Gillespie Rebuttal, Castagliuolo Response, Florida Bar Complaint, Sep-14-2012

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr.
, Bar Counsel September 14, 2012

Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
Re: Eugene P Castagliuolo; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D)
Dear Mr. Littlewood:
This is my rebuttal to Mr. Castagliuolo's response in the above captioned complaint
1
. Please keep
in mind that I hired Mr. Castagliuolo to prepare me for, and attend, a court-ordered deposition
2
.
I did not need the services of Mr. Castagliuolo to accept a walkaway settlement. Mr. Rodems
offered a walkaway settlement on at lease six (6) separate prior occasions, see Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint, Count 11, Abuse of Process, at 234, provided on request.
I. Evidence of Racketeering Activity
1. Mr. Castagliuolo admitted in his written response August 30, 2012 that Mr. Rodems
made an unsolicited offer to assist Castagliuolo in any future Bar grievance from me. (p.3, 1):
My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher Chris" Rodems.
Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The Florida
Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer.
This shows how the discipline process is compromised, in this case by Mr. Rodems, whos
misconduct is at the center of this matter. It suggests a pattern of racketeering activity where
adversaries know in advance how to position themselves to avoid discipline. In this case it may
have caused Mr. Castagliuolo to work for the benefit of Mr. Rodems instead of me, his client.
2. Mr. Bauer
3
sent me a letter dated August 24, 2012 stating that Mr. Rodems Settlement
Agreement and General Mutual Release of June 21, 2011 does not bind him, it binds me. The
letter appears at Exhibit 1 to this rebuttal. This is the operative quote:
Mr. Rodem's (sic) release dated June 21, 2011 does not have any legal effect on the
amount of money that is owed to this firm. Further, it does not bind this firm in any way.
I (sic) does bind you - but not us.
I was shocked by Mr. Bauers statement, as Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to accept this
settlement. I do not understand how a settlement can only bind me. Castagliuolo never explained
this to me. I believe this is further evidence that Mr. Castagliuolo worked against my interest.

1
I received Mr. Castagliuolo's response by email September 7, 2012 at 2:24 a.m. Mr. Castagliuolo is on my blocked
email list and his email was quarantined in my spam filter since it was sent by Castagliuolo September 4, 2012 at
4:56 p.m. This is five days after the August 30, 2012 date on Mr. Castagliuolos response to you.
2
This was a full deposition after the case was closed, after final summary judgment was entered in favor of Mr.
Rodems law firm and partner, and while the case was on appeal in 2D10-5197.
3
Mr. Castagliuolo presented evidence in his response concerning Robert W. Bauer, a referral from the Florida Bar
Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) who formerly represented me. Ill address that evidence later in this rebuttal.
Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel September 14, 2012
Re: Eugene P Castagliuolo; The Florida Bar File No. 2013-10,162 (6D) Page - 2
II. Mr. Castagliuolo Made the Decision to Settle June 21, 2011
3. Mr. Rodems asserted in U.S. District Court, case 5:10-cv-503, that Mr. Castagliuolo
made the decision to settle, see Response to Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Motion To Strike Or Set
Aside Mr. Rodems Notice Of Assignment of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With
Prejudice [DKT 33] (Doc. 40). Mr. Rodems wrote this at footnote 1: (relevant portion)
The settlement agreement was signed by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In
fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie stated to his attorney, Ill defer to your
judgment on this. Gillespies attorney stated, Ive already given you judgment in
private, and Ill give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is an agreement you
want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest.
Page 1 of Mr. Rodems Response (Doc. 40). appears at Exhibit 2 to this rebuttal, and on PACER,
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1350.
The transcript of the June 21, 2011 deposition where Mr. Castagliuolo represented me shows he
made the decision for me to accept Mr. Rodems Settlement Agreement and General Mutual
Release. The following is from a deposition excerpt, page 9 of 19 filed by Mr. Rodems as
Exhibit 1 to his Response at Doc. 40, Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40-1 Filed
07/14/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID 1360. A copy appears at Exhibit 3 to this rebuttal.
14 MR. GILLESPIE: I'll defer to your
15 judgment on this.
16 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: I've already given
17 you judgment in private, and I'll give it to
18 you on the record. I think this is -- this is
19 an agreement you want to enter into, and I
20 think this is in your best interest.
This deposition excerpt is presented to impeach Mr. Castagliuolos response at Exhibit A, my
email of June 21, 2011 at 6.33 p.m. where I mistakenly believed I made the decision to settle.
The deposition excerpt, submitted by Mr. Rodems to the court, establishes the fact of who made
the decision to settle: It was Mr. Castagliuolo. While I do not have independent memory of
writing this email, it does appear on my computer, and shows how my disability manifests in the
form of confusion. In addition, generally I was attempting to placate Mr. Castagliuolo and avoid
his explosive anger, which is evident in his response to you of August 30, 2012. Once I was
released from custody June 21, 2011 and had a meal, I realized the settlement was a mistake and
promptly disaffirmed the agreement by written notice to Mr. Rodems, Mr. Castagliuolo, and
Major James Livingston of the HCSO. This also shows I was under a delusion that Castagliuolo
was providing me zealous advocacy. Castagliuolos loyalty was with the legal system, not me,
specifically his loyalty to the 13th Judicial Circuit where he and his daughter practice law.
4. Mr. Rodems also asserted to the 2dDCA, case 2D10-5197, that Mr. Castagliuolo made
the decision to settle, see Appellees Response To Appellants Motion To Reinstate Dismissed
Appeal, submitted July 15, 2011. Mr. Rodems told the 2dDCA:
Appellant signed the Settlement Agreement and General Release before a notary public,
while seated next to his attorney, and after consulting with his attorney. In fact, in
deciding whether to sign it, Appellant stated to his attorney, "I'll defer to your judgment
on this." Gillespie's attorney stated, "I've already given you judgment in private, and I'll
give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is an agreement you want to enter into,
and I think it is in your best interest."
Mr. Rodems also asserted this falsehood to the 2dDCA in his opening paragraph: On June 21,
2011, Appellant Neil J. Gillespie voluntarily appeared, with his attorney, for a deposition in aid
of execution relating to Appellees' Final Judgment.... The record shows this was an improper,
full deposition, post-final summary judgment which was on appeal in 2D10-5197. Once final
judgment is entered, the need for discovery is over. Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP, 836 So.
2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2003). A copy of Rodems 2dDCA Response is available.
III. Mr. Castagliuolo Fired June 9, 2011 - He Threatened Me, Refused Rule 4-1.16 Refund
5. I fired Mr. Castagliuolo June 9, 2011 at 12.44 p.m. after he became enraged over the
number of documents I sent him. After termination of our agreement, Mr. Castagliuolo refused
to refund advance payment of a fee that had not been earned
4
. Castagliuolo emailed me the
message below June 9, 2011 at 12.51 p.m. A paper copy of the email appears at Exhibit 4.
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Under no circumstances will I be refunding any fee paid to me by you on Friday, June 3,
2011. In that you have discharged me as your attorney, please do not contact me again by
any manner whatsoever except through counsel.
Should you insist in contacting me again without the assistance of counsel, I shall
immediately report your contact to law enforcement and I shall prosecute you to the full
extent of the criminal law. I'm a former prosecutor, so If you think I'm bluffing, please try
me.
YOU HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED. CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Eugene P. Castagliuolo
After June 9, 2011 I considered Mr. Castagliuolo unstable and potentially dangerous. My
strategy for dealing with Castagliuolo was to use positive reinforcement, passive agreement,
praise and giving small gifts, etc., in order to get through the deposition, and later rescind the
improperly-obtained settlement agreement. It was a flawed strategy, with no viable option.
6. My options on June 9, 2011 were severely limited, due to an active arrest warrant against
me. I was not in a position to go out and meet with other lawyers. I had to stay home with the
door bolted and the windows covered. Also, I gave Mr. Castagliuolo $1,000 cash June 3, 2011,
which represented over half my Social Security disability income. After paying water, electric,

4
Rule 4-1.16(3), lawyer discharged; comment: A client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time; upon
termination, a lawyer should refund to the client any advance payment of a fee that has not been earned.
phone, and food bills, there was nothing left to hire another attorney. I am indigent and live from
one disability check to the next. I took Castagliuolo back
5
after he apologized, shown in his
email below sent June 9, 2011 at 1:16 p.m. Castagliuolos apology was sent 25 minutes after his
threatening email. The email appears at Exhibit 5.
Neil, I do NOT want to do battle with you, I do NOT battle with my clients. In 23+ years
of doing this, I have had maybe 3 client complaints, and I prevailed on all 3 because all 3
were found to be groundless.
As I told you when you hired me, I pride myself on getting along with my clients. But
your manner is very hard to take. You are obsessed with this matter and you expect me to
share your obsession. Unfortunately, I cannot, because to do so would mean that I have
lost my objectivity, and if I lose my objectivity, I will not be serving your best interests.
I want to get this guy off your back, but as you know well by now, the wheels of justice
move slowly. What's more, Rodems has not even extended me the professional courtesy
of returning my telephone calls. So if you want me to help you, we'll have to do it another
way. But it all starts with obtaining a copy of that writ.
It's totally your call, but there will be no refund whatsoever of any monies paid.
Furthermore, I invite you to reply to this e-mail if you do so in a civil, professional
manner.
The above email also shows Mr. Rodems was not cooperating: What's more, Rodems has not
even extended me the professional courtesy of returning my telephone calls. Mr. Rodems has
been the problem throughout this lawsuit, with me, with Mr. Bauer, and Mr. Castagliuolo.
Rodems also purposely disrupted the tribunal to prejudice the judges against me in this case.
IV. Conflict and Non-Cooperation of Mr. Rodems - Central Problem, Cause of Bar Complaints
7. Mr. Rodems refused to provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily attachment,
according to his email to Rodems June 9, 2011 at 12:46 p.m., see below, and at Exhibit 6.
Dear Mr. Rodems:
I telephoned and e-mailed you on June 6, 2011 regarding the above-specified case. I also
spoke with your paralegal, Susan, on that same date, and again approximately 45 minutes
ago. I have not yet had the pleasure of your response.
Perhaps I can make my request a lot more simple: I am requesting a copy of the writ
which apparently was docketed on June 1, 2011 (Mr. Gillespie has not received a copy of
same). If you or your assistant would be so kind so as to attach a copy to an e-mail and
shoot it over to me I would be most appreciative.
I am looking forward to your response. Thank you............Eugene
8. Mr. Castagliuolo wrote on page 2, 4 Mr. Littlewood, Gillespie is well known to your
Office as a complainant.. However Mr. Castagliuolo failed to mention that all my complaints

5
I waited over 24 hours before responding to Castagliuolo, trying to think of a better alternative to taking him back,
but could not think of anything. I took Castagliuolo back at June 10, 2011 at 2:25 p.m. with copies to Dr. Huffer,
my brother, and other interested parties to document his unstable and potentially dangerous manner.
are related to the misconduct of Ryan Christopher Rodems. Mr. Castagliuolo himself failed to
report the misconduct of Mr. Rodems as required by Rule 4-8.3(a), such as Rodems refusal to
provide Mr. Castagliuolo a copy of the writ of bodily attachment.
Mr. Rodems improper representation of his law firm and partner against me, a former client on
the same or "substantially related" matter, contrary to Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10 and the
holding of McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, is the central
problem in this matter and related Bar complaints. On Monday September 10, 2012 I submitted a
Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems to ACAP, and emailed a copy to you September 11, 2012.
V. Mr. Castagliuolo Failed to Provide Bankruptcy Protection
9. Prior to the friendly offer by Chris Rodems to Mr. Castagliuolo, ...that he would be
happy to speak to The Florida Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me..., Castagliuolo had
another name for Mr. Rodems: asshole Rodems. Mr. Castagliuolo sent this email June 14,
2011 at 7:46 p.m., suggesting bankruptcy protection. A copy of the email appears at Exhibit 7.
As for a new agreement, this is my suggestion. Give me another $1,000.00 on July 1, and
I won't take another dime from you. Consider it a flat fee to get you out from under this
writ (BUT WITHOUT entering an appearance in this state court case) and/or to file a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy for you. The only other things you would have to pay for if we go
the bankruptcy route(and these are NOT my fees, they are costs) is the filing fee of
$299.00, a credit report fee of $30.00, and the credit counseling fee(s) which will be at
most $80.00 (sometimes you can find a cheaper vendor). Based on what I know right
now about your case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he would get NOTHING from you.
Mr. Castagliuolo suggested bankruptcy in his email Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 10:44 p.m. which is
available. Mr. Castagliuolo mentioned bankruptcy again in his email of June 15, 2011 at 10:33
p.m., which appears as Exhibit 4 to my initial Bar complaint: Then, in the next 60 days, you file
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (presuming this trust
6
of yours which everyone's talking about doesn't
mean you don't qualify under the means test), and abracadabra, Rodems and this state court
lawsuit are history. I told Mr. Castagliuolo of an Assignment of Unliquidated Lawsuit Proceeds
(Exhibit 8) prepared in 2008 by attorney Jeffery Shelquist who did research and believed the
assignment would survive my filing for bankruptcy, and allow the case to continue for
adjudication on its merits. Mr. Castagliuolo would not discuss the Assignment with me.

6
As stated in my Bar complaint against Mr. Rodems, page 6, 3, Rodems lied about my income during a hearing
before Judge James Arnold on Plaintiffs Motion To Quash Writ of Bodily Attachment And To Rescind Warrant
For Plaintiffs Arrest, where I was represented by Mr. Castagliuolo. Rodems told Judge Arnold Mr. Gillespie
receives income from a trust. Mr. Rodems statement to Judge Arnold is false because I do not receive income
from a trust. My income is from Social Security disability. No one receives income from the trust because the trust
does not have any money. The only asset in the trust is my home valued at $85,584. The mortgage is $108,056. The
home is underwater with negative equity of -$22,532. The delinquent HOA fees are $6,902. A copy of The
Gillespie Family Living Trust was filed September 20, 2011 with the District Court and is on PACER along with
my Affidavit of Indigency, Case 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS Document 3 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 37
PageID 76. I did not create the trust and do not know its purpose. The grantor trustees are all dead. No living
person knows the purpose of the trust.
Mr. Castagliuolo also told Judge Arnold during a hearing June 16, 2011, tr. at page 9:
7 He's also a stroke away from a Chapter 7
8 bankruptcy. So, this thing could go away real
9 quick. And that's all the more reason why I don't
10 want him to sit in jail; so that I don't have to go
11 to the jail and have him sign his bankruptcy
12 petition and schedules.
In my initial Bar complaint I failed to specifically mention the bankruptcy plan suggested by
Mr. Castagliuolo due to my memory deficit disability. Do you need me to submit another Bar
complaint on this bankruptcy issue? Or can you consider the failed bankruptcy plan now?
7
In any event, Mr. Castagliuolos bankruptcy offer, and the Assignment of Unliquidated Lawsuit
Proceeds, are discussed in my Florida Supreme Court Petition, SC11-1622, and the supporting
Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Representation by attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo, FL Bar ID no.
104360, January 6, 2012. Both documents are cross-filed in my federal ADA and 1983 Civil
Rights lawsuit, case 5:10-cv-00503, Doc. 61 (affidavit) and Doc. 62 (Florida petition). This is
also a claim in my federal lawsuit for Civil RICO and Estate claims, see 5:11-cv-539, First
Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), and Motion To Reconsider, Vacate or Modify (RICO), May 30,
2012, U.S. District Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 12-11028-B.
VI. Mr. Castagliuolo Failed to Prepare For, Or Object To, A Full Deposition
10. On June 16, 2011 Mr. Castagliuolo appeared on my behalf before Judge Arnold to argue
Plaintiffs Motion To Quash Writ of Bodily Attachment And To Rescind Warrant For Plaintiffs
Arrest, which he submitted June 16, 2011, along with his Notice of Appearance
8
. Castagliuolos
motion was just two pages
9
, the rest was Exhibit A, my letter to Mr. Rodems of June 25, 2010
providing the following discovery responses, 15 pages altogether:
Exhibit 1. Responses to Defendants Interrogatories of September 2, 2008
Exhibit 2. Responses to Defendants Request for Production submitted Sept. 2, 2008
Exhibit 3. Responses to Defendants Request for Production submitted October 13, 2009
Note: this request for production was made in violation of Judge Bartons Order of
October 9, 2009: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above action be shall be stayed
for 60 Days to allow the Plaintiff to find replacement counsel. (relevant portion).
Exhibit 4. Responses to Defendants Request for Production submitted June 1, 2010
Exhibit 5. Responses to Defendants Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section
56.29(2), Florida Statutes, submitted June 1, 2010.

7
In my previous Bar complaint against Mr. Bauer, the investigating member, Brian Kramer, told me by email
March 14, 2011 It is not unusual that multiple complaints will be made by one individual against a particular
lawyer. However, each complaint must be reviewed and the notice requirements of due process followed in order to
the complaint to be properly placed against a lawyer. That is why I am asking you now.
8
Mr. Castagliuolo exceeded the scope of his representation by entering his appearance.
9
The complete motion is 19 pages, and too long to submit with this rebuttal, and is available upon request.
The record shows Judge Arnold demanded I attend a full deposition, not a deposition in aid of
execution. Final summary judgment was entered September 28, 2010
10
. Once final judgment is
entered, the need for discovery is over. Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP, 836 So. 2d 1073 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2003). The record does not show any objection by Mr. Castagliuolo.
13 THE COURT: And, I -- at this point in time,
14 his coming here is on a voluntary basis. If he
15 comes in on a voluntary basis on Tuesday, he brings
16 the documents, including the trust documents, which
17 I'll review in camera -- okay -- and willing to sit
18 for a deposition under oath, a full deposition
19 under oath, then I'll take that all into
20 consideration; and, and as far as I'm concerned, if
21 he does produce the documents, he does sit for
22 deposition, at that point in time, I'd be inclined
23 to withdraw any pick-up order.
24 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Great, your Honor. Thank
25 you.
Mr. Castagliuolo failed to review any of my responses in the above discovery, and his failure to
do so had very significant consequences at the deposition because a number of my responses
were not proper, even though I believed them to be proper when submitted. For example, I made
the following response at least twenty (20) times in the above responses: There is no list of
documents responsive to the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when
the record does not exist. I believed this response was proper because previously Counsel David
Rowland of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit provided that response to my public records request.
I made this response to Mr. Rodems at least twenty (20) times and he did not object until the
deposition June 21, 2011. Mr. Castagliuolo agreed with Rodems June 21, 2011 that my
responses were not valid. (or whatever legal term applies). Mr. Castagliuolo failed to advise me
PRIOR TO THE DEPOSITION that my response, There is no list of documents responsive to
the request and the rules do not require the creation of a record when the record does not exist
was not correct. I made that response at least twenty (20) times as follows:
Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants Request for Production, Sept. 2, 2008
Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants Request for Production, October 13, 2009
Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants Deposition Duces Tecum, June 1, 2010
Five (5) times in Responses to Defendants Motion for Examination Pursuant to Section
56.29(2), Florida Statutes, June 1, 2010

