Rule 21 Motion, 12-7747 With Appendicies, Apr-10-2013

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE CLERK

WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001

April 16, 2013

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481

RE: Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al. No: 12-7747

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

The papers pertaining to the above-entitled case that were received April 15, 2013 are herewith returned. Rehearing was denied April 15, 2013. This case is considered closed in this Court, and no further consideration by this Court is possible.

Sincerely,

::~lic~t:ae~J Clayton R. Higgins, Jr. (202) 479-3019

Enclosures

April 9, 2013

Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543

RE: Rule 21 Motion to correct and supplement petition for rehearing, No. 12-7747, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al. for writ of certiorari

Dear Clerk of the Supreme Court:

Tomorrow, April 10, 2013, I will send by U.P.S. next day delivery a Rule 21 motion to correct and supplement my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari.

There are significant developnlents with The Florida Bar, and the American Bar Association, that affect this petition for rehearing, and other issues to present.

I had planned to send this sooner, but have been delayed by disability, and a home foreclosure.

Monday I filed on the last day permitted a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment in my foreclosure case, 5: 13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division.

I regret the inconvenience this delay has caused. Thank you.

Telephone: (352) 854-7807 Enlail: [email protected]

Enclosures

cc: Counsel

April 10, 2013

Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543

RE: Rule 21 Motion to correct and supplement petition for rehearing, No. 12-7747, G-illespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FL, et al. for writ of certiorari

Dear Clerk of the Supreme Court:

Please find enclosed my Rul~ 21 motion to correct and supplement my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari. The original and ten copies are enclosed.

Also enclosed is a Rule 29 proof of service, and a certificate of good faith.

Also enclosed are a number of separate volume appendices.

I had planned to file this sooner, but have been delayed by disability, and a home foreclosure.

Monday I filed on the last day permitted a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, and affidavit of bias, 28 U.S.C. 144, in my foreclosure case, 5: 13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. Wednesday I filed a Notice of Appeal in the foreclosure, with notice to the state court. Copies of the Clerk-stamped cover pages for the filings are enclosed.

Respectfully I ask this motion be presented, or notice of its arrival provided, to the Court soon as possible, as my petition for rehearing was distributed March 27, 2013 for Conference of April 12, 2013. Time is of the essence.

I apologize for my delay, and regret the inconvenience my delay has caused. Thank you.

Telephone: (352) 854-7807 Email: [email protected]

cc: Counsel shown on the Rule 29 certificate of service RECEIVE

Enclosures APR 15 2013 OFFICE OF THE CLEAt< SUPREME coURt U: :

I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION CL[ f\ 1"\ IUS D: ~~ Ti'-; ! :: T r: r~ ~~} ((T

j ~'" ;.~i 1'J (;:\ f: T0FrL (~: i 4'

,', L,.' .-. :. l.. [;~; ;.~l j\

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5: 13-CV-58-0c-IOPRL

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, AS CO-TRUSTEES, et. aI,

Defendants.

-------------/

RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT Motion to Disqualify the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges

Defendants Neil J. Gillespie, as co-trustees, and Neil J. Gillespie, move pursuant to the

Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Rule 59(e) to Alter or Amend the Judgment In A Civil Case

(Doc. 20) entered March 11, 2013, and state as follows:

1. The trial judge, Senior Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, has multiple conflicts of interest in

this case, with Bank ofAmerica, mortgage foreclosure, and conflicts of interest with Defendant

Neil J. Gillespie. Those conflicts are set forth in a the Affidavit ofNeil J. Gillespie and appendix

that accompanies this motion to disqualify Judge Hodges, under the following federal statutes:

28 U.S.C. 144, Bias or prejudice ofjudge

28 U.S.C. 455, Disqualification ofjustice, judge, or magistrate judge

Recusal is required when "the probability ofactual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker

is too high to be constitutionally tolerable," Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S.

868, 129 S.Ct. 2252.

2. Senior federal judges like Senior Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges are unconstitutional, see Are

Senior Judges Unconstitutional? 92 Cornell Law Review 453 (2007), by the Hon. David R. Stras,

I :" :'...., ,. '') 8 Pu 3 57UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~ UIj Al' l \ -~. fJ:

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ClEi~}\~ US DISTRICT COURTOCALA DIVISION :··i 1DDLE !~:' ~ :.,; r ~~ :(: T0FFL

CC.. /. ~ I~"~ :. ~_ •:.: ;:~ t0;\


Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:13-CV-58-0c-l0PRL


Defendants.

-------------/

AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE - 28 U.S.C. 144 Bias or prejudice ofjudge

Neil J. Gillespie, under oath, testifies as follows:

1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie, and I am over eighteen years of age. This affidavit is given

on personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.

2. I am a Defendant in this federal court action personally, and as co-trustees of the

Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10, 1997.

3. The trial judge, Senior Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, has multiple conflicts of interest in

this case, with Bank ofAmerica, home mortgage foreclosure, and conflicts of interest with me.

Those conflicts are set forth below. 28 U.S.C. 455 requires disqualification of a justice, judge, or

magistrate judge "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

28 U.S.C. 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

I believe a reasonable person reading the facts in this affidavit would conclude Judge Hodge's

impartiality might be reasonably questioned.

-------------

I


Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5: 13-CV-58-0c-l0PRL


Defendants. /

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is given that Defendants Neil J. Gillespie, as co-trustees, and Neil J. Gillespie,

hereby appeal to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Eleventh Circuit the Judgment In A

Civil Case (Doc. 20) entered March 11, 2013. Defendants also appeal the following:

1. Failure of Judge Hodgers to recuse for conflict of interest with Bank of America, N.A. (Doc. 18)

2. Failure of the Court to grant Defendants leave to proceed in fornla pauperis. (Doc. 6, Doc. 8)

3. Failure of the Court to grant Defendants permission to e-file on the CM/ECF system. (Doc. 7)

4. Failure of the Court to require Plaintiffs compliance, Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (Doc. 14)

5. Failure of the Court to rule on Defendants Rule 11 motion for sanctions. (Doc. 15)

6. Failure of the Court to rule on Defendants Rule 55 motion for default judgment. (Doc. 16)

7. Failure of the Court to rule on Defendants Rule 72 objection to magistrate judge's order. (Doc. 17)

8. Failure of the Court to rule on Defendants Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief from magistrate order. (Doc. 17).

9. Failure of the Court to consider Defendants Rule 5.1 constitutional challenge to 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-20

Insurance of home equity conversion mortgage for elderly homeowners. (Doc. 18).

10. Order Remanding Case (Doc. 19) entered March 7, 2013.

---------------

I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY CASE NO.: 2013-115-CAT


Plaintiff, vs.

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, AS CO-TRUSTEES, et. aI, ~ "." ,. r.·'.~.,.,:l: ", ") ... ",,)

Defendants. ----.. /

NOTICE OF FILING

Defendants Neil J. Gillespie, as co-trustees, and Neil J. Gillespie, hereby notice the filing

of the following documents in a related federal court action, REVERSE MORTGAGE

SOLUTIONS INC v. NEIL J. GILLESPIE AND MARK GILLESPIE AS CO-TRUSTEES OF

THE GILLESPIE FAMILY LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1997, et

aI., case no. 5: 13-cv-58-oc-WTH-PRL, US District Court, Middle District, Florida, Ocala Div.:

1. RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT and Motion to

Disqualify the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, filed April 8, 2013.

2. AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE - 28 U.S.C. 144 Bias or prejudice ofjudge, filed

April 8, 2013.

3. NOTICE OF APPEAL filed April 10, 2013.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED April 10, 2013.

1# NEIL J. GILLESPIE 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Email: [email protected] Phone: 352-854-7807

No: 12-7747

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

NEIL J. GILLESPIE - PETITIONER

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS

PETITIONER'S RULE 21 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRECT AND SUPPLEMENT

PETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDER DENYING

PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Submitted April 10, 2013

by

Neil J. Gillespie, pro se

8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 854-7807 Email: [email protected]

APR f 5 2013 OFFICE OF THE CLIiPN( SUPREME COUAT: U.S.

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all partiesto the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

___________________

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11213District Court no: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS

Civil rights and disability law.Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.

Plaintiff: (1)Neil J. Gillespie

Defendants: (10 + 5 individually)Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaClaudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 200042)James M. Barton, II, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 242640)David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 861987)Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, and individually*Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.**Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 947652)The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)

* ** NO PARTY INTEREST, see Petitioner’s Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court, submitted January 22, 2013 (Nominal parties)

___________________

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11028District Court no: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS

Civil rights and disability law, civil RICO, antitrust, commerce, estate claims.Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.

Plaintiffs: (2)Neil J. GillespieEstate of Penelope Gillespie (deceased)

Defendants: (4 + 1 individually)Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaJames M. Barton, II, Circuit Court Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF PARTIES ......................................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................iii

MOTION TO CORRECT AND SUPPLEMENTPETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDERDENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................................................................1

Part 1 - Matters Concerning The Florida Bar......................................................................1

Part 2 - U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit......................................................3

Part 3 - Disability Accommodation ....................................................................................6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION.............................................................................13

INDEX TO ATTACHED APPENDICES

Email of Kim Pruett-Barry received March 25, 2013............................................... APPENDIX A

Letter of Maj. James Livingston, January 12, 2011...................................................APPENDIX B

Disability letter of Court Counsel David A Rowland................................................APPENDIX C

Accu-Check Compass Meter Download Report for Neil Gillespie...........................APPENDIX D

INDEX TO SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXRequest for Investigation to Florida Bar President Gwynne Alice YoungMarch 28, 2013 for witness tampering and obstruction of justice in thecomplaint against Robert W. Bauer, TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXOriginal transcript of telephone call - Kimberley Pruett-BarryOctober 3, 2012, and audio CD

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXOpinion, U.S. V. Terry, 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXHonest Services Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Respondent Martha J. Cook

iv

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXTranscript, September 28, 2010, Final Summary Judgment, Civil ContemptErrata Sheet, Neil J. Gillespie

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXAffidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, April 25, 2011

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXThree Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable Accommodations Law.126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

AUTHORITIES PAGE NUMBER

U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit Opinion appears in aDecision February 14, 2013, prohibits official (judge) separate appendixfrom accepting things of value “in return for” official acts. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) 3-5

Tampa Bay Times, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats Appendix 8by Lucy Morgan, Senior Correspondent, May 2, 2008 5

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/unopposed-judges-quietly-keep-their-seats/485804

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252 4Recusal required when “the probability of actual bias on the partof the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionallytolerable,” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 4No indigent person should be unrepresentedwhen his or her freedom is at stake.

18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). Bribery of public officials and witnesses 3-6

18 U.S.C. § 1341, Frauds and swindles (Mail fraud) 3-6

18 U.S.C. § 1346, Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” 3-6For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud”includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right ofhonest services.

Florida Statutes, Section 839.13, Falsifying records.— (West’s F.S.A., Appendix 6) 3-6(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any judge, justice...or anyperson whatsoever, shall...falsify....any record, process,...or any paperfiled in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shallknowingly and willfully....conceal any issue...or falsify any documentor instrument recorded, or filed in any court...or falsify any minutes,documents...or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to anypublic office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procureany of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywiseconcerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of amisdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082or s. 775.083.

Florida Statutes, Section 837.06, False official statements.—Whoever knowingly 3-6makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servantin the performance of his or her official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanorof the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

vii

U.S. Const. amend. V Due Process, Life, Liberty, Property all

U.S. Const. amend. XIV Due Process, Life, Liberty, Property; Equal Protection all

Due Process, article by Peter StraussCornell University Law School, Legal Information Institutehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendmentsays to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, libertyor property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratifiedin 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, todescribe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their centralpromise an assurance that all levels of American government must operatewithin the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures....

Equal Protection, Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institutehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitutionprohibits States from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equalprotection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, thelaws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similarconditions and circumstances....By denying states the ability to discriminate,the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection ofcivil rights....Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clausehas been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individualsthe right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right...

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. 6-12ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et. seq. 6-12

F.S. 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.— (relevant portions) 6-12(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person whichcauses substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over aperiod of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term doesnot include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.(4) A person who, ....after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward thesubject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedlyfollows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking,a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

F.S. 784.0485 Stalking; injunction; powers and duties of court and clerk; petition; notice and

viii

hearing; temporary injunction; issuance of injunction; statewide verification system;enforcement. Set out in a separate volume appendix.

State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Evans, 94 So.2d 730 (1957). 6-12Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component ofthe administration of justice, and, as such, his conduct is subject tojudicial supervision and scrutiny.

American Bar Association (ABA) video 6-12“The S.O.B. Litigator Vignettes” (1990)

Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress 6-12To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of severe emotionaldistress, a compliant must allege four elements: 1. deliberate or recklessinfliction of mental suffering; 2. outrageous conduct; 3. the conductcaused the emotional distress; and; 4. the distress was severe;Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 594-95(Fla. 2d DCA 2007)

126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013) 6-12Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement inReasonable Accommodations Law.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/march13/Note_9452.php

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol126_reasonable_accomodations_law.pdf

Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.,case no. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co., FL,Order On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And Strike,Jan. 13, 2006. (Hon. Richard Nielsen).

Clement, Blomefield and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation,Case no. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, U.S. District Court, M.D.Fla.,Tampa, Order (Doc. 116) August 1, 2001. (Hon. Richard Lazzara)

Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation,Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

1

IN THE


Petitioner’s Rule 21 Motion For Leave To Correct And Supplement

PETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDER DENYING PETITION NO. 12-7747FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Respectfully appearing pro se, petitioner Neil J. Gillespie, henceforth in the first person,

moves the Court to correct and supplement his petition for rehearing (“petition”), and states:

Part 1 - Matters Concerning The Florida Bar

Information included in the petition on page 11 about a letter received from Florida Bar

Counsel Annemarie Craft unfortunately has typographical errors needing correction. Ms. Craft’s

letter contained “Exhibit A”, a copy of an email from Kim Pruett-Barry, a client of Mr. Bauer,

who had been contacting me for several months with complaints about him.

• The letter was received Saturday March 16, 2013, not March 15th as mistakenly stated.

• Emails Ms. Pruett sent me show she was not satisfied with Mr. Bauer; the word “not” wasinadvertently omitted.

Subsequent to filing my petition March 18, 2013 Ms. Pruett again contacted me by email

March 25, 2013 to repudiate “Exhibit A”, her email expressing satisfaction with Mr. Bauer. It

appears Ms. Pruett somehow learned that I raised the issue in my petition for rehearing, and sent

the email below to correct the record. Kim Pruett emailed me this message March 25, 2013:

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:13 PMSubject: Whatever you need from me!

Neil!

I had to back off from your complaint because we had to keep Bauer as our Atty,BUT NO MORE!! I will call Annemarie Craft first thing in the morning!

2

I fired Bauer today without even having another Atty to represent us and yesit has been going on this long. He has failed to follow through on EVERYTHING,yet he has racked up a bill that we will never be able to pay.

YOU ARE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY about Bauer following through onANYTHING and then when you ask him why something is not done it is ONE EXCUSEAFTER ANOTHER!

I will be filing Arbitration throught the State Bar to get our fees back.

I am YOUR witness, USE ME!

Sincerely,Kimberly Pruett

I forwarded on March 29, 2013 the above email to Gwynne Young, President of The Florida Bar,

along with a 14-page written request, with appendix, for an investigation of witness tampering

and obstruction of justice in my open complaint against Mr. Bauer, TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B).

Among other things, someone contacted Anna Hodges, another unhappy Bauer client, with a

false report of my death. My letter, the appendix, and email to Florida Bar Pres. Gwynne Young

appear in a separate volume appendix. My letter to Ms. Young of March 28, 2013 concludes:

Ms. Young, the requested investigation into witness tampering and obstruction of justicemay vindicate Ms. Pruett-Barry. In that case it would show Robert W. Bauer is engagedin the worst kind of misconduct possible: Betrayal of his clients with maliceaforethought.

Mr. Bauer may have discovered the perfect crime: He represents himself to clients as aspecialist in attorney malpractice, and once retained, bleeds the client of funds in a “fakerepresentation” that is intended to break the client, and intended to protect the subjectattorney. This looks like a pattern of racketeering that is aided and abetted by otherattorneys, such as Ryan Christopher Rodems, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, and CatherineBarbara Chapman in my cases.

Ms. Young, is The Florida Bar part of this racketeering activity?

A recording and transcript of Kim Pruett’s initial phone call October 3, 2012 to me appears in a

separate volume appendix. The question of racketeering activity and Florida Bar complaints is a

public interest matter affecting millions of consumers of legal services in interstate commerce.

3

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

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 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 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, 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

4

disability lawsuit. Judge Cook refused, accused me in open court of feigning disability, 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 decisionmaker 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 order 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 orderJanuary 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, butJudge 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.

5

envelopes. [Appendix 5]. Judge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order

Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt states at footnote 1:

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 of other elected officials, and as

described in Terry. Judicial elections are nonpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial

office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified 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 inthe 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to areview of election results over the past 12 years. Judges frequently escape oppositionbecause only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering ajudge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges havefaced 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 remaining seats,only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and DistrictCourt justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another termsince 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 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.

6

Part 3 - Disability Accommodation

Disability, adult onset type 2 diabetes, and other impairments made it impossible for me

to timely complete the full 15 pages I had intended to submit March 18, 2013. Glucose meter

records show a reading of 160 at 4:22 AM, and a reading of 189 at 1:52 PM, March 18, 2013. An

ideal reading is 110; when the number exceeds 150 I become impaired. The record appears at

Appendix D. I present this record because it is measurable. But how diabetes and other

impairments result in disability affecting this case is more difficult to show.

Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable Accommodations Law,

126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013) gives me language to explain my disability to the Court.

Federal disability law requires a reasonable accommodation to be logically connected toa plaintiff's disability, but the precise nature of this connection has been the source ofsome tension in the case law. (text of email providing 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013).

This Note seeks to classify the various approaches that courts have brought to the so-called "nexus requirement," to examine the beliefs about disability that are implicit inthese approaches, and to offer some ways in which courts might reconcile those beliefswith the realities of disability. (id., and 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013), p. 1392).

This Note only came to my attention March 21, 2013 via an email subscription. I respectfully ask

the Court consider this Note an intervening circumstance of a substantial or controlling effect and

other substantial ground not previously presented. Jennifer Heath, Editorial & IT Coordinator,

Harv. L. Rev., states the Note is an unsigned student work. (Note appears in a separate appendix).

The Note states “The Supreme Court has never addressed the nexus requirement

directly.” (p. 1394). Footnote 25 to the preceding sentence states:

Perhaps the most relevant precedent is US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002),in which Justice Breyer’s opinion for the Court reasoned that the concept of“accommodation” contains an implicit effectiveness requirement, id. at 400, and JusticeScalia’s dissent stressed the need for a link between a challenged practice and disability-specific obstacles, see id. at 412 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

7

The other significant issue concerns the “status quo”. “A reasonable accommodation is an

alteration to some element of the status quo that is intended to enable a person with a disability

to participate in work, higher education, residential living, or public life to the same extent as the

nondisabled.” But what if the “status quo” element itself is a disadvantage the disabled litigant?

E-filing on the federal CM/ECF system, or the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, is the “status quo”

for attorneys, but not for disabled nonlawyers. Permission to e-file does not give the disabled a

“status quo” advantage. See my Consolidated Notice, Pro Se Electronic Case Filing Prohibition

in support of disability motion, and IFP fee waiver, filed with the petition December 10, 2012.

Another “status quo” element is described in an American Bar Association (ABA) video,

“The S.O.B. Litigator Vignettes” (1990; out of print), but found in some libraries:

The vignettes dramatize questionable behavior by litigators in situations ranging fromdiscovery to settlement conference to trial. Issues that arise include the obligation tocorrect unintentional misrepresentations made in negotiations for settlement; the fine linebetween the boundaries of zealous advocacy and harassment of opponents andobstruction of justice; the response to an opponent's inappropriate and abusive behavior;the court's role in establishing proper conduct during discovery and trial; and how toavoid playing the "S.O.B." litigator's game. No written materials.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/video_product_services.html

Much of my accommodation was need due to Mr. Rodems’ “S.O.B. Litigator” style that

went beyond zealous advocacy, and was abusive behavior, harassment, obstruction of justice,

and part of a “scheme or artifice to defraud” me of “the intangible right of honest services”.

Unfortunately the lower courts negligently failed their role of establishing proper conduct

for Mr. Rodems. Respondent Court Counsel David Rowland wrote July 9, 2010: (Appendix C)

This is a response to your July 6, 2010 ADA request for accommodation directed toGonzalo Casares, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ADA Coordinator. You request the sameADA accommodations previously submitted on February 19, 2010. Your February 19,2010 ADA request was a request for the court to take the following case managementactions: (Only 1 and 4 are relevant on this point)

8

1. Stop Mr. Rodems' behavior directed toward you that is aggravating your post traumaticstress syndrome. (sic)

4. Enforce Judge Isom's directives imposed on February 5, 2007 which require bothparties to only address each other by surname when communicating about this case andrequire parties to communicate in writing instead of telephone calls.

Mr. Rowland’s statement is an admission that I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and

that Mr. Rodems’ behavior was directed toward me to aggravate my PTSD. The undisputed

allegation shows Mr. Rodems harassed me, which behavior was a crime under section F.S. §

784.048(4) because he violated a prior “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” by Judge Isom, a

course of harassing conduct directed to me, that aggravated my disability, intentionally inflicted

on me severe emotional distress, and served no legitimate purpose. Because an attorney is an

officer of the court, injunctive relief was appropriate. F.S. 784.0485.

Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component ofthe administration of justice, and, as such, his conduct is subject tojudicial supervision and scrutiny. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Evans.

“Disability statutes provide little guidance to the judges who must decide whether [an

accommodation]...is an innovative accommodation...or a clever way of gaming...and whether

[the accommodation]...is genuinely related to the disabling aspects of posttraumatic stress

disorder.” (id. 1392). Here the accommodation sought was genuinely related to the disabling

aspects of posttraumatic stress disorder, and accompanying depression. Unfortunately no

medically qualified court personnel reviewed my disability request.

As a pro se litigant, I was “employed” as my own attorney. Does that make the court a

“workplace”, in addition to a “public entity” as defined by 42 USC § 12131, Definitions? Courts

provide disabled attorneys with accommodation needed to represent clients in court. Workplace

is not defined by 42 USC Chapter 126, Subchapter I - employment. (42 USC § 12111)

9

42 USC § 12131(1) Public entityThe term “public entity” means—

(A) any State or local government;(B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or otherinstrumentality of a State or States or local government; and(C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuterauthority (as defined in section 24102 (4) [1] of title 49).

“Notably, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 clarifies many of the contentious issues that

developed in connection with the original ADA, but it is silent on the nexus question”. [24] The

Supreme Court has never addressed the nexus requirement directly. [25] id. 1394.

Three Formulations of The Nexus Requirement

I. The Bridge Model (id. 1395-1399)

II. The Constellation Model (id. 1399-1404)

III. The Iceberg Model (id. 1404-1410),

IV. Recommendations for Decisionmakers (id. 1410-1413)

Conclusion (id. 1413)

I. The Bridge Model (id. 1395-1399), requires a “logical connection”, which I have shown.

Moreover, an individual’s interaction with her disability is often more of a dialecticprocess than a static one, so that the one-way causation that the bridge model representsis a poor approximation of real-world dynamics. First, individuals with disabilities mighttake actions to mitigate their symptoms, prolong their lives, or adapt to their environmentthat themselves have impacts on other areas of their lives. They might take medicationswith side effects, [61] for instance, or spend a great deal of time, money, or energymanaging symptoms. Second, individuals might cope with the emotional and socialconsequences of having a disability in unhealthy ways. [62] In these scenarios, thedisability is the actual cause of the secondary effects, but the narrow one-way causationthat the bridge model contemplates will likely fail to account for them, since they appearto flow from the individual’s own actions rather than the substantial limitation on a majorlife activity. (id. 1399)

II. The Constellation Model (id. 1399-1404), “depends on a court’s ability to discern whether the

accommodation sought forms part of the disability constellation or is separate from it.” (id. 1400)

10

Those with invisible disabilities often have trouble impressing the seriousness and scopeof their conditions upon others, [98] and those with psychological disabilities frequentlystruggle to convince decisionmakers that a particular accommodation is actually for theirdisabilities rather than for personal enjoyment. (id. 1404)

III. The Iceberg Model (id. 1404-1410), “In this formulation, the substantial limitation on a major

life activity is a threshold test for proving that the disability exists, after which a presumption of

connectedness applies to any plausible accommodation the individual might seek.” (id. 1404).

Although it is unorthodox to describe courts as deferring to private individualsrepresenting their own self-interest, an informal rule of deferring to people withdisabilities on matters concerning the scope of their disabilities would actually sharemany rationales with well-established interpretive doctrines. Judicial policies of deferringto administrative agencies under the Chevron [123] and Skidmore [124] doctrines, forexample, are premised in large part on the idea that agencies have much greater expertisewithin their substantive specialties than do courts. [125] It should go without saying thatthe same is true of individuals with respect to their disabilities and the accommodationsthey need in order to participate in society.[126] (id. 1407).

[125] See Stephen Breyer, The Executive Branch, Administrative Action, andComparative Expertise, 32 CARDOZO L. REV. 2189, 2193–95 (2011)(explaining that the greater an administrative agency’s subject matter expertise ascompared to that of a reviewing court, the greater the degree of deference thecourt typically accords to agency decisions).

[126] Judges have frequently acknowledged their own limitations in assessingreasonable accommodation claims, often relying on expert witnesses, see Stern v.Univ. of Osteopathic Med. & Health Scis., 220 F.3d 906, 908 (8th Cir. 2000),administrative agencies, see Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S.184, 194 (2002) (suggesting without deciding that EEOC regulations interpretingthe ADA might warrant deference despite the Agency’s lack of statutory authorityto promulgate them), and other evidence of third-party approval, seeNondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local GovernmentServices, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (2011) (requiring training for service animals), tohelp fill the gaps in their knowledge.

[T]he ADA is aimed at ensuring equal protection for people with disabilities, but ADAlitigants have had remarkably low success rates. [128] The model also comports with therights to privacy and dignity that some ascribe to the U.S. Constitution. [129] Many peoplewith disabilities have lamented the intrusive nature of others’ scrutiny of their conditions.Jeff Bell, a radio personality with obsessive-compulsive disorder, endured years of invasivequestioning and skepticism from ill-informed therapists as he gradually came to terms withhis disability.[130] Catherine Wyatt-Morley, the author of a memoir about living with HIV,has recounted the difficult personal questions that strangers often ask HIV-positive

11

people.[131] A deference canon would curtail such unseemly inquiry, at least in thejudicial setting, thereby promoting underenforced constitutional norms. (id. 1408)

[129] See, e.g., Erin Daly, Human Dignity in the Roberts Court: A Story of InchoateInstitutions, Autonomous Individuals, and the Reluctant Recognition of a Right, 37OHIO N.U. L. REV. 381,381–82 (2011) (“[T]he Supreme Court is inching toward agreater recognition of the constitutional value of human dignity . . . .”).

In spite of the pervasive impacts a disability has on its bearer, individuals with disabilitiespossess many qualities independent of the disability.[135] To nonetheless treat all of thesecircumstances and characteristics as presumptively related to the disability may result insystematic underestimation of these individuals’ talents and abilities, an outcome that thedisability rights movement has long opposed.[136] (id. 1409)

[136] See, e.g., BAGENSTOS, supra note 52, at 90–94; Samuel R. Bagenstos,Justice Ginsburg and the Judicial Role in Expanding “We the People”: TheDisability Rights Cases, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 49, 50–51 (2004) (“[E]ven whenwell-intentioned, the attitudes of pity, charity, and inspiration treated people withdisabilities as fundamentally separate from the ‘We the People’ who make up ourcivic community.”).

IV. Recommendations for Decisionmakers (id. 1410-1413). “The foregoing discussion

demonstrates that courts have not yet devised a method for analyzing the connection between a

disability and a requested accommodation that mediates perfectly among the competing

values that this analysis implicates...Perhaps because disability law is an inherently subjective

discipline, drawing its substance from deeply personal identities and interactions, no single

logical model can satisfactorily meet every situation it confronts. (id. 1410-1411).

Adjusting rules to account for real-world circumstances is a familiar tactic in Americanlegal thought; [141] this proposal simply applies it on a smaller scale. (id. 1411)

[141] See, e.g., Roscoe Pound, Law in Books and Law in Action, 44 AM. L. REV. 12, 23(1910) (“[L]egislation has always brought with it an imperative theory of law . . . and aresulting tendency to overlook the necessity of squaring the rules upon the statute bookwith the demands of human reason and the exigencies of human conduct.”). (id. 1411)

However my accommodation request was mostly seeking compliance with existing rules,

laws, and case holdings, especially disqualification of counsel required under McPartland v. ISI

Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995. In addition I sought: (February 19, 2010).

12

1. Proceed under the “federal approach” suggested by the Honorable James M. Barton, II

2. Rule 1.200, Fla.R.Civ.P, Pretrial Procedure, Rule 1.200(a) Case Management Conference

3. Rule 1.201, Fla.R.Civ.P, Complex Litigation designation

4. Rule 2.545, Fla.R.Jud.Admin, Case Management by the Court

5. Florida Statutes, section 784.048, Stalking (protection from)

6. Florida Statutes, chapter 837, Perjury (protection from)

7. Law Review by the Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom, Professionalism and LitigationEthics, 28 STETSON L. REV. 323, 324 (1998). Please use this standard.

8. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971) Supreme Court found pro se pleadingsshould be held to "less stringent standards" than those drafted by attorneys.

In addition I sought the intensive case management described in Judge Isom’s law review, and

enforcement by order of Judge Isom’s “court-imposed prohibition of conduct” against Rodems.

However Judge Isom noted a disharmony when “Apparently, some attorneys feel that “cutting

up” is a large part of what their clients expect them to do.” and “Perhaps the perceived backlash

of cracking down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's circuit judges who are

elected officials.” Another disharmony cited by Judge Isom:

Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive case management. Attorneysmay perceive that the court is trying to prevent them from earning additional attorneyfees by streamlining the process.

Conclusion (id. 1413)

Determining whether the reasonable accommodation that an individual requests issufficiently connected to her disability can be a messy process. Judges have applied avariety of logical mechanisms to the nexus questions they confront, and none of thesemechanisms is without significant flaws. But the virtues of each model counsel againststarting from scratch. The bridge model attempts to bring analytical crispness to anotherwise murky field. The constellation model recognizes the importance of humanintuition to the process of reasonable accommodation. The iceberg model is undoubtedlythe product of progressive impulses. Thus, instead of championing a single approach, thisNote promotes a mixed methodology that favors empathy for opposing positions oversingularity of purpose. It suggests that the compromise positions that could be dismissedas temporary, secondbest settlements may be surprisingly coherent and desirable aslongterm solutions.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION

Attorney Robert W. Bauer may have discovered the perfect crime: Represent clients, on

an hourly basis, in malpractice litigation against other attorneys, and once retained, bleed the

client of funds in a "fake representation" or a "kabuki dance" that breaks the client, and protects

the subject attorney. Unfortunately The Florida Bar is an apparent participant in this scheme.

Respectfully Submitted April 10, 2012

13

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

I, NEIL J. GILLESPIE appearing pro se, CERTIFY that this Rule 21 motion to correct

and supplenlent my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari is presented

in good faith and not for delay. Respectfully, I apologize to the Court for its late filing. I have

been delayed by disability, and the demands of representing myself in home foreclosure. I made

several foreclosure defense filings this week to save my home, and provided copies of the court-

stamped cover pages as evidence in a letter to the Clerk.

Concerning page limits, I could not find in the Supreme Court Rules a page limitation

applicable to a motion. If this motion exceeds a page limit, respectfully I ask the Court to allow

the number of pages presented to accept this motion.

I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts, upon information and

belief, are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.

Respectfully submitted April 10, 2013.

Neil Gillespie


Page 1 of 1

3/28/2013

Neil! I had to back off from your complaint because we had to keep Bauer as our Atty, BUT NO MORE!! I will call Annemarie Craft first thing in the morning! I fired Bauer today without even having another Atty to represent us and yes it has been going on this long. He has failed to follow through on EVERYTHING, yet he has racked up a bill that we will never be able to pay. YOU ARE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY about Bauer following through on ANYTHING and then when you ask him why something is not done it is ONE EXCUSE AFTER ANOTHER! I will be filing Arbitration throught the State Bar to get our fees back. I am YOUR witness, USE ME! Sincerely, Kimberly Pruett

Appendix A

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 58-2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 24 of 42 PageID 1597

Appendix B

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-1 Filed 07/07/11 Page 61 of 62 PagelD 817

,\ JI.I--';,' , ~~;.,.-. . _.-.:-,., ...... I' .,.:,~,~~, ~ ~ .:... ' \~.\ ... (.~ ..;.. ~. \1,:):;:,:'~~I.'2;~

...!~ ..~:!:..~~. 0:V ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Or THE COURTS

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

LEGAL DEPARTMENT DAVID A. ROWLAND GENERAL COUNSEl.

July9,2010

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Via E-Mail: ncilgillcsr)it:(ll 1l1Ji.I1Ct

Re: ADA Accommodation Request Gillespie v. Barker. Rodems &Cook, Case No.: 05-CA-007205, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, General Civil Division

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

This is a response to your July 6, 20 I0 ADA request tor accommodation directed to Gonzalo Casares. the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ADA Coordinator. You request the same ADA accommodations previously submitted on February 19, 2010. Your February 19, 2010 ADA request was a request for the court to take the following case management actions:

1. Stop Mr. Rodems' behavior directed toward you that is aggravating your post traumatic stress syndrome.

2. Fulfill case management duties imposed by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545 and designate the above-referenced case as complex litigation under Florida Rule ofCivil Procedure 1.20 I.

3. Offer services, programs, or activities described in Judge Isom'5 law review article - Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 Stetson L. Rev. 323, 324 (1998) - so the court can "intensivelyU manage the case.

800 EAST TwiGGS STREET • St:.T£ 60J • TAt.IPA. FLORIDA ll602 • PlfONE: (813) 2n-6843 • WE8~ w.w.njudI3.or&

Appendix C

Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36-1 Filed 07/07/11 Page 62 of 62 PagelD 818

Neil J. Gillespie July 9, 2010 Page 2

4. Enforce Judge Isom's directives imposed on February 5, 2007 which require both parties to only address each other by surname when communicating about this case and require parties to communicate in writing instead of telephone calls.

5. Allow a 180-day stay so you can scan thousands ofdocuments in this case to PDF and find and hire replacement counsel.

As ADA Coordinator, Mr. Casares can assist in providing necessary auxiliary aids and services and any necessary facility-related accommodations. But neither Mr. Casares. nor any other court employee. can administratively grant, as an ADA accommodation. requests that relate to the internal management of a pending case. All ofyour case management requests - that opposing counsel's behavior be modified, that the court fulfill its duties under Rule 2.545, that the above-referenced case be designated as complex, that your case be "intensively" managed as suggested by Judge Isom's law review article, that Judge 18om's previous directive regarding communication between parties be enforced, that your case be stayed - must be submitted by written motion to the presiding judge of the case. The presiding judge may consider your disability, along with other relevant factors, in ruling upon your motion.

Sincerely,

David A. Rowland

cc: The Honorable Martha J. Cook Ryan C. Rodems, Counsel for Defendant Gonzalo Casares, ADA Coordinator for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

Accu-Chek CompassMeter Download Report

Neil J. GillespieBirth Date: 3/19/1956

Page 1 of 7Printed: 3/24/2013 Roche Diagnostics

! Date and Time Time Block bG (mg/dL) Insulin Carb. (g) Exercise Events and Misc.3/24/2013 6:45 AM BB 1453/23/2013 2:32 PM AL 1123/23/2013 11:40 AM BL 2003/21/2013 10:26 AM AB 1083/20/2013 8:15 AM AB 1173/20/2013 3:43 AM Nt 1173/19/2013 7:16 AM BB 1483/18/2013 1:52 PM AL 1893/18/2013 4:22 AM Nt 1603/17/2013 11:10 PM Ev 783/17/2013 9:43 AM AB 1233/16/2013 8:56 AM AB 1233/15/2013 9:07 AM AB 1253/14/2013 6:39 AM BB 1093/13/2013 9:21 AM AB 2003/13/2013 6:03 AM BB 1373/12/2013 8:47 AM AB 1133/11/2013 8:15 AM AB 983/10/2013 9:32 AM AB 1133/9/2013 8:00 AM AB 1443/9/2013 4:36 AM Nt 723/8/2013 8:04 AM AB 913/7/2013 5:53 AM BB 973/5/2013 10:10 PM Ev 1253/5/2013 7:15 PM AD 1533/5/2013 6:30 AM BB 1063/4/2013 8:09 AM AB 943/3/2013 7:26 PM AD 1703/3/2013 6:14 AM BB 1303/2/2013 7:55 PM AD 1403/2/2013 7:13 AM BB 1383/1/2013 9:05 AM AB 1123/1/2013 4:35 AM Nt 982/28/2013 6:58 AM BB 1092/27/2013 11:08 PM Ev 872/27/2013 7:23 PM AD 2082/27/2013 7:31 AM BB 1182/26/2013 7:42 AM BB 922/25/2013 7:47 PM AD 1242/24/2013 10:55 PM Ev 682/23/2013 7:10 AM BB 1022/22/2013 5:37 AM BB 942/21/2013 6:55 AM BB 1072/20/2013 10:47 PM Ev 1742/19/2013 1:16 PM AL 1512/19/2013 8:03 AM AB 1082/18/2013 8:43 AM AB 1082/17/2013 7:30 AM BB 1072/13/2013 6:58 AM BB 1242/13/2013 4:59 AM Nt 1092/12/2013 7:11 AM BB 922/11/2013 8:05 PM AD 1182/11/2013 5:46 AM BB 1012/10/2013 8:47 AM AB 1132/10/2013 4:05 AM Nt 922/9/2013 11:06 PM Ev 1132/9/2013 2:52 PM AL 1282/9/2013 7:47 AM BB 912/8/2013 7:13 AM BB 1062/7/2013 9:10 AM AB 1152/6/2013 9:33 AM AB 1112/5/2013 7:25 PM AD 1972/5/2013 7:36 AM BB 1032/4/2013 6:33 AM BB 1002/3/2013 5:49 PM BD 1852/3/2013 5:35 AM BB 1842/2/2013 7:19 PM AD 1922/2/2013 1:22 PM AL 1642/2/2013 4:05 AM Nt 801/31/2013 6:51 AM BB 701/30/2013 7:22 AM BB 1011/29/2013 9:36 PM Ev 112

Appendix D

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

I, NEIL J. GILLESPIE appearing pro se, CERTIFY that this Rule 21 motion to correct

and supplenlent my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari is presented

in good faith and not for delay. Respectfully, I apologize to the Court for its late filing. I have

been delayed by disability, and the demands of representing myself in home foreclosure. I made

several foreclosure defense filings this week to save my home, and provided copies of the court-

stamped cover pages as evidence in a letter to the Clerk.

Concerning page limits, I could not find in the Supreme Court Rules a page limitation

applicable to a motion. If this motion exceeds a page limit, respectfully I ask the Court to allow

the number of pages presented to accept this motion.

I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts, upon information and

belief, are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.

Respectfully submitted April 10, 2013.

No: 12-7747

IN THE



VS.

THIRTEENTH mDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL. - RESPONDENTS

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Neil J Gillespie, do swear or declare that on this date, April 10, 2013, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed RULE 21 MOTION TO CORRECT AND SUPPLEMENT PETITION FOR THE REHEARING OF AN ORDER DENYING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or that party's counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days. Separate Volume Appendices are provided in PDF on CD due to Gillespie's indigence and disability.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

David A. Rowland, COlIrt Counsel Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florid~ Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A. Legal Department 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E 800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (352) 375-5960 Telephone: (813) 272-6843

*Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Laurel G. Bellows, President **Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. American Bar Association 501 E. Kennedy Blvd, suite 790 321 North Clark Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Chicago, IL 60654-7598 Telephone: (813) 489-1001 Telephone: (312) 988-5000

* ** NO PARTY INTEREST, see Petitioner's Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court, submitted January 22, 2013 (Nominal parties)

I declare under penalty of perjury th~llhe foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 10, 2013.

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Laurel G Bellows" <[email protected]>; "Rosen, Ellyn" <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;

<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:42 PMAttach: ABA UPS POD Apr-12-13.pdf; Rule 21 Motion, 12-7747.pdf; SCOTUS UPS POD Apr-12-13.pdfSubject: Rule 21 motion, Petition No. 12-7747

Page 1 of 1

4/13/2013

Laurel G. Bellows, President American Bar Association (ABA) 321 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-7598

Dear ABA President Bellows:

Please find attached my Rule 21 motion for leave to correct and supplement my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for a writ of certiorari. The paper motion with CD was delivered today at 10:58 AM to the ABA’s Chicago office, U.P.S. tracking no. 1Z64589FNW90528709.

The motion was delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court today at 12:57 PM, U.P.S. tracking no. 1Z64589FNP93906316. Proof of delivery for each is attached.

Unfortunately the motion will not arrive to the Court in time. While I sent it April 10, 2013 by UPS next day air early am delivery, I missed the airmail truck, so it shipped second day, and arrived today, the day of the Conference of April 12, 2013. This is a link to the docket. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm

As you may know, filings to the SCOTUS are delayed at least one day in at a separate quarantine location, so the motion will not arrive to the Court until Monday, April 15th at the earliest. I plan to call the Court today and explain the above. You are welcome and encouraged to do so also.

The attached motion is about 1/3 what I planned to submit, I ran out of time and cut a large portion that showed how disability affected my case.

Disability issues that arise during unrelated civil litigation create, in essence, a second case, which is often more difficult than the original matter due to the personal nature of disability, and indifference or hostility of the courts toward disability. How can a person with mental impairment effectively advocate for themselves when the impairment is a barrier to effective advocacy?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


ps. The attached motion is supported by 7 separate volume appendices. Those are not attached as the file size is too large. Should you or anyone receiving this email request, I will provide those 7 files in separate emails.

Neil Gillespie

From: "UPS Quantum View" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:14 PMSubject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FNP93906316

Page 1 of 1

4/12/2013

UPS My Choice® can help you avoid missed home deliveries. Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J. Gillespie will notreply.

At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice is to confirm following shipment has been delivered.

Important Delivery Information

Delivery Location: RECEIVER Signed by: LEE

Shipment Detail

Ship To: Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 3035 V ST NE WASHINGTON DC 20018 US

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNP93906316Delivery Date / Time: 12-April-2013 / 12:57 PM

Number of Packages: 1UPS Service: NEXT DAY AIR EARLY AMWeight: 5.0 LBS

© 2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Servicrights reserved. For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy. Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message. For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS. This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copyuse of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. Privacy Notice Contact UPS

Proof of Delivery

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNP93906316Service: UPS Next Day Air® Early A.M.®Weight: 5.00 lbsShipped/Billed On: 04/10/2013Delivered On: 04/12/2013 12:57 P.M.Delivered To: WASHINGTON, DC, USSigned By: LEELeft At: Receiver

Print This Page

Close Window

Dear Customer,

This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

UPS

Tracking results provided by UPS: 04/12/2013 1:19 P.M. ET

Close Window

UPS: Tracking Information http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Landove...

1 of 1 4/12/2013 1:19 PM

Neil Gillespie

From: "UPS Quantum View" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:33 PMSubject: UPS Delivery Notification, Tracking Number 1Z64589FNW90528709

Page 1 of 1

4/12/2013

UPS My Choice® can help you avoid missed home deliveries. Learn More

***Do not reply to this e-mail. UPS and Neil J. Gillespie will notreply.

At the request of Neil J. Gillespie, this notice is to confirm following shipment has been delivered.

Important Delivery Information

Delivery Location: DOCK Signed by: BARRY

Shipment Detail

Ship To: Laurel G. Bellows, President American Bar Association 321 N CLARK ST ROOM DOCK CHICAGO IL 60654 US

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW90528709Delivery Date / Time: 12-April-2013 / 10:58 AM

Number of Packages: 1UPS Service: NEXT DAY AIR SAVERWeight: 1.0 LBS

© 2013 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Servicrights reserved. For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Policy. Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message. For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS. This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copyuse of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. Privacy Notice Contact UPS

Proof of Delivery

Tracking Number: 1Z64589FNW90528709Service: UPS Next Day Air Saver®Weight: 1.00 lbShipped/Billed On: 04/09/2013Delivered On: 04/12/2013 10:58 A.M.Delivered To: CHICAGO, IL, USSigned By: BARRYLeft At: Dock

Print This Page

Close Window

Dear Customer,

This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

UPS

Tracking results provided by UPS: 04/12/2013 12:47 P.M. ET

Close Window

UPS: Tracking Information http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?lineData=Chicago .̂..

1 of 1 4/12/2013 12:47 PM

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Gwynne Alice Young" <[email protected]>Cc: "William W Wilhelm" <[email protected]>; "Theodore P Littlewood" <[email protected]>; "Susan

Varner Bloemendaal" <[email protected]>; "Paul F Hill" <[email protected]>; "Leonard E Clark" <[email protected]>; "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <[email protected]>; "John Thomas Berry" <[email protected]>; "John F Harkness" <[email protected]>; "Jeffrey Carter Andersen" <[email protected]>; "James N Watson" <[email protected]>; "Gwynne Alice Young" <[email protected]>; "Eugene Keith Pettis" <[email protected]>; "Annemarie Craft" <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:50 PMAttach: SCOTUS UPS POD Apr-12-13.pdf; ABA UPS POD Apr-12-13.pdf; Rule 21 Motion, 12-7747.pdfSubject: Rule 21 motion, Petition 12-7747

Page 1 of 2

4/13/2013

Gwynne Alice Young President, The Florida Bar Carlton Fields, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33601-3239

Dear Florida Bar President Young:

Please find attached my Rule 21 motion for leave to correct and supplement my petition for rehearing Petition No. 12-7747 for a writ of certiorari. A paper motion with CD will be provided to you today by U.P.S.

The paper motion with CD was delivered today 10:58 AM to the ABA’s Chicago office, U.P.S. tracking no. 1Z64589FNW90528709.

The motion was delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court today at 12:57 PM, U.P.S. tracking no. 1Z64589FNP93906316. Proof of delivery for each is attached.

Unfortunately the motion will not arrive to the Court in time. While I sent it April 10, 2013 by UPS next day air early am delivery, I missed the airmail truck, so it shipped second day, and arrived today, the day of the Conference of April 12, 2013. This is a link to the docket. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm

As you may know, filings to the SCOTUS are delayed at least one day in at a separate quarantine location, so the motion will not arrive to the Court until Monday, April 15th at the earliest. I plan to call the Court today and explain the above. You are welcome and encouraged to do so also.

The attached motion is about 1/3 what I planned to submit, I ran out of time and cut a large portion that showed how disability affected my case.

Disability issues that arise during unrelated civil litigation create, in essence, a second case, which is often more difficult than the original matter due to the personal nature of disability, and indifference or hostility of the courts toward disability. How can a person with mental impairment effectively advocate for themselves when the impairment is a barrier to effective advocacy?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


ps. The attached motion is supported by 7 separate volume appendices. Those are not attached as the file size is too large. Should you or anyone receiving this email request, I will provide those 7 files in separate emails.

Page 2 of 2

4/13/2013

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES____________________


vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS________________________

PETITIONER’S RULE 21 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRECT AND SUPPLEMENT

PETITION FOR REHEARING AN ORDER DENYING

PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI________________________

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

Opinion, U.S. v. Terry, 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit (recommended for publication)

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0040p-06.pdf

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUITNo. 11-4130

Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

No. 1:10-cr-390-1—Sara E. Lioi, District Judge.

Argued: October 10, 2012Decided and Filed: February 14, 2013

Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff-Appellee,

STEVEN J. TERRY,Defendant-Appellant

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATIONPursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 13a0040p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

STEVEN J. TERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

X---->,--N

No. 11-4130

Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

No. 1:10-cr-390-1—Sara E. Lioi, District Judge.

Argued: October 10, 2012

Decided and Filed: February 14, 2013

Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Sylvester Summers, Jr., SYLVESTER SUMMERS, JR., CO., LPA,Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel R. Ranke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’SOFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sylvester Summers, Jr.,SYLVESTER SUMMERS, JR., CO., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel R.Ranke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION_________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. “If you can’t eat [lobbyists’] food, drink their

booze, . . . take their money and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being

[in politics],” said Jesse Unruh, a one-time Speaker of the California General Assembly,

in the 1960s. Bill Boyarsky, Big Daddy: Jesse Unruh and the Art of Power Politics 112

(2007). That is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it comes courtesy

of the federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an official from accepting

1

No. 11-4130 United States v. Terry Page 2

things of value “in return for” official acts. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). A jury found that a

state court judge did just that and convicted him of several honest services fraud

violations. We affirm.

I.

In April 2007, Governor Ted Strickland appointed Steven Terry to fill a vacancy

on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Soon after, Terry announced that he

intended to seek reelection to retain the seat the following November. Having never run

for elected office before, Terry sought the help of County Auditor Frank Russo, a

presence in Cleveland politics. Russo agreed to help Terry with his reelection campaign

and indeed had already helped him by recommending Terry to the Governor for the

appointment and by lobbying members of the local judicial nominating committee to

support him.

Terry knew that Russo was helping him behind the scenes. What Terry did not

know was that the FBI was investigating Russo on corruption charges and that federal

agents had tapped Russo’s phones. On July 15, 2008, Russo had a phone conversation

with a local attorney, Joe O’Malley, about two foreclosure cases on Terry’s docket.

O’Malley represented several homeowners in a lawsuit against American Home Bank,

and he asked Russo to convince Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary

judgment. Russo promised to call Terry and make sure Terry did what he was

“supposed to do” with the cases. Gov’t Ex. 116; 2 Trial Tr. 294.

Two days later, Russo and Terry spoke on the phone. Russo told Terry to deny

the motions for summary judgment, and Terry said he would. In the same conversation,

the two men also discussed Russo’s attendance at future fundraisers for Terry’s

reelection campaign.

That same day, Terry contacted the magistrate judge responsible for the

foreclosure cases and told her to deny the motions for summary judgment. Surprised by

Terry’s directive, the magistrate passed along the docket so that Terry could deny the

motions himself. Terry did just that, even though he never reviewed the case files, never


read the motions before denying them and never obtained a recommendation from the

magistrate or anyone else (within the court system) about how to rule on the motions.

Terry’s collaboration came relatively cheap. Russo’s political action committee

donated $500 to Terry’s reelection campaign in July 2007. Russo’s committee

purchased around $700 worth of stationery, envelopes and car magnets for Terry’s

campaign in July 2007. And Russo had his official staff work for Terry’s campaign

during business hours and provided other political help throughout the relevant time

period. In exchange for this assistance, Russo explained that he expected Terry “to

answer the phone any time I called. And any time I called with a recommendation, or

a problem, or a case, I would expect Steve to give it special attention” and “follow

through for me.” 2 Trial Tr. 290. Russo in other words expected that his political and

financial patronage meant Terry “would do what I asked him to do,” including “granting

[] a motion so it wouldn’t tie [a] case up.” Id. For his part in this and like-minded

arrangements with other Cleveland-area officials, Russo pled guilty to twenty-one

political corruption counts of one form or another and received a 262-month prison

sentence.

For his part, Terry ran into similar problems. A grand jury indicted him on five

political corruption charges. Count One alleged that Terry conspired with Russo to

commit mail fraud and honest services fraud. Count Two alleged that Terry committed

mail fraud by denying the bank’s summary judgment motions. And Counts Three, Four

and Five alleged that he committed honest services fraud by “accepting gifts, payments,

and other things of value from Russo and others in exchange for favorable official

action.” R. 24 ¶ 52. Each honest services fraud count was tied to a mailed document:

Counts Three and Four stemmed from checks Russo’s political action committee wrote

to pay for Terry’s stationery, envelopes and car magnets, while Count Five stemmed

from a thank you note Terry wrote to Russo. Id. ¶ 54.

After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Terry on Counts One, Three and Four, and

acquitted him on Counts Two and Five. The district court sentenced him to 63 months

in prison on each count, to be served concurrently.


II.

Terry presses three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court should have

dismissed the indictment because it failed to identify a crime under United States v.

Skilling, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010); (2) the district court improperly instructed the jury on

the requirements for showing that Terry accepted a bribe; and (3) insufficient evidence

showed that Terry accepted a bribe.

A.

The district court correctly denied Terry’s motion to dismiss. An indictment

must contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts

constituting the offense charged” and a “citation of the statute . . . that the defendant is

alleged to have violated.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c). Terry’s indictment did just that. It

outlined the contours of the relationship between Terry and Russo, detailed how Russo

instructed Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary judgment, listed the benefits

Terry received from Russo and mentioned each statute Terry allegedly violated.

The indictment also complied with Skilling. Honest services mail fraud requires

the government to prove 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,” id. § 1346. That intangible right, Skilling made clear, covers only schemes in

which the defendant deprives another of his honest services by participating in a bribery

or kickback scheme. 130 S. Ct. at 2931. The relevant counts of Terry’s indictment

allege that he “devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud” the

citizens of Cuyahoga County (including the litigants before him) of honest services

“through bribery and kickbacks” that he “knowingly caused to be delivered by mail.”

R. 24 ¶ 51. Several details supported the allegations, including the checks from Russo’s

political action committee that traveled through the mail and the summary-judgment

motions that Terry denied at Russo’s behest.

Terry argues that, in upholding the indictment, the district court misread Skilling

to say that honest services fraud required the government to prove that he also violated


a state-law duty. But why should Terry care? Right or wrong, the district court’s

decision benefitted Terry. By requiring the government to show Terry violated a state-

law duty, the district court added an element to the government’s case. That helped

Terry; it could not conceivably prejudice him. In narrowing honest services fraud to

require a bribe or kickback, Skilling did nothing to prevent federal courts from narrowing

the offense still further to include only bribes or kickbacks that also violate a state-law

duty. See 130 S. Ct. at 2928 n.36 (noting without elaboration that “[c]ourts have

disagreed about whether § 1346 prosecutions must be based on a violation of state law”).

We thus need not wade into the debate over whether a state-law violation is a

precondition of honest services fraud. Compare United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728,

734–735 (5th Cir. 1997), with United States v. Weyhrauch, 548 F.3d 1237, 1245–46 (9th

Cir. 2008).

B.

Terry’s second claim turns on the proper definition of a bribe when it comes to

a public official. The slate is not clean. Bribery in this setting has long been taken

seriously. See, e.g., Herodotus, The Histories 5:25 (A.D. Godley trans., Harvard Univ.

Press 1920) (describing how, in ancient Persia, a judge who accepted a bribe was flayed

alive and his successor was forced to sit on a chair made from the predecessor’s skin).

Punishment for the offense today is less severe, but the prohibition remains. The

political-corruption statutes and cases make a few principles in this area clear:

• A public official can commit honest services fraud only by accepting a

bribe or a kickback. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2931.

• A public official accepts a bribe when he “corruptly . . . receives

. . . anything of value . . . in return for . . . being influenced in the

performance of any official act.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2); see also

18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (similar definition in federal-programs bribery

statute); Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.02(b) (similar definition in state bribery

statute).


• One element of bribery is that the public official must agree that “his

official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or the

undertaking.” McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 273 (1991);

see also United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 526 (1972) (“The

illegal conduct is taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act

in a certain way.”); United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405, 411 (7th Cir.

1993) (looking to extortion cases to interpret a bribery statute because the

two crimes are “different sides of the same coin”).

• This agreement must include a quid pro quo—the receipt of something

of value “in exchange for an official act.” United States v. Sun-Diamond

Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 404–05 (1999).

• The agreement between the public official and the person offering the

bribe need not spell out which payments control which particular official

acts. Rather, “it is sufficient if the public official understood that he or

she was expected to exercise some influence on the payor’s behalf as

opportunities arose.” United States v. Abbey, 560 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir.

2009); accord United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 358–59 (4th Cir.

2012); Ryan v. United States, 688 F.3d 845, 852 (7th Cir. 2012); United

States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134, 147 (2d Cir. 2007).

That is a start. These principles, to be sure, do not spell out what kinds of

agreements—and what level of specificity—must exist between the person offering a

bribe and the public official receiving it. And some cases debate how “specific,”

“express” or “explicit” a quid pro quo must be to violate the bribery, extortion and

kickback laws. See, e.g., United States v. Ring, ___ F.3d ___, No. 11-3100, 2013 WL

276020, at *4 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“[C]ourts have struggled to pin down the definition of

an explicit quid pro quo in various contexts.”); United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d

1159, 1171 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610, 635 n.6 (2d Cir.

2011); United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 348–54 (5th Cir. 2009).


Yet these adjectives do not add a new element to these criminal statutes but

signal that the statutory requirement must be met—that the payments were made in

connection with an agreement, which is to say “in return for” official actions under it.

So long as a public official agrees that payments will influence an official act, that

suffices. What is needed is an agreement, full stop, which can be formal or informal,

written or oral. As most bribery agreements will be oral and informal, the question is

one of inferences taken from what the participants say, mean and do, all matters that

juries are fully equipped to assess. “[M]otives and consequences, not formalities,” are

the keys for determining whether a public official entered an agreement to accept a bribe,

and the trier of fact is “quite capable of deciding the intent with which words were

spoken or actions taken as well as the reasonable construction given to them by the

official and the payor.” United States v. Evans, 504 U.S. 255, 274 (1992) (Kennedy, J.,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); see also McCormick, 500 U.S. at 270

(“It goes without saying that matters of intent are for the jury to consider.”); Ring, 2013

WL 276020, at *7 (noting that intent “distinguishes criminal corruption from

commonplace political and business activities”); United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560,

569 (3d Cir. 2012) (“We rely on the good sense of jurors . . . to distinguish intent from

knowledge or recklessness where the direct evidence [of a quid pro quo] is necessarily

scanty.”).

That a bribe doubles as a campaign contribution does not by itself insulate it from

scrutiny. No doubt, a contribution is more likely to be a duty-free gift than a bribe

because a contribution has a legitimate alternative explanation: The donor supports the

candidate’s election for all manner of possible reasons. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S.

1, 21 (1976). But the prosecution may rebut that alternative explanation, and context

may show that an otherwise legitimate contribution is a bribe. Take Evans. In that case,

the Court permitted a jury to convict a state legislator who attempted to claim the

payment he received was a campaign contribution. See 504 U.S. at 257–59. Take as

well the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Whitfield. Two state judges argued that the loan

guarantees they received were made in the context of their electoral campaigns and thus

required special protection, but the court upheld a finding that the payments were bribes.


590 F.3d at 353. If an official receives money “through promises to improperly employ

his public influence,” he has accepted a bribe. Abbey, 560 F.3d at 519. A donor who

gives money in the hope of unspecified future assistance does not agree to exchange

payments for actions. No bribe thus occurs if the elected official later does something

that benefits the donor. On the other hand, if a donor (like Russo) makes a contribution

so that an elected official will “do what I asked him to do,” 2 Trial Tr. 290, and the

official (like Terry) accepts the payment with the same understanding, the donor and the

official have formed a corrupt bargain. That agreement marks the difference between

a run-of-the-mine contribution and a bribe.

Hold on, says Terry: Bribery should have two definitions, not one, a definition

for public officials who may not receive campaign contributions and a

definition for those who may. For public officials who may not receive campaign

contributions—appointed officials, for instance—any payment in exchange for a future

benefit is a bribe, he says. Terry Letter Br. at 3. But for officials who may accept

campaign contributions, a payment becomes a bribe only if it is made “in exchange for

a specific official act or omission.” Id. (emphasis added). Congress, however, did not

distinguish between public officials who may legally accept contributions and those who

may not in the bribery statutes. Nor has the Supreme Court. It has refused to

“distinguish[] between legal and illegal campaign contributions” in the context of

extortion. McCormick, 500 U.S. at 271; see also United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62,

77 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (refusing to carve out an exception in the federal bribery statute for

campaign contributions). An agreement, once again, is the dividing line between

permissible and impermissible payments.

Terry persists that campaign contributions must meet a higher standard to

become a bribe because “the financing of political campaigns depends upon officials

accepting contributions from people expecting some kind of benefit in return.” Terry

Reply Br. at 20. That sentiment may sum up Frank Russo’s donation strategy, but a

contribution also may represent nothing more than “a general expression of support for

the candidate and his views.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21. Just as “[n]ot every campaign


contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s

recusal,” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 884 (2009), not every

contribution to an elected judge is a bribe. Whatever else McCormick may mean, it does

not give an elected judge the First Amendment right to sell a case so long as the buyer

has not picked out which case at the time of sale.

The jury instructions in this case accurately conveyed that an agreement is the

key component of a bribe. The district court told the jury that, in order to find that Terry

violated the honest services fraud statute, it needed to find a “quid pro quo”: that is,

Terry agreed “to accept [a] thing of value in exchange for official action.” 5 Trial Tr.

1189. A “thing of value” could include a campaign contribution, so long as that was

“received in exchange for official acts.” Id. at 1192. Terry’s intent to exchange official

acts for contributions could be “based on [Terry’s] words, conduct, acts, and all the

surrounding circumstances disclosed by the evidence and the rational or logical

inferences that may be drawn from them.” Id. Each payment did not need to be tied to

a specific official act, so long as Terry understood that, “whenever the opportunity

present[ed] itself,” Terry would “take specific official actions on the giver’s behalf.” Id.

at 1190. These instructions matched the definition of bribery. The jury needed to find

that Terry agreed to accept things of value in exchange for official acts.

