Chief Judge Manuel Menendez-Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida-RESIGN

VIA U.P.S. No.
lZ64589FP294937280
September 27, 2013
Manuel Menendez, Jr., Chief Judge
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603
Tampa, Florida 33602
Dear Judge Menendez:
Your response to my records request of August 15, 2013 shows the existence ofjudicial
misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida.
Your misconduct and disability shows you are not able to perform your duties under Article V,
section 2(d), Florida Constitution, as a circuit chiefjudge and the administrative head of the
circuit, "responsible for the administrative supervision of the circuit courts and county courts in
his circuit" or attend to the business of the court in an efficient and expeditious manner.
My August 15, 2013 record request specifically excluded a response by David A. Rowland, yet
he responded anyway August 30, 2013 and claimed you "directed" him to respond.
Unfortunately Mr. Rowland is a criminal. He engaged in fraud or impairment of a legitimate
government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, when he obstructed Petition No. 12-7747, a conspiracy
against rights, 18 USC 241, and a depravation of rights under color of law, 18 USC 242.
The records response by Mr. Rowland is defective. Rowland's letter is dated August 30, 2013,
but the U.S.P.S. tracking no. 9114 9011 5981 5305 5834 13 shows the letter was not mailed until
September 9, 2013, and not delivered until September 11, 2013. Mr. Rowland has notoriously
misrepresented dates in this matter, like his fraud and obstruction in Petition No. 12-7747,
described in my letter to Kemleth Wilson A.A.G. May 16, 2013.
Rowland's letter wrongly claims "we responded" to earlier records request. No, the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit did not respond. Instead, Sandra Burge, a purported "paralegal assistant",
provided inaccurate and misleading responses on plain paper, not the Court's letterhead.
Rowland provided in his response a concocted email, the "AMENDED INVOICE: Judicial
Records Request", that contains this additional text: "Expires: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:00
AM". The email I got from Sandra Burge June 06, 2013 12:34 PM does not have this additional
text. Rowland's document shows other evidence of fabrication. It is missing the email address of
the sender Sandra Burge and my email address, and wrongly displays the name David Rowland.
In addition, I will not send payment for records to David Rowland, who I know as a liar.
Judge Menendez, I have not addressed every problem with Mr. Rowland's response, or
responded to every misstatement of fact by him, but Rowland's response does not fulfill your
obligation as records custodian to nlY request. Mr. Rowland has a conflict of interest due to his
crimes in this matter as described above, 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 241 and 18 U.S.C. 242.
Rowland's misconduct will become more problematic as he tries to cover-up his wrongdoing.
Chief Judge Manuel Menendez, Jr.
August 27, 2013
Page - 2
The Florida Press Association wrote you November 16, 2011, as shown in the enclosed letter,
"[T]o convey our serious concern that foreclosure hearings in Hillsborough County are being
conducted in a manner that inappropriately impedes public access to judicial proceedings. It has
recently come to our attention that members of the public encounter significant obstacles when
attempting to observe foreclosure proceedings, and in some instances are unable to do so at all.
We believe this practice violates Florida law's robust guarantee of open courts."
The Press Association's letter was provided "cc" to Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles
T. Canady. Signatories to the November 16, 2011 letter include:
Samuel J. Morley, General Counsel, The Florida Press Association
Talbot D' Alemberte, The Florida Press Association
Barbara Peterson, President, First Amendment Foundation
Larry Schwartztol, Staff Attorney, The American Civil Liberties Union
Gil Thelen, Executive Director, Florida Society of News Editors
Randall C. Marshall, Legal Director, The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida
Judge Menendez, enclosed is my letter to you of January 27, 2010 informing you of problems in
my case 05-CA-7205. I do not show a response from you, or evidence of remedial action. My
complaints with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit are similar to those made by The Florida Press
Association, and are not isolated or sporadic events, but part of your policy of oppression.
The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit was created by statute to administer, apply, and interpret the laws
of the state of Florida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improper
influence, personal self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
Unfortunately Judge Menendez, you and Mr. Rowland do not operate the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit in a fair and unbiased manner. Instead, you corruptly run the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
for your benefit, and as a criminal enterprise through a pattern of racketing activity contrary to
RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968.
It is time for you to resign Judge Menendez. You are not able to perform your duty as Chief
Judge in an effective and expeditious manner. Do not direct Mr. Rowland contact me again. I do
not want to hear from that lying criminal anymore. I will proceed next with the records request to
Lisa Goodner, State Courts Adnlinistrator, and federal options beyond that ifnecessary.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Lo p
Ocala, Florida 3448
Enclosures
cc: Lisa Goodner, State Courts Administrator, VIA UPS No. lZ64589FP294806091
cc: David A. Rowland, letter only, VIA UPS No. lZ64589FP293610866
VIA U.P.S. No. lZ64589FP293018775
August 15, 2013
Chief Judge Manuel Menendez, Jr.
Dear Chief Judge Menendez:
Cal Goodlett, General Counsel's Office, Office of the State Courts Administrator, identified you
as the Records Custodian for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida. Rule 2.420(b)(3).
This is my third request for public records. Two prior requests were met with false and
misleading responses from Sandra Burge, a purported "paralegal assistant".
On information and belief, it appears Ms. Burge engaged in the Unlicensed Practice of Law
(UPL) in her employment with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Prior to any complaint against
Ms. Burge for UPL, I want to review her personnel file.
Henceforth, I request no further contact of any kind from Sandra Burge.
Kindly provide the following public records:
1. The personnel file of Sandra Burge.
2. The personnel file of David A. Rowland.
3. Copies of the following documents I served Mr. Rowland December 10,2012, and
that were delivered December 11, 2012 to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida. Kindly
include copies of the date-stamp received December 11, 2012 by the receiving person or
entity for Mr. Rowland and/or the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida.
1. U.S. Supreme Court Petition, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al.
2. Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
3. Rule 29 proof of service, December 10,2012
4. Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.
5. My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10,2012
The petition, Rule 39 motion, Rule 29 proof of service, CD, and cover letter, were served
December 10, 2012 as provided for by Rule 29, by United Parcel Service (UPS), tracking no.
lZ64589FP297520287. UPS records show delivery the next day, December 11,2012 at 10:55
AM to the address Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 33602.
The UPS proof of delivery for lZ64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows "DAVIS" at
the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature "D. Davis".
Chief Judge Manuel Menendez, Jr. August 15, 2013
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida Page - 2
Previously I provided a pre-addressed UPS Ground return shipping label from my UPS account
for return shipment of public records to nle. Since then I decided on a different method of getting
public records from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Please return the unused UPS label provided.
Kindly provide public records by the United States Postal Service, with delivery confirmation,
and no signature required for delivery. This will allow for tracking, and preserve my rights under
18 U.S.C. 1341 and 18 U.S.C. 1346, etc.
You may provide an updated invoice for the records by United States Postal Service mail, and I
will provide payment by United States Postal Service money order.
Please delegate the task of responding to this records request to a competent person, not someone
who was part of the scheme to falsely portray to Kenneth Wilson, Florida A.S.A., that I did not
serve Mr. Rowland my petition per U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29. That list of persons includes
Rowland, Burge, Chris Nauman, and perhaps others, maybe you too.
Henceforth, I request no email from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, or its employees.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
cc: by email to Cal Goodlett, General Counsel's Office, Office of the State Courts Administrator
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
DAVID A. ROWLAND
GENERAL COUNSEL
August 30, 2013
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Mr. Gillespie:
Chief Judge Menendez directed me to respond to your August 15, 2013
public records request. You requested a copy of my personnel file, a copy of my
paralegal assistant's personnel file, and copies of documents you sent to me in
December 2012. You also requested us to return the unused pre-addressed UPS
ground rehlrn shipping label you previously provided to us.
You previously requested the "December 2012 records" by letters dated
May 16, 2013 and June 3, 2013. We responded to each of your letters. We
responded to your May 16, 2013 letter with an invoice dated May 21, 2013 and we
responded to your June 3, 2013 letter with an amended invoice dated June 6, 2013.
These letters and invoices are self-explanatory and I've enclosed them. The bottom
line is that you have previously requested the December 2012 records, we have
responded by advising you of the fee of which we required advanced payment, and
we have not yet received any payment.
As to your request for a copy of the personnel files, understand that many
documents include a social security number which must be redacted before sending
to you in accordance with section 119.071(4)(1), Florida Statutes. Additionally,
some records in the personnel files will not be accessible because the law treats
them as confidential. Examples of confidential records in the personnel files that
would not be provided are: deferred compensation records - section 112.215(7),
Florida Statutes; direct deposit records - section 17.076(5), Florida Statutes;
emergency notification records - section 119.071(5)0)1, Florida Statutes; and
medical records - section 760.50(5), Florida Statutes.
800 EAST TWIGGS STREET SUITE 603 . TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 PHONE (813) 272-6843 WEB: www.fljud13.org
Neil J. Gillespie
August 30, 2013
Page 2
The number of pages of the December 2012 records and the publicly
accessible records in the personnel files is 416. The fee for these records under
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(i)(3), and by reference section
119.07, Florida Statutes, is $0.15 per page for a subtotal cost of $62.40. The
duplicate fee of the CD is $15.00. The postage fee required to accommodate your
request for delivery by United States Postal Service, with delivery confirmation
and no signature required, is $12.00. The total fee for sending you a copy of the
requested judicial'records is $89.40.
Please send the above fee to my attention via a United States Postal money
order made payable to: "B.O.C.C." The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is funded by the
State of Florida and the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners.
The county provides us with technical resources used to provide copies of records.
That's why the money order should be made out to the "B.O.C.C."
We will begin the process of redacting confidential information from the
personnel files upon receipt ofthe fee mentioned above. You can expect the
records to be placed in the mail within 5-10 business days upon receipt ofthe fee.
As you requested, I am enclosing your pre-addressed UPS shipping label.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr. Chief Judge
Heather Thullbery, Personnel Director, Administrative Office of the Courts
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
VIA EXPRESS MAIL
January 27, 2010
The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr.
Chief Judge Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
800 E. Twggs Street, Room 602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook,
Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division C
Dear Chief Judge Menendez:
I am writing you about the above captioned lawsuit. The case has not been managed
lawfully. The requirements of Rule 1.200 Pretrial Procedure, Fla.R.Civ.P, and Rule 2.545
Case Management, Fla.R.Jud.Admin. have not been followed. The court has neglected its
duty. This appears due to misplaced deference to attorney Ryan C. Rodems. The court
may have neglected its ministerial duties relative to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and several requests I made for accommodation. The result is a failure to provide
access to the courts as set forth in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution.
My lawsuit will ultimately show that Mr. Rodems and his law frrm utilized a corrupt
business model that worked as follows:
A. Usurp the client's fiduciary interest.
B. Procure a signed agreement from the client by any means, including fraud.
C. Rely upon the parol evidence rule to enforce the settlement.
While Mr. Rodems has refused to provide most of the discovery required in this case, his
application to the JNC lists two other clients who complained to the Florida Bar that he
charged an inappropriate fee in a contingency case, Rita Pesci and Roslyn Vazquez.
This Court shows a disparate treatment of litigants. The Court imposed extreme sanctions
of$II,550 against me for relatively minor transgressions. I made a discovery misstep that
could have been easily been corrected in 2006 with case management but was not.
Contemporaneously Mr. Rodems has not provided most of his required discovery, and my
motion to compel his discovery has been pending since December 14, 2006.
The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr. Page - 2
Chief Judge Thirteenth Judicial Circuit January 27,2010
Conclusive evidence of official wrongdoing in this case comes from a law review by The
Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom titled Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON
L. REv. 323,324 (1998). In it, Judge Isom described the issue ofadversarial parties and
discovery problems, which she calls "cutting up". This is what Judge Isom wrote: "When
this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectively bring cases to
resolution, the judge must get involved to assist the process." So apparently extreme
measures such as $11,550 sanctions are not the next step in the process.
It is outrageous that Judge Isom would ignore her own law review in my case that was
before her Court February 5, 2007. Clearly the 13
th
Judicial Circuit is prejudiced against
me as either a pro se litigant or a person with disabilities, or both.
For a time attorney Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville represented me, but he too
complained about Mr. Rodems in open court: " ... Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to
take a full nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work this out in a professional
manner. It is my mistake for sitting back and giving him the opportunity to take this full
blast attack. (transcript, Aug-14-08 hearing before Judge Crenshaw, p. 16, line 24).
Please find enclosed copies of the documents listed below. When can I expect to receive a
response from Court Counsel David Rowland? Calls to his office go unanswered. Does
Mr. Rowland still serve as Court Counsel? Thank you for considering my concerns.
cc: Governor Charlie Crist, with enclosures
The Honorable James M. Barton, II, letter only
Ryan Christopher Rodems, letter only
Enclosures:
1. Letter to The Honorable James M. Barton, II dated January 26, 2010, with enclosures
a. Law review by The Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom titled Professionalism and
Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REv. 323, 324 (1998)
b. Letter to Mr. K. Christopher Nauman, Assistant Court Counsel, August 25, 2008
c. Writing by Ryan Christopher Rodems commenting about a witness in a jury
trial he lost, WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc.
2. Letter faxed to Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, January 14,2010
3. Letter to Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, January 4,2010
4. Letter to Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, February 5, 2009

m
3
."
I
'" -
~
c
..
.. ---- ----;
000000
"t) )10 "U )10 "t) )10
s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s::
"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OFFICE"
OCALA, F1 ori da
344749998
1143840606 -0096
01/27/2010 (352)861-8188 04:57:02 PM
Product
Sales Receipt
Sale Unit Final
Description Qty Price Price
TAMPA FL 33602 Zone-2 $13.65
Express Mail PO-Add
5.70 oz.
Label #: EH601917427US
Next Day Noon / Normal Delivery
Signature Requested
Issue PVI:
$13.65
TALLAHASSEE FL 32399
$1. 73
Zone-2 First-Class
Large Env
5.10 oz.
Issue PVI:
$1. 73
Total:
$15.38
Paid by:
Cash
$20.00
Change Due:
-$4.62
Order stamps at USPS. com/shop or call
1-800-Stamp24. Go to USPS.com/c1icknship
to print shipping labels with postage.
For other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS.
Bi11#: 1000402608987
Clerk: 05
All sales final on stamps and postage
Refunds for guaranteed services only
Thank you for your busi ness
****************************************
****************************************
HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER
Go to: https://posta1experience.com/Pos
TELL US ABOUT YOUR RECENT
POST Al EXPERIENCE
YOUR OPINION COUNTS
****************************************
* * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Customer Copy
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
January 26, 2010
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable James M. Barton, II
Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court, Division C
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 512
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook,
case no.: 05-CA-7205, Division C
Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution claims to provide access to the courts to
every person for redress of any injury, but for an ordinary citizen justice is often not
administered fairly and is frequently denied or delayed - Neil Gillespie
Dear Judge Barton:
I apologize for the late timing of this letter, but yesterday I became aware of Rule 2.540
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Notices to Persons with Disabilities:
All notices of court proceedings to be held in a public facility, and all process compelling
appearance at such proceedings, shall include the following:
"Ifyou are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to
participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of
certain assistance. Please contact [identify applicable court personnel by name, address,
and telephone number] within 2 working days of your receipt ofthis [describe notice]; if
you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711."
Yesterday I tried to clarify this issue with Court Administrator Mr. Bridenback and left a
message for his assistant Tracy at (813) 272-5368, but no one called back. In addition to
the Rule 2.540 notice, I have a question about how and where to submit my ADA
Assessment and Report. I retained author and health professional Ms. Karin Huffer, MS,
MFT as my Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations Designer and
Advocate. Some ofthe accommodations requested are a limit on the number of motions
considered in a single hearing. lbis Courts December 30, 2009 Order setting "all pending
l
The Honorable James M. Barton, II Page - 2
January 26,2010
motion" is not acceptable. First a detennination should be made ofthe pending motions,
then a reasonable schedule must be set to hear them.
The Court's Order setting today's hearing does not comply with Rule 2.540. Because the
George E. Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 East Twiggs Street, Tampa is a public facility, I
believe any notice for a hearing there is subject to Rule 2.540. Also, none of Mr. Rodems'
notices for hearings in the courthouse have contained a Rule 2.540 disclosures throughout
this litigation. In all fairness, neither did any of my notices, but I am just an ordinary
citizen and pro se litigant. (Note: the Court's web site cites Rule 2.065).
More importantly, while reading Rule 2.540, I noticed Rule 2.545, Case Management.
For whatever reason none ofthe judges assigned to this case have implemented any case
management in over four years. In addition, Rule 1.200 provides for Pretrial Procedure
and a Case Management Conference. In the past I asked Court Counsel about this and did
not receive a response. One of my letters to Court Counsel is enclosed. The problem is so
bad in this case that I believe it should have been designated Complex Litigation under
Rule 1.201, Fla.R.Civ.P because A "complex action" is one that is likely to involve
complicated legal or case management issues and that may require extensive judicial
management to expedite the action, keep costs reasonable, or promote judicial efficiency.
But the conclusive evidence of official wrongdoing in this case is from a law review by
The Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom titled Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28
STETSON L. REv. 323,324 (1998). In it, Judge Rickert described the issue of adversarial
parties and discovery problems, which she calls "cutting up". This is what Judge Isom
wrote: "When this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectively
bring cases to resolution, the judge must get involved to assist the process." So apparently
extreme measures such as $11,550 sanctions are not the next step in the process. It is
outrageous that Judge Isom would ignore her own law review in my case that was before
her Court on February 5, 2007. Clearly the 13
th
Judicial Circuit is prejudiced against me
as either a pro se litigant or a person with disabilities, or both.
Because ofthis newly discovered evidence I believe a motion for relief under Rule 1.540,
Fla.R.Civ.P is appropriate to overturn this Court's Order Determining Amount of
Sanctions, and Final Judgment of March 27,2008. This sanction of attorney's fees is even
more outrageous given the fact that plaintiff's motion to compel defendants' discovery
has not been heard and is pending since December 14, 2006. How can this Court award
$11,550 against me when defendants are guilty of the same offense?
I commenced two lawsuits pro se in August 2005 (one being the instant case) because I
could not find or afford counsel to represent him. One lawsuit in federal court involved a
credit card dispute, Gillespie v. HSBC Bank, et al, case no. 5:05-cv-362-0c-WTH-GRJ,
US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. The HSBC lawsuit was
resolved a year later with a good result for the parties. Plaintiff was able to work amicably
with the counsel for HSBC Bank, Traci H. Rollins and David J. D' Agata, counsel with
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP and the entire case was concluded in 15 months.
January 26,2010
August 17, 2005, Complaint filed, Gillespie v HSBC Bank, et. al
September 25, 2006, Order establishing a cause of action (US District Judge William
Terrell Hodges)
October 23,2006, Settlement Agreement and Release
November 17, 2006, civil judgment entered dismissing case
Apart from these proceedings 1am a law abiding, engaged citizen. 1am a former business
owner and graduate of The Wharton School (Evening Division), University of
Pennsylvania, and The Evergreen State College. Since 1994 1have been disabled, a
condition that affects me ability to represent himself when confronted by a hostile lawyer
like Mr. Rodems who knows of my disability from his fIrm's prior representation. In
addition, Mr. Rodems sued plaintiff for libel over a letter about a closed bar complaint.
Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, recognizes the inequitable balance of power that may
exist between an attorney who brings a defamation action and the client who must defend
against it. Attorneys schooled in the law have the ability to pursue litigation through their
own means and with minimal expense when compared with their former clients.
And there is more newly discovered evidence. Mr. Rodems' application to the 13
th
Circuit JNC lists two other clients who complained to the Florida Bar that he charged an
inappropriate fee in a contingency case, Rita Pesci and Roslyn Vazquez. This shows that
Mr. Rodems and his law fum utilize a corrupt business model that works as follows:
A. Usurp the client's fIduciary interest.
B. Procure a signed agreement from the client by any means, including fraud.
C. Rely upon the parol evidence rule to enforce the settlement.
Because Mr. Rodems failed to provide this information in discovery, it was not available
for my defense on March 20, 2008 for the sanction hearing to determine attorneys fees.
And the discovery that Mr. Rodems was actively seeking appointment to the bench on
March 20, 2008 was a conflict and explains his obsession with the status ofjudges both at
the hearing and during the course ofthis litigation. The Commentary to Judicial Canon 2A
states a judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must
therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by
the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
In addition to relief from judgment it is time for Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
which will include a count of Breach of Fiduciary Duty, which is appropriate given the
facts and can be added under Rule 1.190(c), Fla.R.Civ.P and the relation back doctrine.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty was fIrst argued in this case in 2005, October 7,2005, see
Plaintiff's Rebuttal To Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike.
Mr. Rodems testifIed at the March 20, 2008 hearing on the attorney's fees that "I am
board-certifIed in civil trial law and I've been practicing law since 1992." (transcript, page
14, line 23). Mr. Rodems also testifIed that "I've been trying cases for the last 16 years."
(transcript, page 15, line 4). On cross examination, Mr. Bauer asked: "How many 57.105
,
The Honorable James M. Barton, n Page - 4
January 26, 2010
actions have you been involved in?" (transcript, page 15, line 18). Mr. Rodems testified:
"I filed 1believe two in this case and 1may have filed one or two other ones in my career
but 1couldn't be sure exactly." (transcript, page 15, line 20).
Since the March 20,2008 hearing, Mr. Rodems has filed two additional section 57.105
motions in this lawsuit. On July 31, 2008, Mr. Rodems submitted his third section 57.105
motion in this lawsuit, because 1did not withdrawn my Complaint For Breach of Contract
and Fraud. Mr. Rodems submitted his fourth section 57.105 motion in this case, also on
July 31, 2008, because 1did not withdrawal my motion for rehearing, which was
necessitated when Mr. Rodems lied to the Court at the October 31, 2007 hearing about
the existence of a signed contingent fee agreement - there is no signed contract with
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA and Mr. Rodems falsely told the court otherwise.
Furthermore, Mr. Rodems threatened to file another section 57.105 motion against Mr.
Bauer in April, 2007, and again in May, 2007, regarding appellant's reinstatement of his
claims voluntarily dismissed, which the 2DCA upheld in 2D07-4530.
So far in this lawsuit Mr. Rodems has filed four (4) section 57.105 motions and
threatened another - while in the balance of his sixteen (16) year career Mr. Rodems
testified that he may have filed one or two other ones but he couldn't be sure exactly. It
is clear that Mr. Rodems is misusing the section 57.105 motion as a weapon in his
"full nuclear blast approach" because he has a conflict of interest in this lawsuit and
should have been diSqualified as counsel upon appellant's motion, Plaintifrs Motion
to Disqualify Counsel, submitted February 4, 2006.
As for Judge Nielsen's Order of May 12,2006, the Order states "The motion to disqualify
is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and on that
basis, the motion is denied without prejudice." As for Mr. Rodems being a witness, the
nature of this case is that he is essentially a perpetual witness. The transcripts show that
his representation is essentially ongoing testimony about factual matters. Mr. Rodems
should be disqualified, it is long overdue.
Finally a letter written by Mr. Rodems surfaced relative to a lawsuit disclosed on his JNC
application, WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc., United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27, trial August 31
September 10,2009. Mr. Rodems lost the case and then wrote a letter attacking the
credibility of Eric Bischoff, a witnesses. The letter is enclosed and may also be found
online at: www.declarationofmdependents.net/doi/pages/corrente91O.html
Mr. Rodems' letter calls into question his mental well-being. After the jury spoke and the
case was over Mr. Rodems wrote the following: "It is odd that Eric Bischoff, whose well
documented incompetence caused the demise ofWCW, should have any comment on the
outcome ofthe WrestleReunion, LLC lawsuit. The expert report Bischoff submitted in
this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was not even called to testify by Clear
Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009
,
January 26,2010
before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious
problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head ofWCW."
Mr. Rodems also wrote, "To even sit in the room and question him was one ofthe most
distasteful things I've ever had to do in 17 years of practicing law. In fact, we understand
that Bischoff was afraid to even come to Tampa and testify because he would have to
answer questions under oath for a third time about his embarrassing past."
Mr. Rodems continued his attack on the witness writing, "The sad state of professional
wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman, whose previous career
highlights include selling meat out of the back of a truck, before he filed bankruptcy and
had his car repossessed. Today, after running WCW into the ground, Bischoffpeddles
schlock like "Girls Gone Wild" and reality shows featuring B-listers."
In conclusion, my former lawyer, the congenial Robert W. Bauer, complained about Mr.
Rodems in open court: " ... Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full nuclear blast
approach instead ofus trying to work this out in a professional manner. It is my mistake
for sitting back and giving him the opportunity to take this full blast attack. (transcript,
Aug-14-08 hearing before Judge Crenshaw, p. 16, line 24).
Thank you for your kind consideration.
cc: Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel (letter only)
Mr. Mike Bridenback, Court Administrator in the 13th Judicial Circuit (letter only)
Mr. Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator for the 13
th
Judicial Circuit (letter only)
Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
* 1998, Claudia Rickert Isom. All rights reserved. Circuit Judge, Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 1991Present; B.S.Ed., University of Iowa, 1972; J.D.,
Florida State University, 1975; Vice-Chair and member, Florida Bar Standing Committee
on Professionalism; Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 19791982;
District VI Legal Counsel, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
19841986; Shareholder, Isom, Pingel and Isom-Rickert, P.A., 19861990.
PROFESSIONALISM AND LITIGATION ETHICS
Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom
*
My first assignment as a newly elected circuit judge was to the
family law division. Although I considered myself to be an experi-
enced trial attorney, I was somewhat naive about my role as a judge
presiding over discovery issues. I assumed that the attorneys as-
signed to my division would know the rules of procedure and the
local rules of courtesy. I also assumed that, being knowledgeable,
they would comply in good faith with these provisions. I soon
learned that attorneys who were entirely pleasant and sociable crea-
tures when I was counted among their numbers, assumed a much
different role when advocating for litigants.
For example, take Harvey M. (not his real name). Harvey and I
had bantered for years, having many common interests. Perhaps
this familiarity gave rise to, while not contempt, a certain lackadai-
sical attitude about complying with case management and pretrial
orders. Harvey challenged me to establish my judicial prerogative
and assist him in achieving goals not of his own making.
A common assumption regarding family law is that clients re-
ceive the quality of legal representation that they deserve. However,
my time in the family law division has convinced me that this is not
necessarily true. Often times, a case that has wallowed along, seem-
ingly hung up in endless depositions and discovery problems, be-
comes instantly capable of resolution by bringing all parties together
in the context of a pretrial conference. Apparently, some attorneys
feel that cutting up is a large part of what their clients expect
them to do. When this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial
court's ability to effectively bring cases to resolution, the judge must
get involved to assist the process.
Recently, the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges con-
324 Stetson Law Review [Vol. XXVIII
1. See ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES:
PROFESSIONALISM PROBLEM SOLVING (1998).
2. See JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR AND
CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGES 1998 HANDBOOK 89 (1998).
ducted an educational seminar designed to guide circuit judges in
appropriately responding to unprofessional and unethical behavior.
1
Various scenarios were presented on video, after which the judges
voted on what they felt would be the appropriate court response. A
surprising number of judges voted to impose sanctions or report
unethical behavior to the Florida Bar Grievance Section. However,
the most common response was to do nothing or to privately counsel
the offending attorney.
A common theme at meetings of the Florida Bar Standing
Committee on Professionalism is that, while attorneys can aspire to
greater professionalism, the courts can be a bully pulpit to encour-
age professional behavior. Perhaps the perceived backlash of crack-
ing down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's cir-
cuit judges who are elected officials. However, that perception
shapes the judicial response, even when responding theoretically at
a seminar.
The Joint Committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida
Bar and the Conferences of Circuit and County Court Judges' 1998
Handbook on Discovery Practice admonishes trial judges to fully
appreciate their broad powers to end discovery abuses and the 1998
Handbook reassuringly states that the appellate courts will sustain
the trial court's authority if it is exercised in a procedurally correct
manner.
2
Once again, this rallying cry ignores the reality of our
situation.
As a new judge, the lessons urged by bar leadership have been a
matter of trial and error (pun intended). Harvey quickly established
his reputation, not as a fellow member of my legal community, but
as a problematic litigator whose behavior had to be controlled and
modified by court order for the legal process to smoothly progress.
For example, hearing time was made available to address discovery
issues, very specific orders were entered regarding who was to do
what, when, and how, verbal commitments were elicited on the re-
cord about document production and interrogatory responses, in an
attempt to avoid additional hearings. Cases involving Harvey were,
by necessity, intensely case managed.
1998] Litigation Ethics 325
Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive case
management. Attorneys may perceive that the court is trying to
prevent them from earning additional attorney fees by streamlining
the process. However, clients rarely complain once they realize that
the underlying purpose is to bring the case to timely resolution.
In Harvey's case, extreme tools reporting Harvey to the Flor-
ida Bar, striking responses, striking witnesses, imposing financial
sanctions, and conducting contempt hearings were never impli-
cated. What did happen was that Harvey trained me to be a better
judge by showing me how, in a nonconfrontational manner, I could
effectively case manage Harvey and similar counsel without having
to take off the gloves.
Fortunately, not every litigator requires the case management
skills of a Harvey situation. Most attorneys are well-intentioned,
have a legitimate interest in pursuing discovery efficiently, and do
not seek to unnecessarily delay the resolution of a case. What a re-
lief it is to have a case with opposing counsel who are both of this
school of thought.
New attorneys, or attorneys who are appearing in front of a
judge for the first time, must remember that their reputation is
primarily built on the judge's personal experiences with them. No
bench book exists with a list of which attorneys are trustworthy
professionals and which are not. Instead, the individual judge keeps
a mental catalog of experiences. For example, does this attorney
routinely generate complaints from opposing counsel in other cases
about not clearing depositions with their office? Is this attorney
often the subject of motions to compel? Can this attorney be trusted
when he tells you that the responses to interrogatories are in the
mail? Once a negative reputation has been established with the
court, an attorney's job will be much more challenging in establish-
ing credibility with the court. And certainly, with so many issues up
to the court's discretion, an attorney's reputation as trustworthy and
ethical is of utmost importance.
And, what about Harvey? Do his clients suffer? Of course they
do. But, with effective case management and an experienced judi-
ciary, the damage and delay caused by the Harveys of this world can
be minimized while still allowing clients the freedom to choose their
own counsel.
o
o
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No.: 7008 1140000060169155
August 25,2008
Mr. K. Christopher Nawnan, Assistant Court Counsel
Administrative Offices Of The Courts
Legal Department
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook, case no.: 2005 CA 7205
Hillsborough County Circuit Civil Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Dear Mr. Nauman:
It has come to my attention that the above captioned lawsuit may not have been properly
managed by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. I spoke with you two years ago about this
case against my former lawyers. At that time I was seeking court appointed counsel
under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). I have subsequently retained counsel,
Robert W. Bauer of Gainesville. Still, questions remain about the court's management of
this lawsuit from when I appeared pro se. That is why I am writing you today.
To recap, this case has been ongoing for over three years now. The case has moved from
Judge Nielsen to Judge Isom and is currently before Judge Barton. So far there have been
three appeals before the Second District Court of Appeals (2DCA) in this case, with more
likely. I have incurred over $40,000 in attorney's fees, expenses, and court costs. On
March 20,2008, Judge Barton ordered an $11,550 judgment for discovery and section
57.105 sanctions against me. This amount is currently on appeal to the 2DCA.
Nonetheless, my former lawyers, by and through Mr. Rodems, served a Writ of
Garnishment on my current lawyer earlier this month to take all the money out of my
client trust fund, which in effect denies me legal representation. My former lawyers also
Mr. K. Christopher NatA, Assistant Court Counsel
o
Page - 2
Legal Department, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida August 25, 2008
used a Writ of Garnishment to take all the money out of my bank account, even though
this money was from Social Security disability payments and therefore exempt.
The original amount at issue in this case was $6,224.78, with a demand for punitive
damages of$18,674.34. My former lawyers countersued me for libel over a bar
complaint. By almost any objective standard, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has failed to
provide an adequate forum to resolve this controversy.
It appears the following procedures were not followed by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit:
1. Failure to refer to mediation. During a hearing on February 1,2007, the Court (J.
Isom) asked about mediation to resolve this lawsuit without litigation:
THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolve
this without litigation?
MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
(Transcript, Feb-Ol-07, page 15, beginning at line 20)
2. Failure to follow Pretrial Procedure, Fla.R.Civ.P., Rule 1.200(a), failure to hold a
Case Management Conference. This rule is especially important in this case, where a pro
se litigant is suing his former lawyers. It may have prevented the abuse that occurred
here, where Mr. Rodems, a skilled lawyer, used discovery rules to trap me and obtain
$11,550 with the blessing of the court. This misuse of discovery is contrary to Florida
case law. Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to
encourage the settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. (Elkins v. Syken, 672
So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996). In this case the parties know the issues from Defendants' prior
representation of me on the same matter. The rules of discovery are designed to secure
the just and speedy determination of every action (In re Estes' Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast
Dental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5
th
Dist. 1999), and to ensure that
judgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd. Partnership v.
Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not upon the skill and
maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of
Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1977).
3. Failure to provide equal courthouse security. The Court (1. Nielsen) unilaterally
established separate and unequal courthouse +security for pro se litigants on hearings
done in chambers. This is discriminatory, and ironic given that my former lawyers are
notorious for throwing coffee in the face of opposing counsel during a mediation.
THE COURT: I agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is on any
case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for future
reference you do not have to submit a request. (Responding to Mr. Rodems)
(Transcript, April 25, 2006, beginning page 6, at line 24)
Mr. K. Christopher NauA, Assistant Court Counsel
o
Page - 3
Legal Department, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida August 25, 2008
However, when I asked the court for protection from Mr. Rodems, who at a previous
hearing waited outside chambers to provoke a fight, Judge Nielsen said the following:
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.
Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallway
and I don't want that to happen today.
THE COURT: Well, you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and then
you can decide what you want to do, sir.
(Transcript, June 28, 2006, beginning on page 21, at line 20)
In conclusion, Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, recognizes the inequitable balance of
power that may exist between an attorney who brings a defamation action and the client
who must defend against it; and attorneys schooled in the law who have the ability to
pursue litigation through their own means and with minimal expense when compared
with their former clients. That is what is happening to me in this lawsuit.
Had the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ordered mediation, or required a Case Management
Conference (as done in federal court) or provided equal courthouse security, this case
may have been resolved by now.
Mr. Nauman, why has the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit failed to manage this lawsuit
according to the above cited rules and procedures?
6
A
L
/li7
i
.'
",j
j
/;://' ,
"I / .1 ,/ ../ . -;?' .;'1..---)
. (., :,'y /'/ '--::". I _:K _,..lL--<=,_
../ "/ ,/f.?''---,,--''''''' ",/' .
J. /
,/
//
PS. At this time Mr. Bauer does not represent me on any issue I may have between me
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, so you can respond to me directly.
o o
"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OfFICE"
OCALA, florida
344749998
1143840606 -0098
08/25/2008 (352)861-8188 04:31:59 PM
Product
Sales Receipt
Sale Unit final
Description Qty Price Price
TAMPA fL 33602 Zone-2 $0.42
first-Class Letter
0.80 oz.
Return Rcpt (Green Card) $2.20
Certified $2.70
Label #: 70061140000060169155
1-800-Stamp24. Go to USPS.com/c1icknship
Issue PVI: $5.32
Total: $5.32
Paid by:
Cash $10.32
Change Due: -$5.00
Order staMps at USPS. com/shop or call
for other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS.
Bi11#: 1000202079561
Clerk: 07
All sales final on stamps and postage.
Refunds for guaranteed services only.
Thank you for your business.
***********
**.*** * ***.*****.**
HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER
Go to: http://gx.ga11up.com/pos
POSTAL EXPERIENCE
YOUR OPINION COUNTS
****** *.****.*******
**.***********.*****
Customer COpy
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
Ll'I (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
Ll'I
..-'l
[J""
..-'l
CJ
..l]
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
::r
..-'l ..-'l
cerlffiedFee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)

Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement ReqUired)
I- ---l""'"
Total Postage & Fees $ L-=. ....J

CJ
CJ
[):I
I:-'
I:-'
J:::
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
[J""
CJ
I:-'
[J""
..l]
I:-'
ln
ln
I
,
3

.. ... .Z'f!.Lf_P:G... . .. ..
_ t- 3J ".tJ.2.- .. City. State,
DOIwrestling.com - Declaration of Independents - The Number 1 Independent Pro Wrestl... Page 1 of3
DOIVIDEO.COM '
Tons of wrestling DVD's including original shoot i n t ~ ~ i e w s
Sal Corrente of WrestleReunion had a lawsuit against Clear Channel/Live Nation because they reneged on a
contract with him. The case went before a jury and Mr. Corrente lost the case, which many feel was unjust.
But Eric Bischoff made a statement on wrestlezone.com, which is below, that caused Sal's lawyer to send his
statement:
In my last post regarding the WrestleReunion/Live Nation lawSUit, I suggested that Bill Behrens and Eric
Bischoff were expert witnesses for WrestleReunion. That was not the case as they were actually witnesses
for the Clear Channel/Live Nation side. I just spoke with Eric Bischoff who said he agreed to be an expert
witness after reading and taking interest in the case, however he was not called to the stand.
"The case was wrapped up quickly," Bischoff told Wrestlezone.com, "the jury didn't waste any
time and came back with what I felt was the correct decision".
Eric was happy with the outcome, to say the least. "Rob Russen and Sal Corente give the wrestling
business a bad name," he stated, "so I'm glad justice prevailed and the bottom feeders didn't win
one".
Bischoff wanted to make sure that everyone knew his comments and opinions were solely his and did not
reflect those of Clear Channel/Live Nation.
In regards to the above statement, we have a statement from Mr. Corrente's lawyer:
"It is odd that Eric Bischoff, whose well-documented incompetence caused the demise of WCW,
should have any comment on the outcome of the WrestleReunion, LLC lawsuit. The expert report
Bischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was not even called to testify
by Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009
before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious problems
with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head of WCW. To even sit in the
room and question him was one of the most distasteful things I've ever had to do in 17 years of
practicing law. In fact, we understand that Bischoff was afraid to even come to Tampa and
testify because he would have to answer questions under oath for a third time about his
embarrassing past.
The sad state of professional wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman,
whose previous career highlights include selling meat out of the back of a truck, before he filed
bankruptcy and had his car repossessed. Today, after running WCW into the ground,
Bischoff peddles schlock like "Girls Gone Wild" and reality shows featuring B-Iisters.
Sal Corrente, on the other hand, has always been an honorable man, and he delivered on every
promise and paid every wrestler while staging the three WrestleReunlon events. Unlike the
cowardly Bischoff, Mr. Corrente took the stand In this case. Although his company did not
prevail, Sal Corrente proved that he was man enough to fight to the finish -- something Bischoff
could never understand."
Sincerely,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Barker, Rodems &. Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
813/489-1001
E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com
We just wanted to give Mr. Corrente's lawyer a chance to speak his mind.
Georgie GMakpoulos@aol.com
Since I have always had wrestlers autograph signings as a speciality for any website I worked for, I know for
sure, Mr. Corrente is an honest promoter who has NEVER stiffed a wrestler working for his shows or
conventions. I would have heard about it.
There are many promoters who do that in this business, which is very sad.
The information on this website is exclusive property of the Declaration of Independents and cannot be used elsewtJBfS without proper link credff. All 001 purchases
are non-refundab1e. All mail (electronic or postal) sent to the 001 becomes property of the 001 which allows the DOf to reprint that emaif In H's entirety by doing so, ff
the email is considered newsworthy.
Copyright declarationofindependents.net & dorwrestting.com. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.declarationofmdependents.netldoi/pages/corrente91 O.html 1/28/2010
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
O c a l ~ Florida 34481
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
February 5, 2009
Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel
Legal Department
T a m p ~ Florida 33602
Dear Mr. Rowland:
As per your letter of February 2, 2009, I contacted the clerk's office about the case
files that may have been destroyed. A copy of my letter to Pat Frank, Clerk of Circuit
Court, is enclosed. In the past Ms. Pride was non-responsive to my communication.
On or about August 25,2008, I wrote K. Christopher Nauman, Assistant Court
Counsel, about the fact that my lawsuit may not have been properly managed by the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. (Copy enclosed). As of today Mr. Nauman has not
responded. Perhaps you can respond on his behalf?
Mr. Rowland, when court personnel fail to respond to correspondence, it creates a
credibility problem for the court. It gives the impression that the court is incompetent or
indifferent to the administration ofjustice. Is that the message your office intends to
relay? When can I expect a reply to my August 25, 2008 letter to Mr. Nauman?
Sincerely,
enclosures
o
o
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 11Sth Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
VIA MAIL, RE1"URN RECEIPT
Article No.: 7008 1140 0000 6016 9155
August 25, 2008
Mr. K. Christopher Nauman, Assistant Court Counsel
Administrative Offices Of l'he Courts
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of
[] COpy
Legal Department
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook, case no.: 2005 CA 7205
I-lillsborough County Circuit Civil Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Dear Mr. Nauman:
It has come to my attention that the above captioned lawsuit may not have been properly
managed by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. I spoke with you two years ago about this
case against my former lawyers. At that time I was seeking court appointed counsel
under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). I have subsequently retained counsel,
Robert W. 'Bauer of Gainesville. Still, questions remain about the court's management of
this lawsuit from when I appeared pro see l"'hat is why I am writing you today.
To recap, this case has been ongoing for over three years now. The case has moved from
Judge Nielsen to Judge Isom and is currently before Judge Barton. So far there have been
three appeals before the Second District Court of Appeals (2DCA) in this case, with more
likely. I have incurred over $40,000 in attorney's fees, expenses, and court costs. On
March 20, 2008, Judge Barton ordered an $11,550 judgment for discovery and section
57.105 sanctions against me. This amount is currently on appeal to the 2DCA.
Nonetheless, my former lawyers, by and through Mr. Rodems, served a Writ of
Garnishment on my current lawyer earlier this month to take all the money out of my
client trust fund, which in etlect denies me legal representation. My former lawyers also
Mr. K. Christopher NatA, Assistant Court Counsel
o
Page - 2
Legal Department, I'hirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida August 25, 2008
used. a Writ of Gamishment to take all the money out of my bank account, even though
this money was from Social Security disability payments and therefore exempt.
The original amount at issue in this case was $6,224.78, with a demand for punitive
damages of$18,674.34. My former lawyers countersued me for libel over a bar
complaint. By almost any objective standard, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has failed to
provide an adequate forum to resolve this controversy.
It appears the following procedures were not followed by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit:
1. .f'ailure to refer to mediation. During a hearing on February 1, 2007, the Court (J.
Isom) asked about mediation to resolve this lawsuit without litigation:
THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolve
this without litigation?
MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
(Transcript, Feb-OI-07, page 15, beginning at line 20)
2. Failure to follow Pretrial Procedure, Fla.R.Civ.P., Rule 1.200(a), failure to hold a
Case Management Conference. This rule is especially important in this case, where a pro
se litigant is s'uing his fonner lawyers.. It may have prevented the abuse that occurred
here, where Mr. Rodems, a skilled lawyer, used discovery rules to trap me and obtain
$11,550 with the blessing of the court. This misuse of discovery is contrary to Florida
case law. Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to
encourage the settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. (Elkins v. Syken,672
So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996). In this case the parties know the issues from Defendants' prior
representation of nle on the same nlatter. The rules of discovery are designed to secure
the just and speedy detemlination of every action (In re Estes' Estate, 158 So.. 2d 794 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast
Dental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5
th
Dist. 1999), and to ensure that
judgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd. Partnership v.
Close, 787 So.2d 22 (f'la. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not upon the skill and
Inaneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of
Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1977).
3. .Failure to provide equal courthouse security. The Court (J. Nielsen) unilaterally
established separate and unequal courthouse +security for pro se litigants on hearings
done in chambers. This is discriminatory, and ironic given that my former lawyers are
notorious for throwing coffee in the face of opposing counsel during a mediation.
THE COURT: J agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is on any
case in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for future
reference you do not have to submit a request. (Responding to Mr. Rodems)
(rrranscript, April 25, 2006, beginning page 6, at line 24)
Mr. K. Christopher NauA, Assistant Court Counsel
o
Page - 3
Legal Department, Th.irteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida August 25, 2008
However, when I asl<ed the court for protection from Mr. Rodems, who at a previous
hearing waited outside chambers to provoke a fight, Judge Nielsen said the following:
MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.
Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallway
and I don't want that to happen today.
THE COURT: Welt you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and then
you can decide what you want to do, sir.
(Transcript, June 28, 2006, beginning on page 21, at line 20)
In conclusion, l ~ o b k i n v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, recognizes the inequitable balance of
power that Inay exist between an attonley who brings a defamation action and the client
who must defend against it; and attorneys schooled in the law who have the ability to
pursue litigation through their own means and with minimal expense when compared
with their former clients. That is what is happening to me in this lawsuit.
Had the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ordered mediation, or required a Case Management
Conference (as done in federal court) or .provided equal courthouse security, this case
may have been resolved by now.
Mr. Nawnan, why has the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit failed to manage this lawsuit
according to the above cited rules and procedures?
Ps. At this time Mr. Bauer does not represent me on any issue I may have between me
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, so you can respond to Ole directly.

o o
"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OffICE"
OCALA, fl od da
344749998
1143840606 -0098
08/25/2008 (352)861-8188 04:31:59 PM
Product
Sales Receipt
Sale Unit Final
Description Oty Price Price
TAMPA FL 33602 20ne-2
first-Class Letter
0.80 01.
Return Rcpt (Green Card)
Certified
$0.42
$2.20
$2.70
Label II: 70061140000060169155
........
Issue PVI: $5.32
Total: $5.32
Paid by:
Cash $10.32
Change Due: -$5.00
Order staMPs at USPS.com/shop or call
1-BOO-Sta.p24. Go to USPS.com/clicknship
for other inforMation call 1-800-ASK-USPS.
Billll: 1000202079561
Clerk: 07
Refunds for guaranteed services only.
Thank you for your business.
***.** **** R.*R
****w
HELP US SERVE VOU BETTER
Go to: http://gx.gallup.com/pos
POSTAL EXPERIENCE
VOUR OPINION COUNTS
** **.*.w*
U.S. Postal Service
LI')
LI')
(Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage PrOVIded)
.-::t
lr

.-::t
CJ
..D
C8rllfilIdFee
CJ
CJ Retum Receipt Fee
CJ Required)
CJ Reslricled Delivery Fee
(Endoniement Requlred)
CJ
::z
.-::t Total POSI8ge & Fees
.-::t
0::(]
CJ
CJ

""""'--------'
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
February 5, 2009
Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit Court
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
George E. Edgecomb Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street
Tampa, FL 33602
Dear Ms. Frank:
The enclosed communication ofOctober 2, 2008, to Lisa Pride, Director, Circuit Civil
Division, has not been answered. Four months have passed and Ms. Pride has not
responded. Is there a problem with Ms. Pride?
Ms. Frank, as Clerk ofthe Court, please respond to my concerns that my lawsuit may not
have been properly managed by the Circuit Civil Division ofthe Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit, since Ms. Pride is either unwilling or unable to do so.
On another matter, David A. Roland, Court Counsel, suggested I contact the clerk's office
about two case files that may have been destroyed:
Case no. OO-CA-004187, Levine v. Alpert; and
Case no. 99-CA-007662, Buccaneers v. Alpert
Have the above case files, in fact, been destroyed? If yes, are either case files available in
another format, such as microfilm or computer file? Normally I would have directed this
question to Ms. Pride, but she has not responded to my letters in the past.
Thank you in advance for your kind communication.
Sincerely,
[j COpy
~
enclosures
cc: David A. Roland, Court Counsel, letter only
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No.: 7009 1410 0001 5637 1467
January 4, 2010
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel
Legal Department
Dear Mr. Rowland:
This is a request for information and any related public records.
1. Please advise the undersigned if notice is required by Florida Statutes section
768.28(6)(a) prior to instituting an action on a claim against Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of
Florida. If yes, kindly identify who is authorized to accept notice or service on behalf of
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
2. Ifnotice is required by Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a), is one notice sufficient for
the entire court, or are separate notices required for the HCSO for claims pertaining to
security matters, or to the Clerk of Court for claims pertaining to the duties of the clerk?
Is a separate notice required for claims pertaining to the ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) office or coordinator?
3. Please advise the undersigned what effect a notice under Florida Statutes section
768.28(6)(a) would have on any litigation currently on the docket in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit involving litigants now making a claim against the court pursuant to
Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a)? What would happen to the existing litigation?
Would that create a conflict of interest?
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
============================================
YOURS TRULY CARDS and GIFTS INC
8449 SW State Rd 200 Ste 137
Ocala, FL. 34481-9693
116600-8001
01/04/2010 03:49:33 PM
============================================
_______________ Sales Receipt -------------
Product
Sale
Final
Description
Qty Price
1st Letter
1
$0.44
(Oomesti c)
<TAMPA. FL
33602}
(Weight:O Lb 0.45 Oz)
1
$2.80
Certifi ed
1
$2.30
Return Rcpt
$5.54
Total
$5.54
Cash
Thank youl
1-13168-3-385163-2
Bill #:
Clerk:
WINDOW3
U.S. Postal Service
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
I"'

rn
.JJ
I.J1
r-'l
CJ
CJ
CJ
Total Postage & Fees
__--'
Certified Fee
$
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivel'{ Fee
(Endorsement Required) I-----=----{"'-

PS Form 3800, Augu',l :'IJ()h Sf'(' Hf'vcrsc lOt Instructions
Fax:
From: Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
To: David A. Rowland, Court Counsel
Fax: (813) 272-5710
Date: January 14, 2010
Pages: three (3), including this cover page
Re: Florida Statutes, section 768.28
Mr. Rowland,
Accompanying this fax is my letter to you dated January 4, 2010. When can I
expect a response from you?
Neil J. Gillespie
NOTE: This fax and the accompanying infonnation is privileged and confidential and is
intended only for use by the above addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this fax and the accompanying
commwrications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this commwrication in error,
please immediately notify the sender by telephone, collect if necessary, and return the original
message to me at the above address via u.s. mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
Article No.: 7009 14100001 5637 1467
January 4,2010
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel
Legal Department
T a m p ~ Florida 33602
Dear Mr. Rowland:
This is a request for information and any related public records.
1. Please advise the undersigned if notice is required by Florida Statutes section
768.28(6)(a) prior to instituting an action on a claim against Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of
Florida. If yes, kindly identify who is authorized to accept notice or service on behalf of
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
2. Ifnotice is required by Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a), is one notice sufficient for
the entire court, or are separate notices required for the HCSO for claims pertaining to
security matters, or to the Clerk of Court for claims pertaining to the duties ofthe clerk?
Is a separate notice required for claims pertaining to the ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) office or coordinator?
3. Please advise the undersigned what effect a notice under Florida Statutes section
768.28(6)(a) would have on any litigation currently on the docket in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit involving litigants now making a claim against the court pursuant to
Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a)? What would happen to the existing litigation?
Would that create a conflict of interest?
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
YOURS TRULY CARDS and GIFTS INC
8449 SW State Rd 200 Ste 137
Ocala. FL. 34481-9693
116600-8001
01/04/2010 03:49:33 PM

_______________ Sales Receipt -------------
Product
Sale
FInal
Description
QW
Price
1
$0.44
1st Letter
(Dotwstic)
(TAMPA. FL 33602)
(Wetght:O Lb 0.45 02)
$2.80
1
certified
$2.30
Return Rcpt
1
Total $5.54
Cash $5.54
Thank youl
8111.: 1-13168-3-385163-2
Clerk: WINDOW3
U.S. Postell Service
(DomestIc Mall Only, No Insurance Coverage PrOVided)
l"

m
...D
Lrl
" .
Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties
Posted on October 29, 2011 by Mark Stopa
My colleague, foreclosure defense attorney Matt Weidner, just re-posted the Foreclosure and Economic Recovery
Status Report which came out a few months back, openly wondering how Hillsborough County could have had
only 226 foreclosure cases dismissed in the 12-month period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.
This got me looking closer at the report, and something really, really jumped out at me.
Take a close look at page 3. Do you see, not only that the Hillsborough court dismissed just 226 cases, a very low
number compared to other counties, but also that it entered 6,530 summary judgments?
Think about that ratio for a minute. 226 dismissals versus 6,530 summary judgments. Thats 29 summary
judgments for every dismissal a ratio of 29:1.
Now look at the other counties on the chart. Do you see any other counties with that type of ratio? I sure dont
there arent any.
In the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit (Broward), the ratio is less than 2:1.
In the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (Palm Beach), the ratio is approximately 1:1.
In the Twelfth Judicial Circuit (Manatee and Sarasota), there were more dismissals than summary judgments!
In the Sixth Judicial Circuit (Pinellas and Pasco), the ratio is 4:1.
Incredibly, 4:1 is the highest ratio of any county in Florida other than Hillsborough, and the ratio in Hillsborough
is 29:1.
Think about that for a minute, and ask yourself with 20 judicial circuits in Florida, why does Hillsborough have
such an astronomically higher ratio of summary judgments to dismissals than every other circuit in Florida?
Simply from a statistical standpoint, an outlier like this cannot be a coincidence can it?
Mark Stopa
www.stayinmyhome.com
This entry was posted in Main. Bookmark the permalink.
2 Responses to Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties
Foreclosure Defense & Strategic Default
Stopa Law Blog Florida Homeowners
CASECLARITY says:
October 29, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Page 1of 2 Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties | Foreclosure Defense ...
10/30/2011 http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/?p=1861
Foreclosure Defense & Strategic Default
One view of this 29:1 summary judgment/dismissal ratio is that Hillsborough County will likely have many more defective
real property titles than other Florida counties. Buyers beware.
Reply
Mark Stopa says:
October 29, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Good point.
Reply
Proudly powered by WordPress.
Page 2of 2 Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties | Foreclosure Defense ...
10/30/2011 http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/?p=1861
Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Status Report
Quarter Ending September 2006 through June 2011
Quarter
Number of
Additional
Backlog Cases
Added
1
Clearance
Rate
2
July - September 2006 4,184 78.6%
October - December 2006 8,689 64.5%
January - March 2007 13,748 57.0%
April - June 2007 16,808 54.7%
July - September 2007 26,192 45.9%
January - March 2008 49,989 38.5%
April - June 2008 50,937 43.9%
July - September 2008 52,864 45.9%
Number of Additional Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure Cases
Added to Backlog and Percent of Cases Disposed
January - March 2009 50,025 53.7%
April - June 2009 36,397 63.2%
July - September 2009 35,012 64.0%
January - March 2010 13,392 83.7%
April - June 2010 -17,393 127.6%
July - September 2010 -16,508 125.4%
October - December 2010 -17,866 154.4%
January - March 2011 -24,790 191.5%
April - June 2011 -30,946 205.0%
1
Number of Additional Backlog Cases Added was determined by subtracting the number of SRS dispositions from the number
of SRS filings for the quarters ending September 30, 2006 through June 30, 2011.
2
Clearance Rate was determined by dividing the number of SRS dispositions by the number of SRS filings for the quarters
ending September 30, 2006 through June 30, 2011.
Note: The backlog of mortgage foreclosure cases was significantly reduced during the year-long initiative. With more than
200,000 cases disposed, the backlog fell from more than 462,000 cases to under 261,000 cases. The clearance rates, as can be
seen above, jumped dramatically during the initiative.
It is important to note that beginning in the second quarter of the year, the number of cases disposed decreased significantly and
that trend continued for the rest of the year. However, this was due in large part to the voluntary moratorium imposed by some of
the major lenders in Florida. In addition, it was reported that almost half of scheduled hearings were cancelled due to the
voluntary moratorium in late 2010.
It is also important to note that half of the total cases disposed during the year were dismissed. Dismissals, which can occur for a
number of reasons, may take place after a hearing by a judge, at the request by the plaintiffs attorney or following a review by a
case manager. Variances in case management practices may influence which cases are scheduled for hearings, which would
affect the number of dismissals and summary/final judgments.
Prepared by OSCA, Research and Data Page 1 of 4
Circuit
Real Property/
Mortgage
Foreclosure
Backlog as of
June 30, 2010
1
First Quarter
in FY 2010-11
Initiative
Dispositions
2
(July 2010 to
September 2010)
Second Quarter
in FY 2010-11
Initiative
Dispositions
2
(October 2010 to
December 2010)
Third Quarter
in FY 2010-11
Initiative
Dispositions
2
(January 2011 to
March 2011)
Fourth Quarter
in FY 2010-11
Initiative
Dispositions
2
(April 2011 to
June 2011)
Total
FY 2010-11
Initiative
Dispositions
2
Balance of
Backlog After
FY 2010-11
Initiative
3
1 10,979 1,098 983 842 1,433 4,356 6,623
2 3,460 417 370 399 335 1,521 1,939
3 1,115 220 211 245 152 828 287
4 17,916 2,436 1,739 3,407 2,768 10,350 7,566
5 16,281 1,008 1,105 1,084 800 3,997 12,284
6 31,791 3,575 1,750 868 745 6,938 24,853
7 18,440 3,792 2,086 1,643 1,854 9,375 9,065
8 1,926 536 519 446 375 1,876 50
9 39,700 7,816 5,322 4,478 4,747 22,363 17,337
10 11,045 3,159 1,614 1,378 1,805 7,956 3,089
11 75,326 5,553 5,154 8,177 12,164 31,048 44,278
Balance of Backlog
First, Second, Third, and Fourth Quarters in FY 2010-11
12 21,617 2,305 3,122 1,405 2,048 8,880 12,737
13 32,843 4,207 1,720 449 380 6,756 26,087
14 3,897 854 506 388 546 2,294 1,603
15 46,438 10,234 3,948 3,949 4,582 22,713 23,725
16 2,259 183 233 372 245 1,033 1,226
17 48,675 9,651 3,768 3,670 3,838 20,927 27,748
18 27,117 3,557 2,375 1,767 2,152 9,851 17,266
19 19,061 1,273 501 932 800 3,506 15,555
20 32,453 9,707 4,717 6,210 4,322 24,956 7,497
Total 462,339 71,581 41,743 42,109 46,091 201,524 260,815
1
Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure Backlog as of June 30, 2010 was determined by subtracting the number of SRS dispositions from the number of
SRS filings for July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2010.
2
Initiative Dispositions are based on data that is provided to the OSCA on a monthly basis by each trial court. First, second, third, and fourth quarter
data are the reported information on cases disposed using the new resources. Total represents the sum of the first, second, third, and fourth quarters.
In addition, Desoto County and Okeechobee County did not receive Foreclosure and Economic Recovery funding and are not included above.
3
Balance of Backlog After FY 2010-11 Initiative was determined by subtracting the Total FY 2010-11 Initiative Dispositions from the number of Real
Property/Mortgage Foreclosure Backlog as of June 30, 2010.
Circuit Dismissed
Summary/
Final
Judgment Trial Other
2
Unidentified
Total
Disposed
1 2,727 1,624 3 2 0 4,356
2 794 676 4 47 0 1,521
3 512 309 0 7 0 828
4 5,531 4,615 1 1 202 10,350
5 2,877 1,082 3 35 0 3,997
6 1,329 5,602 1 6 0 6,938
7 4,254 5,103 11 7 0 9,375
8 931 759 6 180 0 1,876
9 8,830 13,529 3 1 0 22,363
10 3,517 4,430 1 8 0 7,956
11 23,794 7,224 30 0 0 31,048
12 5,067 3,728 79 6 0 8,880
13 226 6 530 0 0 0 6 756
Type of Dispositions
1
July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011
13 226 6,530 0 0 0 6,756
14 1,187 1,107 0 0 0 2,294
15 11,638 11,044 31 0 0 22,713
16 729 303 1 0 0 1,033
17 8,838 12,088 1 0 0 20,927
18 5,695 4,075 19 62 0 9,851
19 2,042 1,454 4 2 4 3,506
20
13,608 11,348 0 0 0
24,956
Total 104,126 96,630 198 364 206 201,524
1
Type of Dispositions are based on the initiative data that is provided to the OSCA on a monthly basis by each trial court.
These data represent the reported information on cases disposed from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 using the new
resources. In addition, Desoto County and Okeechobee County did not receive Foreclosure and Economic Recovery
funding and are not included above.
2
Other is used to report cases disposed when they are: administratively dismissed, consolidated into a primary case,
transferred or have a change of venue, etc.
Note: Numerous methods are used by the circuits to calendar real property/mortgage foreclosure cases which could affect
the number of dismissals and summary/final judgments within a circuit. These methods are: 1) following a review by a
case manager; 2) at the request of the plaintiffs' attorney; and 3) after hearing by a judge. The majority of circuits calendar
hearings following a case review by a case manager. These cases are calendared for either a case management or lack of
prosecution hearing. A number of circuits also calendar cases at the request of the plaintiffs' attorneys. These cases are
either calendared based upon the request alone or based upon the request and ensurance that the case meets the threshold
for a summary/final judgment.
Circuit
Cases
Disposed
Cases
Active
2
Cases
Inactive
3
Cases
Stayed
4
1 4,356 113 6,586 61
2 1,521 1,190 1,407 15
3 828 184 249 35
4 10,350 11,743 6,557 304
5 3,997 705 13,431 1
6 6,938 5,332 24,178 218
7 9,375 5 10,721 389
8 1,876 1,466 641 21
9 22,363 7,154 31,273 16
10 7,956 6,020 4,614 168
11 31,048 50,785 1,730 0
12 8,880 3,390 10,405 166
13 6,756 26,757 379 9
14 2,294 2,461 1,380 54
Case Status
1
As of June 30, 2011
15 22,713 32,157 5,619 142
16 1,033 1,040 755 26
17 20,927 24,781 28,202 0
18 9,851 103 22,466 26
19 3,506 16,757 4,017 91
20
24,956 4,069 5,570 518
Total 201,524 196,212 180,180 2,260
1
Cases Status is based on the initiative data that is provided to the OSCA on a monthly basis by each
trial court. Cases Disposed represent the reported information on dispositions from July 1, 2010 through
June 30, 2011 using the new resources and the status of the remaining pending cases. In addition,
Desoto and Okeechobee Counties did not receive Foreclosure and Economic Recovery funding and are
not included above.
2
Cases Active represents those cases the court is actively working to resolve. Court administration may
not be made aware immediately when a case moves from inactive to active status.
3
Cases Inactive represents cases where judicial action cannot be concluded due to extenuating
circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to, cases inactive due to attorney inactivity, cases with
insufficient pleadings or documentation, cases involved in mediation/settlement negotiations, and other
similar matters. It is important to note that all cases at the beginning of the initiative in July 2010 were
identified as inactive.
4
Cases Stayed includes bankruptcy cases, cases pending resolution of another case, cases where there is
an agreement of the parties, and cases pending appeal.
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2011/10/hillsborough-county-appealing-every-single-f oreclosure-case-thatll-make-the-point/ October 30, 2011
HILLSBOROUGH FORECLOSURE COURT- Very Disturbing
Numbers, a system gone awry | Matt Weidner - Fighting For
The American People
Type of Dispositions1
July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011
13th Judicial Circuit= 226 Dismissals 6,530 Summary Judgments 0
Trials 6,756 Cases Disposed Of
ReportCard
The numbers detailed above are very, very disturbing. They reflect a court system that is out of
whack, and I dont like the way the numbers are tilted. These numbers come from the Office of
State Court Administrator and they are so far out of line from every other judicial circuit that they
warrant high level review from the United States Justice Department or from someone, anyone who
has any ability or willingness to stand up and speak for justice, the Rule of Law and basic rights. But
we have very much thrown the towel in on those concepts in this country now, havent we? And
defendants in foreclosure especially, what rights are they entitled to. I mean, after all, this country is
owned by the banks, right? Right~!
These numbers simply cannot be ignored and they certainly cannot be explained away. And the
execution of the procedures that lead to these numbers are even more disturbing that must be
investigated.if only anyone with authority would look into them. But again, the government in this
country has lost its way and forgotten that it was meant to serve The People and not The Banks and
The Corporations. These numbers are very real and concrete examples of just how far lost
this country has become.
Another 800 Pound Gorrilla that sits smack dab in the middle of these numbers is the alleged
investigations of the foreclosure industry by Floridas Attorney General. There were nine, count em
nine separate investigations into improper practices and many of those issues relate directly to the
cases identified above, but this states attorney general has just walked away from those
investigations.
Its beyond disturbing. Its tyranny. Its treason. Its the kind of abject corruption and repression that
leads to people rioting in the streets and Revolution. There simply is no choice when things
become so bad.
Mark Stopa ran a post this morning about the inability to appeal Motions to Dismiss and the
problems this causes in foreclosure cases and frankly throughout all of our civil court case law
because the inability to directly appeal Motions to Dismiss prevents any sort of clear case law or
guidance that would develop clear standards for Motions to Dismiss.
Like Mark, I am terribly frustrated by the practice that has been instituted in Hillsborough County
where I am not entitled to have my Motions to Dismiss heard, they are ruled on without a hearing
and more often than not, Motions to Dismiss are DENIED. Now I believe the entire ex parte
consideration of Motions to Dismiss is improperespecially when the very same motions are
routinely granted in virtually every other county. (One judge commented, We never grant these kind
of motions over here.)
The practice that has developed is the foreclosure mill sends directly to the judge a copy of my
Motion to Dismiss (on a black and white issue such as Failure to Verify) along with an Order
Denying my Motion to Dismiss. A few days later, the judge sends back the pre-printed Order
signed, DENIED, answer the complaint. My response is the same every single time, MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION. And the response is the same every time, DENIED.
Well my job as an attorney is to use every tool in my disposal to defend my clients and to protect the
law. Mark makes a very good point and its one every single one of us needs to consider. Losing
the MTD is a real gut punchsome attorneys just blow it off, but I take every single loss at a hearing
very hard and I dont take kindly to losing a properly plead Motion to Dismiss.beyond the short
term impact for me, the real problem is this is chipping away at the foundation of our entire legal
system.and we cannot let this continue.
So I am committing to being prepared to file appeals in every case where these situations come
up. Now granted an appeal is not yet timely in most cases. And the fact of the matter is, Ive only
lost like three summary judgments (each of which were reversed), but were just going to lay here
in wait with these MTD denials and keep on re-hearing and documenting the error in the ex parte
denial of MTD. If the case ever gets to an improper judgment, this will all just be added together with
all the other procedural errors that are going to be made along the way and will make fertile grounds
for a nice big appeal.
Given the current state of the law in some jurisdictions, we must begin to view the case as ripe for
appeal from the inceptionand the file must be treated and documented that way from the very
begining.
Now for all you pro-se people out there, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not try this yourselves.
You know I am the biggest supporter of consumer and citizen rights and I affirm the principles that
The People and not lawyers own the courthouses and The Law, but bad appellate decisions destroy
our laws and improperly taken appeals cannot be reversed.
And so I ask my colleagues out there to consider this.make a stand, lets make the point. The
foreclosure mills need to understand that if they buy into these improper procedures, they may get a
short term, win, but theyre only buying longer term problems down the road.
On a very real and practical level, Im appealing more and have just made financial and structural
commitments to make sure I have the ability to put more effort into appeals. These are horribly short
term business propositions for any lawyer, but The Law is not selling widgets, its a profession with
higher values that must take precedence over short term business decision making.
There are no shortcuts here. Verify complaints. State capacity. Attach documents that show
standing. These are not affirmative defenses, these are not summary judgment issues, they are
threshold pleading matters. And if you dont fix them now, your client will be paying the very steep
appellate price years and years and years down the road.
I also believe that is the appellate courts and foreclosure mills are inundated with new filings, these
improper trial court practices will start to diminish.
Until they do, I am prepared to take appeals on every single issue supported by sound appeals that
will lead to the development of good law.
Scridb filter

Chief Judge Manuel Menendez-Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida-RESIGN

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

Chief Judge Manuel Menendez-Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida-RESIGN

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VIA U.P.S. No.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi