833 So.2d 752 (2002).

Mr. Rodems has not alleged that I harmed the public, or that I claimed to be a licensed lawyer.

The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v.Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)

I represented myself, my interest in an estate and trust, pro se. I was not a court-appointed personal representative of an estate. In the trustmatter, my co-trustee is represented by counsel.

Florida Constitution, Article I:

Section 21. Access to courts. - The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without

sale, denial or delay.

Once a person has made a decision to represent himself, the Supreme Court should not enforce any unnecessary regulation which might tendto hinder the exercise of such right. Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978).

The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice is to protect the publicfrom being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little, if any,control. Morrison v. West App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010), rehearing denied. Attorney And Client App. 4 Dist., 30 So.3d 561 (2010),rehearing denied.

28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.

In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,

Page 2 of 5

6/2/2013


8/16

respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.

Martha Jean Cook - judge of questionable ethics

As to the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se, the order was entered by Martha Cook ex parte, without hearing, and prior tothe expiration of time to respond. When Martha Cook entered the order November 15, 2010, she was a Defendant in my federal lawsuitagainst her and others of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and therefore had a duty to recuse. But Martha Cook does not recuse when required,and enjoys making rulings favorable to her interests.

Unfortunately Martha Cook is a judge of questionable ethics, according to a story on the Florida Bar News Summary July 22, 2011,"CRITICS: JUDGE WITH INTEREST IN BANK SHOULDN'T HEAR FORECLOSURES-- The Tampa Tribune". See Exhibit 2, and thelink.

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/PINEwssummary.nsf/41bc6044e7aa779e8525688d0073e8f8/b820bfd498a31e31852578d50050dfc9

Martha Cooks sham order entered November 15, 2010 is an honest services fraud in exchange for Mr. Rodems campaign donation, and forhis UPL representation of her and the state of Florida in a federal court action June 21, 2011.

Rule 10 - 2.1. Generally

Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein set forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicatea different meaning:

(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law.The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and caselaw of the state of Florida.

Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of Law June 21, 2011

Improper Representation of the State of Florida in Federal Litigation

Mr. Rodems submitted Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32) June 21, 2011 in my federalADA and civil rights case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. Mr. Rodems motion, which appears at Exhibit 3, states:

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J.Cook. See Exhibit "1".

Assignees hereby move the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Fortunately U.S. District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges did not grant Mr. Rodems motion, and now I know why: Only the Florida AttorneyGeneral may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. My attorney at the time, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, failed to inform me, and

it appears certain that he and Mr. Rodems were engaged in RICO racketeering activity to deprive me of my rights guaranteed under theConstitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.

As set forth in my SCOTUS petition no. 12-7747, by September 2010 I needed the assistance and protection of an Article III federal judge, inHillsborough case 05-CA-7205, due to Mr. Rodems extreme misconduct representing his firm against me, a former client on the same orsubstantially related matter in violation of Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, and similar cases.

On the morning of September 28, 2010 I filed by hand delivery to the U.S. District Clerk in Ocala, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,Florida, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Fla., Ocala Div., Case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH. My Complaint (Doc.1) in 5:10-cv-00503 pled violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and depravation of rights under section 1983 in the Florida lawsuit,Hillsborough case no 05-CA-7205 commenced five years earlier to recover the money stolen from me by Rodems his partners in the Amscotlawsuit.

Unfortunately things got worse in the Florida case. Hours after I filed my federal civil rights lawsuit, Martha Cook held me in civil contempt,

with writ of bodily attachment, during an ex parte hearing, where she made a false record that I "elected to leave". Mr. Rodems aided andabetted that fraud. Fortunately the bailiff, Deputy C.E. Brown, told his commander that Judge Cook ordered me to leave after I provided her acopy of the Complaint in 5:10-cv-503.

Mr. Rodems got a warrant to arrest me on the pretext of a court-ordered deposition after the case was closed and on appeal in 2D10-5197. In2008 Judge James Barton awarded $11,550 to Rodems in attorney-fee sanctions, blaming me for Rodems earlier misconduct and disruptionof the tribunal. Later I was incompetently represented by Robert W. Bauer, at a cost of $31,863. Mr. Bauer was a referral from the FloridaBars Lawyer Referral Service. Yesterday I submitted a rebuttal to the response of Mr. Bauer in Florida Bar complaint no. 2013-00,540 (8B)It appears Mr. Bauer and Rodems were engaged in racketeering and obstruction to deprive me of rights guaranteed under the Constitutionand laws of the United States, and the State of Florida.

The public defender was appointed to represent me June 1, 2011 at a civil contempt hearing, but the judge relieved the defender at thehearing and immediately entered an order to arrest me. For twenty-one days law enforcement sought to arrest me while I was at home with

Page 3 of 5

6/2/2013


9/16

the blinds closed working on appeal 2D10-5179. Day after day Marion County Sheriff Deputies came pounding on my door looking for me.On June 3, 2011 I hired attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo off Craigslist to prepare for the deposition, but that was a disaster. I voluntarilyappeared June 21, 2011 for the deposition but that was a trap to force a "coercive custody" settlement, which I promptly rescinded.Castagliuolo also failed to disclose that his daughter was a public defender.

Mr. Rodems had no authority to represent the State of Florida and negotiate a settlement agreement and assignment of my federal claims tohimself and his law partners while I was unlawfully detained and in custody of one of the Defendants, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida,in depravation of the very rights I sought to enforce in federal court. Only the Florida Attorney General can represent the State of Florida,which in 5:10-cv-503 included Defendants:

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaClaudia Rickert Isom, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 200042)James M. Barton, II, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 189239)Martha J. Cook, Hillsborough Florida Judge (Fla. Bar ID 242640)David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Fla. Bar ID 861987)Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida

State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein holds that a circuit court judge does not have authority to appoint counsel to represent the State of Florida:

Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court action. A circuit court judge was without theauthority to appoint an acting state attorney to represent the state in an action pending before a federal court. State ex rel. Shevin v.Weinstein, 353 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dis1. 1978).

Section 16.01 Florida Statutes states:

16.01 Residence, office, and duties of Attorney General. The Attorney General:

(4) Shall appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or criminal or in equity, in which the state may be aparty, or in anywise interested, in the Supreme Court and district courts of appeal of this state.

The Florida Constitution: Article IV, SECTION 4. Cabinet.

(b) The attorney general shall be the chief state legal officer. There is created in the office of the attorney general the position of statewideprosecutor. The statewide prosecutor shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the state attorneys to prosecute violations of criminal lawsoccurring or having occurred, in two or more judicial circuits as part of a related transaction, or when any such offense is affecting or hasaffected two or more judicial circuits as provided by general law. The statewide prosecutor shall be appointed by the attorney general fromnot less than three persons nominated by the judicial nominating commission for the supreme court, or as otherwise provided by general law.

Unfortunately Mr. Rodems mislead in violation of Rule 11, F.R.C.P., the following three federal judicial officers in the performance of theirduty in case 5:10-cv-503-(DAB)-TBS-WTH.

United States District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Senior Status, Article III federal judge, Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 September 28, 2010 -present. (Fla. Bar ID 36398)

United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (Fla. Bar ID 477893)Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 Sepember-28-2010 to July-29-2011

United States Magistrate Thomas B. Smith (Fla. Bar ID 256269)Presided in case 5:10-cv-503 July-29-2011 to February-27-2012

Mr. Rodems again violated his duty under Rule 11 on July 14, 2011 when submitted (Doc. 40) Response to "Plaintiff Neil J. GillespiesMotion To Strike Or Set Aside Mr. Rodems Notice of Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice" [DKT33], which appears as Exhibit 4, w/o attachment. Mr. Rodems wrote in part:

Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion, and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract

the settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.

Unfortunately it is Mr. Rodems who lacked standing because he is not the Attorney General of Florida and therefore he cannot represent theState of Florida in federal litigation. Moreover, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Smith indicated in his Order (Doc. 51) that the proper methodof challenging evidence is by filing a notice of objection. Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F.Supp. 1574, 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1988). TheOrder appears at Exhibit 5. Therefore I filed a Notice of Objection (Doc. 63) which appears at Exhibit 6.

The Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges entered Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) and did not grant Rodems

Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 32). Exh 7.

Florida Bar Complaint January 4, 2013 - Mr. Rodems Unlicensed Practice of Law

Page 4 of 5

6/2/2013


10/16

Complaint closed, Response by Leonard Clark May 16, 2013

Due to mental impairment and disability, it took me a long time, about 1 year, 5 months, and 14 days, to figure out why Judge Hodges didnot grant Rodems UPL motions. Once I understood that Rodems engaged in UPL, I made a Bar complaint January 4, 2013 to ACAP inTallahassee, but I did not hear back until Mr. Clark wrote me May 16, 2013 with the excuse "Your secondary complaint was incorporatedinto your original complaint against Mr. Rodems." and dismissed.

Today I reached the understanding that since Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL, I failed to make the necessary or proper UPL complaint, andsubmit it to the UPL office. Ironically this knowledge came thanks to Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me.

Enclosed is my letter to Florida Bar President Young of May 22, 2013 requesting a Rule 3-3.4(b) Special Grievance Committees, whichunfortunately Kenneth Marvin subsequently denied.

Mr. Coaxum, I believe this letter gives you sufficient information under Rule 105.1(b) to determine that Mr. Rodems alleged UPL,conduct, if proven, would constitute a violation of the prohibition against engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. The Orlando UPL officehas jurisdiction because Mr. Rodems engaged in UPL in the Ocala Division of the U.S. District Court. Also, I live in Ocala and am a survivorof Mr. Rodems UPL. I am also a member of the public, and protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particularact constitutes the (unlicensed) practice of law. I was harmed by Mr. Rodems UPL.

The protection of the public is the primary goal in determining whether a particular act constitutes the practice of law. Florida Bar v.Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (1978)

Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response, hopefully a dismissal of UPL against me, and the criminal prosecution of UPL againstMr. Rodems with a term of imprisonment.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481

NOTE: The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen was not a defendant in any lawsuit by me. It wrongly states in the Attorney Generals Synopsis ofMajor Issues in Petition No. 12-7747, in the 2 pageAG Case #Tampa Monitorthat "[Gillespie] now brings this claim against his formerattorney and law firm and all the judges who had any involvement in his 13th Judicial Circuit Case."

The Hon. Richard A. Nielsen rejected Mr. Rodems misleading legal argument, a phony "claim" of $50,000 in "court-awarded fees andcosts" in his Order On Defendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, entered January 13, 2006 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.

Judge Nielsen did his best, until Rodems strategically disrupted the tribunal to gain advantage. I request the Attorney General correct itsSynopsis of Major Issues to show this important fact, an error I blame on David Rowlands failure to provide Petition No. 12-7747 to theAGs office.

Cc: Gov. Rick Scott, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP298992794Attorney General Pam Bondi, VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295720789Chief-Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP297480802

Email Cc: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list;Mr. Anderson, Chair, 13th Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D". [attachment "Ltr Ghunise Coaxum, Bar Counsel, UPL-Gillespie.pdf" deleted by Ghunise Coaxum/The Florida Bar]

Page 5 of 5

6/2/2013


11/16

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDASECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327

November 19, 2010CASE NO.: 2D10-5529L.T. No. : 05-CA-007205

Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,P. A., Et AI

Appellant I Petitioner(s), Appellee I Respondent(s).

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:The affidavit of insolvency and accompanying motion filed in this original

proceeding persuade this court that petitioner is insolvent, and petitioner is accordinglydeclared insolvent within the meaning of chapter 57, Florida Statutes (2009), forpurposes of the filing fee associated with this petition. This determination is subject torebuttal by respondent within twenty days.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order.

Served:Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Honorable Martha J. Cook, Circuit JudgePat Frank, Clerkvg

1


12/16

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDASECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327

November 22, 2010CASE NO.: 2D10-5197L.T. No. : 05-CA-7205

Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,P. A. & William J. Cook

Appellant / Petitioner(s), Appellee / Respondent(s).

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:Based upon this court's determination in 2010-5529, the filing fee is not

required in this appeal.I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order.

Served:Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Pat Frank, Clerkpm

James BirkholdClerk

2


13/16

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSECOND DISTRICT

1005 E. MEMORIAL BOULEVARDLAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801-0327(863)-499-2290

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASEDATE: May 3, 2011STYLE: NEIL 1. GILLESPIE V. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK,

P A & WILLIAM 1. COOK

2DCA#: 2Dll-2127The Second District Court ofAppeal has received thePetition reflectinga filing date of5/2/11The county of origin isHillsborough.The lower tribunal case number provided is05-CA-00n05The filing fee is Waived.Case Type: Prohibition CivilThe Second District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondencefiled in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THEATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER.Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment.

cc: Neil J. Gillespie Ryan Christopher Pat Frank, ClerkRodems, Esq.

3


14/16

Case Number: SC11-858 - Closed

NEIL J . GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., ET AL.

Lower Tribunal Case(s): 05-CA-007205

Florida Supreme Court Case Docket

05/21/2011 02:38

DateDocketed Descripti on Filed By Notes

05/03/2011 PETITION-HABEASCORPUS

PS Neil J. Gillespie BY: PS Neil J.Gillespie

W/ATTACHMENTS (FILED AS"EMERGANCY PETITION FOR WRITOF HABEAS CORPUS & EMERGENCYPETITION FOR WRIT OFPROHIBITION") (05/05/11: ACK OF

NEW CASE LTR CORRECTED TOREFLECT CORRECT CASE STYLE)

05/04/2011 No Fee Required

05/18/2011 DISP-HABEASCORPUS DY

The petition for writ of habeas corpus ishereby denied.

Page 1 of 1Florida Supreme Court Case Docket

5/21/2011http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket

4


15/16

-

__ _

__ ~ c , , _ '....., . ! 1 1 1 1 _ " I I I q ~ " " . _- -. : ; ; ; ; ; t : r : ; ~ ; ._ . " . , . _ " . ; : " , _ ~ - - - - - - - - , - . ~ - - - - - - - -- = , , = ; ; r - - ~ - ; - .. - : ,.,IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

_. . . _ .CASE NO.=-ST-:-ATE--:--Of=F::-LORID---=-A::-:--Yl......- ' - ' = - ' - - 1 -................:.; { \ ~ ' , 'E:

D_lldallllllnorChild/ APPLICATION FOR CRIMiNAL INDIGENT STATUS'_lY"':'_1A .UM SEEKING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDEROR_I HAVE APRIVATE ATIORNEY OR AM SELF-REPRESENTED AND SEEK DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCE STATUS FOR COSTSNotice to Applicant: The provision of a public defender/court appointed lawyer and costs/due process services are not free. Ajudgment and lien may be imposed against all real orpersonal property you own to pay for legal and other services provided on your behalf or on behalf of the person for whom you are making this application. There is a$50.00 fee tor eachapplication filed. If the application fee is not paid to the Cieri( of the Court within 7days, it will be added to any costs that may be assessed against you at the conclusion of this case. Ifyou are aparent/guardian making this affidavit on behalfof a minor or tax-dependent adult, the information contained in this application must indude your income and assets.1. Ihive.l!)..JHpendenm. (Do not incl children ';;'t IMng at home and do not include a working spouse oryourself.)2. Ihive I take home Income of $ paid ( ) weekly ( ) ~ w e e k l y ( ) semi-monthly ( ) monthly ( ) yearly(Take home income equals salary, wages, bonu s, commissions. aUowances. overtime, tips and simHar payments. minus deductions required by law and other courl-orde19d

support payments) .k. IIL :3. Ihivec:a : ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ..~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ $ " W O " t h l y ( ~ ~ a r t y : ( C i ~ ; : ~ : ~ : ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ this k i ' 1 : S ' ~ c o m e . otherwise c i ~ o , U ~ t compensation ~ $ Child support or other regular support Jnion F Yes $ 0 from family memberslspouse...... \, Yes $Wor1(ers compensation Yes $ Rental income................................. Yes $Retirement/pensions Yes $ Dividends or inlerest.......................... Yes $Trusts or gifts Yes t: Other kinds of income not on the list...... Yes $

4. I h l v e ~ ~ . : . : ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ : s o ~ t h e P b b o t h e n m e C l N O "No." u s e ~ : . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . : . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ . ) . : : ~ ~ Bank accounI(s) Yes $@StocksIbonds.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yes$,-- - - ' ,"-certificates of deposit or . 'Equity in Real estale (excluding homestead) Yes $,_-;1""""'-__ --1money mari(et accounts Yes $ @> 'EquitymeMS velue minus loans. Also list any ~ 'Equity in MotorVehicleslBoats/ ~ 0 ' in an interest in such properly.Othertangbleproperty ~ ' ~ ~ ~ N O Ustthe adcJress of this properly. , ~ Ustthe yearlmakelmodel and tag#: I Jd? = ~ ~ Address --'-_' ~ ~ " L t . . I ~ sci- City, Stale, =0r-"'" County of Residence :::;5. Ihive a otal amount of Illbillties Ind debts In the lmount of . t ' t ' ~ ~ () (,))6. I receive: (Cirr:le "Yes" or "No' ~

Temporary Assistance tor Needy Famifies-Cash Assistance......................... ~ s Poverty-related veterans' benefits............................................................................................................................................... YesSupplemental security Income (551)............................................................................................................................................... Yes7. I hive been ",leased on ball In lhellllOllnt of $ ~ Cash __ Surety__ PostIId by: Self __ Family __ OtherAperson who knowingly provides false information to the der1( or the court in seeking adelennination of indigent status under s. 27.52, F.S., commits. a misdemeanor of the first degree,punishable as provided in s. ns.082. F.S., or s. n5.083, F.S. I attest that the Information I have provided on this Application Is tru, and accurate to the best of myknowledge. ' . ' -Signed this ;?7 day of J.1, ,2olL.Date of Birth S r/9.. 19S-b Print Full L al NameDriver's license or ID numbeb 'tC;! , . ~ , S{, ? ? 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ t e . ZipPhone number~ CLERK'S DETERMINATION

V - ; ; : : ~ d n the inJ nnation in this App.lieati6ii. I have detennined the applicant to be e n t ( ) Not Indigent" . . _ ~ _ T h e P blic DeJ nder is hereby appointed to the case listed above until relieved by the Court.PAT FRANKCieri< of the Circuit CourtThis fonn was completed with the assistance of__ Cler1


16/16

Case Number: SC11-1622 - Active

NEIL J . GILLESPIE vs. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, ET AL.

Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2D10-5197, 05-CA-7205

Florida Supreme Court Case Docket

08/23/2011 12:56

DateDocketed Descripti on Filed By Notes

08/08/2011 PETITION-MANDAMUS

PS Neil J. Gillespie BY: PS Neil J.Gillespie

FILED AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL &TREATED AS A PETITION FOR WRITOF MANDAMUS

08/22/2011 No Fee - Insolvent INSOLVENT BELOW

08/22/2011 ORDER-PROPERPETITION

Petitioner's Notice of Appeal, filed in thisCourt on August 8, 2011, has been treatedas a petition for writ of mandamus seekingreinstatement of the proceedings in thedistrict court of appeal below. Petitioner isallowed to and including September 12,2011, in which to file a proper petition forwrit of mandamus; that complies withFlorida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100,addressing why the proceedings in thedistrict court of appeal should not have beendismissed. The failure to file a proper

petition with this Court within the timeprovided could result in the imposition ofsanctions, including dismissal of this case.See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Pleaseunderstand that once this case is dismissed,it may not be subject to reinstatement.

Page 1 of 1Florida Supreme Court Case Docket

6

Appointment of Counsel UPL Complaint 20133090(5)

Documents

Transcript of Appointment of Counsel UPL Complaint 20133090(5)