C.

Based on these instructions, the jury found that Terry accepted a bribe. We may

overturn that conclusion only if, after “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the prosecution, [no] rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

A jury could find that Terry and Russo entered an agreement to fix cases. Start

with the benefits, financial and otherwise, that Russo provided to Terry during the

relevant time period. He gave Terry’s campaign $500. He supplied Terry’s campaign

with approximately $700 in campaign materials. He expected his employees in the

Auditor’s office to engage in electioneering for Terry during office hours. And he hired


a woman Terry had fired from his chambers staff to prevent Terry from suffering

negative publicity.

A flow of benefits from one person to a public official, to be sure, does not by

itself establish bribery. The benefits instead must be part and parcel of an agreement by

the beneficiary to perform public acts for the patron. That existed as well. On one side

of the bargain, Russo thought that they had a deal. In return for showering Terry with

benefits, Russo expected Terry to use his official powers whenever and however Russo

requested. Any time Russo called, he expected Terry to “give it special attention” and

“follow through with me.” 2 Trial Tr. 290. “Special attention,” he clarified, meant that

“whether it would be a character reference or whether it would be a case,” Terry would

“do what I asked him to do.” Id.

So, too, on the other side of the bargain. Although Terry disclaimed at trial any

agreement to fix cases in which Russo had a stake, his actions belied his words. Terry’s

rulings on the foreclosure cases were, at the very least, highly irregular, and the reality

that a tape recording captured the Russo-Terry conversation immediately preceding these

rulings did Terry no favor. No subtle winks and nods were needed. Russo straight up

asked Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary judgment in the two cases, and

with Terry’s tape-recorded reply (“Got it.” Gov’t Ex. 117), Terry agreed to do just that.

And he did, within hours of the conversation. Here is the timeline: Terry and Russo

spoke at 11:58 a.m. on July 17; Terry called the magistrate later that afternoon, around

12:30 p.m.; and Terry called Russo at 10:31 a.m. the next morning to confirm he had

denied the motions. Without reading the motions, without consulting the case files and

without relying on the recommendation of anyone—within the court system—who had

read the files, Terry did just what Russo asked. That is not an everyday occurrence in

the judicial branch, and a jury could readily infer that Terry’s unusual behavior, along

with the other evidence, stemmed from an agreement to use his position as a public

official to do Russo’s bidding in return for Russo’s financial, campaign and staff support.

In the face of this evidence, Terry claims that the record nonetheless does not

establish an agreement between him and Russo to exchange campaign contributions and


help for official acts. Yes and no. Yes, the government never presented a formal

agreement between Russo and Terry stating that Russo’s gifts would control Terry’s

actions. But no, there was ample evidence for the jury to infer that an agreement

nonetheless existed between the two men.

Not every campaign contribution, we recognize, is a bribe in sheep’s clothing.

Without anything more, a jury could not reasonably infer that a campaign contribution

is a bribe solely because a public official accepts a contribution and later takes an action

that benefits a donor. See, e.g., McCormick, 500 U.S. at 272. But when a public official

acts as a donor’s marionette—by deciding a case to a donor’s benefit immediately after

the donor asks him to and without reading anything about the case—a jury can reject

legitimate explanations for a contribution and infer that it flowed from a bribery

agreement. Here, the jury rejected any legitimate explanation for Russo’s contributions

in the face of strong circumstantial evidence that Terry and Russo had a corrupt bargain.

Once the jury found Terry and Russo had an agreement, it could easily find that Terry

accepted a bribe, violating the honest services fraud statute along the way. The same

holds true for Terry’s conspiracy conviction.

III.

For these reasons, we affirm.

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE



vs.






HONEST SERVICES FRAUD, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, BY RESPONDENT JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK, IN

GILLESPIE V. BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA, ET AL. 05-CA-7205, HILLSBOROUGH CO., FL

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 - EX PARTE HEARINGS ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CIVIL CONTEMPT

Appendix 1 Final Summary Judgment As To Count I, September 28, 2010, signed, certified.

Appendix 2 Final Summary Judgment As To Count I, September 28, 2010, conformed copy, w/envelope.

Appendix 3 Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike, January 13, 2006, signed, certified.

Appendix 4 Order Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie in Contempt, September 30, 2010, signed, certified.

Appendix 5 Mr. Rodems’ letter of instructions to Judge Cook, September 28, 2010, w/enclosures, envelope.

Appendix 6 Florida Statutes, Section 839.13, Falsifying records - West’s Florida Statutes Annotated.

Appendix 7 Voluntary dismissal by Mr. Rodems September 28, 2010 of vexatious counterclaim.

Appendix 8 Tampa Bay Times, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats, Lucy Morgan, May 2, 2008.

Appendix 9 Judge Cook campaign records, 2002 General Election, Florida Division of Elections.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: OSCA720S Division: C

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,

Defendants. /

--------------~

FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT I

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on Tuesday, September 28,2010, on Defendant

Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.'s (BRC) motion for summary judgment as to Count I, alleging

breach of contract. I A review of the pleadings, admissions, affidavits and other materials as

would be admissible in evidence on file shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,

and the following material facts are undisputed:

1. PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie and two other individuals, who are not parties to this

action, hired Defendant BRC to bring claims against Amscot for alleged violations of the Truth

in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (Complaint, ~~ 6, 11).

2. Under TILA, an aggrieved individual may claim actual damages or statutory

damages of up to $1,000.00. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(l), (2). Under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3), an

aggrieved individual may also make a claim to have his or her attorneys' fees and costs paid by

I Plaintiff filed a two count complaint, alleging breach of contract against both Defendants in Count I and fraud against both Defendants in Count II. By Orders dated November 28,2007 and July 7, 2008, the Court granted judgment in favor ofDefendant Cook on both counts, and in favor ofDefendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., on the fraud count.

Appendix 1

the losing party under, but only ifhe or she is represented by counsel. Hannon v. Security Nat.

Bank, 537 F.2d 327,328-29 (9th Cir. 1976)(denying attorneys' fees under TILA to pro se

plaintiff, and holding that "[t]he purpose behind granting attorney's fees is to make a litigant

whole and to facilitate private enforcement of the Truth in Lending Act.").

3. Defendant BRC filed a lawsuit under TILA in the United States District Court,

Middle District of Florida, on behalf of Plaintiff and the two other individuals, (Complaint, ~ 9),

seeking, among other things, danlages and court-awarded attorneys' fees. (Affidavit of William

J. Cook, Esquire, ~ 4). After discovery, William J. Cook, Esquire, an attorney employed by

Defendant BRC, testified by affidavit that it became clear that none of the plaintiffs had actual

damages. (Affidavit of William J. Cook, Esquire, ~ 3).

4. After substantial litigation and discovery, the district court dismissed the TILA

claims, and Defendant BRC filed a notice of appeal. (Complaint, ~ 9); (Affidavit of William J.

Cook, Esquire, ~ 7).. While the case was on appeal, the parties began settlement negotiations.

(Complaint, ~~ 22-23, Exh. 4-6).

5. Under the "Class Representation Contract," which Plaintiff attached to his

Complaint as Exhibit 1,2 Defendant BRC had a duty to investigate and litigate Plaintiffs

"potential claims from [his] payday loans with AMSCOT Corporation." After the TILA action

2 Although Plaintiff argues the Class Representation Contract was unsigned, he alleged in the Complaint that "GILLESPIE and the LAW FIRM [defined as Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.] had a written Representation Contract." (Complaint, ~~ 2, 6). Whether the contract was signed is not material because it is undisputed from the pleadings that Plaintiff "acted as if the provisions of the contract were in force." Sosa v. Shearform Mfg., 784 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)("Even ifparties do not sign a contract, they may be bound by the provisions of the contract, if the evidence supports that they acted as if the provisions of the contract were in force.").

2

was dismissed, however, Plaintiff expressed a desire to end the litigation and avoid claims

against himself, and he directed Defendant BRC orally and in writing to negotiate a settlement of

his claims under TILA. (Complaint, Exh. 4 and 5);(Affidavit of William J. Cook, Esquire, ,-r,-r 6

6. Eventually, Amscot made a settlement offer which Plaintiff accepted.

(Complaint, ,-r,-r 32-35). Amscot agreed to pay Plaintiff and the other two plaintiffs $2,000.00

each, $50,000.00 to Defendant BRC to settle the TILA plaintiffs' claims for court-awarded

attorneys' fees and costs, and a general release of all claims against the TILA plaintiffs.

(Complaint, ,-r,-r 34-35 and Exh. 2; (Affidavit ofWilliam J. Cook, Esquire, ,-r,-r 6-8 and Exh. 1».

Under the settlement agreement, neither Plaintiff nor the other two individuals had to pay any

portion oftheir $2,000.00 to Defendant BRC for attorneys' fees or costs. (Affidavit of William

J. Cook, Esquire, ,-r 11). The Settlement Agreement, which Plaintiff, Amscot and Defendant

BRC signed, constituted a modification to the Class Representation Contract for which there was

consideration, as Defendant BRC took on the task of negotiating a general release, which was not

a duty under the Class Representation Contract, and stated as follows: "Amscot shall pay the

Firm the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars and Noll 00 ($50,000), in satisfaction of Plaintiffs'

claims for attorneys' fees and costs, as more fully described herein, against Amscot as asserted in

the Action." (Affidavit of William J. Cook, Esquire, Exh. 1).

3 Plaintiffs written directive was for Defendant BRC to demand a settlement whereby Amscot would pay $1,000 to him and $10,000 for Plaintiffs and the other plaintiffs' claim for court-awarded attorneys' fees. (Complaint, Exh. 4 and 5). Had Plaintiff and the other plaintiffs in the TILA action not had counsel, there would have been no basis to make a claim for court-awarded attorney's fees. Hannon, 537 F.2d at 328-29(denying attorneys' fees under TILA to pro se plaintiff).

3

7. Plaintiff also signed a Closing Statement, which included the following statement:

"In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge that Amscot Corporation separately paid my

attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against Amscot for

court-awarded fees and costs. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy of the fully

executed Release and Settlement Agreement dated October 30,2001." (Complaint, Exh.

2)(Emphasis added).

In Count I against Defendant BRC, Plaintiff contends that, even though he entered into

the Settlement Agreement with Amscot, by which Plaintiff, Amscot and Defendant BRC agreed

that Amscot would pay $50,000.00 to Defendant BRC to settle Plaintiffs and the other two

plaintiffs' claim for court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs, and even though Plaintiff signed the

Closing Statement, which acknowledged that the payment of $50,000.00 was intended to resolve

the claims for court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs, and even through Plaintiff did not pay any

portion of the $2,000.00 Amscot paid him to Defendant BRC as attorneys' fees, Defendant BRC

should have paid Plaintiff some portion of the $50,000.00 paid to settle the claims for

court-awarded attorneys' fees. (Complaint, ~~ 12-20). Plaintiff claims that the failure to do so

was a breach ofhis contract with Defendant BRC.

Based on the undisputed material facts, and having read and considered the proceedings,

heard from counsel and Plaintiff, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, Defendant

BRC is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on Count I for several reasons. First, Amscot,

not Plaintiff, paid the Plaintiffs attorneys' fees, and Defendant BRC did not take a percentage of

the $2,000.00 paid to Plaintiff for his claims for statutory damages. In other words, Defendant

BRC did not charge Plaintiff any attorneys' fees. As the Class Representation Contract states,

4

"[i]n rare cases, the Defendant(s) may pay all or part of the attorneys' fees." Amscot paid 100%

of Plaintiffs and the other two plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, as agreed to by Plaintiff, Amscot and

Defendant BRC, and as permitted by TILA and the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. R.

Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.8(f)(authorizing a lawyer to accept payment of his or her fees for

representation of a client by one other than the client).

Defendant BRC did not breach any contract with Plaintiff by accepting the payment of

$50,000.00 that Plaintiff directed Amscot to pay to it. Moreover, Defendant BRC could not

ethically share with Plaintiff any portion of the attorneys' fees it was paid. R. Regulating Fla.

Bar 4-5.4(a)("A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer...."); Profl

Ethics of the Fla. Bar,'Op. 60-33 (1961)(Quoting with approval, HENRY S. DRINKER, LEGAL

ETHICS 182: "The only situations in which a lawyer may properly permit a client to receive. and

retain fees paid by others on account of his legal services are when such payments are to

reimburse the client in whole or in part for the client's legal expenses actually incurred in the

specific matter for which they are paid."). The law assumes that parties have made a contract for

a lawful purpose. See,~, I.R.D. Management Com. v. Dulin, 883 So. 2d 314,316-17 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2004).

Finally, Plaintiff is estopped as a matter of law from adopting a contrary position in this

litigation to the one he took during settlement negotiations with Amscot, in the Settlement

Agreement signed by him, Amscot and Defendant BRC, and in the Closing Statement. "In order

to demonstrate the existence of estoppel, a party must establish (1) a representation as to a

material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; (2) reliance upon that representation; and

(3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel, caused by the representation

5

and reliance." Sun Cruz Casinos, L.L.C. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 844 So.2d 681, 684 (Fla.

4th DCA 2003). According to the undisputed testinlony by Mr. Cook, Defendant BRC relied on

the statements Plaintiff made in the Settlement Agreement with Amscot that Amscot was

authorized to pay Defendant BRC $50,000.00 for the claim for court-awarded attorneys' fees and

costs, as well as in the Closing Statement, and Defendant BRC would not have accepted the

money ifPlaintiff had not agreed to the terms of settlement. Therefore, as a matter of law,

Plaintiff is estopped from changing his position with Amscot that its payment of $50,000.00 was

to settle and resolve Plaintiffs obligation to pay Defendant BRC attorneys' fees and costs.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant BRC's motion for summary

judgment as to Count I is GRANTED; and,

IT IS ADJUDGED that PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida

34481, take nothing by this action and that Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North

Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, shall go hence without day and recover costs

from Plaintiff, the amount of which the Court retains jurisdiction to determine if the parties

cannot agree.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this O(%' day of September, 2010.

Circuit Judge

Copies to:

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie, pro se STATE OF FLORIDA· )Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire (Counsel for Defendants) COUNTY OF ~~LLSBOROUGH)

THtS IS TO CERTWY THAT THE FOREGOING t~ ATRUE AND CORRECT copy OF THE DOCUMENT ON FILE IN MY OFJ:.ICE. vV~TNESS MY HAND" AND OFFICIAL SEAl-THIS d(£i!h- DAYOf QL..f..!?/P--Jc 20..LcJ

6 '~""\",

5~~~.L"Q PAT FRANK (~~);~ CLE~K OF CIRCUIT COURT

~'~i:~~~i~i£~ BY~ D.C.



NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 Division: C


Defendants. _____________----:1

FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT I

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on Tuesday, September 28,2010, on Defendant

Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.'s (BRC) motion for summary judgment as to Count I, alleging

breach of contract. 1 A review of the pleadings, admissions, affidavits and other materials as

would be admissible in evidence on file shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,

and the following material facts are undisputed:

1. Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie and two other individuals, who are not parties to this

action, hired Defendant BRC to bring claims against Amscot for alleged violations of the Truth

in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (Complaint, ~~ 6, 11).

2. Under TILA, an aggrieved individual may claim actual damages or statutory

damages of up to $1,000.00. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(l), (2). Under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3), an

aggrieved individual may also make a claim to have his or her attorneys' fees and costs paid by

1 Plaintiff filed a two count complaint, alleging breach of contract against both Defendants in Count I and fraud against both Defendants in Count II. By Orders dated November 28,2007 and July 7, 2008, the Court granted judgment in favor of Defendant Cook on both counts, and in favor of Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., on the fraud count.

Appendix 2

the losing party under, but only if he or she is represented by counsel. Hannon v. Security Nat.

Bank, 537 F.2d 327,328-29 (9th Cir. 1976)(denying attorneys' fees under TILA to pro se

plaintiff, and holding that "[t]he purpose behind granting attorney's fees is to make a litigant

whole and to facilitate private enforcement of the Truth in Lending Act.").

3. Defendant BRC filed a lawsuit under TILA in the United States District Court,

Middle District of Florida, on behalf of Plaintiff and the two other individuals, (Complaint, ~ 9),

seeking, among other things, damages and court-awarded attorneys' fees. (Affidavit of William

J. Cook, Esquire, ~ 4). After discovery, William J. Cook, Esquire, an attorney employed by

Defendant BRC, testified by affidavit that it became clear that none of the plaintiffs had actual

damages. (Affidavit of William J. Cook, Esquire, ~ 3).

4. After substantial litigation and discovery, the district court dismissed the TILA

claims, and Defendant BRC filed a notice of appeal. (Complaint, ~ 9); (Affidavit of William J.

Cook, Esquire, ~ 7). While the case was on appeal, the parties began settlement negotiations.

(Complaint, ~~ 22-23, Exh. 4-6).

5. Under the "Class Representation Contract," which Plaintiff attached to his

Complaint as Exhibit 1,2 Defendant BRC had a duty to investigate and litigate Plaintiffs

"potential claims from [his] payday loans with AMSCOT Corporation." After the TILA action

2 Although Plaintiff argues the Class Representation Contract was unsigned, he alleged in the Complaint that "GILLESPIE and the LAW FIRM [defined as Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.] had a written Representation Contract." (Complaint, ~~ 2,6). Whether the contract was signed is not material because it is undisputed from the pleadings that Plaintiff "acted as if the provisions ofthe contract were in force." Sosa v. Shearform Mfg., 784 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001 )("Even if parties do not sign a contract, they may be bound by the provisions of the contract, if the evidence supports that they acted as if the provisions of the contract were in force.").

2

was dismissed, however, Plaintiff expressed a desire to end the litigation and avoid claims

against himself, and he directed Defendant BRC orally and in writing to negotiate a settlement of

his claims under TILA. (Complaint, Exh. 4 and 5);(Affidavit of William J. Cook, Esquire, ~~ 6

6. Eventually, Amscot made a settlement offer which Plaintiff accepted.

(Complaint, ~~ 32-35). Amscot agreed to pay Plaintiff and the other two plaintiffs $2,000.00

each, $50,000.00 to Defendant BRC to settle the TILA plaintiffs' claims for court-awarded

attorneys' fees and costs, and a general release of all clainls against the TILA plaintiffs.

(Complaint, ~~ 34-35 and Exh. 2; (Affidavit of William J. Cook, Esquire, ~~ 6-8 and Exh. 1)).

Under the settlement agreement, neither Plaintiff nor the other two individuals had to pay any

portion of their $2,000.00 to Defendant BRC for attorneys' fees or costs. (Affidavit of William

J. Cook, Esqllire, ~ 11). The Settlement Agreement, wllich Plaintiff, Amscot and Defendant

BRC signed, constituted a modification to the Class Representation Contract for which there was

consideration, as Defendant BRC took on the task of negotiating a general release, which was not

a dllty under the Class Representation Contract, and stated as follows: "Amscot shall pay the

Firm the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars and No/I00 ($50,000), in satisfaction of Plaintiffs'

claims for attorneys' fees and costs, as more fully described herein, against Amscot as asserted in

the Action." (Affidavit of William J. Cook, Esquire, Exh. 1).

3 Plaintiff s written directive was for Defendant BRC to demand a settlement whereby Amscot would pay $1,000 to him and $10,000 for Plaintiffs and the other plaintiffs' claim for court-awarded attorneys' fees. (Complaint, Exh. 4 and 5). Had Plaintiff and the other plaintiffs in the TILA action not had counsel, there would have been no basis to make a claim for court-awarded attorney's fees. Hannon, 537 F.2d at 328-29(denying attorneys' fees under TILA to pro se plaintift).

3

7. Plaintiff also signed a Closing Statement, which included the following statement:

"In signing this closing statement, I acknowledge tllat Amscot Corporation separately paid my

attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against Amscot for

court-awarded fees and costs. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy of the fully

executed Release and Settlement Agreement dated October 30,2001." (Complaint, Exh.

2)(Emphasis added).

In Count I against Defendant BRC, Plaintiff contends that, even though he entered into

the Settlement Agreement with Amscot, by which Plaintiff, Amscot and Defendant BRC agreed

that Amscot would pay $50,000.00 to Defendant BRC to settle Plaintiffs and the other two

plaintiffs' claim for court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs, and even though Plaintiff signed the

Closing Statement, which acknowledged that the payment of $50,000.00 was intended to resolve

the claims for court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs, and even through Plaintiff did not pay any

portion of the $2,000.00 Amscot paid him to Defendant BRC as attorneys' fees, Defendant BRC

sl10uld have paid Plaintiff some portion of the $50,000.00 paid to settle the claims for

court-awarded attorneys' fees. (Complaint, Iiflif 12-20). Plaintiff claims that the failllre to do so

was a breach of his contract with Defendant BRC.

Based on the undisputed material facts, and having read and considered the proceedings,

heard from counsel and Plaintiff, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, Defendant

BRC is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on Count I for several reasons. First, Amscot,

not Plaintiff, paid the Plaintiffs attorneys' fees, and Defendant BRC did not take a percentage of

the $2,000.00 paid to Plaintiff for his claims for statutory damages. In other words, Defendant

BRC did not charge Plaintiff any attorneys' fees. As the Class Representation Contract states,

4

I '

"[i]n rare cases, the Defendant(s) may pay all or part of the attorneys' fees." Amscot paid 100%

of Plaintiffs and the other two plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, as agreed to by Plaintiff, Amscot and

Defendant BRC, and as pernlitted by TILA and the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. R.

Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.8(f)(authorizing a lawyer to accept payment of his or her fees for

representation of a client by one other than the client).

Defendant BRC did not breach any contract with Plaintiff by accepting the payment of

$50,000.00 that Plaintiff directed Amscot to pay to it. Moreover, Defendant BRC could not

ethically share with Plaintiff any portion of the attorneys' fees it was paid. R. Regulating Fla.

Bar 4-5.4(a)("A lawyer or law firnl shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer...."); Profl

Ethics of the Fla. Bar, Ope 60-33 (1961)(Quoting with approval, HENRY S. DRINKER, LEGAL

ETHICS 182: "The only situations in which a lawyer may properly permit a client to receive and

retain fees paid by others on account of his legal services are when such payments are to

reimburse the client in whole or in part for the client's legal expenses actually incurred in the

specific matter for which they are paid."). The law assumes that parties have made a contract for

a lawful purpose. See,~, J.R.D. Management Corp. v. Dulin, 883 So. 2d 314, 316-17 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2004).

Finally, Plaintiff is estopped as a matter of law from adopting a contrary position in this

litigation to the one he took during settlement negotiations with Amscot, in the Settlement

Agreement signed by him, Amscot and Defendant BRC, and in the Closing Statement. "In order

to demonstrate the existence of estoppel, a party must establish (1) a representation as to a

material fact tllat is contrary to a later-asserted position; (2) reliance upon that representation; and

(3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel, caused by the representation

5

· .

and reliance." Sun Cruz Casinos, L.L.C. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 844 So.2d 681, 684 (Fla.

4th DCA 2003). According to the undisputed testimony by Mr. Cook, Defendant BRC relied on

the statements Plaintiff made in the Settlement Agreement with Amscot that Amscot was

authorized to pay Defendant BRC $50,000.00 for the claim for court-awarded attorneys' fees and

costs, as well as in the Closing Statement, and Defendant BRC would not have accepted the

money if Plaintiff had not agreed to the terms of settlement. Therefore, as a matter of law,

Plaintiff is estopped from changing his position with Arnscot that its payment of $50,000.00 was

to settle and resolve Plaintiffs obligation to pay Defendant BRC attorneys' fees and costs.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant BRC's motion for summary

judgment as to Count I is GRANTED; and,

IT IS ADJUDGED that PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida

34481, take nothing by this action and that Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North

Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, shall go hence without day and recover costs

from Plaintiff, the amount of which the Court retains jurisdiction to determine if the parties

cannot agree.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this __ day of September, 2010.

OR\G\NAL S\GNEr

SEP 28 2010

Copies to:

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie, pro se Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire (Counsel for Defendants)

6

I ~7f1 ,. " - '( hi r . :" .... ',' , ,", rr t " t ' er

f

The Honorable Martha J. Cook Circuit Court Judge ~~f:SPOs~

~ ~~j Circuit Civil, Division "C" 1 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 512 ~~'!f: - , 6 ~~..---, fJ~~.£i..~ B~'~"-"~

~: ~ .....-..-..r PITNEY BOWESTampa, Florida 33602 POSTAGE PREPAID ;ty~:..u:E 02 1P $ 000.61° 0001623878

-,=,wyr,,,.. T MAILED FROM ZIPCODE33606

, \

\

, Neil J. Gillespie ~ 8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala Florida 34481

1,1,1/ "~ ,1'/',1'//1"""',1'.',1/1/,,,,1',1 ,,1,1/' ,"• I ' ",J6#J%4"M"f< ,£ ,.",.$;".,1',"'"'' /" s...a~, k u,: .. ,,.., ~ • ,4.. ,~ , .,

-, \ ,) Ii .... '-' , ....

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIllRTEENTH JUDICIAL CmCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,

CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

PLAINTIFF,

vs.

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., a Florida Corporation; and WILLIAM J. COOK,

DEFENDANTS.

--------------_-----:/

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

TIDS CAUSE came on for hearing on September 26,2005, upon Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss and Strike, and counsel for the parties being present and having made

arguments and the court having considered the Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion

to Dismiss and Strike. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion

to Dismiss and Strike and the Plaintiff's Second Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss and Strike, and the court being advised fully in the premises, it is thereupon,

ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to

dismiss the Complaint are denied. Defendant shall have fifteen days from the date of this

order within which to file responsive pleadings.

DIVISION" F "

or, 36

- //1

Appendix 3

3. Those portions of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike seeking to strike

portions of the Complaint is granted in the following particulars:

a. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Complaint are stricken.

b. Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is stricken.

c. All references to or demands for punitive damages are stricken or

failure to comply with §768.72 of the Florida Statutes.

ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this

_ day of JAN 13 2006 ,2o_.

RICHARD A. NIELSEN CIRCUIT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Ryan C. Rodems, Esquire 300 West Platt Street, Suite 150 Tampa, Florida 33606


or' 37 f _



NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff, J ~.:

.. : r ......':\

vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 ,

Division: G

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A., ~ .-,a Florida corporation; and WILLIAM

J. COOK, - ..'

Defendants. _______-------1

ORDER ADJUDGING PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE IN CONTEMPT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Tuesday, September 28,2010, on Defendants'

Motion for an Order of Contempt and Writ of Bodily Attachment, l and the proceedings having

been read and considered and counsel having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully

advised in the premises, the Court finds and concludes that Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie has wilfully

and with contumacious disregard violated the Court's Notice of Case Management Status and

Orders on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions entered July 29,2010 by refusing to appear for a

duly noticed deposition on September 3,2010.

On July 29, 2010, the Court entered the Notice of Case Management Status and Orders on

Outstanding Res Judicata Motions, which stated: "The Plaintiffs 'Motion for Order of

Protection,' (no date provided in Judge Barton's order) renewed in his 'Motion to Cancel

Deposition' (6-16-10) is DENIED. The Plaintiff has repeatedly been the subject of Motions to

1 Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment. During that hearing, PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return.

Appendix 4

Compel by the Defendants during the course of these proceedings, and has ignored Court orders

requiring his participation. The Court will not accept these or any further attempts by the Plaintiff

to avoid the Defendant's right to discovery in this case and to bring this matter to a close.

Non-compliance with the Court's orders is grounds for dismissal of the Plaintiffs remaining

count with prejudice." (Notice of Case Management Status and Orders on Outstanding Res

Judicata Motions, ~8).

The record shows that Plaintiff previously failed to appear for two properly noticed

depositions. Defendants served a notice of deposition on October 13,2009, scheduling Plaintiffs

deposition on December 15,2009. On June 1,2010, Defendants served another notice of

deposition, scheduling Plaintiffs deposition on June 18, 2010. While Plaintiff served "Plaintiffs

Motion to Cancel Deposition Duces Tecum June 18,2010 and for an Order of Protection" on

June 14, 2010, he did not attempt to have it heard before the deposition, and did not appear at the

deposition.2

After the Court's Order entered July 29, 2010, Defendants served a notice of deposition

on August 17,2010, scheduling the deposition for September 3, 2010. Plaintiff did not respond

until September 3,2010, asserting that he would not be attending the deposition for three

reasons: First, Plaintiff asserted that "[t]he court has not responded to nor provided

accommodations requested under the Americans with disabilities Act ...." Second, he asserted

that "the Oath of Office for judges in this matter [ ] are not legally sufficient, calling into

question rulings in this matter." Finally, Plaintiff again asserted that Defendants' counsel's

2 As stated above, on July 29,2010, this Court entered the Notice of Case Management Status and Orders on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions, denying the Plaintiff's motions for protection from being deposed.

2

representation of Defendants is "unlawful." Defendants contend that each of these reasons is

either specious or has been expressly rejected by the Court. The Court agrees. Based on these

findings

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie is guilty of

contempt of this Court for failing to appear for deposition on September 3,2010 and he will

continue to be guilty of contempt unless and until the Plaintiff is deposed in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit to a deposition in Tampa,

Florida, within 45 days. Plaintiff is directed to propose to Defendants' counsel, in writing, three

dates on which his deposition may be taken on or before November 12,2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff violates this Order by failing to submit to a

deposition on or before November 12,2010, then the Court will enter an Order to Show Cause

requiring Plaintiffs appearance before the Court, and the Court will consider appropriate

sanctions.

The Court retains jurisdiction to impose additional sanctions, as necessary, and to tax

attorneys' fees and costs.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this £ day of September, 2010.

~~.&4A Martha J. Cook Circuit Judge

Copies to:


STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF HllLSOOP.()UGH) ,

THIS IS TO C~~TIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT copy OF H+f: OOCUMeNT ON FILE IN

3 MY OF.e;:~E. I!)(!TNEr~ ,,1',' l-gv~AOF:ICIAL :~~ THISo(&'Ndl. CA'fC>f.(!) £....!:t.

:~[r~ PAT FRANKf5:c4.-'() CI.r.~K OF UIT COURT ~~\:.fJ)}elJ "'i.~>~...~~.l D.C.

t\\,,,,,~'"

cOpyBARKER, RODEMS & COOK

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW

CHRIS A. BARKER Telephone 813/489 .. 1001400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS Facsimile 813/489 .. 1008 WILLIAM J. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602

September 28, 2010

The Honorable Martha J. Cook Circuit Court Judge Circuit Civil, Division "G" 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 511 Tampa, Florida 33602

Re: Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., a Florida Corporation; and William J. Cook

Case No.: 05-CA-7205; Division "G"

Dear Judge Cook:

Following your ruling today holding Mr. Gillespie in contempt, enclosed is a proposed Order Adjudging PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie in Contempt along with two copies and postage prepaid envelopes. If the form of the Order meets with Your Honor's approval, we respectfully request that it be entered.

Additionally, I am enclosing a copy ofDefendants' Notice ofVoluntary Dismissal of COlUlterclaims, the original ofwhich is being filed with the Clerk of Court today.

RCR/so Enclosures cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie (w/encl)

Appendix 5

--------------

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIDRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCIDT IN AND FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA


NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 05CA7205 Division: G


Defendants. I

ORDER ADJUDGING PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIE IN CONTEMPT

TillS CAUSE came before the Court on Tuesday, September 28, 2010, on Defendants'

Motion for an Order of Contempt and Writ ofBodily Attachment, l and the proceedings having

been read and considered and counsel having been heard, and the Court being otherwise fully

advised in the premises, the Court fmds and concludes that PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie has wilfully

and with contumacious disregard violated the Court's Notice of Case Management Status and

Orders on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions entered July 29, 2010 by refusing to appear for a

duly noticed deposition on September 3, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, the Court entered the Notice of Case Management Status and Orders on

Outstanding Res Judicata Motions, which stated: "The Plaintiffs 'Motion for Order of

Protection,' (no date provided in Judge Barton's order) renewed in his 'Motion to Cancel

Deposition' (6-16-10) is DENIED. The Plaintiffhas repeatedly been the subject of Motions to

1 Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment. During that hearing, PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return.

Compel by the Defendants during the course of these proceedings, and has ignored Court orders

requiring his participation. The Court will not accept these or any further attempts by the Plaintiff

to avoid the Defendant's right to discovery in this case and to bring this matter to a close.

Non-compliance wit11 the Court's orders is grounds for dismissal of the Plaintiffs remaining

count with prejudice." (Notice of Case Management Status and Orders on Outstanding Res

Judicata Motions, ~8).

The record shows that Plaintiffpreviously failed to appear for two properly noticed

depositions. Defendants served a notice of deposition on October 13, 2009, scheduling Plaintiffs

deposition on December 15, 2009. On June 1, 2010, Defendants served another notice of

deposition, scheduling Plaintiffs deposition on June 18,2010. While Plaintiff served "Plaintiffs

Motion to Cancel Deposition Duces Tecum June 18, 2010 and for an Order of Protection" on

June 14, 2010, he did not attempt to have it heard before the deposition, and did not appear at the

deposition.2

After the Court's Order entered July 29, 2010, Defendants served a notice of deposition

on August 17, 2010, scheduling the deposition for September 3, 2010. Plaintiff did not respond

until September 3, 2010, asserting that he would not be attending the deposition for three

reasons: First, Plaintiff asserted that "[t]he court has not responded to nor provided

accommodations requested under the Americans with disabilities Act ...." Second, he asserted

that "the Oath of Office for judges in this matter [ ] are not legally sufficient, calling into

question rulings in this matter." Finally, Plaintiff again asserted that Defendants' counsel's

2 As stated above, on July 29, 2010, this Court entered the Notice of Case Management Status and Orders on Outstanding Res Judicata Motions, denying the Plaintiffs motions for protection from being deposed.

2

representation ofDefendants is "unlawful." Defendants contend that each ofthese reasons is

either specious or has been expressly rejected by the Court. The Court agrees. Based on these

findings

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie is guilty of

contempt of this Court for failing to appear for deposition on September 3, 2010 and he will

continue to be guilty of contempt unless and until the Plaintiff is deposed in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit to a deposition in Tampa,

Florida, within 45 days. Plaintiff is directed to propose to Defendants' counsel, in writing, three

dates on which his deposition may be taken on or before November 12, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, ifPlaintiffviolates this Order by failing to submit to a

deposition on or before November 12, 2010, then the Court will enter an Order to Show Cause

requiring Plaintiffs appearance before the Court, and the Court will consider appropriate

sanctions.

The Court retains jurisdiction to impose additional sanctions, as necessary, and to tax

attorneys' fees and costs.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chanlbers this __ day of September, 2010.

Martha J. Cook Circuit Judge

Copies to:


3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA


NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,



Defendants.

-------------I

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendants, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook, notice the Court and

Plaintiff that they are dismissing their counterclaims without prejudice.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this z8 day of September, 010

RY CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 947652 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 300 West Platt Street, Suite 150 Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: 813/489-1001 Facsimile: 813/489-1008 Attorneys for Defendants, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. Mail to Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, this 2.g- cia: of September, 2010.

.; .. oJo· ••••••••••Barker, Rorlems & C(,ok, P A ..,.~ ..~:~.;~; r·~~;; ·:f' .;~ :.:';'Jt~'~~ .. ~~~:~:.:::::~'~~~:: - 400 Nerth Ashley Dri ve, Suite 2100 ::':';;":~~.t..:-~. ~.' .~" ::;..;..~ :·~"·~·:"'~"'.i~/ ~ ,":':Zf. ~<...~a: ... 2'="'"~....w...~,","Tampa, Florida 33602

.:::;}:~~' "~S ~~:~., .·~~::~~:~·~·t(t~\ jI'~~Af~l>~ ~,•. o' .•"~:..,.,,.•,1f.~~" 'aQw!T"""'+2 1P ~··---v-ooro'··' .,,- '...'

Gillespie - 05.5422 ~ .0001623878 S P .~~ _ MAILED FROM ZI/ 28 2010 ~ CODE 33606

Mr. Neil J. GillespIe 8092 SW llyh Loop Ol:al<l, F1ori<la 34481

':,,~.o.o.~ \. ~~::~:$<S-'? 'T<.('~o.<s 1i In11\ .111 \!lll.! \111111.111.1111111111111111,111111, 1111111

West's F.S.A. § 839.13 Page 1

Effective: July 1, 2007

West's Florida Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title XLVI. Crimes (Chapters 775-899) Chapter 839. Offenses by Public Officers and Employees (Refs & Annos)

839.13. Falsifying records (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or otherpublic officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall steal,embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or con-tract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfullytake off, discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above men-tioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any re-gistry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents,books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shallcause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the personso offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (2)(a) Any person who knowingly falsifies, alters, destroys, defaces, overwrites, removes, or discards an officialrecord relating to an individual in the care and custody of a state agency, which act has the potential to detri-mentally affect the health, safety, or welfare of that individual, commits a felony of the third degree, punishableas provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “care and cus-tody” includes, but is not limited to, a child abuse protective investigation, protective supervision, foster careand related services, or a protective investigation or protective supervision of a vulnerable adult, as defined inchapter 39, chapter 409, or chapter 415. (b) Any person who commits a violation of paragraph (a) which contributes to great bodily harm to or the deathof an individual in the care and custody of a state agency commits a felony of the second degree, punishable asprovided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “care and custody”includes, but is not limited to, a child abuse protective investigation, protective supervision, foster care and re-lated services, or a protective investigation or protective supervision of a vulnerable adult, as defined in chapter39, chapter 409, or chapter 415. (c) Any person who knowingly falsifies, alters, destroys, defaces, overwrites, removes, or discards records of theDepartment of Children and Family Services or its contract provider with the intent to conceal a fact material toa child abuse protective investigation, protective supervision, foster care and related services, or a protective in-vestigation or protective supervision of a vulnerable adult, as defined in chapter 39, chapter 409, or chapter 415,

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 2 of 5

9/12/2010http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?ifm=NotSet&destination=atp&prid=ia744...

Appendix 6


commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Nothing inthis paragraph prohibits prosecution for a violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) involving records describedin this paragraph. (d) This section does not prohibit the disposing or archiving of records as otherwise provided by law. In addi-tion, this section does not prohibit any person from correcting or updating records. (3) In any prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to prove the ownership or value of any paperor instrument involved. CREDIT(S) Act Feb. 10, 1832, § 19; Rev.St.1892, § 2571; Gen.St.1906, § 3483; Rev.Gen.St.1920, § 5357; Comp.Gen.Laws1927, § 7492; Laws 1971, c. 71-136, § 1023. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 2002-386, § 1, eff. May 15, 2002;Laws 2007, c. 2007-174, § 2, eff. July 1, 2007. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Amendment Notes: Laws 1971, c. 71-136, § 1023, made the offense defined by this section a “misdemeanor of the first degree, pun-ishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083” in lieu of provision for punishment “by being imprisoned not ex-ceeding one year or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.” Laws 2002, c. 2002-386, § 1, rewrote this section, which formerly read: “(1) If any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, or any person whatso-ever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant,conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall know-ingly and willfully take off, discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or otherpaper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in anycourt, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes,documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if anyperson shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein,the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082 or s. 775.083. “(2) In any prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to prove the ownership or value of any paperor instrument involved.” Laws 2007, c. 2007-174, § 2, in subsecs. (2)(a) and (2)(c), substituted “, alters, destroys, defaces, overwrites, re-


Page 3 of 5



moves, or discards” for “by altering, destroying, defacing, overwriting, removing, or discarding” following“falsifies”. CROSS REFERENCES

Abstracts, Filing untrue copies, see § 703.19. Refusing to make, see § 703.18.

LIBRARY REFERENCES

Clerks of Courts 76. Coroners 25. Justices of the Peace 30. Municipal Corporations 174. Officers and Public Employees 121. Sheriffs and Constables 153. Westlaw Topic Nos. 79, 100, 231, 268, 283, 353. C.J.S. Clerks of Courts §§ 257 to 259. C.J.S. Coroners § 33. C.J.S. Justices of the Peace § 23. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 549. C.J.S. Officers and Public Employees §§ 255 to 259. C.J.S. Sheriffs and Constables §§ 209, 210.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias Criminal Liability, FL Jur. 2d Courts & Judges § 328. Fla. Jur. 2d Criminal Law Substantive Principles and Offenses § 1798, Generally; Obtaining Property by FalsePersonation. Theft, Destruction, Alteration, or Wrongful Possession or Handling, of Ballots and Election Equipment and Re-cords, FL Jur. 2d Elections § 204. Accounts and Records, FL Jur. 2d Police, Sheriffs, & Constables § 128. Removal or Falsification, FL Jur. 2d Records & Recording Acts § 12. UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED


Page 4 of 5



Falsification of records, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2071. NOTES OF DECISIONS

Falsification 2 Immunity from prosecution 3 Public documents 1 Review 4

1. Public documents

Statute is not limited in its operation to such public documents as were provided for by law when the act wasoriginally passed, but applies to all public documents made such by laws since that time, and now recognized aspublic documents, such as the registration books of Pensacola. Pou v. Ellis, 66 Fla. 358, 63 So. 721 (1913).

2. Falsification To illegally and corruptly add the names of persons to the registration books who are not qualified to register, isto “falsify” a record within the meaning of statute. Pou v. Ellis, 66 Fla. 358, 63 So. 721 (1913). Elections 312

3. Immunity from prosecution Accused required to testify before county solicitor in investigation proceeding concerning legality of registrationof electors for municipal primary election was entitled to writ of prohibition precluding prosecution for falsify-ing public records by corruptly placing illegal names on registration book, since testimony at investigation pro-ceeding immunized accused. State ex rel. Arnas v. Petteway, 121 Fla. 831, 164 So. 876 (1936); State ex rel. Bar-one v. Petteway, 121 Fla.831, 164 So. 875 (1936); State ex rel. Young v. Petteway, 121 Fla. 830, 164 So. 875(1936); Lemus v. Petteway, 121 Fla. 829, 164 So. 875 (1936); State ex rel. Truesdell v. Petteway, 121 Fla. 828,164 So. 874 (1936); State ex rel. Diaz v. Petteway, 121 Fla. 828, 164 So. 874 (1936); State ex rel. Marshall v.Petteway, 121 Fla. 822, 164 So. 872 (1936).

4. Review State did not show reversible error in proceeding in which petitioner who was held under information was gran-ted habeas corpus and did not overcome presumption of correctness of judgment below. Leppig v. Green, App. 3Dist., 201 So.2d 803 (1967). Habeas Corpus 847 West's F. S. A. § 839.13, FL ST § 839.13 Current through Chapter 274 (End) of the 2010 Second Regular Session of the Twenty-First Legislature (C) 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. END OF DOCUMENT


Page 5 of 5


-------------

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIDRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA


NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,



Defendants. I

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendants, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook, notice the Court and

Plaintiff that they are dismissing their counterclaims without prejudice.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMIITED this z.8 day of September, 010

RY CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 947652 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 300 West Platt Street, Suite 150 Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: 813/489-1001 Facsimile: 813/489-1008 Attorneys for Defendants, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and William J. Cook

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. Mail to Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW IISth Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, this 2.8: da of

. September, 2010.

Appendix 7

~ _ 3 • $- Cd ±ii. *

Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, florida 33602

Gillespie - 05.5422

.:~;:~~~ ,:;. ~:~ ~~~: ·~;::f;~,~.;:1~L~;··

M·· _ .. '. '··1.' '" .'

~'''''-''1:-''''''~''''''··~ .~

.......... .... ' .....~ .,..... ..... J .....,

...~.:~~,;~~.~/~-.;.,~~: .. :. '.:

'..~ ..\i.., .~:.... ~.~ ....:.:.:..:!.-:~"i~.o(~~~~

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, florida 34481

7~o,o,& \. '!,·:-~·~lS-? B.Oo,lS \I! 11111 I!111111\1l \1I nil i11\ II11L11\11\ III II I \ 111111111 jill

Friday, May 2, 2008 9:55pm

TALLAHASSEE — Quietly and with little public notice, more than 250 judges as well as two dozen state attorneysand public defenders won re-election Friday as the qualifying period for judicial offices ended.

Among the winners are Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe and Public Defender Bob Dillinger, andHillsborough State Attorney Mark Ober and Public Defender Julianne Holt.

They and hundreds of judges should all thank former Miami Dade Circuit Judge Martin D. Kahn, a veteran juristwho was defeated by 2,700 votes by a political newcomer when he sought re-election in 2000.

Kahn's defeat ginned up so much sympathy among state lawmakers that they quietly tucked a little amendment in anelections bill as it passed on the final night of the 2002 legislative session.

Instead of qualifying for public office with other state candidates in July of every year, the judges would file theirpaperwork in May, when federal candidates qualify.

Former Rep. Dudley Goodlette, R-Naples, offered the measure as part of a larger amendment. Contacted earlier thisweek, Goodlette said the issue had been raised because of Kahn's defeat. Sitting judges wanted time to clear theircalendars and campaign if they faced opponents, Goodlette said.

"The rumor was that if they moved judicial qualifying, then maybe nobody would notice," recalled Secretary of StateKurt Browning, who was Pasco elections supervisor in 2002 and lobbying lawmakers for improved elections laws.

For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide. Twenty-three of those areopen seats and will be contested.

Of the 260 remaining seats, only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed.

Brad King, the state attorney in Hernando, and Howard "Skip" Babb Jr., the public defender, also drew noopposition.

Two of the state's top prosecutors, Lawson Lamar of Orange County and Norm Wolfinger of Brevard County,qualified to seek re-election. Wolfinger is unopposed and Lamar drew a little-known criminal defense lawyer as anopponent.

Lamar and Wolfinger are among the state's top double dippers.

Lamar "retired" in 2005 without leaving office. He collected $514,927 in lump sum benefits, plus a $115,752 a yearpension, plus an annual salary of $153,140.

Wolfinger followed suit in 2007. He collected $447,834 in lump sum benefits, plus an $83,484 a year pension, plusan annual salary of $153,140.

Circuit judges are paid $145,080.

Only two incumbent circuit judges in the Tampa Bay area drew opposition, both in Tampa: Judge Kevin Carey isopposed by lawyer Catherine M. Catlin, and Judge Martha Cook drew opposition from Constance Daniels.

Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats | Tampa Bay Times http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/unopposed-judges-quietly-...

1 of 6 4/4/2013 8:20 PM

Appendix 8

The other contested races are for open seats.

Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races in the 1970s, but the earlyqualifying 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 riskangering a judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges have faced opposition,and only five have been defeated.

In 2005, lobbyists for the state's prosecutors and public defenders got legislators to move their qualifying to May aswell, putting all judicial system races up for grabs much earlier than the traditional qualifying period, which usuallybegins in July.

This year, qualifying for other state candidates begins June 16 because primaries are Aug. 26, a week earlier than inpast years.

Supreme Court and District Court justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied anotherterm since the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s.

On the Supreme Court this year, only Justice Charles T. Wells faces voters. Twenty-three judges from the five districtcourts of appeal will also be on the ballot.

Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report.

Lucy Morgan can be reached

at [email protected]

or (850) 224-7263.

>>fast facts

Sixth Circuit

Incumbents re-elected without opposition

State Attorney Bernie McCabe

Public Defender Bob Dillinger

Circuit Judges

Lauren Laughlin

Raymond O. Gross

W. Lowell Bray Jr.

Pamela A.M. Campbell

Walt Logan

Mark Shames

Stanley R. Mills

Shawn Crane


2 of 6 4/4/2013 8:20 PM

Linda H. Babb

Jack R. St. Arnold

Anthony Rondolino

Bruce Boyer

Tim Peters

John A. Schaefer

Daniel D. Diskey

Linda Allan

George M. Jirotka

Walter L. Schafer Jr.

Thane Bobbitt Covert

Circuit Judge races

Group 6, open seat

Violet M. Assaid

Mary Handsel

Bruce G. Howie

Group 8, open seat

Kenneth Foote

Susan L. Gardner

Robert Angus Williams

>>fast facts

Fifth Circuit

Incumbents re-elected without opposition:

State Attorney Brad King

Public Defender Howard "Skip" Babb Jr.

Circuit judges

Richard Tombrink Jr.

Mark J. Hill

William Jack Singbush

Jonathan D. Ohlman

Don F. Briggs

Jack Springstead


3 of 6 4/4/2013 8:20 PM

G. Richard Singeltary

Sandra Edwards-Stephens

T. Michael Johnson

Brian D. Lambert

Curtis J. Neal

Steve Rushing

Carol A. Falvey

Mark A. Nacke

Circuit Judge races

Group 11

Richard A. Howard, incumbent

Rhonda Portwood

Group 3, open seat

Sandy Hawkins

Michael Lamberti

Denise Lyn

>>fast facts

13th Circuit

Incumbents re-elected without opposition

Mark Ober, State Attorney

Julianne Holt, Public Defender

Circuit Court

Manuel Menendez Jr., Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, Group 19

Marva L. Crenshaw, Group 4

Daniel L. Perry, Group 5

James Arnold, Group 8

Greg Holder, Group 9

Rex Martin Barbas, Group 10

Ralph C. Stoddard, Group 11

Charlene Edwards Honeywell, Group 12

Jack Espinosa Jr., Group 13

Claudia Rickert Isom, Group 15


4 of 6 4/4/2013 8:20 PM

Chet A. Tharpe, Group 18

Sam D. Pendino, Group 20

Vivian Corvo Maye, Group 27

William P. Levens, Group 28

Wayne S. Timmerman, Group 29

Richard A. Nielsen, Group 31

Katherine G. Essrig, Group 33

James M. Barton II, Group 34

Herbert J. Baumann, Jr., Group 35

Michelle Sisco, Group 38

Steven Scott Stephens, Group 39

Christopher C. Sabella, Group 40

Daniel H. Sleet, Group 41

County Court

Cheryl K. Thomas, Group 2

Eric R. Myers, Group 7

John N. Conrad, Group 9

Margaret Taylor Courtney, Group 16

Lawrence Lefler, Group 17

circuit judge Races

Group 1

Caroline J. Tesche

Jason Montes

Group 2

Samantha Ward

Miriam Velez

Group 7

J. Kevin Carey (incumbent)

Catherine M. Catlin

Group 21

Lisa D. Campbell

Linda Courtney Clark


5 of 6 4/4/2013 8:20 PM

Group 30

Martha J. Cook (incumbent)

Constance Daniels

Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats 05/02/08

© 2013 Tampa Bay Times


6 of 6 4/4/2013 8:20 PM

Search Criteria: Detail of Candidates Election Year: 2002 General Election Office: Circuit Judge Party: All With Candidate Last Name Starts With: cook Sort Contributions By: Contributor Name And Then Sort By: Candidate/Committee Name Limit Number Of Records Returned To: 500

Candidate/Committee Date Amount Typ Contributor Name Address City State Zip Occupation Inkind Desc -------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------------- --- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/23/2002 500.00 CHE AASYS GROUP, INC. 5907 BRECKENRIDGE PKWY TAMPA, FL 33610 COMPUTER NETWORKS Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/31/2002 500.00 CHE ABC CAPITAL CORP. 1313 GRAY STREET TAMPA, FL 33606 REAL ESTATE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 100.00 CHE ACORD ALENE 3421 S. DREXEL AVE. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/17/2002 200.00 CHE ADDISON & DELANO, P.A. P.O. BOX 2175 TAMPA, FL 33601 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 100.00 CHE ALPERT JONATHAN L. 712 CORAL REEF DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 500.00 CHE AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE 4914 WEST KNOX STREET TAMPA, FL 33634 MEDICAL SERVICES Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/12/2002 500.00 CHE ANCOS, INC. P.O. BOX 1288 TAMPA, FL 33602 TRUSTEE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 200.00 CHE ARMSTRONG ROSEMARY 3415 MULLEN AVE. TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE ARNOLD LYNWOOD F. 721 S. FIELDING AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE ARNOLD LYNWOOD F. 721 S. FIELDING AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 100.00 CHE BALES JOHN 502 LUCERNE AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 150.00 CHE BALES & WEINSTEIN P.O. BOX 172179 TAMPA, FL 33672 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 200.00 CHE BARKIN MARVIN E. 1605 CULBREATH ISLES DR. S. TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE BARNETT L. J. 2805 BAYPOINTE CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33611 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/12/2002 100.00 CHE BARRS, WILLIANSON, STOLBERG, TOWNSEND & 2503 WEST SWANN AVE. TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE BARTON JR. BERNARD A. 945 HEMINGWAY CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 500.00 CHE BAVOL CHARLES 6312 MACLAURIN DR. TAMPA, FL 33647 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 500.00 CHE BAVOL, BUSH, GRAZIANO & RICE, P.A. 100 S. ASHLEY DR., STE. 2100 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 300.00 CHE BAY AREA IMAGING SERVICES, INC. P.O. BOX 15065 TAMPA, FL 33684 IMAGING SERVICES Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/31/2002 500.00 CHE BAY AREA IMAGING SERVICES, INC. 4150 N. ARMENIA AVE., STE. 102 TAMPA, FL 33607 MEDICAL SERVICES Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 250.00 CHE BEARD III RICHARD A. 100 N. TAMPA ST. STE. 2175 TAMPA, FL 33602 REAL ESTATE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 250.00 CHE BIERLEY JOHN C. P.O. BOX 2939 TAMPA, FL 33601 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/12/2002 250.00 CHE BIVINS ROBERT 9920 STATE ROAD 39 SOUTH LITHIA, FL 33547 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 25.00 CHE BLACK BERNICE H. 3025 MINUTEMAN LN. BRANDON, FL 33511 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 50.00 CHE BLAIN RUSSELL M. 3205 FOUNTAIN BLVD. TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 250.00 CHE BLANK STACY 718 S. OREGON AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE BLAU RICHARD M. 400 N. ASHLEY SUITE 2300 TAMPA, FL 33602 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 100.00 CHE BLAU RICHARD M. 400 N. ASHLEY SUITE 2300 TAMPA, FL 33602 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/31/2002 100.00 CHE BOB THOMAS REVOCABLE TRUST 40 RANCH RD THONOTOSASSA, FL 33592 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE BOLT ROBERT 601 BAYSHORE BLVD., STE. 700 TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 500.00 CHE BRADLEY D. SOUDERS, P.A. 115 S. FIELDING AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 250.00 CHE BRANDON GROVES, INC. P.O. BOX 1288 TAMPA, FL 33602 TRUSTEE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/12/2002 500.00 CHE BRANDON GROVES, INC. P.O. BOX 1288 TAMPA, FL 33602 TRUSTEE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 100.00 CHE BREWER JOHN L. 219 COOK STEET BRANDON, FL 33511 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 500.00 CHE BROWN AND SON FUNERAL HOMES, INC. 5624 26TH ST. W BRADENTON, FL 34207 FUNERAL HOMES Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/16/2002 500.00 CHE BROWN AND SON FUNERAL HOMES, INC. 5624 26TH ST. W BRADENTON, FL 34207 FUNERAL HOMES Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE BUESING KAREN 161 BALTIC CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 100.00 CHE BUESING KAREN 161 BALTIC CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 500.00 CHE BURGHARDT & BURGHARDT ENTERPRISES, INC. 4421 12TH STREET COURT, E BRADENTON, FL 34203 REAL ESTATE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE CARLSON CHARLES 4410 W. BEACH PARK DR. TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 100.00 CHE CARRAWAY CLAIRE 48 ALBEMARLE AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/09/2002 250.00 CHE CASON DOROTHY C. P.O. BOX 1288 TAMPA, FL 33601 HOUSE WIFE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/13/2002 500.00 CHE CASON WARREN P.O. BOX 128 TAMPA, FL 33601 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/02/2002 500.00 CHE CASON WARREN P.O. BOX 128 TAMPA, FL 33601 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 100.00 CHE CLARK ROBERT W. 2605 S. BRYANT CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 100.00 CHE CLARK ROBERT W. 2605 S. BRYANT CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 250.00 CHE CLARK, CHARLTON & MARTINO, P.A. 3407 W. KENNEDY BLVD. TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/04/2002 500.00 CHE COHEN, JAYSON & FOSTER, P.A. 201 E. KENNEDY BLVD. STE. 1000 TAMPAP, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/12/2002 100.00 CHE CONLEY JEFFREY 408 51ST ST. NW BRADENTON, FL 34209 AUTO DEALER

Contributions Query Results About the Campaign Finance Data Base

Page 1 of 5Contributions Query Results - Division of Elections - Florida Department of State

6/2/2010http://election.dos.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/contrib.exe

Appendix 9

Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/12/2002 100.00 CHE CONLEY ROGER 1024 85TH CT. NW BRADENTON, FL 34209 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 500.00 CHE COOK MARJORIE J. 5616 ROCKFIELD LOOP VALRICO, FL 33594 RETIRED NURSE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 04/25/2002 500.00 CHE COOK MARJORIE J. 5616 ROCKFIELD LOOP VALRICO, FL 33594 RETIRED NURSE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/13/2002 25,000.00 LOA COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/30/2002 10,000.00 LOA COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 5,600.89 LOA COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/07/2002 3,000.00 LOA COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 2,000.00 LOA COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 3,000.00 LOA COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 11/22/2002 1,785.00 LOA COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 11/22/2002 2,248.84 INK COOK MARTHA J. 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY POSTAGE AND FOOD Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE COOK WILLIAM 4021 W. CORONA ST. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 150.00 CHE COVINGTON ROBERT S. 3707 CORONA STREET TAMPA, FL 33629 BANKER Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 250.00 CHE COVINGTON ROBERT S. 3707 CORONA STREET TAMPA, FL 33629 BANKER Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/31/2002 100.00 CHE CREATIVE CUSTOM FLOORS, INC. 2419 VALRICO FOREST DR. VALRICO, FL 33594 FLOORS Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/25/2002 400.00 CHE DANCO STEPHEN H. 10411 GREEN LINKS DR. TAMPA, FL 33626 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 200.00 CHE DCNM SERVICES, P.A. P.O. BOX 130161 TAMPA, FL 33681 MIDWIFE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 150.00 CHE DE LA PARTE & GILBERT, P.A. 101 E. KENNEDY BLVD., STE. 3400 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE DEBERRY MARVIN R. 10902 BENTTREE PLACE TAMPA, FL 33618 BANKER Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 25.00 CHE DEBRORAH LARNED WERNER, P.A. 3804 NORTH B STREET TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 04/25/2002 100.00 CHE DELANO CARYL E. 4608 BROWNING AVE. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 100.00 CHE DEMIDUKE ROBERT 655 4TH ST. WEST TIERRA VERDE, FL 33715 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 5.00 CAS DOOZAN DAN 717 BRYAN ROAD BRANDON, FL 33511 STUDENT Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 10.00 CAS DOOZAN JED 405 BRYAN CIRCLE BRANDON, FL 33511 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 100.00 CHE DOWELL & PEREZ, P.A. 201 E. KENNEDY BLVD. STE. 334 TAMPA, FL 33602 CPA Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 100.00 CHE DOWELL & PEREZ, P.A. 201 E. KENNEDY BLVD. STE. 334 TAMPA, FL 33602 CPA Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 500.00 CHE EDENFIELD MICHAEL S. 206 MADISON STREET BRANDON, FL 33510 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 100.00 CHE FEE RICHARD 5101 TWIN CREEKS DR. VALRICO, FL 33594 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 300.00 CHE FISERV P.O. BOX 346 BEAUMONT, TX 77704 COMPUTER SOFTWARE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 200.00 CHE FISERV FINANCIAL SYSTEMS OF FL, INC. P.O. BOX 346 HOUSTON, TX 77704 SOFTWARE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE FLETCHER CHARLES 3105 W. FIELDER ST. TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/09/2002 500.00 CHE FLORIDA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION 4224 LA DEGA CT. TAMPA, FL 33611 ASSOCIATION Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 100.00 CHE FLOWERS HARRY C. 2919 WALLCRAFT AVE. TAMPA, FL 33611 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 150.00 CHE FOURAKER M.D. BRADLEY D. 4905 BAYWAY PLACE TAMPA, FL 33629 DOCTOR Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/13/2002 100.00 CHE FOX SUSAN W. 302 COLUMBIA DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 100.00 CHE FOX SUSAN W. 302 COLUMBIA DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 100.00 CHE FRYE WILLIAM 1608 CULBREATH ISLES DR. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/31/2002 100.00 CHE FUSCO LAUREN R. 32073 ROBINHOOD BIRMINGHAM, MI 48025 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/31/2002 100.00 CHE GALYE B. CARLSON, P.A. 3111 WEST M.L. KING, JR. BLVD.STE. 100 TAMPA, FL 33607 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/02/2002 100.00 CHE GALYE B. CARLSON, P.A. 3111 WEST M.L. KING, JR. BLVD.STE. 100 TAMPA, FL 33607 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE GARDNER MERRITT 401 E. JACKSON; STE. 2650 TAMPA, FL 33602 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 100.00 CHE GARDNER MERRITT 401 E. JACKSON; STE. 2650 TAMPA, FL 33602 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 500.00 CHE GAYLORD S. CARY 900 LORENA RD LUTZ, FL 33549 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 100.00 CHE GEORGGI'S, INC. 219 BRANDON TOWN CENTER BRANDON, FL 33511 RETAIL STORE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 400.00 CHE GETZOFF DEBORAH A. 6021 AUDUBON MANOR LITHIA, FL 33547 MANAGER Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 25.00 CHE GILBERT LEONARD H. 926 GOLF VIEW TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 25.00 CHE GILBERT LEONARD H. 926 GOLF VIEW TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 100.00 CHE GILLMAN H. LEO 3305 N. KEENE ROAD PLANT CITY, FL 33565 CPA Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 100.00 CHE GIZZARD LEE BLANTON 3407 W. MORRISON AVE. TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE GLBERT RICHARD A. 3317 W. GRANADA TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 500.00 CHE GLENN ROBERT 2520 PROSPECT RD TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE GRAMMIG ROBERT J. 21 BAHAMA CIR. TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/12/2002 100.00 CHE GRAMMIG ROBERT J. 21 BAHAMA CIR. TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 50.00 CHE GRAVES SHERILYNN 2301 S. OCCIDENT ST. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 500.00 CHE GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES 1430 OAKFIELD DR. BRANDON, FL 33511 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 250.00 CHE HAWTHORNE WILLIAM 1907 76TH ST. N.W. BRADENTON, FL 34209 CPA Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 25.00 CHE HAYES CALVIN 3308 ELIZABETH CT. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/02/2002 500.00 CHE HE HONGJIAN 1206 SAN DOMINGO CT. CLEARWATER, FL 33759 ACUPUNCTURIST Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 500.00 CHE HE HONGJIAN 1206 SAN DOMINGO CT CLEARWATER, FL 33759 ACUPUNCTRIST Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 250.00 CHE HENDRIX & DAIL, INC. 7610 U.S. HIGHWAY 41 N. PALMETTO, FL 34221 SOIL FUMIGATOR Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/30/2002 500.00 CHE HENDRIX & DAIL, INC. 7610 U.S. HIGHWAY 41 N. PALMETTO, FL 34221 SOIL FUMIGATOR Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 500.00 CHE HENRY E. VALENZUELA, P.A. 100 N. TAMPA STREET STE. 1825 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 100.00 CHE HIMES J. FRASER P.O. BOX 1288 TAMPA, FL 33601 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 100.00 CHE HIMES J. FRASER P.O. BOX 1288 TAMPA, FL 33601 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 100.00 CHE HOOKER MICHAEL 852 S. NEWPORT AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE HOOKER MICHAEL 852 S. NEWPORT AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 100.00 CHE HORAN MICHAEL J. 17810 CRAWLEY RD ODESSA, FL 33556 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 100.00 CHE HORAN MICHAEL J. 17810 CRAWLEY RD ODESSA, FL 33556 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE HOWELL MARK 5105 S. NICHOLS ST. TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 50.00 CHE HUDSON GEORGE 1415 LADUE LANE SARASOTA, FL 34231 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 100.00 CHE ILGENFRITZ SCOTT 2426 SUNSET DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 250.00 CHE J. D. DOWELL, P.A. 609 E. JACKSON STREET STE. 100 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 500.00 CHE JAEB LORENA 1239 RIERHILLS DRIVE TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33617 RETIRED Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 500.00 CHE JAEB LORENA 1239 RIERHILLS DRIVE TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33617 RETIRED



Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 100.00 CHE JAMES DINITA L. 2941 BAYSHORE POINT DR. TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE JAMIESON MICHAEL L. *************** *************** ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/09/2002 100.00 CHE JAMIESON MICHAEL L. *************** *************** ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 50.00 CHE JOHN M. CHERRY, JR. DMD, PA 1959 W. LUMSDEN ROAD BRANDON, FL 33511 DENTIST Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE JONES JOHN 400 N. ASHELY DR. STE. 2300 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 100.00 CHE JONES JOHN 400 N. ASHELY DR. STE. 2300 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 100.00 CHE KARL FREDERICK 201 N. FLANKLIN ST. STE. 2100 TAMPA, FL 33602 MEDIATOR Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 25.00 CHE KATZ DARRELL W. 3403 SHADOWOOD DR. VALRICO, FL 33594 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 25.00 CHE KATZ DARRELL W. 3403 SHADOWOOD DR. VALRICO, FL 33594 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 200.00 CHE KEARNEY BING 9625 ALONZO ROAD RIVERVIEW, FL 33569 DEVELOPER Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/31/2002 50.00 CHE KENNETH L. SCHERMER, M.D. 5839 LOS VERDES CT. BRADENTON, FL 34210 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/31/2002 100.00 CHE KEYS WENDY G. 1238 WHITTIER GROSSE POINTE PARK, MI 48230 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE KINCAID MAJORIE M. P.O. BOX 10247 TAMPA, FL 33679 COUNTY CHAIRMAN Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE KIRKWOOD PETER 4623 SUNSET BLVD. TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 200.00 CHE KNIGHT GARLAND W. POST OFFICE BOX 2184 TAMPA, FL 33601 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/23/2002 25.00 CHE KOCH DONNA S. 3320 W. SAN NICHOLAS ST. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/16/2002 50.00 CHE KOCH DONNA S. 3320 W. SAN NICHOLAS ST. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 250.00 CHE KOCH JONATHAN P.O. BOX 2311 TAMPA, FL 33601 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 500.00 CHE LANGFORD & HILL, P.A. 1715 CLEVELAND ST. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/02/2002 500.00 CHE LANGFORD & HILL, P.A. 1715 CLEVELAND ST. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 50.00 CHE LANOUE MD. ALCIDE M. 3902 S. KENWOOD AVE. TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/23/2002 100.00 CHE LANSING C. SCRIVEN P.A. 442 W. KENNEDY BLVD. STE. 280 TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 50.00 CHE LARRINAGA ERIN 4501 W. CLEVELAND ST. TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 500.00 CHE LARSON CARL A. 8913 E. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING TAMPA, FL 33610 EQUIPMENT LEASING Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 200.00 CHE LARSON CARL A. 8913 E. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING TAMPA, FL 33610 EQUIPMENT LEASING Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/02/2002 25.00 CHE LAW OFFICES OF BRAD BOLE, P.A. 100 S. ASHELY DRIVE STE. 1180 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/09/2002 25.00 CHE LAW OFFICES OF BRAD BOLE, P.A. 100 S. ASHELY DRIVE STE. 1180 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 500.00 CHE LAW OFFICES OF CURRY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 750 W. LUMSDEN BRANDON, FL 33511 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/30/2002 500.00 CHE LAW OFFICES OF LYNN COLE, P.A. ONE TAMPA CITY CENTER STE. 2556 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 500.00 CHE LAW OFFICES OF LYNN COLE, P.A. ONE TAMPA CITY CENTER STE. 2556 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 50.00 CHE LEWIS KAREN E. 2614 MERIDA LANE TAMPA, FL 33618 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 5.00 CHE LEWIS PAUL M. 8945 DONNA LU DRIVE ODESSA, FL 33556 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 250.00 CHE LONG THOMAS 601 BAYSHORE BLVD. STE. 700 TAMPA, FL 33606 EXECUTIVE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 250.00 CHE LONG THOMAS 601 BAYSHORE BLVD. STE. 700 TAMPA, FL 33606 EXECUTIVE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 250.00 CHE LONG THOMAS 601 BAYSHORE BLVD. STE. 700 TAMPA, FL 33606 EXECUTIVE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 75.00 CHE LUDOVICI JOSEPH 16709 HUTCHISON ODESSA, FL 33556 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 100.00 CHE LUKER MICHAEL D. 5004 DAVENSHIRE WAY TAMPA, FL 33647 CPA Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 100.00 CHE LUKER MICHELLE 5004 DAVENSHIRE WAY TAMPA, FL 33647 CPA/INVESTMENT BKR Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/12/2002 500.00 CHE MACDONALD GAY E. 1904 HOLLY LANE TAMPA, FL 33629 HOUSEWIFE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 250.00 CHE MACDONALD JR. THOMAS C. 1904 HOLLY LANE TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 500.00 CHE MANDT RICHARD D. 116 ADALIA TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 04/25/2002 500.00 CHE MARTHA J. COOK, P.A. 100 N. TAMPA STREET STE. 2100 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 100.00 CHE MATHEWS MARGARET D. 2426 SUNSET DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 9.41 INK MATHEWS MARGARET D. 2426 SUNSET DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY LABELS Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE MATHEWS MARGARET D. 2426 SUNSET DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 100.00 CHE MCCLURE DAN P. 4820 RIVERVIEW BLVD. WEST BRADENTON, FL 34209 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/30/2002 100.00 CHE MCCLURE DAN P. 4820 RIVERVIEW BLVD. WEST BRADENTON, FL 34209 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 100.00 CHE MCCOSKEY GREGORY M. 5809 S. 2ND STREET TAMPA, FL 33611 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/13/2002 500.00 CHE MCCOY TAMARA L. 6611 HERITAGE LANE BRADENTON, FL 34209 INSURANCE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 50.00 CHE MCEACHNIE DAVID 3019 STARMOUNT DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 200.00 CHE MICHAEL FOSTER, P.A. 113 S. MACDILL AVE. STE. A TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 100.00 CHE MICHAEL FOSTER, P.A. 113 S. MACDILL AVE. STE. A TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 100.00 CHE MICHAEL J. MCDERMOTT, P.A. 791 WEST LUMSDEN RD BRANDON, FL 33511 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 400.00 CHE MILLER KENT 2611 BAYSHORE BLVD. 1207 TAMPA, FL 33629 CPA Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 100.00 CHE MILLER MARY J. 4413 W. DALE AVE, TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/23/2002 200.00 CHE MUELLER JOHN 5420 LYKES LANE TAMPA, FL 33611 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/02/2002 200.00 CHE MUELLER JOHN 5420 LYKES LANE TAMPA, FL 33611 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 500.00 CHE MYERS & BETTLE, P.A. 373 BRADEN AVE. SARASOTA, FL 34243 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 100.00 CHE NEAL PATRICK A. 701 14 AVE. W. PALMETTO, FL 34221 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/09/2002 500.00 CHE NEAL PATRICK K. *************** *************** REAL ESTATE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 500.00 CHE NEAL PATRICK K. *************** *************** REAL ESTATE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 300.00 CHE NOONAN VIRGINIA 1821 STEPHENS LANE DOVER, FL 33527 PET GROOMERS Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 500.00 CHE ORIENTAL FAMILY MEDICINE CHARTERED 901 N. HERCULES AVE. STE. F CLEARWATER, FL 33765 DOCTORS OFFICE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 500.00 CHE P.D.G. ELECTRIC 4421 12TH STREET COURT, E BRADENTON, FL 34203 REAL ESTATE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/17/2002 50.00 CHE PANKAU BARBARA R. 5920 RIVER TERRACE TAMPA, FL 33604 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 50.00 CHE PANKAU BARBARA R. 5920 RIVER TERRACE TAMPA, FL 33604 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 200.00 CHE PAPALAS MENELAOS K. 8025 BAYMEADOW CIR. E APT. 1302 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32256 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/12/2002 200.00 CHE PATTERSON BEN 315 BEARD STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32303 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 50.00 CHE PAUL & SINGER, P.A. 100 S. ASHELY DR. STE. 1720 TAMPA, FL 33602 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 500.00 CHE PEPIN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 6401 N. 54TH STREET TAMPA, FL 33610 DISTRIBUTOR Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/16/2002 150.00 CHE PRATHER LAURA E. 27929 LINCOLN PLACE WESLEY CHAPEL, FL 33544 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE PROCTOR MARK 409 S. KINGS AVE. BRANDON, FL 33511 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 100.00 CHE PROCTOR MARK 409 S. KINGS AVE. BRANDON, FL 33511 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/12/2002 100.00 CHE PUPELLO MD. DENNIS F. P.O. BOX 152169 TAMPA, FL 33684 DOCTOR



Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/16/2002 100.00 CHE RAUCHWAY AUDREY B. 3216-C EL CENTRO ST. PETE BEACH, FL 33706 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE REDMAN JAMES P.O. BOX 13 PLANT CITY, FL 33564 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 150.00 CHE REDMAN JAMES P.O. BOX 13 PLANT CITY, FL 33564 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 50.00 CHE REEVES RICHARD 3107 1/2 N. JULIA CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33629 EXECUTIVE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 100.00 CHE REEVES RICHARD 3107 1/2 N. JULIA CIRCLE TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/06/2002 100.00 CHE RICE ELIZABETH *************** *************** ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/07/2002 75.00 CHE RICE ELIZABETH *************** *************** ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE RODEMS RYAN C. 210 EXCALIBUR CT. BRANDON, FL 33511 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 100.00 CHE RONALD S. REED, P.A. 202 S. WESTLAND AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/30/2002 50.00 CHE ROSENBERG ROBIN 1001 CORAL ST. TALLAHASSEEM, FL 33602 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE ROSS DENNIS 16800 GULF RIDGE BLVD. UNIT 12 N. READINGTON BEACH, FL 33708 CRISIS CENTER TB Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE ROTHENBERG FREDERICK M. 1817 BAYSHORE BLVD. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 100.00 CHE ROTHENBERG FREDERICK M. 1817 BAYSHORE BLVD. TAMPA, FL 33606 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 25.00 CHE RYDBERG MARSHA 2606 PROSPECT RD. TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE SAVITZ EDWARD O. 1028 S. STERLING AVE. TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/24/2002 100.00 CHE SAVITZ EDWARD O. 1028 S. STERLING AVE. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/23/2002 100.00 CHE SCHROPP, BUELL & ELLIGETT, P.A. 3303 W. AZEELE STREET STE. 100 TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/02/2002 100.00 CHE SCHROPP, BUELL & ELLIGETT, P.A. 3303 W. AZEELE STREET STE. 100 TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 500.00 CHE SEAMAN RICHARD N. 2220 LINWOOD CT. WOOSTER, OH 44691 PRESIDENT AND CEO Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 10.00 CAS SEDGEMAN HILARY 3404 SHADOWOOD DRIVE VALRICO, FL 33594 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 500.00 CHE SEDGEMAN KATHERINE S. 6501 17TH AVE. EST APT. I-407 BRADENTON, FL 34209 RETIRED HOUSEWIFE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 04/25/2002 500.00 CHE SEDGEMAN JR. WILLIAM H. 3404 SHADOWOOD DR. VALRICO, FL 33594 BANKER Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 400.00 CHE SESSUMS MASON & BLACK, P.A. 307 S. MAGNOLIA AVE. TAMPA, FL 33606 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 100.00 CHE SHAHEEN C. JOSEPH 15125 CONTOY PL. TAMPA, FL 33618 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 100.00 CHE SHIMBERG JAMES H. 1912 S. ARDSLEY ST. TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE SHIMBERG JAMES H. 1912 S. ARDSLEY ST. TAMPA, FL 33629 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/14/2002 100.00 INK SIMMONS, LAPLANT & ASSOCIATES, C.P.A., P 201 E. KENNEDY BLVD. STE. 715 TAMPA, FL 33602 CPA FIRM SOFTWARE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 200.00 CHE SIVYER, BARLOW & WATSON, P.A. 100 S. ASHLEY DR., STE. 2150 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 100.00 CHE SOUTHERN PENSION SERVICES 2707 W. AZEELE ST. STE. 200 TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 100.00 CHE SPOFFORD GEORGE E. 100 S. ASHLEY DRIVE STE. 1300 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/13/2002 50.00 CHE ST. PAUL ALEXANDRA V. 47 TIDY ISLAND BLVD. BRADENTON, FL 34210 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE STERNS RANDY 10020 HAMPTON PLACE TAMPA, FL 33618 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/23/2002 100.00 CHE STILES, TAYOR & GRACE, P.A. 315 PLANT AVENUE TAMPA, FL 33608 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 25.00 CHE STOLL AMY 502 N. BRADFORD AVE,. TAMPA, FL 33609 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 100.00 CHE STUTTS CHARLES 3016 FAIR OAKS AVE. TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 100.00 CHE STUTTS CHARLES 3016 FAIR OAKS AVE. TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/31/2002 250.00 CHE SWOPE LAW GROUP, P.A. 1234 5TH AVE. E TAMPA, FL 33605 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 75.00 CHE TAMARGO TED R. 5202 NEPTUNE WAY TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 20.00 CHE TAYLOR CERESE C. 4006 S. CHURCH AE. TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/15/2002 250.00 CHE THAYER A. BRONSON P.O. BOX 429 THONOTOSASSA, FL 33592 FINANCE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 325.80 INK THE FLYER 201 KELSEY LANE TAMPA, FL 33675 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 75.00 CHE THOMAS JOHN E. 5000 CULBREATH KEY WAY APT. 1-303 TAMPA, FL 33611 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/31/2002 500.00 CHE THOMAS C. MACDONALD, JR., P.A. 100 N. TAMPA STREET STE. 2100 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/27/2002 250.00 CHE THOMPSON TAMMY 5910 PINE TREE DRIVE BRADENTON, FL 34202 CPA Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/12/2002 50.00 CHE THORNTON CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, P.A. 906 LITIA PINECREST ROAD BRANDON, FL 33511 CHIROPRACTOR Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/09/2002 100.00 CHE TOMASINO PAUL *************** *************** ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 100.00 CHE TOMASINO SHERRILL *************** *************** ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/23/2002 100.00 CHE VAUGHAN DENISE 3312 SAN JOSE STREET TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 08/12/2002 300.00 CHE VAUGHAN ROGER 5101 S. NICHOLS STREET TAMPA, FL 33611 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 50.00 CHE VIOLETTE SHENA 10427 DEEPBROOK DRIVE RIVERVIEW, FL 33569 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 400.00 CHE VOELPEL JOHN W. 6021 AUDUBON MANOR BLVD. LITHIA, FL 33547 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 100.00 CHE WALBOLT SYLVIA 288 BEACH DRIVE NE APT. 12B ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33701 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 50.00 CHE WANDERS HILDEGUND 905 CENTERBROOK DRIVE BRANDON, FL 33511 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE WARREN JEFFREY 124 HICKORY CREEK BLVD. BRANDON, FL 33511 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 40.00 CHE WEAVER RONALD 4303 W. BEACHWAY DR. TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 100.00 CHE WEEKLEY A. S. 6914 EAST FOWLER AVE. STE. J TAMPA, FL 33617 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/09/2002 30.00 CHE WHITNEY & SCHMIDT P.O. BOX 1428 TAMPA, FL 33601 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/16/2002 75.00 CHE WILCOX JOHN W. 17517 EDINBURGH DR. TAMPA, FL 33647 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 100.00 CHE WILKES RICHARD 2413 BAYSHORE BLVD., STE. 2304 TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/15/2002 100.00 CHE WILKES RICHARD 2413 BAYSHORE BLVD., STE. 2304 TAMPA, FL 33629 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/22/2002 200.00 CHE WILLIAM JUNG, P.A. 100 S. ASHLEY DRIVE STE. 1240 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/17/2002 200.00 CHE WILLIAM JUNG, P.A. 100 S. ASHLEY DRIVE STE. 1240 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/09/2002 150.00 CHE WILLIAM JUNG, P.A. 100 S. ASHLEY DRIVE STE. 1240 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/23/2002 200.00 CHE WILLIAM JUNG, P.A. 100 S. ASHLEY DRIVE STE. 1240 TAMPA, FL 33602 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/30/2002 500.00 INK WILLIAMS JAMES O. P.O. BOX 2275 BRANDON, FL 33509 ATTORNEY CONSULTING Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/18/2002 50.00 CHE WOLOSHEN L.A. 3601 W. KENNEDY BLVD. STE. E TAMPA, FL 33609 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 07/30/2002 50.00 CHE WOODROFFE CORPORATION ARCHITECTS 5005 WEST LAUREL STREET STE. 215 TAMPA, FL 33607 Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/21/2002 250.00 CHE WRIGHT DOUGLAS A. 4207 S. DALE MABRY HWY APT. 4103 TAMPA, FL 33611 ATTORNEY Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 10/23/2002 100.00 CHE YOUNG GWYNNE A. *************** *************** Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/28/2002 100.00 CHE YOUNG GWYNNE A. *************** *************** Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/30/2002 500.00 CHE ZARITSKY LISA G. 4924 ANDROS DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33629 DENTAL HYGENIST Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 500.00 CHE ZARITSKY LISA G. 4924 ANDROS DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33629 DENTAL HYGENIST Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 09/27/2002 500.00 CHE ZARITSKY MICHAEL A. 12-704 CORAL REEF DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33602 REAL ESTATE Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 05/31/2002 100.00 CHE ZARITSKY MICHAEL A. 12-704 CORAL REEF DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33602



Cook, Martha (NOP)(CTJ) 06/30/2002 500.00 CHE ZARITSKY STEVEN G. 4924 ANDROS DRIVE TAMPA, FL 33629 REAL ESTATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total: 105,064.94 272 Contribution(s) Selected

Query the Campaign Finance Data Base

[Department of State] [Division of Elections] [Campaign Finance - Contributions]



No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE



vs.






Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, April 25, 2011

As filed in the trial record as Exhibit 14 to Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show Cause,
























No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE



vs.






1. Transcript September 28, 2010

Final Summary Judgment, Civil Contempt with Writ of Bodily Attachment

Gillespie v Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al, 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co., Florida

2. Original Notarized Errata Sheet of Neil J. Gillespie, Amended

3. Letter instructing Dempster Berryhill Court Reporting to file the Errata Sheet

,

;' \.


CIVIL LAW DIVISION CASE NO. 05-CA-007205

----------------------------------------x NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

and Di vi-sion::t: G,....:> r= ~ r-- c:;::)

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. ttl 0 C")t,P c->

A Florida Corporation, and :Eo --i C"):;c N

WILLIAM J. COOK, c:c~_c_ N .4c> C")::r: -0

Defendants. :20 ~ ----------------------------------------x -- r-.-I .'

:< s:'"11 N

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE MARTHA J. COOK r-

PLACE: Hillsborough County Courthouse 800 East Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602

DATE: September 28, 2010

TIME: 11:04 a.m. - 11:28 a.m.

REPORTED BY: Robbie E. Darling Court Reporter

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

Pages 1 - 26

DEMPSTER, BERRYHILL & ASSOCIATES 1875 NORTH BELCHER ROAD, SUITE 102

CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33765 (727) 725-9157

ORIGINAL

2

APPEARANCES

RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

Attorney for Defendants

NEIL GILLESPIE Pro Se

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

PROCEEDINGS

THE COURT: Good morning, folks. All

right. I believe we're here today on a Motion

for Final Summary Judgment -- or, Motion for

Summary Judgment filed by the defendant; is

that correct?

MR. RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor. There is

two other matters as well.

THE COURT: Well, let's address the one

that has been scheduled first, which is the

Motion for Summary Judgment.

MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor

THE COURT: Please be seated. Folks, you

don't need to stand to argue. Both of you.

Please be seated.

MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, this morning I

filed a federal lawsuit against you. I have a

complaint here if you would like to read it. I

move to disqualify you.

THE COURT: Your motion to disqualify

based on a federal lawsuit is legally

insufficient and is denied.

Please continue with your Motion for

Summary Judgment.

MR. RODEMS: Thank you, Your Honor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

MR. GILLESPIE: I move to disqualify you

on the basis that I have a financial

relationship with your husband.

THE COURT: All right. Your motion to

disqualify me on that basis is denied.

MR. GILLESPIE: I move to disqualify

you

THE COURT: Sir

MR. GILLESPIE: on the basis of an

affidavit that you made misrepresentations at

the last hearing about whether or not I was -

THE COURT: Sir, file a written motion.

I'm not going to allow you to disrupt these

proceedings again. The last proceedings you

feigned illness. You left this courtroom

MR. GILLESPIE: No, I did not feign

illness.

THE COURT: Sir, if you interrupt me you

will be escorted out.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm leaving.

THE COURT: This is your last warning,

sir.

MR. GILLESPIE: I'm leaving.

THE COURT: All right, sir. Escort the

gentleman out. He's leaving. All right.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

~

Continue with your motion, please. The hearing

will continue.

MR. GILLESPIE: For the record, I'm

leaving because I didn't get my ADA

accommodation.

THE COURT: That's not true, sir.

MR. GILLESPIE: I'm leaving the federal

lawsuit on this table for you.

THE COURT: You must go, sir. It's not

proper service. Leave.

(THEREUPON, Mr. Gillespie exited the courtroom)

THE COURT: Go ahead.


The plaintiff filed a two-count complaint

against the two defendants; Barker, Rodems and

Cook and Cook. Count One alleged breech of

contract, Count Two alleged fraud.

By orders dated November 28th, 2007 and

July 7th, 2008 the Court granted judgment in

favor of Cook on both counts and for Defendant

BRC on the fraud count. The only count

remaining by plaintiff against Defendant BRC is

for Breech of Contract against BRC, and we're

moving for Summary Judgment.

The following facts that are in my motion

6

1 are undisputed. I can go through each one of

2 them if you would prefer, Your Honor, on the

3 record or -

4 THE COURT: Make a record.

5 MR. RODEMS: Thank you. The plaintiff

6 hired Defendant BRC to bring claims against

7 Arnscot for violation of the Truth in Lending

8 Act. Under the Truth in Lending Act an

9 individual may be awarded actual damages or

10 statutory damages, and an aggrieved individual

11 may also make a claim for attorney's fees and

12 costs.

13 The law is clear that to make a claim for

14 attorney's fees or costs though a party must be

15 represented by counsel, it cannot be pro se.

16 And I have case law for the Court which I'll be

17 happy to submit at the end of the hearing, or

18 if it's your preference to look at it now. But

19 in any event, that was the holding in Hannon,

20 H-A-N-N-O-N, versus Security National Bank, 537

21 Federal 2nd, 327, Ninth Circuit from 1976.

22 Subsequently, Barker, Rodems and Cook

23 filed a lawsuit under TILA in Federal Court on

24 behalf of the plaintiff and two other

25 plaintiffs in that action, who are not parties

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

to this case, and requested damages as well as

court-ordered attorney fees.

After discovery it was clear, according to

Attorney Cook, that none of the plaintiffs had

actual damages, so the pursuit was for

statutory damages.

After substantial litigation in which our

law firm, Barker, Rodems and Cook, expended

well over 300 hours the district court

dismissed the TILA claims.

After the dismissal Barker, Rodems and

Cook filed a notice of appeal. While the case

was on appeal the parties began settlement

negotiations. Gillespie was concerned about

claims being made against him, so he urged Cook

to get the cases settled, and not only to get

the case settled but he now wanted an

additional -- to his damages he wanted Mr. Cook

to secure for him a general release or a mutual

release.

Now, under the class representation

contract BRC's duties didn't include seeking a

general release, it only included seeking

damages. But in any event, Mr. Cook took on

that duty. And during the settlement

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

~

negotiations Mr. Gillespie actually directed

Mr. Cook in writing to negotiate a settlement

for him whereby Amscot would pay $1,000 to

Mr. Gillespie and $10,000 for Mr. Gillespie's

and the other plaintiff's claim for

court-awarded attorney's fees.

Now again, if Mr. Gillespie hadn't been

represented by counsel he could have made no

claim for court-awarded attorney's fees.

Eventually Amscot made a settlement offer

which Mr. Gillespie accepted. And under that

settlement agreement Amscot agreed to pay

Mr. Gillespie $2,000. It also agreed to pay

$50,000 to settle Mr. Gillespie's and the other

two plaintiff's claims for court-awarded

attorney's fees and costs. And it also

included a mutual general release of all

claims.

Under the settlement agreement none of the

plaintiffs had to pay any portion of Barker,

Rodems and Cook's attorney's fees and costs.

The plaintiff signed a written settlement

agreement with Amscot, which has been attached

to the affidavit of Mr. Cook and presented to

the Court. And that settlement agreement which

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

was signed by Amscot -- I'm sorry, it was

signed by Mr. Gillespie and Barker, Rodems and

Cook and presented to Amscot, which was

presumably signed the copy that the Court

has is not signed by Amscot. But in any event,

that document which Mr. Cook signed on behalf

of Barker, Rodems and Cook and Mr. Gillespie

signed stated, quote, "Amscot shall pay the

firm" -- which was defined as Barker, Rodems

and Cook -- "the sum of $50,000 in satisfaction

of plaintiff's claims for attorney's fees and

costs as more fully described herein against

Amscot as asserted in the action."

Mr. Gillespie signed that. He read it, he

signed it.

When the opportunity came to present

Mr. Gillespie with his money we presented

him Barker, Rodems and Cook presented him

with a closing statement which included the

following statement -- and this was attached by

Mr. Gillespie to his complaint as Exhibit 2.

Quote," In signing this closing statement I

acknowledge that Amscot Corporation separately

paid my attorneys $50,000 to compensate my

attorneys for their claim against Amscot for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

court-awarded fees and costs. I also

acknowledge that I have received a copy of the

fully executed release and settlement agreement

dated October 30, 2001."

Now in Count One, the Breech of Contract

claim against Barker, Rodems and Cook,

Mr. Gillespie contends that even though he

signed the settlement agreement and even though

he signed the closing statement and even though

he agreed with Amscot that Amscot would pay all

of his attorney's fees, that somehow or other

Barker, Rodems and Cook should have split some ~

portion of the $50,000 paid to settle the claim

for court-awarded attorney's fees with

Mr. Gillespie. And he claims that failure to

split it with him was a breech of contract.

Of course, the rules regulate -- the

Florida Bar prohibits splitting attorney's fees

with a non-lawyer under Rule 4-5.4. And also

under the professional ethics opinion of the

Florida Bar 60-33, which quoted with approval

of Henry S. Drinker (Phonetic) from legal ethics

in which he said, quote, "The only situations

in which a lawyer may properly permit a client

to receive and retain fees paid by others on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

account of his legal services are when such

payments are to reimburse the client in whole

or in part for the client's legal expenses

actually incurred and the specific manner for

which they are paid." In other words, had

Mr. Gillespie paid us $50,000 and then we

received $50,000 we could have reimbursed him.

But, that's not what happened and that's not

what Mr. Gillespie wanted. He wanted a split

of it as if he was an attorney entitled to a

share of it.

THE COURT: Nor did he represent in his

claim that he had paid monies to your firm

or

MR. RODEMS: No, ma'am.

THE COURT: -- is entitled to

reimbursement. That wasn't the basis when I

read the complaint for the breech of contract.

MR. RODEMS: It's not alleged in the

complaint, Your Honor, correct.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. RODEMS: Based on these undisputed

facts there are several basis to grant Summary

Judgment in Defendant Barker, Rodems and Cook's

favor as stated in the motion. C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

~ Because Amscot paid Mr. Gillespie's

attorney's fees and Mr. Gillespie kept his

entire $2,000 there was never any contingency

fee taken. This was a situation where, as the

class representation contract states, quote,

"In rare cases the defendant may pay all or

part of the attorney's fees". And that's what

occurred here. Amscot paid 100 percent of

Mr. Gillespie's and the other two plaintiff's

attorney's fees, which is permitted by TILA and

also the rules regulating the Florida Bar,

4-1.8(f) which authorizes a lawyer to accept

payment of his or her fees for representation

of a client by one other than the client. So,

there was no contingency fee charged to

plaintiff. He kept his entire $2,000.

But Mr. Gillespie, by signing the

settlement agreement, also agreed with Amscot

and with Barker, Rodems and Cook that the fee

for this case would be $50,000 and that would

cover the fees and the costs. So, this was

Mr. Gillespie's choice to make this decision.

Mr. Gillespie's contractual theory would

require Barker, Rodems and Cook to violate the

ethical rules by splitting a fee.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

10

11

12

13

24

25

13

The Florida law under JRD Management Corp.

versus Dulin, D-U-L-I-N, 883 So. 2nd, 314 says

that, "The law assumes that parties have made

an agreement for a lawful purpose." So, when

we presented with Mr. Gillespie with a class

representation contract we couldn't have done

it for some unlawful purpose, and certainly

never contemplated that we would split an

attorney's fee with him.

The second reason is, the plaintiff agreed

to the amount of attorney's fees and costs.

Now, we started out seeking and when I

see "we", I mean Barker, Rodems and Cook -- we

started out seeking Mr. Gillespie's damages and

his, you know -- and also his claim for

court-awarded attorney's fees. But, as the

case went on it changed and Mr. Gillespie now

wanted us to negotiate a release for him. More

or less that constituted a modification of any

agreement that was in place. So, when

Mr. Gillespie signed the settlement agreement,

which clearly spelled out his agreement with

Arnscot, not ours but his agreement with Arnscot,

that the $50,000 would be paid to our law firm

for attorney's fees and costs he agreed to that c

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

amount.

Finally, Your Honor, Mr. Gillespie is now

estopped from taking a contrary position. The

Court in Sand Cruise Casinos versus City of

Hollywood, 844 So. 2nd, 681 stated, quite, "In

order to demonstrate the existence of estoppel

the party must establish: One, a

representation as to a material fact that is

contrary to a later asserted position. Two,

reliance upon that representation. And three,

a change in position detrimental to the party

claiming estoppel caused by the representation

or reliance."

Now, when Mr. Gillespie told us this is

what he wanted us to do we relied on that

representation. When he signed the settlement

agreement we relied on that representation.

And when he signed a closing statement we

relied on that representation that he

understood and agreed that he wanted our law

firm to be paid $50,000 for its attorney's fees

and costs by Amscot.

Had he not signed the settlement agreement

or the closing statement we could not have

taken that money. It wouldn't have been

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

possible. So, we relied on that

representation. And now Mr. Gillespie comes in

and changes his story in this lawsuit and says

that he wants a percentage of that.

So clearly, Your Honor, under the class

representation contract and under the agreement

that was, you know, was reached between him and

Amscot and Barker, Rodems and Cook as the case

proceeded, Mr. Gillespie wanted his $2,000; he

wanted it then. He didn't want to face any

adverse claims, and he directed that the

settlement be obtained. And once it was

obtained he approved it.

And then almost two years after the fact,

after threatening a bar grievance and a

lawsuit -- and when he didn't get his way went

forward and filed this action. It's been going

on for five years. Three of the four claims

were disposed of by judgment on the pleadings.

The record is undisputed. The facts that have

alleged are undisputed, and my clients are

entitled to judgment in their favor and we ask

that you enter that.

And we have brought with us today, Your

Honor, a proposed Final Summary Judgment as to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

~ Count One along with the appropriate copies and

postage, pre-paid envelopes. In the event that

the order is not satisfactory and you'd like us

to send over a CD with this version on it so it

can be modified, we can certainly do that.

But, we would ask you to review that and

consider entering that. Thank you.

THE COURT: I've signed the order. I will

have the original document with the clerk and

conform copies and mail it.

Is there anything further that remains in

this case? It's on -- it is many, many volumes ~

and many, many pleadings. So, is there I

think I'm looking at Volume 11. Is there

anything that remains?

MR. RODEMS: Your Honor, there are some

there were counterclaims, but I am going to

talk with my clients today and I assume that

those will be dismissed.

The only thing that would remain after

that would be the various issues relating to

collection on the judgment that has already

been entered, costs and also there may be one

or two motions out there for sanctions.

The other two things that I want to bring

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

C

C

17

up today, if I could briefly, Your Honor -

THE COURT: Okay. Excuse me.

MR. RODEMS: The other two things that I

would like to mention, Your Honor is that in

your order that set the hearing for today you

did ask us to be prepared to discuss with you

the previous Motion for Contempt and asked us,

you know, to be prepared to discuss with you

whether Mr. Gillespie had complied with the

fact information sheet. And I did want to

represent to the Court that Mr. Gillespie did

in fact, while he was still represented by

Mr. Bower, comply with the fact information

sheet. So that issue, just so the Court knows,

is resolved.

The other thing is that we, once again,

tried to schedule Mr. Gillespie for a

deposition. And he basically did not attend,

despite your previous order, which denied his

Motion for Protective Order or to Avoid the

Deposition. We do still have the judgment that

we need to collect upon. And obviously at

least until I can get back to the office and

verify with my partners and get something over

to the Court there still are the counterclaims

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

~ pending.

THE COURT: What counterclaims, precisely?

MR. RODEMS: Well, there are two

counterclaims -- I believe two counterclaims

for defamation, libel and slander or maybe just

libel; I can't remember at the moment. But

like I said, Your Honor, I am 100 percent

confident that as soon as I go back a Notice of

Dismissal of those remaining counterclaims will

be submitted this afternoon.

But in any event, we are going to need to

depose Mr. Gillespie. He is obviously not

willing to show up and he's -- so, we filed a

Motion For an Order of Contempt and Writ of

Bodily Attachment. We did not -- we noticed it

for hearing today, but obviously it was the

idea was, you know, the Court was going to take

up the summary judgment and the other issues

first. I don't know if you would like us to

reset this on a separate day or if you wish to

entertain it now.

THE COURT: Well, it's been noticed for

now. You can at least make a record and let me

consider what to do in that matter.

MR. RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor.

19

1 THE COURT: This can be mailed, and I

2 believe you can give this back to counsel.

3 There were only two conformed copies, one for

4 Mr. Gillespie - all right.

5 You can make a record. I did have your

6 motion, it was noticed for today. As you know,

7 this is a Motion for an Order of Contempt and

8 Writ of Bodily Attachment. And let the record

9 reflect that Mr. Gillespie elected to leave

10 even though he was advised that the hearing

11 would continue in his absence. You have

12 noticed him for deposition, you indicate,

13 several times?

14 MR. RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor. Prior to

15 the order of July 29th, 2010 we noticed

16 Mr. Gillespie twice for deposition, and both

17 times he failed to appear.

18 The second and this is all reflected in

19 the motion. On the second occasion he did file

20 some sort of motion for protection, but he

21 never made any effort to have it heard or

22 anything.

23 So, when the Court entered the order on

24 July 29th, 2010 denying his Motion for Order of

25 Protection the Court was fairly clear that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Mr. Gillespie has ignored court orders in the

past and that the Court will not accept these

or any further attempts by the plaintiff to

avoid the defendant's right to discovery in

this case and bring the matter to a close.

So, subsequent to that we served a Notice

of Deposition on August 17th, 2010 scheduling

the deposition on September 3rd. And we

attached a copy of that Notice of Deposition as

Exhibit 1. On September 3rd he wrote a letter

and faxed it to us and said he wasn't going to

be attending for three reasons: First, he says

the Court has not responded to nor provided

accommodations requested under the Americans

with Disability Act.

Second, he said that the Oath of Office of

Judges in this matter are not legally

sufficient, calling into question rulings in

this matter.

And finally he reiterated again his belief

that my representation of the defendants is

quote, "unlawful", closed quote. Even though

the Court expressly denied that motion and

advised him that that matter was res judicata

he once again raised it as a basis.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

SO, he is in disregard of this Court's

authority and this Court's order and we would

ask that he be held in contempt. And we would

ask that the Court consider issuing a Writ of

Bodily Attachment so that someone, either the

Hillsborough County Sheriff or the Marion

County Sheriff where he resides or anyone of

them in between or who comes into contact with

him can bring him into custody for the purpose

of allowing us to get a deposition of him so

that we can finish out the case. And obviously

unless someone physically arrests Mr. Gillespie

and holds him until he purges himself of the

contempt by refusing to sit for deposition the

defendants are never going to be able to get to

the bottom of the issues that are necessary to

bring the case to resolution.

So, we would ask for the Court to find

Mr. Gillespie in contempt and consider issuing

a Writ of Bodily Attachment.

I would represent to the Court that if

Mr. Gillespie is taken into custody I will do

my best to complete the deposition as quickly

as possible. But, I do want to advise the

Court that I am going out of town and will be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

23

21

22

24

25

c 22

out of the office from Thursday until Tuesday

of next week. So, if it was to happen -

THE COURT: Mr. Gillespie owes the firm,

is this correct, some judgement amount?

MR. RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor. It's

$11,500 plus interest. And that judgment, if

my memory serves me correctly, was entered in

2008 and was affirmed on appeal.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, what did you say

about appeal?

MR. RODEMS: The judgment was entered in

2008 and it was affirmed on appeal.

THE COURT: Affirmed on appeal?

MR. RODEMS: Yes, ma'am. He appealed the

sanctions, and the Second DCA upheld those.

THE COURT: Who awarded the sanctions?

What Judge?

MR. RODEMS: Judge Barton.

THE COURT: Judge Barton imposed

sanctions?


THE COURT: So, these sanctions were

imposed for what reason?

MR. RODEMS: 57105 violations in terms of

his pleading various defenses that had no basis c

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

~ in law or fact and also prior to discovery

violations. There was a motion based on both

of those, which was granted, and then the Judge

held a hearing on the amount and awarded that

monetary sanction at that point.

THE COURT: So, you have a judgment for

sanctions against Mr. Gillespie. And you have,

as counter plaintiff, a lawsuit against

Mr. Gillespie for defamation?


THE COURT: Is there anything else besides

the defamation count?

MR. RODEMS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And that's one count of

defamation or slander?

MR. RODEMS: It may be two. It may have

been one for one defendant and one for the

other defendant. But, it all emanated from one

letter that Mr. Gillespie wrote to the

president of Arnscot.

THE COURT: Well, it's very clear from the

record that Mr. Gillespie hasn't complied with

this Court's orders, and contempt is an

appropriate sanction. And I do find you're

entitled to an order of contempt.

24

Given that you're going out of town it

raises some concern about issuing a Writ of

Bodily Attachment at this time as I wouldn't

want Mr. Gillespie detained indefinitely in

order to comply with the purge provision.

MR. RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor. And I

wouldn't want that either. I mean, certainly

our objective is just to get the deposition

completed.

THE COURT: Why don't I provide

that unless he gives a -- when are you going to

be back?

MR. RODEMS: I will be back in the office,

I believe, next Tuesday, which -- I'm sorry,

the date might.be -

THE COURT: Why don't we provide that he

has 45 days in which to give such a deposition,

otherwise the Court will issue an order to show

cause and consider further appropriate action.

MR. RODEMS: Okay, Your Honor. So, should

I prepare an order finding Mr. Gillespie in

contempt and providing that he has 45 days?

THE COURT: In which to provide the

required deposition or requested deposition or

face future sanctions for noncompliance.

25

1 MR. RODEMS: May I provide an order that

2 it could include being held -

3 THE COURT: Well, I would issue an order

4 to show cause at that point and require his

5 appearance to explain why he didn't show up.

6 And failing that, then of course I would

7 consider other options. But as you know, the

8 courts are very reluctant to have people

9 detained and incarcerated unless it's the

10 absolute last resort.

11 MR. RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: And that is the way I feel

13 about it. All right, folks. So, if you

14 decide, Mr. Rodems, to resolve the remaining

15 counts you can send a copy of whatever you file

16 with the clerk or fax it to me so that I know

17 the status of the file.

18 MR. RODEMS: Yes, Your Honor. I will do

19 that.

20 THE COURT: Thank you so much.

21 MR. RODEMS: Thank you for your time,

22 Judge.

23 THE COURT: All right. We're done.

24 (THEREUPON, the Hearing ended at 11:28 a.m. )

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PINELLAS

I, ROBBIE E. DARLING, Court Reporter, in and

for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, State of

Florida:

DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing

proceedings were had at the time and place set

forth in the caption thereof; that I was

authorized to and did stenographically report

the said proceedings and that the foregoing

pages, numbered 1 through 26, inclusive, is a

true and correct transcription of said

stenographic report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

official signature this 4th day of October,

2010, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida.

27

as 3:87:1,19:9,12,13,21 almost 15:14 being 7: 15 25:2 10:6,13 11:13 13:15 A BELCHER 1:22 along 16:1 11:10,25 12:4 13:16 claiming 14:12 a 1:73:3,17,17,214:2,12

already 16:22 14:8 15:8,25 18:8,8 belief 20:20 claims 6:67:10,158:15 5:146:4,11,13,14,23 also 6:11 8:13,1610:1,19 19:620:9,2521:23,24 believe 3:3 18:419:2 8:189:11 10:15 15:11Q2,19,19,228:2,1O

12:11,18 13:15 16:23 23:824:325:7 24:14 15: 187,229:19 10:2,16 23:1 Ashley 2:3 BERRYHILL 1:21 class 7:21 12:5 13:5 15:510: 19,24,24 11 :9,10

am 16:17 18:721:25 ask 15:22 16:6 17:621:3 besides 23: 11 clear 6: 13 7:3 19:2512:4,12,14,25 13:4,5 Americans 20:14 21:4,18 best 21:23 23:2113:18,1914:3,7,8,9,11 amount 13:11 14:122:4 asked 17:7 between 15:721:8 clearly 13:22 15:514:18 15:4,15,15,25

asserted9:1314:923:4 Bodily 18:15 19:821:5 Clearwater 1:22 26: 1716:417:1718:8,13,20 Amscot 6:78:3,10,12,23 ASSOCIATES 1:21 21:2024:3 clerk 16:9 25:16 18:23 19:5,720:5,6,9

9: I,3,5,8,13,23,25 both 3:14 5:2019:16 assume 16:18 client 10:2411:2 12:14 20: 10,25 21 :4, 10,20 10:10,10 12:1,8,18 assumes 13:3 23:2 12:1423:2,4,6,824:2,11,17 13:23,23 14:22 15:8 at4:10 6:17,1816:14 bottom 21 :16 clients 15:21 16:1825:1526:12 23:20 17:2218:6,2323:5 Bower 17:13 client's 11:3able 21:15

an 4:96:8,107:1711:10 24:325:4,2426:8,17 BRC 5:21,22,236:6 close 20:5 about4:11 7:1422:10 13:4,8 18:14 19:7 attached 8:23 9:2020:9 BRC's7:22 closed 20:22 24:225:13 23:23,2524:18,2125:1 Attachment 18:15 19:8 breech 5:16,23 10:5,16 closing 9:19,22 10:9 absence 19: 11 25:3 21 :5,2024:3 11: 18 14:18,24absolute 25: 10

and 1:1,6,73:225:15,16 collect 17:22 attempts 20:3 briefly 17:1accept 12: 1220:2 5:18,20,236:10,11,16 attend 17:18 bring 6:6 16:25 20:5 21:9 collection 16:22 accepted 8: 11 6:22,247:1,8,11,16,25 attending 20: 12 21: 17 comes 15:221:8 accommodation 5:5 8:4,5,11,14,16,16,21,21 attorney 2:5 7:2,4 11: 10 brought 15 :24 compensate 9:24 accommodations 20: 14 8:24,259:2,2,3,7,7,10 attorneys 9:24,25 but6:187:17,249:511:8 complaint3:18 5:14 9:21according 7:3 9:11,18,2010:1,3,6,8,9 attorney's 6: 11,14 8:6,9 12:1713:16,23 16:6,17 11:18,20account 11: 1 10:12,15,19,25 11:4,6 8:16,219:11 10:11,14 18:6,11,1619:2021:24 complete 21 :23acknowledge 9:23 10:2 11:8,2412:2,7,9,10,19 10:1812:2,7,1013:9 23:1825:7 completed 24:9 Act 6:8,820: 15 12:19,20,21,2413:7,11 13:11,16,25 14:21 by 1:17 3:55:18,226:15 complied 17:923:22 action 6:259:13 15:17 13:12,13,14,15,17,25 August 20:7 8:89:1,2,5,2010:25 comply 17:13 24:5 24:19 14:10,18,20,22 15:2,3 authority 21:2 12:10,14,17,2514:12 concern 24:2 actual 6:9 7:5 15:3,6,7,8,8,11,12,14 authorized 26: 10 14:2215:1917:1220:3 concerned 7:14 ClIY8:111:4 15: 15, 16,17,21 ,22,24 authorizes 12: 12 21:14 confident 18:8 5:4 16: 1,3,6,9,10,13,18,23 avoid 17:2020:4 conform 16:10 additional 7: 18

C17:7,10,18,22,23,24 awarded 6:9 22:16 23:4 conformed 19:3address 3:9 18:5,13,14,18,23 19:1 calling 20: 18a.m 1:16,1625:24 consider 16:718:2421:4 adverse 15: 11

came 9:16 19:7,8,16,1820:2,5,8 21:1924:1925:7advise 21 :24 B can 6:1 16:5,5 17:23 20: 11,11,20,23 21 :2,2 constituted 13: 19advised 19:1020:24

backI7:2318:819:2 18:23 19:1,2,521:9,1121:3,11,13,19,2522:6 contact 21 :8affidavit 4:10 8:24 24:12,13 25:1522:8,12,1523:1,3,4,7 contemplated 13:8 affirmed 22:8,12,13

Bank 6:20 cannot 6:15 23:14,17,23,2424:6,19 contempt 17:718:14 affixed 26:15 bar 10:18,21 12:11 15:15 can't 18:624:2225:4,6,9,1226:4 19:721:3,14,1923:23after 7:3,7,11 15:14,15 Barker 1:72:35:156:22 caption 26:9 26:8,10,11,13 23:2524:2216:20

7:8,118:209:2,7,9,18 case 1:2 6:16 7:1,12,17 any 6: 19 7:24 8:20 9:5 contends 10:7 afternoon 18: 10 10:6,12 11 :24 12: 19,2412:3 13:1915:1018:11 12:2013:1715:816:12 contingency 12:3,15 again 4:14 8:717:16

19:2120:321:7 13:13 15:8 20:521:11,17 continue 3:235:1,219:11 20:20,25 anything 16: 11,15 19:22 Barton 22:18,19 cases7:1612:6 contract 5: 17,23 7:22 against 3: 175:15,22,23

based 3:21 11:2223:2 23: 11 Casinos 14:4 10:5,1611:1812:56:67:159:12,2510:6 appeal 7:12,13 22:8,10 basically 17: 18 cause 24:19 25:4 13:615:623:7,8

22:12,13 basis 4:2,5,9 11: 17,23 caused 14:12 contractual 12:23 aggrieved 6:10 20:2522:25 CD 16:4 appealed 22:14 contrary 14:3,9agreed 8:12,13 10:10

be 3:13,154:196:9,14,15 appear 19: 17 certainly 13:7 16:524:7 Cook 1:7,8,102:35:16 12:1813:10,2514:20 6:1612:2013:2414:21 CERTIFICATE 26: 1 appearance 25:5 5:16,206:227:4,8,12agreement 8: 12, 19,23,25

APPEARANCES 2: 1 15:1216:5,19,21,23 CERTIFY 26:7 7:15,18,248:2,249:3,610:3,812:1813:4,20 appropriate 16:123:24 17:6,818:1019:1 change 14: 11 9:7,10,1810:6,1213:21,22,2314:17,23

20:1221:3,15,2523:1624:19 changed 13:17 12:19,2413:13 15:815:6 24:12,13,15 changes 15:3approval 10:21 Cook's 8:21 11 :24ahead 5:12

because 5:4 12: 1 charged 12:15 approved 15: 13 copies 16:1,10 19:3all 3:2 4:4,24,25 8: 17 are 5:256:1,25 11:1,2,5 been 3:108:7,23 14:25 choice 12:22 copy 9:410:220:925:15~,10 11,2112,619,4 15:1716:23 18:22 11:23 15:21,21 16:16 CHRISTOPHER 2:2 Corp 13:1:1823:1825:13,23

23:17 Circuit 1:1,1 6:21 26:5 17:25 18:3,1120:17 Corporation 1:7 9:23a eged 5:16,1711:19 BEFORE 1:10 City 14:4 21:15,1624:1125:8 correct 3:6 11 :2022:415:21

argue 3:14 began 7:13 CIVIL 1:2 26:13allow4:13 behalf 6:24 9:6 claim 6:11,13 8:5,99:25 arrests 21: 12 correctly 22:7 allowing 21 :10

28

costs6:12,148:16,21 20:23 envelopes 16:2 folks 3:2,1325:13 has 3:108:239:5 16:22 9:1210:1 12:21 13:11 denying 19:24 Escort 4:24 following 5:259:20 20:1,1324:17,22 13:25 14:22 16:23 depose 18:12 escorted 4: 19 for 1:1,192:53:4,4,11,23 hasn't 23:22

Cd8:811:714:2417:1 deposition 17: 18,21 ESQUIRE 2:2 5:3,8,20,23,246:7,11 have3:17 4:26:168:8 :2 19:12,1620:7,8,9 establish 14:7 6:13,167:5,198:3,4,5 10:2,12 11:7 13:3,6

couldn't 13:6 21:10,14,2324:8,17,24 estopped 14:3 8:9,159:11,25,25 14:24,25 15:20,24 16:9 counsel 6: 15 8:8 19:2 24:24 estoppel 14:6,12 10:1411:3,4,1812:13 17:2119:5,11,2123:6 count5:16,17,21,2110:5 described 9:12 ethical 12:25 12:2013:4,7,15,18,25 23:7,1625:826:15

16:123:12,14 despite 17: 19 ethics 10:20,22 14:21 15:1816:2417:5 he 7:15,17,188:89:14,14 counter 23:8 detained 24:4 25:9 even 10:7,8,9 19:10 17:7,17,2018:5,14,16 10:7,9,10,15,23 11:9 counterclaims 16: 17 detrimental 14:11 20:22 18:22 19:3,6,7,12,16 11:10,12,13 12:16

17:25 18:2,4,4,9 did4:1611:1217:6,10,11 event6:19 7:24 9:516:2 19:20,2420:1221:9,14 13:25 14:15,16,18,19 counts 5:20 25:15 17:1818:1519:5,19 18: 11 21:1822:2323:6,9,17 14:20,23 15:4,9,10,11 County 1:1,1221:6,7 22:926:10 Eventually 8: 10 23:1724:2525:2126:5 15:13,1617:12,18

26:3,17 didn't 5:47:22 15:10,16 Excuse 17:2 foregoing 26:7,11 18:12 19:10,17,19,20 course 10:1725:6 25:5 executed 10:3 forth 26:9 20: 10, 11, 12, 16,20,25 court 1: 1,183:2,9,13,20 directed 8:1 15:11 Exhibit 9:21 20:10 forward 15:17 21:1,3,7,1322:14

4:4,8,12,18,21,245:6,9 Disability 20: 15 existence 14:6 four 15:18 24:11,16,2225:5 5:12,196:4,16,237:9 discovery 7:3 20:4 23: 1 exited 5: 11 fraud 5:17,21 heard 19:21 8:259:411:12,16,21 discuss 17:6,8 expended 7:8 from 6:21 10:22 14:3 hearing 4: 11 5: 1 6: 17 14:416:817:2,11,14 dismissal 7:11 18:9 expenses 11:3 22:123:18,21 17:518:1619:1023:4 17:2518:2,17,2219:1 dismissed 7:1016:19 explain 25:5 fully 9:12 10:3 25:24 19:23,2520:1,2,13,23 disposed 15: 19 expressly 20:23 further 16: 11 20:3 24: 19 held 21:323:425:2 21 :4,18,21,25 22:3,9 disqualify 3:19,20 4:1,5 future 24:25 Henry 10:22 22:13,16,19,2223:6,11 4:6 F her 12: 13 23: 14,21 24: 10,16,18 disregard 21: 1 face 15:1024:25 G here 3:3,1812:8 24:2325:3,12,20,23 disrupt 4:13 fact 14:815:14 17:10,12 G 1:6 HEREBY 26:7 26:4,21 district 7:9 17:13 23:1 general 7:19,23 8:17 herein 9:12

Courthouse 1: 12 Division 1:2,6 facts 5:25 11 :23 15:20 gentleman 4:25 hereunto 26: 15 courtroom 4: 15 5: 11 do 14:1516:517:21 failed 19: 17 get 5:4 7:16,1615:16 he's 4:25 18: 13

ts 25:8 18:2421:22,2423:24 failing 25:6 17:23,2421:10,1524:8 Hillsborough 1: 1,12 21 :6 's21:1,223:23 25:1826:7 failure 10: 15 Gillespie 1:42:63:12,16 him 7:15,198:39:18,18

curt-awarded 8:6,9,15 document 9:6 16:9 fairly 19:25 4:1,6,9,16,20,235:3,7 10:1611:713:9,18 10:1,1413:16 done 13:625:23 favor 5:2011:25 15:22 5:11 7:148:1,4,7,11,13 15:719:1220:2421:9

court-ordered 7:2 don't3:14 18:1924:10 fax25:16 9:2,7,14,17,21 10:7,15 21:9,10,13 cover 12:21 24:16 faxed 20:11 11:6,912:2,1713:5,17 himself21: 13 Cruise 14:4 Drinker(Phonetic) 10:22 federal 3:17,21 5:76:21 13:21 14:2,1415:2,9 hired 6:6 custody 21 :9,22 Drive 2:3 6:23 17:9,11,1718:1219:4 his 7:189:17,21 10:11

Dulin 13:2 fee 12:4,15,19,25 13:9 19:9,1620:121:12,19 11:1,12 12:2,13,16 D during 7:25 feel 25:12 21:2222:323:7,9,19 13:15,15,22,23 15:3,9

damages 6:9,10 7:1,5,6 duties 7:22 fees 6:11,147:28:6,9,16 23:2224:4,21 15:1617:1919:11,24 7:18,2413:14 duty 7:25 8:21 9:11 10:1,11,14 Gillespie's 8:4,14 12:1,9 20:2022:2525:4

Darling 1: 17 26:4,20 D-U-L-I-N 13:2 10:18,25 12:2,7,10,13 12:22,23 13:14 holding 6: 19 date 1:1424:15 12:2113:11,16,25 give 19:224: 17 holds 21:13 dated 5:1810:4 E 14:21 Given 24:1 Hollywood 14:5 day 18:2026:16 E 1:1726:4,20 feign 4:16 gives 24:11 Honor 3:7,12,16,255:13 days 24: 17,22 each 6:1 feigned 4: 15 go 5:9,12 6:1 18:8 6:211:2014:215:5,25 DCA22:15 East 1:12 file4:12 19:1925:15,17 going4:13 15:1716:17 16:1617:1,418:7,25 decide 25: 14 effort 19:21 filed 3:5,175:146:23 18: 11,17 20: 11 21: 15 19:1422:5,2123:10,13 decision 12:22 either 21 :5 24:7 7:12 15:17 18:13 21:2524:1,11 24:6,2025:11,18 defamation 18:523:9,12 elected 19:9 Final 1:19 3:415:25 Good 3:2 HONORABLE 1: 10

23:15 else 23:11 finally 14:2 20:20 grant 11 :23 hours 7:9 defendant 3:55:20,22 emanated 23:18 financial 4:2 granted 5:19 23:3 husband 4:3

6:611:2412:623:17 end6:17 find 21: 1823:24 grievance 15: 15 H-A-N-N-O-N 6:20 23:18 ended 25:24 finding 24:21

defendants 1:9,19 2:5 enter 15:23 finish 21: 11 H I 5:1520:2121:15 entered 16:23 19:23 22:7 firm 7:89:911:13 13:24 had 7:4 8:20 11 :5,13 13:3,16,17,184:1,2,6,11

ndant's 20:4 22:11 14:2122:3 14:23 17:922:2526:8 4:165:46:1,169:22 nses 22:25 entering 16:7 first 3:10 18:1920:12 hadn't 8:7 10:1,211:1713:12,13 ned 9:9 entertain 18:21 five 15:18 Hannon 6:19 16:8,13,17,18,25 17:1

demonstrate 14:6 entire 12:3,16 Florida 1:1,7,13,222:4 happen 22:2 17:3,10,23 18:4,6,7,7,8 DEMPSTER 1:21 entitled 11:10,16 15:22 10:18,21 12:11 13:1 happened 11:8 18:1919:1,521:21,22 denied 3:22 4:5 17:19 23:25 26:2,6,17 happy 6:17 21 :24,25 23 :24 24:3,6

29

24:7,10,13,14,2125:1 J matter 18:2420:5,17,19 Ninth 6:21 16:2019:3 25:3,6,12,16,18 26:4,9 20:24 nol:24:168:811:15 opinion 10:20 Jl:4,8,1026:15 matters 3:8 12:1522:2523:13 opportunity 9: 16JRD 13:1

may6:9,1110:2412:6 noncompliance 24:25 options 25:7 ~18:17 Judge22:17,18,1923:384:186:2,188:7 16:2323:16,1625:1 none 7:48: 19 or 3:44:116:3,9,14,1725:22

1:1017:1 18:19,20 maybe 18:5 non-lawyer 10: 19 7:1910:11 11:3,14 judgement 22:4 21:2122:2,625:13 ma'am 11:1522:14 nor 11:12 20:13 12:6,13 13:1914:13,24 Judges 20: 17

ignored 20: 1 me4:5,18 17:2 18:23 North 1:22 2:3 16:2417:2018:5,20judgment 1:193:4,5,11 illness 4: 15, 17 22:725:16 not4:11,13,16 5:6,9 6:25 19:2120:321:6,7,83:24 5: 19,24 11 :24 imposed 22: 19,23 mean 13:13 24:7 7:169:5 11:8,8,19 23:1,1524:24,2425:1615: 19,22,25 16:22 in 1:1,15:19,256:7,8,19 memory 22:7 13:23 14:23,24 16:3 order 14:616:3,817:5,1917:21 18:1822:6,11

6: 19,23,25 7:7,24 8:2 mention 17:4 17:1818:12,1520:2,13 17:2018:1419:7,15,2323:6 9:5,10,13,22 10:5,23 might 24: 15 20:17 19:2421:223:2524:5judicata 20:24 10:2411:2,3,5,12,19 misrepresentations 4: 10 notice 7:12 18:820:6,9 24:18,2125:1,3Judicial 1: 1 26:5 11:24,25 12:6 13:20 modification 13: 19 noticed 18:15,22 19:6,12 orders 5:18 20:123:23 July 5:1919:15,24 14:4,5,11 15:2,3,22 modified 16:5 19:15 original 16:9 just 17:1418:524:8 16:2,11 17:4,1218:11 moment 18:6 November 5:18 other 3:86:248:5,14 18:2419:11,1820:1,4 K monetary 23:5 now6:18 7:17,218:7 10:11 11:512:9,14 20:17,1821:1,3,8,19 money 9: 17 14:25 10:5 13:12,17 14:2,14 16:2517:3,1618:18kept 12:2,16 22:7,11,2423:124:4 monies 11: 13 15:2 18:21,23 23:1825:7know 13:1515:717:8 24:13,17,21,2326:4,9 more 9:12 13:18 numbered 26:12 others 10:25 18:17,1919:625:7,16 26:15 morning 3:2,16 otherwise 24: 18knows 17:14

incarcerated 25:9 motion 1:193:3,4,11,20 0 our 7:7 13:24 14:2024:8 include 7:2225:2 L 3:234:4,125:1,25 Oath 20:16 ours 13:23 included 7:238:179:19 11:2517:7,2018:14 objective 24:8 out 4:19,25 13:12,14,22 last 4: 11 ,14,21 25: 10 inclusive 26: 12 19:6,7,19,20,2420:23 obtained 15: 12,13 16:2421:11,2522:1later 14:9 incurred 11:4 23:2 obviously 17:2218:12,16 24:1law 1:26:13,167:813:1 indefinitely 24:4 motions 16:24 21:11 over 7:9 16:4 17:24 13:3,2414:2023:1 indicate 19: 12 move 3: 194:1,6 occasion 19: 19 owes 22:3 lawful 13:4 individual 6:9,10 moving 5:24 occurred 12:8 lawsuit 3:17,215:86:23

rmation 17: 10,13 Mr 3:7,12,16,254:1,6,9 October 10:426:16 P15:3,1623:8 ficient 3:22 4:16,20,235:3,7,11,13 of 1: 1 3: 144:95: 16,20,23 pages 1:2026:12 lawyer 10:24 12:12

erest 22:6 6:57:18,248:1,2,4,4,7 6:1,7,17,247:4,128:17 paid 9:24 10:13,25 11:5,6 least 17:23 18:23 interrupt 4: 18 8:11,13,14,249:2,6,7 8:19,20,249:7,10,11 11:13 12:1,813:24leave 5:10 19:9 into 20: 18 21 :8,9,22 9:14,17,21 10:7,15 10:2,5,11,13,16,17,20 14:21leaving 4:20,23,25 5:4,7 is 3:5,7,10,21,22 4:5,21 11:6,9,15,19,22 12:1,2 10:22 11:1,10,11,18 part 11:3 12:7left 4:15

5:226:13 9:511:16 12:9,17,22,23 13:5,14 12:7,8,13,1413:11,19 parties 6:25 7:1313:3 legal 10:22 11: 1,3 12:1013:1014:2,8,14 13:17,21 14:2,1415:2 14:4,615:4,18,1918:8 partners 17:24legally 3:21 20: 17 15:2016:3,11,12,13,14 15:916:1617:3,9,11 18:9,14,1419:7,8,15 party6:1414:7,11Lending 6:7,8 17:4,15,1618:1219:7 17:13,1718:3,12,25 19:20,2420:7,9,9,16 past 20:2 less 13:19 19:1820:2121:1,22 19:4,9,14,1620:1 20:16,2121:1,4,7,10 pay 8:3,12,13,20 9:8 let 18:23 19:8 22:423:11,2324:8 21:12,19,2222:3,5,11 21: 10, 13,16,20,25 22: 1 10:1012:6letter 20:10 23:19 25:1226:12 22:14,18,21,2423:7,9 22:2,24 23 :3,14,20,25 payment 12:13 let's 3:9

issue 17:1424:1825:3 23:10,13,16,19,2224:4 24:1,225:6,15,1726:1 payments 11:2 libel 18:5,6 issues 16:21 18:1821:16 24:6,13,20,2125:1,11 26:2,3,5,13,16 pending 18: 1Iike3:18 16:3 17:418:7 issuing 21 :4,19 24:2 25:14,18,21 offer 8:10 people 25:8 18:19 it3:18 6:15,18 7:3,23 much 25:20 office 17:23 20:1622:1 percent 12:818:7 litigation 7:7

8:13,169:1,14,15 must 5:96:14 14:7 24:13 percentage 15:4100k6:18 10:1611:10,1113:7,17 mutual 7:19 8:17 official 26: 16 permit 10:24 looking 16: 14 14:2515:10,12,13 16:4 my 5:4,259:24,24 15:21 Okay 17:224:20 permitted 12:10 16:4,10,1218:15,16,21 M 16:1817:2420:21 on 3:3,214:2,5,95:8,20 physically 21: 12 19:6,21 20: 11 ,25 22:2 21:2322:726:15 5:21 6:2,237:13,249:6 Pinellas 26:3,17 made4:10 7:158:8,10 22:1223:16,16,1824:1 10:2511:2213:17 place 1:1213:2026:8 13:3 19:21 25:2,13,16 N 14:15,17,1915:1,18,19 plaintiff 1:5 5: 14,22 6:5mail 16:10

its 14:21 National 6:20 16:4,12,2218:2019:19 6:248:2212:1613:10mailed 19:1 it's 5:9 6:18 11:19 15:17 necessary 21:16 19:2320:7,8,10 22:8 20:323:8make 6:4,11,13 12:22

16:1218:2222:523:21 need 3:1417:22 18:11 22:12,13 23:2,4 plaintiffs 6:25 7:4 8:20 18:23 19:5 5:9 negotiate 8:213:18 once 15:1217:1620:25 plaintiffs 8:5,15 9: 11Management 13:1

:16 negotiations 7:148:1 one3:95:166:110:5 12:9manner 11:4 4:13,20,235:3,79:1 NEIL 1:42:6 12:1414:716:1,23 pleading 22:25 many 16:12,12,13,13

16:1422:924:14 never 12:3 13:819:21 19:321:723:14,17,17 pleadings 15:19 16:13Marion 21:6 I've 16:8 21:15 23:17,18 please 3:13,15,235:1 MARTHA 1:10

next 22:2 24:14 only 5:21 7:16,23 10:23 plus 22:6 material 14:8

30

point 23:525:4 regulating 12: 11 26:11,13 something 17:24 26:11 portion 8:20 10: 13 reimburse 11:2 sanction 23:5,24 soon 18:8 that's 5:6 11 :8,8 12:7 position 14:3,9,11 reimbursed 11:7 sanctions 16:2422:15,16 sorry9:122:924:14 23:14

reimbursement 11: 17 22:20,2223:724:25 sort 19:20 the 1:1,1,10 3:2,5,9,9,10 Qt' 15:121:24 . ge 16:2 reiterated 20:20 Sand 14:4 specific 11:4 3:13,204:2,4,8,9,11,12 isely 18:2 relating 16:21 satisfaction 9:10 spelled 13 :22 4:14,18,21,24,245:1,3

prefer 6:2 relationship 4:3 satisfactory 16:3 split 10:12,1611:913:8 5:6,7,9,11,12,14,15,19 preference 6: 18 release 7:19,20,23 8:17 say 22:9 splitting 10:1812:25 5:21,21,256:2,4,5,7,8 prepare 24:21 10:3 13:18 says 13:2 15:320:12 stand 3:14 6: 13,16, 17,17,19,24 prepared 17:6,8 reliance 14:10,13 schedule 17: 17 started 13:12,14 7:4,5,9,10,11,12,13,16 present 9:16 relied 14:15,17,19 15:1 scheduled 3:10 State 26:2,5 7:17,21,258:5,14,19 presented 8:24 9:3,17,18 reluctant 25:8 scheduling 20:7 stated 9:811:2514:5 8: 19,22,24,25 9:4,4,8

13:5 remain 16:20 se 2:76:15 statement 9: 19,20,22 9:10,13,16,1910:2,5,8 president 23 :20 remaining 5:22 18:9 seated 3:13,15 10:914:18,24 10:9,13,13,17,17,20,20 presumably 9:4 25:14 second 13:10 19:18,19 states 12:5 10:23 11:2,3,4,12,16 previous 17:7,19 remains 16:11,15 20:1622:15 status 25: 17 11:17,18,18,19,21,25 pre-paid 16:2 remember 18:6 secure 7:19 statutory 6:107:6 12:4,6,7,9,11,11,14,17 prior 19:14 23:1 report 26: 10,14 Security 6:20 stenographic 26: 14 12:19,21,21,2413:1,3 pro 2:76:15 REPORTED 1:17 see 13:13 stenographically 26: 10 13: 10, 10, 11,16,21,24 proceeded 15:9 Reporter 1: 18 26: 1,4,21 seeking 7:22,23 13: 12,14 still 17: 12,21 ,25 14:3,6,7,11,12,16,23,24 proceedings 3:14:14,14 represent 11: 12 17: 11 send 16:425:15 story 15:3 15:5,6,8,11,14,18,19,20

26:8,11 21 :21 separate 18:20 Street 1: 12 15:2016:1,2,3,8,8,9,9 professional 10:20 representation 7:21 12:5 separately 9:23 submit 6:17 16:20,21,22,2517:2,3 prohibits 10: 18 12:13 13:614:8,10,12 September 1:1420:8,10 submitted 18:10 17:5,7,9,11,13,14,16,20 proper 5:10 14:16,17,1915:2,6 served 20:6 subsequent 20:6 17:21,23,25,25 18:2,6 properly 10:24 20:21 serves 22:7 Subsequently 6:22 18:16,17,18,18,2219:1 proposed 15:25 represented 6: 15 8:8 service 5:10 substantial 7:7 19:8,10,15,18,19,19,23 protection 19:20,25 17:12 services 11: 1 such 11:124:17 19:23,25 20: 1,2,3,4,5,8 Protective 17:20 requested 7: 1 20: 14 set 17:5 26:8 sufficient 20: 18 20:13,14,16,21,2321:4 provide 24:10,16,23 25:1 24:24 settle 8:1410:13 Suite 1:22 2:3 21:5,6,9,11,13,14,16,16

vided 20:13 require 12:2425:4 settled 7: 16,17 sum 9:10 21: 17,18,21,23,2422:1 iding24:22 required 24:24 settlement 7: 13,258:2,10 summary 1:193:4,5,11 22:3,3,9,11,13,14,15,16

vision 24:5 res 20:24 8:12,19,22,2510:3,8 3:245:2411:23 15:25 22:16,19,2223:3,4,6 purge 24:5 reset 18:20 12:1813:21 14:16,23 18: 18 23:11,12,14,17,19,21 purges 21: 13 resides 21:7 15: 12 23:2124:5,8,10,13,15 purpose 13:4,721:9 resolution 21: 17 several 11:23 19:13 T 24:16,18,23,2325:3,7 pursuit 7:5 resolve 25:14 shall 9:8 table 5:8 25:9,12,12,14,16,17,17 P.A 1:72:3 resolved 17:15 share 11:11 take 18:17 25:20,23,2426:5,7,8,9

resort 25: 10 sheet 17:10,14 taken 12:414:2521:22 26:11,11 Q responded 20: 13 Sheriff 21 :6,7 taking 14:3 their 9:25 15:22

question 20: 18 retain 10:25 should 10:1224:20 talk 16:18 them 6:2 21:8 quickly 21 :23 review 16:6 show 18:13 24:1825:4,5 Tampa 1: 13 2:4 then 11:615:10,1423:3 quite 14:5 right 3:3 4:4,24,25 11 :21 signature 26: 16 terms 22:24 25:6 quote 9:8,22 10:23 12:5 19:420:425:13,23 signed 8:22 9: 1,2,4,5,6,8 than 12:14 theory 12:23

20:22,22 ROAD 1:22 9:14,15 10:8,9 13:21 Thank 3:25 5:13 6:516:7 there 3:711:23 12:3,15 quoted 10:21 Robbie 1: 17 26:4,20 14:16,18,23 16:8 25:20,21 16:11,13,14,16,17,23

Rodems 1:72:2,33:7,25 signing 9:22 12: 17 that 3:6, 10 4:2,5,10 5:25 16:2417:2518:319:3 R 5:13,156:5,227:8,11 sir 4:8, 12,18,22,24 5:6,9 6:13,19,257:4,258:11 23:2,11

raised 20:25 8:21 9:2,7,9,18 10:6,12 sit21:14 8:259:4,6,14,23 10:2,7 thereof26:9 raises 24:2 11:15,19,22,2412:19 situation 12:4 10:10,11,1511:13,17 THEREUPON 5:11 rare 12:6 12:2413:13 15:8 16:16 situations 10:23 12:19,2013:3,3,8,19 25:24 reached 15:7 17:3 18:3,25 19:14 Sixth 26:5 13:20,24,25 14:8,10,15 these 4: 13 11 :2220:2 read 3:189:1411:18 22:5,11,14,18,21,24 slander 18:5 23:15 14:17,19,19,20,25 15:1 22:22 reason 13: 10 22:23 23:10,13,1624:6,13,20 so 7:5,15 12:14,21 13:2,4 15:4,4,7,11,20,23,23 they 11:5 reasons 20: 12 25: 1,11,14,18,21 13:2014:515:1,5 16:4 16:2,5,6,7,11,15,18,20 thing 16:2017:16 receive 10:25 Rule 10:19 16:13 17:14,1418:13 16:21,22,25 17:3,4,5 things 16:25 17:3 received 10:2 11:7 rules 10:1712:11,25 19:2320:621:1,5,10 17:11,14,16,21 18:8,24 think 16:14

ord 5:36:3,4 15:20 rulings 20: 18 21:1822:2,2223:6 19:9,10,2520:2,6,9,16 THIRTEENTH 1:1 :23 19:5,823:22 RYAN 2:2 24:2025:13,16,20 20:21,23,24,24 21 :3,4 this 3:16 4:15,215:87:1

ect 19:9 some 10:12 13:7 16:16 21:5,11,16,21,2522:6 9:20,22 12:4,20,21,22 reflected 19: 18 S 19:20 22:4 24:2 22:2523:4,5,19,22 14:1415:3,1716:4,12 refusing 21 :14 S 10:22 somehow 10: 11 24:1,7,11,16,2225:1,4 18:10,2019:1,2,7,18 regulate 10: 17 said 10:23 18:720:11,16 someone 21 :5,12 25:6,12,16,1926:7,9 20:5,17,1921:1,222:4

31

23:2324:326:16 those 16:1918:922:15

23:3 gh 6:1410:7,8,9 :10 20:22

eatening 15:15 three 14:10 15:1820:12 through 6:126:12 Thursday 22: 1 TILA6:23 7:10 12:10 time 1:16 24:3 25:2126:8 times 19:13,17 to 3:14,14,18,19,20 4:1,4

4:6,13,136:6,13,17,18 7:1,3,16,16,18,198:2,3 8: 12,13,14,20,24,24 9:3,16,21,2410:13,15 10:25 11 :2,10,13,16,23 12:12,15,22,2413:11 13:18,24,25 14:6,8,9 14:11,15,21 15:10,22 15:2516:4,6,17,21,25 17:4,6,6,8,8,10,11,17 17:20,22,23,2518:11 18: 11,13,17,19,20,24 19:2,9,14,17,2120:3,4 20:5,6,11,11,13 21:10 21: 14,15,15, 15,16,17 21:18,21,23,2422:2 23:1,19,2524:5,8,11

4:17,18,2325:4,5,8 :14,1626:10

ay 3:3 15:2416:18 17:1,518:1619:6

told 14:14 took 7:24 town 21 :25 24: 1 transcription 26: 13 tried 17: 17 true5:626:13 Truth 6:7,8 Tuesday 22:1 24:14 twice 19:16 Twiggs 1:12 two 3:85:15,176:248:15

12:914:915:1416:24 16:25 17:3 18:3,419:3 23:16

two-count 5: 14

u under 6:8,23 7:218:11

8:1910:19,2013:1 15:5,620:14

understood 14:20 undisputed 6: 1 11 :22

15:20,21 lawful 13:7 20:22

ss 21 :1224:11 25:9 117:2321:13 22:1

up 17:1 18:13,1825:5 upheld 22:15 upon 14:10 17:22

urged 7:15 us 11:613:1814:14,15

15:2416:317:6,7 18:1920:1121:10

v various 16:21 22:25 verify 17:24 version 16:4 versus 6:20 13:2 14:4 very23:2125:8 violate 12:24 violation 6:7 violations 22:2423:2 Volume 16:14 volumes 16:12

W want 15:10 16:25 17:10

21:2424:4,7 wanted 7:17,1811:9,9

13:1814:15,2015:9,10 wants 15:4 warning 4:21 was 4:11 6: 197:3,5,13,14

9: 1,1,3,9,20 10: 16 11 :1012:3,4,15,21 13:2015:7,7,1217:12 18:16,17,1719:6,10,25 20:2422:2,7,8,11,12 23:2,326:9

wasn't 11:1720:11 way 15:1625:12 we 9: 17 11 :6,7 13:5,6,8

13:12,13,13 14:15,17 14:18,2415:1,22,24 16:5,617:16,21,22 18:11,13,15,15 19:15 20:6,821:2,3,11,18 24:16

week 22:2 well 3:8,9 4:20 7:1,918:3

18:2223:2125:3 went 13:1715:16 were 15:1916:1719:3

22:2226:8 we're 3:3 5:23 25:23 what 11:8,912:714:15

18:2,2422:9,17,23 whatever 25: 15 when9:1611:1,1713:4

13: 12,20 14: 14,16,18 15:1619:2324:11

where 12:421:7 whereby 8:3 WHEREOF 26:15 whether 4: 11 17:9 which 3:10 6:16 7:78:11

8:23,25 9:3,6,9,19 10:21,23,2411:5 12:10 12:1213:22 17:1923:3 24:14,17,23

while 7: 12 17: 12

who 6:2521:822:16 whole 11:2 why 24:10,1625:5 will 4:19 5:2 16:8,19 18:9

20:2 21 :22,25 24: 13,18 25:18

WILLIAM 1:8 willing 18:13 wish 18:20 with 3:23 4:35:18:23

9:17,1910:10,14,16,19 10:21 12:18,1913:5,5 13:9,22,23 15:24 16:1 16:4,9,1817:6,8,9,13 17:2420:1521:823:22 24:525:16

WITNESS 26: 15 words 11:5 would 3: 18 6:2 8:3 10: 10

12:20,20,23 13:8,24 16:6,20,21 17:418:19 19:1121:2,3,18,21 25:3,6

wouldn't 14:25 24:3,7 Writ 18:1419:821:4,20

24:2 writing 8:2 written 4:128:22 wrote 20: 10 23: 19

x X 1:3,9

Y years 15:14,18 Yes 3:718:25 19:1422:5

22:14,2123:1024:6 25:11,18

you 3: 13,14,17,18,19,25 4: 1,7,10,13,14,15,18,18 5:8,9,13 6:2,5 13:15 15:7,2316:6,717:5,6,8 17:818:17,19,20,23 19:2,5,6,11,1222:9 23:6,724:1125:7,13 25: 15, 15,20,21

your 3:7,12,16,20,23,25 4:3,4,21 5:1,136:2,18 11:13,2014:2 15:5,24 16:1617:1,4,5,1918:7 18:25 19:5,14 22:5,21 23:10,13 24:6,2025:11 25:18,21

you'd 16:3 you're 23:2424: 1

$

$1,0008:3 $10,0008:4 $11,50022:6 $2,0008:13 12:3,1615:9 $50,0008:149:10,24

10:13 11:6,7 12:20

13:2414:21

o 05-CA-007205 1:2

1 1 1:2020:10 26:12 10012:8 18:7 102 1:22 11 16:14 11:041:16 11:281:1625:24 17th 20:7 18751:22 19766:21

2 29:21 2nd 6:21 13:2 14:5 2001 10:4 20075:18 20085: 1922:8,12 20101:1419:15,2420:7

26:17 21002:3 26 1:2026: 12 281:14 28th 5:18 29th 19:15,24

3 3rd 20:8,10 3010:4 3007:9 31413:2 3276:21 33602 1: 13 2:4 337651:22

4

4th 26:16 4-1.8(f) 12:12 4-5.410:19 4002:3 4524:17,22

5 5376:20 5710522:24

6 60-3310:21 681 14:5

7 7th 5:19 725-9157 1:23 7271:23

8 8001:12 84414:5 88313:2

ERRATA SHEET OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE, AMENDED

COURT: Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial CircuitHillsborough County, Florida, Civil Law Division

CASE NUMBER: 05-CA-7205STYLE OF CASE: Neil J. Gillespie, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, vs.Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Defendant and Counter-PlaintiffWilliam J. Cook, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff

DATE: September 28, 2010TIME: 11:04 a.m. - 11:28 a.m.PRESIDING JUDGE: Martha J. Cook, Circuit Court Judge

Hearing 1: Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant’s Oral Motion To Disqualify Trial JudgeHearing 2: Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs’ Motion For Final Summary JudgmentHearing 3: Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs’ Motion For Civil Contempt and Writ of BodilyAttachment

REPORTER: Robbie E. DarlingDempster, Berryhill & Associates1875 North Belcher Road, Suite 102Clearwater, Florida 33765Telephone (727) 725-9157

Page Line Error or Change Reason for Change

Cover Neil J. Gillespie is the To correct error, addPlaintiff and Counter-Defendant counter-party status

Cover Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and To correct error, see p. 16.William J. Cook are Defendants and line 7; p. 17, line 25;Counter-Plaintiffs p. 18, lines 1, 4 and 9

for reference to counterclaims

Cover This hearing began with Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants’ oral motion todisqualify the presiding trial judge, Martha J. Cook, Circuit Court Judge,beginning on page 3, line 16.

This hearing was also on Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs’ Motion forContempt and Writ of Bodily Attachment, in addition to “Defendants’ andCounter-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment”. The hearing oncontempt begins on page 17, line 7, also see Judge Cook’s statement onpage 19, lines 5-11.

2 Appearances Ryan Christopher Rodems, attorney for Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs

2

2 Appearances Neil J. Gillespie, pro se, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant

2 Appearances Please add the address for Neil J. Gillespie: 8092 SW 115th Loop,Ocala, Florida, 34481

4 20 Transcript shows punctuation of a “period” where it should showpunctuation of “dashes” to show Judge Cook cut Gillespie off mid-sentence:

20 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm leaving.

Transcript should show Judge Cook cut Gillespie off mid-sentence:20 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm leaving --

23 Again at line 23 the same inaccuracy is repeated, and should be changed.23 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm leaving --

On page 5, line 7-8, Gillespie was finally able to speak his completesentence:

7 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm leaving the federal8 lawsuit on this table for you.

5 3-5 Gillespie misspoke in this exchange because he was upset thatJudge Cook ordered him removed from the hearing, and had twicecut him off in mid-sentence.

3 MR. GILLESPIE: For the record, I'm4 leaving because I didn't get my ADA5 accommodation.

Gillespie intended to state he did not get his ADA accommodation.He was leaving because Judge Cook ordered him to leave, andintended to state the following:

3 MR. GILLESPIE: For the record,4 I didn't get my ADA5 accommodation.

5 11 (THEREUPON, Mr. Gillespie exited the courtroom)

The above should reflect that Mr. Gillespie was escorted out of the courtroomand/or courthouse by the bailiff, Deputy Christopher E. Brown, H.C.S.O., per theletter of Maj. James Livingston dated January 12, 2011.

(THEREUPON, Mr. Gillespie was escorted out of thecourtroom by the bailiff)

A copy of Maj. Livingston’s letter to Neil Gillespie, with mailing envelope,accompanies this Errata Sheet, along with a copy of Maj. Livingston’s email ofJanuary 12, 2011 with attached copy of the letter, and Gillespie’s inquiry letter of

November 13,2010. This correspondence impeaches a false statement by Judge Martha J. Cook that appears on page 19, lines 5-11:

5 [THE COURT] You can make a record. I did have your 6 motion, it was noticed for today. As you know, 7 this is a Motion for an Order of Contempt and 8 Writ of Bodily Attachment. And let the record 9 reflect that Mr. Gillespie elected to leave 10 even though he was advised that the hearing 11 would continue in his absence.

17 13 "Mr. Bower" should be spelled "Mr. Bauer", the name of my former attorney, Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville, Florida.

NOTE: This transcript was previously corrected sometime after Gillespie's email and fax to Jean Murray dated October 16,2010, see attached. The transcript was amended after the October 4, 2010 date shown on page 26, Certificate of Reporter Robbie E. Darling.

I have read the transcript of the above hearing held September 28, 2010, and except for any errors or changes noted above, I hereby subscribe to the transcript as an accurate record of the statements made by me. I cannot subscribe to statements made after I was ordered removed from the hearing, or know if Judge Cook or Mr. Rodems influenced or attempted to influence the court reporter in his duty as an officer of the court.

"A court reporter is an officer of the court for all purposes while acting as a reporter in a judicial proceeding or discovery proceeding. (12A Fla.Jur.2d, §224; 2005). Court reporters, as officers of the court, are amenable to its processes for failure to perform their duties. Peacock v. State, 154 So. 2 856 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1963 )."

Signature ofNeil J. GilleSPie:r'·· A .z. Date: /~#OI2-STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MARION

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments in the State of Florida, personally appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Isnown to me, or who produced _ who, after having first been duly sworn, deposes and says that the abo;e matters contained in this Errata Sheer are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 1'" day of J~~<. 2012.

3

,

;' \.


CIVIL LAW DIVISION CASE NO. 05-CA-007205

----------------------------------------x NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,

and Di vi-sion::t: G,....:> r= ~ r-- c:;::)

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. ttl 0 C")t,P c->

A Florida Corporation, and :Eo --i C"):;c N

WILLIAM J. COOK, c:c~_c_ N .4c> C")::r: -0

Defendants. :20 ~ ----------------------------------------x -- r-.-I .'

:< s:'"11 N

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE MARTHA J. COOK r-

PLACE: Hillsborough County Courthouse 800 East Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602

DATE: September 28, 2010

TIME: 11:04 a.m. - 11:28 a.m.

REPORTED BY: Robbie E. Darling Court Reporter

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

Pages 1 - 26

DEMPSTER, BERRYHILL & ASSOCIATES 1875 NORTH BELCHER ROAD, SUITE 102

CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33765 (727) 725-9157

ORIGINAL

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Jean Murray" <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:44 PMAttach: 2010, 09-28-10, transcript, page 5, error, correction needed.pdfSubject: correction needed on transcript of September 28, 2010

Page 1 of 1

11/29/2012

Hi Jean,

I just reviewed the transcript of the hearing September 28, 2010 done by Robbie Darling and there is a serious error on the top of page five at line 1: (THEREUPON, Mr. Gillespie exited the courtroom). Clearly this is inaccurate because there was the following exchange later in the transcript, beginning on page five at line 4:

4. MR. GILLESPIE: For the record, I'm 5 leaving because I didn't get my ADA 6 accommodation. 7 THE COURT: That's not true, sir. 8. MR. GILLESPIE: I'm leaving the federal 9 lawsuit on this table for you. 10 THE COURT: You must go, sir. It's not 11 proper service. Leave. Go ahead.

I believe the information on page five at line 1 should appear after the above exchange ending on page five at line 11. Also, HCSO Bailiff C.E. Brown removed me from the courtroom at the order of Judge Cook and escorted me from the building. I believe this information should be included on the transcript, because Judge Cook is now claiming that I left the hearing voluntarily. A copy of page 5 is attached. Time is of the essence in this matter. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Neil Gillespie

(352) 854-7807

Fax From: Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 11Sth Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 email: [email protected]

To: Dempster Berryhill Court Reporters

Fax: (727) 725-8749

Date: October 16,2010

Pages: two (2) including this cover sheet

Re: transcript error

Hi Jean,

I just reviewed the transcript ofthe hearing September 28, 2010 done by Robbie Dariing and there is a serious error on the top ofpage five at line 1: (THEREUPON, Mr. Gillespie exited the courtroom). Clearly this is inaccurate because there was the following exchange later in the transcript, beginning on page five at line 4:

4. MR. GILLESPIE: For the record, I'm 5 leaving because I didn't get my ADA 6 accommodation. 7 THE COURT: That's not true, sir. 8. MR. GILLESPIE: I'm leaving the federal 9 lawsuit on this table for you. 10 THE COURT: You must go, sir. It's not 11 proper service. Leave. Go ahead.

I believe the information on page five at line 1 should appear after the above exchange ending on page five at line 11. Also, HCSO BailiffC.E. Brown removed me from the courtroom at the order ofJudge Cook and escorted me from the building. I believe this information should be included on the transcript, because Judge Cook is now claiming that I left the hearing voluntarily. A copy ofpage 5 is attached. Time is ofthe essence in this matter. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Neil Gillespie

1

2

3

4 --5

6

7

8 ---9

10

11

19

18

16

15

14

17

13

12

20

21

22

23

24

25

in

and

and

5

(THEREUPON, Mr. Gillespie exited the courtroom) ~e~ev4 THE COURT: All right. Continue with your

motion, please. The hearing will continue.

~~MR. GILLESPIE: For the record, I'm

leaving because I didn't get my ADA

accommodation.

THE COURT: That's not true, sir.

~ MR. GILLESPIE: I'm leaving the federal

lawsuit on this table for you.

THE COURT: You must go, sir. It's not

proper service. Leave. Go ahead.


The plaintiff filed a two-count complaint

against the two defendants; Barker, Rodems

Cook and Cook. Count One alleged breech of

contract, Count Two alleged fraud.

By orders dated November 28th, 2007

July 7th, 2008 the Court granted judgment

favor of Cook on both counts and for Defendant

BRC on the fraud count. The only count

remaining by plaintiff against Defendant BRC is

for Breech of Contract against BRC, and we're

moving for Summary Judgment.

The following facts that are in my motion

are undisputed. I can go through each one of

Po. Box 3371 Phone (813)247-8000 www.hcso.tampa.jl.usDavid Gee, Sheriff

Jose Docobo, ChiefDeputy

Hillsborough County Tampa, Florida 33601

January 12,2011

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW l1S th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

In response to your letter dated November 13,2010, I made contact with Deputy Christopher E. Brown concerning your request for an explanation regarding why he escorted you out of the courthouse on September 28, 2010 after a hearing with Judge Martha Cook. Deputy Brown advised that the Judge ordered you to leave after a disruption in the courtroom. He stated that he followed you to the front door as you exited the building without assistance. Other than the official records maintained by the Court, I am not aware of any other records related to the hearing before Judge Cook.

As we discussed on the telephone today, you expressed some concern over your personal safety while in the courthouse due to a disability and due to a potential threat from opposing counsel. Please let me know the date and time of your next visit to the courthouse and we will take action to help ensure a safe and orderly visit. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

James P. Livingston, Major Court Operations Division

016H26509735Jhrriff ~ $OO.44Qlaauid 6rr

01/13/2011 %:CO" 5

P.O. Box 3371 • Tampa. Florida 33601 US POSTAGE

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481

:;:c~48 i +:::::::.~. 7 11,11"11,1,1,111,,1,1,, Ill, II" '1'1,11 I ,11111111111,1,/",/"

Neil Gillespie

From: "LIVINGSTON, JAMES P" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:25 AMAttach: Ltr to Mr. Neil Gillespie 011211.pdfSubject: Response Letter

Page 1 of 1

1/12/2011

Mr. Gillespie, Attached is a copy of your letter dated 11/13/2010, along with my response letter dated today. The original reponse letter will go out today via U.S. Mail. Thank you, James P. Livingston Major - Court Operations Division Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office Office: 813-242-5061 Fax: 813-242-1834 [email protected]

VIA V.P.S. No. lZ64589FP290445194

December 4, 2012

Larry Murray, President Dempster Berryhill Court Reporting 1875 N. Belcher Road, Suite 102 Clearwater, FL 33765

RE: Transcript of hearings September 28, 2010 before Judge Martha J. Cook Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co., Florida.

Dear Mr. Murray,

Enclosed you will find a copy of my notarized, amended errata sheet for the transcript of the hearings September 28, 2010 in the above case before Judge Cook, reported and transcribed by Robbie E. Darling of your firm.

Kindly file a copy with the court. Thank you.

Telephone: (352) 854-7807 email: [email protected]

Enclosure

VIA V.P.S. No. lZ64589FP290445194

December 4, 2012

Larry Murray, President Dempster Berryhill Court Reporting 1875 N. Belcher Road, Suite 102 Clearwater, FL 33765

RE: Transcript of hearings September 28, 2010 before Judge Martha J. Cook Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co., Florida.

Dear Mr. Murray,

Enclosed you will find a copy of my notarized, amended errata sheet for the transcript of the hearings September 28, 2010 in the above case before Judge Cook, reported and transcribed by Robbie E. Darling of your firm.

Kindly file a copy with the court. Thank you.

Telephone: (352) 854-7807 email: [email protected]

Enclosure

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE



vs.






Original Transcript of telephone call - Kimberley Pruett-Barry toNeil Gillespie - October 3, 2012, and audio CD

IN RE: Telephone Conversation between Neil J. Gillespie and Ki.Irlberly Pruett-Barry. --------------------------/

RECEIVED AT: Home Office Business Telephone Extension of Neil J. Gillespie

DATE & TIME: October 3, 2012 12:31 p.m.

TRANSCRIBED BY: Michael J. Borseth Court Reporter

Michael J. Borseth Court Reporter/Legal Transcription

(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

2

* * * * * * * * * * * *

NOTE: All calls on the horne office business

telephone extension of Neil J. Gillespie

(352)854-7807 are recorded for quality

assurance purposes pursuant to the business

use exemption of Florida Statutes chapter 934,

section 934.02(4) (a) (1) and the holding of

Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v.

Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215

(11th Cir. 1991)

* * * * * * * * * *

AUTOMATED OPERATOR: This call is being

recorded for quality assurance purposes.

MR. GILLESPIE: Hello.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Hello.

MR. GILLESPIE: Hello.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Is this Mr. Gillespie?

MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Hi, Mr. Gillespie, my name

is Kim Pruett and I live right down the street from

you. I think you live - I live off of 60th, but I

have hired a lawyer by the name of Robert Bauer,

and I started seeing some things that have made me

question him. So I went on the internet yesterday

and pulled, you know, just Googled his name just to


598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

3

1 see what I could come up with.

2 MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh.

3 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: And my mind got blown away.

4 Did you have him as an attorney?

MR. GILLESPIE: Oh, yeah.

6 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, my God, I am sick, I

7 sick to my stomach. I have made a huge mistake in

8 hiring this guy. I don't know what to do. He, he,

9 he just will not move our case forward and he sits

there and bills and bills and bills us. We now

11 have like a 40,000-dollar bill. I have paid him

12 like 23,000. So I am completely stuck into him,

13 you know, and it's hard - so how am I supposed to

14 get another attorney? You know, I mean, he's taken

every bit of the savings that we got. And it's

16 just - at first he was real gung-ho on the case

17 and now I can't get him to move to save my life.

18 Is that the kind of like problems you had with him?

19 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, yeah, and a lot of

people have the same kind of problem.

21 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah, I saw that there is

22 Anna Hodges, I think her name was.


24 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: I talked to Ms. Strauss,

and they made a complaint against him and they


598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

4

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

actually got all their money back from him.

MR. GILLESPIE: Really?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: She said. Did you try to

go to arbitration to get your money back, any money

that you may have paid him or?

MR. GILLESPIE: I made a Bar complaint. I

didn't do anything beyond that. And I am probably

going to be making a followup Bar complaint. I am

still involved in litigation with him. So, I think

my case is going to hopefully go to the Supreme

Court.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, so you -- did you file

like a suit against him as well?

MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, okay. So you probably

can't talk to me about a whole lot of stuff, I'm

sure.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I can talk to you.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay.

MR. GILLESPIE: I mean, it's all out in the

public record, so -

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay, okay. Well, this is

what happened. We have, actually -- I have learned

so much in the past 5 years. I live in Majestic

Oaks. I don't know if you know where that is at.


598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

5

~ 1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

I call it the neighborhood from hell.

MR. GILLESPIE: Is that here in Ocala?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah, it's right off of

60th. Do you know where Marion Landing is or -

MR. GILLESPIE: I know where 60th is, that's

down by the Paddock Post Office, right?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, yeah. Instead of

like if you're going west away from 1-75, if you

were to turn right to go to the airport, you just

turn left and I live back in that area.

MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: But anyways, believe it or

not, this is what th2 really funny thing is. I

hired Bauer two years ago to -- for a legal

malpractice suit against another attorney. And

we're actually winning that lawsuit. The State Bar

has now decided to investigate him for unethical

behavior. He got busted for cocaine and all kinds

of stuff and didn't tell us. But anyways, Bauer

told me he was a legal malpractice attorney. Well,

I am finding out otherwise. I don't think he knows

a thing about legal malpractice.

MR. GILLESPIE: No. Do you know about

his background?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Huh?


598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

6

1 MR. GILLESPIE: Do you know about Bauer's

2 background? He is a fairly new attorney.

3 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yes, since like 2007.

4 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I think he graduated in

2005.

6 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, did he? Okay.

7 MR. GILLESPIE: He was a firemen before that.

8 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, was he? Because I know

9 his wife is a EMT.

MR. GILLESPIE: Right, they work together.

11 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: I have met his wife. Okay.

12 And he - when he first got on the case he was all

13 gung-ho, and you know, he really did, we went after

14 it strong and hard and I was kind of impressed.

Well, they did a change of venue because this

16 attorney that I am doing the legal malpractice suit

17 against lives in Orlando. So we had to do a change

18 of venue and we lost and the case had to go to

19 Orlando. And that was back in January. And here

it is October and now he has not done a damn thing

21 since.

22 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, legal malpractice is one

23 of the hardest cases to do, and he just doesn't

24 have very much knowledge, in my opinion.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah. Well, I talked to


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

7

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

another legal malpractice attorney down in Tampa,

and here is my dilemma. He jumped allover our

case, because it looks like we do have a pretty

good case against this one attorney; Peter McGrath

was his name. And like I said, he got busted for

cocaine, it was like he was practicing law with his

license suspended and all kinds of stuff.

MR. GILLESPIE: Now, when you say Peter

McGrath, is that the lawyer in Tampa?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: In Orlando.

MR. GILLESPIE: That's the one you're having

the trouble with?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Right. Or that's the one

we had the legal malpractice with.


MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, I contacted

MR. GILLESPIE: Who did you speak to in Tampa,

if you don't mind saying?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, he was good. You know

what, look up legal mal -- I'll do it for you right

now, hang on. His last name is Vaughn. I think it

was Bill Vaughn. Hang on a second. I have had two

conversations with him, and he told us we had an

excellent case and he wanted our case.



(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

8

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Which is fine and dandy and

2

1

I want to hire him, but now he wants a contingency

3 at 30 percent. Well, now here I have almost paid

4 Bauer 40,000, and then if I do a contingency that

he gets 30 percent, I might be left holding 10

6 bucks.

7 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, were you paying Bauer on

8 an hourly basis?

9 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yup.

MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah, that's always a mistake.

11 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, see and I don't trust

12 the contingency things either because that's kind

13 of like -- Peter -- let me ask you this, were you

14 paying Bauer hourly?

MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah. That's a mistake.

16 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Did you ever change it to a

17 contingency?

18 MR. GILLESPIE: He was supposed to but he

19 never did it.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, they're really not

21 supposed to do that. I found that out through the

22 State Bar. It's unethical for them to change -

23 this is what the State Bar told me. I was talking

24 with Mr. Negan (phonetic), and he's called me

several times. If you are doing an hourly case and

Michael J. Borseth Transcription

598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

9

it comes to the point that you just can't afford it ~ 1

2 anymore -


4 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: and you know, you

expired all resources, and the case is not quite

6 near settling -


8 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: -- then your lawyer is

9 supposed to try and go ahead and settle it and do

what's right in your best interest because you're

11 broke now. And so the only way it should be

12 changed to a contingency is if you, the client, say

13 I don't want to settle, I want to move forward with

14 this case. I want to, you know, I am not going to

settle, I want to move forward. That is the only

16 time -- in other words, the only time it's supposed

17 to change from an hourly to a contingency is under

18 very extreme circumstances. If the case can settle

19 they should go ahead and settle it.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, here's the problem in my

21 case with Bauer going from hourly to contingency.

22 He wanted me to sign a release for all his prior

23 malpractice. And I didn't want to do that. I was

24 willing -

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, you're kidding me.


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

10

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

MR. GILLESPIE: I was willing to sign a

contingency. You see what the problem is, if

they -- if you sign a release for the prior

malpractice and that wipes that clean, then he does

a contingency, they can just throw the case. There

is a thousand ways a lawyer can throw a case and

just blame it on the legal system. So that was the

problem. You know, I paid him close to 20,000, but

you have gone way beyond that.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: How long did you have him?

MR. GILLESPIE: I had him for a couple years.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah, see, it's going on

two years with us now, too.

MR. GILLESPIE: Do you mind, did you tell me

your name? I don't recall.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: It's Kim, K-i-m. Barry.

MR. GILLESPIE: K-i-m.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Barry, B-a-r-r-y.

MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh. B-a-r-r-y.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Right. Let's see. I

think -- I'm trying to find the name of this person

for you. Where -- it came right up the other day

when I called him. It's V-a-u-g-h-n. Out of

Tampa. And they don't do anything but legal

malpractice. And I was very, very, very impressed


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

11

1 with what he had to say. And he jumped allover

2 our case.

3 Now, it wasn't against Robert Bauer. I just

4 started looking for another attorney because Robert

Bauer is just - we asked him to go to mediation in

6 January, Neil. In January after depositions, we

7 said we want, you know, let's go to mediation and

8 let's - I want this thing over. Here it is

9 October and then my husband called him in July,

they had to - first, he said, well, we have to do

11 the change of venue. And then I e-mailed him, I

12 said: Well, you know, why do we have to hold off

13 on depositions? Oh, well, we don't have to hold

14 off on depositions for the change of venue, we can

do that. So I'm thinking, wait a minute, you can

16 do depositions but you can't go to mediation?

17 MR. GILLESPIE: Did you make a Bar complaint?

18 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Not yet, not yet, because I

19 just started investigating him yesterday. I just

pulled all this stuff up yesterday. So then

21 everything sat there, he did nothing. And then in

22 June I called him and I said: I want to go to

23 mediation, what part of this don't you understand?

24 And he said: Well, let me get with the other party

and see if they will go. Well, we find out they're


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

12

1 ready to go to mediation, too. Nothing happened

2 again, Neil.

3 Since the week of July 4th my husband was off

4 and I said: I bet he ain't in his office, but

let's call him. So July 4th week my husband called

6 him and he put it to him. You know, my husband

7 said: Get it to mediation immediately, I am

8 telling you. And he said he would.

9 Here it is October and I get an e-mail

yesterday going: Oh, well, I have to do a new case

11 management and I have to do this and I have to do

~ 12

13

that before we can even schedule mediation. I

thought - that's when I said, okay, something lS

14 wrong here. He is bleeding us for every dime we

got and he's doing it on purpose because he knows

16 we got a good case and he knows it will probably be

17 settled in mediation, but he's going to get every

18 dime out of it first. And that is what he is

19 doing, Neil.


21 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: That's exactly what he's

22 doing. And you know, so I e-mailed back and I

23 said, no, you have mediation scheduled within 10

24 days or I'm taking further action.

MR. GILLESPIE: I'm sorry to hear about all


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

13

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

the problems you're having with him. I'll do

anything I can to help you.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, let me ask you, have

you got a legal malpractice attorney against him?

Have you hired an attorney?

MR. GILLESPIE: No.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Because I'm trying to find

this one. This guy was good. Hang on, Neil.

pulled it right up the other day, now I can't seem

to find where he went.

MR. GILLESPIE: I'll give you my e-mail

address if you want.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah.

MR. GILLESPIE: When you get all your stuff

together

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah.

MR. GILLESPIE: you could just e-mail it to

me and -

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay, go ahead.

MR. GILLESPIE: It's my name, Neil Gillespie,

neilgillespie -


MR. GILLESPIE: @MFI, for Mid Florida

Internet.net, n-e-t.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Mfi.net?


(813) 598-2703

I

5

10

15

20

25

14

1 MR. GILLESPIE: That is right.

2 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay. Yeah, and as soon as

3 I find the lawyer's name that does nothing but

4 legal malpractice and he has been practicing for

like 33 years, that's all he does is legal

6 malpractice, I will e-mail you. I know his last

7 name was Vaughn and I'm trying to think his first

8 name was Bill. I talked to him and my husband

9 talked to him and he wanted our case, but that's

where I am at, do I hire him and let him take a 30,

11 you know, 30 percent of the proceeds or do I just

12 force Bauer into mediation? And there is my

13 dilen~a, too, will Bauer be effective in mediation?

14 MR. GILLESPIE: My personal opinion of Bauer

is he is completely incompetent. He doesn't know

16 anything and he can't follow through on anything.

17 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, let ask you this,

18 because I been kind of noticing this, too, he's a

19 real smart ass, too.

MR. GILLESPIE: I have had people tell me

21 that.

22 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Like the one lady on the

23 Internet, I mean, he I guess she - he looked at

24 her husband because, you know, he didn't like her

or something and said something rude about her or


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

15

1 how do you put up with her, something like that.

2 MR. GILLESPIE: Right. That was Dr. Woodhull.

3 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah.

4 MR. GILLESPIE: I am in contact with her quite

a bit.

6 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, give her - if my

7 phone number carne up in your caller 10, tell her to

8 feel free to call me as well.

9 MR. GILLESPIE: What is your number?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay, you ready?


12 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: It's (352)207-7291.

13 MR. GILLESPIE: 7291.

14 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Right. Tell her feel free

to call me.

16 MR. GILLESPIE: All right.

17 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: And I will e-mail you this

18 legal malpractice attorney's name. Maybe we all

19 ought to get together and file a suit against him,

the three of us.


22 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: That might be - that

23 might - my mama used to say there's power in

24 numbers, you know what I'm saying?

MR. GILLESPIE: I think that is correct, yes,


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

16

1 uh-huh.

2 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: So if the guy would take it

3 on a contingency, something is better than nothing.

4 At least you can get part of your attorney's fees

back.

6 Let me ask you one more thing and I'm going to

7 let you go. When I called the State Bar about

8 Peter McGrath and I told them some of the things

9 that happened - now I paid Peter McGrath $123,000.


11 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: And the State Bar sent me

12 back - I have been in a lot of contact with them.

13 They sent me back - they sent one thing, it was an

14 arbitration form, not a complaint form, but an

arbitration. And it's arbitration to get your fees

16 back. Did you do that?

17 MR. GILLESPIE: No.

18 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: You probably need to do

19 that. They will probably award you your money

back. Do you know that?

21 MR. GILLESPIE: I am not that familiar with

22 arbitration.

23 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay. What the arbitration

24 is, it's not for damages, it's not for anything

other than you go before a panel and it's pretty


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

17

quick, it's like within 60 to 90 days. You go

2

1

before a panel and you state why you feel like

3 Mr. Bauer should give you your money back. And

4 from what I am understanding they rule in more

cases to give the money back than not.

6 Now, this is my question that I called

7 Mr. Negan about today. Can I do both? Like with

8 Peter, can I do the arbitration to get my fees back

9 and still sue him for damages? That is what I

don't know.

11 MR. GILLESPIE: I don't know either. That

12 might be an issue.

13 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Right. So that is -- in

14 fact, I had to leave a message and he is calling me

back. But with Bauer -

16 MR. GILLESPIE: Is this the man from the Bar?

17 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yes, Mr. Negan is the man

18 from the Bar.

19 MR. GILLESPIE: Negan, uh-huh.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: This is the final question.

21 I know you made a Bar complaint

22 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.

23 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: against Bauer. Okay. ",_./'1

24 Well, I made a Bar complaint against Peter McGrath.~ And from my understanding when you make a complaint


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

18

1 it's really not a complaint, it's more or less like

2 an inquiry.

3 MR. GILLESPIE: That's what they call it,

4 right.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: You're making an inquiry,

6 yeah, as to whether they did something wrong.


8 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: They take all of your stuff

9 and then they - one lawyer looks at it. If he

thinks that it warrants an investigation he gives

11 it to another lawyer to make sure he is right. In

12 other words, two lawyers have to agree on it, that

13 it would warrant investigation. If both of those

14 lawyers say yes it should be investigated, that is

when they finally investigate.

16 MR. GILLESPIE: Right. It would go to a

17 Grievance Committee at that point.

18 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay.

19 MR. GILLESPIE: But the Grievance Committees,

they're pretty much secretive and you don't know

21 what goes on there. I mean, in my case Bauer went

22 to the Grievance Committee. You know, I sent my

23 complaint to Tallahassee, it was approved, it

24 got

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, so your inquiry went


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

19

1 all the way to be investigated then?

2 MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah, it was investigated.

3 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, wow.

4 MR. GILLESPIE: But then, you see, the

complaint leaves Tallahassee and it goes to a

6 Grievance Committee in Gainesville, or wherever the

7 lawyer lives. And the people on the Grievance

8 Committee are all his friends and cronies. So they

9 do whatever they want behind closed doors. And in

my case they voted five zero to dismiss. So you

11 know -

12 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Although, although, the Bar

13 thought it was in need of investigation.

14 MR. GILLESPIE: That is right.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah, okay. I'm getting it

16 now. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, don't it.

17 MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh. There is no way to

18 find out what gees on in the Grievance Committee

19 unless they make a determination of guilt. And if

that doesn't happen, and it didn't happen here, you

21 don't know what happened.

22 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: All right. Let me ask you

23 this, now, when the Grievance Committee, when they

24 get together, is the lawyer allowed to go to the

Grievance Committee but you're not?


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

20

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

MR. GILLESPIE: You know, I'm not sure.


MR. GILLESPIE: It depends, I mean, it depends

on -- I would say initially no, because initially

the Grievance Committee meets just by themselves.


MR. GILLESPIE: But if it moves to another

stage, there would be a stage where both the lawyer

and complainant could be present. But my case

didn't reach that point.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay, let me tell you this

then, and this is just my opinion. I feel that you

may have a legal malpractice case and I'm going to

tell you why, Neil. It was the State Bar that

determined that -- because once you make that

inquiry I have been told and Mr. Negan told me, 90

percent of the inquiries don't go to investigation.

You know that, 90 percent of them is usually the

State Bar returns saying we're not going to

investigate this.

MR. GILLESPIE: Right.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: No need for investigation.

So you were part of that 10 percent that they

decided, yeah, there is some unethical behavior

here and we need to investigate this.


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

21

1 MR. GILLESPIE: Well-

2 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: So you may have a legal

3 malpractice case, no matter what that Grievance

4 Committee said.

MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah. I don't know, you know,

6 what kind of case you have or how long you have

7 been in it, but after a while you just start to get

8 tired of it. But you sound like a younger person

9 and maybe you have more energy.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: No, I'm a senior citizen,

11 believe it or not.

12 MR. GILLESPIE: Really?

13 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Yeah. Well, I'm 53.

14 According to Belles I'm a senior citizen, but

according to Golden Corral I got two more years.

16 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm 56, but you sound

17 young and energetic, so

18 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Well, it just depends on

19 what day you talk to me. Somebody said you don't

get old, you get tired. And there are days I am

21 just slam worn out, I will tell you that. But

22 you're right, you get to the point, and my husband

23 and I are to the point right now with our legal

24 malpractice case, we're over it, lets get this damn

thing settled. And that is where I am having a


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

22

1 hard time with Bauer. I shouldn't be asking for

2 nine - well, no, October is ten months, to beg him

3 to get me in mediation. In fact, courts want you

4 to go to mediation because they don't want you in

court.

6 MR. GILLESPIE: That's correct, uh-huh.

7 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: They're hoping you will

8 settle it in mediation. And I can't get Bauer's

9 butt in mediation.


11 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: All right, Neil, call

12 let's keep in touch. I will e-mail you some

13 information and call me or - and please have

14 Ms. Woodull -- Woodhull, I think it is, call me as

well. And maybe the three of use, maybe we ought

16 to, you know, put our heads together and talk to

17 one of these legal malpractice attorneys in Tampa.

18 I'm going to e-mail you his name, because I was

19 impressed with him.

MR. GILLESPIE: All right.

21 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: He will take it on a

22 contingency if he feels like we need have a

23 case. I mean, why not, right? What have you got

24 to lose?

MR. GILLESPIE: And you're Kim Barry?


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

23

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Right. Yes, sir. With a

K, yes.

MR. GILLESPIE: I'm going to write to

Dr. Woodhull, Angela, and send you a copy of the

e-mail.


MR. GILLESPIE: Where should I send it?

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay, I use my maiden name

in my e-mail address because I've only had it for a

hundred years. Are you ready?


MS. PRUETT-BARRY: My e-mail address is

Kimberly, K-i-m-b-e-r-I-y.

MR. GILLESPIE: B-e-r-I-y. Uh-huh.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Uh-huh. And it's my maiden

name; P as in Paul, r-u-e-t-t. Not i-t-t, but

e-t-t, Pruett.

MR. GILLESPIE: Okay.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: And that's all one word

KimberlyPruett -


MS. PRUETT-BARRY: -- @EarthLink.net.


MS. PRUETT-BARRY: So feel free to e-mail me

any time and feel free to call me. And if I don't


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

24

1 answer right away, because I have several rescue

2 dogs that I take care of.


4 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: If I don't answer right

away, just leave me a message and I will return

6 your phonecall within just a few minutes, I might

7 be outside walking the dogs.

8 MR. GILLESPIE: You know, there was a man that

9 lived on our block here by the name of Pruitt.

Maybe you were related to him.

11 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: I betcha he's a

12 P-r-u-i-t-t. Betcha any amount of money.

13 MR. GILLESPIE: I don't remember how he

14 spelled it, but he passed away.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: We're different. The

16 i-t-t's are normal people. I think the e-t-t's are

17 the crazy people.

18 MR. GILLESPIE: I think he was from the

19 Seattle area.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: We're from North Carolina,

21 from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

22 MR. GILLESPIE: I see. All right. Well, I

23 appreciate your call. You can call or e-mail any

24 time. I would love to get something going against

this guy, he's caused a lot of aggravation and loss


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

25

1 of money with people.

2 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay, let me ask you one

3 more thing. There is a statute of limitation that

4 you can file legal malpractice suit. When was the

last time you had any dealings with Bauer? Has it

6 been over two years?

7 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, but I have a lawsuit

8 against him -

9 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Oh, okay, so you already

got one pending. Never mind, as long as one's

11 already pending you're fine.

12 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, you know, it's - it was

13 pending and now it's on appeal, and that is the

14 case that may be going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because I made a - what they call a Rule 13.5

16 application to extend time to file. And that was

17 granted by Justice Thomas.

18 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay.

19 MR. GILLESPIE: So I have until December 10th

to file that Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

21 MS. PRUETT-BARRY: I gotcha. So as long as

22 it's already out there you're fine. But if you

23 were starting from anew you have to do it within

~ 24 the two years, and you did, you did something

within the two years, so that is fine. That is my


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

26

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

~ 24

understanding, anyway.


MS. PRUETT-BARRY: All right, Mr. Gillespie,

thank you so much. So at least I know I am not the

only one. He made me think like I'm crazy or

something, you know?

MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: He would be such a smart

aleck. I'm going to tell him, you know, I'm old

enough to be your m~~a, you talk to me with some

respect, you know.

MR. GILLESPIE: That lS a problem. And you

can call me Neil.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Okay, Neil, thank you. And

I am Kim, you know that. Thank you so much, we

will keep in touch.

MR. GILLESPIE: Okay.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: Thank you. I'll talk to

you later.

MR. GILLESPIE: All right, bye.

MS. PRUETT-BARRY: All right, bye.

(Whereupon, the above audio recording was

concluded. )


(813) 598-2703

5

10

15

20

25

27

1 C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E

2 STATE OF FLORIDA

3 COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH

4

I, Michael J. Borseth, Court Reporter

6 for the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial

7 Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for

8 Hillsborough County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that I was

9 authorized to and did transcribe a tape/CD recording of

the proceedings and evidence in the above-styled cause,

11 as stated in the caption hereto, and that the foregoing

12 pages constitute an accurate transcription of the tape

13 recording of said proceedings and evidence, to the best

14 of my ability.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

16 in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of

17 Florida, this 28 March 2013.

18 MICHAEL J. BORSETH, Court Reporter

22

23

" 24


(813) 598-2703

19

21

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE



vs.






REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION TO FLORIDA BARPRESIDENT GWYNNE ALICE YOUNG

MARCH 28, 2013 FOR WITNESS TAMPERING ANDOBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE COMPLAINT AGAINST

ROBERT W. BAUER, TFB NO. 2013-00,540 (8B)

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP295864526 March 28, 2013Email [email protected]

Gwynne Alice YoungPresident, The Florida Bar Carlton Fields, P.A.4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000Tampa, FL 33601-3239

RE: Request for Investigation, Witness Tampering, Obstruction of JusticeKimberley Pruett-Barry, and Robert W. Bauer, TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

Dear Madam Bar President:

This is a request for an investigation in TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B) for witness tampering andobstruction of justice by Kimberley Pruett-Barry and Robert W. Bauer. Ms. Pruett-Barry is a.k.a.Kim Pruett-Barry, Kim Pruett or Kim Barry, and perhaps uses other variations or aliases. Also,someone connected Anna Hodges, another unhappy Bauer client, with a false report of my death.

Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft, in a letter to me dated March 15, 2013 wrote “If you wish to file arebuttal to the response, please do so in writing by April 1, 2013.” Respectfully Ms. Young, Irequest the time be tolled to file a rebuttal until the requested investigation is complete.

Ms. Craft is a witness to witness tampering and obstruction of justice by Ms. Pruett-Barry andMr. Bauer, and should be disqualified from further proceedings in this matter. Ms. Craft, alongwith Paul Hill and Kenneth Marivn, were provided “cc” my email response January 16, 2013 toMs. Pruett referring her complaints about Mr. Bauer to The Florida Bar. Now it appears Pruett’scontact with me was intended to discredit and undermine my complaint against Mr. Bauer.

In addition and in the alternative, dishonesty by Ms. Craft shown in the matter of CatherineBarbara Chapman, RFA No. 13-12194, shows misstatements of fact and law by Ms. Chapmanthat would cause a reasonable person to question her fairness and impartiality. See my letter toyou March 26, 2013, and addendum thereto March 28, 2013 in RFA No. 13-12194. ThereforeMs. Craft should be disqualified from further proceedings in this matter.

Letter of Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft - March 15, 2013

Bar Counsel Ms. Craft stated in her letter of March 15, 2013 that it appeared that Mr. Bauer didnot provide me a copy of his response to my complaint:

Enclosed you will find Mr. Robert W. Bauer's response to your complaint. The responsesent by Mr. Bauer indicated that a copy was being mailed to you. However based on yourrecent email to The Florida bar it appears that you did not receive you copy of Mr.Bauer's response.

Gwynne Alice Young March 28, 2013President, The Florida Bar Page - 2

Ms. Craft’s statement is correct, I did not received a response from Mr. Bauer as indicated. Thisis not surprising given Mr. Bauer’s record of dishonesty in my relationship with him, whichallegation is part of my Bar complaint(s) against him. Mr. Bauer also has a record of dishonestyin his responses to those Bar complaints, and related matters. The involvement of Kim Pruettappears to be a continuation of Bauer’s behavior intended to intimidate me and obstruct justice.

Email of Kim Pruett, January 28, 2013 - “Exhibit A” to Mr. Bauer’s Response

The single remarkable item provided by Ms. Craft was “Exhibit A” to Mr. Bauer’s response, acopy of an email from Kim Pruett who unfortunately has been contacting me for several monthscomplaining about Robert W. Bauer, whom she claimed negligently represented her and herhusband in a legal malpractice lawsuit against Florida attorney Peter R. McGrath. However KimPruett’s email states “Please be advised that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of ourcase and in no way want to be associated with Mr. Gillespie and this complaint.”

The email of Kim Pruett is “Exhibit A” to Mr. Bauer’s response, and appears here as Exhibit 1.The email is dated “Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM”, and shows as its subject “Per Complaint ofNeil Gillespie”. The email appears to have two parties, Kim Pruett and Robert W. Bauer:

kim <[email protected]>

"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

The email states in relevant portion:

Dear Sirs/Madam,

Mr. Neil Gillespie is using my name WITHOUT my permission in a complaint againstRobert Bauer, Atty, with the Florida State Bar.

Please be advised that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of our case andin no way want to be associated with Mr. Gillespie and this complaint.

I will also be discussing this matter with MaryAnn Crawford.

Thank you,Kim Pruett

On information and belief, Kim Pruett-Barry and husband William Barry are presently, or werein the past, clients of attorney Robert W. Bauer, and the Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, in thefollowing legal malpractice lawsuit(s) against Orlando attorney Peter R. McGrath:

Kimberly Pruett Barry, et al. v. Peter, R. McGrath, et al.Orange County Case No. 2012-CA-009323-OUniform Case Number: 482012CA009323A001OX


Kimberly Pruett Barry, et al. v. Peter R. McGrath, et al.Marion County Case No. 42-2011-CA-000329-AXXX-XX

It appears Kim Pruett-Barry and William Barry hired attorney Peter R. McGrath for ahomeowner association lawsuit in Marion County, Florida, with Majestic Oaks HomeownersAssociation:

Marion County, Florida, Case Number: 42-2008-SC-005061-AXXX-XXPlaintiff : Majestic Oaks Homeowners AssociationAttorney: Christopher A. Carlisle

Defendant: William BarryAttorney: Robert Peter McGrathDefendant: Kimberely Pruitt (sic) BarryAttorney: Robert Peter McGrath

It appears Kim Pruett-Barry later retained Ocala attorney Mark W. Fox to conclude the lawsuitwith Majestic Oaks Homeowners Association.

Kim Pruett-Barry indicated that she made a complaint to The Florida Bar about Peter R.McGrath which is, or was, being investigated by Francisco Digon-Greer.

Unsolicited telephone call of Kim Pruett October 3, 2012 to Neil Gillespie

A woman self-identified as “Kim Pruett” telephoned me unsolicited October 3, 2012 andcomplained about the legal representation of Robert W. Bauer, whom she said represented her ina legal malpractice case against attorney Peter McGrath. The telephone call was recorded and acopy of the recording is enclosed. A transcript of the telephone call has been ordered. I requestan extension of time to file a rebuttal to Mr. Bauer’s response until I can review the transcript. Irequest an extension of 30 days from my receipt of the transcript. This request is separate frommy request to toll time during an investigation of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

Upon listening again to Kim Pruett’s 25 minute recorded telephone call of October 3, 20121,several things stand out, even without the aid of a transcript to review. For example:

Kim Pruett said “I’m sick, sick to my stomach, made a huge mistake hiring this guy”, thatMr. Bauer took all their savings, and Bauer was “bleeding” them for every dime.

Kim Pruett said Mr. Bauer does not know a thing about legal malpractice, for which shehired him in the legal malpractice case against Peter R. McGrath.

Kim Pruett said former Bauer client Anna Hodges got money back that she paid Bauer.Ms. Hodges confirmed March 24, 2013 is false, she did get any money back from Bauer.

1 Another call was received from Kim Pruett October 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM


Kim Pruett said former Bauer client “Ms. Strauss” got all her money back from RobertBauer. The client was Philip Strauss, not “Ms. Strauss”, and he did not get money back.

Kim Pruett called Mr. Bauer a “smart ass”, and said he was disrespectful toward her.

Ongoing Email Contact Kim Pruett and Neil Gillespie

Selected comments and email (not all email). There are 41 emails by my count, including onereceived two days ago, March 26, 2013. All the emails appear in a composite, at Exhibit 2.

Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:14 PM

Kim Pruitt: I wrote [Mr. Bauer] a real nasty email! I told him he was "milking" us and toget this case moving forward or else!

Friday, October 05, 2012 8:11 PM

Kim Pruitt: BTW, I "got with" Bauer on yesterday, threatened to find another Atty, etc ifhe did not help us with out case, now, all of a sudden he has made more ph calls to us inthe last 24 hrs than he has made in 2 years!

Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16 AM

Kim Pruitt: Hey Neil and Angela, Sorry have not been in touch. FINALLY had to get anew lawyer! We have been begging Bauer since January to get us into Mediation, he sayshe will and then we never hear from him again. Over 2 weeks ago, I sent him a nastyemail and told him he had 10 days to get to something scheduled. I really laid into him!He immediately called my husband and apologized and said he would get right to workon it! We haven't heard from him since!

We talked to another Atty last week (Mark Fox) and are switching to him on Monday.

Bauer has not done anything with our case since Jan., yet somehow, we have racked up a40K bill!!! We have already paid him about 13K and I REFUSE to give him anotherdime.

Just thought I would let ya'll know what is going on. Kim

Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AM

Kim Pruitt: Bauer. He definately fails to "move a case forward", I think he tries to rackup a bill. Kim

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:58 PM


Neil Gillespie: Hi Kim, A week or so ago Anna Hodges emailed me and said a womancalled her asking about Bauer. The woman also told her I passed away, have you heardabout that? That is really strange. How are things going with Bauer? Did you fire himyet? Neil


Kim Pruitt: OH MY GOSH!! You think Bauer is telling folks that? Wouldn't put it pasthim. Yep, we fired him, if you are gonna be home tomorrow afternoon, I will call ya andtell ya all about it. Have a 10:00am appt with our new lawyer in the morning. Kim

Monday, November 19, 2012 5:02 PM

Kim Pruitt: Hey Neil, Still have no heard a PEEP from the FL State Bar on the complaintthat I filed on Peter McGrath. Hmmmmmm, sure is taking along time, almost a total of 6months now, for them to let me know what is going on. Does it usually take this long?kim


Neil Gillespie: Hi Kim, Have you heard from the Florida Bar about your complaintagainst Peter McGrath? Also, I noticed the case docket in Orange County still showsRobert Bauer as your counsel, will Bauer represent you at the mediation hearingDecember 17th? Neil

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:05 AM

Kim Pruett: No to all of the above. Yea, Mark Fox was gonna be our new Lawyer, BUT,Peters Lawyers fought it because Mark Fox is also a witness and they said he couldn't beboth. So we had to look for another lawyer and we did get one who came HIGHLYrecommended to us. His name is Paul Linder in Orlando. (sigh) I swear Neil I feel likewe are starting over at square one, even though it has been 2 years. If you note on theOrange County Clerk of Court Bauer got approved for the Telephonic Depos in July, yethe never scheduled them! These were important Depos, they were the Ins Atty's andwould love to testify against Peter. We should have been in Trial by now instead trying togo to Mediation! Kim


Neil Gillespie: Kim, Why is Mark Fox a witness? Paul Linder is not listed as counsel inOrange County, so officially you are still represented by Robert Bauer in this case. Itappears to me, based on my limited understanding of this matter, that Bauer neverintended to represent you zealously, but to burn through your cash and drop the matter,like Bauer did in my case. This may show that Bauer is actually protecting McGrath,


while billing you. This may explain the lack of action by the Florida Bar too. But I needto know more about your case to be certain. Perhaps if I read your complaint to the Bar,that might show what is actually going on. You may be in a situation where you cannotfind counsel who will actually represent your interest, but only provide you with "fakerepresentation", designed either to take your money, or for one lawyer to help anotherlawyer, as they are all on the same team. FYI - you and me, and the public, are not on thisteam. This is the essence of my petition to the US Supreme Court. You are welcome toprovide me with your Bar complaint, and any other documents. Neil


Neil Gillespie: Hi Kim, Have you heard from the Florida Bar about your complaintagainst Peter McGrath? Also, I noticed the case docket in Orange County still showsRobert Bauer as your counsel, will Bauer represent you at the mediation hearingDecember 17th? Neil


Kim Barry: Mark Fox took over the case from Peter McGrath in 2010 and ended it in 3weeks, Peter couldn't end it in 3 years. Mark is the one that pointed out to me and Billthat Peter had acted unethically and told us we had one "hell of a Legal Malpractice Suitagainst Peter". So natually we were using him as a witnes.

Paul Linder is taking over our case on Dec. 7th. He flew to Italy for the Holidays, so itprobably hasn't hit the Orange County Court yet.

Yes, you are 100% correct, he sat there and did practically NOTHING since Feb and yetwe got a 23k bill from him!!! I KNOW for a fact that Susan Reynolds did all the work,because she told me what she was doing. I was in communication with her until she leftin Mar. We should have been billed a fee from his Paralegal, not from him. Since she leftNOTHING has happened except for the Permission from the Judge to do the telephonicdepos. Yet he never did them! UUGGH!!

I sent him nast email messages telling him to get this stuff done, he made promises andthen we would not hear from him again until I wrote another nasty emails, etc, etc!

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:47 PM

Kim Pruett: Lots to tell you, too much in an email, call me when you can!Had to keep dumb butt Bauer, his lawyers would not accept my new lawyer, threatenedto take it to the Judge! 352 207-7291 Kim

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:21 PM


Neil Gillespie: Dear Kim, Thank you for your email. In a letter dated January 7, 2013 BarCounsel Annemarie Craft informed me that the Bar was moving forward with mycomplaint, which is now designated "Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar FileNo. 2013-00,540 (8B)".

Since you are still a client of Mr. Bauer, I think it would be better to direct your questionsabout Mr. Bauer to the Florida Bar directly. Plus I do not have the time, and am notfeeling well.

You have my sincere sympathy for what you are going through, but it is better to bringyour complaints about Mr. Bauer directly to the Florida Bar. Perhaps the Bar’s LawyerReferral Service (LRS) could provide you substitute counsel. But I got Bauer as a LRSreferral, and that did not work out.

I am sending copies of my reply to this email to Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft, since shehas my complaint, and to Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, and Paul Hill,General Counsel for the Florida Bar. Hopefully between them they can fashion a solutionto your problem with Robert W. Bauer. I ask each of them, by and through this email, toprotect you as a consumer of legal and court services.

Kim, I wish you well, and hope those persons at the Florida Bar with the authority andresponsibility to protect you will seriously listen to your cry for help about themisconduct of Mr. Bauer. I believe Mr. Marvin in particular has a duty under The RulesRegulating The Florida Bar to act, as well as a case I became aware of last night, Muellerv. The Florida Bar, which holds:

"Allegation by disbarred attorney that certain complaints against him were solicited bystate bar was mere surplusage in complaint alleging malicious prosecution; state bar isnot prohibited from actively seeking complaints against particular members of bar ormembers of bar in general. Mueller v. The Florida Bar, App. 4 Dist., 390 So.2d 449(1980)."

I also believe the Florida Bar can initiate its own complaint against an attorney underRule 3-7.3, see section (c), and the attached letter sent to me Aug-03-09 from Mary EllenBateman of the Florida Bar, paragraph number 2: "The bar does initiate complaints onoccasion and when appropriate".

Sometime after all this gets resolved, you, me, and all the other survivors of Mr. Bauer’smisconduct should get together for dinner and reminisce.

Sincerely,Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481


Ps. If after this email the Florida Bar does not assist you, let me know andI will forward this matter to the extent possible in any response to mypetition for writ of certiorari, which is docketed as Petition No. 12-7747in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:23 AM

Kim Pruett: I understand! I will keep you informed and KICK BUTT with Bauer! Kim

Telephone call to Anna Hodges that Neil Gillespie “passed away”

On November 03, 2012 at 8:16 PM I received email from Anna Hodges stating she received aphone call from a woman telling her that I “passed away”, as shown below, and Exhibit 3.

Saturday, November 03, 2012 8:16 PM

Anna Hodges: Neil, I recieved a phone call from a woman in Ocala, asking me questionsabout Robert, and if I was going to file a complaint. I asked if she heard of you. She saidyes, then told me you had passed away! WOW! I'm confused...Anna

Saturday, November 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Neil Gillespie: Hi Anna, Wow, that is strange. Obviously I am alive, although thisprotracted litigation has taken a toll. Within the last month I have been in touch withKimberly Pruett-Barry of Ocala, she is a Bauer client, is that who you spoke with? Lastyear Angela Woodhull of Gainesville called, and we have kept in touch. And PhilipStrauss called too. Who called you?


Anna Hodges: A lady from Ocala. I don't know how she got my number. I am happy toknow you're alive and well and still on the move! I haven't filled anything yet againstBauer. Lawsuits wear me out and the court system depresses me. I need to recharge mybatteries. I just noticed today that you posted a July 2011 email I had sent to you. I didn'trealize that, have you had any feedback from it?


Neil Gillespie: Yes Anna, lawsuits wear people out, and makes them depressed. That ispart of the problem with the justice system. A couple of people have commented on youremail, former clients of Bauer, Angela Woodhull of Gainesville, and Kim Pruett-Barry ofOcala. They agree with you, Bauer is a mess!

I still don’t understand the call from a lady in Ocala. I believe Kim Pruett-Barry of Ocalais the only person in Ocala who has contacted me. When did you get the call? How do


you know the call was from a lady in Ocala? Could it have been a call from someone inGainesville, perhaps a friend of Bauer’s? Or his wife? Or Beverly E Lowe, Bauer’sformer bookkeeper with whom he appears to have a close relationship, and whom Bauerrepresented in a divorce?

Anna Hodges - No Refund From Robert W. Bauer

Kim Pruett claimed during her initial telephone call to me October 3, 3012 that former Bauerclient Anna Hodges got all her money back that she paid Robert Bauer. Ms. Hodges had retainedMr. Bauer to defend her in a libel lawsuit:

Susan Hodges Helvenston v. Anna White HodgesCase No. 38-2010-CA-1423, Eight Judicial Circuit, in and for Levy CountyUniform Case Number: 382010CA001423XXXXXX

Ms. Hodges contacted me unsolicited by email July 8, 2011: "help advise! I hired and firedbauer..nightmare". Ms. Hodges complained to me about Mr. Bauer and later fired him. I believedMs. Hodges subsequently retained attorney Pierce Kelley to represent her in the libel case.

Ms. Hodges and I exchanged a number of emails about Mr. Bauer. My communication was of asupportive nature, which is necessary to overcome the devastation caused by Legal AbuseSyndrome. Lawyers like Mr. Bauer are very harmful to the justice system. Anna Hodges broughther legal problem to Mr. Bauer and placed a great deal of trust and confidence in him torepresent her with competence (Rule 4-1.1) and diligence (Rule 4-1.3), but he failed to do so. Asyou know, a lawyer should not accept representation unless it can be competently and promptlycompleted. Unfortunately for Ms. Hodges, Mr. Bauer was a disaster and she fired him. This goesto the myth of the attorney-client relationship:

The Myth of the Attorney-Client Relationship

The old adage is "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."The reality has become "He who is represented is usually taken for a fool."

It is long established that the relationship between an attorney and his client is one of themost important, as well as the most sacred, known to the law. The responsibility of anattorney to place his client’s interest ahead of his own in dealings with matters uponwhich the attorney is employed is at the foundation of our legal system.(Deal v. Migoski, 122 So. 2d 415).

It is a fiduciary relationship involving the highest degree of truth and confidence, and anattorney is under a duty, at all times, to represent his client and handle his client’s affairswith the utmost degree of honesty, forthrightness, loyalty, and fidelity.(Gerlach v. Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493).


Ms. Hodges notified me by email March 24, 2013 that she did not get a refund from Mr. Bauer,and that she smells a rat. Exhibit 4

Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:15 AM

Anna Hodges: Thank you Neil, the search engine issue did clear up!I don't understand who this woman is that is saying things that aren't true!I never told anyone that I got my money back from Robert because I didn't!I wonder why I was told you were dead and you were told my money was refunded- Ismell a rat!

Attorney Mark W. FoxOcala, Florida

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 9:16 AM Kim Pruett wrote in an email (relevant portion):


In an effort to confirm this, I contacted Mr. Fox by email, and he responded. Exhibit 5

Friday, December 07, 2012 1:39 AM

Dear Mr. Fox,A lady by the name of Kim Pruett-Barry contacted me about attorney Robert W Bauer ofGainesville whom she retained in a malpractice action against Peter McGrath. Mr. Bauerrepresented me at one time.

Kim mentioned you planned to assume the litigation in Orange County, Case No. 2012-CA-009323-O, but you are not listed as counsel. Kim said Mr. McGrath’s lawyerobjected to your representation over a conflict, and she was getting another lawyer.

Some of the above information is contained in a matter I will submit to the SupremeCourt of the United States soon. This is a link to my case on the SCOTUS website.http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm

Kim sounds like a nice lady, and people call me from time to time, sometimes they don’talways understand everything in their case. So this is just a double-check for the benefitof the SCOTUS. If you can collaborate any of this I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Neil Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481352-854-7807



Dear Mr. Gillespie:

I am not certain why you contacted me. Do you have any specific questions orconcerns?

Mark W. Fox, P.A.1805 S.E. 16th Ave.Suite 902Ocala, FL 34471(ph) 352-390-8889(fax)[email protected]


Mr. Fox:

I contacted you to confirm whether the information Kim Pruett-Barry told me about thismatter, including your involvement in this matter, is true or false. If the information isfalse, I will note that in my pleading to the Supreme Court. If the information is true,there is no problem.

Neil GillespieAttorney Paul Linder

Orlando, Florida

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM Kim Pruett wrote in an email (relevant portion):

Paul Linder is taking over our case on Dec. 7th. He flew to Italy for the Holidays, so itprobably hasn't hit the Orange County Court yet.

In an effort to confirm this, I contacted Mr. Linder by email; no response. Exhibit 6

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:59 PM

Dear Mr. Linder

A lady by the name of Kimberly Pruett-Barry contacted me about attorney Robert WBauer of Gainesville whom she retained in a malpractice action against attorney PeterMcGrath. Mr. Bauer formerly represented me in another matter.

Ms. Pruett-Barry mentioned she planned to retain you to assume the litigation against Mr.McGrath in Orange County, Case No. 2012-CA-009323-O, but as of today you are notlisted as counsel on the court's online docket.


Information about Mr. Bauer and Ms. Pruett-Barry was submitted in a separate volumeappendix to my petition no. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of theUnited States. This is a link to my case on the SCOTUS website.http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm

Ms. Pruett-Barry sounds like a nice lady, and people call me from time to time,sometimes they don’t always understand everything in their case. So this is just todouble-check the facts.

If you can collaborate any of this I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Sincerely,Neil Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481

Kim Pruett-Barry - Referred to The Florida Bar January 16, 2013 by Neil Gillespie

By January 16, 2013 I was concerned that Kim Pruett may be misrepresenting herself, and toldher as shown by the email copied “cc” to The Florida Bar to direct her questions about Mr.Bauer to The Florida Bar. The email was copied to Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft, GeneralCounsel Paul Hill, and Kenneth Marvin, Director, Lawyer Regulations. Exhibit 7

It now appears Kim Pruett was in fact misrepresenting herself. Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft is awitness to the misrepresentation of Kim Pruett by way of the email. Therefore I ask that Ms.Craft be removed from the investigation of Mr. Bauer.

Email of Kim Pruett-Barry Received March 26, 2013 by Neil Gillespie

On March 26, 2013 I received the following unsolicited email from Kim Pruett. Exhibit 8

Monday, March 25, 2013 6:13 PM

Neil!

I had to back off from your complaint because we had to keep Bauer as our Atty,BUT NO MORE!! I will call Annemarie Craft first thing in the morning!

I fired Bauer today without even having another Atty to represent us and yesit has been going on this long. He has failed to follow through on EVERYTHING,yet he has racked up a bill that we will never be able to pay.

YOU ARE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY about Bauer following through on


ANYTHING and then when you ask him why something is not done it is ONE EXCUSEAFTER ANOTHER!

I will be filing Arbitration throught the State Bar to get our fees back.

I am YOUR witness, USE ME!

Sincerely,Kimberly Pruett

Public Records Request

Ms. Young, please consider this a request for records that mention MaryAnn Crawford. Thisname appears in the email of Kim Pruett: “I will also be discussing this matter with MaryAnnCrawford.” Is MaryAnn Crawford employed by the Florida Bar? If so, identify her position.

Kindly provide records showing if former Bauer client “Ms. Strauss” or Philip Strauss got anymoney back from Robert Bauer as stated by Kim Pruett during her phone call October 3, 2012.

Kindly provide records showing if former Bauer client Anna Hodges got any money back fromMr. Bauer as stated by Kim Pruett during her phone call October 3, 2012. (Ms. Hodges said no)

Letter January 10, 2013 to Bar Counsel Ms. Craft - What is Going On?

On January 10, 2013 I wrote Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft upon receipt of her letter datedJanuary 7, 2013, but did not get a response. Both letters appear in a composite as Exhibit 9.

Dear Ms. Craft:

I received but am confused as to your letter dated January 7, 2013 relative to the abovecaptioned complaint. Bar Counsel Mr. Wilhelm dismissed/returned my complaint againstMr. Bauer dated October 31, 2012, designated RFA No. 13-7675, by letter to me datedNovember 9, 2012. The complaint was then submitted to the Supreme Court of theUnited States for pendent jurisdiction December 10, 2012 in Petition No. 12-7747 forwrit of certiorari. Kindly explain what is going on, since your letter makes no referenceto this chain of events, or Petition No. 12-7747.

My priority now is Petition No. 12-7747 which is taking all my time. I likely am not ableto file a rebuttal in this matter until either the conclusion of Petition No. 12-7747, or abreak in the workload. While ACAP central may be adequate to intake this complaint,bias at the local level is another matter, and recognized by the Special Commission onLawyer Regulation chaired by Henry Cox (“Cox Report). The Cox Report recommendedACAP style screening of all written inquiries and complaints so that all questionsconcerning the conduct of members of the bar are addressed in a similar fashion. The


Commission also recommended a central intake system utilizing ACAP resources inTallahassee.

The reason for central ACAP intake is clear: The Commission knew that somecomplaints, like my earlier complaint against Mr. Bauer, TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B),would not be “addressed in a similar fashion” locally where the attorney was favored.The Letter Report issued March 18, 2011 by Mr. Watson in 2011-00,073 (8B) did notcopy with Rule 3-7.4(k) because it did not explain why my complaint did not warrantfurther proceedings.

Pursuant to Rule 3–3.4(b), I believe a special grievance committee is needed, locatedoutside the Eight Judicial Circuit which includes Alachua County where Mr. Bauerpractices, and outside the jurisdiction of Mr. Watson, and Carl Schwait, the designatedreviewer, to avoid bias. Sending this matter to another state in the U.S. Eleventh Circuitmay even be required to avoid bias now.

Sincerely,Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481cc: Robert W. Bauer

In addition, Ms. Craft’s letter dated March 14, 2013 and enclosures appear at Exhibit 10.

Conclusion

Ms. Young, the requested investigation into witness tampering and obstruction of justice mayvindicate Ms. Pruett-Barry. In that case it would show Robert W. Bauer is engaged in the worstkind of misconduct possible: Betrayal of his clients with malice aforethought.

Mr. Bauer may have discovered the perfect crime: He represents himself to clients as a specialistin attorney malpractice, and once retained, bleeds the client of funds in a “fake representation”that is intended to break the client, and intended to protect the subject attorney. This looks like apattern of racketeering that is aided and abetted by other attorneys, such as Ryan ChristopherRodems, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, and Catherine Barbara Chapman in my cases.

Ms. Young, is The Florida Bar part of this racketeering activity?

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481 cc: email service list enclosures: appendix & call on CDs

Appendix of Exhibits

Letter of March 28, 2013 to Gwynne Alice Young, President, The Florida Bar

Request for Investigation, Witness Tampering, Obstruction of JusticeKimberley Pruett-Barry, and Robert W. Bauer, TFB No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

_______________________________________

Exhibit 1 Email of Kim Barry, January 28, 2013 “Exhibit A” to Mr. Bauer’s response

Exhibit 2 Composite of 41 emails, Kim Pruett-Barry and Neil Gillespie

Exhibit 3 Email of Anna Hodges, November 3, 2012 to Neil Gillespie

Exhibit 4 Email of Anna Hodges, March 24, 2013 to Neil Gillespie

Exhibit 5 Email December 7, 2012, attorney Mark W. Fox and Neil Gillespie

Exhibit 6 Email December 21, 2012 to attorney Paul Linder from Neil Gillespie

Exhibit 7 Email January 16, 2013 to Kim Pruett, referral to The Florida Bar by Neil Gillespie

Exhibit 8 Email March 26, 2013, Kim Pruett to Neil Gillespie

Exhibit 9 Composite, letters of Bar Counsel Ms. Craft and Neil Gillespie, January 2013

Exhibit 10 March 14, 2013 letter of Bar Counsel Ms. Craft and enclosures

---------------

112&'13 GnWl • Per C~cirt d Neil Gillespie

----------_....-~-- --Per Complaint of Neil Gillespie

Idm <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM Reply-To: kim <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dear Sirs/Madam,

Mr. Neil Gillespie is using my name WITHOUT my pennission in a complaint against Robert Bauer, AttyI with the Florida State Bar.

Please be seNsed that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of our case and in no way want to be associated with Mr~ Gillespie and this complaint.


Thank you, Kim Pruett

htIps:llmail.google.cooVrn:iI~=2&i1F2d1ge66e24&~fNF~ it'1bcdth=13c81518b4b9c54a

~

J A

1

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Kimberly Pruett-Barry" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 6:22 PMSubject: Robert Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/20/2013

Hello Kimberly,

Thanks for your call today about Robert Bauer. As you requested, I forwarded your information to Angela Woodhull. Here is a link to Tampa legal malpractice attorney Bill Vaughan that you mentioned http://www.florida-malpractice-attorney.com/index.php

Shortly I will be making another complaint against Robert Bauer. The designated reviewer of my last complaint said it often takes more than one complaint for the grievance committee to reach a finding of misconduct. Did you see my page with my complaint against Bauer? Here is a link http://www.nosue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/ And thanks for reminding me about the fee arbitration program.

I’m so sorry to hear about your problems with Bauer. You are not alone. Feel free to contact me anytime, I’ll do whatever I can to assist you and your husband.

Sincerely,

Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (Oak Run) Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 website: http://www.nosue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/ blog: http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/

2

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:14 PMSubject: Re: Robert Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/20/2013

Thanks Neil,

I wrote him a real nasty email! I told him he was "milking" us and to get this case moving forward or else!

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 3, 2012 6:22 PM To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry Subject: Robert Bauer Hello Kimberly,

Thanks for your call today about Robert Bauer. As you requested, I forwarded your information to Angela Woodhull. Here is a link to Tampa legal malpractice attorney Bill Vaughan that you mentioned http://www.florida-malpractice-attorney.com/index.php

Shortly I will be making another complaint against Robert Bauer. The designated reviewer of my last complaint said it often takes more than one complaint for the grievance committee to reach a finding of misconduct. Did you see my page with my complaint against Bauer? Here is a link http://www.nosue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/ And thanks for reminding me about the fee arbitration program.

I�m so sorry to hear about your problems with Bauer. You are not alone. Feel free to contact me anytime, I�ll do whatever I can to assist you and your husband.

Sincerely,

Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (Oak Run) Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: (352) 854-7807 website: http://www.nosue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/ blog: http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Kimberly Pruett-Barry" <[email protected]>; "Angela V. Woodhull"

<[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:34 AMSubject: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 1

3/20/2013

Hello Kim,

Angela Woodhull can speak with you, she is in Albuquerque, New Mexico for one month. Call on her cell phone (352) 214-4652, see message below.

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: Angela V. Woodhull To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:54 AM Subject: Re: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client Let's go for it. I'm now in Albuquerque, New Mexico for one month. Call on my cell phone (352)214-4652. ~A --- On Wed, 10/3/12, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> Subject: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client To: "Angela V. Woodhull" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 2:32 PM Angela,

Today I received a call from Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client. Kim said she and her husband William paid Bauer $40,000 to sue their former attorney for legal malpractice. Attorney Peter McGrath represented Kim and William in a HOA case in Marion County, which was reported in the Ocala Star-Banner. http://www.ocala.com/article/20090723/ARTICLES/907231010?p=1&tc=pg

Kim found your Bauer pleading on my website, and said Bauer was disrespectful to her also. Kim would like to speak with you about your experience with Bauer. I’ll forward this email to Kim if that is okay with you. Let me know.

Kim spoke with a Tampa legal malpractice attorney, Bill Vaughan, and thinks the former Bauer clients should band together and sue Bauer. http://www.florida-malpractice-attorney.com/our.php

Kimberly Pruett-Barry Telephone: 352-207-7291 [email protected]

Hope things are going okay with you. Take care.

Neil Gillespie

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:35 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 2

3/21/2013

Thanks Neil,

I will call her today.

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 4, 2012 10:34 AM To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry , "Angela V. Woodhull" Subject: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hello Kim,


Neil








Neil Gillespie

Page 2 of 2

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 6:45 PMSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 2

3/21/2013

Okay Kim, that sounds fine. I have a couple questions if you don’t mind. How did you find Robert Bauer? Was he a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service? If so, he is supposed to meet certain requirements, such as maintaining malpractice insurance.

Also, who did you speak with at the Florida Bar? My notes from our phone call show "Mr. Negon" but that name does not appear in the Bar directory, maybe I have the wrong spelling?

I can send you a copy of my second complaint against Bauer if you like. Hopefully it will be ready in a couple of weeks.

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Thanks Neil,


Kim


Hello Kim,


Neil








Neil Gillespie

Page 2 of 2

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:11 PMSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 3

3/21/2013

Hey Neil,

Just found him on the Internet when I was googling for "Illegal Malpractice". How Ironic!

There is too much to put in an email, I will call you over the weekend.

BTW, I "got with" Bauer on yesterday, threatened to find another Atty, etc if he did not help us with out case, now,

all of a sudden he has made more ph calls to us in the last 24 hrs than he has made in 2 years!

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 5, 2012 6:45 PM To: kim Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client




Neil


Thanks Neil,


Kim


Hello Kim,


Neil








Page 2 of 3

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

Page 3 of 3

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:36 AMAttach: NJG to Mr. Littlewood, re Mr. Castagliuolo Oct-18-2012.pdf; Rebuttal of Neil Gillespie to Mr. Rodems,

Oct-16-2012.pdfSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 3

3/21/2013

Kim and Angela,

Thanks for the update. For some time I have been working on a second Bar complaint against Bauer, and will include this information. Please forward any additional information you would like me to include. I hope to submit my Bauer complaint sometime this coming week. Then I will post the complaint online and provide each of you a copy. Also, each of you could make your own complaint against Bauer. You are free to reference things from my complaint.

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel, has opened complaints against two of my former lawyers, Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2013-10,271 (13E), and Eugene P. Castagliuolo, File No. 2013-10,162 (6D). This week I submitted rebuttals in each complaint, see attached. I am providing this information so you can see how the complaint process works. In the case of Mr. Castagliuolo I submitted a suggestion of Emergency Suspension under Rule 3-5.2(a).

Castagliuolo is like a character out of the Sopranos, in appearance and mannerisms. We are the same age, 56 years-old, and we are both from Philadelphia, PA. Luckily I was raised in Bucks County, a northern suburb. Castagliuolo was raised in what is colloquially known as "South Philly". He is a gangster-type, always making threats, and using colorful language.

I’ll send you my Bauer complaint as soon as it is done. Thanks.

Neil Gillespie

Ps. Sorry for the typos and other such in my complaints. I could use a small staff, including a proof reader!

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hey Neil and Angela,

Sorry have not been in touch. FINALLY had to get a new lawyer!

We have been begging Bauer since January to get us into Mediation, he says he will and then we never hear from him again. Over 2 weeks ago, I sent him a

nasty email and told him he had 10 days to get to something scheduled. I really laid into him! He immediately called my husband and apologized and said

he would get right to work on it! We haven't heard from him since!


Bauer has not done anything with our case since Jan., yet somehow, we have racked up a 40K bill!!! We

have already paid him about 13K and I REFUSE to give him another dime.

Just thought I would let ya'll know what is going on.

Kim





Neil


Thanks Neil,


Kim


Hello Kim,


Neil

Page 2 of 3

3/21/2013








Neil Gillespie

Page 3 of 3

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Angela V. Woodhull" <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 3

3/21/2013

Hey Angela,

We are so tired at this point, I don't know what to do. I am gonna get this Suit over with first, then sit back and try to decide what to do about

Bauer. He definately fails to "move a case forward", I think he tries to rack up a bill.

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: "Angela V. Woodhull" Sent: Oct 20, 2012 9:44 AM To: kim Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Are you putting this information out on the internet and what else may I do to assist the for all of us? Angela W. --- On Sat, 10/20/12, kim <[email protected]> wrote:

From: kim <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012, 9:16 AM Hey Neil and Angela,









Kim





Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client Thanks Neil,


Kim


Hello Kim,


Page 2 of 3

3/21/2013

Neil








Neil Gillespie

Page 3 of 3

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>; "Angela V. Woodhull" <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:04 PMSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 4

3/21/2013

Kim,

Also, your judge in Marion County, William "Jack" Singbush, was recently reprimanded by the Judicial Qualifications Commission. The case is profiled on my website here http://www.nosue.org/jqc-judicial-qualifications-commission/

But it sounds like he was okay in your case, or you would have mentioned something.

Judge Singbush is presiding over a lawsuit by 21 residents of Oak Run against the developer, DECCA and Kulbir Ghumman. I attended one of the hearings and thought Judge Singbush was disrespectful to our attorney, Carol Anderson. The case is on appeal by the homeowners.

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Angela V. Woodhull Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hey Angela,



Kim


Are you putting this information out on the internet and what else may I do to assist thefor all of us? Angela W. --- On Sat, 10/20/12, kim <[email protected]> wrote:










Kim





Neil



Kim

-----Original Message-----

Page 2 of 4

3/21/2013

From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 4, 2012 10:34 AM To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry , "Angela V. Woodhull" Subject: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hello Kim,


Neil






Kimberly Pruett-Barry

Page 3 of 4

3/21/2013

Telephone: 352-207-7291 [email protected]


Neil Gillespie

Page 4 of 4

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:30 PMSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 4

3/21/2013

Hey Neil,

They won a "change of venue" and it has been transfered to Orange County (Orlando).

The Atty that is investigating our case at the State Bar is: Francisco Digon-Greer.

I just sent him a TON of Documents yesterday.

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 20, 2012 12:04 PM To: kim , "Angela V. Woodhull" Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Kim,




----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Angela V. Woodhull Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hey Angela,



Kim


Are you putting this information out on the internet and what else may I do to assist th

for all of us? Angela W. --- On Sat, 10/20/12, kim <[email protected]> wrote:










Kim





Page 2 of 4

3/21/2013

Neil



Kim


Hello Kim,


Neil




Page 3 of 4

3/21/2013





Neil Gillespie

Page 4 of 4

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 3

3/21/2013

Hey Neil and Angela,









Kim





Neil


Thanks Neil,


Kim


Hello Kim,


Neil





Page 2 of 3

3/21/2013




Neil Gillespie

Page 3 of 3

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:27 PMAttach: 2011, 05-22-11, NJG reply to Bill Cervone, re RWB.pdf; Bad Boy Robert Bauer, for Kim.pdfSubject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Page 1 of 4

3/21/2013

Hi Kim,

Thanks for this update. Do you have a file or case number for your complaint to Francisco Digon-Greer? Sometimes it is called a "RFA" number. Even the date you initiated your complaint would help.

Attached is a draft about some of Bauer’s misconduct in other matters. I may include this in my new complaint.

Also attached is my letter to the State Attorney with public records of Bauer’s various contacts with law enforcement.

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hey Neil,

They won a "change of venue" and it has been transfered to Orange County (Orlando).

The Atty that is investigating our case at the State Bar is: Francisco Digon-Greer.

I just sent him a TON of Documents yesterday.

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 20, 2012 12:04 PM To: kim , "Angela V. Woodhull" Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Kim,




----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Angela V. Woodhull Cc: [email protected]

Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hey Angela,



Kim


Are you putting this information out on the internet and what else may I do to assist the cause for all of us? Angela W. --- On Sat, 10/20/12, kim <[email protected]> wrote:










Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 5, 2012 6:45 PM To: kim

Page 2 of 4

3/21/2013

Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client




Neil



Kim


Hello Kim,


Neil


From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]>

Page 3 of 4

3/21/2013

Subject: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client To: "Angela V. Woodhull" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 2:32 PM Angela,






Neil Gillespie

Page 4 of 4

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:49 PMSubject: Re: new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Thanks for this information Kim. I appreciate and that you read my complaint and let me know of my error. Also appreciate your call today.

I submitted another complaint today, and corrected the information about you and Bauer. The complaint today allowed me to fix a number of typos, and add a conclusion section. So this complaint is much better than the one yesterday, thanks to your quick action. Thanks again.

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:17 AM Subject: Re: new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer

Neil,

My Bar Complaint is against Peter McGrath. I have not made a complaint against Bauer.

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 30, 2012 8:28 PM To: "Angela V. Woodhull" , Kimberly Pruett-Barry , Anna Hodges , Philip Strauss Subject: new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer Today I filed a new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer. The 25 page complaint is attached. If anyone wants the exhibits, I will send some, or all of them to you.

Thanks for sharing your Bauer stories. I put some of them in my complaint.

Neil Gillespie

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:39 PMSubject: Re: new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Got your back!

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Oct 31, 2012 4:49 PM To: kim Subject: Re: new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer

Thanks for this information Kim. I appreciate and that you read my complaint and let me know of my error. Also appreciate your call today.

I submitted another complaint today, and corrected the information about you and Bauer. The complaint today allowed me to fix a number of typos, and add a conclusion section. So this complaint is much better than the one yesterday, thanks to your quick action. Thanks again.

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:17 AM Subject: Re: new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer

Neil,


Kim



Neil Gillespie

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:17 AMSubject: Re: new Bar complaint against Robert Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Neil,


Kim



Neil Gillespie

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Kimberly Pruett-Barry" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:58 PMSubject: Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Hi Kim,

A week or so ago Anna Hodges emailed me and said a woman called her asking about Bauer. The woman also told her I passed away, have you heard about that? That is really strange.

How are things going with Bauer? Did you fire him yet?

Neil

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:21 PMSubject: Re: Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

OH MY GOSH!! You think Bauer is telling folks that? Wouldn't put it past him.

Yep, we fired him, if you are gonna be home tomorrow afternoon, I will call ya and

tell ya all about it. Have a 10:00am appt with our new lawyer in the morning.

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Nov 13, 2012 6:58 PM To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry Subject: Bauer Hi Kim,



Neil

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:11 PMAttach: 2012, 11-09-12, WW to NJG, RAF 13-7675 RWB.pdfSubject: Re: Bauer

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Congratulations, you must feel some relief getting rid of Bauer. I will be home tomorrow, look forward to hearing from you.

The Bar wants me to re-write my complaint against Bauer, see the attached letter that arrived today.

Best wishes with your new counsel!

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Bauer




Kim




Neil

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:32 PMSubject: Re: Bauer

Page 1 of 2

3/21/2013

I have only heard from the Bar (Complaint I mailed in for Peter McGrath) one time and that was to send more material. I started the Complaint

about 4 months ago, sent in the requested material about a month ago and have not heard one peep since.

Not sure what is going on.

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Nov 13, 2012 8:11 PM To: kim Subject: Re: Bauer




Neil





Kim




Neil

Page 2 of 2

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:42 PMSubject: Re: Bauer

Page 1 of 2

3/21/2013

If you like I can email you the Bar Counsel manual that shows step by step how complaints are supposed to be processed. It is big, over 400 pages, but the pages specific to intake are far less. I can also send you the Special Commission Report on Lawyer Regulation, that is about 40 pages.


I have only heard from the Bar (Complaint I mailed in for Peter McGrath) one time and that was to send more material. I started the Complaint

about 4 months ago, sent in the requested material about a month ago and have not heard one peep since.

Not sure what is going on.

Kim





Neil





Kim




Neil

Page 2 of 2

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:35 PMSubject: Re: Bauer

Page 1 of 2

3/21/2013

Our new Lawyer could not believe Bauer has not done ANYTHING for our case bascally since Jan.

The only thing he has done in 10 months was to get a Judge to approve 2 telephonic depo's. Bauer just dropped

off the face of the earth after that! We have multiple emails to him asking him why isn't he doing Mediation, doing

the depos he got approved for in July, always some excuse.

Anyway, yes please send me the State Bar Manual please.

BTW, our new Atty said we did have one hell of a Malpractice Case and Bauer should have been all over it!

UUGGH!

Kim





Neil





Kim

-----Original Message-----

From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Nov 13, 2012 6:58 PM To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry Subject: Bauer Hi Kim,



Neil

Page 2 of 2

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:13 PMAttach: Bar Counsel Manual - Contents.pdfSubject: Re: Bauer

Page 1 of 2

3/21/2013

Thanks for the update Kim, you guys have been through a lot with Bauer. Hopefully your case will get moving again. Attached is the Bar Counsel manual. Let me know if you want the Special Commission Report on Lawyer Regulation.

Hang in there, better days are ahead! Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Bauer







UUGGH!

Kim





Neil





Kim




Neil

Page 2 of 2

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:42 PMSubject: Re: Bauer

Page 1 of 2

3/21/2013

Thanks so much Neil, will keep you updated!


Thanks for the update Kim, you guys have been through a lot with Bauer. Hopefully your case will get moving again. Attached is the Bar Counsel manual. Let me know if you want the Special Commission Report on Lawyer Regulation.

Hang in there, better days are ahead! Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Bauer







UUGGH!

Kim





Neil





Kim




Neil

Page 2 of 2

3/21/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 5:02 PMSubject: Florida State Bar

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Hey Neil, Still have no heard a PEEP from the FL State Bar on the complaint that I filed on Peter McGrath. Hmmmmmm, sure is taking along time, almost a total of 6 months now, for them to let me know what is going on. Does it usually take this long? kim

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 5:38 PMSubject: Re: Florida State Bar

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Hi Kim. Six months sounds like a long time to reach a decision to open a formal complaint. What does it say in the Bar Counsel Manual? Since you are suing McGrath, sometimes the Bar waits to see what happens in the court case. There are Bar rules about this. Do you have any hearings pending in your case against McGrath? ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:02 PM Subject: Florida State Bar > Hey Neil, > Still have no heard a PEEP from the FL State Bar on the complaint that I > filed on Peter > McGrath. Hmmmmmm, sure is taking along time, almost a total of 6 months > now, for them to > let me know what is going on. > > Does it usually take this long? > kim

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 7:56 PMSubject: Re: Florida State Bar

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Well, not quiet 6 months, filed the original complaint in July. Sent Docs in about a month ago and have not heard anything since. Yea, we have a Mediation hearing coming up on 12/17. Maybe I will call tomorrow and just ask them what is going on. kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Nov 19, 2012 4:38 PM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Florida State Bar > >Hi Kim. Six months sounds like a long time to reach a decision to open a >formal complaint. What does it say in the Bar Counsel Manual? > >Since you are suing McGrath, sometimes the Bar waits to see what happens in >the court case. There are Bar rules about this. Do you have any hearings >pending in your case against McGrath? > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:02 PM >Subject: Florida State Bar > > >> Hey Neil, >> Still have no heard a PEEP from the FL State Bar on the complaint that I >> filed on Peter >> McGrath. Hmmmmmm, sure is taking along time, almost a total of 6 months >> now, for them to >> let me know what is going on. >> >> Does it usually take this long? >> kim > >

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 8:31 PMSubject: Re: Florida State Bar

Page 1 of 1

3/21/2013

Who will represent you at the mediation hearing? ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim" <[email protected]> To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 6:56 PM Subject: Re: Florida State Bar > Well, not quiet 6 months, filed the original complaint in July. Sent Docs > in about > a month ago and have not heard anything since. > Yea, we have a Mediation hearing coming up on 12/17. > > Maybe I will call tomorrow and just ask them what is going on. > kim > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>Sent: Nov 19, 2012 4:38 PM >>To: kim <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: Florida State Bar >> >>Hi Kim. Six months sounds like a long time to reach a decision to open a >>formal complaint. What does it say in the Bar Counsel Manual? >> >>Since you are suing McGrath, sometimes the Bar waits to see what happens >>in >>the court case. There are Bar rules about this. Do you have any hearings >>pending in your case against McGrath? >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>To: <[email protected]> >>Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:02 PM >>Subject: Florida State Bar >> >> >>> Hey Neil, >>> Still have no heard a PEEP from the FL State Bar on the complaint that I >>> filed on Peter >>> McGrath. Hmmmmmm, sure is taking along time, almost a total of 6 months >>> now, for them to >>> let me know what is going on. >>> >>> Does it usually take this long? >>> kim >> >> >

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:57 AMSubject: Re: bar complaint, mediation hearing

Page 1 of 2

3/22/2013

Kim,

Why is Mark Fox a witness? Paul Linder is not listed as counsel in Orange County, so officially you are still represented by Robert Bauer in this case.

It appears to me, based on my limited understanding of this matter, that Bauer never intended to represent you zealously, but to burn through your cash and drop the matter, like Bauer did in my case. This may show that Bauer is actually protecting McGrath, while billing you. This may explain the lack of action by the Florida Bar too. But I need to know more about your case to be certain. Perhaps if I read your complaint to the Bar, that might show what is actually going on.

You may be in a situation where you cannot find counsel who will actually represent your interest, but only provide you with "fake representation", designed either to take your money, or for one lawyer to help another lawyer, as they are all on the same team. FYI - you and me, and the public, are not on this team. This is the essence of my petition to the US Supreme Court.

You are welcome to provide me with your Bar complaint, and any other documents.

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:05 AM Subject: Re: bar complaint, mediation hearing

No to all of the above.

Yea, Mark Fox was gonna be our new Lawyer, BUT, Peters Lawyers fought it because Mark Fox is also a witness

and they said he couldn't be both. So we had to look for another lawyer and we did get one who came HIGHLY recommended

to us. His name is Paul Linder in Orlando.

(sigh) I swear Neil I feel like we are starting over at square one, even though it has been 2 years. If you note on the Orange County Clerk of Court

Bauer got approved for the Telephonic Depos in July, yet he never scheduled them! These were important Depos, they were the Ins Atty's and would love

to testify against Peter. We should have been in Trial by now instead trying to go to Mediation!

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Nov 26, 2012 11:07 PM

To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry Subject: bar complaint, mediation hearing Hi Kim,

Have you heard from the Florida Bar about your complaint against Peter McGrath?

Also, I noticed the case docket in Orange County still shows Robert Bauer as your counsel, will Bauer represent you at the mediation hearing December 17th?

Neil

Page 2 of 2

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Kimberly Pruett-Barry" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:07 AMSubject: bar complaint, mediation hearing

Page 1 of 1

3/22/2013

Hi Kim,



Neil

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:05 AMSubject: Re: bar complaint, mediation hearing

Page 1 of 1

3/22/2013








Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Nov 26, 2012 11:07 PM To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry Subject: bar complaint, mediation hearing Hi Kim,



Neil

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:59 PMSubject: Re: bar complaint, mediation hearing

Page 1 of 2

3/22/2013

Mark Fox took over the case from Peter McGrath in 2010 and ended it in 3 weeks, Peter couldn't end it in 3 years. Mark is the one that pointed

out to me and Bill that Peter had acted unethically and told us we had one "hell of a Legal Malpractice Suit against Peter". So natually we were using him as

a witnes.

Paul Linder is taking over our case on Dec. 7th. He flew to Italy for the Holidays, so it probably hasn't hit the Orange County Court yet.

Yes, you are 100% correct, he sat there and did practically NOTHING since Feb and yet we got a 23k bill from him!!! I KNOW for a fact that

Susan Reynolds did all the work, because she told me what she was doing. I was in communication with her until she left in Mar. We should have

been billed a fee from his Paralegal, not from him. Since she left NOTHING has happened except for the Permission from the Judge to do the

telephonic depos. Yet he never did them! UUGGH!!

I sent him nast email messages telling him to get this stuff done, he made promises and then we would not hear from him again until I wrote

another nasty emails, etc, etc!

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Nov 27, 2012 10:57 AM To: kim Subject: Re: bar complaint, mediation hearing

Kim,

Why is Mark Fox a witness? Paul Linder is not listed as counsel in Orange County, so officially you are still represented by Robert Bauer in this case.

It appears to me, based on my limited understanding of this matter, that Bauer never intended to represent you zealously, but to burn through your cash and drop the matter, like Bauer did in my case. This may show that Bauer is actually protecting McGrath, while billing you. This may explain the lack of action by the Florida Bar too. But I need to know more about your case to be certain. Perhaps if I read your complaint to the Bar, that might show what is actually going on.

You may be in a situation where you cannot find counsel who will actually represent your interest, but only provide you with "fake representation", designed either to take your money, or for one lawyer to help another lawyer, as they are all on the same team. FYI -

you and me, and the public, are not on this team. This is the essence of my petition to the US Supreme Court.

You are welcome to provide me with your Bar complaint, and any other documents.

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: kim To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:05 AM Subject: Re: bar complaint, mediation hearing








Kim

-----Original Message----- From: Neil Gillespie Sent: Nov 26, 2012 11:07 PM To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry Subject: bar complaint, mediation hearing Hi Kim,



Neil

Page 2 of 2

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:33 PMSubject: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 1

3/22/2013

Hey Neil Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on Peter McGrath. It has been months now. I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an update. Of course, they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, can NEVER get through to them the first time. I will let ya know, Kim

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:16 PMSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 2

3/22/2013

Kim, It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in ACAP - Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local grievance committee is comprised of the lawyer’s colleagues, perhaps his own friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer. Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim" <[email protected]> To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM Subject: Re: FL State Bar > Hey, > I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under > investigation. > They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his district. > I guess this > is what happened to you, correct? > > This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something > wrong, ot at least > this is my understanding. > > kim > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >>To: kim <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >> >>Hi Kim, >> >>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to get >>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? >> >>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple of >>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint filed >>on such and such a date"?

>> >>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >>too. >> >>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will need >>some information, like the RFA number. >> >>Neil >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>To: <[email protected]> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >>Subject: FL State Bar >> >> >>> Hey Neil >>> >>> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >>> Peter McGrath. >>> >>> It has been months now. >>> >>> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >>> update. Of course, >>> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, can >>> NEVER get through to them the first time. >>> >>> I will let ya know, >>> Kim >> >> >

Page 2 of 2

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 8:06 PMSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 1

3/22/2013

Hi Kim, You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to get money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple of sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint filed on such and such a date"? Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer too. Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will need some information, like the RFA number. Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM Subject: FL State Bar > Hey Neil > > Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on > Peter McGrath. > > It has been months now. > > I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an > update. Of course, > they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, can > NEVER get through to them the first time. > > I will let ya know, > Kim

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 8:13 PMSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 2

3/22/2013

Hey, I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under investigation. They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his district. I guess this is what happened to you, correct? This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something wrong, ot at least this is my understanding. kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > >Hi Kim, > >You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to get >money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? > >You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple of >sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint filed >on such and such a date"? > >Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >too. > >Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will need >some information, like the RFA number. > >Neil > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >Subject: FL State Bar > > >> Hey Neil >> >> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >> Peter McGrath.

>> >> It has been months now. >> >> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >> update. Of course, >> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, can >> NEVER get through to them the first time. >> >> I will let ya know, >> Kim > >

Page 2 of 2

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 1:04 PMSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 3

3/22/2013

Yep, you are right, it is still in ACAP. I asked why is was taking so long and they said becausethey thought it was a very serious matter and they were taking it seriously. They did tell me the next step was the Grievance Committee, should be getting a letter on that soon. Like you, I think this is BS!! It should NEVER go back to THEIR District, Atty's, just like Dr.'srarely go against each other! Kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Dec 5, 2012 11:16 AM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > >Kim, > >It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in ACAP - >Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of >the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel >you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local >grievance committee is comprised of the lawyer’s colleagues, perhaps his own >friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer. > >Neil > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > > >> Hey, >> I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under >> investigation. >> They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his district. >> I guess this >> is what happened to you, correct? >> >> This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something >> wrong, ot at least >> this is my understanding.

>> >> kim >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >>>To: kim <[email protected]> >>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >>> >>>Hi Kim, >>> >>>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to get >>>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? >>> >>>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple of >>>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint filed >>>on such and such a date"? >>> >>>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >>>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >>>too. >>> >>>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will need >>>some information, like the RFA number. >>> >>>Neil >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>>To: <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >>>Subject: FL State Bar >>> >>> >>>> Hey Neil >>>> >>>> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >>>> Peter McGrath. >>>> >>>> It has been months now. >>>> >>>> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >>>> update. Of course, >>>> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, can >>>> NEVER get through to them the first time. >>>> >>>> I will let ya know, >>>> Kim >>> >>> >>

Page 2 of 3

3/22/2013

> >

Page 3 of 3

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:32 PMSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 3

3/22/2013

OK, got a letter from the Bar, it is going back to Orlando. They are asking for more info. This is how far you went with Bauer as well, correct? Any pointers? I am going to be off the computer till about Wed, we are moving onto our new farm! YAY! Call me tomorrow if you have a chance. 352 207-7291. Kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Dec 5, 2012 11:16 AM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > >Kim, > >It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in ACAP - >Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of >the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel >you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local >grievance committee is comprised of the lawyer’s colleagues, perhaps his own >friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer. > >Neil > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > > >> Hey, >> I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under >> investigation. >> They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his district. >> I guess this >> is what happened to you, correct? >>

>> This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something >> wrong, ot at least >> this is my understanding. >> >> kim >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >>>To: kim <[email protected]> >>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >>> >>>Hi Kim, >>> >>>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to get >>>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? >>> >>>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple of >>>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint filed >>>on such and such a date"? >>> >>>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >>>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >>>too. >>> >>>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will need >>>some information, like the RFA number. >>> >>>Neil >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>>To: <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >>>Subject: FL State Bar >>> >>> >>>> Hey Neil >>>> >>>> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >>>> Peter McGrath. >>>> >>>> It has been months now. >>>> >>>> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >>>> update. Of course, >>>> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, can >>>> NEVER get through to them the first time. >>>> >>>> I will let ya know, >>>> Kim

Page 2 of 3

3/22/2013

>>> >>> >> > >

Page 3 of 3

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:47 PMSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 2

3/22/2013

Lots to tell you, too much in an email, call me when you can! Had to keep dumb butt Bauer, his lawyers would not accept my new lawyer, threatened to take it to the Judge! 352 207-7291 Kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Dec 5, 2012 11:16 AM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > >Kim, > >It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in ACAP - >Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of >the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel >you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local >grievance committee is comprised of the lawyer’s colleagues, perhaps his own >friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer. > >Neil > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > > >> Hey, >> I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under >> investigation. >> They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his district. >> I guess this >> is what happened to you, correct? >> >> This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something >> wrong, ot at least >> this is my understanding. >> >> kim

>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >>>To: kim <[email protected]> >>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >>> >>>Hi Kim, >>> >>>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to get >>>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? >>> >>>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple of >>>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint filed >>>on such and such a date"? >>> >>>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >>>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >>>too. >>> >>>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will need >>>some information, like the RFA number. >>> >>>Neil >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>>To: <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >>>Subject: FL State Bar >>> >>> >>>> Hey Neil >>>> >>>> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >>>> Peter McGrath. >>>> >>>> It has been months now. >>>> >>>> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >>>> update. Of course, >>>> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, can >>>> NEVER get through to them the first time. >>>> >>>> I will let ya know, >>>> Kim >>> >>> >> > >

Page 2 of 2

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Cc: "Paul F Hill" <[email protected]>; "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <[email protected]>; "Annemarie C

Craft" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:21 PMAttach: Letter of Mary Bateman, Aug-03-2009.pdfSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 4

3/22/2013

Kimberly Pruett-Barry Dear Kim, Thank you for your email. In a letter dated January 7, 2013 Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft informed me that the Bar was moving forward with my complaint, which is now designated "Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)". Since you are still a client of Mr. Bauer, I think it would be better to direct your questions about Mr. Bauer to the Florida Bar directly. Plus I do not have the time, and am not feeling well. You have my sincere sympathy for what you are going through, but it is better to bring your complaints about Mr. Bauer directly to the Florida Bar. Perhaps the Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) could provide you substitute counsel. But I got Bauer as a LRS referral, and that did not work out. I am sending copies of my reply to this email to Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft, since she has my complaint, and to Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, and Paul Hill, General Counsel for the Florida Bar. Hopefully between them they can fashion a solution to your problem with Robert W. Bauer. I ask each of them, by and through this email, to protect you as a consumer of legal and court services. Kim, I wish you well, and hope those persons at the Florida Bar with the authority and responsibility to protect you will seriously listen to your cry for help about the misconduct of Mr. Bauer. I believe Mr. Marvin in particular has a duty under The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to act, as well as a case I became aware of last night, Mueller v. The Florida Bar, which holds: "Allegation by disbarred attorney that certain complaints against him were solicited by state bar was mere surplusage in complaint alleging malicious prosecution; state bar is not prohibited from actively seeking complaints against particular members of bar or members of bar in general. Mueller v. The Florida Bar, App. 4 Dist., 390 So.2d 449 (1980)." I also believe the Florida Bar can initiate its own complaint against an attorney under Rule 3-7.3, see section (c), and the attached letter sent to me Aug-03-09 from Mary Ellen Bateman of the Florida Bar, paragraph number 2: "The bar does initiate complaints on occasion and when appropriate".

Sometime after all this gets resolved, you, me, and all the other survivors of Mr. Bauer’s misconduct should get together for dinner and reminisce. Sincerely, Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Ps. If after this email the Florida Bar does not assist you, let me know and I will forward this matter to the extent possible in any response to my petition for writ of certiorari, which is docketed as Petition No. 12-7747 in the Supreme Court of the United States. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm You can read more about the petition here http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim" <[email protected]> To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:47 PM Subject: Re: FL State Bar Lots to tell you, too much in an email, call me when you can! Had to keep dumb butt Bauer, his lawyers would not accept my new lawyer, threatened to take it to the Judge! 352 207-7291 Kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Dec 5, 2012 11:16 AM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > >Kim, > >It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in >ACAP - >Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of >the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel >you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local >grievance committee is comprised of the lawyer’s colleagues, perhaps his

Page 2 of 4

3/22/2013

>own >friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer. > >Neil > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > > >> Hey, >> I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under >> investigation. >> They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his >> district. >> I guess this >> is what happened to you, correct? >> >> This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something >> wrong, ot at least >> this is my understanding. >> >> kim >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >>>To: kim <[email protected]> >>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >>> >>>Hi Kim, >>> >>>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to >>>get >>>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? >>> >>>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple >>>of >>>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint >>>filed >>>on such and such a date"? >>> >>>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >>>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >>>too. >>> >>>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will >>>need >>>some information, like the RFA number.

Page 3 of 4

3/22/2013

>>> >>>Neil >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>>To: <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >>>Subject: FL State Bar >>> >>> >>>> Hey Neil >>>> >>>> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >>>> Peter McGrath. >>>> >>>> It has been months now. >>>> >>>> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >>>> update. Of course, >>>> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, >>>> can >>>> NEVER get through to them the first time. >>>> >>>> I will let ya know, >>>> Kim >>> >>> >> > >

Page 4 of 4

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "kim" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:23 AMSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 4

3/22/2013

I understand! I will keep you informed and KICK BUTT with Bauer! Kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Jan 16, 2013 4:21 PM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Cc: Paul F Hill <[email protected]>, Kenneth Lawrence Marvin <[email protected]>, Annemarie C Craft <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > >Kimberly Pruett-Barry > >Dear Kim, > >Thank you for your email. In a letter dated January 7, 2013 Bar Counsel >Annemarie Craft informed me that the Bar was moving forward with my >complaint, which is now designated "Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar File >No. 2013-00,540 (8B)". > >Since you are still a client of Mr. Bauer, I think it would be better to >direct your questions about Mr. Bauer to the Florida Bar directly. Plus I do >not have the time, and am not feeling well. > >You have my sincere sympathy for what you are going through, but it is >better to bring your complaints about Mr. Bauer directly to the Florida Bar. >Perhaps the Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) could provide you substitute >counsel. But I got Bauer as a LRS referral, and that did not work out. > >I am sending copies of my reply to this email to Bar Counsel Annemarie >Craft, since she has my complaint, and to Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer >Regulation, and Paul Hill, General Counsel for the Florida Bar. Hopefully >between them they can fashion a solution to your problem with Robert W. >Bauer. I ask each of them, by and through this email, to protect you as a >consumer of legal and court services. > >Kim, I wish you well, and hope those persons at the Florida Bar with the >authority and responsibility to protect you will seriously listen to your >cry for help about the misconduct of Mr. Bauer. I believe Mr. Marvin in >particular has a duty under The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to act, as >well as a case I became aware of last night, Mueller v. The Florida Bar, >which holds: > >"Allegation by disbarred attorney that certain complaints against him were

>solicited by state bar was mere surplusage in complaint alleging malicious >prosecution; state bar is not prohibited from actively seeking complaints >against particular members of bar or members of bar in general. Mueller v. >The Florida Bar, App. 4 Dist., 390 So.2d 449 (1980)." > >I also believe the Florida Bar can initiate its own complaint against an >attorney under Rule 3-7.3, see section (c), and the attached letter sent to >me Aug-03-09 from Mary Ellen Bateman of the Florida Bar, paragraph number 2: >"The bar does initiate complaints on occasion and when appropriate". > >Sometime after all this gets resolved, you, me, and all the other survivors >of Mr. Bauer’s misconduct should get together for dinner and reminisce. > >Sincerely, > >Neil J. Gillespie > >8092 SW 115th Loop > >Ocala, FL 34481 > >Ps. If after this email the Florida Bar does not assist you, let me know and >I will forward this matter to the extent possible in any response to my >petition for writ of certiorari, which is docketed as Petition No. 12-7747 >in the Supreme Court of the United States. >http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm > >You can read more about the petition here >http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html > >----- Original Message ----- > From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:47 PM >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > > >Lots to tell you, too much in an email, call me when you can! > >Had to keep dumb butt Bauer, his lawyers would not accept my new lawyer, >threatened to take >it to the Judge! > >352 207-7291 > >Kim > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>Sent: Dec 5, 2012 11:16 AM >>To: kim <[email protected]>

Page 2 of 4

3/22/2013

>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >> >>Kim, >> >>It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in >>ACAP - >>Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of >>the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel >>you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local >>grievance committee is comprised of the lawyer’s colleagues, perhaps his >>own >>friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer. >> >>Neil >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM >>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >> >> >>> Hey, >>> I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under >>> investigation. >>> They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his >>> district. >>> I guess this >>> is what happened to you, correct? >>> >>> This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something >>> wrong, ot at least >>> this is my understanding. >>> >>> kim >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>>>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >>>>To: kim <[email protected]> >>>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >>>> >>>>Hi Kim, >>>> >>>>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to >>>>get >>>>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? >>>> >>>>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple >>>>of >>>>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint

Page 3 of 4

3/22/2013

>>>>filed >>>>on such and such a date"? >>>> >>>>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >>>>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >>>>too. >>>> >>>>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will >>>>need >>>>some information, like the RFA number. >>>> >>>>Neil >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>>>To: <[email protected]> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >>>>Subject: FL State Bar >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hey Neil >>>>> >>>>> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >>>>> Peter McGrath. >>>>> >>>>> It has been months now. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >>>>> update. Of course, >>>>> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, >>>>> can >>>>> NEVER get through to them the first time. >>>>> >>>>> I will let ya know, >>>>> Kim >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>

Page 4 of 4

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie


Page 1 of 1

3/28/2013


Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Anna Hodges" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:21 AMSubject: Re: corrected Bar complaint against Robert Bauer

Page 1 of 2

12/28/2012

Yes Anna, lawsuits wear people out, and makes them depressed. That is part of the problem with the justice system. A couple of people have commented on your email, former clients of Bauer, Angela Woodhull of Gainesville, and Kim Pruett-Barry of Ocala. They agree with you, Bauer is a mess!

I still don’t understand the call from a lady in Ocala. I believe Kim Pruett-Barry of Ocala is the only person in Ocala who has contacted me. When did you get the call? How do you know the call was from a lady in Ocala? Could it have been a call from someone in Gainesville, perhaps a friend of Bauer’s? Or his wife? Or Beverly E Lowe, Bauer’s former bookkeeper with whom he appears to have a close relationship, and whom Bauer represented in a divorce?

Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: Anna Hodges To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:54 PM Subject: Re: corrected Bar complaint against Robert Bauer A lady from Ocala. I don't know how she got my number. I am happy to know you're alive and well and still on the move! I haven't filled anything yet against Bauer. Lawsuits wear me out and the court system depresses me. I need to recharge my batteries. I just noticed today that you posted a July 2011 email I had sent to you. I didn't realize that, have you had any feedback from it? On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Anna,

Wow, that is strange. Obviously I am alive, although this protracted litigation has taken a toll. Within the last month I have been in touch with Kimberly Pruett-Barry of Ocala, she is a Bauer client, is that who you spoke with? Last year Angela Woodhull of Gainesville called, and we have kept in touch. And Philip Strauss called too. Who called you?

Neil Gillespie

----- Original Message ----- From: Anna Hodges To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 8:16 PM Subject: Re: corrected Bar complaint against Robert Bauer Neil, I recieved a phone call from a woman in Ocala, asking me questions about Robert, and if I was going to file a complaint. I asked if she heard of you. She said yes, then told me you had passed away! WOW! I'm confused...Anna

3

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, Anna. How are you doing?

----- Original Message ----- From: Anna To: Neil Gillespie Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 6:45 PM Subject: Re: corrected Bar complaint against Robert Bauer Is this Neil Gillespie? Sent from my iPhone 4S On Oct 31, 2012, at 4:56 PM, "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> wrote:

Today I filed a corrected Bar complaint against Robert Bauer. Thankfully Kim let me know about a misstatement I made. Also, I added a conclusion section, and fixed a number of typos. So this is a much better complaint, thanks to Kim’s quick action.

Also attached is my letter to the Bar withdrawing the complaint sent yesterday.

Neil Gillespie

<Withdrawal of Complaint Oct-30-2012 against Robert Bauer.pdf>

<Bar complaint of NJG against Robert Bauer, Oct-31-2012.pdf>

Page 2 of 2

12/28/2012

Neil Gillespie

From: "Anna" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:15 AMSubject: Re: Did the search engine issue clear up yet?

Page 1 of 1

3/28/2013

Thank you Neil, the search engine issue did clear up! I don't understand who this woman is that is saying things that aren't true! I never told anyone that I got my money back from Robert because I didn't! I wonder why I was told you were dead and you were told my money was refunded- I smell a rat! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2013, at 4:19 AM, "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Anna,

Did the search engine issue clear up yet? I hope it resolved by now.

I believe Kim Pruett-Barry was the woman from Ocala who told you I passed away. While reviewing her call of October 3 2012, she said you got all your money back from Robert Bauer. Is that true? Did Bauer refund all your money?

If you like, I can send you a wav file of the call on a CD to play on a computer. Let me know where to mail it. Thanks.

Neil Gillespie

4

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Mark W. Fox" <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:03 AMSubject: Re: Kim Pruett-Barry

Page 1 of 2

3/28/2013

Mr. Fox:

I contacted you to confirm whether the information Kim Pruett-Barry told me about this matter, including your involvement in this matter, is true or false. If the information is false, I will note that in my pleading to the Supreme Court. If the information is true, there is no problem.

Neil Gillespie

----- Original Message ----- From: Mark W. Fox To: 'Neil Gillespie' Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:01 AM Subject: RE: Kim Pruett-Barry Dear Mr. Gillespie: I am not certain why you contacted me. Do you have any specific questions or concerns? Mark W. Fox, P.A. 1805 S.E. 16th Ave. Suite 902 Ocala, FL 34471 (ph) 352-390-8889 (fax)352-351-9300 [email protected] From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 1:39 AM To: Mark Fox Subject: Kim Pruett-Barry

Dear Mr. Fox,

A lady by the name of Kim Pruett-Barry contacted me about attorney Robert W Bauer of Gainesville whom she retained in a malpractice action against Peter McGrath. Mr. Bauer represented me at one time.

Kim mentioned you planned to assume the litigation in Orange County, Case No. 2012-CA-009323-O, but you are not listed as counsel. Kim said Mr. McGrath’s lawyer objected to your representation over a conflict, and she was getting another lawyer.

5

Some of the above information is contained in a matter I will submit to the Supreme Court of the United States soon. This is a link to my case on the SCOTUS website. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm

Kim sounds like a nice lady, and people call me from time to time, sometimes they don’t always understand everything in their case. So this is just a double-check for the benefit of the SCOTUS.


Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 352-854-7807

Page 2 of 2

3/28/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "Paul R Linder" <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:59 PMSubject: litigation against Mr. McGrath in Orange County

Page 1 of 1

3/22/2013

Dear Mr. Linder

A lady by the name of Kimberly Pruett-Barry contacted me about attorney Robert W Bauer of Gainesville whom she retained in a malpractice action against attorney Peter McGrath. Mr. Bauer formerly represented me in another matter.

Ms. Pruett-Barry mentioned she planned to retain you to assume the litigation against Mr. McGrath in Orange County, Case No. 2012-CA-009323-O, but as of today you are not listed as counsel on the court's online docket.

Information about Mr. Bauer and Ms. Pruett-Barry was submitted in a separate volume appendix to my petition no. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a link to my case on the SCOTUS website. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm

Ms. Pruett-Barry sounds like a nice lady, and people call me from time to time, sometimes they don’t always understand everything in their case. So this is just to double-check the facts.


Sincerely,

Neil Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481

6

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>To: "kim" <[email protected]>Cc: "Paul F Hill" <[email protected]>; "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <[email protected]>; "Annemarie C

Craft" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:21 PMAttach: Letter of Mary Bateman, Aug-03-2009.pdfSubject: Re: FL State Bar

Page 1 of 4

3/22/2013

Kimberly Pruett-Barry Dear Kim, Thank you for your email. In a letter dated January 7, 2013 Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft informed me that the Bar was moving forward with my complaint, which is now designated "Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)". Since you are still a client of Mr. Bauer, I think it would be better to direct your questions about Mr. Bauer to the Florida Bar directly. Plus I do not have the time, and am not feeling well. You have my sincere sympathy for what you are going through, but it is better to bring your complaints about Mr. Bauer directly to the Florida Bar. Perhaps the Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) could provide you substitute counsel. But I got Bauer as a LRS referral, and that did not work out. I am sending copies of my reply to this email to Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft, since she has my complaint, and to Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, and Paul Hill, General Counsel for the Florida Bar. Hopefully between them they can fashion a solution to your problem with Robert W. Bauer. I ask each of them, by and through this email, to protect you as a consumer of legal and court services. Kim, I wish you well, and hope those persons at the Florida Bar with the authority and responsibility to protect you will seriously listen to your cry for help about the misconduct of Mr. Bauer. I believe Mr. Marvin in particular has a duty under The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to act, as well as a case I became aware of last night, Mueller v. The Florida Bar, which holds: "Allegation by disbarred attorney that certain complaints against him were solicited by state bar was mere surplusage in complaint alleging malicious prosecution; state bar is not prohibited from actively seeking complaints against particular members of bar or members of bar in general. Mueller v. The Florida Bar, App. 4 Dist., 390 So.2d 449 (1980)." I also believe the Florida Bar can initiate its own complaint against an attorney under Rule 3-7.3, see section (c), and the attached letter sent to me Aug-03-09 from Mary Ellen Bateman of the Florida Bar, paragraph number 2: "The bar does initiate complaints on occasion and when appropriate".

7

Sometime after all this gets resolved, you, me, and all the other survivors of Mr. Bauer’s misconduct should get together for dinner and reminisce. Sincerely, Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481 Ps. If after this email the Florida Bar does not assist you, let me know and I will forward this matter to the extent possible in any response to my petition for writ of certiorari, which is docketed as Petition No. 12-7747 in the Supreme Court of the United States. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm You can read more about the petition here http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim" <[email protected]> To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:47 PM Subject: Re: FL State Bar Lots to tell you, too much in an email, call me when you can! Had to keep dumb butt Bauer, his lawyers would not accept my new lawyer, threatened to take it to the Judge! 352 207-7291 Kim -----Original Message----- >From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >Sent: Dec 5, 2012 11:16 AM >To: kim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > >Kim, > >It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in >ACAP - >Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of >the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel >you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local >grievance committee is comprised of the lawyer’s colleagues, perhaps his

Page 2 of 4

3/22/2013

>own >friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer. > >Neil > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "kim" <[email protected]> >To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM >Subject: Re: FL State Bar > > >> Hey, >> I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under >> investigation. >> They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his >> district. >> I guess this >> is what happened to you, correct? >> >> This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something >> wrong, ot at least >> this is my understanding. >> >> kim >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM >>>To: kim <[email protected]> >>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar >>> >>>Hi Kim, >>> >>>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to >>>get >>>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you? >>> >>>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple >>>of >>>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint >>>filed >>>on such and such a date"? >>> >>>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone >>>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer >>>too. >>> >>>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will >>>need >>>some information, like the RFA number.

Page 3 of 4

3/22/2013

>>> >>>Neil >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "kim" <[email protected]> >>>To: <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM >>>Subject: FL State Bar >>> >>> >>>> Hey Neil >>>> >>>> Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on >>>> Peter McGrath. >>>> >>>> It has been months now. >>>> >>>> I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an >>>> update. Of course, >>>> they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back, >>>> can >>>> NEVER get through to them the first time. >>>> >>>> I will let ya know, >>>> Kim >>> >>> >> > >

Page 4 of 4

3/22/2013

Neil Gillespie


Page 1 of 1

3/28/2013


8

VIA U.P.S. Tracking No. lZ'64589FP296184312 January 10, 2013

Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar - ACAP 651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

RE: Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

Dear Ms. Craft:

I received but am confused as to your letter dated January 7, 2013 relative to the above captioned complaint. Bar Counsel Mr. Wilhelm dismissed/returned my complaint against Mr. Bauer dated October 31,2012, designated RFA No. 13-7675, by letter to me dated November 9,2012. The complaint was then submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States for pendent jurisdiction December 10, 2012 in Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari. Kindly explain what is going on, since your letter makes no reference to this chain of events, or Petition No. 12-7747.

My priority now is Petition No. 12-7747 which is taking all my time. I likely am not able to file a rebuttal in this matter until either the conclusion of Petition No. 12-7747, or a break in the workload. While ACAP central may be adequate to intake this complaint, bias at the local level is another matter, and recognized by the Special Commission on Lawyer Regulation chaired by Henry Cox ("Cox Report). The Cox Report recommended ACAP style screening of all written inquiries and complaints so that all questions concerning the conduct of members of the bar are addressed in a similar fashion. The Commission also recommended a central intake system utilizing ACAP resources in Tallahassee.

The reason for central ACAP intake is clear: The Commission knew that some complaints, like my earlier complaint against Mr. Bauer, TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B), would not be "addressed in a similar fashion" locally where the attorney was favored. The Letter Report issued March 18, 2011 by Mr. Watson in 2011-00,073 (8B) did not copy with Rule 3-7.4(k) because it did not explain why nlY complaint did not warrant further proceedings.

Pursuant to Rule 3-3.4(b), I believe a special grievance committee is needed, located outside the Eight Judicial Circuit which includes Alachua County where Mr. Bauer practices, and outside the jurisdiction of Mr. Watson, and Carl Schwait, the designated reviewer, to avoid bias. Sending this matter to another state in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit may even be required to avoid bias now.

cc: Robert W. Bauer

9

THE FLORIDA BAR 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

January 7, 2013

Mr. Neil J. G-illespie 8092 S.W. 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481

Re: Robert W. Bauer; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

Enclosed is a copy of our letter to Mr. Bauer which requires a response to your complaint.

Once you receive Mr. Bauer's response, you have 10 days to file a rebuttal if you so desire. If you decide to file a rebuttal, you must send a copy to Mr. Bauer. Rebuttals should not exceed 25 pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Please address any and all correspondence to me. Please note that any correspondence must be sent through the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material.

Please be advised that as an arm of the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida Bar can investigate allegations of misconduct against attorneys, and where appropriate, request that the attorney be disciplined. The Florida Bar cannot render legal advice nor can The Florida Bar represent individuals or intervene on their behalf in any civil or criminal matter. Further, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.

Please review the enclosed Notice on mailing instructions for information on submitting your rebuttal.

Sincerely,

Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707

Enclosures (Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Letter to Mr. Bauer; Notice - Mailing Instructions)

cc: Mr. Robert W. Bauer

NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

1. The enclosed letter is an informal inquiry. Your response is required under the provisions of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4 8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct. Failure to provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4 8.4(g). If you do not respond, the matter will be forwarded to the grievance committee for disposition in accordance with Rule 3-7.3 of the Rules of Discipline.

2. Many complaints considered first by staff counsel are not forwarded to a grievance committee, as they do not involve violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct justifying disciplinary action.

3. "Pursuant to Rule 3-7.I(a), Rules of Discipline, any response by you in these proceedings shall become part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public upon the closure of the case by Bar counselor upon a finding of no probable cause, probable cause, minor misconduct, or recommendation of diversion. Disclosure during the pendency of an investigation may be made only as to status if a specific inquiry concerning this case is made and if this matter is generally known to be in the public domain."

4. The grievance committee is the Bar's "grand jury." Its function and procedllre are set forth in Rule 3-7.4. Proceedings before the grievance committee, for the most part, are nonadversarial in nature. However, you should carefully review Chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

5. If the grievance committee finds probable cause, formal adversarial proceedings, which ordinarily lead to disposition by the Supreme Court of Florida, will be commenced under 3-7.6, unless a plea is submitted under Rule 3-7.


JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

January 7, 2013

Mr. Robert W. Bauer 2815 NW 13th St Ste 200E Gainesville, FL 32609-2861

Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Robert W. Bauer The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

Dear Mr. Bauer:

Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting docunlents submitted by the above referenced complainant(s). Your response to this complaint is required under the provisions of Rule 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and is due in our office by January 22, 2013. Responses should not exceed 25 pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please note that any correspondence must be sent through the u.s. mail; we cannot accept faxed material. You are further required to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your written response, including any documents submitted therewith.

Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1 (b), Rules of Discipline, any reports, correspondence, papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s) shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon a disposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the status of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made and the matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline, you are further required to complete and return the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form. Further, please notify this office, in writing, of any pending civil, criminal, or administrative litigation which pertains to this grievance. Please note that this is a continuing obligation should new litigation develop during the pendency of this matter.

Mr. Robert W. Bauer January 7, 2013 Page Two

Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your response.

Sincerely,


Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint, Notice - Mailing Instructions)

cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie

NOTICE Mailing Instructions

The Florida Bar converts its disciplinary files to electronic media. All submissions are being scanned into an electronic record and hard copies are discarded. To help ensure the timely processing of your inquiry/complaint, please review the following guidelines prior to submitting it to our office.

1. Please limit your submission to no more than 25 pages including exhibits. If you have additional documents available, please nlake reference to them in your written submission as available upon request. Should Bar counsel need to obtain copies of any such documents, a subsequent request will be sent to you.

2. Please do not bind, or index your documents. You may underline but do not highlight documents under any circunlstances. We scan docunlents for use in our disciplinary files and when scanned, your dOCUlnent higWighting will either not be picked up or may obscure any underlying text.

3. Please refrain from attaching media such as audio tapes or CDs, oversized documents, or photographs. We cannot process any media that cannot be scanned into the electronic record.

4. Please do not submit your original documents. All documents will be discarded after scanning and we will not be able to return any originals submitted to our office. The only original document that should be provided to our office is tlle inquiry/conlplaint fOffi1.

5. Please do not submit confidential or privileged information. Documents submitted to our office become public record. Confidential/privileged information should be redacted. Such information includes, but is not linlited to, bank account numbers, social security numbers, credit card account numbers, nledical records, dependency nlatters, termination of parental rights, guardian ad liten1 records, child abuse records, adoption records, documents containing names of minor children, original birth and death certificates, Baker Act records, grand jury records, and juvenile delinquency records. If infoffi1ation of this nature is important to your submission, please describe the nature of the information and indicate that it is available upon request. Bar counsel will contact you to make appropriate arrangements for the protection of any such infonnation that is required as part of the investigation of the complaint.

Please be aware that materials received that do not meet these guidelines may be returned. Thank you for your consideration in this respect.

•• .rdt'!'.' , '3 t" ... ;q t I ." • '1 ........ '. I •• at • ..",~ ,,'" , "II' .••...••. A/'I." ••

~~~"lS.PIJ.ta~~ THE FLORIDA BAR f~~r'\ 651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET 016H16507356

c:- :' TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 Q.J" ~ .I \. $00.459~ "'D+~ ~

-'PAO~'O~QD ~ 01;07!2013:::z:

M~~~l?d r:!'om 32399 US POSTAGE Visit our web site: www.FLORIDABAR.org

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 S.W. 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481

3448i:t:3E:E:7 RecE:t ).•n.•1"I.lttll.. '.u.lIl1ll .. I.) uB"III.1) II ....1.11. J ).1

~""l~~ "",,,,,,,,~,,,~,,~,,",,,,,,,,",,,,m,_~_~,,,,,"<,,, •.$; """""-.. ~""'" if 4 4"W&


JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2300 850/561-5600 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

March 14, 2013

Mr. Neil J. Gillespie 8092 S.W. 115Th Loop Ocala, FL 34481

Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Robert W. Bauer The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

Enclosed you will find Mr. Robert W. Bauer's response to your complaint. The response sent by Mr. Bauer indicated that a copy was being mailed to you. However based on your recent email to The Florida bar it appears that you did not receive you copy of Mr. Bauer's response.

If you wish to file a rebuttal to the response, please do so in writing by April 1, 2013. Additionally, you must send a copy to Mr. Bauer.

Sincerely,


Enclosure

cc: Mr. Robert W. Bauer

10

The Law OHices of

Robert W. Bauer, P.A. 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E, Gainesville, FL 32609

www.bauerlegal.com

Robert W Bauer, Esq. Phone: (352)375.5960 Maria Perez YoungbJood7 Esq. Timothy C Youngblood, Esq. Fax: (352)337.2518

February 9, 2013

Annemarie Craft Florida Bar Association fD)re<CIeD~re~ 6I5 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 lf1l FEB 1B 2013 llJ)

11Ie Ronde B8r - ACAPRe: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie T.......,FIorida

Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)

Dear Ms. Craft:

In order to appropriately respond to the complaint alleged by Neil J. Gillespie, I have numbered the paragraphs of the complaint and have included a copy attached hereto for the Bar's convenience.

I. This is not a new complaint; this is a complaint that repeats similar allegations previously addressed by the Florida Bar and deternlined that the Respondent did not engage in any unethical activity.

2. No substantive statements made in paragraph; therefore, no response.


4. It is Respondent's understanding that Kimberly Pruett-Barry has contacted the Bar and disallowed any statements made by Neil J. Gillespie and attached as Exhibit "A" is an email refuting that Ms. Kimberly Pruett-Barry is dissatisfied with my services.

5. See answer to number 4.


7. Acknowledgment of previous complaint was made and it was determined to be unfounded.

Page 1 of3

8. Respondent believes that the Florida Bar complied with all requirements necessary to satisfy Rule 3-7.4(k).

9. Respondent believes that Mr. Schwait responded appropriately.

10. Respondent believes that Mr. Schwait responded appropriately.

11. Response is not warranted.

12. No substantive claims made in paragraph; therefore, no response.

13. There are outstanding fees owed to the finn that the Petitioner has not paid and Respondent has properly executed a charging lien upon files held with the Law Office ofRobert W. Bauer.

14. No substantive issues stated relating to ethic violations.

15. No substantive issues stated relating to ethic violations.

16. Relates to civil actions not within the purview of the Florida Bar.

17. Relates to civil actions not within the purview of the Florida Bar.

18. Relates to civil actions not within the pwview ofthe Florida Bar.

19. The issues of the settlement agreement procured by Mr. Rodems have been litigated in Federal Court and found to binding and appropriate. This is not a matter of ethics to be put before the Florida Bar.

20. The settlement, in no way, resolved the charging lien exercised by this finn. It simply released any claim Mr. Gillespie had against the Respondent and the Respondent's finn. The Settlement Agreement was between Mr. Rodems and Mr. Gillespie. Mr. Rodems did not have the authority to release any claims of this law office.

21. It is not appropriate at this time for the Respondent to advise the Petitioner on legal matters.

Pages 6 through 15 consists of rehashing allegations previously addressed in the Bar complaint. No additional responses at this time.

Remaining portion of Page 16 through frrst half of Page 21 were addressed in first complaint.

22. Respondent denies any allegations of lying, misrepresenting the facts, or misleading the Florida Bar.

23. Respondent denies any allegations ofmisrepresenting or making false statement.

Page 2 of3

24. Respondent denies any allegations ofmisrepresentation.

25. Angela Woodhull is fonner client who terminated our services because she could not continue to afford our services. Ms. Woodhull had numerous cases and we had to manage all of them. We had just won a complicated venue issue before Ms. Woodhull terminated our services. I do not know why she would be displeased with our services.

26. This finn did assert charging liens against Ms. Woodhull's cases, but they were not improper.

27. Respondent admits that this office has used law students and graduate law students to assist in drafting pleadings and research. This is a common practice and is not unethical. It is, in fact, encouraged as a mentoring process.

28. Respondent does not recall making any such statement.

29. See Exhibit "A."

30. No substantive claims made to be able to respond to, and cannot reasonably respond to the allegation without a waiver ofattorney-client privilege.

31. Phillip Strauss is a previous complaint. This case was handled by an associate of the finn and was not handled by myself. This complaint has been reviewed by the Florida Bar and it was determined that there was no violation.

32. This is a complaint that was reviewed by the Florida Bar and it was detennined that there was no ethical violation. The complaint was closed because the statute of limitation expired prior to our finn handling. I did this case at no charge.

In conclusion, Mr. Gillespie's complaint is nothing more than a rehashing of previous complaints wherein it has been detemlined that there was no cause and is a waste of the Florida Bar's time. Mr. Gillespie has filed numerous federal actions, state actions, and now, Supreme Court actions, all of which have been dismissed or will be dismissed shortly.

~R:O'bert W. Bauer, Esq. 1-/

Enclosures as stated.

cc: Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, FL 34481

Page 3 of3

---------------

112&'13 GnWl • Per C~cirt d Neil Gillespie

----------_....-~-- --Per Complaint of Neil Gillespie

Idm <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM Reply-To: kim <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dear Sirs/Madam,

Mr. Neil Gillespie is using my name WITHOUT my pennission in a complaint against Robert Bauer, AttyI with the Florida State Bar.

Please be seNsed that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of our case and in no way want to be associated with Mr~ Gillespie and this complaint.


Thank you, Kim Pruett

htIps:llmail.google.cooVrn:iI~=2&i1F2d1ge66e24&~fNF~ it'1bcdth=13c81518b4b9c54a

~

J A

--------------------

Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f)) Rules ofDiscipline, you must execute the appropriate disclosure paragraph below and return the form to this office by JaD••." 22, 1013. The role provides that the nature of the charges be stated in the notice to your fnm; however, we suggest that you attach a copy ofthe complaint

CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this (I day of #~ 7. ,201----, a true copy of the foregoing disclosure was furnished to A,t ... (<<1.Il'j I.t"D c.I ,a member of my present law finn of LIt~ eM", vi ~,~ tV. BQ,~ , andt

ifdifferentt to , a member ofthe law finn of t with which I was associated

at the time ofthe act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00 t 540 (8B).

CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE (Corporate/Government Employment)

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of , 201-, a true copy of the foregoing disclosure was furnished to • my supervisor at (name ofageocy), with which I was associated at the time ofthe act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B).

Robert W. Bauer

CERTIFICATE OF NON-LAW FIRM AFFILIATION (Sole Practitioner)

I HEREBY CERTIFY to The Florida Bar on this day of , 201_, that I am not presently affiliated with a law fum and was not affiliated with a law finn at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2013..00,540 (8B).

Robert W. Bauer

Attorney Consumer Assis~ Propam OCtober 31, 2012 The Florida Bill' 651 East .JoJYenon Street TaI~t FL 32399-2300

Cquplllgt _in" attgmpy Bphert W. Btu... Florida 8Irm No~: 11051 2815 NW 13tb S1reet, Suite 20GB, ~, FL 32609. teIepbone (352) 37'·'960

,

LNft campl"'t An'.Robert w•.II.aI: This is a new complaint apatMr. BlUet for mJsconductdIriq aod after his repraICII1IItio of mo in gUleapje Ye 8Idq;r. Rodmw & Cook. PA. et al~ _ 110. OS-CA-~, Hilillborouah Co.

This DDW complaint seeks dilCiplme for Mr.Bauar'._1am not .eJdnl retum of $19).12 in fees peid to him!. l1tis complaint is aboutjusdce. SiDce 20111 JeamedMr. Bauer has burt • lot ofaood, honest people: Hil own c~ 80mB ofdle suniYon ofMr. Bauer'1 milCODduct have contacted me~ and their infonniIioft ia provided in thi. compIaiaL

I

Mr. Bluer's former clieall tell a aimillr story: Mr. B... is not ~ be is not eIll._ he takes the client'. money, ..he fails to CGmpIete the ...uer. A .umber oftile COIIlpllJnina

lJ) cllentl are disahled lIIdIar elderly, show'"•pdIlm ofdisnpnt by Bauer to..m elderly and disabled c:lJcnta. Mr. Bauer UlCS pro Ie pleadinp.hi. own. acl die work of law ItUdentl, which be ~ submitl to the court. his 0WIl pledap, ICCOftIkw to a motioD filed by fonDer Bauer gliOl1t Dr. Anpla Woodhull. This was m)"experitDce with Mr. Bau. too.

On October 3~ 2012 Bauer client Kimberly PrueII-Bar!)' called me cIaimiDa be W8I DOt di1iaent.G> Ms. Pruett-Barry lOcI IaJsbend William lelained Bluer to _1D01ber lawyer. PeIIlr R. McOnth. Kim BID)' told me 1'. 61ck, &Ick 10 • JlDIIIIJCh, ,111M II """~ llirilrg ,,*gtty, aad tbIt Mr. Bauer had nm up • $40.000 bill and lOOk all the gouplct••vilas.

, AacoKlinl 10 Kiln Barryt their cue is limit. to mine iR Ibat they IUId 1beir former laW)'. for

(Z\~acIoinl. Kim Slya Mr. Bauer it miUdna his clieD, chUllliDa-.and not pUina reIUItI. ~ emailedmeItltlna.Baut•• H._jlnlt.lyjtJllllo-MOWtlctI#jDrwanI...lllrblk III l11e8 to

ract", a biU. B...did the same with me too. The ncont in my cue &boWl Mr. Bauer', lack of competeIl~ & Iaok ofdiUpnce IIlpreci Judie Barton. The public needs proteedOIl hill Bauer.

Finally, it IppCIIIB Mr. Bauer may be col1lbontiDa with Mr. bdems and Mr. CIIaaIluolo in • pattern of ncketeerinIlCtivit)' to UDdennine the:'oUowina BIr complaiDti aDd obstNctjusOce:

@ Eupac P Cutqliuolo, File No. 2013..10.162 (60) RyIft Christopber Rodems. File No.. 2013-10~71 (138)

Mr. Castaal1aolo even provided copies orbi. filiDp.....-to the Florida IW ID cbe abovo ~nod complaiatto Mr. Bauor and Mr~ Rodems." IDcIItaed by the ablnYi8tioa "cc:" precediDa ~ir names. suuesdnJ this mckelceri.,lCtivity is euand)' onsoUa.·

I

I Mr....~me 131.163 In 1"" feel. Mucb oftH..-y or sa pmUadw. iIabIdiaI aaltllO .................1y4ocl....judicata,.. lS.fOG" nwi Alto. Bluet__tied ........ --plaint ho ~ SJ9t212 •• pUt 10S ray SoaiaI BeouriIJ clilabiUt, 0/1 honowlll 011

credit anti or .......Sl2.~ euJiect toea Jmpqw.aame, U..

The Florida 8Ir,. complaint IpinstRobert w. ~er, October 31,2012

Repraentation 1Jmellne 01Robm ~ Bauer

• FebftIIIY 26, 2007. Refmal to Mr. Bauerfor. libel by the Florida BIt 1JtS Refertll Sentice.

• Mardll, 2007. initial $25 LRS consultadon wiIh Mr. Bauer IthiI ofllco. I

• March I, 2007. Paid Mr. Bauer 13,000 on credit CIrd 10 review my pro • lawsuit OSaCA-~.

• April 2, 2001. NOIicc ofAppeermce by Mr. Bauer in 05-CA.nos, HiRIborouIb Co.. PL.

• Apr1124. 2007. Mr. Bauerand 1executed 1ft~urIy fee COIIIIct (S25O perhour).

• March 31, 2001. Mr. Bauer propolld new....tion caatnct with hip.COItB; _lined.

• October 13.2001. Mr. Bluet IDOved to withdrawal ill 05.cA·720S: pmtod 0«-09-2009.

• October 13, 2_. Mr. Baler moved 10 witbdraMlIn 2008-2224; DENIED 0cI-30-2008.

• 0cI0ber 27,2001. Sutmittoct my ADA diu.bllliy recJlIfI'IllO Mr. Bauer: DO IeIpOIWIrefuled.

• Oetober 30, 2008. Order in 2008-2224. 8luer'1 motion to withdraw • COUDIOI DBNIED.

• Mach 9, 2009. Mr. Bauer lUbrnitted but dicllIOt lip a ccninaent fee ~ dec!IMcL

• Mach 9t 2009. Mr. Baber demanded Ilian .etdcmeat apcment for his 1IIIIpractice; dec1iDed.

• May 14t 2009. My proposed. continpnt fee apemont to Mr. Bauer; DO MIpOIIIOInIIIod.

• May 14~ 2009. My pavposed ICttIenaeat qrcanaat to Mr. Bluer; DO respcmelretlJIed.

• OCtober 1.2009. He.inI on Modon to WkhCIrawII. OS-CA-7205•.......- an my coDSellt.

• October 9. 2009. ORIcrOrautina Motion To Witbdrawa1 At CounIeL 05.cA-7205.

• November 23, 2009. Mr. BauerldviJedofSI2,6S0clwaiDllien; S19,212 wupaidto B.....

• October 23, 2012. Karen Kelly advised Mr. 8au« bel DOC paid his 12%US roo; 12305.49.

Previously I made complaint no. 2011-00,073 (IJ) apm_ Mr.. Bauer that ... elaM M.m II, 2011 whm JIIneI N. Watson. Jr•• ChfetBtIICh DiIoipliDc CounIoI, iuued • LeUer RIpolt Pursuant to Rule 3-7.4(k) ofNo ProbIbJe CaUle FiDdiDI- The letter 1tatecI: (ExbiJit 1).

I

Pui1~ to Rule 3-7.4(k), tbil document setVOIli • Letter Report ofNa I'nJbdtIe CauIa Plndinl~ On 1ho basis of.dilipllt aacI itnpIl1iallD&1ylll of11l1be iofomWlOft avai1IbIe. OIl.Marcb 15,2011, lite Fievanee conunIItee found DO]JIOIUIe aMIIe for fiIrtIler disclpU..ry proceed... in this matter. The naembcnhipofthecommiaee is JUde up of both atlomeys aDd ~mcyL TbiI cue is DOW cloteel.

Because 1be s.roaly Ita the autborit)' to IddrcII questions ofeth1ca. tbe con-ittee could DOt Iddresa Illy leJll __..widell you may feel c:oncemed. Ifyou have further coocems about what10ur Iepl remedies IUY be, Jou must CODaI1t with Iepl counsel ofyour cboa. The Florida8. iI unable to provide IepI advice in tblllI8pegt.

,.-3The Florida Bit, compl_.instRobett w. Bauer, October 31. 2012

Mr. WatlOft'. Letter lleporI tiDed to eOJq)ly with Rule 3.7••>because it did DOt expJaID wh)' the complaint did not warrant t\artber proceedinP- Also. tho LeattJr Report failed to include Illy documentation expJainiIla why tile complaint did not W8I1Ut flfther pIOCIed.Jnp. Mr. WItson forwIrdocI the malter for ~iew to CIlI SChwaJ(, .DesipUod Rcvicwett wbo defcmcl to the rmdins oftile lfievlnce coltUlliboe by letter June 27. 2011. (Exhibit 2). Mr. Scbw8il replied: "After comprebeDlively readina all docUlDCllll ill my poIIeIIioa Ja refereGce to cbe above styled complaint. J have determined that I wish 10 defer to the findinl oCtile Jricvlltce committee.."

Mr. Schwait did not rapoad to my letter dated Jply 31, 2011 (ExhIbIt 3) mquesdna he comply witb RIlle 3-7.4(k) InCl oxplain why die compJaillt did DOt ....... t\ather )nCIId1up. Mr. Schwait did not Nspond to my llI8IItioa that I JnIde meritorious complaints to tho Florida &. .inst lawyers pilt)' ofmultiple tnacbe8 offlle Bat. RuIOl, which QOIDpllintl d1e Bar It.. failed to honestly adjudicate. Mr. Bauer, • referral from the Florida BItLRS. dctcnniJlecl that my lonner lawyer Mr. CookofBarter, Rodems a Cook, PA. was "allimy attorne)'". Mr. Bauer said ~ july would love to punish Illimy attorncy". (Truacript. Mar-29-2007. p.29,_ 17).

I

Mr.. Schwait did not rapomJ to my ICcllSllion that Mr. ItocIems impoperIy submittod • thirteen paJC di.tribe to tho Bar in Mr. Bauen dcfeuse that \WI a false and mi.lNdiD" mel • palpable conOiet of interest, since he is a plltncr wicb Mr. Cook at BRer. Rodems & Cook. P..A. Tbe information provided by Mr. Rodema, thea incorponllCd by mf~ iJlto Mr. Bauef. NlponICt rcsulled ~ I1CW brachcl oftile eI1Iicl rules. includin&:

Rule 4-8.4{c), conduct involvtns dlshonesty. hid. deceit, ad misleprelllltldion. :Rule 4-1.4(d). conduct Jftjlldicial to the administration orjUltlcc.

I •

The Florida Supreme Court bas delopted to tho Florida SIr the function ofcUscipliniaS its members. The Supnme Court and the Bar blve a f1dIIciary ~ 10 ptVtect memberl of1l10 pubUc harmed by the uaetbicll practice oflaw lad Iawycn. The Florida Bar unCortuRaIdy is beioa operated, and demonllnlbly 50, in I fIsbion _ to protDQ _If IIId bed lawy.. rather than the public. Por example, the Florida Bar'1 claim tl18t tile PIIICO commiuoc it ita MpmcIjury'~ is profoundly mislaKtinS as set forth ita my April lIt 2011 email 10 Mr. W..... (Exblbit 4).

DNa S. ~waa IIIipod.November IS, 201081 the InveIItipIiaa;Maabar in my~"" (::\\ apiast Mr. Bauer. In Marob 20111 provided Mr. Kamer mare al1eptionl of.ilCODdact .iast ~ Mr. Bauei. Mr. Kramer rapor.dcd by email March 14.2011.8:12 a.m.: (BIhibit S).

I have roccived a lett« from you essenrially -ina to Idd additional around! 10 your complaint .pinat Mr. Baler. Pl_ be adviled that tIIis is not • proper proecdure to alleac additional complaiDtB ap_Mr. Bauer. To clo 10, you must direct,our coiDplain1s to the Florida Bart not to tho Grievance Committee. or 10 the investialdaa member. ~ is • weD defined procell or nwiew that every complaint soea tbrouah prior to beiDa -peeS to • committee. Itl is not unuual that multiple ~will be mado by one individual qainst • p81ticullr lawyer. Howeya-. C8Ch compWnt must be leViewed ad the notice nquiremcMI ofduo procell (olio_in order to tho ()OIIJplaint 10 be properly p**' apiaBt a lawyer. 'loMe direct 1III1dditionIl4:OlllPiaiats about Mr.

2 Carl SdaWfltlla....oftile Blr'sBolrd otOCwnoll, ..............of..DeJJ Or.- Jaw Ina.

The Florida Barf ccnnplaint aSliDlt Robert w. B8uer, October 31, 2012 p... 4

B....s eonduet to the Bu. Dircctina thaD to me or to the Committee will not IeIUIt in discipline apinst Mr. Bauer. PIeIIC let me bow if you have au, questions. Thank you.

In view orb forel0ins, aDd the failure ofMr. Watson'. LderRepod to explain iD complt.ee with Rule 3-7.4(k) why the eompl8inl did notwllllllt tbrtherproceedi.J it appall that my complaint wu dlflCicm. 1be Lecter Repod .bowI no _ of, or -Uudiclltion o~ any violation of the Kulu ofProfeaional Conduct. Therefore 1110 proaeecUnp In file DO. 2011OO.013(IB) did not make • res jucliclta CODIickqdon ofa breIcb 011110 Rules by Mr. BlUer.

New Alleptio•• ApiDlt Robert W. a.•• Limited by the Bar'1 pohibition onlUbmitdnamore thin 2S paps.

.d lawyer lhould 1101 accept repruenlatio" un•• it L'DPI be compelatly andproWlptlyco.,ted.

.IlL Mr. IlgIE IIl1.Belg"dJ2.Betlr, MIc.lUt -l'Iwt " ofJIIe_e b!c 4-1.16(cI) Protection ofOieat. JatereIt

A ItIW)W m'" kiD ai, r«uollllble .'pllO Mid"'" "" _ o!wltlltlnMfIlltJ tJ. cit...

Justice Tbamaa pnted my Rule 13.5 Appl~ to extend time to file until December 10, 2012 • petition for writ ofcertiorari to the U.S. Su~ Cowl; illCA.11 cuea 12-11028 _ 1211213, (Exhibit 6). Mr. Bauer and his rUID lie ~CendIntsin each QIC. I need the file to prepue my petiticm. Mr. B.....refused to Ntum my file for lM'etal yOlll 011 the bail ofaft improper chqinslien of$12.650. By leuer September Ii, 201210 Mr. B...•• eoII11IeI, I demIncIed reIUm ofqt file &om ~ B. Cbapnllll. (EOibit 7). MI. Cbapman did !lOt respond.

In my letter dated September 19, 2012 to ML Chapnum. I raponded to Mr. BaJen letttI dItecl Aul'* 2", 2012 that stated, "Ifyou wish to oon1lct me at tbe number listed above I would be

@hippy to dilcuu nsolvina the lien iIlllWlllCl. iI ecceptabIe to all ptUtiea.". That offer is

l ~ Rjccted.IfMs. ChIpMn or Mr. Bauerw.t to 6cua • pIOpORCI raolutioa. I RlqUll8Ced they respond witb. wriUeD pmposal. I 1110 reject Mr~ Bauer's o«.1DIdo by email AupI& 27, 2012, that stllal "Mr. OilJespio is free to contad me 011 III UlnGOrded line and I wUl be hippy to speak with him." Aaaiat ifMr. Bauer has something substadive to say,. I a:quest he submit bis otfer or1houabts in • letter. I bellevethil ia. ~le*puadcr Rule 4-1.16(b).

All calls oil my home office bulinea telephone cxtelllion Ire rocordcd for quality IIIQrIDCCo purposes ~ to tho bus.ineIa use cxempticn:ofFlorida Swuces cbaJ*r 934. specificaJlyW aeodon 93~.02(4)(a)(1) IIKI the holdina orRQy.J,HeaItb Carp Seryb Ipc;. y• .Jeffeggg:PUot LIfe

~., 924 F.2d 215 (11th eir. 1991). n.e~ no exeeptionl to this policy for Mr. Bauer.

l!a..Mlll&dust" RIco AcdYib IladtrpliM BlrCowRie". clDWtilatigp Rifle ~e). COIIduct iavo1vinl dI~, &udt cIeccit, IUd "-pIMDIltadon. Rule 4-lA(d). conduct prejudicial to tbo ~ ofjusticc. R1lIe +U(a), JePOdiaa misconduct of~ Jawyca.

• I ~

~ Crimelad miscODduct by the lawyers ItBarbr~ Ilodeml a Cook, P.A. fOllll the buil ofall my ~ B..complaba.lJId involve 20 Jelllt&ld dvillawiuita md lepIpmceediap. A lilt is found at

2Ibibit I. ~Mr. Bauer ancl Mr. RocIeDII enppd ~. petIem orracbteerin. activity to subvert or uadernline my iIIitial complaint apin8t Bauer, 81, no~ 2011-00t013 (88).

I I

The Florida Bar, complaint apinstRoberl W. ~, Qaober 31,2012 r.-5

While Ibc: Florida BIr does not have jllrildietion 10 consider eivil or crimhW violatiou ofRICO, the hcketeerlDa.lD8ueDCed IIIld Corrupt Orpnlzattonl Act. II U.s.C. Sec. 1961-68. Itdoes

1[1 have juridcdon and • duty to Invadpte Rlated breIcbeI oflboR" ofProfellioall CoDduct. U RD_ ......c(c), 4-8A(dh end 4·8.3(a), ...,hes oCclaty r:hat fIclJitate the RICO acdvity.

I

Mr.1lodem1 and Mr. Bauer enNed in. pattern of IUCO lCtivity in violatioa ofllul. 4.I...t(c), 4-8.4(<1), and Rule 4.8.3(a}. 10 improperly fOtCe a settlaDeM in my federal Civil RiJbta IIld ADA disability lawsuit, _ in U.S. Dillrict Com, M.D.FIL, eMf: no. S:IO-CV-OOS03, 10 which Mr. Bauerand hls rum are Defendants. 1be cue wlJlIOOD to be suIImiUecl••peddOll for writ ofcertiorari to the U.S. Supremo Court in C.A.ll OllIS 12-II0211Dd 12-11213~

On June 21 t 2011 Mr.1lodems improperly obtaiJDJ for Mr. Blucr'a beneftt .letdement front me durina. coercive_t It tM Edgecomb Courthoule in T8ftlP8t lleld wi~ cUaabUltyIICCO_.This iI &om '5. FIorid8 Supremo Court petition SCI I-1m Jm1lll'Y 9. 2012:

5. At tho dlIection of Judae Amold I ,olUIItIriJy appcuecI June 21, 2011 lor I dcpoIitIon It the Edpcomb CourthoUII in TIIIIpI to purp tho CODtempt IIICI racind the anal ~ but that tamed out to be a trap to fareD • walk..-ay BettJement apeement ill the lawsuits. Upon my arrival at the courtbo'*t I WIS 1Ikea imo CUIIOdy and invol..-wily codned by two HDlsborouP Couaty Sberitrl ~ Deputy Randy OkUDa _d Deputy L.., BerB- I WII denied ~OdatiOD under dID AmcricIna with Disabilitiea Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C. )2101 ct 1Cq.,1IId Ibe Federal Prc*c:tioD aDd Adv00llJ1 for Mentally 111 Individuals AQI. 42 U.S.C. 10801 et .... After beinl beJel ill custad)' durinI thO deposltioD Ixover four (4) hours without. lunch break, or dao usual mid-day meal provided to a priloner, I became confusecI and dilOrien1mcL The record (A.4.1.12S) sbows that I \VII so impairccl that I could ROt .... I decision to iiI" tho qcocmeot. My COUDIel Eu_ CulaaUuolo (A.7), whom I hired from CraipHIIa couple weeks earlier, mIde the dceision to Idtle bCCIUII "judges IIevc mlld OD their shoes". Illiped the apaneatwt¥Je contbsed IDd in ..dlminishod stIte. Clallalluolo diIobeyed my prior written IIId vabal inItIuctiona riot to ICCept a walk4way sou1cmcat ~Once I W8I relased ftum cua10cly _ had a meal. I realized the IICttIemcIII WIS. mistake and promptly disaff'umed diD agreement by written notice to Mr. RocIau, Mr. CatllliuoIo Ind Major JlI1Ies Livinpton ofthe Hillsbcxuuah County Sblrifrs 0ft1ce. (A.2.1.2-3).

It appeINd tJwt the lCUlcmeDt resolved the $12.6S0 chlrJinl Uc:a uaed by Mr. Bauer to bold my /00 cae file. Mr. 8a.... said DO. 8auctr..me. letter dBd A..-24, 2012 DtIna1b8t RodemJ'

(/ "Seltlement Atpeement IDd General Mutual Releuelt ofJune 21t 2011 docs not biDd hiIn. itebinds me. Mr. Bauer'sletta"appcIrB at Bxhibh 17, This i. die operative quote:

Mr. Rodom's (sic) relcasedlted June 21,2011 does notblvc 111)' lepl effect OIl the amount o(JIloney that ia owed to ahi. finD. Further, it does not biDet thl. 11l1li ill .y way. I (sic) does bind you· but not us.

OI was shocked by Mr. Bauer's.e.." u Mr. Clltaltiuolo m8de tho decilion to ICCept this

d- lIOldement. ] do DOC undentand how aJCIt1cmoat,"only bind me. Cutaafiuolo novel' expJaincd this to me. I believe this is Azrther evidmce _ ~. CastIIUuoIo worbd apinIt III)' iDtaeIt. and mlJIIod in a patteftl ofRICO activity with Mr. o.ucr and Mr. Rodcms to undermine my Sir

6 The Florida Bar. complaim aaainat Robert W. Bauer, October 31. 2012 p.·complaiAts.1Dd civillidptioa. throulb an oaaoiaa pa1tem ofndIcoDduot in vIolMioD oflluIeI 4-1.4(c), 4-8.4(d)t ancI4-I.3(a). breaches orduly 1bat fictltIate 1be RICO acdvily.

Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems also ..ppclln an eirlfer pttem ofmisooacluct ill violadOlt ofRuJp 4-1.4(0), 4-8.4(cl). 8DCI44.3(8). brcIcbea ofduty that flcilitlte RICO 1CtMty. II follows:

1ft a leu« to Florida GoY. Charlie Crist ct.tcd J...-y 4t 2010 (Exhibit 9) Mr. Bauer eodoncd Mr. Rodems for jql' mel praised him u 41ononIblo IIIdpofellionallf• 11ds Is Impeached byBauer·. statement to me that Rodems milleid Judp BII10D durinB • heeriDa Ootobar 30t 2007.

~

TlIIIICript. my Ielephone call with Mr. B..~ Feblulry '. 200!J,]'aIe 11 11 MR. ImUBR= .•• [I] thiWt it clearly put. 12 before the Court the mistake or perjuryI whichever 13 the Court d.etennin.. that they wi.h to interpret •• 1.. Mr. Rot3ems mi81e.diDg the Court "hen he .aid that 15 oertain tbiag. were present that weren It. If you 16 r ••d tho•• motions I clearly ••i4 Chac in there.

Mr. Bauer i. refenilll toRod_t false It*nKR to the Cowt that J liped • re,.....atiOll apeoIIIeId; I cBd DOL An auomcy who mis1e&d tbe Court is D01 "hoaonIbI.1Dd profellionlr. Fint. Mr. Bluer bad a duty UAcler blo 4-&.3(a) to report Mr. ItocIoms' mi8CODduct to 1beB..

Second, Mr. Baucr'slettcr is evidence ofa pIItem ofRICO activity In breIdI ofthe Rules of ProfessioJlll Conduct, Rules 4-894(Clt 4-8.4(d). and 4-8.3(a), DeDded to uadenniDe Bar complain1l. In • quid proquo, Mr. Bauer pIOviclecl a leu. to (Joy. Crist IVppOItiDaMr. Rodems for judp, • llOIIJinltioD to whieh I objected to bYleUcr 10 GoY. CriIt. In reIIIrD, Mr. Rodems provided 1he Bar. letter In IUppOlt ofMr. Bluer in my complalm apiDIt Bauer. Mr. Roderu' letter was e.entially. 13 pap diatribe offal8e IIId mlsJeadinl1bltements to obItnJctjustb.

On July 1~ 2007. Mr. Bauer tlled OD my bebllr&i,tIfJ'" Motjon PorBcIIwinI ofID Older arantina Mr. Rodcm.s judgment on the pleldi.~ 1ft itMr. Baueraleaed Mr. Rodem8 miIIead the court • described bI yp-t. (Exhibit 20).

2. PlaintiffmovCl for ....m, on the arOw* thIa the Court'ajudpent wu bMecl OR

the DefendaDtl' npN8IIdatioDs1bIt tbem WIIIIiped a1tome)' foe ........~ BIzter, Rodcas ~ Cook aDd the Plaintlft

3. Defendants have not produced asllJIlOd eGJI)' ortbe attIJmey lee ~t between Barbr, Rodema &Coot aDd the Plaintift

4. DefeDdants have only prockad.....copy oftile attome)' fee apement between Alpert. BIlbr~ R.odoms, Ferrentino a. COok IIMI die PIIIintift:&.

I •

P1IjntjtrsMotion For Bthearjg wasliped by IitOmey TillY' M. Bell (nee UId) ID No. '%924. for the Law Ot1iee ofRobort W. Bau., PA. Mr. Baler Im~)'diuvowed this IIIOdon, accotdiag to his response to TFB dated Aupst 11.2010. BuI Ms. Bell conf1mIed to me in. letter dated August " 20I0 (Exhibit 21) that Bauer made acliJect request that • I.the pl_al. Ma. Boll left die Bauer law finn shortly after this motiou wu .bmittccL

The Florida Bar. complaint .1IItRobert W. B_1 OCtober 31, 2012 Page • 7 •Durioa' beKiIli ADJUSt 14, 2008 beforo JudI' Marva Crea*wt Mr. Bauer accuNd RocIcms of

not wortiD8 in a profesafonal manner. An auom.y who does DOt work in a profu8ional mmner is. by daflnition. not ·~boDorable IDd profe&sioDII-.

Tnnscript. PlIO 16. bcaianiDa at line 24 24 [MR.. BAUBR.] Mr. Rod••• bas, you knoW, deoided to take II full 25 nuclear bl••t approacb in8tead of U8 trying to work 1 'tbi. out in a profes8ional "DDer. It 18 my 2 mistake for sitting back and giving him the 3 opportWlity to eake thill full blast attack.

Mr. Bauer refiJled to permit me to attend or testify atheariDp in my caebecIuso Mr.1lodema would knowinSIy make C"AMIlmeots to prod me IIfor no better purpose dim to....yourt~ Bauer wmte me this email July 8, 2008 8t 6.0S p.m. -ina in pert:

: I

"No -I do DOt wish for you to attelld beIriap. lam coaamed that )'011 will not be able to properi)' deal with 10)' ofMr.1lodema comnaadI-you wiD edalbC the situation. lam an that he maba them far no better purpoee tbaa to anger you. I believe it Is belt to keep you away ftom him and not allow him to procl7OU.II

Aa attomey wIlo knowinllY prods me with commentl to...ad Int1Ime me. ad cIeay me access to court in my CIIe, is D01 an 1Ioaorab1o ~ pmfelliODl1" IUama)' IUitabIo forJudie-

FiMlIy, Mr.. Bauer determined1UtMr. Cook WII "I slimy attorney" for dehudinlmc ill tt. scttlcme~ofthe Amscot cue. IfMr. Cook was :a slimy a1tol'DBy", tbal Mr. Rodems WIS 8

slimy Mtomey too. Partners oRPlcd in the pnctice oflaw IN 0I0h reapoastie for the had or mesUlenoc ofanother pII1Iler wilen the later actS widUR the ICOpC ofthe ard1DIry busiDe. ofIn IUcmcy. Saa.Yma Qev*"", lng, vc Bcn*jn. )77 So.2d 16 (2clDCA~ 1965). Mr. Rode.l t

aailleadift& IeplllJUlDllltl in defeD80 ofbis pIdIIet aad ftrm CRIItod new ethics broIcbel, leO at)' COIIlplaint apinstMr. Rodcma. File No. 201]-10.271 (138).

Mr. Cutqliuolo ldInitted AU8U1t 30, 2012 in a \vriaen teIpOIlIe 10 'Ibeockn P. Lialewood Jr., Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10t 162 (6D), dial Mr. Rodems DIldo III UDIOIci1ed offer to CUlqliuolo to usill him in MY tbtIn Bar grievance fmJD me. FIOm PIP 3. 1I:

"My opposiq cxnlDlclat Gillespio'. depoIidoa wu RyIa CbrJJIopbrr ~" RodemL ChriI once renwked to IDe, llftIOlieitod. that he would be hippy 10 ....10 The Florida _ OD my behalfIfOillolplo Jriaved JIIQme way he did Bob a.uor.W

I

This evidence shows how the lawyer diseJpUne pIOCeII 1ft FJaridlIl subvcrned..1IIldcnnincd, bcrc by Mr. Rodems. who~. milooaduet is a1 the'__oltbilllllUer. duvlJlblll 0JllOinI breada ofb_ 4-8.4(~),4-1.4(cI), and 4-8.3(a), wbere Iaw)'cr·ldvcrJma conapiro to, lad...iD, oonduct involvina diIhooosty. fraud,. deceit, or ~0Il.to obstnJctjllldcoad mIIIead tho BIr or:itslribu.uJ. to avoid discipline well 10 IdvIDOO of.,SIr compIaiDI. 1biI activity raIIea. immedia1e conflict betw... the 1awy~"'.1Dd die lawyer repesentiDa the client. Iflhe misconduct ilnot reported u NqUhecl under llule 4-8.3(&), the ctielal. DOt beIDa aqnscatcd ia • zca1ouI, competent or diUpat JDaIIDCr becauIe the lawyer has • cont1Ict with bis client created b die offer of..isIIace from • ~1 in In futuIe Bar at

De Florida BaT, complaint apiDIt Robert W. Bauer, October 31, 2012 Pap-I I

V, SM••' 9r*"AMSCQI cw ClosJns Statem.t PIIUd - B.....ch ofBar Rule 4-1.5(1J(5)

My former a1tomcy Will_ J. Cook pnpted mid siped. huduloat ~BaIte••t while ~me In the aettlcmaa ~ BuRP L Q'i'P""a Qt.! App Bke"'eld. tpd Nep Gil"!. AMSCOT Corporatkm. CueNo. Ol.-14761-.u. U.S. 11th CircuIt Court ofAppeals, in violation ofFIa. B.Rule 4-1.5(1)(5). Mr. 0J0k IDd Barka'. Rodema &; Cook, P.A. ("SRC') repreeeDtcd me mdtho 2 c6erplaintifti in Ildption IpiDst AMSCOT CorponIdDD.rArI.rtIxJt'" or ··AMSCOr). a failed clullCJtion lawd 0". ~ Joens··. BRC wu llUCOlllOl firm and IUbstibIte COUI*1 to Mr. Cook'. prevloul firm, ~ •~F.".tifto at Cook. P.A.3 r Alpllt ftrmlf

) which commenced md litipted tho AmICOt IaWlUit for one year. I

The GOntinpnt fee -sr-nent between 1De and Mr. Cook IIld BRC In the AmIcot lawsuit WII

not sipecl by Ill)' ofthe partiea. in violation ofPIL BIr Ibde 4-1.5(t)(2). The om, I~ contiDpm f. ap"GOIIKd is with me, Mr_ Coott ad 1bo Alpert finn, whkl fInD Gloset.

This ease boila down to the vemcity ofa sinal, ..teoee OIl the CIoIina .......(Exhibit to) )npued and aipod by Mr:Cook for BRC • ofOc1obar 31.2001. The iQItmic)C ItateI:

"ID sipiaa dais c101iDa statemeDt.1 Kknowlodp that AMSCOT Corporatba leparately pald my _rnoy. $50,000.00 10 com,.... my aam.ys for their claim apiDst AMSCOT for court-4wardec1 feelancl 001II.It

~

1blI sentence was later delenninecl faIIc. The clO.ina StlfemIJd: is • ftaud. ~weN DO court· aWMted fees 0($50,000 to Mr. Cook or BRC. TIle CloIinI Stltement _IfiIoriclonce offraud by Mr. CO\Ok and SRC Ipiaat me.d the other two dients in the AMSCOT ClIO.

As a1UUtTr of law it \VIS impouiblc to have the aomt-aWllded C..c.....by Mr. Cook mel BRC 011 the Closiq StatDmeat. bccIu. the IedenI trial court QIdrI: (Doc. 116) e1I1IIId Aupst It 2001 by U.s. District Juclp RichIftI A. LIrDra dllmillled thole clalma with prejudico in Clrmept.BIomefte14 agd QjUggjo It AMSCOT&8IJAmIion, cue DO. 99-2795-CIV-T-26C, U.s. District Court, MD.Fla.. TIRlp8 Division. 1111 Court fouud dial all of1be~. ill this action occwred before the effecdvo _ ofttle appliclblo law, 65 Foci. ReI- 17129. RepI8tJOD Zt pIOIDulpted pursuanllo tho TILAo, the Trudl-t.LcncUns Act. JudIe Lazzara held:

Afmr considering the arpmeats JIlIde and all die auIloritics DOW before it. the Court finds 1hat count I failllO all••cWm for reUcfUDder 1111 11LA$. Moreover, .y I'tt*Dpt at ltatinl • claim UDder 'the 11LA would be ide. HaviDa reacbecI tbil coneluslad, the motion for 01_ certification is now ~ (Duo. 116, pp. 3-4)

PACER. C_ 8:9kv-02795-RAL I>cxDnent 116 FJIed 0&'01101 ,.1 of 11 PlleID 1340.

The Floridak, complaint asainst Robert W. Beucr, October 31,2012 pago. 9

The CtOlJng S1atcmcRt prepIred ad liped by Mr. Cook for BRC • otOctobcr 31, ZOOI fBlIed to disclose or itemize 53.580.67 in COltS and eXJ'!'lllll, and failed ~ reflect $2.544.79 paid to attomey Joaa1baD L. Alpert. Mr. Coc*ts failure &0 dilClo8e or bemize a total of'"125.45 in expenses under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) was done in ftxtbamce ofhi. fraud aplnst his clielltl.

Pia, Bar Rule 4-J,SeN 5). 1ft the CVCDt *" II • .recovery. upon tJ. GOIIOIusiOll orthe RplClCDtation, the lawyer shall prcprc .,clolinB ItIteineDt NfJectinlan itemization of aU eosta IIDd expelllCs, together with the IIDOUDt orfee mcoived by 0IGh pIdJclpatiDa lawyeror law tbm. A copy oftha cIOlin,_.hall be executed by all participatinS lawya-s. ..well u the client. and eICb shill recei~e a copy. EKh paticipatins JaW)'shAll retain • cop)' ofme written flO contPct and cIosina sIIItemeDt for 6 years Ifter execution oftile closing ltatemeot. Any coatlnpnt fee COIdraGt IIICI clolinl stItamCDI shall be IVail.WO tor inIpecdoa at taIOnabJc times by die eJieat. by lOy other perIOD uponj\Mlicfal order, or by 1be appropriate.dilcipliDuy 1pDC)'.

Mr. Cook Jn8intains he wanot requimd to__or itemize UDder Rule 4-1.5(t)(5) com of 53.580.67, or show $2,544.79 paid to Mr. AJ~ becaUIO tlAMSCOT CorporadoD 1CJ'III8lI'1y paid my auomey. $50.000.00 to compeuate m.y atIOrDl)'I fot their claim apIaIt AMSCOT for court-awarded fees mel COlts.'· But the "claim" to 150.000.00 far "'cxut~ _and coatiWIS Iatar dctmmined false. 'I'IHR wu no "claim" 10 $50.000 for "COIIIt-llwmled fees. costI.'· . Mr. Bauer outlillcd this frIud to JucIpBadon ~tober30, 2007 durinS • heariDs for judpleld 0Il1be p~.: (Tranecripc. October 30t 2007. ".39-40)

22 (MR. BAUZR] Another i8Bwl to poiDt aut the fact thi. 1. for 23' their claim of court-.w~ed attorD8Y'1 fee., there 24 w•• no claim.. The claim bad alr:••cly been detenained. 25. by the court, denied. It ·didn't exist any lROre. 1 [MR. BAtJBR] Yes, there wu an appeal out.tanding, but that 2 doean I t re8urrec:t any claim, The only thing that'. 3 going to resurrect a clailit is an overruling by the .. appellate court. A claim DO longer exist once it I •

5 been denied, even if it'. 'on appeal. So in 6 ••••rt1ng th.re existed • 'claim for atto~.y's fe•• 7 is talae. It - it·. not there.

Mr. Cook'. CID8bI. StatDleIll FrtIIId was • trick"to eYIde the ..... ofID <_peel) coatiD.. fee asreemen~ and payment to me ofS9.143, mylawfbllhaR oflbe S56,OOOtolaJ RCOveay. Imteld. Mr. Coot IDd BIlC paid me $2.000. LfbwiIe Y1idl the oMtwo plahdifti. Mr. C.... and MI. Blomefield. Mr. Cook's had NIUIIed 1,121.431.03 uajUltenrichmeat for __ Bile. Mr. Coot IIDd BIlC toot oyer 9(M oldie AIIIICOt bDI recovery for themlelvea dIrouaII fraud api. their cliemca. Mr. B...Dotod it WII apinat tbe R.u1. to enfOlOe III oral..-t

Tr8ucript, telepbooe call, Mareh 29. 2001. pase 16: 2 MR. BAUBa: The way that I·. looking at this 3 1. thae they either are entitled to nothing becaU8e 4 they a.ce attempting to enforce an oral ccmtingeocy 5 tee agreement, which i. agaiDst the Profe88ional 6 Code of Bthic. f or they ahould be entitled to 7 45 percent of 56,OOO~

The Florida Bu, compliint apinst Robert W" Bauer. October 31, 2012 PIle - 10

Mr. 8aueI: WIS rcfarinl to the 45,. coodnpncy•fee provided. by Rule 4-1.S(fJ(4XBXi). Mr.

Bluer allO knew Plaigjfr. Motion for Sununaa'._was filed but DOt yet beaJd. TrllllCript. tDlepboac call, March 29, 2007, piles 16-17:

23 MR. GILLaSPIB: Yes, that'. what I argued in 24 my SUlllllary judgment. And that might be a good 2S place if you want to review 80:t of the chain of 1 documauts and everything. 2 MR. BAUIR~ Your .uaaary judgment: has Dot been 3 beard, correct? . 4 MR. OILLBSPllz That's correct. 5 MR. BAUER ~ Okay. ·

VI. Statemeat olth. Qp. 'gQlt 11••5...... ,••E! I~, 2.Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems &: Cook (BRC). 05-CA·7205

Relladici. IltabJIIW • Pro s•.-ant........,....1113.2_ On A~ II, 2005 I aQOd Mr. Cook and BRC tiy filina a pro II CompJUd to NCOV. · $6.224.7r stolen by them tiom my IIIttlement hi the Am8cot cue. Ojn_y. 1mB.pcIems & Cqok. PA. ItII., call no. O~-CA-720S. R)'ID CJJris&opller Rodems npacIIIIKi his p8rtDCr aDd law firm apinIt me, and ...._IDe for libel

Mt. RodeJU aquod that Ibe "claim" for S50~OOO in-_ fees IDd costs- actually _lied to • fee-shiftin, provision oftile TILA. In ..... the ",,000 "elalm....AMSCOT for court·~WIIIded feci_ eos1I" is I fnud, amisludina1cpI-a-b)' Mr. Rodoma to die Cowl Thete were no 8Uorney& fees awarded under tile 11LA ia thll cue. NoDe. There w. DO

possibility of aD awardod ofattomey& fees under the l1LA in this cue because the trial court QrIIa: entered AUJUlt 1, 2001 by ludge L8rzara ~i_ tho TILA claim. with prejuclice.

PLEADINGS AND LEGAL ARG1JMENTI CONSIDERED BY JUDGE NIELSEN Order On Det'endu1tt' Motion To DismfM Agd Strik&.lanuary 13. 2006 ..Judlea. a.11II • R.odems CIaipnJ and CcmtenIiOdl Not Mdorious

AppeIriD, pro Ie, I pevaJ]cd on Mr. Rodcms' JI¥)tion to dilllli.. 1Dd ~ wbeD J. RicbarcI Nielsen anteNd Order On DeCenclmts' Mqtjog To PI"And Sqjkt, Jan~ 13. 2006. (Exhibit II). Juclp Nielson mjocted Rodema· misladiDa lepI qumad,. &be "cJaJm" of S50.GOO in "court--awarded fea and COltS". Under the IIpI doctrine ofleijudica1ll, Mr. Roclems was precluded from ev. spin ...rtin, a ·'claim" for S50,000 in "COUIt-awanW fees aDd costain this matter~ aclaim or contention rojcctcd by the Court u DOt meritorious. (Ilule 4.3.1),

Judae NJe'lCDt• Qrdor On Defcnslealt' Mgd. Tp n••Md S!dkt (Exhibit I J) refereaccd

1I1e followins pI~ which Ire lilted ben sbowiDs the most releYlm JeplIlJUDlelltl:

• Defendpt'l Mgtlgo to DJmdp. Ide- • 2 pliO pIc--.. Aupat 29.2005 (Edumt 12) I

• PI_If,RebuttIJ 19 Der.dan" Motion 10 ~lJIiM ID4 Strike, 16pilei (Bxbibit 13). with Noticeof Seryice of42 .-aa ofcue law (BDibit 14), submitted October 7, 2005 after

i

'Plarldaateomey ScI... J. 0II1cIen 1I1IrdellnDirIed dw& dIIlDlOUIJIIIDI.a WII 87,143,61. _PlJildfCafjdl AmtpIptI Cmppw.,IW pro.MayS. 2010 will bow1edp ofJudie BMon.

The Florida Bar, COIIlplaint apMst Robort W. B_. October 31, 2012 Paso - 11 I

receipt ofMr. Rodemll' oaseJaw. Beftlu. R'" faDed to eoonlinlte.. time and da1e of tho hoIrinl with me. Iudp Nielsen allowed l1li to -.s1he baIriIII-lephonlcally, since I Jakie about 100 mO. from the court. J.lodeIbs URiIaterIIIy set 1ft carl)' 10:30 a.m. time for the be-S Seprember 26, 2(JOj. Judp Niel..cmcluded the harina uaftnllbcd.lDd directed Rodems 10 provide me copiel ofhil cae law by D'IIil. siDoe RodemI failed to provide me the CIIII beforeJJancL Since I IppCINd telephonically, I could DOt lee the CIIOS

Rodeml prclCllteCL Therefore the Court allowed me to rapood In writiaa. I

My rebuttal stIIed that the Dofendantl owed me and breached • ftduoilry duty.1hat thil action was oriliDally filed in 1m by another finn, Alped, Baabr. R.odemI. Femmtino & Cook, PAt which abo represented me in otbCrlawsuilB, that durina the Alpert representation the Defendlnts formed in secret a new firm, Bnr, RodemI " Cook. _ COMpiled 10 tab clients from the Alpert finn. and enppd in a 10lIl 1.. ofmisconduct to hijack 1becae tor their own benelllt inoludina. "Defeoclanta also created • phony CIosiDa Statom.cat Cal8ely reflectiDa 550,000 in coult-awllded attorneYs feellDd COllI. (p. 6). YN_nlthat tile CloIiq StItemeftt is • sham. the ......did not n6ct u itemizldoD «aU COItS_ expenaes, topther with the amount ofthc fee received by _ putlclpldng lawyer or law finn.(p.7). The rebuttalallO notes Mr~ Rodems' testimoIIy It the ho8rJnI September 26, 2005 admittina 1\0Iii-eontiDgellt fee contr8Ct:

3(a)(i) In his argument, Mr.1lodoma Nfemd to Plaintift's EMIblt 1 ofebe CompJUnt. abe .Rcplcsencation COD1IICt, ad IWId tIlat 1110 oontr8Ct was not .{pad, but that he WOtIld ageept the COl1tmCt u if it were .iped. Mr. RodemI contJadlcta the very 1\110 he.. this Court to honor. The Repreaentatlon Omtmct il not lipocl becauac the partie& IlC'VOr exec1ded the coldrKt. Ifthe plaiD IIQpIp ofthis document control.. thea thO docunteat is not executecl. Mr. Rodems appcuI to miltad the Court about this fact.

• DtfiEept'. Reply to Plaindfr. '*.' tq tW....Mqtiqn 1D DjRpjg awl9qib, • aevca CJ) PlIO pleacling submittccl October lOt 200'. (Exhibit 15). In this plcadiDa Rodems ldInitted on pip St for the flfSt time, how the &aud ofMr. Q)ok and BRC __Iy workod:

4

SO, when Mr. Gillespie liped the Closina Sbament, Gillespie knew the S50.ooo paymeat by AmIcot to BIlC WII for dae Jr1IiIIl qaiDlt.Amlcot for C<M1.warded fees, not for 1ft D'.IBloffoes. t

I

• PJaintift's Socogd IJc:bgttaI to DeC"'.', Motu to DiImJp gd StrikC•• two (2) pap pleadiaa submitted October 31. 2005 (Exhibit 16), frmIed dlis cue In two pmapapb.I:

1. Defendants' oenbal arpmenllmplodcs on P9 5 ofits Reply dated October 10, 2005, parapph 3 b. ii. Hete Defendants arpc that the 550.000 is for...for courtawarded fees, amd not ..EYII fee award. This'" the queIIioIl- without an IQIUIl court-aWlrdod fee, there i. no sIIim for ~ court....wardod fee. 8coauIO DefimclllllS did DOt prev•• in court. they cannot rely on I "''''017 cllim for cowt-aWlnled _ IpMICtha is gp. 1biI il how Dcfeadantl created tho impteaIion that the Appellate Court awarded fees, when in f.a the it ruled that the )JIItiea bear their own COllI and 8ttorney'. fees. lbiI it Defegd..~ tjIud 011 It' aMI clispb. Fraud is III exemption to the ,... evidence mle, h10ckins Def...relience on Frap Trac10r VI CMe. 566 So. 2d 524.

The Ploridak. complalDt apiDst Robert W. Bauer, Octo_ 31, 2012 PIp-12

I

2. Defendaldl breachod their fiducial)' duty to Plaintiff. It II 10nI ellab1ished tbIt the I'Ilationlhip betweea an attorney &lid his client is one of the most impodalt, IS well .. the mOlt 18Ond, known to the law. The msponsibility ofan attomoy to pllce hi. diem'. inIenst Ihead ofhis 0\w in deelinp witb IDIItten upoa which the "'y is employed is at die foundation ofour lepl .ystem. (Qgl Y MJao*L 122 So. 2d 41'>' It Is • t1dacJaay mlationship involviDl the hipest deane oftru1b IDd CODfidcDcc.1Dd a.aomey iI under • duly. at all times. to represent his clicat IIJd haDcIJe bit cU••·,aftiJn with 1ho UIIftOIt depee ofhonelty, forthri~ (oyall1. aDd ftdeltry. <0wIac;b y. llgswJLy- 98 So. 2cl 4g3). Defendant Cook failed to JeporI Jolm AD1boay'l $5.000 "Dpoper payoffatlenlpt" to the Florida Bu~ even thouah Cook beJleved tbIt -chc Florida Bar would likely probJblt IUCh all~" lDsteId. Defendutl jumpocJ into bed _lth AmIcottllaW)'« to collected $50,000. EftD though Defendants uauc 1hIt tile $SO,OOO Is for aaomeyl. feel, thO)' Rfulc to accoUDt for the fee, or provide a metbod for dct&rmlniDs the tee.

Mr. Rodent. at this point 8110 hid penoaat .respoit.ibility, ....pIltftel'S enppd in tile praotice 01law are eacb re8pOJlSible for 1be tiaud or nea1ipaoe ofIIIOtherpatner when the later IdS within the 800pI oftile ordinary business or.. Iitomcy. Smyma Deyelcpn.Inc, y. Bomstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965). Mr. RoclemI himselfJ1DW hid InaaJ coat1ict.

m..Mr, Bod'.'". ,e\OIdaYit· DII",••Trlbyll. St01"MD-g. After ludIC NlelscD rejectccl Mr. Rodoma' misleidiDIlepllqJUllleJlt, his -'cIaiIII" for SSG.OOO in "court..WKded feel and costslt~ thilcue WII esientially decided in my favor.1D respoDIC to cataiD defelt, Mr.. Radem. filed. vexatious libel comtereJaim. Mr. Rodems aIIo diInJptecI the tribunal for stratesio MVantqe. On MItCh 6, 2006 Mr. RodeJns submitted to the Court 111 affidavit fallCly iavokiDa the name ofJudgo Nioisen ill an a1Jeption that..1aIet cIiJprOved, a failed ItUnt that resulted in the Iee_ oftbo lOOp. This WIll tho besbmlns ofRodemal "full nue_ blat" lidptioD later described by Mr. B,Jer. AJ, • -It. FebnJaJy 7. 2007 I took • volUldary dillnissal without prejudiQe. I moved to withdrawal my volun1lry diDillaia week 1atIlr in tho hopes offiadiag eounsel. Jodp Bam.in paatad my pro Ie motion to witbdmYallll)' voluntary diamissal Aupst 15. 2007. which WII UI1rmccl 011 appeal ill 2007-4530.

1

ReI "-die...E1ta11l11bed • P... Be - Order........., 13,2OM

The Florida Bar LawyerReferral Service (LRS) referred. and I rcCaincd~ Mr. Bauer for the pradice area ofJaw oflibel UKlslander, to defend tho IJbeI cowurolalms ill fills- y. Barter, Bqdpgp" Cook. P,A, It aJ~ cue DO. OS-eA·72OS. HilJllJorouah Co. Bauer flied IID.mcuded answer to the libel ~laim and nothinl elle; Bauer d1d not conduct tiIcovery in the libel co~lainl. Bauerjust ipored the count8rclai"" which WII vcxatlous lldptioll. Bauer WIll DOt compecent (Rule 4-1, I) and not dllIa_t (Rule 4-1.3) iD dofenIe ollbo counterclaim.

Mr. Bauer'sucoeasful1y arlued DIY pro .1DOdoIi to withdrawal my vollllll8r)' diIm-.J, dmfted and filod ~ON I twer knew tar beard ofllobeft Bauer. Otberwise Mr. :s.- \WI mt COIIIpotaJI

(Rule 4-1.1) and not dilipnt ',Rulo 4-1.3) in litiptlna my claims. The tnMcripts Ihow Mt Bauer

A lawyer ,hmlld"",ee.pI reprt""" ._ItCdIJ be 00"""'" ~CfRIIJJIetetl.

The F~ DIr. COIIlplaint 1...Robert W. Bluer, October 31.2012 Pap -13

ID8""'d JlIdia Barton due 10 his incompetence and delay. s.-even ri*ed my_n when he failed to ~ for. CODlempt ~Mr. Bauer was WlVDS to ..... Judge B8rt0n..

• Mr.. B..-wu DOt colllpeteDt IDd DOt <filii- in faiUnB to litipte PIejntjft'. Mgliga fIB: S.PHPY Jydam- tiled April26, 2006 wi_ AtDdayjt in Swgzrt. b.IecI 011 the Com'. OrdprOp PRmdenll' Mgljgp To Disrn. Apd Strjko 0Jdered-...." 13. 2006 that established. cau. oflCtfon for Fraud and Breach ofContrlct. and I8jected Mr. RadomI' mialead1na lop( arpmeat that his finn WII emltled to. ·clalm- of$5O,OOO in "courtawarded fees and ao.".

• Mr. Bauer was not tompdCnt and DOt clill'- when be fliled to object to maHtlpdoa of IDIUerI aIIcIdJ decided rcsjudielta by Jude' N~'I OrdorDi Psfpgde.' Motion To DJRB. AgI kiP entered JIJlU8I)' 13, 2006. speclftcally RodemJ' r.Jsc "claim" to SSO,OOO in "court-ewerded fees ad costs".

• Mr. Bauer was not competent ad Dot dmaedt for DOt -iDa_on S7.IOS 1ttOmrJY'. fees for Defoadla..• motion for Judgment aD the ploedi. and motioa for ~j~ bued on 1lodeJDsf faIIo "olaim- for SSG,GOO in MCC8t..WIIded fees..comtt•• mlsIeIdiDa IopIIqUIDOIIt1batwu rejected by Judp NWseR'. Order l1DU1r113, 1006. and procJuded ftom furdw prooeedinp Udder the lepl cIocIriue ofrei judiCIIL

• Mr. Bauer was DOt competent and not dill~wIleD be... Judp BartolI by &.tUq to amend the complaint. A transeripl ofa ~October 30, 2007 OD De,.....· motioA for Judpw:nt 011 abe pladiDls shows Judge 8Irtbn mcIentood the impomnce ofarneDdina the complaint. sfIlca this was • helrinl for J~t OIl the pIeadiqs_ ne JeconIIhows several exchanaellike this with t,c Judie: (Transcript, ~30, 20f11, I'P. 14 ~ 19 respectively).

8 THB COURT: Se are we on the pro •• version of 9 the complainti' 10 MR. BAUBRt Yes, Your Honor. 11 THE COtJRT: How do you f ..l about that? 12 MR. BAUER: lid like to amend it and make it

.. (MR. u.mm] I don I t 1188 that: - - I have been on thi. cu. 5 for a whole of six month•• I deD't think my failure S to have .Mnded t.he ccrnplaint. in aix 1IlODtba i. 1 ov-rly egregiou8 c::em.iCSeriDg we have had 1ftU.ltlple 8 i.sue. to deal with, the hearings that have 1)8eo. 9 required to come down here, the writ of certiorari 10 that has been f 11.4. I don• t eMnk thezw'. :b.en any11 delay on my part or OD the part of my firm.

• Durlq • hariDa on Mr. Bluer'llDOtioa to witbclmw8l October 1.2009.. Judp s.toa ap:aI with me that it was "outn.pous.' to be LIIi...pro ., ComplBint after 4 YCIII: (PIp 5).

16 MR. GILLBSPIB: The thing'i. we're into our fourt:h 17 year on thi. ca••. 18 THE COURT: I understand. f

19 MR. GILLISfIB: And we still are working on the 20 Plaiutiff'8 pro .e compl,1nt

Tho Florida Bar~ complaint apiast Robert w. Biuer, October 31, 2012 Pap-14 :

21 THB COllR'll Right. ~ 22 MR. GILLBSPIBz which i. really Bort of 23 outrageou. fI

24 THB COURT: Right ••.•

• Mr. Bluer was not competent _ Dot dUIpat when be 8PPJed Judp BartoD apia M8rcb 20. 2008 wheft he ICpeetedIy moved to eoDtinue • hcariaa he wu UIlJftPINd and failed to hoe an expert witaeM appear. w. S).

5 tTHB COURT: So, I llean., we're way down the , liDe beE•• It '8 been ccnt1nued once and if we '7 continue it again, for what, a couple of year.? 8 Would. that be enough time?

• Mr. Bauer wa not competent and am dDiacnt when failed to eall me u • witDeu or otberwile ...Mr. RocIcmI' false teI'tiJnony on behalfofhis firm IIId ,....dIaiDs tie impfopet .litiptioll ofmattca Ibid)' decicIod res judi..by JucIp Mellent

• Order entered January 13, 2006. specifically :RocIeIits' pbony "clainatt

tQ $5(\000 in "ceut......w feCi and coatltt and the exi8toace of I sIpcd eontlnpnt fee......betweeD me and Mr.t

Cook adBukwt R.odems I; Cook. PA In the AMSCOT JawlUit. which...'".... ltY _ PNtt ig yiglatiop orB.Rule +' .'CM).

I

• Mr. Bauerw. DOt cornpcteat IIDd ROt dUipdt wboD be IlIo'wIcI R.ocIeaIIIIO eacradIlJ)'-" durinl beariap on IU1DIDII)'JudptCRt IIIdJudJn-ton tba pleldl..eYen thou8b ludIC Nie1len nded May ]2, 2006 tbat a 11lOtioo 10 dilqualify Mr. RDdemI WII not deDied with prejudice on dle bllia that RodemI would be. witness. Mr. Rod_Oj 4f1epaDlel1t8tioD- i1l this ClIO is esteDtIaJly witness testimony. ·

. • Mr. Ba1lCf W8I not CDIIlpetlmt and DOt dlUpnt when he failed to seek ADA diubiIitJ acc_to allow me to attaId beIriDp aM tadfy ill my cue. Mr. Bauer ..tuaod to permit me to attend court beariDa bee..be IIicl Mr.1todems would. knowlqly IDIb comm.... to prod me. "for DO better purpose thaD to qer you•• Bauer wrote mo this in ID

oman July 8. 2008 at 6.0S p.m.• statlna in pIit:

"No • I do not wiIb for you to attend IIeIIInp. J am cOllCClfted IbIt you will DOt be abJe to properly deaJ wi02any ofMr. ~COIIIIDOIdIIDd )'011 will ad1IrrIe tho situatioD. I 8m IUI'C that he JUkes them for no beUer puIpOIe tbaD 10..,. you. I believe it is belt to keep you away &om him adnot IlJow him to procl JOU."

Mr. Bauer was informed about my di_lily tom my ADA lQCOIIIIIlodation requeltllUbInitted rc the Court Petxuaa, 20. 2007 _ MaIdl S.2007. M1 ADA ckKunenta show I .. elfl&bJed. dIM Mr. Roct.na bew ofmy disability firom hi.

18nnt prior NJlR'SCfttitiOll olme, .....•

Radom. wu eappd a coune of""conduct (in vioI6D afSectiOll 784.048(2), Florida Statutal). the )ntllltioullDfliction ofBnlotioaal DJsVea.. tart by Mr. Rodans to Dillie me by agraYatlnI my exisdna medical COJJdidoIJI. ~ADA docuaaaat sbowed tIMI aouabt medical treatment and was presaibed Eftexor XR to tho maximum ~.

I believe ifMr. Bauer !lad spent to minutes • jUlt 10 _ig,.·..aplained to Judae Barron the nature ofMr. Rod&ml' criminal conduct reJatfve, to III)' PTSD and other dJIabiHd-. lind

• Tbc Florida Bar, compIafDtqafDItRobert W. Bauer. October :3 JI 2Ol2 P8ae • l' provided tho Court • oopy ofmy ADA motion, wbktIlboM Mr. RocIcms' _1hJscue would have gone better. But Bauer never infonnecl Judp BartolI. u the CourIIDcII diICUIRd:

Tnnscript, JaDuuy 26. 2010, pile 8. 12 [THB COURT] if you are ••yiDg your eli.ability, which i8 yet 13 unclear to me, ha8n't been dealt with accordingly 14 -- I believe this is the first ti.e we are h••riaglS about this. · 1& MR. GILLBSPIS: Actually it 1. not, your 17 Honor. This inforNltion va8 pr••entecl to you when 18 you lftIre a Judge way hack CD March 5th, 2007, 19 Plaintiff'. Am8nded Accommodation Reque_t UDder the 20 ADA. Ifhat had happened is shortly after that: date, 211 Mr. Bauer took the c.se over and this motion wasn· t 22 beard.

oa Aupst 6, 2012 with leave ofthe UttS. Court ofAppeaII, Jsubmitted Amended Motion for DiJability Accommodllion. showina dilquaJiticatioR ofRocloms wei Ia)UiIed UDcIcr the ADA.

• On JuI)' 1, 2008 Mr. a..was not competentand not elil". wbeD be riIbcI my inC*Ceration and failed to sufficiently ,..... for a COIIteGPt bcaiDl July I, 2001. Mr. Rodems souabt to bave me iDcarcemted after Mr. ~ failed to Worm me about aFact InfOtmltiOil Sheet: T!lDlCript, J1IIy It 2008," S~.

23 MR. RODBNS: That-. the point tbat I ... going 24 to make ia that that remedy of law may not carry 2S the day depending upon what happens with the 1 relllllinder of thi. IlOzu1ng'. hearing time, 80 ehat·. 2 why we .ought incarceration...

Mr.. ~wrote tis to the Bu In his relpoaae Au8UIt 18, 2010: "Because my staff \\'IS mDOVed frcnn his CISC, 1bey did DOt follow our aiandInl operatins poeodare& In reptdl10 Mr. Gillespie's documents. As such, he WIll DOt proYidld with the Fa« JoformatioD Sbeet requRd to be filled aut in eonnection with 1bc Fal JlIdImint ordered IJIiDIt him 0-. MaJdl27, 2001. This wu..O\WIisht for wbiell [ IPOJOIized to Mr. Gillespie. CJPPOIinI colllll8l. ad tho Court i111be letter daled July 24. 2008." A copy ofMr. Bauer'.lcIcrappears at Exhibit 19.

What was Mr. Bauertbinkinl for tho 2 1/2 hoar drive troJR hil oflb in Gainesville, to the Tanpa CourdlouIe? What did Mr. Bauer pllD to,lellludp Barton if.__ for my aaest was issued? W~ did Mr. Bauer WI toall ••_ -.. eel plio• ., OD tbe Ioq drift to T..,., aDd .k .e .boIIt tileF" IafO....tioII 8...7 It seems Ulce Mr. Bauer W8I1ICd me to fire hi...

I

XL.Mr. Bl,er IMd "DtDttidI.lK:Jlil.BPpOp. A_1.LH1Il a... UA(e), aonduct involvlq~, hud. doceit.lDd~ RaJ. 4-lA(d). conduct 1ftjudicial to the Idmwstratlon 01justice

Mr. Ba... lied. m~ faclJ, or mIde millaBdiD,l• .,..aenu to tho Florida Bar in hlJ reepo8M da1ed Aupst 18. 2010 10 my initial compllint, file 110. 2011-00.073 (88), oomr-y to Rule .a-.8.4(c) ad Rule 4-8.4(d). Mr. Bauer's respoue couistod of24 peaea;. 10 )JBIO letter. and ]4 PlICS ofexbibits. A copy ofMr. Bauer'. rapoose is provided at Blbibit lB.

The Florida Bitt complaint apinat Robert w. Bauer. OCtober 31.2012 Pap-16

Due to the Bar'. probIbition on submlttlnl more:thaD 25 p8pI, I cannot in this initial complaint fully lilt amd respond to eY«11ie, fallebood, mi&repNsentalion. or mislaldlns lep1llJUDlCDt made by Mr. Bluer in his response dated A~ 18, 2010. Therefore I IJavo 6ated boIow fifteen (15) inataDces ofMr. B.uer's conduct in\lolvins misrepracntation, dilhollelty. hue!, deceit-_ conduct..judicial to the adminilttltion ofjus1ice. Seven oftM 15 ere Aather diswlleCI below.

J. Mr. BIuIr made false 1tI~ about my \'Olunmry dismiual. SOL. dismissal wlpnjudice. 2. Mr. Bluet mJlIUld the Bar about IlI1IDCliDa my pro 10 Complaint. 3. Mr. Bauer made tal. 8tIteDIentI about the cUquaUtbtion ofMr. Rodems II coUDleI. 4. Mr. Bauer made fat. stltements, and IppeIrI to dlllYowa~ Plajptltr. Mg«1ga for Rcbevlnl. 5. Mr. Bauer lied mhis ltatedle1lt "Mr. Rodeml wa .111 times cordial aad PJOfesliODa1." 6. Mr. BluerIIIIdc falle s:ucmentlabout Ids appeall court milCODCluct. 7. Mr. Bauer mIdc falle Sfalementllbouta Illy offinal judamcJd. a. Mr. Ballor macIe &lie statemeRti about his wltbdrawal a COUDIeI. hearIDa w/Judp Barton. 9. Mr. Bauer IDIde misleadm,statanents about viable claims and • continpncy fee aareemcDt. J0.. Mr~ Bauer JD8de f.ltltements about discdvay 1OU8~t and owed by Mr. RodamI. 11. Mr. Baller m.-e misleldina sta1eIneD.ts Ibout his 2007 etroI1I and a "waIk-awaytt settlement. 12. Mr. Bauer made false and mill_ioS statemCrdB about the neu. oftwo judaes. 13. Mr. Baaer fllsely st.aed that Am8cot involYed the "Fait Debt Collections PtKtice Act". 14. Mr. BallOr lied in his statement tbIt I tlu'callmed bII office staft: 15. Mr. Bauer rude misleidinS statemalts abouC my &Ii_bUity__

1. Mi. Bauer IIIiIW the Bar on pap 2 ofh~re&pODIe Aupst 18t 2010 tblt the dfect ofmy Yolwatary disma.J wu to dlaisa my claims w~ projudicc bccaUie the I1atUII ofllmi~ (SOL)J.. expiled. TbiI is fltl.... My yohmllly dilmi..l W no efJ'eea, daermlfted by 0rcIcr of Judae BaJ:ton. sUltained 011 appIIll in 2D07-4'3~ per curiam. SOL wu not 1Il11lUe.

I

My volunta1y dismissal Fcbrusy 7, 2007 was dCtenniDed to be orno effect. Judp Bmton panted DI)' pro Ie ..... u set forth in 0nIq9nmiDI Plajntjlf's Motion To wjthdrawalflaiDtUT,tNotice ofVolypllly Dippj.1 eD1eref Auaust 31. 2007. (Exhlbit 22). Mr. Bauer luccess1\dly qued .,plV Ie -ado;I. but: Bauer did not draft the 1IIOti0il or file 1be motion, I did. lu. Barton held IS follOWS in ~ Order p81din, II)' pre.. aIOtio.:

ThiI aadout bavia, come before the Coutt on Plaindffl Pm Se Motion to WitbdIaw PIalntiIYs Notice ofVolUll1lry :Dismissal, IIJd the Ccut. havina reviewed the file and having heard 01&1 qUIDCDt from QOUIIICI for bothIi" finds:

i ~

1. The Pro Sc PlaindftfiJed his Nodco ofVolunt1lY Dismissal on F-.....ry 7,2007 prior to RUinina his current COUIIIOI.

2. Notices ofVolWltary Dismissal cal1DOt be tilod purIUIIIC to Rule 1.420 when • counter-elaim is pendina withoPl tilll reeelvlnfJ len. ofcourt. ~ v. PlabUxs,.MIrketL IDe., S7S So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1990)

3. 11Ierefore. the Notice mVoJun.,. ~ was DO( etfectivo to dUmist the PIaintitrs cause ofaction. ·

4. The Pro Se Plaintiff filed 8 Notion fori... Order ofVolUlltlr)' DiImiaeI prior to _iaing his CUMnt aJun.1 punuant 10 iuIe 1.420 GIl F~7.2001_ such

The Florida Bar. complebtt .inltRobert W. B...October 31. 2012 P8p • 17 , r

motion requiRxl a court. 0" for it to be effectiYe.

5. Oa Fe".,., 15. 2007 the Pro Sc PlaiDtilffiJed • Hodc:e orWithdrawal of Voluntary Dismi_I.

6. Plllntifti Motion for ID Order ofVoluDtary Dismillll wu iuetrectiv' to dismiss the Plaintifti cue.

1. It is furtba: detam.incd that • a matter of law that Plaintiffis not entitled to tUe a couot8r counter-eomplaint' in _ponse to DefeDdant. Cowwer-ComplaiDt IbMDt • modift~ ore. CUIreIlt JUles ofcivU procecUe.

ORDERED: Plaintiffs Notice otVoluntaty Dilmllaal II hen:by withdraWIL

Mr. RodemI appealed Judge BlItODt Order <lrantjg pJaiptitr. Mqtion To WItbdmwaJ•

P1Ijltjtrf Notice ofYolyggry Dym;_'. R.odcmslost. The 2dDCA held in 2007-4530 dIIt my elliml were not dillDiIIcd. citlDa FIa.R.Civ.P. t.420(aX2lt and Roam Vt PyJIIIx Sagr Mut.) 1nQ., '75 So.2d 214. 215·16 (PIa. Sth DCA 1991) (hoIdi~ dW when ~1IiJn is penctins. plaintiffcannot unllatanally dismi81 complaint without order ofcourt). (Exhibit 23)

Mr. Bluer his repeatedly aDd fallCly represented to the Florida B. tbat Illy cIahu wac cUsmIased with prejudice, and that the SOL Iud e:xPired, in ftIrthennce ofo1ber cIiIhonosty to the Bar, his o1hcr responaea IRIdo AUJUIlllt 2010 iDvolviq minpIeBeD..... diIIboneIty. fraud. dou\it. tad CODduct prejudicial to the adDliaiatration orjudee.1Il the ,..1WIote that Mr. Bauer n:IUI!eCtId my c1aillll; I WII wrona. My voluntary di_1IIal was dctamined to be ofno cffoct.

I 2. Mr.

I

Bauer mislead tbe Baron PIP 4otitis reaponse A•• 18, 2010 about ameacl1aa my ori,mat pro 10 Complaint. 1he record shows repeated atllmpll by ludp 8arIoD briJII dds to 1he atteation ofNe. Bauer, but Bauer refused 10 motion the Court to amend tho Compllint.

Tanacript, Oetober 30. 2007. Pase 33 2 THE COURT I Let me ask this: ADd .. are .till

I 3 on this original complaint? 4 Mit. BAUER: Yes, Your ,Honor.

Mr. Baaor wrote me a MeISe statui" letter Sepaedlber '. 2007J ., belleve it II MOe"'" at 1hi1 time to reevaluate tho initial complan _ draft III amended complaint10 iacJude a1IeptionI of malprIcticc aad brncb offiduciary duty." ExIlUIlaf. S1iII. Bauer DD¥or 8II1IDded the complaiDt.

3. Mr. Bluer made a number oftille stltements to the Bar OIl peac Sofhil respoDIe AupIt 18. 2010 about the dIsq..liftcation ofMr. Rodems as COUIIId for his firm and r-m-. Mr.. Bauer failed to inform tbe Bar that JudlO Nielsent Order eateted May 12. 2006 allowed for reheerinl•

aDlOtiOft to disq_lily Mr. Rodcms OR ~'tbe buil that counJCl may be • wiIdeu". (Exhibil24)

ladp Baron agreed with fOOae Nililen's Order, and mgated duriDa I baarin& Jaauuy 26. 2010 thIt ~ make • "renewed motion to diIquBIity" Mr. Rodems. whole misconductwu the centralobltaclo ill reIOlylDa tbi. cae. Transeript, J• .my 26. 2010. pap 31:

1 [MR. GILLBSPIBJ •..This i8 .bat the Judg4I wrote: -Thi. 2 ~tion to disqualify ie denied with prejUdice

r

The FIori4a DIrt complaintapinstRobcrt w. Bauer, October 31. 2012 Page -18

3 exc.p~ as to ell. c..i. that C0UD8el ...y be a 4 witne8. and on that basis the thOtion i. denied 5 without prejudice.· Now, for Mr. Rodell. beiDg • 6 vitn••s, the nature of thia ea•• 1. e.sentially he , ia a perpetual vitne••. The tran8er1pte .bow that 8 his repr••entation t. ea88Dtially on go~ 9 e••timony about factual utter8. Mally tiR18. in the 10 tran8cript8 h. is confuaed. He 18 uy1Dg, Judge, 11 we - - Oh, I don't mean we, I mean I aa my att.orney 12 for the firm think this about rr{ client, which is 13 aetually ay••lf. That cODfuaicn 1. evident in t:he 14 tranllCr1pt. over and over again. I reall! believe 1~ be need. to be disqualified because of h • ongoiDg 16 testimony in thi. matter. 11 THB COURT: All right. Well, I •••uaae there 18 will be a renewed MotioD,to di.~ify that w111 be 19 filed and then ..gain aet· for a hearing once we 20 establish our prooedure, but we eel t do that UDtil 21 we get what I direeted yw to produce within ten 22 days from Ma. Huff.r.

Mr. Bauer alIo misled tho Bar widlthis ltatcment ··Mr~ GiIlapie made a modoa for ICbe8rinI in December of2006 which was arlO deDiecl" 'Ibe pxJtion for mbeIrinI WM flbJed by Judp IIOIIl with. roferraI ro law eIlbce..... to iovestipte'Mr. Rodemat tal. aftidavit to die Caurt. So Bauer limply lied to tho Bar when be wrote tho !potion rot robcIrina Dec-2006 WM "cIenJecr.

Mr. B8uer fbrther naisled the Bar In hilstatement about aIIeptionI in my Bar complaint sbowIDa tho dilC)uaUt1cation ofRodems wu required: "Thae Ke tho SlIDe.....bit WIn JMdo iD support oftbe Febmtry 2006 matioa. denied." Mr. Bauer knows 1hia is a tal...mem, • .. fodh in"60-61, E.vMIcuooY Motion to P*i6'Def.IPW Co".' IlyMam".,. Radom'" Bark" Rodgns" Coot, PA. July 9,.2010:

60. A harina 011 P1liDtifr. Motion to DiIqua1if1 CoUDle1 wu hold Ap;I2S, 1006. Mr. ROdcma preaeated the followiaJ cue Jaw in stIppOd ofbil position. Tho caICS ~ larae1y hrelevant to this matter IJId set ofCIctL ~ taiIod to discJole to the court Icp1 ~rity in the controWnljurisdiction known to tile Inycr to be cIirecdy adY.. to die polltion of1be cUont IDd DOt disoJosecl by opposida couatel....

61. Mr. Rodeml violatad FL Bit Rule 4-3.3(c) when he &iIed to dlldole to the tritJunallcpl authority in tho comrollina juriscUctioD known to Ihe lawyer to be directly adverse to the positiO!1 oftile client .d not diJclolcd by OPPOSiaa COUIIIeI, kl tbi, instance GUleipie pro Ie. Rodems failecl to dilc10le Mc]Jpt1spd y, ISllpy. SsryjgL Igc., 890 F.SUpp. 1029, or U.S, y, CuJp, 934 FlSupp. 394, Iep1IU1hority direcdy IC1vene to the position orhit client. MoP..- and Culp IN just two of.1llIDlbcr ofcuea Rodems failed to dilclOla, ICC th1a motion, 81M Table gCe. that lCCQIIIPIDieI tbiJ motion. Couusel hal • reapoasibili1J to ftdJy IafbnD die ccutoa applicable law wbctber favorable or Idvcne to position ofclient .to that die court i. IIeUcr .-. to make • fair IIld accurate determiDldon ofdle matter befON it. NcwberMr Y, NcwhgJcr. 31] So.2d 176. As evidenced by this motion.1epl authority dftctly adverse to thoposidoD of Mr. Roderns and BRe WIt not (fiscloled to the court by RocIcna.,

,

The FicriJa Bar, complaint IhiiDIt RDbcIt w. &.., October 31, 2012 Pqe - 19

4.. Mr. Bauer 1IIIdc • number offallC IIBte1IieIlta to tbI BarOil pap 3 ofbla IapOJIIe Aupst Jt 2010 about his failure to preeent evidedce that there was DO slped ccnia&ent fee apaneat.

Mr. OIl1e1pie allO&I. that I -f.lled to pre_ evidence 1bat1Iwn was no siped contingeat fee agreement,• .ablequent to Mr. Rodems' reptaCIltlllonl dI8t there were. ThJI aUeptioa UDdencores much of the basi. for my motiOll for withdrawal

Mr. Bauer is impeached by his motion filed on my behalfJuly 16, :zoos. P1eigtjQ". Motjon For RetpripJof1ft Older arantina Mr. R.odemlJudimaton tile pleldilllL In it Mr. Bauer a11epd Mr. RodeIits mi.lead the court u desc:ribed in ft2-4. (Bxhlbit 20).

2. Plaindtfmoves for -.rina Oft the Ift)Uftda that die Court'sjudp1cDt WII bucd on the Defendants· represem.tionl tbIt there was I siped attome)' fee ~ between Barbr. RocIem. &; Cook and the plaintift

3. Def_dlnts have not produced I siped cop)' oftbo auorney fee .peen•• between Bmbr. R.odems &Cook and the Plalndft:

4. Defondanll have orJ1 praduced a.iaMct copy oftbo attorney fee ~between Alpert, Barker. RodcmIt FemntillO a Cook and the PIaintifL.

PIainRtr. Motion Pot BcIwariDa wu signed by Ittomey TID,. M. BeB (nee Uhl) ID No. 52924, for tho Law Office ofRabett W. Bauer, PA. Mr. :&au..his Ipparaly dilavowed tbiI motion. aeconUna to his rapoIlIO to 011 NC 5 made AUSUII 18, 2010. But Ms. Bell coafimaecl to me in a le1ter cIatccI A.pst St 2010 (Exhibit 21) tltll ~Me a direct reqlllll daat IIhe sip the p1ea<Jins. Ms, Bell left the Bluer law firm ahordf after this modon wu submitted.

s. Mr. Bauer made. boldface lie 10 the a.~on pip 9 ofbts responIO Aupst II, 2010 1bat "Mr. Rodems .... all dmcs cordia! and profeMOAII."

"Mr. Gillespie poi,nts to a letter I wrote to Oovemor Crist eadorsIaa Mr. Radems for consideration II .jUCUcialllominee••••Within me ICCJPO ofhis reprIIentatioa ofBR.e in this 1A11ter. Mr. Rode. conducted himseltalia hoDOrlbIc IIId ethical otracer ofthe coUrt. At no time did I find his behavior to be UDelhical. Although we were enpgcd in litigation. that w. very contaltlous.. 1IlClve*d me with clipity IDd respect. 1fOUllG Mr.. Rc¥IemI to be I compeIem IUd skilled IttoIllC)' with all oftbe iJaaaibJe qualities of cbaracter that we look (or in members ofpw prof_OR IIICl hope to fiDd iIl1hole IOIted on die bench.. n-e!ore. I WIS pleased to write rhe letter III8Ched to Mr. OiUespietJ

Jri~vanoe when .ked.It :

Mr. Bauerrs hiah praise ofMr. Rodoms lIIlDpeached iD this compllint, and in tbcIc COIIIPIIia1s: I ~

R.yan Cbrlltopher RodsDa, File No. 2013-10,171 (13B) Eupne P C-1aIfiuok'. File No. 20J3.10~162 (60)

I I

6. Mi. Bauer made false slatemenls to the a..on JllPI orllls reapcmse Aupit ]8, 2010 in his cxcu.s fin' not seekm, aUomeys fees 011 R~' failed appeal in 2D07...'30. s...wmte:

Mr. Rodema' IPI*1 \\ U bIsed on. poIition suppotfl:d with Iopl prccocIcnt. WIllie I did prevlil, Mr. Radans' olalm. were not without merit IDd certbdy did DOt... to the level orfrivolity IIIfticient t.) jlll1ify section S1.105. lIICtions....ldm.. UnfOltUDltely. Mr.

The Florida Bar. complaint spiatt Robert w. Bauer. Octobar 31. 2012 PlF .. 20

Oill.pio 1IIIdo a ver:y'!arp Iepl blunder in voIU1l1IIrily dllmialma his claims apinst SRC. Due to this error. I had to tab IipH10111t steps to _DIe the claiml~ The IIatUto oflilnitat1onl hid tolled lad, but for my ICtioas OIl lUI bebIIt Mr. GBlespio would have ~ viable...ofIClion _y.

M)' voau-y dismiaal WII determined. to be orno ctteet JudF 8Inoo paled .,pro .. • otlola IS set forth in OrdcrJJDaIiW PlajnJitr',IMgJj", To WitlM1raweJ PlaiJIdfr'Notic;e of vpluptary DLsmI.I entered Au_ 31, 2007. (Bxbibit12). Mr. Bauer IUCClllfWly uaued., ,ro.. BIOtIoD. but Bauer did not draft or file tho modon, I did. SOL.aDDt .. ilSUe.

Tho 2dDCA held per curiam in 2007-4530 that nay claimt were JlOt cUlIltilled, cltina FILR.Cfv.P. 1.420(8)(2), and ROMJ v, pybU, SyperMarbtL loe-. 575 So. 2cI214. 215-16 (F1a. 5th DCA 1991) (holdinl that when counterclaim is pendiDa, plaladffoannot uai1ateraIly d__ compJaiAt without order of COUll).

Mr. Bluer was DOt CXDDJ*ent _ DOt dilipnt for not seekinlitlomey'. feel for RDdeaII' tdlod eppeat that wa not suppodcd by m-terial filets Or the tppliQdioa ofGiItina law to thole tKtI.

7. Mr. Bauer mIdo false SIatenleJa to the Bar on pep 7ofhls response Aupst 11.2010 about a ~y ofm.ljuclpneat "He tefused, t.owev., to post a baad with the COUIt." ....Mr. Oillolpie WII unwilliDa to post • bond, dwn WI8 HUle I oould do 10 dofenclilaiut In a;don...:. '8. This__ is &110....Bauer know Ibat1applied for, _ WII denied-not able to Bet • bond. Bauer advIsed apia. a bond

l

in his email 10 me Aupst J9. 20014:24 p..m.

8-1' More iIlfonnadon Is available about Mr" Oilier'S conduct molviq mia~ dishonesty, fi'IIMl deceit, and conduct prejudicial mthe _ ofjUlliee.

.m..Mr,.p.yer11Ie4 II Btport Mieop4,ct o(ldr. RRcItM JK.I1t HdfIl .11 41-1.3(a) ~_ofOth«LIw)wI. AJ8wyer who bowl_ another Jaw,« has c:ommitteda vlolatioD ofthe Rules ofProfIItiODll Conduct dill raises • aublratial queltion.. to that lawyer's bollClty. truItwordJiDoA, or t1taoII u • lawyer in other respedI shall inform the appropriate pIOfeDlona1 authority.

Mr.1lodmns conuniued multiple "iolations ofthe JluIes ofProfeaional COIlduct in this matter. lee my oomJ*int, Rym Christopher Rodoms, File No. 2013-10,271 (138). Below are breIdlos oriM Rules I believe Mr. Bluer Ibould have reported to the Bar.

Rule 4-3.1 t MeritoriGul Claim, and ee..ationI ble 4-3.3, Candor Towud tile Tribunal Rule 4-8.4(e). conduct involvial cIisbonesty, ftaud, deceit. .........tion Rule 4-I.4(d). conduct IRjudieW to the adminiltratioft ofjUldce

Mr. KodemIIllel1ld • number ofmideldJna IepI qumeou 10 the ~ b1c1udinl his tal. ·claim'· to $50,000 In "court-aWlldod feo8and GOS1I... AppIwiDa pro sc. I pm'IiIodaI RodaDs· motion to elfsmill and strike JIDU8I)' 13. 200'. wbIIl Judp RicbnNIe_ entered Order Og DefIDdlgll' Mq1lpp To Qiaml., Ap4 strib. Jadle Me_rejeded Rodrms' - lopI 1lJIUIIIeftf, • fi1Ie "claim" of$50,OOO In Mcoun-awarded fees and COlIs". Undlrtbe IepJ doctrine

Tho Florida Bar, CXJmpllint apinst Robert W. Bauer, October 31,2012 Pap· 21

ofrei judicata, Mr. Rodems wuprecluded &om ev. IPiDIIICltiDa dIiI misleadiq IepI 1IJUIDCIlt, • falle "claim" for $50.000 in MCOUIkwwdecl tiel and coati' in this matter.

I

Mr. S..knew Mr. RocIems- 1epl claims and CQlttentions went not meritorioUi (RDIe 4-3.1).. s.. knew1locIems' &I. "claim" for SSO.OOO ill "court·awuded fees and COllI" .... InIcII ofRule 4-3.3(a)(l) II\d (4), makinll false statement offact aadIor law to I tribuIIaI. andotrerina fill., evidoace. Mr. Rodcms~ li~tlltiOD" WIS iD &ct hiJ own false teII:iJDoDy. Likewise with the ·'slimy attomey't Wil1i1m Cook, pilty ofelolq stliemeDt ~ Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), IIIcI DO siped contlnFnt fee IJNCD1ad, Rule 4-1.S(t)(2). Mr. Bluer _ knew dIat die .II foreIoins clllma aDd contcatioD. were conaidcred, anG rejeeteelM nat JDDritoriouI, by Judp N...~s

Qrdor OD Defondang' MotIon To _i,l And S1rb. JmuII)' 13. 2006, decided resjudiClta, precluding furdIer usertIon ofllc*ms' rejected claims IDd COItmtiolll.

Mr.. Rodeml ~ false nidcnce IlKlmislead the COIIIt duriDs haarlnp 011 October 30. 2001 and July 1.2008 for the )JUIpCJIe ofobtainllll_ dIsmista1 ofclUna.-BRe IUd Mr. Cook. Mr. Rodcms milreJnlCJBd to Judp BatoD 1bII...was alisnecl COJItIn&ent fee ...,mcmt between PJaintiffNeil GiDe.pie aDd Defendanu WiDiam J. Cook and BUer. RodemI & Cook, PA when ill fact theIe wu none. Mr. Bauer filW to preJem evidence tb8t there no lipd CODtinpat fee aaroement, such 88 my testimony or 111)' affidavit. IIIIte8dMr submitted Plajotur. Motiop EorB.dKierin1 July 16. 2008..ertinI that there WIt no sIped condqeJIt feeaareem. which motion Mr. Bauer DOW Ipparl to diIa~ ecc0rdiD8 to his 2010 NIpOIIse.

For additional miscondu~ ofMr. RodemI that Mr. Bauer WII obJIpted to report under Rule 48.3(a). see dai. complaint, bcS:anlq on pile 4~ ... IY. Ml.fcondllt:6 4 RICO Activity Ulltle,.".m. Bill' CDmploillts, Civil Uti,.,...

Diuatilfied CHeats 01Robert W. Bauer I t

Dr. ~Ia y. WOOIhJP. rb.D, .. Filed Stgctjqn wgtiop ApjoIt Robert Bur Improper ChargiD8 LillIS, Using Pro Se IUd UPL PladInp, MiIoIYDY

Dr. Angela v. Woodhul~ Ph.D. illIIOtberdislitisfied fomaerclieMofMr. Bauer. Dr. W<Kd1ull contlcted me November S. 2011 by email. Dr. WDDdhul1 is a deU_land duamlnslady. who il alllO ..author, a JiClDled private iftvesdptor~ and • col.professor. Dr. WoocbIU offcRd to lCI'Ye procell OR Mr. Bauer and tho other clef..... in my fedenI ~Dr. Woodhull is autborized to serve process under Florida law Is .1__P.I. Dr. Woodhull it_ the author of·Police Communication in Tnftie Stops" available 011 Amuon.com.

, . Dr. Woodbulllt*s Robert ~ filed a Dtmber of i.aqnpcr "Attorney ChIrIiDI LicnI" in CISes involvinS Dr. Woodhulr. mother, includlaa the QuIrd"nl&* 0119"" A. falyo. c.e No. 200B-CP-oG0741. and !be Ftg, orLaN. A. Falvo.c..No: Ol·200s.cP.1083, EiIIdh Judicial Circuit. Alach.. County; and other CUll, including I. the Flftb District Court of Appeal. Dr. Woodhull proYidecl me Janway4, 2012 • certified copy of Iter pro • pleadiq in the estate cae, the doebt entry ofDecember 18, 2(4)9, a.-. TO And Motjpg To Sgike Or In The AJt!matiy. Motion To Djamis, Adpmp Beg" Mptlcg fqr ACItJDIY-' QuiaLieU Asd M9Yon for Sagptign.A_I AttPmIY RQbert Bauer.

Tho PloridaBar, complaint apiDst Roben W. Bauer, OCtober 31 ~ 2012 Paae •22

Dr. WoodhuUt • p1eIdioa camplains Ibout • number ofthe u me. tbat B.-uses

law students ..d unlicensed IlW Bebool paduIteI to draft his plCldinp, • ww:11 u usiDB his client-I pro • plednpllDC! .1UbmiUiDI than to the COUJt u his OWl' work. Dr. Woodhull'. pro Ie p1cl4inJ Ippelll at Exbibil2St and ltates in pI11II'IPh I:

,

Bauer said that Jaw student David s.m. would be ..-Jdns on p,.ms tho cIe&mes and ~laim in ardor 10 _YO WoodhuU moM)'. even thoup 1bia was tho UMudIorized pmctice ofllw.

Dr. Woodhull described Mr. SIuer'S misoIYDY 08 paae 4. begiaftiDg It J*IIfIPb 12:

12.Afterthe hearing that day. walking down 1111 courthouIe ball with Attorney Bauer» AItomcy Bauer turned to WoodbuU·. fllDCew David A. ~ and IC81ed, "She iI rather obnoxious. How do you put up with hw?"

KimMlx Pgt-Barry djeptlsBtd with Bohprt Jle B,. Failed to ··DIOve acase torwant' _ "be tries to rack up a bill"

Kimberly Pruett-Bmy IDd hu'bInd William blred Mr. Bauer to IUD aaomoy Peecr R. McOrath. K.im told me Je.. ,lei, sicA 10 II)' II01PJDC1t. ".." 'tJ "",. .lsItIIa hIrmg"'" lIlY. aDd that Mr. Bauer had I\ID up • $40,000 bill and took all their savinp. Kim cmIiIcd Oatobctr 20, 2012 statiq, /JqIIer. He _jinll.ly/til,. 10 ,..". CI CAWjOrwtzrd", I,IrIItk Ite trlu to rack If' tI 6111.

Anp Whig HoWr •fhpl RoIwt Beep. • :"i..." 44J plan to raiIe the ROOF ofFthilmelll"

t

Motller dissatisfied client ofMr. Bluer, Anna Hods.. contIoIed me luI)' 8, 2011 by email "help..i.I I hintd and ftmcl'-uer•.ni.-...t

'. AI1D8 Hodps hired_liter f1red Robert Bluer u counJe1 ill • libel cue. SUMp Hod.HeI,-v, AN. Dill HpdpL c.o No.. 3820tG-CA-1423. BJahtJudicial Circuit, LeYy County. Ms. Hodpa bIIncwCOUDlOl DOW. and bellev. ~. Bauer should br broapt to jlllticc for misbandlqlaer cue, sratiJIs tel plan to ... the I.OOF ofTtbis messt" (email 8V8iIable IIpOD iequat)

PlllIlla _ .. Ve 'ghm W, Brunt, DB fUe No.; 2012-00,146 (IB) Mr. Strauss, .~ 90, aid ofMr. Bauer "that bum took 1dvIntap"

Former client Philn, StraUlI .:ailed me JIIlUUY 4, 2012. 11.13 a.m. and comp1Iincd" Robert BIIJ.lGr. Mr. Strauss &Iso made I Bar COIIl~laint, TFB File No.: 2012-00,146 (IB), Aupst 24, 2011. Mr. StrauI, ap 90, aid of Mr. Bauer ''that bum took 1dvaDtap" in • tmall claims court cae. with • -loweffort attomc)' that IC~ me up oomp-l7" ancllOll tbe cae, • claim that involved a porch tbat had t'ba8u-, which his insuranee compll\)' deRied ~ to repair. Mr. Strauss also believ.. "die law I)'stan in Florida 11 for the binIa", and "they tab cuw oftheir own. crooks orwba1evcr the)' lie, those are rats~. At 1110 time be caUed me, Mr. Strauss wa livhte in New York with &mily, end had put hi. home in 0aiDcIviJJe up for sale. Mr. Strauss

10pp0Itn. CUllei Mr..... 1110 ecapWaed"'~ ,,...pi.....U ..OWL .....' ..n to Mr....April 26. 2007 It 9:56 &JIl, •..,..,... ., _ ,.would"" OIl 1111 pcrtiDIaI of" pie.....Oillilpie mid." I W. Mprised 1DO, sIDoe1\VII..,,, Bluer $150,.how.....•..Olla'IIIIUle.

I I J

Tbo Florida B8r. eompIajnt asainst Robert w. Bf-'. October 31. 2012 PIp - 23

said he is wiUIDI to make • trip to Florida to help out in ..y Idion to bold Mr. Bauer accountable. Mr. Snu. requested • copy ofhis Bar compJlint, IinI;e his copy _ laft. behiJld in OailtelYille. which I provided him by email. Mr. ,Snua eoncIudecI oaar call by tbaking me. A diJital recording ofthe call illYaiJabic. (complaintclosedlfDlumc;Jea1 evidence).

DoCmntv v, RpIwt W, B.L'TFB FillNo 2012.QQ.M4(8b) Pattcm ofComplaints by Elderi)' IIIcI Disabled CIieDIs

I

Anotber dissatidted client ofMr. Bauer filed • Bar complaint, Jemp and BdY J)eCougcy y. ~ Bobm WI BMr. TFB File No. 2012-OO,OS4(Ib), July a. 2011. The complaint ...... that IbcQV DeCourseY' 118 disabled IIld elderly. end..Mr. Ballei' falled to properly reprud them in a

foreclosure matter. (complaint clolodllnsuftlclent evldDnce).

ConQhlliOD

Appeal pro ~ I prevallod on Mr. RodcIDI' motion to cUlIIliIs and striket wboD Judp RlobanI Ni_1Ien entered 0nIer On DefClldalltl' Motion To DilDUll And Strib, JIl1UIl')' 13. 2006, (Exhibit 1t). Judae Nielsen .ejected Rodem.' millcadina JqallIIJPDIlIIIt. • faIJo "elaim- of SSO,GOO in "court..warded fees _ oosts". Undir the 1.1 doctrine orres judioata. Mr. Ilodcms wu 1RC1uded from everapin IlleltinS. "claimS' for S5O,ooo in "couIt-eWllded fees act COlIS" in dlis mader, • claim or contentioo rejected by the Court as not meritorious.

I

Atlcr Ju.clF NicllCll Kjceted Mr. Rodems' mlsleWinzlepllqUlDCDt, hil"claim- for 150.000 In "cowt-a~ rea and costs", this ouo WIll eslCldially decided In my favor. III NIpOIIiI to certain der... Mr.1lodemI flied. vexatious libel ~m. Mr. RodmDs aIIo dilrupted the tribuDa1 for Itra1eIiC acl'lIltIIc. AI • result, F~ 7. 20071 took • volUD1ll)' diImiIIaI without prejudice. ( moved to withdrawal m)' vo1wllry diaIIIlsal • week lida' in the hopes of findiDg counsel. Judge BIItoD pnted my pro ~i~tion to withdrawal my voIuntIry dilmilllJ, qued by Mr. Bauer Auaust 1', 2001, 8IId affmfted oollppC'll1ln 2007-4530.

After that, Mr. Bauer'......tlon WIS ...... not competent. end DOt dflismt. wbicb enaerecI JudIe Ba1DD. Mr. Bluer tied, ..Ide misteprolOlllations, and made millelclina lepl 8fIUIDeIl1llto the B8r ill his responle August 18. 2010 to my ftnt compJaiDt. Mr. Baur failed to report Mr. Rodcms' milCOllduct, and then enpPd in rICketeeriDa activity IIdoseribecl heroin.

(JiVeD tIlo serious and onsotna nature ofMr'. B_f mlaeoaduct widt me" his other cliont&, die Bar.hould find problble C8IISe and teeoDUDelld

•

B..-'. disbarment to protect 1be public. BYer)' document, email and bDSCriptmendoaed,in this compIIiDt ilayaillbJe. AU Mr. Bauer'. hearillll weN 1mnIc:ribed. Pcnons .amed in this'complaint lie witnesses. Under peI1I1t)' of perjury, I 4eclare the fOfllOins facts are true, ccx:rect. and complete. Thank you.

SJIM*eJy~

Nell J. GiUelpie 8092 SW II!th Loop Ocala. Florida 34481 Encloans Scm to the Florida BR October31.2012 by U.P.~. Orollld, No. JZMS89FP290944350.

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE



vs.






THREE FORMULATIONS OF THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT IN REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONSLAW. 126 HARV. L. REV. 1392 (2013)

MARCH 21, 2013, HARV. L. REV. SUBSCRIPTION EMAIL,VOLUME 126, MARCH 2013, NUMBER 5

APRIL 3, 2013, EMAIL JENNIFER HEATH, EDITORIAL & IT COORDINATOR, HARV. L. REV.

1392

THREE FORMULATIONS OF THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT IN REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATIONS LAW

The concept of reasonable accommodation is fundamental to the American disability law regime, yet it has proved as slippery as the concept of disability itself.1 Underlying much of the difficulty is dis-agreement over the appropriate relationship between an accommoda-tion and the disability-related obstacles it is aimed at removing. Just as it is not illegal to discriminate against a member of a protected class for reasons unrelated to her protected status,2 the Americans with Dis-abilities Act3 (ADA) does not require accommodations that are not re-lated to a person’s disability. But this seemingly simple concept has produced a muddled, often self-contradictory body of case law. Dis-ability statutes provide little guidance to the judges who must decide whether a dog is properly understood as a needed therapy animal or a household pet,4 whether an alternative examination method is an in-novative accommodation for dyslexia or a clever way of gaming the test,5 and whether a request to transfer to a different work setting is genuinely related to the disabling aspects of posttraumatic stress disor-der.6 This Note seeks to classify the various approaches that courts have brought to the so-called “nexus requirement,” to examine the be-liefs about disability that are implicit in these approaches, and to offer some ways in which courts might reconcile those beliefs with the reali-ties of disability.

A reasonable accommodation is an alteration to some element of the status quo that is intended to enable a person with a disability to participate in work, higher education, residential living, or public life to the same extent as the nondisabled. The range of possible accom-modations is in theory limited only by the human imagination: it can include changes to physical environments and time schedules, adjust-ment of requirements and policies, and provision of assistive devices,

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 For a philosophical and sociological exploration of the concept of disability, see N. Ann Davis, Invisible Disability, 116 ETHICS 153, 157–79 (2005). 2 See, e.g., Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (emphasizing that workplace harassment is not actionable under the Title VII prohibition of sex discrimination unless it is motivated by the victim’s sex). 3 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (2006 & Supp. V 2011)). 4 See Prindable v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 304 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Haw. 2003). 5 See Stern v. Univ. of Osteopathic Med. & Health Scis., 220 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2000). 6 See Felix v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 324 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2003).

2013] THREE FORMULATIONS OF THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT 1393

just to cite a few examples.7 The Supreme Court has held that excep-tions to workforce seniority rules are not necessarily off limits,8 and courts have recently entertained the idea of including commuting-related accommodations as well.9 Given this seemingly untethered flexibility, perhaps it was inevitable that courts interpreting disability-rights statutes would search for some principle to limit the costs in-curred by businesses, landlords, and governments in complying with disability law.

Three major federal statutes require reasonable accommodations in some capacity. The ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment,10 government services,11 and places of pub-lic accommodation,12 and its definition of discrimination includes re-fusal to provide a reasonable accommodation13 and failure to grant reasonable modifications to rules and practices.14 The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 198815 (FHAA) forbids discrimination in the sale or rental of housing16 and likewise includes failure to accommodate in its definition of discrimination.17 And the Rehabilitation Act of 197318 imposes many of the ADA’s regulations on the federal government and its agents.19 These statutes define disability as an impairment that “substantially limits one or more major life activities.”20 They specify that discrimination is forbidden only if “on the basis of,”21 “by reason

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7 See Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2) (2011). 8 See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 394 (2002). The Court in Barnett held that such exceptions are generally unreasonable, however, despite being within the ambit of theoreti-cally possible accommodations. See id. at 403. 9 Compare Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp., 602 F.3d 495, 505 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that commuting-related accommodations are within the ADA’s purview), with DiNatale v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights, 909 N.Y.S.2d 597, 599 (App. Div. 2010) (holding the opposite). 10 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (2006 & Supp. V 2011). 11 Id. § 12132. 12 Id. § 12182(a). 13 Id. § 12112(b)(5). 14 Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 15 Pub. L. No. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3631 (2006)). 16 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). 17 Id. § 3604(f)(3)(A)–(B). 18 Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 29 U.S.C.). 19 See Richard Bales & Lindsay Mongenas, Defining Independent Contractor Protection Un-der the Rehabilitation Act, 34 HAMLINE L. REV. 435, 440–42 (2011) (describing the legislative process that led to the Rehabilitation Act’s incorporation of the ADA’s standards). 20 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) (2006 & Supp. V 2011); see also 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B) (2006 & Supp. V 2011) (defining “disability” by incorporating the ADA’s definition); 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)(1) (“[Handicap means] a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of [a] person’s major life activities . . . .”). 21 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); id. § 12182(a).

1394 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 126:1392

of,”22 or “because of”23 disability, but they do not elaborate on how courts are to determine whether the plaintiff has adequately estab-lished a link. Notably, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 clarifies many of the contentious issues that developed in connection with the original ADA, but it is silent on the nexus question.24 The Supreme Court has never addressed the nexus requirement directly.25

Thus, the lower federal courts have been left largely to their own devices, and many commentators have been unhappy with the results. These scholars have typically treated the nexus requirement as a straightforward binary issue, generally assuming that courts either scrutinize the nexus or do not.26 But the existing variety of judicial treatments calls for a more comprehensive, nuanced framework. This Note introduces a tripartite scheme for classifying the ways in which courts have attempted to reconcile statutory nexus requirements with the factual uncertainties inherent in disability. The first, discussed in Part I, requires the requested accommodation to bear a direct causal relationship with the substantial limitation of a major life activity that the plaintiff alleges. The second, discussed in Part II, asks whether the requested accommodation is more logically integrated with the disabil-ity or with some other aspect of the plaintiff’s circumstances. The third, discussed in Part III, conceptualizes disability broadly and de-fers to the judgments of individuals on issues related to their own in-timate life experiences. Each formulation has merit, yet none can re-solve every case in a way that satisfies the diverse interests at stake in the American disability law regime. These categories are interrelated and far from mutually exclusive; courts have applied very different reasoning to different areas of disability law, and some have even shifted their analyses within a single opinion. Nonetheless, the frame-work may serve to illuminate the complexities of the nexus inquiry, and Part IV discusses the ways in which judges might employ its in-sights to compensate for the shortcomings of their own understandings of disability.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 22 Id. § 12132. 23 Id. § 3604(f)(1). 24 See ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (codified in scat-tered sections of 29 and 42 U.S.C.); Kerri Stone, Substantial Limitations: Reflections on the ADAAA, 14 N.Y.U. J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL’Y 509, 539–40 (2011). 25 Perhaps the most relevant precedent is US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002), in which Justice Breyer’s opinion for the Court reasoned that the concept of “accommodation” con-tains an implicit effectiveness requirement, id. at 400, and Justice Scalia’s dissent stressed the need for a link between a challenged practice and disability-specific obstacles, see id. at 412 (Scal-ia, J., dissenting). 26 See sources cited infra notes 48, 50.


I. THE BRIDGE MODEL

In one formulation of the nexus requirement, courts have required a direct causal connection between the substantial limitation of a ma-jor life activity that the plaintiff alleges and the reasonable accommo-dation that she seeks. That is, the accommodation can be connected to the disability only by way of the “substantial limitation” requirement contained in the statutory definition of disability in the ADA, the FHAA, and the Rehabilitation Act. This version of the nexus re-quirement can be conceptualized as a bridge. The plaintiff builds a bridge when she demonstrates that she is substantially limited in a ma-jor life activity, thereby connecting her real-life circumstances with the statutory definition of disability. Later, in asserting that she was de-nied accommodation, she must cross that same bridge to show that the accommodation she requested is linked to her disability. While any reasonable-accommodation plaintiff must prove that she is substantial-ly limited in a major life activity, the bridge model carries this defini-tion into the next phase of inquiry instead of treating it as a threshold matter. The bridge model imposes a significant restriction on the ac-commodations that an individual is entitled to by denying those that are related to some aspect of the disability other than the substantial limitation through which she initially proved the disability.27

Perhaps the most prominent example of the bridge model comes from the Second Circuit’s 2003 decision in Felix v. New York City Transit Authority.28 The plaintiff, Denise Felix, was a railroad clerk for the Transit Authority, a job that required selling transit passes from ticket booths inside subway stations.29 After witnessing the disturbing aftermath of a firebombing incident in the subway system, Ms. Felix was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder.30 She requested re-assignment to an office job as an accommodation for her resulting fear of subway stations.31 The district court granted summary judgment for the employer,32 and the Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the accommodation Ms. Felix had requested had no connection to her dis-ability.33 Ms. Felix’s employer had conceded that the insomnia caused by her posttraumatic stress disorder interfered with her sleeping, a ma-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 27 A disability plaintiff is free to claim that she is substantially limited in more than one major life activity. See, e.g., Wood v. Crown Redi-Mix, Inc., 339 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 2003) (claiming impairments in “walking, standing, turning, bending, lifting, working, and procreation”). If she established these limitations, the plaintiff would have multiple “bridges” at her disposal in the rea-sonable accommodation phase. 28 324 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2003). 29 Id. at 103. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 104. 32 Felix v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 154 F. Supp. 2d 640, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 33 Felix, 324 F.3d at 107.


jor life activity, such that it rose to the level of a disability.34 Because the anxiety Ms. Felix experienced inside subway stations was not caused by her insomnia, however, the Second Circuit held that the Transit Authority’s failure to provide the accommodation she request-ed did not constitute discrimination on the basis of disability.35

In requiring Ms. Felix to request an accommodation that was linked to her disability by way of the ADA’s “substantial limitation” definition, the Second Circuit adopted the bridge mode of reasoning. The court did not question Ms. Felix’s contention that both her in-somnia and her fear of subway stations resulted from one traumatic incident, but it maintained that they were nevertheless distinct mental states.36 To reach this conclusion, the court emphasized that the sub-stantial limitation language in the ADA is the definition of disability.37 To illustrate, it likened Ms. Felix’s situation to that of a car accident victim who emerges with an ambulatory disability as well as minor in-juries to his arms: if the arm injuries do not substantially limit a major life activity, the accident victim’s employer will not be required to provide a reasonable accommodation for the decreased typing speed that might result, even if the ambulatory impairment qualifies as a disability under the ADA.38 Thus, like an explorer who must cross a bridge she has already built to reach an otherwise unconnected piece of land, Ms. Felix was required to establish the logical connection be-tween her disability and her requested accommodation by showing a substantial limitation on a major life activity. Because her request for clerical work was not directly related to her insomnia, she was not en-titled to relief.

Other courts have extended Felix’s logic to reasonable-accommodations cases outside the employment context. In Long v. Howard University,39 for instance, a district court ruled that in order to be “necessary” under Title III of the ADA, an education-related ac-commodation had to be directly linked to the substantial limitations on major life activities that a disabled student alleged.40 And in Giebeler v. M & B Associates,41 the Ninth Circuit adhered to bridge-style rea-soning in its application of the FHAA necessity requirement. There,

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 34 Id. at 104. 35 See id. at 105. 36 See id. (“Felix’s inability to sleep . . . is separate from her inability to work in the sub-way . . . , even though both were caused by the subway firebombing and the resultant PTSD.”). 37 See id. 38 Id. 39 439 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2006). 40 See id. at 78 (“[Defendant university] was required to make modifications . . . only insofar as its policies and practices failed adequately to take account of limitations on walking and breathing.”). 41 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003).


plaintiff John Giebeler suffered from AIDS and could not work as a result of this condition.42 His income was below the minimum permit-ted at the apartment complex where he sought housing, so he request-ed an exception to the landlord’s policy against cosigners so that his mother, whose income was sufficient, could cosign his lease.43 The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant was required to grant an excep-tion to its policy,44 but in so doing, it seemingly ratified the logic of Felix and its progeny:

Giebeler’s AIDS-related impairments substantially — indeed, entirely — limited his ability to work. . . . Consequently, his income stream was limited . . . . Because of his reduced income, Giebeler did not meet the minimum income defendants’ policies require of . . . tenants. . . . A direct causal link therefore existed between Giebeler’s impairment, his inability to work, and his inability to comply with defendants’ minimum income requirement . . . .45

The notion of disability that emerges from these cases assumes dis-crete, easily identifiable conditions with obvious effects. Because only certain activities qualify as “major life activities” under the ADA,46 and because the bar for proving a “substantial limitation” is high,47 the bridge model is typically the most restrictive of the three types of nex-us formulations. As such, the model has been unpopular among many commentators.48 Specifically, they have questioned its logic,49 its statu-tory interpretation,50 and its compatibility with the policy objectives of the disability laws.51 But the disability rights movement is not mono-lithic, and some within the movement have championed narrow pro-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 42 Id. at 1145. 43 Id. 44 Id. at 1159. 45 Id. at 1147–48. 46 See, e.g., Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002) (restricting cov-erage to “those activities that are of central importance to daily life”). Congress expanded the Toyota definition somewhat in its 2008 amendments to the ADA by including a nonexhaustive list of major life activities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (2006 & Supp. V 2011). 47 See, e.g., Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 727 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that plaintiff was not substantially limited in the major life activity of working because, although she could not perform the job she held at the time of her injury, she may have been able to obtain dif-ferent employment). 48 See, e.g., Cheryl L. Anderson, What Is “Because of the Disability” Under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Reasonable Accommodation, Causation, and the Windfall Doctrine, 27 BERKELEY J. EMP. & LAB. L. 323, 354–55 (2006); Stone, supra note 24, at 530; Kelly Cahill Timmons, Limiting “Limitations”: The Scope of the Duty of Reasonable Accommodation Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 57 S.C. L. REV. 313, 326–34 (2005). 49 See Timmons, supra note 48, at 326–34. 50 See id. at 326–27; James M. Carroll, Note, The Causal Nexus Doctrine: A Further Limita-tion on the Employer’s ADA Duty of Reasonable Accommodation in the Seventh Circuit, 91 MARQ. L. REV. 839, 869–71 (2008). 51 See Carroll, supra note 50, at 871–72.


tections.52 They have pointed to the legislative compromise at the foundation of the ADA53 as well as the practical idea of conserving the scarce resources of employers, landlords, and governments for individ-uals with serious disabilities.54 They contend that a narrow construc-tion of the nexus requirement may be necessary to prevent litigants from using broad accommodations requirements as a backdoor way of expanding the protected class, thereby subverting the policies behind the minority-group approach to disability law.55 But even if the bridge model is less repugnant to the goals of the disability rights movement than some have contended, its underlying assumptions seem question-able as a gloss on the human experience.

For one thing, the model treats life as a disaggregated bundle of “major activities” in which pursuits like sleeping, working, walking, and procreating are hermetically sealed off from one another — a con-struction that seems unlikely to ring true to most laypeople. Firsthand accounts demonstrate that a disability tends to intrude on many as-pects of daily life in complex and sometimes nebulous ways, often in-tensifying personal struggles that are not directly related to the disabil-ity. In Professor Elyn Saks’s personal memoir of living with schizophrenia, for instance, the author describes the gradual onset of her condition, which little by little began to affect her hygiene, sleeping patterns, conversational skills, and ability to concentrate on her stud-ies, among other things.56 She also describes a childhood bout with eating issues,57 “painful lack of social skills” as a young adult,58 and general difficulty adjusting to change,59 all of which may or may not have been somehow connected to her psychological disability. Fur-thermore, she describes the immediate effects of her condition as hav-ing secondary impacts on multiple other areas of her life.60 The com-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 52 See SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, LAW AND THE CONTRADICTIONS OF THE DISABILITY

RIGHTS MOVEMENT 3–4 (2009). 53 See id. at 44–45. But see Kevin Barry, Toward Universalism: What the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 Can and Can’t Do for Disability Rights, 31 BERKELEY J. EMP. & LAB. L. 203, 207–08 (2010) (disagreeing with Professor Samuel Bagenstos’s claims about the concessions disability advocates made to ensure the ADA’s passage). 54 Cf. BAGENSTOS, supra note 52, at 20–21 (describing a tension within the disability rights movement between those who would treat people with disabilities as a distinct minority group and those who would recognize disability as a continuum that affects everyone to a greater or lesser extent). 55 See id. 56 ELYN R. SAKS, THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD 35–36 (2007) (hygiene); id. at 112 (sleep); id. at 54–55, 136–37 (conversation); id. at 41, 56, 76 (concentration). 57 See id. at 15–17. 58 Id. at 37. 59 See id. at 18, 41, 46–47. 60 See, e.g., id. at 48 (“In an unfortunate side effect of my increasing inattention to myself — my periodic lapses of self-care, which always became worse during stress — my ears had become so clogged with wax I could hardly hear a word anyone spoke.”).


plex connections among illness, personality, and environment that Saks describes are difficult to reconcile with the simplicity of the bridge model, which assumes a straightforward link between a specific im-pairment and a corresponding need for accommodation.

Moreover, an individual’s interaction with her disability is often more of a dialectic process than a static one, so that the one-way cau-sation that the bridge model represents is a poor approximation of real-world dynamics. First, individuals with disabilities might take ac-tions to mitigate their symptoms, prolong their lives, or adapt to their environment that themselves have impacts on other areas of their lives. They might take medications with side effects,61 for instance, or spend a great deal of time, money, or energy managing symptoms. Se-cond, individuals might cope with the emotional and social conse-quences of having a disability in unhealthy ways.62 In these scenarios, the disability is the actual cause of the secondary effects, but the nar-row one-way causation that the bridge model contemplates will likely fail to account for them, since they appear to flow from the individu-al’s own actions rather than the substantial limitation on a major life activity. Thus, even if narrow coverage is consonant with some of the goals of the disability statutes, the bridge model provides no guarantee that its narrow coverage will be correct, or that the people most in need will be the ones included in the statute’s protection. Instead, the Felix rule provides a blunt, artificial means of limiting the set of rea-sonable accommodations from which people with disabilities may choose.

II. THE CONSTELLATION MODEL

A second type of nexus requirement still requires the plaintiff to es-tablish a logical connection between his particular impairments and the accommodation sought, but it permits a much wider range of logi-cal links to play a role in the analysis. A constellation is a pattern of stars in a small region of the sky upon which humans have imposed familiar pictures from their culture or mythology.63 Under the constel-lation model of the nexus requirement, the outcome of a reasonable ac-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 61 See, e.g., CATHERINE WYATT-MORLEY, AIDS MEMOIR 17–18 (1997) (describing the se-vere side effects of AZT, a medication used to treat HIV). 62 See, e.g., JEFF BELL, REWIND, REPLAY, REPEAT 195 (2007) (describing a period of des-pair in which the author, tired of living with obsessive-compulsive disorder, wanted to “put an end to [his] elaborate charade of normalcy and accept [his] lot in life as a rank-and-file member of the mentally ill”); MATT LONG WITH CHARLES BUTLER, THE LONG RUN 135–36 (2010) (dis-cussing the emotional effects on an accident victim of withdrawing from family and friends when he felt alienated as the result of his numerous severe injuries); WYATT-MORLEY, supra note 61, at 29, 90 (discussing author’s effort to remain optimistic and avoid becoming “self-destructive” in the face of the emotional stress and social stigma of living with HIV). 63 See ASTRONOMY ENCYCLOPEDIA 92–93 (Patrick Moore ed., 2002).


commodation claim depends on a court’s ability to discern whether the accommodation sought forms part of the disability constellation or is separate from it. Like astronomical maps, the litigants’ firsthand and expert testimony can assist the decisionmaker in constructing a coher-ent image out of a limited set of known data points. In this formula-tion, the substantial limitation of a major life activity is only one such data point: it may provide important information on the nature of the disability, but it does not restrict the ways in which the accommoda-tion might form part of the picture. Instead, to an adherent of the constellation model, a disability is an image to be discovered within a cluster of points and distinguished from unrelated astral objects with a discerning eye.

Judges who apply the constellation model have relied on some mix of objective criteria and their own intuition to determine whether re-quested accommodations lie within or outside the sphere of disability. In Edwards v. EPA,64 an employee suffered from Crohn’s disease, an intestinal condition that is aggravated by stress and fatigue.65 He asked for permission to bring a dog to work with him to mitigate job-related stress, thereby improving his physical health.66 The employee obtained a note from his doctor, but the doctor referred to the treat-ment as “experimental” and could not guarantee its effectiveness.67 The employee’s supervisor declined the accommodation request be-cause she could not categorize the dog as a traditional service animal.68 Faced with these competing viewpoints, the court concluded that the employee had not established a sufficient link between the Crohn’s disease and the dog, in part because he had not presented “objective” evidence that the dog would have reduced his stress.69 But the court also made clear its own skepticism over the asserted link, pointing out that the enjoyment humans derive from pets is not a disability-specific phenomenon.70 It appears that the court felt instinctively that the companionship of a dog and the benefits it brings are not within the constellation of disability, even if alleviating the symptoms of a disabil-ity is one of those benefits.

Similarly, in Stern v. University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences,71 a medical student with dyslexia requested an ac-commodation that would allow him to supplement his answers to

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 64 456 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2006). 65 Id. at 77. 66 See id. at 79. 67 See id. The doctor’s note continued, “I would say ‘go for it!’ It certainly cannot hurt.” Id. 68 Id. at 80. 69 Id. at 100. 70 Id. at 101–02. 71 220 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2000).


multiple-choice exams with essays or oral responses.72 The university, however, offered a standard accommodation for all students with dys-lexia, which consisted of an audiotape of the questions, a private room in which to take the test, and extra time, and it proffered expert testi-mony on the general effectiveness of this protocol as an accommoda-tion for dyslexia.73 The Eighth Circuit found that in order to proceed, the plaintiff would have to put forth his own expert testimony to es-tablish a real relationship between his request and his disability.74 The court sought an objective viewpoint on whether the student’s proposal was in fact specific to his disability or was simply aimed at making the test easier in a way that it would for any student.75

Although the plaintiffs in Edwards and Stern were unsuccessful, it stands to reason that the constellation model is, on average, more gen-erous to plaintiffs than the bridge model. After all, it permits a much wider array of connections between the disability and the accommoda-tion. But one line of cases departs from this generalization. A signifi-cant question in FHAA litigation has been whether landlords must ac-commodate the financial circumstances of tenants with disabilities,76 and this issue typically triggers a nexus-style analysis. In Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments,77 for instance, two housing ap-plicants who were unable to work due to disabilities were turned away from an apartment complex because it would not accept Section 8 vouchers.78 They asserted that the complex should have waived its policy of not accepting Section 8 vouchers as a reasonable accommoda-tion under the FHAA, arguing that their disabilities were causally linked to their financial status.79 Whereas the Ninth Circuit in Giebeler would later use a bridge framework to find that such an ac-commodation was necessary, here the Second Circuit rejected it on the basis that the plaintiffs had not established a sufficient link between the requested accommodation and the circumstances of their individu-al disabilities.80 The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ Section 8 status

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 72 Id. at 907. 73 Id. at 907–08. 74 Id. at 908. 75 Id. at 909 (“[The question is] whether allowing Mr. Stern to supplement his answers on multiple-choice tests actually compensates for his dyslexia, rather than simply making the test easier for him in the same way that such a measure presumably would assist other students.”). 76 See Brian R. Rosenau, Note, Gimme Shelter: Does the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 Require Accommodations for the Financial Circumstances of the Disabled?, 46 WM. &

MARY L. REV. 787, 789 (2004). 77 136 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 1998). 78 Id. at 296. 79 See id. at 301. 80 See id. at 302.


was a symptom of their economic situations, not of their disabilities.81 Disability and poverty, in the Salute court’s judgment, are separate constellations.82

Whether or not it is favorable to disabled plaintiffs, the constella-tion model is in many ways intuitively better suited to the realities of disability than the bridge model. Rather than zeroing in on the statu-tory language of “substantial limitation” and the artificial and arbi-trary distinctions that often accompany it, the constellation model con-ceptualizes disability holistically. This formulation comports better with Elyn Saks’s account of life with schizophrenia, in which she characterizes her illness as having a gradual onset and pervasive ef-fects.83 Indeed, several critics of the Felix doctrine argue for a constellation-like analysis in its place.84 Yet the variety of outcomes reached through constellation-based reasoning is evidence of its inde-terminacy and subjective nature. At best, the constellation model lacks the analytical crispness of the bridge model.85 As anyone who has attempted to do so has likely observed, “seeing” constellations re-quires suspension of disbelief and is highly susceptible to idiosyncrasies in perception.86 Just as early astronomers from different ancient cul-tures drew different maps of the night sky,87 our collective judgment about where the boundaries of a physical or mental condition lie may be more rooted in culture than in science.

Although the Felix decision was based on the bridge model, a com-parison that the court drew in dicta88 serves to illustrate the ways in

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 81 See id. (“Plaintiffs seek to use this statute to remedy economic discrimination of a kind that is practiced without regard to handicap.”). 82 See also Sutton v. Piper, 344 F. App’x 101 (6th Cir. 2009) (rejecting an accommodation re-quest for relaxation of credit requirements for apartment rental because the plaintiff’s poor credit was distinct from his disability); Schanz v. Village Apartments, 998 F. Supp. 784, 792 (E.D. Mich. 1998) (“[Plaintiff’s] handicap is not preventing him from obtaining an apartment . . . . Instead, it is plaintiff’s financial situation which impedes him . . . and it is plaintiff’s financial situation which he is requesting that defendants accommodate.”). 83 See, e.g., SAKS, supra note 56, at 35 (“Schizophrenia rolls in like a slow fog, becoming im-perceptibly thicker as time goes on.”). 84 See, e.g., Timmons, supra note 48, at 349 (“[L]eveling the playing field for individuals with disabilities . . . requires accommodation of all limitations caused by a disabling impairment, in-stead of only those causally connected to a substantially limited major life activity.”). 85 Many of the differences between the bridge model and the constellation model replicate the arguments in the classic debate over rules and standards. See, e.g., Pierre J. Schlag, Rules and Standards, 33 UCLA L. REV. 379, 380 (1985). 86 Cf. E. WALTER MAUNDER, ASTRONOMY WITHOUT A TELESCOPE 8–9 (1904) (“[I]n gen-eral, the natural configuration of the stars gives us no clue whatsoever as to the origin of the con-stellation figures.”). 87 See ASTRONOMY ENCYCLOPEDIA, supra note 63, at 92–93. 88 At least one district court in the Second Circuit has relied on this dictum to apply the con-stellation model instead of the bridge model in an employment reasonable accommodation case in spite of Felix’s holding. See Stamm v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., No. 04-CV-2163, 2011 WL 1315935, at *21–24 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2011).


which culturally dependent conceptions of disability might factor into a typical court’s assumptions about the boundaries of disability. The court first analogized Ms. Felix’s situation to that of a car accident vic-tim who has multiple unrelated injuries that just happen to result from the same event,89 and later contrasted it with that of an AIDS patient who has multiple symptoms resulting from the same discrete medical condition.90 But firsthand accounts undermine this comparison. A memoir by Matt Long, a New York City firefighter who was severely injured in a bicycle accident, casts doubt on the validity of treating ac-cident victims with multiple injuries as having several independent impairments.91 In the aftermath of his accident, Mr. Long’s various injuries exacerbated each other: the immediate results of the impact caused secondary complications, and doctors were unable to perform preferred treatments for fear of interfering with separate bodily pro-cesses or worsening his overall condition.92 And as Mr. Long recov-ered, the confluence of his numerous injuries led to struggles with self-image93 and bouts of despair94 that may not have accompanied any of his impairments independently.95 It may also be overly simplistic to treat AIDS as a single, discrete condition. Although the HIV virus it-self breaks down the immune system, the symptoms associated with AIDS actually result from other disease agents that exploit the weak-ened system.96 Much like Mr. Long after his accident, the typical AIDS patient suffers from various physical and emotional ailments that are experienced as coherent and interrelated — likely for reasons that have little to do with science.97 Thus, the court in Felix overstat-ed the differences between the accident victim and the AIDS patient. If most judges would agree with the Felix court’s comparison, the con-stellation model risks entrenching such oversimplified notions of dis-ability and its boundaries in our case law.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 89 Felix v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 324 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2003). 90 Id. at 107. 91 See generally LONG WITH BUTLER, supra note 62. 92 See id. at 38–40; id. at 48 (discussing the importance of a colostomy procedure, which Mr. Long’s other injuries made very difficult); id. at 91 (describing how blood loss caused a great deal of stress on Mr. Long’s heart, which in turn caused his muscles to atrophy). 93 See id. at 125, 162–63. 94 See id. at 118, 136–37; see also id. at 278–79 (summarizing the lingering physical, mental, and emotional difficulties Mr. Long experienced in spite of his remarkable recovery). 95 In particular, the combination of Mr. Long’s ambulatory impairment, see id. at 148, colos-tomy bag, see id. at 186–87, and erectile dysfunction, see id. at 174–75, led him to worry that he would never again have a happy and fulfilling life. 96 See Vande Zande v. Wis. Dep’t of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 544 (7th Cir. 1995). 97 Compare LONG WITH BUTLER, supra note 62, at 178–80 (describing feelings of alienation from family and community due to the stigma of his multiple impairments), with WYATT-MORLEY, supra note 61, at 20–21 (discussing societal discrimination against people with HIV and the damaging emotional effects of such discrimination).


Furthermore, the subjective nature of the constellation analysis presents the danger of inequitable outcomes for individuals with invis-ible and psychological disabilities as compared to their counterparts with visible and physical ones. Those with invisible disabilities often have trouble impressing the seriousness and scope of their conditions upon others,98 and those with psychological disabilities frequently struggle to convince decisionmakers that a particular accommodation is actually for their disabilities rather than for personal enjoyment.99 A live issue from the FHAA context — whether an exception to a landlord’s no-pet policy requires the animal to have formal training — illustrates this difficulty.100 Although the FHAA does not contain an explicit training requirement for service animals,101 some courts have imposed one.102 Specialized training is arguably not necessary for an animal to mitigate psychological symptoms,103 yet these courts, like the court in Edwards, were reflexively suspicious of requests for emotional support animals. This result is unsurprising; since accommodations for psychological disabilities often bear a closer resemblance to widely desired amenities than do those for physical disabilities, constellation reasoning is likely to have a disparate effect on the psychologically dis-abled. The flaws of the constellation model thus weigh in favor of a standard that relies less on the intuitions of individual judges.

III. THE ICEBERG MODEL

Finally, some courts have conceptualized disability as an amor-phous mass, the outer boundaries of which judges are ill-equipped to detect. In this formulation, the substantial limitation on a major life activity is a threshold test for proving that the disability exists, after which a presumption of connectedness applies to any plausible ac-commodation the individual might seek. This judicial maneuver can be compared to that of a ship captain who gives a wide berth to an iceberg, knowing that the subaquatic portion is likely much larger

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 98 See Davis, supra note 1, at 180–89. 99 See JoAnn Nesta Burnett & Gary A. Poliakoff, Prescription Pets®: Medical Necessity or Personal Preference, 36 NOVA L. REV. 451, 467–75 (2012); Christopher C. Ligatti, No Training Required: The Availability of Emotional Support Animals as a Component of Equal Access for the Psychiatrically Disabled Under the Fair Housing Act, 35 T. MARSHALL L. REV. 139, 149–52 (2010). 100 See generally Ligatti, supra note 99. 101 Id. at 154–55. 102 See Bronk v. Ineichen, 54 F.3d 425, 431–32 (7th Cir. 1995); Prindable v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 304 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1256–57 (D. Haw. 2003). 103 See, e.g., Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass’n v. Fair Emp’t & Hous. Comm’n, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669, 682 (Ct. App. 2004) (“[The animal] did not need special skills to help ameliorate the effects of the [plaintiffs’] disabilities. Rather, it was the innate qualities of a dog . . . that made it therapeutic here.”).


than the visible tip. Since the ship captain cannot discern the precise dimensions of the bottom of the iceberg from her vantage point, she errs on the side of caution rather than run the risk of sinking.104

Courts construing the ADA have occasionally exhibited the type of broadminded reasoning that the iceberg model embodies. Some, like the Supreme Court in Bragdon v. Abbott,105 have apparently not con-sidered the nexus issue at all. In Bragdon, a dentist had refused to treat Sidney Abbott, a patient with asymptomatic HIV, and a thresh-old issue was whether her condition qualified as a disability under the ADA’s “substantial limitation” definition.106 The Supreme Court ruled that procreation was a major life activity107 and that Ms. Abbott was substantially limited in her ability to procreate because of the likeli-hood of passing the virus on to her partner and offspring.108 In the years since Bragdon was decided, courts and commentators have ob-served that if the crux of Ms. Abbott’s disability was truly its interfer-ence with her ability to procreate, she was not impaired in any way that affected her ability to visit a dentist. Moreover, the dentist’s re-fusal to fill her cavity seems to have little to do with her inability to procreate.109 Others have questioned Bragdon’s applicability to the nexus debate, since it was not a reasonable accommodation case.110 Although it is difficult to extrapolate the Justices’ reasoning from their silence on the connection between Ms. Abbott’s disability and the dis-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 104 More than a century after the sinking of the Titanic, icebergs continue to pose problems for ocean travel. See Lauren Everitt, Titanic Threat: Why Do Ships Still Hit Icebergs?, BBC NEWS

MAGAZINE (Mar. 20, 2012, 4:40 AM), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17257653. 105 524 U.S. 624 (1998). 106 Id. at 629–30. 107 Id. at 639. 108 Id. at 639–41. 109 See, e.g., Quick v. Tripp, Scott, Conklin & Smith, P.A., 43 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (interpreting Bragdon as “dispel[ling] the traditional notion that there [must] be a nexus be-tween the allegedly impaired employee’s workplace abilities and the allegedly impaired major life activity”); Anderson, supra note 48, at 350 n.161; Samuel R. Bagenstos, Subordination, Stigma, and “Disability,” 86 VA. L. REV. 397, 487 (2000); Thomas Simmons, The ADA Prima Facie Plain-tiff: A Critical Overview of Eighth Circuit Case Law, 47 DRAKE L. REV. 761, 790 (1999). 110 See, e.g., Wood v. Crown Redi-Mix, Inc., 339 F.3d 682, 687 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003) (distinguish-ing Bragdon on the basis that it was not an accommodation case). The trouble with this argu-ment is that under the ADA, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is a type of discrimi-nation, and any type of discrimination must be “on the basis of disability” to be actionable. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (2006 & Supp. V 2011). Thus, the idea that reasonable accommodation claims must be connected to the disability in ways that garden-variety discrimination claims do not has no basis in the text of the statute. See Christine Jolls, Antidiscrimination and Accommodation, 115 HARV. L. REV. 642, 645–46 (2001) (debunking the distinction between antidiscrimination and accommodation); see also Patricia Illingworth & Wendy E. Parmet, Positively Disabled: The Rela-tionship Between the Definition of Disability and Rights Under the ADA, in AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES 3, 4 (Leslie Pickering Francis & Anita Silvers eds., 2000) (arguing that the protec-tions that the ADA provides “do not fall neatly into any simple dichotomy of positive and nega-tive rights”).


crimination she alleged, Bragdon is at least plausibly understood as an iceberg case. Under this interpretation, there was nothing special about the fact that procreation was chosen as the major life activity, as its only significance was as a means of proving that asymptomatic HIV was, in fact, a disability.

A more overt example of the iceberg model comes from Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg,111 in which the Second Circuit exhibited an approach to reasonable accommodations diametrically opposed to that in Felix. In Henrietta, the City of New York had created a social services agen-cy to assist people with HIV and AIDS in obtaining certain public benefits, like welfare, Medicaid, and food stamps.112 But the agency had become dysfunctional, and many of its clients were unable to ob-tain benefits to which they were entitled.113 A class of individuals with HIV and AIDS sued the city on the theory that it was required to provide them a reasonable accommodation under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which guarantee equal ac-cess to public benefits to people with disabilities.114 Since the agency was incompetent, the plaintiffs reasoned, the city was in breach of its duty of reasonable accommodation that would otherwise be fulfilled through this special program.115

The district court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had to show a link between their disabilities and the accommodation in the form of agency assistance, but in considering this question it applied a very broad understanding of the scope of the plaintiffs’ disabilities and their effects on the plaintiffs’ access to public benefits.116 In addition to its consideration of the physical impairments typically associated with HIV and AIDS and of their likely impact on the benefit application processes,117 the court found that the plaintiffs were further limited by the side effects of their medications, the practical burdens of “extreme-ly cumbersome treatment regimens,” the stress caused by living with a terminal illness,118 and the psychological effects of discrimination and stigma.119 The court even found that the relationship between poverty and illness was itself a factor in the plaintiffs’ reduced access to bene-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 111 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003). 112 Id. at 265–66. 113 See id. at 268. 114 Id. at 264. 115 See id. at 269. 116 See Henrietta D. v. Giuliani, 119 F. Supp. 2d 181, 185–86 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). 117 See id. at 185 (finding that opportunistic diseases limit activities necessary to obtain bene-fits, such as “traveling, standing in line, attending scheduled appointments, completing paper work, and otherwise negotiating medical and social service bureaucracies”). 118 Id. at 186. 119 Id.


fits.120 Rather than questioning whether these factors were properly understood under the umbrella of the plaintiffs’ illnesses, the court de-ferred to the expansive notion of disability and its effects that the plaintiffs presented. The Second Circuit approved this reasoning121 and took the iceberg model even further, holding that the plaintiffs were not required to show that their access to benefits differed from that of the nondisabled population.122

If the bridge model represents a bright-line rule and the constella-tion model is a fact-sensitive standard, the iceberg formulation is best understood as a canon of deference. Although it is unorthodox to de-scribe courts as deferring to private individuals representing their own self-interest, an informal rule of deferring to people with disabilities on matters concerning the scope of their disabilities would actually share many rationales with well-established interpretive doctrines. Judicial policies of deferring to administrative agencies under the Chevron123 and Skidmore124 doctrines, for example, are premised in large part on the idea that agencies have much greater expertise within their sub-stantive specialties than do courts.125 It should go without saying that the same is true of individuals with respect to their disabilities and the accommodations they need in order to participate in society.126

In addition, courts have developed interpretive techniques for deal-ing with close constitutional questions, and these techniques also have much in common with the iceberg model. The various canons of con-stitutional avoidance, for example, have emerged in part to protect constitutional values that cannot be adequately defended using the

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 120 See id. (“Poverty, limited mobility, and limited resources result in limited access to fresh, high-quality food, and necessary dietary supplements. . . . The added stress of lack of housing, food, medical care, or other basic survival services that indigent people face poses a serious threat to health.”). 121 Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 267–68 (2d Cir. 2003). 122 See id. at 277–78. 123 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 124 Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). 125 See Stephen Breyer, The Executive Branch, Administrative Action, and Comparative Exper-tise, 32 CARDOZO L. REV. 2189, 2193–95 (2011) (explaining that the greater an administrative agency’s subject matter expertise as compared to that of a reviewing court, the greater the degree of deference the court typically accords to agency decisions). 126 Judges have frequently acknowledged their own limitations in assessing reasonable accom-modation claims, often relying on expert witnesses, see Stern v. Univ. of Osteopathic Med. & Health Scis., 220 F.3d 906, 908 (8th Cir. 2000), administrative agencies, see Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (suggesting without deciding that EEOC regula-tions interpreting the ADA might warrant deference despite the Agency’s lack of statutory author-ity to promulgate them), and other evidence of third-party approval, see Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (2011) (requiring training for service animals), to help fill the gaps in their knowledge.


document’s literal text.127 The iceberg model can also be conceptual-ized as a mechanism for protecting certain underenforced constitution-al norms. For one thing, the ADA is aimed at ensuring equal protec-tion for people with disabilities, but ADA litigants have had remarkably low success rates.128 The model also comports with the rights to privacy and dignity that some ascribe to the U.S. Constitu-tion.129 Many people with disabilities have lamented the intrusive na-ture of others’ scrutiny of their conditions. Jeff Bell, a radio personali-ty with obsessive-compulsive disorder, endured years of invasive questioning and skepticism from ill-informed therapists as he gradual-ly came to terms with his disability.130 Catherine Wyatt-Morley, the author of a memoir about living with HIV, has recounted the difficult personal questions that strangers often ask HIV-positive people.131 A deference canon would curtail such unseemly inquiry, at least in the judicial setting, thereby promoting underenforced constitutional norms.

The most obvious objection to applying a deference model to the nexus problem is that of the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. In a desire to win their claims, plaintiffs might present their stories in the light most favorable to their success in litigation, rather than in the manner most faithful to their authentic experiences, as the model con-templates.132 Further, several important rationales for deference to administrative agencies and the canons of statutory interpretation — most notably, those rooted in ideas about congressional intent and judicial minimalism — are conspicuously absent from the iceberg model.133 Moreover, the model comports poorly with some of the con-servative goals of the ADA. In particular, it is likely to trigger con-cerns about undue windfalls to individuals with disabilities, as many courts and commentators have worried that accommodating the minor

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 127 See Philip P. Frickey, Marshalling Past and Present: Colonialism, Constitutionalism, and Interpretation in Federal Indian Law, 107 HARV. L. REV. 381, 415–16 (1993). 128 See generally Ruth Colker, The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants, 34 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 99 (1999). 129 See, e.g., Erin Daly, Human Dignity in the Roberts Court: A Story of Inchoate Institutions, Autonomous Individuals, and the Reluctant Recognition of a Right, 37 OHIO N.U. L. REV. 381, 381–82 (2011) (“[T]he Supreme Court is inching toward a greater recognition of the constitutional value of human dignity . . . .”). 130 See BELL, supra note 62, at 44–46, 80–81, 84–85. 131 See WYATT-MORLEY, supra note 61, at 51. 132 See Davis, supra note 1, at 180–82 (connecting skepticism of people’s own accounts of their impairments with fears of being deceived and manipulated). 133 On the other hand, the model could be reconciled with legislative intent through the axiom that remedial statutes should be given broad construction. See, e.g., Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 504 (1999) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336 (1967). Indeed, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 codified this axiom. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A) (2006 & Supp. V 2011).


or unrelated impairments of people with disabilities effectively favors them over their nondisabled counterparts with the same minor impairments.134

But an alternative critique of the iceberg model is likely more trou-bling to the disability rights advocates who would reject these con-servative arguments. In spite of the pervasive impacts a disability has on its bearer, individuals with disabilities possess many qualities inde-pendent of the disability.135 To nonetheless treat all of these circum-stances and characteristics as presumptively related to the disability may result in systematic underestimation of these individuals’ talents and abilities, an outcome that the disability rights movement has long opposed.136

To be sure, the mere fact that the iceberg model is susceptible to overbreadth does not necessarily mean it produces overly broad out-comes in practice. Individuals with disabilities, as the sole gatekeepers to the details of their personal experiences, could be understood as pos-sessing entirely accurate information about how their disabilities affect their lives, which would in turn indicate that judicial deference to these accounts is appropriate as long as the accounts are truthful. But a body of research from social psychology casts doubt on this possibility. Many studies have indicated that whereas observers are more likely to attribute a person’s hardships to factors within that individual’s control — a phenomenon known as the “fundamental attribution error”137 —

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 134 The so-called “windfall” argument is widely touted among advocates of narrow coverage for disability statutes. See, e.g., Felix v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 324 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (assert-ing that requiring the accommodation Ms. Felix requested “would transform the ADA from an act that prohibits discrimination into an act that requires treating people with disabilities better than others who are not disabled but have the same impairment for which accommodation is sought”). Commentators who favor greater enforcement or broader coverage have vigorously contested the idea. See, e.g., Anderson, supra note 48, at 381–82; Lawrence D. Rosenthal, Reasonable Accom-modations for Individuals Regarded as Having Disabilities Under the Americans with Disabili-ties Act? Why “No” Should Not Be the Answer, 36 SETON HALL L. REV. 895, 908–09 (2006) (list-ing cases that have rejected the “windfall” argument). 135 Elyn Saks, for instance, eventually became a law professor at the University of Southern California, see SAKS, supra note 56, at 239, and Matt Long, although he had to relearn how to walk after his bicycle accident, eventually competed in a marathon again, see LONG WITH

BUTLER, supra note 62, at 253–68. These examples are exceptional, of course, but these memoirs also offer more mundane illustrations of the aspects of personality that are unaffected by disabil-ity, such as Mr. Long’s love of steak. See id. at 234. 136 See, e.g., BAGENSTOS, supra note 52, at 90–94; Samuel R. Bagenstos, Justice Ginsburg and the Judicial Role in Expanding “We the People”: The Disability Rights Cases, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 49, 50–51 (2004) (“[E]ven when well-intentioned, the attitudes of pity, charity, and inspira-tion treated people with disabilities as fundamentally separate from the ‘We the People’ who make up our civic community.”). 137 THE BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 72–73 (Antony S.R. Manstead et al. eds., 1995) [hereinafter BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPEDIA]; see also RICHARD

NISBETT & LEE ROSS, HUMAN INFERENCE: STRATEGIES AND SHORTCOMINGS OF SOCIAL

JUDGMENT 31 (1980).


people are more likely to attribute their own hardships to factors out-side of their control — a phenomenon known as the “self-serving bi-as.”138 Applied to the nexus inquiry, these theories suggest, first, that courts and employers may tend erroneously to attribute hardships in the lives of individuals with disabilities to factors within their control, rather than to their disabilities. Second, these theories of attribution suggest that individuals with disabilities, and perhaps their advocates as well, may erroneously attribute these same hardships to factors out-side of their control, such as their disabilities. A possible inference is that while the nexus analysis of the typical court will be underinclusive, the nexus analysis of a typical individual with a disability will be overinclusive.

Even assuming that plaintiffs with disabilities report accurately in litigation on the nature and impacts of their disabilities as they experi-ence them, there likely remains a gap between that subjective experi-ence and the barriers that the disability actually entails. Ignoring that gap might serve individuals with disabilities poorly. If overinclusive notions of disabilities’ effects become widely accepted, they could lead to widespread underestimation of the capabilities of individuals with disabilities, thereby actually restricting their access to employment and other goods. They could also become self-fulfilling prophecies, causing individuals with disabilities to doubt their own talents — an outcome at odds with the participation and integration goals of the disability rights statutes.139 Thus, the apparent generosity of the iceberg model belies troubling philosophical foundations.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISIONMAKERS

The foregoing discussion demonstrates that courts have not yet de-vised a method for analyzing the connection between a disability and a requested accommodation that mediates perfectly among the compet-ing values that this analysis implicates. The bridge model tends to be overly restrictive, the constellation model inequitable, and the iceberg model patronizing. Perhaps because disability law is an inherently subjective discipline, drawing its substance from deeply personal iden-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 138 BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPEDIA, supra note 137, at 74–75; see also NISBETT & ROSS, supra note 137, at 231–37. These theories relate to civil rights laws in interesting ways, some of which legal scholars have noted. For instance, Professor Ward Farnsworth has suggested that in em-ployment discrimination lawsuits, self-serving bias may lead to both spurious claims — by employees who want to believe that an adverse employment action was due to a characteristic outside their control, such as race or sex, rather than poor work performance — and spurious de-fenses — by employers who do not want to believe that they discriminate. See Ward Farnsworth, Essay, The Legal Regulation of Self-Serving Bias, 37 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 567, 593–95 (2003). 139 See generally ROBERT K. MERTON, SOCIAL THEORY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 475–90 (enlarged ed. 1968) (introducing and defining the influential concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy).


tities and interactions, no single logical model can satisfactorily meet every situation it confronts. To resolve this apparent stalemate, judges should use awareness of the flaws of each logical formulation to sup-plement and improve the model. By simply being aware of the as-sumptions that inform their intuitions about disability, judges and oth-er decisionmakers could soften those assumptions while remaining faithful to their intuitions. And nonjudicial decisionmakers could en-gage in a similar process. Most reasonable accommodation requests, after all, do not reach a court: instead, they are negotiated with em-ployers, government agencies, landlords, and businesses.140 Although these actors’ reasoning is not captured in judicial opinions for public scrutiny, it seems likely to fall into the same general categories as that employed by judges. Because these actors often interact with individ-uals requesting reasonable accommodations on a personal basis, they are arguably in at least as good a position to consciously correct for bi-ases and flawed assumptions.

Adjusting rules to account for real-world circumstances is a famil-iar tactic in American legal thought;141 this proposal simply applies it on a smaller scale. Judges of the bridge persuasion, for instance, could recognize the model’s tendency to produce artificially cramped out-comes and adjust their logic to encompass the complex causative dy-namics that characterize real disabilities. Constellation-oriented judg-es could consciously apply a more permissive standard in situations that risk triggering unfavorable cultural attitudes. And judges of the iceberg school could temper their deference by applying heightened skepticism to claims with some indicia of self-serving bias. What is noteworthy about these compromise positions is that they trend toward a middle ground, showing that the logic of the three models need not be outcome-determinative.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical scenario that resembles somewhat the facts of Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua.142 A housing rental applicant seeks an exception to a policy prohibiting house pets. She has been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, which substantially limits her ability to work.143

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 140 For a study of the dynamics of informal requests for workplace accommodation, see Anna T. Florey & David A. Harrison, Responses to Informal Accommodation Requests from Employees with Disabilities: Multistudy Evidence on Willingness to Comply, 43 ACAD. MGMT. J. 224 (2000). 141 See, e.g., Roscoe Pound, Law in Books and Law in Action, 44 AM. L. REV. 12, 23 (1910) (“[L]egislation has always brought with it an imperative theory of law . . . and a resulting tenden-cy to overlook the necessity of squaring the rules upon the statute book with the demands of hu-man reason and the exigencies of human conduct.”). 142 304 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Haw. 2003). 143 See generally AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF

MENTAL DISORDERS 456–462 (4th ed., text rev. 2000) (“Obsessions or compulsions . . . can be highly disruptive to overall functioning.” Id. at 458.).


In fact, the applicant lost her job as a bank teller when her distracting obsessions caused her to make costly mistakes.144 The applicant as-serts that the presence of her trusted dog, although it does not have special training, helps to soothe the anxiety that accompanies her con-dition. The landlord rejects the applicant, refusing to make an excep-tion to the pet policy, and the applicant sues. Assuming that working is the only major life activity that is substantially limited by the appli-cant’s obsessive-compulsive disorder, is the exception she requests suf-ficiently connected to her inability to work?

Under the bridge model, the dog does not have an obvious connec-tion to the major life activity of working, since its purpose is not to help the applicant work or find a job. Under the logic of Felix, the applicant’s inability to work is not the direct cause of her need for an exception to the pet policy.145 However, under an expanded concep-tion of causation that takes account of the intricate real-world inter-play between disability, environment, and individual action, the appli-cant can nonetheless argue that her ability to live with the dog is in fact causally related to the major life activity of working. The dog’s soothing effect might mitigate the applicant’s symptoms to the degree that, perhaps in combination with other types of treatment, she would be able to find and keep a job. If the applicant has effectively estab-lished this chain of logic in her brief, then the newly enlightened bridge judge should deny summary judgment for the defendant.

The constellation judge’s initial instinct may also be toward sum-mary disposition, as the applicant’s description of the function her dog performs seems to fit the image of a pet better than that of a tradition-al service animal. The judge is likely to perceive the dog’s therapeutic value as closely mirroring the companionship value that a pet has to a nondisabled person. But the constellation judge should second-guess her first reaction, as subtle cultural biases may cause subconscious suspicion of the applicant’s disability. Obsessive-compulsive disorder’s status as a psychological disability — one that tends to be invisible — makes it likely that observers systematically underestimate its ef-fects.146 And pervasive myths about obsessive-compulsive disorder may distort the court’s judgment with regard to the plaintiff’s individ-ual needs.147 Yet in spite of these considerations, the court may be jus-

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 144 Cf. BELL, supra note 62, at 20–23 (describing incidents in which the author was rebuked at work for mistakes he made while distracted by symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder). 145 Cf. Felix v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 324 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (“If the requested accom-modation addressed a limitation caused by Felix’s insomnia, it would be covered by the ADA.”). 146 See Davis, supra note 1, at 180–89. 147 See, e.g., Common Assumptions About OCD Make Explaining It Harder, TIME TO

CHANGE (Sept. 8, 2012, 2:19 PM), http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/blog/ocd-stereotypes-worlds -maddest-job-interview-channel-4.


tified in awarding summary judgment to the landlord depending on whether the plaintiff has pled sufficient facts connecting the dog to the disability. Such facts could include a doctor’s recommendation, the plaintiff’s own testimony of past success in using a dog as part of a treatment regimen, or evidence that others with the same condition have obtained relief using therapy animals. The purpose of second-guessing the initial reaction is to open up the inquiry to these addition-al, useful data points.

Finally, the iceberg judge is likely predisposed to assume the dog is sufficiently related to the disability without additional scrutiny. In light of the inaccuracy and paternalistic effects that can sometimes re-sult from application of the iceberg model, however, this judge should test her hypothesis. Such scrutiny is especially important if the appli-cant’s own assessment of her need may be tainted by self-serving bias. Here, though, application of that theory seems strained, since the ap-plicant has not yet been deprived of her dog’s company. Thus, the fact that she has not been able to work cannot be erroneously blamed on her dog’s absence. It could be blamed, erroneously or otherwise, on her disability, but that would have little to do with the landlord’s re-fusal to grant the requested exception. In the absence of other facts that conform to the pattern of self-serving bias, the iceberg judge need not compensate for this type of error. The plaintiff could simply be ly-ing, of course, so the court in this case should still give strong consid-eration to corroborating factors like medical opinions.

CONCLUSION

Determining whether the reasonable accommodation that an indi-vidual requests is sufficiently connected to her disability can be a messy process. Judges have applied a variety of logical mechanisms to the nexus questions they confront, and none of these mechanisms is without significant flaws. But the virtues of each model counsel against starting from scratch. The bridge model attempts to bring an-alytical crispness to an otherwise murky field. The constellation model recognizes the importance of human intuition to the process of reason-able accommodation. The iceberg model is undoubtedly the product of progressive impulses. Thus, instead of championing a single ap-proach, this Note promotes a mixed methodology that favors empathy for opposing positions over singularity of purpose. It suggests that the compromise positions that could be dismissed as temporary, second-best settlements may be surprisingly coherent and desirable as long-term solutions.

Neil Gillespie

From: "Harvard Law Review" <[email protected]>To: "=?utf-8?Q??=" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:14 PMSubject: New Issue: Volume 126 · March 2013 · Number 5

Page 1 of 5

4/5/2013

Volume 126 · March 2013 · Number 5 Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Multistage Adjudication Article by Louis Kaplow :: Legal proceedings often involve multiple stages: U.S. civil litigation allows motions to dismiss and for summary judgment prior to trial; government agencies as well as prosecutors employ investigative and screening processes before initiating formal adjudication; and many Continental tribunals move forward sequentially. Decisionmaking criteria have proved controversial, as indicated by reactions to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Twombly and Iqbal and its 1986 summary judgment trilogy, which together implicate the Supreme Court cases most cited by federal courts. Neither jurists nor commentators have articulated coherent, noncircular legal standards, and no attempt has been made to examine systematically how decisions at different procedural stages should ideally be made in light of the legal system’s objectives. This Article presents a foundational analysis of the subject. The investigation illuminates central elements of legal system design, recasts existing debates about decision standards, identifies pathways for reform, and provides new perspectives on the nature of facts and evidence and on the relationship between substantive and procedural law. READ MORE | March 2013

Humanizing the Criminal Justice Machine: Re-Animated Justice or Frankenstein's Monster? Book Review by Nicola Lacey :: Drawing on not only his academic research but also his experience as a high-level practitioner, Professor Stephanos Bibas argues that criminal justice has become “a zero-sum contest rather than a multi-faceted morality play,” with baleful consequences for all concerned. But is his diagnosis of the patient as suffering from the disorder of “bipolarity,” indeed of a virtually psychopathic unfeelingness toward its main human players, accurate? Equally importantly, to the extent that the diagnosis of bipolarity

Online Forum Reaction Presidential Combat Against Climate Change

Richard J. Lazarus Reaction The President, Climate Change, and California

Ann E. Carlson Reaction Climate Change Action Without Congress

Michael B. Gerrard Responding to Louis Kaplow, Multistage Adjudication, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1179 (2013) The Effect of Settlement in Kaplow's Multistage Adjudication

Abraham L. Wickelgren Responding to Nicola Lacey, Humanizing the Criminal Justice Machine: Re-Animated Justice or Frankenstein's Monster?, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1299 (2013) Criminal (In)Justice and Democracy in America

Stephanos Bibas

and psychopathy is indeed accurate, are these the patient’s most significant pathologies? And finally, is the cure that Bibas prescribes a promising treatment for the system’s ills, or rather a recipe for further and perhaps worse diseases? READ MORE | March 2013 Notes Importing a Trade or Business Limitation Into Section 2036: Toward a Regulatory Solution to FLP-Driven Transfer Tax Avoidance In recent decades, wealthy U.S. taxpayers have managed to avoid the federal gift and estate taxes by transferring their assets to family limited partnerships (FLPs) in exchange for ownership interests, thereby availing themselves of the valuation discounts the federal transfer tax system has traditionally accorded to equity in closely held businesses. This Note proposes a regulatory solution to FLP abuse modeled on the I.R.C. § 6166 "trade or business" limitation on estate tax deferral, a solution Treasury has authority to implement under § 2036. The Benefits of Unequal Protection The Defense of Marriage Act and a handful of federal tax provisions force individuals in same-sex marriages to pay higher taxes than their peers in opposite-sex marriages. Many employers have responded by paying bonuses to increase the pre-tax salaries of their employees in same-sex marriages; as a result, all of their employees end up with the same take-home pay. This Note evaluates the legality of those bonuses. It argues that they are legal under existing law but that they probably would not be under certain legal regimes designed to protect LGBT employees from discrimination, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and heightened equal protection scrutiny. Diagnostic Method Patents and Harms to Follow-On Innovation The Federal Circuit and Supreme Court have recently confronted a barrage of cases regarding the patent eligibility of broadly claimed diagnostic methods under § 101 of the Patent Act, but none of these cases has considered the preemptive harms to follow-on innovation posed by these patents. This Note draws upon FDA regulations, patent doctrine, and empirical research to argue that granting these kinds of broad claims to natural correlations creates unique harms to follow-on innovation, ones that do not occur with other types of patents, and to suggest ways in which this argument might contribute to existing scholarly debates and judicial rulings. Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in

Reaction Recess Appointments and Precautionary Constitutionalism

Adrian Vermeule Reaction Originalism v. Burkeanism: A Dialogue Over Recess

Cass R. Sunstein Reaction The Pre-Session Recess

Peter Strauss Essay The Lawfulness of Section 5 — and Thus of Section 5

Akhil Reed Amar

Page 2 of 5

4/5/2013

Reasonable Accommodations Law Federal disability law requires a reasonable accommodation to be logically connected to a plaintiff's disability, but the precise nature of this connection has been the source of some tension in the case law. This Note seeks to classify the various approaches that courts have brought to the so-called "nexus requirement," to examine the beliefs about disability that are implicit in these approaches, and to offer some ways in which courts might reconcile those beliefs with the realities of disability. Recent Cases Seventh Circuit Holds that the ADEA Does Not Preclude Section 1983 Equal Protection Claims Breaking with six of its sister courts, the Seventh Circuit recently ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is not the exclusive means by which an employee seeks remedy in an age discrimination claim. That ruling correctly acknowledged the impact of a recent Supreme Court case on § 1983 doctrine, an alternative means for supplying remedy, and the other circuits ought to follow suit and reexamine their holdings. D.C. Circuit Holds that Rule Prohibiting Airlines From Displaying Taxes "Prominently" Does Not Violate the First Amendment Using a deferential standard of review, the D.C. Circuit recently found valid a Department of Transportation rule requiring airlines to state explicitly the total price of tickets without prominently displaying taxes in their advertisements. The ruling signaled a willingness to apply that standard of review not only to factual disclosures but also to restrictions that limit the size and appearance of advertisements. Second Circuit Holds that Transactions in Unlisted Securities are Domestic if Irrevocable Liability is Incurred or if Title Passes Within the United States In interpreting the Supreme Court's recent test for delimiting the extraterritorial reach of U.S. securities law, the Second Circuit held that transactions in unlisted securities are domestic if the parties incur irrevocable liability or transfer title within the United States. While the contextual nature of the Second Circuit's test will likely protect against the evasion of U.S. securities law, the test may also lead to arbitrary results given the Supreme Court's recent emphasis on transactional location. Eighth Circuit Applies Planned Parenthood v. Casey to South Dakota "Suicide Advisory" The Eighth Circuit recently upheld a provision in a South Dakota informed consent statute

Page 3 of 5

4/5/2013

revising the disclosures physicians are required to make to patients contemplating abortion. In failing to perform a more robust First Amendment inquiry, the court ultimately construed the statute in a counterintuitive, if technically permissibly, way. D.C. Circuit Raises Prudential Standing Sua Sponte to Dismiss Regulatory Challenge on Jurisprudential Grounds On grounds of standing, a divided D.C. Circuit recently rejected a challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency grant of a partial waiver, although the agency had not made plaintiff’s standing an issue. In clarifying whether prudential standing is a mandatory jurisdictional question, the courts ought to adopt a separation of powers approach that assesses standing in light of the proper functioning of the three branches. Ninth Circuit Holds that Employees' Unauthorized Use of Accessible Information Did Not Violate CFAA The Ninth Circuit recently held that defendant employees at a California firm had not violated an anti-hacking statute by transmitting confidential information in violation of the company policy. The court did so by “multiplying” two canons of statutory interpretation – a sensible technique that merits further scholarship but, in this case, failed to achieve the majority’s goal. Recent Book Subversion and Sympathy: Gender, Law, and the British Novel Martha Nussbaum's and Alison LaCroix's new law-and-literature anthology, Subversion and Sympathy: Gender, Law, and the British Novel, successfully showcases diverse and compelling models of scholarship for aspiring practitioners and thus seems well poised to fulfill its aim of energizing debate. Nevertheless, by refusing to make a strong case for what value literature has for law, the work ultimately diminishes the force of its call to engage in law and literature.

Copyright © 2013 Harvard Law Review, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you signed up at our website. Our mailing address is: Harvard Law ReviewGannett House 1511 Massachusetts Ave Cambridge, MA 02138 Add us to your address book

follow on Twitter | like us on Facebook | forward to a friend

Page 4 of 5

4/5/2013

unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences

Page 5 of 5

4/5/2013

Neil Gillespie

From: "Harvard Law Review" <[email protected]>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:40 PMSubject: RE: 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)

Page 1 of 1

4/5/2013

Hi Neil,

1. Unsigned works in the Review, usually Notes or Recent Cases, are student works. If you are wondering how to cite these pieces you will find the citation format on page 153 of the Bluebook under (b) Unsigned, student-written materials.

2. I think you should be able to find the journal Ethics in most university libraries. The journal is published by the University of Chicago Press.

Hope this helps! Kind regards, Jennifer Jennifer Heath Editorial & IT Coordinator Harvard Law Review 1511 Massachusetts Avenue Gannett House Cambridge, MA 02138 Phone: 617-495-7889 From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013)

Hello, I have two questions about 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1392 (2013), Three Formulations of the Nexus Requirement in Reasonable Accommodations Law.

1. Who is the author? For some reason I cannot locate the author’s name in the article.

2. Where can I find the article shown at footnote 1, "For a philosophical and sociological exploration of the concept of disability, see N. Ann Davis, Invisible Disability, 116 ETHICS 153, 157–79 (2005)."?

Thank you.

Neil Gillespie