10
Final summery judgment was on appeal in 2D10-5197, as was civil contempt entered September 30, 2010, along
with the $11,550 sanction. A pro se motion was pending to stay the contempt ruling and writ of bodily attachment,
filed April 23, 2011. When appeal jurisdiction has been invoked to review a final order or judgment, the appellate
court may review the entire case in the lower court, including all issues preserved for review during the trial and
pretrial proceedings. Rule 9.110(h) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes the appellate court to
review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice of appeal. An appeal from a final order brings up
for review the correctness of all prior orders. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h). The appellate courts are authorized to review
all interlocutory rulings and orders of the trial court in plenary appeals from final orders and judgments.
The above is shown on the deposition transcript, which I paid to have transcribed, and is 137
pages long, plus 72 pages of exhibits. My errata sheet, submitted September 9, 2011 as Verified
Corrections And Amendments By Witness Neil J. Gillespie To Transcript Of Proceedings June
21, 2011, consists of 18 pages, plus 85 pages of exhibits, including threatening email sent by
Rodems to Mr. Castagliuolo less than 24 hours before the deposition. (copy of Mr. Rodems
threatening email on request). All of this was filed in the U.S. District Court, 5:10-cv-503, on
September 9, 2011, see Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Notice of Filing Transcript of Proceedings
June 21, 2011, and on PACER at Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 47 Filed
09/09/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1411. Only the two page notice of filing appears on PACER.
The following exchange beginning on page 111 shows my confusion with this issue:
11 Q All right. Paragraph 2 requested that
12 you bring each and every document that you received
13 from the trustee of the Gillespie Family Living
14 Trust Agreement dated February 10th, 1997. Are
15 there any responsive documents?
16 A Well, I objected to that. Without
17 waiving the objection, there's no list of documents
18 responsive to the request, and the rules do not
19 require the creation of a record when the record
20 does not exist.
The following exchange continuing on page 114 shows my confusion with this issue:
2 A Well, as it says, I don't have a list of
3 documents responsive to that request.
4 Q Well, I'm not asking for a list. I'm
5 asking for the actual documents. That's what I want
6 to inspect, the actual documents. Now, if there are
7 none, then --
The following exchange continuing on page 115 shows my confusion with this issue:
1 Q Is there any reason that you haven't
2 produced today those emails?
3 A Because I don't have a list of them.
4 Q Well, I didn't ask for a list. I asked
5 to see the actual documents.
6 A Well, I wouldn't know where to go for the
7 documents without a list.
8 Q What is this list you're referring to?
9 A If there's no list of documents
10 responsive, the rules don't require the creation of
11 a record when a record does not exist.
12 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Let me just have a
13 word, please.
14 Mr. Castagliuolo and the witness
15 conferred off the record.)
At this point Mr. Castagliuolo told me that my response was not correct. This is the first time he
informed me of my error. This exchange on page 116 shows the basis for my mistaken belief:
4 So I'm -- I'm not sure what you
5 understood a list to be. I don't know where you got
6 that information. I don't know what you looked at
7 for that.
8 A Mr. Rowland from this court.
9 Q Okay. Well, I don't know what
10 Mr. Rowland may have told you, but he certainly was
11 not your attorney, and you are not -- you should not
12 have gone to a court's representative and asked for
13 legal advice, and I'm -- I'm not privy to those
14 conversations, so I don't know what was said or what
15 was not said. But my request is for documents which
Mr. Rodems is correct, I should not have gone to a courts representative. That is why I retained
Mr. Castagliuolo to prepare me for, and attend this deposition. But Mr. Castagliuolo did not
prepare me for the deposition, and he may not have even read my discovery responses, or if he
did read them, he did not understand the problem, erroneous responses made twenty (20) times.
At this point the deposition went off track and never recovered, and was doomed to failure.
VII. Mr. Castagliuolos Consent to Record Telephone Conversations
11. Mr. Castagliuolo consented to a recorded telephone conversation June 16, 2011, at 12:35
p.m., his call to me following a hearing with Judge Arnold earlier that day. A transcript and
audio file is available and shows that Mr. Castagliuolo is unconcerned when he hears the
Telephone Recording Announcer state This call is being recorded for quality assurance
purposes. This is presented to impeach Exhibits E and F, Castagliuolos claim that he never
consented to a recorded call, or that he finds it unacceptable and repugnant.
This call shows Mr. Castagliuolo trying to get out of his obligation to attend the deposition June
21, 2011; later in the call he wants me to take a walk-away deal, which I rejected:
Transcript, phone call June 16, 2011, pages 6-7
25 [MR. CASTAGLIUOLO] You know, you and I are going to have to
1 decide how we're going to proceed if you're going
2 to just go to this thing by yourself on Tuesday or
3 you want me there with you.
4 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm not going anywhere
5 near a Court without counsel.
6 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: Okay, well --
7 MR. GILLESPIE: I mean, that's been the issue
8 all along. I have no problem giving him a
9 deposition, giving him papers, whatever. However,
10 because he has a conflict in this and because of
11 his past history, any time I'm alone with him after
12 the fact he conjures up and starts churning out an
13 affidavit and all this other nonsense.
Transcript, phone call June 16, 2011, Page 11
5 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: So I guess I'm still in the
6 case. And --
7 MR. GILLESPIE: And I appreciate that.
8 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: It seems like our
9 relationship changes on a daily basis, sometimes
10 twice a day. But that's okay.
This last sentence shows an ongoing problem with Mr. Castagliuolo, lack of focus. How can our
relationship be changing on a daily basis, sometimes twice a day? What is he talking about? I
hired him to prepare me for, and attend a deposition. Period. Apparently there is another agenda
going on with Mr. Castagliuolo, either within his own mind, known only to him, or a conspiracy
with Mr. Rodems to force a walk-away settlement, which I rejected during this call.
VIII. Mr. Castagliuolos Renewed Threat of Lawsuit Under Floridas Wiretapping Laws
12. Mr. Castagliuolo misunderstands the difference between wiretapping and one or two
party consent. Wiretapping is the covert monitoring or recording of telephone conversations by a
third party, usually government or law enforcement, see Telephone tapping, Wikipendia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping
Under the law of the United States and most state laws, there is nothing illegal about one of the
parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be
recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However the telephone recording laws
in most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while 12 states require
both parties to be aware. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call
that the conversation is being recorded.
Florida is two party consent, but I record under Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot
Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991), see my August 1, 2012 letter to AG Pam Bondi.
Floridas two party consent recording law conflicts with 14th Amendment equal protection with
one party consent states, and will be argued in my petition for writ of certiorari to the SCOTUS.
IX. Timing of This Complaint
13. In response to Mr. Castagliuolos question as to the timing of this complaint,
Castagliuolo himself set the wheels in motion with his email to me of July 25, 2012 where he
threatened to sue me and court reporter Michael Borseth under chapter 934 Florida Statutes. My
initial complaint shows Mr. Castagliuolo has a long history of sending me threatening email. In
the past I either ignored him, or responded by letter as concisely as possible, but clearly that was
not working. This time he also threatened Mr. Borseth. Castagliuolo concluded his email of July
25th with this threat: You've been warned. My lawsuit is drafted and ready to go. Your move.
Given the seriousness of Mr. Castagliuolos threat, and his unstable and potentially dangerous
nature, I thought it best to report his threat directly to the Florida Attorney General, with copies
to Michael Cohen of Florida Lawyers Assistance, and Paul Hill and Ken Marvin of the Bar. My
letter to the AG was sent August 1, 2012. On August 10, 2012 I received an email response from
Samantha Santana of the Florida AGs office, who said Please follow up with The Bar directly
for further assistance. I filed my Bar complaint the next day. Again, in the past I tried to ignore
Mr. Castagliuolo, but that is no longer working.
X. Specific Denial of Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit A-G Responses
A. Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit A. Denied. Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to settle, not
me, see paragraph 3 above. My email of June 21, 2011 at 6:33 p.m. shows I mistakenly believed
that I made the decision to settle, and that I am confused. It also shows I am unhappy with the
settlement. Since Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to settle, it goes to follow that I would be
unhappy with him once I figured out the scam.
B. Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit B. Denied. Once again, Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to
settle, not me, see paragraph 3 above. My email of June 22, 2011 at 3:12 p.m. shows I am
unhappy with the settlement, and attached a draft copy of my Motion To Set Aside: Settlement
Agreement, Notice Of Dismissal With Prejudice 2dDCA, and Joint Stipulation For Dismissal
With Prejudice 13th Circuit. Again, since Mr. Castagliuolo made the decision to settle, it goes to
follow that I would be unhappy with him once I figured out the scam. This shows I am confused,
and still suffering the effects of living in a bunker for 21 days while sheriffs officers hunted
me day after day, pounding on my door. This is what Castagliuolo told Judge Arnold:
Transcript, June 16, 2011, page 4
5 [MR. CASTAGLIUOLO] I really believe that he
6 has had the fear of God put in him with regard to
7 being arrested.
8 He's called me when the sheriff's officer was
9 knocking on his door and calling me by cell at the
10 same time. I spoke to that sheriff's officer. The
11 sheriff's officer said, if we pick him up, he's
12 going to sit in the Marion County Jail for two
13 weeks before Hillsborough even thinks of coming
14 over to get him.
Mr. Castagliuolos scam was over June 29, 2011 when by chance I looked on PACER in my
federal ADA and Civil Rights lawsuit 5:10-cv-503 and saw Mr. Rodems Notice Of Assignment
Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice (Doc. 32) filed June 21, 2011.
The next day I filed a motion to strike (Doc. 33), based on my motion to set aside described
above. I wrote this June 30, 2011 about Mr. Castagliuolo in 3-4, and 31:
3. The settlement made by Gillespie while in custody of the Hillsborough County
Sheriffs Office (HCSO) on civil contempt ordered by Circuit Judge James D. Arnold at
the Edgecomb Courthouse must be set aside, and is void or voidable, for fraud, duress,
mistake, undue influence, adhesion, lack of informed consent, disability or incapacity,
sleep depravation, malpractice or negligence by jailers, threats, intimidation, yelling, and
other improper conduct by opposing counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems, and breach of
duty by Gillespies former counsel, Eugene P. Castagliuolo.
4. As such there was no manifestation of mutual assent, a "meeting of the minds", or
agreement to the terms of the settlement. Rather, Gillespie was impaired by disability and
sleep depravation and threatened while in custody of the HSCO and agreed to act to get
out of custody. Gillespies former counsel, Mr. Castagliuolo, breached his professional
duty to Gillespie. The settlement agreement, prepared in advance by Mr. Rodems, is a
mirror of Rodems manifestation of mutual assent, not the manifestation of assent by
Gillespie who was forced or induced to assent to the terms of the contract while disabled,
in custody of the HCSO, and counsel who breached his duty. Therefore, the mutual
meeting of the minds "in truth" does not exist. Since there is no mutual meeting of the
minds there can be no settlement, and the settlement is void or voidable.
31. Gillespie never knowingly agreed to assign any claims in Gillespie v. Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al., Case No. 5:10-cv-00503, US District Court, MD Florida,
Ocala Division. Mr. Castagliuolo did not discuss or explain what the assignment meant.
Gillespie only learned about the assignment late Wednesday night, June 29, 2011 while
looking at the case docket on PACER. Mr. Rodems never served a copy of the Notice of
Assignment Of Claims And Motion For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice as required.
You can read the document on PACER here: Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 33
Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 33 PageID 604
Also on June 30, 2011 I filed Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespies Notice Regarding Attorney Eugene P.
Castagliuolo, Florida Bar ID #104360, on PACER here: Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB
Document 34 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 736. At 2 I wrote: Mr. Castagliuolo is
hereby terminated immediately as counsel for Neil J. Gillespie in the case described in paragraph
1, and any other actions or disputes. At 3 I wrote: Mr. Castagliuolo breached his professional
duty to Gillespie.. I wrote this at 6-7:
6. Prior to the deposition Gillespie instructed Mr. Castagliuolo not to accept a
walk-away Settlement Agreement And General Mutual Release offered by Rodems.
Gillespie did not agree to the settlement. Mr. Castagliuolo disobeyed Gillespies written
instructions not to accept the walk-away settlement offered by Mr. Rodems.
7. Mr. Castagliuolo represented Gillespie June 21, 2011 at a deposition by Rodems
at the Edgecomb Courthouse in Tampa in the litigation described in paragraph 1.
Castagliuolo failed to prepare Gillespie for the deposition as agreed. Sometime during the
deposition, if not sooner, Mr. Castagliuolo stopped representing the interest of Gillespie.
Among other things, Mr. Castagliuolo failed to explain the walk-away Settlement
Agreement And General Mutual Release to Gillespie so he could make an informed
choice, and other such.
I had no intention to pay Mr. Castagliuolo ANYTHING after June 30, 2011.
C. Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit C. Denied. This is a false statement because I gave the DVD
11
(not a CD) to Castagliuolo on June 21, 2011 around 10:15 a.m. in the Edgecomb Courthouse just
prior to the deposition, not In or around July 2011. It was positive reinforcement to help keep him
focused on representing me. The falsity of Mr. Castagliuolos statement is proven in his Exhibit
B, page two, his email sent June 22, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. where he wrote: Thank you very much
for the book and CD's (sic). This shows the CD (DVD) was not sent In or around July 2011.
D. Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit D. Denied. This is a false statement because I gave the book
12
to Castagliuolo on June 21, 2011 around 10:15 a.m. in the Edgecomb Courthouse just prior to the
deposition, not In or around July 2011. It was positive reinforcement to help keep him focused
on representing me. The falsity of Mr. Castagliuolo statement is proven in his Exhibit B, page
two, his email sent June 22, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. where he wrote: Thank you very much for the
book and CD's (sic). This shows the book was not sent In or around July 2011.
E. Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit E. Denied. This Bar complaint is at the direction of the
Florida Office of Attorney General. On August 10, 2012 I received an email from Samantha
Santana of the AGs office
13
who wrote Please follow up with The Bar directly for further
assistance. I filed this Bar complaint the next day. My reasons for recording calls are described
in my August 1, 2012 letter to Florida AG Pam Bondi, not for some obscure reason as
Castagliuolo claimed. On December 30, 2009 I filed in case 05-CA-7205 Plaintiffs Notice of
Telephone Recording, that states at paragraph 1: All calls on plaintiff's home office business
telephone extension are recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to the business use
exemption of Florida Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4Xa)(1) and the holding of Royal
Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jeffirson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). This is
due in large part to harassing phone calls from Mr. Rodems, and his false affidavit of our March
3, 2006 phone call. On June 9, 2011 at 10:41 a.m. I notified Mr. Castagliuolo by email to
communicate by email if he declined my usual practice of recording. Exhibit 9 is a copy of the
email. I did not agree not to record him. Mr. Castagliuolo had no expectation of privacy.
Mr. Castagliuolo also consented to being recorded June 16, 2011, see paragraph 11 above.
F. Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit F. Denied, see my letter to Florida AG Pam Bondi August 1,
2012. In addition, I notified Mr. Castagliuolo by email to communicate by email if he declined
my usual practice of recording. Exhibit 9 is a copy of the email. I did not agree not to
record him. Mr. Castagliuolo had no expectation of privacy. On December 30, 2009 I filed in
case 05-CA-7205 Plaintiffs Notice of Telephone Recording, see above paragraph. Castagliuolo
also consented to being recorded June 16, 2011, see paragraph 11 above.
G. Mr. Castagliuolos Exhibit G. Mr. Bauers response letter contains false and misleading
statements; another complaint is needed. Investigating member Brian Kramer emailed me March
14, 2011 It is not unusual that multiple complaints will be made by one individual against a
particular lawyer. However, each complaint must be reviewed and the notice requirements of due
process followed in order to the complaint to be properly placed against a lawyer.

11
This is a video DVD of Dr. Huffer speaking about Legal Abuse. I make copies and give them away freely.
12
Whores: Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment by Larry Klayman; I give books away freely.
13
The AG was very helpful, and provided copies of all my past communication since 2007 at no charge.
Mr. Bauer has many unhappy clients, some have contacted me, see First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 15), U.S. District Court, 5:11-cv-539, 51a-d. Some of Bauers unhappy clients include
Dr. Angela Woodhull, Anna Hodges, Phillip Strauss (TFB File No.: 2012-00,146 (8B)), and
James and Betty DeCoursey (TFB File No. 2012-00,054(8b)). Also see Bad Boy Robert Bauer -
More Unhappy Clients! http://www.nosue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/
XI. Request to Treat Mr. Castagliuolos Failure to Deny as Admissions
14. In his response dated August 30, 2012, Mr. Castagliuolo does not appear to deny any of
the specific accusations in my Bar complaint. Therefore I request the Bar treat his failure to deny
as admissions. Quite frankly, Mr. Castagliuolos response looks like the unhinged ranting of a
lunatic. It does not appear that he can assist himself, let alone clients. If another attorney had
submitted that response on behalf of Mr. Castagliuolo, Im pretty sure it would be malpractice.
The following is my laymans understanding of Mr. Castagliuolo Bar Rule violations:
Rule 4-1.1, lacked competence to prepare for, and represent me during a deposition.
Rule 4-1.2(a), failed to abide by my decision not to accept walk-away agreement. A lawyer
shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter.
Rule 4-1.2(c), exceeded scope of representation by entering appearance, accepting a settlement.
Rule 4-1.3, failed to act with diligence, failed to prepare for the deposition, failed to provide
zealous representation, failed to do bankruptcy, no settlement efforts to benefit me, no ADA.
Rule 4-1.4(b) failed to explain the Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release June 21,
2011 to me. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Mr. Bauers letter of August 24,
2012 informed me that Mr. Rodem's release dated June 21,2011 does not have any legal effect
on the amount of money that is owed to this firm. Further, it does not bind this firm in any way. I
(sic) does bind you -but not us. Castagliuolo failed to tell me that the agreement only binds me.
Rule 4-1.7(d) Lawyers Related by Blood. Mr. Castagliuolo failed to inform me that his daughter,
Maria Castagliuolo, is a lawyer employed by the public defender (PD), 13th Circuit previously
appointed to represent me. The PD was hostile to me and my cause, see the Affidavit of Neil
Gillespie on Castagliuolos representation, Doc. 61, 5:10-cv-503. Soon after, daughter Maria was
promoted in her job with the PD as a result of her fathers settlement benefiting the 13th Circuit.
Rule 4-1.16 (a) a lawyer must decline or terminate representation when;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to
represent the client; In his response Mr. Castagliuolo did not deny having mental problems;
Castagliuolos own health issues email of June 15, 2011where he requested 60 days to
complete the deposition shows he was too impaired to represent me. (Exhibit 4/Bar complaint).
(3) the lawyer is discharged; I fired Mr. Castagliuolo June 9, 2011, he refused refund of
advance payment of a fee not earned; Rule Comment: A client has a right to discharge a lawyer
at any time...upon termination of representation, a lawyer should refund to the client any advance
payment of a fee that has not been earned. The fee was not earned when I fired Castagliuolo.
Mr. Castagliuolos response shows extreme prejudice toward my disabilities. Castagliuolo does
not dispute the fact that he failed to see that reasonable disability accommodations were in place,
such as taking a lunch break, monitoring my vital signs, and monitoring diabetes blood sugar.
The record shows there were at least two ex parte hearings during the deposition, where I was
not present before the judge. The ex parte hearings were not transcribed either, even though a
court reporter was present. Mr. Castagliuolo was visibly shaken when he returned, and looked as
though he may have been threatened. All he said to me was judges have mud on their shoes.
Mr. Castagliuolo has not explained what he meant by that comment in his response to the Bar.
Mr. Castagliuolo failed to answer why he repeatedly falsely accused me of criminal acts. Or why
he claims to be a former prosecutor while making these threats. On July 1, 2011 Castagliuolo
threatened criminal prosecution under section 812.012(6)(b), Fla. Stat., and section 772.11 Fla.
Stat. (2011) for allegedly obtaining professional services by false pretenses. But attorney
Danialle Riggins of Ocala advised me that I did not violate any criminal statutes. On August 5,
2011 Mr. Castagliuolo demanded $3,000 because my Civil Theft claim against you has been
perfected. Again, attorney Riggins advised Castagliuolos threat was not legitimate.
XII. The Justice Network - NoSue.org
15. Mr. Castagliuolo is misinformed about my Justice Network website, which is a public
service, and part of my therapy as a survivor of legal injustice. For example, a former client of
Mr. Rodems, Heike Albert, contacted me unsolicited March 31, 2012 about his conduct in her
federal lawsuit, Albert v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 11-cv-869-orl-35DAB. Rodems moved to
withdrawal as counsel, and argued irreconcilable differences April 4, 2012 before U.S. District
Judge Honeywell, claiming Ms. Albert called him an asshole. (Transcript of Mr. Rodems
testimony upon request). I helped Ms. Albert find her case on PACER, as her counsel failed to
provide her with documents in her case. Fortunately Ms. Albert found new counsel, and the case
docket shows Plaintiffs Notice of Settlement (Doc. 90) August 21, 2012. Ms. Albert found me
thorough my emergency motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems on Scribd. I sent Ms. Albert a DVD of
Dr. Huffer & Legal Abuse Syndrome, courtesy of the Justice Network. This is just one example.
Two years ago I launched the Justice Network with the domain name "YouSue.org". This name
was chosen in the spirit of YouTube, the video-sharing website that empowered ordinary people
to produce and share video. The official Justice Network Internet address is now NoSue.org.
This reflects the sad truth that for most Americans the justice system is broken, just a parody of
justice. My advice is to avoid American courts. Your life, health and wealth is at risk.
XIII. Mr. Castagliuolos Personal Insults and False Accusations Related to Disability
16. Mr. Castagliuolos response of August 30, 2012 makes a number of gratuitous personal
insults and false accusations against me related to disability. I deny Mr. Castagliuolos assertions,
and suggest this is further evidence of misconduct. According to his August 30, 2012 response,
Mr. Castagliuolos false accusations go beyond the scope of this Bar inquiry. Castagliuolo
indicated that he sent a copy of his Bar response to the Office of the Inspector General, Social
Security Disability Administration. Social Security disability is my only source of income, and Mr.
Castagliuolo is wrongfully attempting to interfere with my benefits through the Bar complaint
process. In my view Castagliuolo' s conduct is a violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4{d) "A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice, including to knowing:y, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or
discriminate against litigants... on any basis, including, but not limited to... disability....".
I may file a separate Bar complaint against Mr. Castagliuolo for misconduct related to my
disability and his attempt to disrupt my benefits through a Bar complaint response. Please advise.
In evaluating my disability and ability to work, consider what U.S. District Judge Wm. Terrell
Hodges wrote about my COlnplaint in 5: 10-cv-503, in Order of Dismissal (Doc. 64) Feb-27-12:
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint...conslsts of 39 pages of rambling,
largely incomprehensible allegations and fails to set forth "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2).... Plaintiffhas'not alleged any intelligible facts that would support a finding of
the existence of federal question jurisdiction. (relevant portion)
Also, the Supreme Court ofF!orida denied/dismissed my petition in case SCII-1622 by Order
March 12, 2012, and held (relevant portion) "To the extent the petitioner seeks any additional
relief, the petition is dismissed as facially insufficient." I basically agreed in my Conclusion,
This inadequate, flawed petition is the best I can do today under the burden of mental
illness and disability. .If I had another couple weeks this petition could be improved. It
took a long time for me to figure out a strategy. In a whale of a case like this I spent
considerable time about how to take the first bite. (relevant portion)
One problem that cause so mach delay14 was my depression over Mr. Castagliuolo's betrayal,
and how to present his betrayal to the Court. I finally decided and m3de January 6, 2012 an
affidavit of Mr. representation which consolidated ari enormous amount of
evidence into a usable docum'ent. After the Court's decision on March 12, 2012, I moved for
reconsideration March 19, 2012 on a single issue, to rescind the walk-away settlement, citing
Mr. Rodems improper representation of his law firm and law partner against me, a former client
in a "substantially related" matter, with five pages of evidence, case "law and Bar Rules showing
that Rodems should have been disqualified as counsel April 25, 2006. On March 22, 2012 I filed
an addendum to include things forgotten in my motion for reconsideration. All this shows that
my disability affects my to work, and impeaches Mr. Castagliuolo's disability diatribe.
Every document, email and transcript mentioned in this rebuttal is available upon request. Under
penalties 0J4f.I declare the facts are true, correct and complete. Thank you.
Sincerely, .
Neil J. Gil spie, 2 W 11)th oop, Ocala, Florida 34481 .
Enclosures, ExhibIts 1-9; cc: Eugene Castagliuolo via UPS, tracking no. lZ64589FP290808202.
..
14 The Florida Supreme Court me leave to file the petition August 22, 2011; I obtained several time
extensions and filed the petition January 9, 2012.
The Law Offices of
Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E, Gainesville, FL 32609
www.bauerlegal.com
Phone:
Fax:
(352)375.5960
(352)337.2518
August 24, 2012
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 11 5th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Re: Case # 05-CA-007205 - 060703
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
I am in receipt of your August 17, 2012 letter requesting your file. Mr. Rodem's release dated
June 21,2011 does not have any legal effect on the amount of money that is owed to this finn.
Further, it does not bind this finn in any way. I does bind you - but not us.
We continue to exercise our charging lien. If you wish to contact me at the number listed above I
would be happy to discuss resolving the lien in manner that is acceptable to all parties.
Robert W. Bauer, Esq.
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,
Case No.:5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants.
____________________________________/

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF NEIL J. GILLESPIES MOTION TO STRIKE OR SET
ASIDE MR. RODEMS NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AND MOTION
FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT 33]

On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie assigned all claims in this action to Ryan
Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, and William J. Cook. Dkt 32, Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the
Assignees moved the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt 32.
Gillespie now moves this Court to set aside the settlement agreement reached wherein he
assigned the claims in this action to Assignees. Gillespie has no standing to make such a motion,
and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a contract -- the
settlement agreement Gillespie asks this Court to set aside -- that is not the subject of this action.
1

1
Notwithstanding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gillespies recitation of the
events surrounding the settlement are belied by the record. The settlement agreement was signed
by Gillespie while sitting next to his attorney. In fact, in deciding whether to sign it, Gillespie
stated to his attorney, Ill defer to your judgment on this. Gillespies attorney stated, Ive
already given you judgment in private, and Ill give it to you on the record. I think this is -- this is
an agreement you want to enter into, and I think it is in your best interest. (Exhibit 1). Gillespie
now claims that he signed under duress, lacked informed consent, and asserts other reasons it
should be set aside, none of which are supported by the record of the settlement conference.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1350
2
9
1 photograph references or other references to
2 his -- him or his firm or his partners, he
3 wants down. I don't know how he can make it
4 much more simpler than that.
5 MR. RODEMS: And I'm not looking for a
6 situation -- I'm not looking for a situation
7 to invent a way to sue you again. I'm looking
8 for a way for you to go on with your life and
9 me and my partners to go on with our life.
10 That's all I'm looking for. So we can make
11 hand changes to that document, but what I'm
12 not willing to do is to delay this anymore.
13 This needs to be done.
14 MR. GILLESPIE: I'll defer to your
15 judgment on this.
16 MR. CASTAGLIUOLO: I've already given
17 you judgment in private, and I'll give it to
18 you on the record. I think this is -- this is
19 an agreement you want to enter into, and I
20 think this is in your best interest.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, will you then see
22 that whatever changes need to be made are
23 made?
24 MR. RODEMS: No, I'm ready to sign it
25 right now.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-DAB Document 40-1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID 1360
3

Neil Gillespie
From: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: communication
Page 1 of 3
9/11/2012
Dear Mr. Gillespie:

Under no circumstances will I be refunding any fee paid to me by you on Friday, June 3, 2011.

In that you have discharged me as your attorney, please do not contact me again by any manner
whatsoever except through counsel.

Should you insist in contacting me again without the assistance of counsel, I shall immediately
report your contact to law enforcement and I shall prosecute you to the full extent of the criminal
law. I'm a former prosecutor, so If you think I'm bluffing, please try me.

YOU HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED. CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

Eugene P. Castagliuolo

www.CastagliuoloLawGroup.com www.FilingBankruptcyInTampa.com

Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLI UOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMul l en Boot h Road, Cl ear w at er , Fl or i da 33759
(727) 712-3333

Castagliuolo Law Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Code (11 USC
101-1330).

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (and any associated files) from Castagliuolo Law Group, P. A. is for the sole use of the intended
recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or
other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of the original
message.

--- On Thu, 6/9/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
To: "Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esq." <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2011, 12:44 PM

CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2451 McMullen Booth Road
Clearwater, Florida 33759
4

Neil Gillespie
Page 1 of 3
9/11/2012
Neil, I do NOT want to do battle with you, I do NOT battle with my clients. In 23+ years of
doing this, I have had maybe 3 client complaints, and I prevailed on all 3 because all 3 were
found to be groundless.

As I told you when you hired me, I pride myself on getting along with my clients. But your
manner is very hard to take. You are obsessed with this matter and you expect me to share your
obsession. Unfortunately, I cannot, because to do so would mean that I have lost my objectivity,
and if I lose my objectivity, I will not be serving your best interests.

I want to get this guy off your back, but as you know well by now, the wheels of justice move
slowly. What's more, Rodems has not even extended me the professional courtesy of returning
my telephone calls. So if you want me to help you, we'll have to do it another way. But it all
starts with obtaining a copy of that writ.

It's totally your call, but there will be no refund whatsoever of any monies paid. Furthermore, I
invite you to reply to this e-mail if you do so in a civil, professional manner.

Thank you.

Eugene


(727) 712-3333

101-1330).

message.

--- On Thu, 6/9/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:

Date: Thursday, June 9, 2011, 12:44 PM

5

Neil Gillespie
To: <Rodems@BarkerRodemsandCook.com>
Subject: 13th Circuit Court Case # 05-CA-007205 (Second Request)
Page 1 of 1
9/11/2012
Dear Mr. Rodems:

I telephoned and e-mailed you on June 6, 2011 regarding the above-specified case. I also spoke
with your paralegal, Susan, on that same date, and again approximately 45 minutes ago. I have not yet
had the pleasure of your response.

Perhaps I can make my request a lot more simple: I am requesting a copy of the writ which apparently
was docketed on June 1, 2011 (Mr. Gillespie has not received a copy of same). If you or your assistant
would be so kind so as to attach a copy to an e-mail and shoot it over to me I would be most appreciative.

I am looking forward to your response. Thank you............Eugene


(727) 712-3333

101-1330).

message.
6

Neil Gillespie
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: your call earlier
Page 1 of 2
7/19/2011
"Ive made my peace with the lord. Im 55 years-old but feel like 85. Im at the end of the line."

Sorry it's taken me longer than I thought to get back to you.

This kind of talk isn't good Neil. You're not at the end of the line until you're at the end of
the line. And I don't see you being any closer to the end than I am.

As for a new agreement, this is my suggestion. Give me another $1,000.00 on July 1, and I
won't take another dime from you. Consider it a flat fee to get you out from under this
writ (BUT WITHOUT entering an appearance in this state court case) and/or to file a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy for you. The only other things you would have to pay for if we go
the bankruptcy route(and these are NOT my fees, they are costs) is the filing fee of $299.00,
a credit report fee of $30.00, and the credit counseling fee(s) which will be at most $80.00
(sometimes you can find a cheaper vendor). Based on what I know right now about your
case, your debt to this asshole Rodems would be discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy,
and he would get NOTHING from you.

Take care, I'll be asleep in an hour, but I will be calling Judge Arnold's chambers first
thing tomorrow.


(727) 712-3333

101-1330).

message.

--- On Tue, 6/14/11, Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:

Subject: your call earlier
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 3:58 PM

7
NEIL J GILLESPIE
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA, FL 34481
ASSIGNMENT OF UNLIQUIDATED LAWSUIT PROCEEDS
Neil J. Gillespie (hereinafter "Assignor") assigns and transfers to Penelope M. Gillespie
(hereinafter "Assignee"), for her use and benefit, a security interest in all rights of Neil J.
Gillespie to receive any proceeds in the case of Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook,
P.A., Hillsborough County Circuit Court Case Number 05-CA-7205. The cause of action itself
is retained by Neil J. Gillespie and only the right to the litigation proceeds is hereby assigned.
Neil J. Gillespie retains the right of action and retains complete control over the handling and the
management of the lawsuit, including the right to make any and all decisions regarding the
lawsuit and any decisions regarding settlement of the lawsuit.
DATED this_........ __ I...... rl--7Y day of November, 2008.
A!M... k2
1
1, ~ ~
DATE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19.- day of November, 2008, by
Neil J. Gillespe, who is personally known..to me or has produced as
identification.
1 k s ~ f ~ ~
t1 AL o..e.1LLld La t--J ~
Print, Type or Stamp Name of Notary
My Commission Expires: J v oe." ~ "I ~ II
.__ -._ ... __ _ _ .
DAVID R. ELlSPERMANN. CLERK Of COURT MARION COUNTY
DATE: 03/31/2009 11:58:27 AM
FILE #: 2009026691 OR BK 05177 PG 0547
RECORDING FEES 10.00
Book5177/Page547 CFN#2009026691 Page 1 of 1
8

Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:41 AM
Subject: communication
Page 1 of 1
7/31/2012
Eugene,
In response to your brief phone call this morning wherein you declined my usual practice of
recording, in the alternative please communicate by email. You said you would call me on my
cell phone, but I cant hear well on a cell phone and limit its use to emergencies. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil Gillespie
9

Gillespie Rebuttal, Castagliuolo Response, Florida Bar Complaint, Sep-14-2012

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gillespie Rebuttal, Castagliuolo Response, Florida Bar Complaint, Sep-14-2012

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr.

, Bar Counsel September 14, 2012

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi