IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 2005 CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., DIVISION: F
a Florida corporation,
WILLIAM J. COOK,
Defendants.
_____________---C
1
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' VERIFIED REQUEST
FOR BAILIFF AND FOR SANCTIONS, AND TO MR. RODEMS' PERJURY, AND
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF PROTECTION
Plaintiff pro se files this response to the false and perjurious statements that Ryan
Christopher Rodems made, under oath, in Defendants' Verified Request for Bailiff and
for Sanctions, submitted to this Court on March 6, 2006.
1. It is an established tenet that a person has the right to represent himself in a court
of law. The courts must be open to all persons to redress any injury, and justice must be
administered without sale, denial, or delay. Plaintiffs pro se appearance is lawful.
2. Ryan Christopher Rodems is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
Florida. In his appearance before this court, Mr. Rodems is an officer of the court, and
bound by the laws and tenets permitting Plaintiff to appear pro se in this lawsuit.

Background Information
3. Ryan Christopher Rodems represents the Defendants in this lawsuit. Mr. Rodems
failed to communicate with Plaintiff as follows:
(a) Mr. Rodems failed to confer with Plaintiff when scheduling the hearing for
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike. Mr. Rodems unilaterally scheduled a hearing
for September 26, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff advised the Court about this, and received
permission to attend the hearing telephonically. Plaintiff must travel from Ocala, FL, a
distance of about 90 miles. Plaintiff is also the primary caregiver for his 75 year-old
ailing mother, and must make arrangements for her care in his absence.
(b) Mr. Rodems failed to return a phone call from September 30, 2005, that
Plaintiff made upon receipt of case law that the Court directed Mr. Rodems provide.
(c) On January 30, 2006, Plaintiff called Mr. Rodems about the case management
conference pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P., Rule 1.200(a). At first Mr. Rodems seemed unaware
of the rule, and had to look it up. Mr. Rodems said the rule is not usually followed, but
he would do so if Plaintiff requested. While discussing discovery, Mr. Rodems said
Plaintiff could copy documents at his law office, but that Plaintiff would probably want to
do this elsewhere because of Defendants hostility toward him.
(d) Whenever Plaintiff calls Mr. Rodems, he is unavailable, and his staff put the
call through to voice mail. Mr. Rodems only returns about half of Plaintiffs phone calls.
March 3, 2006, Plaintiff Scheduled a Hearing
4. On March 3, 2006 Plaintiff telephoned the Court's Judicial Assistant to obtain
hearing dates for Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed on February 4, 2006. A
month had passed without a word from Mr. Rodems. The Court's Judicial Assistant
Page - 2

provided three dates: March 15,2006 at 3:45 p.m., March 28, 2006 at 3:00 p.m., and
April 6, 2006 at 2:45 p.m. The Court's Judicial Assistant said that Plaintiff could appear
telephonically by calling (813) 272-6354. Plaintiff telephoned Mr. Rodems to discuss the
available hearing dates. As usual, Mr. Rodems was unavailable, and Plaintiff left a voice
message that he set the hearing for March 15,2006 at 3:45 p.m., and if that date was not
good, to call Plaintiff to reschedule. Plaintiff said he would wait to schedule a hearing on
Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim, because if Plaintiff prevailed on
his Motion to Disqualify Counsel, then Defendants' new lawyers would be responsible
for that. Plaintiff also asked to discuss Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to
Section 57.1 05( 1), Florida Statutes.
5. Plaintiff wrote Mr. Rodems a letter about the March 15, 2006 hearing, and
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes.
(Exhibit 1). Plaintiff attempted to fax the letter to Mr. Rodems, and each time the fax
transmission was interrupted, presumably by someone in his law office. Ultimately the
letter was not faxed or mailed to Mr. Rodems because of his subsequent telephone call.
Mr. Rodems' Baiting, Taunts, Threats, and Intimidation.
6. Mr. Rodems telephoned Plaintiff at his home on March 3, 2006, and told Plaintiff
he received his voice mail, and that the March 15,2006 hearing conflicted with one of his
trials, and he called the Court's Judicial Assistant and canceled the hearing. Mr. Rodems
then announced that he was taking over the task of scheduling hearings, and would not
permit Plaintiff to schedule his own motions. Mr. Rodems was angry and said he was
scheduling all the motions for the same day because he knew he would prevail on
Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Counsel.
Page - 3
7. The parties agreed to a hearing on April 25, 2006 at 2:15 p.m. Mr. Rodems
insisted on scheduling the following three hearings for that time:
(a) Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes;
(b) Plaintiff s Motion to Disqualify Counsel; and
(c) Plaintiff s Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim.
Mr. Rodems scheduled his motion first, even though it has not yet been filed.
(Exhibit 2). The signature on Defendants' Notice of Hearing and the attached Certificate
of Service do not appear to be Mr. Rodems' actual signature, but that of another person.
8. Mr. Rodems told Plaintiff he cannot appear telephonically for the hearing, and
that if he tried to, Mr. Rodems would object. Mr. Rodems was angry, and referred to a
previous hearing on September 26, 2005. Mr. Rodems said Plaintiff did his legal
research after the hearing, and he would not permit that to happen again.
9. Plaintiff attempted to discuss with Mr. Rodems Defendant's Motion for Sanctions
Pursuant to Section 57.1 05f 1), Florida Statutes. Plaintiff tried to discern if the motion
was filed, or if the document he received on March 2, 2006 was merely the notice of the
motion. Mr. Rodems began to explain, then stopped mid-sentence, and angrily stated that
he is not teaching law to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff should know the law. Each time
Plaintiff began to discuss the motion, Mr. Rodems cut him off with angry statements that
Plaintiff did not know the law, and should not be permitted to represent himself.
10. In reply to Mr. Rodems statements that Plaintiff did not know the law, and should
not be able to represent himself, Plaintiff reminded Mr. Rodems that Plaintiff prevailed
on Defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss. Plaintiff also reminded Mr. Rodems that
Defendants law firm failed to prevail in court against Amscot Corporation. Mr. Rodems
Page - 4
angrily replied with a threat, and told Plaintiff that "you will pay" for writing a letter to
Amscot. When Plaintiff told Mr. Rodems that the letter was not libelous, Mr. Rodems
repeated his threat to Plaintiff stating "you will pay for that".
11. Mr. Rodems continued speaking angrily, and told Plaintiff that "you don't speak
like a lawyer". Mr. Rodems then asked Plaintiff about a vehicle he once owned, a 2001
Chrysler Voyager mini van. Plaintiff bought the vehicle in the summer of2001, and used
the $2,000.00 manufacturer's rebate to pay for dental work. Following the terrorist attack
of September 11, 2001, there was a decline in Plaintiffs catering and banquet work, and
he voluntarily surrendered the vehicle when he could no longer make the payments.
Mr. Rodems learned this information from his prior representation of Plaintiff. Now
Mr. Rodems taunted Plaintiff with the information, a client confidence. Mr. Rodems
asked Plaintiff if the van had been repossessed. Plaintiff told him that the van was not
repossessed, at which point Mr. Rodems shouted "then you will be driving it to the
hearing on April 25th!" Plaintiff explained to Mr. Rodems that he voluntarily
surrendered the vehicle, as stated. Mr. Rodems continued to taunt Plaintiff about the
$2,000.00 rebate, saying that Plaintiff used the money for dental work. Mr. Rodems'
taunts about the van and Plaintiffs dental work was in fact a threat to use a client
confidence against Plaintiff as a form of intimidation to drop this lawsuit.
12. Mr. Rodems' taunts, threats, and intimidation of Plaintiff were a calculated effort
to aggravate and exploit Plaintiffs medical condition. Mr. Rodems is aware, by way of
his prior representation of Plaintiff, that Plaintiff suffers from post traumatic stress
disorder, velopharyngeal incompetence (a speech disorder), and an oral-dental deformity
commonly known as a cleft lip and palate. Mr. Rodems taunted and ridiculed Plaintiff s
Page - 5
speech, saying "you don't speak like a lawyer." Mr. Rodems mocked Plaintiffs oral
dental deformity by inferring that Plaintiff fraudulently used a car rebate to pay for dental
work. Mr. Rodems baited Plaintiff with taunts, threats, and intimidation, knowing that
his behavior would likely trigger a post traumatic stress response in Plaintiff.
13. After making a series of taunts, threats, and intimidation, Mr. Rodems finally
succeeded in triggering a post traumatic stress response from Plaintiff. In reply to
Mr. Rodems' ridicule that Plaintiff did not know the law, and should not be permitted to
represent himself, Plaintiff told Mr. Rodems that he would "slam him" on the law.
Immediately Mr. Rodems demeanor changed from anger, to feigned fear and mockery.
Mr. Rodems asked if Plaintiff meant metaphorically, and I said yes, metaphorically.
Plaintiff apologizes to the Court for his lapse in succumbing to Mr. Rodems' bullying.
Mr. Rodems' Perjury Before This Court
14. The essential elements of perjury are the willful giving of false testimony under
lawful oath on a material matter in ajudicial proceeding. (Diamond v. State, App. 4 Dist.,
270 So.2d 459 (1972). In the instant case, Mr. Rodems filed Defendants' Verified
Request For Bailiff and For Sanctions on March 6,2006. Mr. Rodems swore under oath
that the statements made in this motion are true and accurate and that the quotes
attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are true and accurate.
15. Plaintiff states that Mr. Rodems' verified statements are not true and accurate, and
that the statements attributed to Neil J. Gillespie are not true and accurate. Plaintiff states
the following to impeach the sworn statements made by Mr. Rodems:
(a) In paragraph 1 of his motion, Mr. Rodems stated under oath that"... since I
was not in, he would not wait for me to contact him... " Mr. Rodems statement is false
Page - 6
testimony, because while I set the motion for a hearing, I specifically stated on his voice
nlail that I was waiting to hear from Mr. Rodems if there was a problem with the date.
(b) In paragraph 3 of his motion, Mr. Rodems stated under oath that I told him
"... it was a "no brainer" that the Court would grant his motion to disqualify... "
Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony, because I did not say this, and take nothing for
granted in this lawsuit. I told Mr. Rodems that if the Court ruled in my favor, his new
lawyers would be responsible for any outstanding motions.
(c) Paragraph 4 of Mr. Rodems' sworn testimony is a false characterization of our
conversation. An accurate, truthful description of our telephone call is contained in this
document, paragraphs 4 through 13, and paragraph 15.
(d) In paragraph 5 of his sworn testinl0ny, Mr. Rodems stated the following exact
quote attributed to Plaintiff: "I am going to slam you up against the wall in Judge
Nielsen's chambers." Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony because I did not say
this, and the quote contains proprietary information known to Mr. Rodems but not to
Plaintiff at the time - that the hearing would be conducted in "Judge Nielsen's chambers."
As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff did not know that hearings are conducted in "chambers" and
assumed that the hearing would be held in open court.
(e) In paragraph 5 of his sworn testimony, Mr. Rodems stated: "Quite alarmed, I
paused and said "are you threatening me physically or did you mean that
metaphorically?" Plaintiff said "metaphorically," but his voice was full of anger."
Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony because he was not "quite alarmed" but in fact
was baiting Plaintiff, trying to trigger a post traumatic stress response in Plaintiff, to stage
any incident or excuse with which to complain to the Court. Mr. Rodems himself admits
Page - 7
that he considered the so-called threat a metaphor. Mr. Rodems also admits that Plaintiff
intended the remark metaphorically. Once Mr. Rodems elicited the response he wanted
from Plaintiff, his demeanor changed from anger, to feigned fear and mockery. As a
matter of law, a "threat" made over the telephone from a distance is not credible because
the "threat" cannot be completed in a proximate manner.
(f) In paragraph 6 of Mr. Rodems' sworn testimony, he stated: "I am concerned
that Plaintiff may become violent if additional hearings do not resolve favorably for him,
and I request that the Court have a bailiff available at any future hearil1gs." Mr. Rodems'
statement is false testimony because he knew Plaintiffs statement was a metaphor.
Absent an actual threat, Mr. Rodems has no reason to believe that Plaintiff would assault
him. Mr. Rodems intentionally baited Plaintiff to create or stage this incident for the
purpose of complaining to the Court. As a practical matter, Plaintiff is a gray-hair,
overweight, fifty year-old with health problems. Mr. Rodems is much younger, in his late
30's, stronger and in better condition. Mr. Rodems' concern is just not credible.
(g) In paragraph 6 of Mr. Rodems' sworn testimony, he states: "In over thirteen
years of practicing law, I have had only one other occasion wherein I was threatened in a
manner that made me fear for my physical safety, and that case also involved a pro se
party." Mr. Rodems' statement is evidence of his contempt for pro se litigants, and of his
predisposed prejudice toward Plaintiff.
(h) In paragraph 7 of Mr. Rodems' sworn testimony, he states: "Defendants
request that the Court enter an Order sanctionil1g Plaintiff for the threatening comment, as
detailed above, and Order Plaintiff to refrain from threatening acts of violence."
Page - 8
Mr. Rodems' statement is false testimony because Mr. Rodems admitted that Plaintiffs
statement was not a threat, it was a metaphor. In requesting an Order from this Court to
sanction Plaintiff for a threat of violence, Mr. Rodems is asking the Court to join his
prejudice against Plaintiff, because there simply is no threat of violence to sanction.
The Court should not sanction Plaintiff because he did not threaten Mr. Rodems.
Defendants Ongoing Effort to Criminalize Plaintiff's Lawful Behavior
16. The law firm Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA., and its law partners have accused
Plaintiff of committing felony criminal extortion against them, citing section 836.05,
Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida case law, for filing a complaint with the Florida Bar.
The right to file a Bar complaint is lawful, yet in an ongoing effort to intimidate Plaintiff,
Defendants have falsely accused Plaintiff of extortion. In addition to making the false
charge, Defendants willfully misstate facts and misapply law to those facts in an effort to
obstruct the administration ofjustice. Defendants have falsely accused Plaintiff of
extortion on at least three separate occasions:
(a) Christopher A. Barker wrote a letter to Plaintiff on June 19,2003 stating the
following (Relevant portion):
"First, you state that if our law firm does not pay you money, then you will
file a complaint against Mr. Cook with the Florida Bar and contact our
former clients. We consider this threat to be extortionate. See 836.05,
Fla. Stat. (2000); Carricarte v. State, 384 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1980); Cooper
v. Austin, 750 So.2d 711 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 2000); Gordon v. Gordon, 625
S02d 59 (Fla. 4
th
DCA 1993); Berger v. Berger, 466 S02d 1146 (Fla. 4
th
DCA 1985)." (Exhibit 3).
Page - 9
In his letter to Plaintiff, Mr. Barker describes a strong-arm demand for money,
when in fact Plaintiff was merely following the process for filing a complaint with the
Florida Bar. On June 12, 2003, Plaintiff called the Florida Bar and spoke with Don
Spangler, an attorney with the Florida Bar's Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
(ACAP), and described the problem with his lawyers. Mr. Spangler assigned reference
number 03-18867 to the complaint. Mr. Spangler said Plaintiff could file an ethics
complaint, and could also contact the lawyers and try to settle the matter. This
information is also printed on the Florida Bar complaint form, Part Four, Attempted
Resolution. (Exhibit 4).
The Florida Bar specifically states that"... you should attempt to resolve your
matter by writing to the subject attorney, before contacting ACAP or filing a complaint.
Even if this is unsuccessful, it.is important that you do so in order to have docllmentation
of good-faith efforts to resolve your matter." (Exhibit 4, Part Four). Plaintiff wrote to Bill
Cook on June 13, 2003. (Exhibit 5). Mr. Barker turned Plaintiffs good-faith effort into
the felony crime of extortion.
(b) William J. Cook essentially repeated the above extortion charge in a letter
dated July 12, 2004 to the Florida Bar, as part of his response to an inquiry.
(c) Now Mr. Rodems is accusing Plaintiff of criminal extortion in his Answers,
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim dated January 19, 2006. Mr. Rodems wrote the
following on page 7, paragraph 67:
" ... On June 13, 18 and 22, 2003, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant wrote
letters to Defendant/Counterclaimants and stated that if they did
[not] pay him money, then Plaintiff/Counterdefendant would file a
Page - 10
complaint against Defendant/Counterclaimant Cook with the
Florida Bar, sue Defendants/Counterclaimants and contact their
former clients. Defendants/Counterclaimants advised
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant by letters that they considered these
threats to be extortion under section 836.05, Fla. Stat. (2000) and
the holdings of Carricarte v. State, 384 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1980);
Cooper v. Austin, 750 So.2d 711 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 2000); Gordon v.
Gordon, 625 So.2d 59 (Fla. 4
th
DCA 1993); Berger v. Berger, 466
So.2d 1149 (Fla. 4
th
DCA 1985). [relevant portion]
In the above paragraph, Mr. Rodems has essentially charged Plaintiff with a crime
in Circuit Civil Court. This is wrong because criminal prosecution is the job of the State
Attorney. Mr. Rodems is essentially criminalizing the complaint process of the Florida
Bar, and this will tend to intimidate complainants from filing a Bar complaint.
Conclusion
17. Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook is a small law office, comprised of three
lawyers who are angry with Plaintiff for filing a lawsuit against them. Mr. Barker, Mr.
Rodems, and Mr. Cook are upset that this COllrt denied the part of their motion to dismiss
this lawsuit, and ordered Mr. Rodems to file responsive pleadings. They are upset that
Mr. Cook is being held personally liable. The anger and rage that Defendants harbor
toward Plaintiff is expressed through their lawyer, Mr. Rodems, who is both counsel and
a law firm partner-defendant. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Rodems issued a personal threat to
Plaintiff, stating "you will pay" for writing a letter of apology to Amscot. Defendants and
their counsel, Mr. Rodems, lack perspective in this lawsuit. As evidenced by their
Page - 11
Counterclaim, they falsely believe Plaintiff is out to ruin thenl. According to their
pleadings, Defendants falsely believe Plaintiffs intent is to injure or nlaliciously malign
and tarnish their professional reputations and stature in the community, or both.
Defendants falsely claim that Plaintiff intends to bring distrust, ridicule, contempt, or
disgrace, or injure them in their trade or profession. Faced with this false belief, Plaintiff
believes they will stop at nothing to prevail in this lawsuit, including violating the law.
Plaintiff by contrast has few ties to Tampa or its community. Plaintiffs interest in
this lawsuit is limited to his financial loss and a willingness to confront wrongdoing. It is
a limited endeavor with a focused perspective. If the case was dismissed today, Plaintiff
has already moved on, literally and metaphorically.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests an Order of Protection against Defendants and
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems, to include:
(a) A Bailiff or Police Officer be present whenever Defendants or Mr. Rodems
are near Plaintiff, whether in court, or anywhere in Tampa or Hillsborough County.
While Mr. Rodems threatened Plaintiff for writing to Amscot, the most likely threat is
that they will stage a stunt with which to complain to the Court, or set a trap for a
trumped-up criminal charge against Plaintiff.
(b) That all hearings be held in open court, not in chambers, to allow the parties
as much room as possible. Again, the most likely threat is that they will stage a stunt
with which to complain to the Court, or set a trap for a trumped-up criminal cllarge.
(c) That all telephone communications between Plaintiff and Mr. Rodems be tape
recorded. Plaintiff agrees to this, and requests that Mr. Rodems agree too. Alternatively
Plaintiff will communicate by letter, fax, or through an intermediary, but Plaintiff cannot
Page - 12
have und.ocull1ented, Ull111011itored C0111111Unication wid1 Mr. Rodcll1S l)ccaLLse (yl" his
previous tallnts, tllreats, and illtinlidation of Plaintiff.
(cl) as.ks tIle Court to renlind Mr. Rodenls t]lat l1e is all otTicer <yf the
court, and to act accordillgly.
'-''''---J/ /' .. ," //
//< .. __c:
/Neil J. pro se
t. th .,
8092 SW 115 LJ()()p
Ocala, Floricla 34481
l'elelJ!lone: (352) 854-7807
[ swear und.er thepcllalty of peljury that the statel1lellts 111ad.e ill tJ)"is Ill()ti()11 arc true
and accurate, anti tilat tIle qLlotes attributed to Ryall Cllristopllcr RodelllS are true :llld accurate.
()]=-; r;IJORIDA
('()lJNrry MArtION
Sworn to or affirmed and signed before me onll"JA&:.Jl It./; .2\00" by Neil J. Gillespie, who
is persol1ally k.l10Wll to llle _
or has jJr()dllCcd kLDR. t-C.. as idelltificatioll.
'-J(.1 1" g"

NOTARypUBLIC I
t_--
Page - 13
CERTIl-;1.CA
r
rE OF
I tllat a true and correct copy of tile foregoiJlg has been
furnished via 'US Mail, to Ryall Cllristopher Rodenls, Attorney at Law, Bark.er.,
& (\)01(., l:).A., Attorllcys for Defendants, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100., rfanlpa.,
Florida 33602., tl1is 14
th
day of March, 2006.
Page - 14
Neil J'. Gillespie
8092 SW IIS
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 3448]
rrelepho11e: (352) 854-7807
VIA FAX (813) 489-1008
VIA I;JJ{.srr CIJASS MAIL
M.arch 3, 2006
Ryan Christopllcr I{odenls, Atton1ey at Law
Barker, Ilodellls & Cook, P.A.
400 Nort.l1 Asl1.1ey Drive, Suite 2100
'ralllpa, [i'}c)rjda 33602
])ear 'Mr.
Yesterday, March 2, 2006, I received your Motion for Sanctions PurSU3.nt to
Section 57.105(1), Statlles, but did 110t receive a prior copy, eitllcr 21 days prior
or at any ()ther time. As SllCh your motion has not met the reqllirements of the statuLc.
l-lowcver 1 cllll williJlg to discuss tIle substance of your lTIotio11, as I 'believe 1110st., it" not all
of your COllcerns are ullfounded. After that I an1 willing to make any l1ccessary challgcs.
'I'od<1Y I called your office al1d you were not available, al1d I left a voice 111cssage
for you. of nlY call was to discuss tIle above cited motion, aJld- to schedule a
hearing tinle for InyMotioll to DisqualifY Coul1sel. Because I could not reach y()U, I set
the hearing Jor March 15, 2006, at 3:45 p.m., and will send you a 11otice. rrlle c()urL has
granteel JllC the 01?ti<.)11 to appear telep'honically alld I nlay do so. 1 did not scheduled a
hearing OJ1111Y 'Motion to Dismiss an,d Strike Counterclaim yet, because should I prcvail
on the M:otioll, to Disllllalify Counsel, your l1ew lawyers WOllld be respol1sible for that.
Sincerely,
Nc'j I J. Gillespie
".
EXHIBIT
,,'J

... ....4.."...
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
J. GlLLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 05CA7205
Division: F
BARKER, & COOK, P.A.,
a Flo.oida corporation; and WILLIAM
.J. COOK,
Defendants.
-------------_--.--:/
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Defendants' Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant
to Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes; and Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Counsel and PlainlilTs
Motion to Dismiss and Stlike Counterclaim, will be called up for hearing hefore the lJonorable
Richard A. Nielsen, Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Room 524, 800 East Twiggs
Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 2:15 p.lll. or as soon therea/ler as
counsel maybe heard. Time Reserved: 45 minutes.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3d day of March, 2006.
EXHIBIT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
tllat a true al1d C011ect copy of tIle foregoil1g ]las l)een fu.rnished 'via
lLS. M'ail t() N'e:il J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115
th
Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, tIris 3e[ day of.M.arch,
2006.
(!. _
Ryan. CllristolJher Rod.ell1s, Esquire
2
& C()Ol(
!\TI()}\.J
AT'"!'eJIZNEYS AT LA\\1
\ ;\. I< L
300 \VCSl Pl:lll' SUiLl' 150
l'I-II'ldllllll' n, 1/,1,1\11 111111
I y .\ ,': \:, I I I ':, T \1 I' I I I.' I, ') II F 1\.,
1:" .::.1111111' 1\ 1\/\:)'1 11111,",
\V 11.1 1:\ 1\1 I, llll< Taillpa, Flt,rida 336Gb
\X', (;I H:i( )1"1
.June 19., 2003
r. Nl' i I J. Cj ill c spie
: () I Wc. st I) L, l t t rcc t, Nu . I55
(I' ;1\ \ II) l, I t'l () r \t J J () () () - 22() 2
I)l' ;II" IvI,". ('i i II CS 10) i :
\/Ve h;lVC rcceivctl your letters oJ' June lJ and JX, 2003, to fvlr. C.'t)uk, vVc h;IVl'
re \' i \ VctI yUII raec us:.t 1. i U11 S, discussed this Inatt erand provide tile fo] 10 \V i nl!.l res p() 11.1,; .
l,'ir:;t., yen} state if our law finn does not pay you llloncy, then YCH.I \rvi II fi Ie. a C()lllIl\;lilli
rvlr. C.\)()k \vitll the r;'lorida J3ar and contac.t our ronnel' clients. 'We this ll,n.';ll lu Ill.'
cxlortitH1;1t'e. g36.05,Fla. Stat. (2000); v. Sla.tc, 384 So. 2d 12.() I (I"I:.L I ( I(H)Jlt'1'
r/50 St.>. 211 '7 II (Fila. Slll IJCA 20(0); (Jordon v, Gordon, 625 S(). 2eI 59 (II'};\. /1
111
1)( 1/\ I
.. il () () So. 211 l 149 (F\a. 1.1 th D j 9g5) .
NUl1Cfhclcss .. \VC \vish to address \vl1al appe:.1r lo be suttle rnispcrcej)',ol\!': Y()llr )':1I1. \\It'
bcg:ln yC)U All1SCOt scYcn.tI years ago. After the entire case \Vt'
Ci IccI :.111 ;. 1pPe d t)l'l Y() 1I r be11n1f. Spee ca,Iy, \ve nppca led the dis rn issc. d () r (It e I' etI t' 1'; tI 'I', \I t It II,
Ac( c]airn. l.Jndcr that lavv, you \vcrc seeking only statutory ()(' $1 .,()()(L()() ;\IHllt)
your ;)( ((HTlL'yS") fees and costs p:Jid by the l)cfcnd;.ll1t. In other \vords, i r we 1\;ltl prcv;.lilrd ()II
;Ippl';\ I., lrl cd tile crise and \\/011") you only \\'ou III have received $1,000.00, nd \ve \V() II Id 11;, Vt' vl'd
:.l ell II rl;, \V; I rei cd ::l U.() rl1 cys' fee.
I) 1I r j II g. the 1Ppea J, yoII i 11 i t i (111 Y i11sis led tIt at \v att C III Pt to 11 egu l i ate ,l sci tic I 11 I I t \ V I III Illl'
I) rc 1\ tl ,11 t (J n II I 1I \V () r(1b letc r1"11 S, eventh0 Lt gh \ve acI vjsed t hnt yn LJ r cII L' nees <.) r J) rev; I iii I I J', (H I ; I pPt '; II
\Vl.TL: SIIOIlJ.!.. ()ur helicLs \vcrc borne oUl, as \VC sllccessfully convinced AIJlsc(>t t() yOIl $)J)()().()()
:.lIlY clainls it. lllay Ilave had llgainst YOLl. Additionally, AlllSCul P;'.v (HII' Lnv 1\1111
$50,000.00 r<J r t tC) fees and costs. rro be quite clear,' t.he $50,00.0.00 A 1l1:-:\CU l' lid (u Oll I' 1'11111,
i1l1 :'111 lUllI 1l. to \vhich :YC)l! expressly agreed in \vriting nlrnost t'vVO years ag;(), vvas b;,scd (>11 ('Ill I'cc:; ;llld
cus l :'; f()I' tII L': c; 1S l: .
VV he 11 \Vcad'v i sed you or tIl C 0 ffc r to ScHI c, yoII \V Cre q1I i 1: c pJeas cd \v i III t Ii esc(( IC I 11 CIII ,d ft. 'I
:.111 tI dire: etcd 1I S l U (J Ccpt i 1'. \/ 0 1I then \v ill i ng1Ysigned b0 l h the set. tJ en1C11 t ;1 r cell I CIll. ;" \( I II H': CI(): ;Ill' "
'lllC scttlcrr)cnt ag.rccrncnt you signed rc.tlccls that the p:li<l Oil!' I:I\\'
rlflll;1 ill lieu ()I' l't.lcing
1
the risJ.( ora cOllrl-avvardccl fcc.
EXHIBIT
Neil J. (jillcspic
June I l) 2()OJ
l):lgc "2
No\v, l'vVl) years (reler the facl, you dC1l1and that \ve pay you a llorlit)]} $S(),()()()_()()
fees ant) C()sts Aillscot paid to ollr la\v finn. Y'Oll have l-hrealcllc:d {() ri Ie ;1 I CUltqt!;,illi
1\/11'. ;JJlli CC))Ylllllll1icalc \vith ourforJllcr clients if\vc du not. cUlllply.
I-'ur \vC: Inust rcjecL YOllr First} \vhcn this Il1;-,UCI \V;I:'; )'11(1
agreed tn /\IUSC()(: ptlying; our la\v 'firln $50)000.00 1'orattorneys' fees and Ct.)sts. ()UI' CCHllr;}('1 pn)\JHll'd
t 11; II 111 i s fi ITn \v (\ sen tit led lot11 c r'L1 II anlOll nt 0 f t11 c fee i11 tIle eventil ex. cecded 'I 5 U ryU 1I r ( () Vl' I Y ,'.
pili:: Ille \vllicil it: did. )'OU also signed a scttlcll1enl agrcclllcnl, a cupy ()(' \vhich ('IH(U.';I'd,
;\ ppro vi I) U. A 111 SC u l 'J sse1) ;:l rale $50,000,00 P YI11 Cnt tooII r Ia\v fi rill Co r at torncys ') rc c:,.; ;1lid c I :; . Y() II
tileII signccl a l: los i n s l CI'll C11 t, a coPy 0f\v11 ic11 is a1so enclosed, approv i ngl A III Sc- ()(1 p; I yIII CIII Iu () III'
f'irill. "l'hus., y{)ur dC111al1d that \,yc 110\,V pay you rnorc Illoney is a lll11 \VC reIH"',uli;II(' Ilu'
scttJcnlcllt ()r E\cc J3ar cOlu!)laint and statclncnls. rrhis is I1(Jl' oilly ullrc':1:-:l)l\:d>lc" hili
1I nI \\v I'll I.
1\/Iorcc)vcr, l)cc:11.1se you dCllland thnt \NC pay you a portion of the all()rneys" ;IIHI CO,I;':.;) \\le
nIlIsl <.Icc] i 11C bec;.luse l he lZulcs lZcgulating the Florida J3ar elhica II y prohi L)j l: us fl"t)J II sp Iii f i I q',
\v i III eli C Jl .
III yo Ur J 1I1.1C 13 letter, yo1I aIso assert that A'Juscot' soffer \vas SOllle It,HTri () r;1 I.t I) ril I() iIld
liS tu \Ve rClllincl, you that it \vas you wllo dcnlandcd that \Vc negotiate n ;111(11\'11.
(\)uk )/()U." instructions ill \vriting. Further, approxinlatcly ()OO huurs cd' ICJ'lal \,yUI k \Vd:;
Ull c,-1sefur your benefit. 13ased on the al.lorncys' fees p;.lid:- \ve \vert: p;,id
al (111 11cH_lrly rale o.fapproxilnatcJy $1.12.00 per hour. rrhis is a rCthll:( lUI' rlUI)) UIII'
hourly r:.llc 'vvhicJl ranges '[1'0111 $200.00 to $250.00 for cases such as yt)urs. I r lllc' ;'1>IH';II 11:,d
\ve lil(cly vv()uld have been entitled to a fcc several tilllCS larg1er (Ilal \Vt'
therefore I;.li I to sec hc)\v the fcc anlOllllts to a as you contend. l)]ainty, (he \V;1:; Ih;lI \Vl'
dr;lln;llically reduced (Jur attorneys' fees because you dClnandcd that t.he Ct\SC be sci lied ..
'1'11:.1t let.ter also J.11akcs reference lo the Ace casco We have (01 letter III ()Ill' rile f'n)1l1 VOII
CUll ri I"In i 1\f; y()U r g)recrn en t rei i ng yours, nnd 1\111'. Clcrnen t:' s, rcspec.l.i ve rect) veri cs_, \ve II ;1:; \'(1111'
Il) Ices to be to our Jlrl11. YOll also signed a closing slillcrllent ilJ,'yeci I l]'l 10 lilt, It'l'.
i cI ') \VC 1 re 11 0 t su rc "vhy you rnclltloncd the Ace case since it al)pcars yrHI ; l rc COl' I CI1<1 i III " 11,;11
yuu received 1,()() llluch tJnd \VC did not receive enough. As you kl10Vv', we reduced ()Ilr I'l'l'
alld did lH)1 cI1l\rg)c t()r all our costs as an accolll1110dalionlo you and lVlr. vVe :'C'.C Ill) l}l'rd
t.o rev i>;i t tllUSC
vvish tC) rcrrlilld you, ho\vcver, that you dinlinishcd the value ()f YCHlr cl:,illIS /\l'C
hy c til i 11 g, () P1) () Sj n gJ C(,) U 11 scI prior tot 11 e I'll cdinl i011 at \vhj ch you set tl cd yo1I rei ;J j Ins _ ''{ ()[ I Ill; 1y 1'(' r; dI
tell i 11 gopp () sin c () U IIscI 'v i a v 0 icc 1rl ail t hat, Unt t his poi 11 t I aI'll i n terested insc ( t I ill U. (ht' c; 1 a' ;lilt I ;" II
[VII'. j\l l.' iI J. i J 1c pic
.Illite I 2UUJ
J
nul rc I I t. i 'j c: d \v i l h the ell rrcnl COLI nscI thnt l have and \\10 III d Iike to SpC (l k \v i (Il y ()II III U I l' ; dH, ) III
n
vVhi Ie y()U subsequently told l\Ilr. that yOll called OppOSillg COllJI.(";CI., _)l<.>ll did Ilul f('" hilll
1h II Y() II C.\ preS.t; C (. I allY dissal: i s 1c tion vv i l h 0 1.I r rL prL SCJ) tat ion. I-'J ad yoLI n(J t Ill:.l cI c f 11 If l';' II. \. vC I I Jl , ',Ill
ve. heel) ;J b Ic. It) rcc()vcr even rnorc for you in that action.
IJ II ri I) 1..\ l he C'() Ll rsc 0 ryour reprcsen la tion, I\Ilr. nch ieved Uti l sLtl n1I i nt'l I til:; ('u, y(" I ;11 III
;\ctcc! ill t',tH)d (:Jith tl)\vards you. And, in spite oflllany adverse lc:g,al rl.dinLJ)s ill ul'
crIses lIII'UlIUJlCH.JIlilC stale) he \vas able to recover i!ll of your stalutory dalll;.lt',CS J'rt,>I11 Alll:';C()( :1.'; \vrll
;1 veness () ry()UI,- then-outstanding loans. Under the cirCUlllstanccs, i'lL C()llld I H)f II:IVC dO/H'

VVc 1.I1lsure \vhy, all110st t\VO years) \vithollt any prior (Jr IC}:',;lrdlll,l
l

issues, 'j/()U h(lVC th.rcatencd to hann rVlr. Cook's and our firrn's rej.')ut'allol\ if\vc du Ilut }',I\'l.' 'y'lll
111urc 11lOllCY. L)L\sLcll)l'l t.he the hl\V, and regulations discLissed herein, C;1I1IH)( III
yULI r lcrrn:;.
Sincerely,
Chris A. 13arkcr
For the FirJl1
The Florida Bar
651 E. JetTerson Street
32399-2300
l'ollll'ree 1-866-352-0707 (AC.AP)
IMPOR'I'AN'f
I ;, II illstructjons ca before conlpleting the fornl all the back of this page. If tIle .()I... is oj IHOp
e.'ly e(unl)letc(l it "'lay be rejecte(1 or returned for correction. You nlay attach up t.o 2!.) ;lddit ion.. 1
10 slIpplclncnt <lny section. If you have nbt already done so, you should contact the Atlorll(.. /\ssis
1<11 we Progrd III at the c:lbovc toll free nUlnber, to see if they can help resolve the tt.cr dboul wlliell yOl!
wi::-i II I () co n 1p I(J in.
Please note' rhe 1,'lor'ida13ar cannot intervene on your behalf in a civil or crirninal case, nOI' Ct:J II we you
I()g;.d ;,dvice. We do not haveJuri.sdi.ction to consider cOlllplaints (]gainstjudges and nleJny elected oITici;tls. ()III'
Llwyc\r rt\gu I;,(;on departlllent considers whether an attorney has violated our rules of conduc( ;llld det Cl'IllilU'S
whclll('J' the t'otality of the circl.1rnstanccs the attorney should receive SOlT1C type of disciplilu. '1'1,,' l('vc1
of' illvcSLil'Jl1 ion depending on the conlplcxity of the allegations. If your cOlnp]aint. is closed, y011 \,yill
a Wl'iLtcn explanation of the reasons why, 'fhere is no dght to a decision nol 10 plIr.<-;lIc ;111
i"vcslig;'1 ion.
PAl{'l' .. YOLl mustgiveyoLlr' oarne, address and phone ;lIl<l
and of the attorney. T'he address of the attorney is pt:.u'licl.lJarly iUlporL.,,1 ;\s
Ill;"')' Llwyel"s the sanle or sinliJar nanlCS. LJst only one attorney per forrn (you rnay copy t.l ('UI'ln iryoll
1)t'Pel atldifion;al copies) and print or type in black ink. You can file a c0l11plaint only against ;,UOI'
IH\Y:), not ''f',ainst afl.lw fir'ITl.lfyoll have already contacted ACAP, please indicate your AC:AP ."cfcl"cncc III II 11 Iwl'.
l)Alrr'I'W() ..- J)escribe each thing abollt which you are cOfTlplclining. <all or
dc(,tils, ill clll'OIH)togicc:d ol"cfer, supplying dates where possible. Please Jlufober any addit.ionall),tgcs you '\fLu:h.
II' you Ildvc letters, dOCUlllents or other evidence, you should attach photocop'ies ([)O Neyl' S l':N I) 1(: IN/\ I.
1)()C:LJMEN't'S). It is helpfUl if you rnarkyourattachlTIentsasexhibits (A, 13, C, etc.), and ("ercl' to fllCln ;Ilyollr
dpscript ion or Y0l.U' COfllplC:lint. be aware that sinlply alleging COI1C]tISio'"ls witJl()llt setting out
that SlIIJI)()rt tllose COllclusions will result in the need for tile Bar to LlS){ f()I' a(h:litiunal
inf(u'.natioll allcl n.. ay (Iel<:ly a (lispositioIl of your conlplaint.
l)Alrr _. Witrlesses. Your inquiry/cornplaint will be considered even "if there <.l1'P no Wit.11PSSCS. 1ryOll
wit ncsscs, attach an additional sheet, listing nothing but witnesses, with the narne, (H.ldlCSS ,lIHI fclp
/.l!Jonc ,"lIllutH"" foJ' c(Jch witness, and include a brief description of the facts about which that wil-IH'SS would
you do not a.ttach a list of witnesses, we will prcsulllc that you have no other tll,11l 111('
aUorncy ,U HI YOlll'se Ir.
PAI{'l' -- Attcl".lIJtc(1 Resoltltioll. rrhe Florida 11ar offers various alternati.ve re,'-)oluliol) scr'vicc's for
dispu Ics hetween C-:I.ttorneys and clients, such as the Attorney Consurncr Assistance l?rogr'clI n (AC:AI) df f IlP loll
f"ree nltlllhc.' on tile top of this page. If you have not tried to do so, you should atternpt to YOt II" I))(}I f('1"
by WI'i Ullg (() II attorney, before contacting ACAP or filing a conlplaint..Ever) if this is Ullsuccess!", II. il
is illlport;lIl( that you do so in order to have docunlcntation of good-faith efforts to resolve your lI'you
choose to go ro)'ward with a cOlnplaint, you should specify what resolution efforts you h<,ve Ull your O\lVIl
I>ehalr, illCllitlillg whether you contacted ACAP-,You shouhj s/Jccj{ically jJu:ficnte if,yolJ conlnele(1 nlul it"
so, I/l/hdl re,";( rltcr/ liolrJ yuur usc ortile services olflC'Al:J.
PAlrT' Jt'IVl'>- Sig'latlll'e. You rnust. si.gn the forni and certify under penalty of perjucy Ul .. t: your iOlls
LJnsWOI'll cOlnplai.nts arc not consi.dered.
RE1'URN 1'0 THE FLORIDA BAR
DEI'>AR
r
rMEN1' OF LAWYER REGlJLArrION
at the Branch Office nearest the attorney's office add ress:
!):i21 West Spruce St. 1200 Edgewater Dr. Cypress Financial Center RivergateP.laza 'J';tllahassee Br;'IH:ll
1
7
.1. 5900 N. Andrews Ave. Suite M'-l 00 (j!i 1 I':. ,J<\''''crsoll Sf.
'LlIllpa, Fl. 32804-6314 SuiLe 900 444 13rickell Ave. ]''1,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL. MiaI11i,FLJ. ?:H)()
33309 3313.1.
EXHIBIT
}/ I'
.0 ...'..r
:I
Neil J. Gillcs)Jie
301 W. l)latt Street, 1t155
rI'an.1pa, l=iloricla 33606
rrclephone: (813) 295-7461
Enlail: nci177@gtc.nct
'VIA (-I.ANI)
JUlle 13, 2()()3
13ill .At.tl)rllcy at l.Jaw
13arker, IZc)(.:lclllS <..'?L Cc)()k, PA
300 W. l)latt Street
rrnlllpa, 1"71-.J 336()6
[)car J3il1 ')
1 have legal all(l etl1ical concerns about the settlenlcnt ill the AnlSC()t case. )
sought (lll ()))inio11 ab()llt t11is tllatter f-rOlTI a Tanlpa law firnl. Aft.er reviewing the: f;ICls
t.hey suggestcc! tllat I. COJltact the Ethics and Grievance (-?f1ice r-;]()rida IJar.
rfhc COI1SUIJler Assistance Progra111. (ACAP) ofr-rlle 13ar
considered titis lllat.ter yesterday. As a Inattcr of procedure ACAI) 11()tcd yc)ur n;1111C and
address, alld assigl.1CC} rcfercllce llulllbcr 03-18867 to this ITlatter. lJpon review ()rthe
nlcts, suggested tllat I file a c0111plaint ,vith _Bar.
As a C()llrtesy to yOll I would like to settle this l11atter prior to filing a C()fllplaiIlL
(-,_1St) suggestecl tl'lis alternative. rrhis is Illy view of tIle problen1.
'T'hc $5(),()()() ])a1.c1 to your firnl by Anlscot was a thinly veiled bril)c t.() settle the
cnsc, and a c()JlJlict of illtercst witl1 your clients. Also, the Unitc(} 5
1
f{lles
.Ii)}' the (lisll1issed your appeal saying that the parties will bear l.hci r O'VIl
costs and att()rllcy's fees.
lJ ndcr tIle terll1S of Oll1' representation contract, I believe the $S(),()()() cl tl i l11Cd ;IS
fees is actually ].Jart of tIle "total recovery" along with the $2.,000 received lly each
of t.11C three l)lainti frs, f()f a total recovery of $56,000. Sinlilar1y, in the Aillcric<l' s (
case, tJ1C $10,000 total recovery should have been dispersed acc()rdinp. 10
our contract in thilt l11atter. ACC0l11panying this letter is an addelldurn, nlY C()(lll)ulalio)) or
the settlerllcllt llllder our COI1t.ract.
As illdicatccl ()11 th.c a(ldenclulll', your fil111 owes Ine $4,523.93. ()ayrllcnt: ()r that
SUIT} by Jllne 2(), 2()03, will satisfy 111Y clailn and avert a COl11plaint t() rr'hc ["l()rida Fletr.
EXHIBIT
t3irl at LJav"
I )('U.c - '/
.Ill Il e I 3') 2()()J
tIle otllcr plaintiffs, Eugene Clelllcnt and Gay Blo111cficld, I not
contacted thCIll, 11()r elf) I i.lltClld to contact then1. Law, ethics, and your c()llsciellcc slHH.J1d
guide yc)ur duty tl) yc)ur forlllcr clients.
'['han k y()U f()r your attention to this Inattcr.
SitlCerely,

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
March 14, 2006
The Honorable Richard A. Nielsen
Circuit Court Judge
Circuit Court, Division "F"
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 524
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et ai,
Case number: 2005-CA-7205, Division F
Dear Judge Nielsen,
Enclosed you will find a courtesy copy of:
1. Plaintiffs Verified Response To Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And
For Sanctions, And To Mr. Rodems' Perjury, and
2. Plaintiffs Motion For An Order Of Protection in the above captioned lawsuit.
Both items are contained in a single document.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
Enclosure
cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney for Defendants

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
March 14,2006
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Circuit Civil
P.O. Box 989
Tanlpa, FL 33601-0989
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., et aI, Case no: 2005 CA-7205, Division F
To the Clerk of the Court:
Kindly date stamp and file the enclosed document, Plaintiff s Verified Response
To Defendants' Verified Request For Bailiff And For Sanctions, And To Mr. Rodems'
Perjury, and Plaintiffs Motiol1 For An Order Of Protection, in the above captioned
lawsuit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie