James Comey, FBI Referral DOJ Public Integrity Section

Michelle S.
Klimt, Special Agent in Charge James Comey, Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) FBI Headquarters
6061 Gate Parkway 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Jacksonville, FL 32256 Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
http://www.fbi.gov/jacksonville/ http://www.fbi.gov/
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNY92795664 VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNY92027672
March 5, 2014 RE: Referral - DOJ Public Integrity Section
Dear Director Comey and Special Agent in Charge Klimt:
The Department of Justice Public Integrity Section referred me to the FBI for investigation of
public corruption in Florida. In turn Florida corruption has affected my petitions to the U.S.
Supreme Court as shown in my letter February 18, 2014 to,
Robin C. Ashton, OPR Counsel Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson
Office of Professional Responsibility Executive Office of the Secretary-General
U.S. Department of Justice Rule of Law Unit, United Nations Headquarters
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 3529 First Avenue at 46th Street
Washington, DC 20530-0001 New York, NY 10017 USA
Please find enclosed the following documents,
March 5, 2014 letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
February 18, 2014 letter Ms. Ashton, OPR Counsel & Deputy Secretary-General Eliasson
New ethics complaint, Pam Bondi Florida AG
Ethics complaint, Pat Frank Clerk of Court, Hillsborough Co. FL, and Counsel Dale Bohner;
supplemental ethics violations for follow-up complaint.
Email letter February 18, 2014 to Senator Rubio, Senator Nelson, Acting US Attorney Lee
Bentley, AUSA Roger Handberg re Honest Services Fraud of Martha Cook and Mr. Rodems
Email letter February 18, 2014 to John M. Fitzgibbons, Esq., Chairman, Florida Federal JNC
Petition No. 13-7280, and related documents, with CD-ROM
Petition No. 12-7747, and related documents, with CD-ROM.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
Email: [email protected]
Enclosures
Robin C. Ashton, OPR Counsel Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson
Office of Professional Responsibility Executive Office of the Secretary-General
U.S. Department of Justice Rule of Law Unit, United Nations Headquarters
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 3529 First Avenue at 46th Street
Washington, DC 20530-0001 New York, NY 10017 USA
www.justice.gov/opr/ http://www.un.org/en/ruleoflaw/index.shtml
Phone: 202-514-3365 Email: [email protected]
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNY90737908 VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FNY93846697
February 18, 2014 Re: Fraud or impairment, 18 U.S.C. 371
Petition No. 13-7280 U.S. Supreme Court
Petition No. 12-7747 U.S. Supreme Court
Dear Ms. Ashton and Mr. Eliasson:
This complaint to OPR of misconduct involving Department attorney Roger B. Handberg AUSA
Orlando Florida, and perhaps others, relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate,
litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement
personnel when related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR.
Petition No. 13-7280 shows U.S. Judge William Terrell Hodges engaged in conduct prejudicial
to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts in the Middle District
of Florida while presiding over my cases in the Ocala Division. Also see Fair v Hodges, a
meritorious 1971 citizen challenge to the investiture of Judge Hodges.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/179253446/
This is also a complaint about fraud or impairment of a legitimate government activity, the above
captioned petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court. Petition No. 13-7280 seeks to stop wrongful
foreclosure of my home on a HECM reverse mortgage. In Petition No. 12-7747 I requested
appointment of a guardian ad litem but got no response. My phone call to the Supreme Court
February 6, 2014 revealed documents in my cases do not appear on the Courts computer system.
On Thursday February 6, 2014, I called the Supreme Court about a letter from the Clerk dated
February 4, 2014, stating, (copy enclosed)
Dear Mr. Gillespie,
The voluminous exhibits submitted with your petition are herewith returned.
Sincerely,
Scott S. Harris, Clerk
by
Michael Broadus
Assistant Clerk
I asked the woman who took my call February 4, 2014 why the Court returned my exhibits
before time expired to file a petition for rehearing an order denying Petition No. 13-7280 for writ
of certiorari. She could not find the Courts letter to me on the Courts computer system. My
6
Corrected
Robin C. Ashton, OPR Counsel February 18, 2014
Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson Page -2
petition for rehearing was filed February 7, 2014. A copy of the petition for rehearing is
enclosed, with an Index to Petition No. 13-7280, CD-ROM, and related documents.
The enclosed petition for rehearing shows on page 9 the Florida Commission on Ethics gave
notice
1
December 17, 2013 to the public officers and employees below for Misuse of Public
Position, 112.313(6) F.S. in the fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747, a legitimate
government activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, a conspiracy against my rights, 18 U.S.C. 241, and a
deprivation of my rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 242.
Ethics Complaint No. Public Officer or Public Employee Branch of Govt.
Complaint No. 13-201 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General of Florida Executive
Complaint No. 13-202 Diana R. Esposito, Chief Asst. Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-203 Kenneth V. Wilson, Asst. Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-204 Valerie Williford, Employee of Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-205 Laura Martin, Employee of Attorney General Executive
Complaint No. 13-206 David Rowland, G.Counsel, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Judicial
Complaint No. 13-207 Sandra Burge, paralegal, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Judicial
The complaints, exhibits, and seven (7) Notices appear in separate appendices on the enclosed
CD-ROM. The Florida Commission on Ethics announced an alleged settlement of my home
mortgage dispute in seven orders entered January 29, 2014, paragraph 3:
The complaint apparently alleges that the Respondent misused her public position by
conspiring with others in her office to deprive the Complainant of his legal rights...
related to an attorney's representation which resulted in a settlement of the Complainant's
home mortgage dispute.
If this settlement is correct, I do not have knowledge of it. I asked the Court to inquire further.
Otherwise these seven orders appear part of a campaign of psychological abuse or torture. My
complaints were dismissed on a technicality, which I intend to correct soon in new complaints.
On Friday, January 24, 2014, the Commission on Ethics met in executive session and
considered this complaint for legal sufficiency pursuant to Commission Rule 34-5.002,
F.A.C. The Commission's review was limited to questions of jurisdiction of the
Commission and of the adequacy of the details of the complaint to allege a violation of
the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. No factual investigation preceded
the review, and therefore the Commission's conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of
the allegations of the complaint.
Also, since filing the above complaints, I have received additional public records showing new
evidence of misuse of public office, and other serious criminal acts and obstruction of justice.
I am disabled with physical and mental impairments. My ability to function in real-time is
severely impaired. In the past Florida and federal courts, judges, judicial officers and court
employees have abused their power by using a position of dominance for advantage over me

1
Pursuant to Section 112.324, Florida Statutes.
knowing I am especially vulnerable. It has taken me a long time to unravel the confusion caused
by this abuse of power. My amended disability motion to the Eleventh Circuit is enclosed.
August 28, 2012 I requested appointment of a guardian ad litem from the U.S. Supreme Court.
This was prior to filing Petition No. 12-7747 December 10, 2012. Mr. Clayton R. Higgins, Jr.,
case analyst, returned my disability accommodation request by letter September 4, 2012,
Dear Mr. Gillespie,
In reply to your letter or submission, received August 31, 2012, I regret to inform you
that the Court is unable to assist you in the matter you present.
Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the
consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts in
accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court.
Your papers are herewith returned.
Sincerely,
William K. Suter, Clerk
By: (signature)
Clayton R. Higgins, Jr.
(202) 479-3019
When I filed Petition No. 12-7747, I resubmitted my disability request and got no response. The
disability request is found in PDF on the CD-ROM accompanying the Index to Petition No. 12-
7747. I cannot make paper copies of the 166 page document now because my good printer is not
working, and my old one is too slow. The cost of paper and ink is another limitation for me.
Petition No. 13-7280 notes fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747 internal to the courts,
including the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning on page 9, the section called,
Markers of Fraud or Impairment in Petition No. 12-7747, submitted in No. 13-7280 pp. 9-11
Markers of fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747 in the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 22, 2013 I submitted Petitioners Verified Rule 8 Notice of Conduct
Unbecoming a Member of the Bar of this Court by Ryan Christopher Rodems, with
separate volume appendix; and Rule 29 Proof of Service. The Supreme Court did not
docket this filing and did not return the filing to me. U.P.S. shows proof of delivery the
next day, January 23, 2013. The Rule 8 Notice is posted on Scribd (86 pages) at the link
below http://www.scribd.com/doc/125838636/
On January 22, 2013 I submitted Petitioners Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court
showing Mr. Rodems did not have a party interest in this petition. The Supreme Court
did not docket this filing and did not return the filing to me. U.P.S. shows proof of
Provided on
CD-ROM
delivery the next day, January 23, 2013. The Rule 12.6 Notice is posted on Scribd (22
pages) at the link below http://www.scribd.com/doc/125839046/
On February 11, 2013 I wrote to Clerk William Suter about the above missing filing that
did not appear on the Courts docket but got no response from the Clerk or anyone else.
On May 13, 2013 I wrote Contacted Kathleen L. Arberg, Public Information Officer, but
got no response. The letter is posted on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/144645896/
On August 29, 2012 I filed a corrected Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas. On
information and belief, a Rule 13.5 Application to extend time to file a petition for a writ
of certiorari automatically consolidates two or more judgments because:
...you may only submit a single petition for a writ of certiorari when two or more
judgments are sought to be reviewed to the same lower court. Rule 12.4. This also
applies to an application for an extension of time within which to file a petition
for a writ of certiorari.
Letter of Jeffrey Atkins to Neil Gillespie, July 25, 2012. (Note: copy enclosed)
2012
On September 13, 2013 Justice Thomas granted Application 12A215 extending the time
to file a writ of certiorari to and including December 10, 2012. It does not appear cases
C.A.11 No. 12-11028 and C.A.11 No. 12-11213 were consolidated. The decision by
Justice Thomas is not in the form of an order, but a letter from the Clerk that shows the
extension of time was granted, but not consolidation of C.A.11 No. 12-11028 and C.A.11
No. 12-11213. Only C.A.11 No. 12-11028 appears on the online Court docket.
The district court docket no. 5:11-cv-539-WTH-TBS (Appeal 12-11028) shows entry of a
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court February 21, 2013 at Doc. 28.
Document 28 - Notification from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, that
WRIT OF CERTIORARI has been denied by the U.S. Supreme Court Issued on
02/19/13. The court's mandate having previously issued, no further action will be
taken by this court. (MJT) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
Tellingly, district court docket no. 5:10-cv-503 WTH-(DAB)-TBS (Appeal 12-11213)
makes no mention of Petition No. 12-7747 or a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Markers of fraud or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747
in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit
The U.S. Eleventh Circuit docket No. 12-11213 shows an entry August 27, 2012, twenty
(20) days after entry of dismissal, likely part of the effort to deny my petition due process
by getting Ms. Chapman out of the mail loop as counsel for Respondent Robert W. Bauer,
Returned Mail was received for Attorney Catherine Barbara Chapman for - The
Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.. Address has NOT been verified and
updated, and mail has NOT been issued again. 8/15;pro-3 (ENVELOPE STATES
"NOT AT THIS ADDRESS"
The address shown below by the Eleventh Circuit was not one used by Ms Chapman at
any time in this litigation.
Catherine Barbara Chapman
Andrews Crabtree Knox & Andrews, LLP
PO BOX 12800
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32317-2800
All Florida lawyers are required to inform The Florida Bar of the lawyers current
address, which is shown on The Florida Bars online directory. Ms. Chapmans address
shown on The Florida Bars online directory:
Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A.
1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32308-7823
My Rule 29 certificate of service, August 13, 2012 and August 29, 2012 to Ms. Chapman
shows the above address as listed by The Florida Bar.
On September 20, 2012 I emailed Andrews Crabtree Knox & Andrews, LLP, and asked
why does Eleventh Circuit have the wrong address for Catherine B. Chapman. Earlier
that day I called and was informed that Ms. Chapman has not been employed by the firm
for four years. I did not get a response from Andrews Crabtree.
End of section from Petition No. 13-7280, pp. 9-11.
New Section with additional evidence
Supplement 2014: Markers of Fraud or Impairment in Petition No. 12-7747
My letter to Clerk Sueter dated February 11, 2013 is enclosed. No one responded for the Court.
My Verified Rule 8 Notice of Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Bar of this Court (Rodems)
is enclosed, with proof of delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court and parties on February 23, 2013.
The document was not entered on the Courts docket, is not found on the Courts computer
system, and just seems to have disappeared completely. This is not acceptable in the SCOTUS.
My Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court is enclosed, with proof of delivery to the U.S.
Supreme Court and parties on February 23, 2013. The document was not entered on the Courts
docket, is not found on the Courts computer system, and just seems to have disappeared
completely. This is not acceptable in the SCOTUS.
proof
On January 17, 2013 I made three telephone calls
2
to the Supreme Court of the United States.
At 10:00 AM I called Mr. Higgins and left a message on his AUDIX Automated Voicemail
System. Mr. Higgins did not return my call.
At 10:33 AM I called the Supreme Court again for Jeffrey Atkins, was greeted by his
AUDIX Automated Voicemail System, and I left this message,
At 10:14 AM I called the Supreme Court again, and spoke with Robert, and Jeffrey Atkins.
On January 17, 2013 at 10:00 AM I called Mr. Higgins and left a message on his AUDIX
Automated Voicemail System. Mr. Higgins did not return my call.
Transcript, date January 17, 2013, time 10:00 AM, page 2 (transcript enclosed)
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Hello, Mr. Higgins, my name is
18 Neil Gillespie. I have a petition before the
19 Court; it's Number 12-7747.
20 Two respondents have not filed a waiver or a
21 response that was due Monday, January 14th, 2013.
22 The other respondent, Ryan Christopher Rodems,
23 filed a waiver that had a harassing Post It note
24 attached to it.
25 Mr. Rodems' misconduct is at the center of
Transcript, date January 17, 2013, time 10:00 AM, page 3
1 this petition and the Florida Bar has opened a
2 complaint against him for the misconduct. So his
3 appearance in this seems improper, but I don't know
4 what to do at this point. I'm not even sure if
5 you're still the case person, case analyst for this
6 case now that it's a petition; so I'll try and call
7 the other number.
8 My phone in Ocala is area (352)854-7807. If I
9 need to make some Motion to Compel, let me know and
10 I'll do so. Thank you.

2
Calls on home office telephone extension (352) 854-7807 are recorded for quality assurance
purposes pursuant to the use exemption of Florida Statutes chapter 934, section 934.02(4)(a)(1)
and the holding of Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215
(11th Cir. 1991). This is for disability accommodation, and protection from Mr. Rodems.
On January 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM I called the Supreme Court again, and spoke with Robert, and
Jeffrey Atkins. The text is set out at Exhibit 1, due to the length.
On January 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM I called the Supreme Court again for Jeffrey Atkins, was
greeted by his AUDIX Automated Voicemail System, and I left this message,
Transcript, date January 17, 2013, time 10:33 AM, page 2 (transcript enclosed)
13 AUDIX AUTOMATED OPERATOR: Hello, this is Jeff
14 Atkins in the United States Supreme Court. I am
15 unavailable to take your call at this time. If you
16 like you may leave a message and I'll return your
17 call as soon as possible. Thank you.
18 MR. GILLESPIE: Hello, Mr. Atkins, this is
19 Neil Gillespie getting back to you in petition
20 number 12-7747. I spoke with Robert. You asked
21 who I spoke with; it was Robert. Robert told me to
22 report Mr. Rodems' misconduct to the Supreme Court
23 Bar. I don't know how to do that. So if you can
24 explain that to me I would appreciate it. But the
25 person I spoke with was Robert. That was this
1 morning shortly before I spoke with you.
2 My phone number is (352)854-7807. Thank you.
On January 31, 2013 at 2:39 PM I called the Supreme Court again, and spoke with a man whom
I believe was Robert.
Transcript, date January 31, 2013, time 2:39 PM, page 2
17 CLERK'S OPERATOR: Clerk's office. Hold
18 please.
19 MR. GILLESPIE: Hello.
20 ROBERT: Thank you for holding, how can I help
21 you.
22 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, I'm calling about some
23 pleadings that were delivered January 23rd in my
24 petition. I wanted to make sure that they were
24 there because they're not showing on the docket.
1 ROBERT: Can I have the docket number, please.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, sir. It's petition
3 12-7747.
4 ROBERT: 7747. It's Gillespie v. Thirteenth
5 Judicial Circuit of Florida?
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, sir.
7 ROBERT: Okay.
8 MR. GILLESPIE: I have a Rule 12 Notice, a
9 Rule 8 Notice and some separate volume appendixes.
10 ROBERT: Okay.
11 MR. GILLESPIE: I sent them on the 22nd
12 overnight delivery. UPS shows they got there
13 January 23rd. So I just wanted to make sure --
14 ROBERT: Okay. They might have just -- they
15 might have just not made it into our online system.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: Uh-huh.
17 ROBERT: Let me transfer you to your case
18 analyst.
19 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, that is not necessary.
20 Are you showing that they're there?
21 ROBERT: No, I don't see them in our system.
22 Which they might still be with the analyst. They
23 might have not made it on to our docketing system
24 yet.
25 MR. GILLESPIE: All right.
1 ROBERT: So I'll transfer you over there --
2 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I really don't like that
3 because they get upset when I call and I'm trying
4 to keep conflict to a minimum. I might just call
5 back Monday.
6 ROBERT: Are you sure? It is their job.
7 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm not going to get
8 into all that.
9 ROBERT: Okay.
10 MR. GILLESPIE: But, you know, I'm just
11 concerned that -- I mean, I know you guys do a
12 great job, but things happen, things get lost, and
13 these are important pleadings.
14 ROBERT: Absolutely, there's just a -- it goes
15 to an off-site location where all -- everything is
16 screened first, all of your mail is screened first.
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, I'm aware of that.
18 ROBERT: Then it comes here and it gets
19 screened and then it comes through us and we look
20 through it. And then it's got to make it to the
21 analyst and they have to enter it into our
22 docketing system. So there is some delay on that.
23 MR. GILLESPIE: Right. Okay. Well, I'll
24 check back maybe early next week.
25 ROBERT: Okay. Sounds good, sir.
1 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you.
2 ROBERT: Have a nice day.
3 MR. GILLESPIE: Bye.
On February 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM I called the Supreme Court again, was greeted by, and left a
telephone message on the AUDIX Automated Voicemail System of Jeffrey Atkins.
Transcript, date February 8, 2013, time 12:49 PM, page 2
11 AUTOMATED OPERATOR: This call is being
12 recorded for quality assurance purposes.
13 CLERK'S OPERATOR: Hello, you have reached the
14 Clerk's -- (beep) -- please wait.
15 CLERK'S OPERATOR: Hello, Clerk's office.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: Hi, is Mr. Akins in, Jeffrey
17 Atkins?
18 CLERK'S OPERATOR: Yes, he is. Do you want me
19 to transfer you over to him?
21 CLERK'S OPERATOR: Okay.
22 AUDIX AUTOMATED OPERATOR: Hello, this is Jeff
23 Atkins, in the United States Supreme Court. Today
24 is Friday, February 8. I will be out of the office
25 for the remainder of the day. If you would like,
Transcript, date February 8, 2013, time 12:49 PM, page 3
1 you may leave a message and I'll return your call
2 first thing Monday morning. Or, if you have an
3 urgent matter that requires immediate attention you
4 may call Chris Vassel at (202)479-3027. Thank you.
5 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Mr. Atkins, this is Neil
6 Gillespie calling on petition 12-7747. I'm calling
7 about pleadings that were delivered on January 23rd
8 and do not yet appear on the Court's website for
9 this case. And also, my letter to you of the 22nd,
10 I don't have a response to yet. So that's what I
11 am calling about. (352)854-7807. I have a
12 supplemental brief and I want to speak with someone
13 about submitting that time wise. Thank you.
Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas
My Rule 13.5 Application to Justice Thomas is enclosed, granted September 13, 2012. The
Clerks letter and Court docket showing Justice Thomas granted Application 12A215 is enclosed.
Note: Catherine Chapman is counsel for Robert Bauer (referred to me by The Florida Bar LRS).
The Rule 29 Proof of Service shows service to Ms. Chapman at Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz &
Simpson, P.A., 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200, Tallahassee, FL 32308-7823.
Email with Andrews Crabtree about Ms. Chapmans incorrect address with the C.A.11 enclosed.
Correspondence with Roger B. Handberg, III, Asst. U.S. Attorney, MD Florida, Orlando
Mr. Handberg is familiar with some of the issues underlying this matter that involve payday loan
litigation. In 2001 the Florida Attorney General intervened in Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash
Express, Inc. citing Florida RICO jurisdiction. Roger B. Handberg, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Economic Crimes Division, appeared for the AG and got a $500,000 settlement for
Florida. Mr. Handberg was present June 12, 2002 at a mediation in Tampa and knew I was not
satisfied with Barker, Rodems & Cook (BRC) who represented me. On or about May 22, 2002 I
called the opposing counsel for ACE, Paul Watson, and told him I wanted to settle. That was
after BRC defrauded me of $7,143 in the AMSCOT case November 1, 2001.
I wrote Mr. Handberg in 2007 about BRCs fraud no avail. Since 2007 I also made written
complaints to the Florida Attorney General about The Florida Bar and Barker, Rodems & Cook,
first to AG Bill McCollum, and later to AG Bondi. Enclosed you will find the $500,000
settlement agreement, and my correspondence with Mr. Handberg, and AG Bill McCollum.
January 10, 2014 - Senator Nelson, Senator Rubio, Acting US Atty. A. Lee Bentley, Assistant
U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg, and others is enclosed.
You may respond by letter, or email (preferred) at my email address below. Thank you in
advance for the courtesy of a response. Time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Enclosures
1
Exhibit 1
On January 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM I called the Supreme Court again, and spoke with Robert, and
Jeffrey Atkins. The text is set out at Exhibit 1, due to the length.
15 ROBERT: Good morning, Office of the Clerk.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: Hi, I'm calling about my
17 petition for writ of certiorari.
18 ROBERT: Okay.
19 MR. GILLESPIE: It's number 127747.
20 ROBERT: 127747.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: My name is Neil Gillespie, I
22 am the petitioner.
23 ROBERT: Yes, sir.
24 MR. GILLESPIE: Two of the respondents have
25 not filed a waiver or a response that was due
1 Monday, January 14th.
2 ROBERT: They did file a waiver on
3 December 20th.
4 MR. GILLESPIE: They did?
5 ROBERT: We have in our system December 20th,
6 2012, Waiver of Right of Respondent, Ryan
7 Christopher Rodems --
8 MR. GILLESPIE: Okay, he is --
9 ROBERT: -- and Barker, Rodems and Cook, P.A.
10 MR. GILLESPIE: He is only one of many, many,
11 respondent, sir.
12 ROBERT: Uh-huh.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: He is not the other
14 respondent.
15 ROBERT: Okay.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: There's respondent State of
17 Florida has not responded. The respondent Robert
18 W. Bauer has not responded. They are not
19 represented by Mr. Rodems.
20 ROBERT: Okay.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: Okay
22 ROBERT: Let me transfer you to the case
23 analyst who would be handling this case.
24 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, let me just ask you, is
25 that Mr. Higgins?
2
1 ROBERT: Mr -- yes, sir.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: Okay. I've already called
3 that number and left a message.
4 ROBERT: Okay.
5 MR. GILLESPIE: I have another question. This
6 person Ryan Chris Rodems who filed the waiver, he
7 attached a harassing note to my copy when I
8 received it in the mail.
9 ROBERT: Uh-huh.
10 MR. GILLESPIE: I don't -- his misconduct is
11 at the center of this petition and the Florida Bar
12 has an open complaint against him for that
13 misconduct. So I don't even see how his appearance
14 is proper in this matter, since he's under
15 investigation by the Florida Bar.
16 ROBERT: And he is counsel for the defendants?
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, for himself and his law
18 firm.
19 ROBERT: Okay.
20 MR. GILLESPIE: Not for any of the other --
21 ROBERT: If there is a complaint open -- if
22 there is a complaint open against him, I would
23 obviously save that letter and add it to your
24 complaint, but as far as you -- so you want him
25 removed as counsel for the respondents; is that
1 what you're saying?
2 MR. GILLESPIE: It seems that he engaged in
3 conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of the
4 Supreme Court of the United States. I will also
5 say that, you know, this is his method of -- this
6 is his practice of litigation, litigation through
7 harassment. He is under a Court imposed
8 prohibition of conduct for this by Hillsborough
9 Judge Claudia Isom dating back to February the 5th.
10 He won't even address me by my surname, it's also
11 name calling.
12 ROBERT: Uh-huh.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: You know, which is the least
14 of it.
15 ROBERT: I'm not sure what you can -- I
16 believe that you can, you can report it to the
3
17 Supreme Court Bar as well and they can look into
18 it. But again, I can't answer these questions.
19 I'll transfer you. I don't believe Mr. Higgins is
20 here right now, but I can transfer you to his
21 supervisor, Mr. Atkins, who could answer these
22 questions a little bit more efficiently.
23 MR. GILLESPIE: All right. And what is the
24 Supreme Court Bar? I mean, I have looked online
25 for that and I can't seem to find it.
1 ROBERT: What do you mean what is it? You
2 need to be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar --
3 MR. GILLESPIE: I understand that, but you had
4 mentioned that as though it were an entity. Is it
5 an entity or just an accounting formality?
6 ROBERT: I believe it's its own Bar
7 Association.
8 MR. GILLESPIE: And where
9 ROBERT: So should you wish to bring complaint
10 against Mr. Rodems I believe you can do that here
11 as well but, again, Mr. Atkins would be able to
12 answer that a little bit better.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you. And what was your
14 name, sir?
15 ROBERT: My name is Robert.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Robert.
17 ROBERT: Okay. But, like I said, I believe
18 it's its own entity, but Mr. Atkins is going to
19 know a little bit better than I.
21 ROBERT: All right, sir, I'm going to transfer
22 you now.
24 MR. ATKINS: Clerk's Office.
25 MR. GILLESPIE: Hi, is this Mr. Atkins?
1 MR. ATKINS: Yes, it is.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: My name is Neil Gillespie.
3 I'm the petitioner in number 12-7747. I'm not
4 getting the responses that were due January 14th.
5 MR. ATKINS: Okay. What is your case number
6 again?
4
7 MR. GILLESPIE: 12-7747.
8 MR. ATKINS: Okay. Well, I don't see any --
9 except for a waiver that was filed by Rodems and
10 Barker, Rodems and Cook, I don't see anything else
11 filed. That's the only thing that has been filed
12 with us.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Right. And you know, they
14 were due on the 14th.
15 MR. ATKINS: Right.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: Now, there is 10 respondents
17 who haven't responded.
18 MR. ATKINS: Okay. Well, what is going to
19 happen in this situation then, then it will go to
20 conference without the opposition briefs, the Court
21 will just look on the -- at the petition on its
22 own. And if they feel they need to see a response,
23 they will request a response to be filed. Okay.
24 MR. GILLESPIE: From whom?
25 MR. ATKINS: From the respondents.
1 MR. GILLESPIE: Okay.
2 MR. ATKINS: If the Court -- yeah, in other
3 words, if that's all that's submitted is your
4 petition, then that is all that is going to be
5 considered by the Court, unless they direct
6 otherwise.
7 MR. GILLESPIE: And when would that happen?
8 MR. ATKINS: Let's see here, January 14th --
9 24th -- yeah, be sometime next month, probably
10 about the middle of the month.
11 MR. GILLESPIE: All right. So aren't the
12 respondents required to either respond or submit a
13 waiver?
14 MR. ATKINS: No, they're not. I mean, the
15 rules allow that one or the other has to be filed,
16 but that is up to them whether they file one to
17 them. And it will be up to the Court to decide to
18 go ahead and rule on the petition or not. So we
19 just have to wait to see how the Court rules on the
20 petition.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: All right. I have another
22 question. This respondent Ryan Christopher Rodems
23 who filed the waiver, he attached a harassing note
24 to the waiver copy that was provided me.
5
25 Mr. Rodems' misconduct is at the center of this
1 petition and the Florida Bar has an open complaint
2 against him for this misconduct. So his appearance
3 here seems improper.
4 MR. ATKINS: It seems improper? What did you
5 say, I didn't hear you?
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Mr. Rodems' misconduct,
7 professional misconduct is at the center of this
8 petition. The Florida Bar has an open Bar
9 complaint against Mr. Rodems for the misconduct
10 complained about in the petition. So his
11 appearance for himself and his firm appears
12 improper, especially since he has engaged in
13 conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of the
14 Supreme Court of the United States.
15 MR. ATKINS: Okay. Well, the Court will take
16 that in consideration. I mean, right now he
17 didn't -- like I said, all that was filed was the
18 waiver, there was no response to the petition. So
19 he simply just filed a waiver waiving his right to
20 respond. Okay. But anything as far as that is
21 concerned, that is, again, up to the Court's
22 discretion.
23 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, they're not aware of the
24 harassment, the harassing note that was attached to
25 the Supreme Court waiver.
1 MR. ATKINS: Okay.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: The fellow that I spoke with
3 before you said it's possible to make a complaint
4 to the Bar of the Supreme Court. How is that done?
5 MR. ATKINS: Well, I don't know, who did you
6 speak to?
7 MR. GILLESPIE: Whoever -- the person that
8 answered the phone. I mean, it's really
9 irrelevant. Is it possible to make a complaint
10 against a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court?
11 And how is that --
12 MR. ATKINS: No, not a complaint filed here.
13 I think it goes against the State Bar that the
14 attorney is a member of, filed with the State Bar.
6
15 MR. GILLESPIE: Okay. Well, I have an open
16 complaint against him.
17 MR. ATKINS: Okay. So you did what you could
18 do then. So we will see how they rule on that.
19 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I'm confused now,
20 because the fellow I just spoke with --
21 MR. ATKINS: Well, what's his name, that's why
22 I'm asking? You said it's not relevant; it's
23 relevant to me because I -- it would be nice to
24 know who you spoke to. I can ask him about that.
25 MR. GILLESPIE: I can't remember right now, it
1 would take me a couple of minutes. I'm severely
2 disabled, unfortunately, and it affects my memory
3 short term. I would have to think about it for a
4 minute, but I can get back to you.
5 MR. ATKINS: Well, let me --
6 MR. GILLESPIE: I'll get back to you with the
7 name.
8 MR. ATKINS: All right. Have a good day, sir.
9 Goodbye.
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
OfficeoftheClerk
Washington,DC 20543-0001
ScottS. Harris
ClerkoftheCourt
(202) 479-3011
February4, 2014
Mr. NeilJ.Gillespie
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: NeilJ.Gillespie
v. ReverseMortgageSolutions,Inc., etale
No. 13-7280
DearMr. Gillespie:
Thevoluminousexhibitssubmittedwithyourpetitionareherewithreturned.
Sincerely,
ScottS.Harris,Clerk
by
MichaelBroadus
AssistantClerk
71., .. n 7 1 T t, t niT II '.; .... ,
J'
." OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001
... '"().FFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300
..'1
i
1
-;.
"
'.,..

)'
1
.. ...
1
________------- t __----_ ---l1li.4I11III------- -----------_------ ., '.rlr
SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
OFFICEOFTHECLERK
WASHINGTON,DC 20543-0001
July25,2012
NeilJ. Gillespie
8092 SW 115thLoop
Ocala,FL34481
RE: NeilJ. Gillespiev. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,etal.
DearMr. Gillespie:
InresponsetoyourletterofJuly23,2012,youmayonlysubmitasinglepetitionfora
writofcertiorariwhentwoormorejudgmentsare soughttobereviewedto the same
lowercourt. Rule 12.4. Thisalsoappliesto anapplicationforanextensionoftime
withinwhichto file apetitionforawritofcertiorari.
TheRulesofthisCourtareenclosed.
Sincerely,
WilliamK. Suter,Clerk
By: /) U I
. /
~
Jeffre n
(202 4 ~

Enclosures
February11,2013
TheHonorableWilliamK. Suter
Clerkof theCourt
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
1FirstStreet,NE
Washington,DC20543
RE: PetitionNo. 12-7747,Gillespiev. ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,FL,etal.
DearHon. ClerkSuter:
OnJanuary22,2013 Isubmittedthefollowingdocumentsforfiling intheabovepetition,andas
oftodayIdonotseethempostedontheCourt'sdocketpageatthislink.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm
1. Rule 12.6NoticetotheClerkof theCourt,partyinterest;andRule29ProofofService
2. Rule8Notice,conductunbecomingamemberoftheBarof thisCourt,verified,with
separatevolumeappendix;andRule29ProofofService.
TomorrowFebruary 12,2013 IplantosubmitfordeliverytotheCourtFebruary13,2013 a
SupplementalBriefpursuanttoRule 15.8,Anypartymayfile asupplementalbriefatanytime
whileapetitionforawritofcertiorariispending,callingattentiontonewcases,newlegislation,
orotherinterveningmatternotavailableatthetimeof theparty'slastfiling.
MypetitionhasbeendistributedforconferenceFebruary 15,2013. Iamconcernedthatsincethe
aboveRule 12.6andRule8filings donotappeartobedocketed,thattheremaybeaproblem,
althoughIhaveproofofdeliverytotheCourtforthosefilings. IrequestthattheCourtdocket
myRule 15.8 SupplementalBrief uponarrival,becausetimeisof theessence.
Also,IdonothavearesponsefromJeffreyAtkins, Supervisorof NewCases,tomyletterdated
January22,2013. Itriedspeakingwithhin1byphone,butforgotwhomIspokewithearlier,due
toamemorydeficitdisability,andthatwasaproblem. Iintendtofullycooperate. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
~
c::,
7
. /' ~ /
~ 1 eilJ. Gi les
8092 SW 5thLoop
(
Ocala,Frida34481
Telephone: (352)854-7807

Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:27 PM
Attach: Return mail for Catherine B. Chapman, Andrews Crabtree, Aug-27-2012.pdf
Subject: Attorney Catherine B. Chapman listed as with Andrews Crabtree in C.A.11
Page 1 of 1
8/26/2013
Jeannette M. Andrews
Robert C. Crabtree
J. Craig Knox
Ben A. Andrews
To the attorney partners at Andrews Crabtree Knox & Andrews, LLP:
Attached you will find a document entered by the Clerk of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case:
12-11213 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 1 of 2, showing returned mail for Catherine Barbara Chapman at
Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Andrews, LLP.
I do not understand why the Clerk attached an unrelated letter to me dated August 15, 2012. I learned of
this matter today by reading the docket on PACER. The Clerk did not provide this information to me by
mail.
The docket entry reads: "Returned Mail was received for Attorney Catherine Barbara Chapman for - The
Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.. Address has NOT been verified and updated, and mail has NOT
been issued again. 8/15;pro-3 (ENVELOPE STATES "NOT AT THIS ADDRESS")"
Today I called your office and was informed that Ms. Chapman has not been employed by your firm for
four years.
Ms. Chapman and Guilday, Tucker have represented Defendants/Appellees Robert W. Bauer and the
Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A. since April 2011, first in the U.S. District Court, and later in the
U.S. Court of Appeals. During all that time there was no problem with Ms. Chapmans address at
Guilday, Tucker.
I would appreciate any information you can provide as to why Ms. Chapman is listed in the U.S. 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals as a member of your firm, and if this listing needs correction. I have not yet
discussed this issue with Ms. Chapman.
This and a related case are being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I am the pro se, non lawyer
petitioner. Below is a link to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Thomas granted my Rule 13.5 Application
to extend time to file a petition for writ of certiorari on September 13, 2012.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a215.htm
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
12-11213
Andrews Crabtree Knox & Andrews, LLP
PO BOX 12800
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32317-2800
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John Ley Forrules and forms visit
Clerk of Court www.cal I uscoun.s.mn
August 15,2012
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW115TH LOOP
OCALA,FL 34481
Appeal Number: 12-11213-C; 12-11028-B
Case Style: Neil Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, F, et al
District Court Docket No: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS
I am returning to you unfiled the papers which you have submitted. These cases are closed.
No action will be taken.
Sincerely,
JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Walter Pollard/aw, C
Phone #: (404) 335-6186
PRO-3 Letter Returning Papers Unfiled
Case: 12-11213 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 2 of 2
MorganR.Bentley
Chair
LindaMcKeeRobison
Vice Chair
MichelleAnchors
MatthewF.Carlucci
I.MartinFord
TomFreeman
SusanHorovitzMaurer
StanleyM.Weston
StateofFlorida
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O.Drawer15709
Tallahassee,Florida32317-5709
325JohnKnoxRoad
BuildingE,Suite200
Tallahassee,Florida32303
"A Public Office is a Public Trust"
February26,2014
VirlindiaDoss
Executive Director
C.ChristopherAnderson,III
General CounseV
Deputy Executive Director
(850)488-7864Phone
(850)488-3077(FAX)
www.ethics.state.f1.us
CERTIFIEDMAIL
RETURNRECEIPTREQUESTED
TheHonorablePamelaJoBondi
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
Confidential
PL-O1, TheCapitol
Tallahassee,FL 32399-1050
RE: ComplaintNo. 14-034,InrePAMELAJOBONDI
DearAttorneyGeneralBondi:
Theabove-captionedcomplaint,recentlyreceivedintheofficeof theCommissiononEthics,is
beingtransmittedtoyoupursuanttotherequirementsofSection112.324,FloridaStatutes. This
officewillforwardallfuturecorrespondenceinthismattertoyouattheabove-listedmailing
addressunlessotherwisenotifiedof achangeinyouraddress. Thistransmittalisaroutine
administrativerequirementwhichshouldnotbeconstruedasanapproval,disapproval,or
judgmentof thecomplaint,eitherastoitsterminologyormerits.
Pleasenotethatthiscomplaint,aswellasallof theCommission'sproceedingsandrecords
relatingtothecomplaint,remainconfidentialeitheruntilyoumakeawrittenrequesttothe
Commissionthatsuchrecordsbemadepublicoruntilthecomplaintreachesastageinthe
Commission'sproceedingswhereitbecomespublic. Unlesswereceiveawrittenwaiverof
confidentialityfromyou,ourofficeisnotfreetoreleaseanydocumentsortocommentonthis
complainttomembersof thepublicorthepress,solongasthecomplaintremainsina
confidentialstage. TheCommission'sproceduresonconfidentialitydonotgoverntheactionsof
thecomplainantortherespondent.
Thefollowinginformationissubmittedtoaidyouinunderstandingthereviewthatacomplaint
maygothroughundertheCommission'srules. Thefirststageinourcomplaintprocessisa
determination of whether theallegationsofthecomplaintarelegallysufficient,thatis,whether
they indicate a possible violationof any law over which the Commission has jurisdiction. If the
complaintisfoundnottobelegallysufficient,theCommissionwillorderthatthecomplaintbe
disnlissedwithoutinvestigationandallrecordsrelatingtothecomplaintwillbecomepublicat
thattime.
PAMELAJOBONDI
Page2
February26,2014
If thecomplaintislegallysufficientbutpertainssolelytoallegationsof errorsoromissionsin
financialdisclosureforms,adeterminationwillbemadeastowhethertheerror(s)or
omissions(s)aresignificanttoinvestigate. If theerror(s)oromissions(s)aredeterminedtobe
minororinconsequential,youwillbesonotifiedandwillbegiven30daysinwhichtocorrect
theerror(s)oromission(s). If thecorrectionismade,thecomplaintwillbedismissed. Ifno
correctionismade,thecomplaintwilladvancetothenextstepintheprocess.
If thecomplaintisfoundtobelegallysufficient,apreliminaryinvestigationwillbeundertaken
by the investigativestaff of the Commission. The next stageofthe Commission's proceedings
involvesthepreliminaryinvestigationofthecomplaintandadecisionbytheCommissionof
whether thereisprobablecausetobelievethat therehasbeenaviolationof any of theethics
laws. If thecomplaintisinvestigated,youandthecomplainantwillbegivenanopportunityto
speakwiththeinvestigator. Youalsowillbesentacopyof ourinvestigativereportpriortoany
actionbytheCommissionandwillbegiventheopportunitytorespondtothereportinwriting.
If theCommissionfindsthatthereisnoprobablecausetobelievethattherehasbeenaviolation
of theethicslaws,thecomplaintwillbedismissedandwillbecomepublicatthattime.
If theCommission findsthatthereisprobablecausetobelievetherehasbeenaviolationofthe
ethicslaws,thecomplaintbecomespublicandentersthelaststageof proceedings,which
requiresthattheCommissiondecidewhetherthelawactuallywasviolatedand,ifso,whethera
penaltyshouldberecommended. Atthisstage,youhavetherighttorequestapublichearing
(trial)atwhichevidencewouldbepresented,ortheCommissionmayorderthatsuchahearing
beheld. Publichearingsusuallyareheldinorneartheareawheretheallegedviolation
occurred.
Youareentitledtoberepresentedbylegalcounselduringourproceedings. Uponwritten
request,documentsandnoticesregardingthecomplaintwillbeprovidedtoyourattorney.
If youareunfamiliarwiththeethicslawsandtheCommission'sresponsibilities,Iencourageyou
toaccessourwebsiteatwww.ethics.state.fl.us.whereyouwillfindpublications,rules,andother
information.If thereareanyquestionsconcerningthiscomplaintortheproceduresbeing
followedbytheCommission,pleasefeelfreetocontactMs.KayeStarling,ourComplaint
Coordinator,at(850)488-7864.
Sincerely,
j/,/eI~ /V), /:1 j) t".fj'
bY l ~ P j L ~ ~
VirlindiaDoss r J
ExecutiveDirector
Enclosure
cc: Mr.NeilJ. Gillespie,Complainant
__.._ .._ __ __ .. r 11 '.. 1'. ' 'il' '.IIIl _ .... , ..
ur'n'_'. .r ._ 11. 'f II t "-- ...","111111011e-"I. I
P.O. DRAWER 15709
TALLAHASSEE, FL32317-5709

(/)
(/)

Z
..J
o
2 1M --i
T
oOA8

fI)
0004264307 FEB262014
a:
MAILEDFROM ZIPCODE 32303 u:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111' ,11 11 ,1"1111 I1 JI1 1I111 1I
Mr. NeilJ. Gillespie
8092SW115thLoop
Ocala,FL 34481
:::i448i:i:35E:7
j u
i
j JJt IjJIIi J II Jiii Ji1JI jjIi jJ1ihJ I i J jJ ii JIi jJ i; j iii t ijiJjj Jp
------------------------------------
---------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O. DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32317-5709
COMPLAINT
1. PERSON BRINGING COMPLAINT:
Name:_N_e_il_J._G_i_lIe_s_p_ie TelephoneNumber:_35_2_-_85_4_-_78_0_7 _
Address: 8092SW 115thLoop
C
1
't
y:
Ocala C
oun
t
y:
Marion
_
Z
Ip
' C d
0
34481
_ e:
2. PERSON AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT:
Currentorformerpublicofficer, publicemployee,candidate,orlobbyist- pleaseuseonecomplaintform
foreachpersonyou wish tocomplainagainst:
Pamela Jo Bondi,AttorneyGeneralofFlorida T I h N b 850-414-3300
N
arne: e ep one urn er: _
The Capitol PL-01, OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
Add
ress: _
C
1
't
y:
Tallahassee
County:
Leon
_
C d 32399-1050
Ip 0 e: _
Z
TitIeof officeorpositionheldorsought:_A_tto_r_n_eY_G_e_n_er_a_1_of_F_lo_r_id_a _
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Please explain your complaint fully, either on the reverse side of this form or on additional sheets,
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions oftheperson named above. Include relevant
dates and the names and addresses ofpersons whom you believe may be witnesses. Ifyou believe that a
particular provision ofArticle II, Section 8, Florida Constitution (the Sunshine Amendment) or ofPart
III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (the Code ofEthics for Public Officers and Employees) has been
violated, please statethespecific section(s). Pleasedo notattachcopies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionofthemwillsuffice. Also,pleasedonotsubmitvideo tapesoraudiotapes.
4. OATH
STATEOFFLORIDA
COUNTYOF H\A-r;On
Swornto(oraffirmed) andsubscribedbeforeme
I, the person bringing this complaint, do this I sr dayof Fe I:,rAA-r'( ,
depose on oath or affirmation and say that
20It.( ,by Na;, G; ((e-sp; e.
thefacts setforth in theforegoingcomplaint (nameof personmakingstatement)
and attachmentstheretoaretrueandcorrect

(Signatureof NotaryPublic- Stateof Florida)
tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief.
CECIL!A
(Print,Ty :*. : of otaryPublic)
Bar*tThrunarFain.:..... ....701I "':',
,Rr..,
PersonallyKnown__ORProducedIdentification__
TypeofIdentification Produced:
CEFORM50-EFF.4/2008
VIAUPSNo. 1Z64589FP294746085 February22,2014
VirlindiaA. Doss,ExecutiveDirector
FloridaCommissiononEthics
325 JohnKnoxRoad
BuildingE, Suite200
Tallahassee,FL32303
DearMs. Doss:
Pleasefindenclosedasworncomplaintfor MisuseofPublicPosition,F.S. 112.313(6),against
FloridaAttorneyGeneralPamBondi(AGBondi)fordelayingtheSeptember10,2013execution
ofMarshallLeeGoreto attendhercampaignfund-raisertobenefithercampaignandherself.
TheAttorneyGeneralofFloridais anelectedcabinetofficialoftheExecutiveBranchwho
servesasthechieflegalofficerof theStateofFlorida,apositionof publictrustcreatedbythe
FloridaConstitution,Art. IV, 4(b),authorizedbyF.S. 16.01 etseq.
ThecurrentAttorneyGeneralofFloridais Pan1elaJo BondiwhotookofficeonJanuary4,2011,
andsworeto"support,protect,anddefendtheConstitutionandGovernmentof theUnitedStates
andofthe StateofFlorida"[Fla. Const. ArtII 5(b)],andisbyvirtueofthatpositionof trustan
officerandemployeeofstategovernment,responsibleforlawfullyperforminganddischarging
herdutieswithoutbias,favoritism, extortion,improperinfluence,personalselfenrichment,self-
dealing,concealment,orconflictofinterest.HertermwillexpireonJanuary6,2015.
TheFloridaAttorneyGeneralisthepublicofficerresponsibleforconductingstate
executionsof personsinFloridasentencedtodeathunderF.S. 421.141 & 775.082.
MarshallLeeGorewasaconvictedmurderersentencedto death. Gore'sexecutionwasset
for September10,2013,andrequiredthepresenceoftheAttorneyGeneralin Starke,FL.
AGBondiwasboundbyherOathofOfficeto executeMarshallLeeGoreonSeptember10,
2013 attheFloridaStatePrisonin Starke,FL. AGBondifailedto executeGoreonthatday.
AGBondicorruptlydelayedGore'sexecutionforherownpersonalbenefit,to attenda
campaignfund-raiseratherhomeinTampabenefitingherreelectioncampaignandherself.
AstorySeptember9, 2013 intheTampaBayTimesbyAdamC. Smith,"Executionrescheduled
to accon1modatePamBondiFundraiser"reportedthematter,andaccompaniesthiscomplaint.
Monday, September 9, 2013 7:21pm
There is no graver responsibility and act of
state government than an execution.
In Florida this week, a campaign fundraiser
takes precedence.
Attorney General Pam Bondi persuaded Gov.
Rick Scott to postpone an execution scheduled
for tonight because it conflicted with her
re-election kick-off reception.
"What's going on down there? It's ridiculous,"
said Phyllis Novick, the Ohio mother of one of
Marshall Lee Gore's victims, when told Monday
about the reason for the delay.
Gore, 50, raped, strangled and stabbed
30-year-old Robyn Novick in 1988 before
dumping her body into a Miami-Dade County
trash heap. Gore was also sentenced to die for
the slaying of 19-year-old Susan Roark, whose
body was found a few months later in Columbia
County.
Gore was initially scheduled for execution in
June, but the date was twice delayed because of legal skirmishes over Gore's sanity.
After Scott last month rescheduled the execution for Sept. 10, the date of Bondi's "hometown campaign kickoff" at
her South Tampa home, Bondi's office asked that it be postponed. The new date is Oct. 1.
Scott said Monday that he did not know the reason for the request, and he declined to answer when asked whether he
considers a campaign fundraiser an appropriate reason to reschedule an execution.
"When another Cabinet officer asks for something, we try to work with them," Scott said.
On Monday, Bondi responded to questions with a statement saying she had made a mistake.
"As a prosecutor, there was nothing more important than seeing justice done, especially when it came to the
unconscionable act of murder. I personally put two people on death row and, as Attorney General, have already
participated in eight executions since I took office, a role I take very seriously," Bondi said.
"The planned execution of Marshall Lee Gore had already been stayed twice by the courts, and we absolutely should
Adam C. Smith, Times Political Editor
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/execution-rescheduled-to-accommodate-pam-bondi-fundraiser/2140891
not have requested that the date of the execution be moved," said Bondi, who has long championed victims' rights.
Shortly before a scheduled execution, the Florida attorney general typically phones the governor to inform him there
is no legal basis for delay. Since Bondi and Scott began their first terms in 2011, eight executions have been carried
out.
Gore's attorney, Ted Scher, said he had asked the governor's office for more information about why the execution
was postponed, but the governor's staff would say only that it was at the request of the attorney general. That it
turned out to be because of a campaign event came as a surprise.
"It's very unusual," Scher said. "It's particularly unusual given the attorney general's position in these cases that all
we (defense lawyers) do is delay these executions," Scher said.
Bondi is fighting legal challenges to the 2013 "Timely Justice Act" aimed at speeding up executions in Florida.
"Wherever one stands on the death penalty, there isn't anyone in America that believes an execution should be
postponed for political fundraising," said David Donnelly, executive director of Public Campaign Action Fund. "That
Pam Bondi requested a delay in this execution shows how the nonstop chase for campaign cash has hollowed out the
morality of our political system. Her moral compass is broken."
The delay keeps Gore on death row an extra 21 days at a cost that the Department of Corrections estimates at about
$1,000.
The Republican attorney general faces no serious challenger so far, and organizers expect her campaign kick-off
event to attract 100 to 200 people. Among those hosting the event: Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, a Democrat; House
Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel; and state Sens. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, Bill Galvano, R-
Bradenton, Tom Lee, R-Brandon, Wilton Simpson, R- Trilby, and Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg.
The governor won't be there because he made other plans once the execution dropped off his Tuesday schedule.
He will be at a reception in Broward County raising money for his re-election campaign.
Times/Herald staff writers Steve Bousquet and Mary Ellen Klas, Times researcher Caryn Baird and the News
Service of Florida contributed to this report. Contact Adam C. Smith at [email protected].
Execution rescheduled to accommodate Pam Bondi fundraiser 09/09/13
2013 Tampa Bay Times
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/execution-rescheduled-to-accommodate-pam-bondi-fundraiser/2140891
MorganR. Bentley
CI'air
LindaMcKeeRobison
Vice Cllair
MichelleAnchors
MatthewF.Carlucci
I.MartinFord
TomFreeman
SusanHorovitzMaurer
StanleyM.Weston
StateofFlorida
COMMISSIONONETIDCS
P.O.Drawer15709
325JohnKnoxRoad
BuildingE,Suite200
January30,2014
VirlindiaDoss
Executive Director
C.ChristopherAnderson,III
General CounseV
(850)488-7864Phone
(850)488-3077(FAX)
www.ethics.state.fl.us
CERTIFIEDMAIL
TheHonorablePatFrank
601 E. KennedyBlvd., 13
th
Floor
Tampa,FL 33602
Confidential
RE: ComplaintNo. 14-015,InrePATFRANK
DearMs. Frank:
officewillforwardallfuture correspondenceinthismattertoyouattheabove-listedmailing
judgmentofthecomplaint,eitherastoitsterminologyormerits. Additionalreferenced
documentsareretainedintheCommissionfilesandareavailabletoyouuponrequest.
Pleasenotethatthiscomplaint,aswellasallof theCommission'sproceedingsandrecords
confidentialityfromyou, ourofficeisnotfreetoreleaseanydocumentsortocommentonthis
determination of whether the allegationsof the complaint arelegally sufficient, that is, whether
theyindicateapossibleviolationof anylawoverwhichtheCommissionhasjurisdiction. If the
complaintisfoundnottobelegallysufficient,theCommissionwillorderthatthecomplaintbe
dismissedwithoutinvestigationandallrecordsrelatingtothecomplaintwillbecomepublicat
thattime.
..
PAT FRANK
Page 2
January 30, 2014
If the complaint is legally sufficient but pertains solely to allegations of errors or omissions in
financial disclosure forms, a determination will be made as to whether the error(s) or
omissions(s) are significant to investigate. If the error(s) or omissions(s) are determined to be
minor or inconsequential, you will be so notified and will be given 30 days in which to correct
tIle error(s) or omission(s). If the correction is made, the complaint will be dismissed. Ifno
correction is made, the complaint will advance to the next step in the process.
If the complaint is found to be legally sufficient, a preliminary investigation will be undertaken
by the investigative staff of the Commission. The next stage of the Commission's proceedings
involves the preliminary investigation of the complaint and a decision by the Commission of
whether there is probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of any of the ethics
laws. If the complaint is investigated, you and the complainant will be given an opportunity to
speak with the investigator. You also will be sent a copy of our investigative report prior to any
action by the Commission and will be given the opportunity to respond to the report in writing.
If the Commission finds that there is no probable cause to believe that there has been a violation
of the ethics laws, the complaint will be dismissed and will become public at that time.
If the Commission finds that there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation of the
ethics laws, the complaint becomes public and enters the last stage of proceedings, which
requires that the Commission decide whether the law actually was violated and, if so, whether a
penalty should be recommended. At this stage, you have the right to request a public hearing
(trial) at which evidence would be presented, or the Commission may order that such a hearing
be held. Public hearings usually are held in or near the area where the alleged violation
occurred.
You are entitled to be represented by legal counsel during our proceedings. Upon written
request, documents and notices regarding the complaint will be provided to your attorney.
If you are unfamiliar with the ethics laws and the Commission's responsibilities, I encourage you
to access our website at www.ethics.state.f1.us. where you will find publications, rules, and other
information. If there are any questions concerning this complaint or the procedures being
followed by the Commission, please feel free to contact Ms. Kaye Starling, our Complaint
Coordinator, at (850) 488-7864.
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie, Complainant
MorganR.Bentley
Chair
LindaMcKeeRobison
Vice Chair
MichelleAnchors
MatthewF.Carlucci
I.MartinFord
TomFreeman
SusanHorovitzMaurer
StanleyM.Weston
StateofFlorida
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O.Drawer15709
325JohnKnoxRoad
BuildingE,Suite200
January30,2014
VirlindiaDoss
Executive Director
c.ChristopherAnderson,III
General CounseV
(850)488-7864Phone
(850)488-3077(FAX)
www.ethics.state.fl..us
CERTIFIEDMAIL
Mr.DaleK. Bohner
601 E. KennedyBlvd., 13
th
Floor
Confidential
Tampa,FL 33602
RE: ComplaintNo. 14-016,InreDALEKENTBOHNER
DearMr.Bohner:
officewillforward allfuturecorrespondenceinthismattertoyouattheabove-listedmailing
judgmentof thecomplaint,eitherastoitsterminologyormerits. Additionalreferenced
documentsareretainedintheCommissionfiles andareavailabletoyouuponrequest.
Pleasenotethatthiscomplaint,aswellasallof theCommission'sproceedingsaIldrecords
confidentialityfromyou,ourofficeisnotfreetoreleaseanydocumentsortocommentonthis
determinationof whethertheallegationsof thecomplaintarelegallysufficient,thatis,whether
theyindicateapossibleviolationof anylawoverwhichtheCommissionhasjurisdiction. Ifthe
complaintisfoundnotto belegallysufficient,theCommissionwillorderthatthecomplaintbe
dismissedwithoutinvestigationandallrecordsrelatingtothecomplaintwillbecomepublicat
thattime.
DALE KENT BOHNER
Page 2
January 30, 2014
If the complaint is legally sufficient but pertains solely to allegations of errors or omissions in
financial disclosure forms, a determination will be made as to whether the error(s) or
omissions(s) are significant to investigate. If the error(s) or omissions(s) are determined to be
minor or inconsequential, you will be so notified and will be given 30 days in which to correct
the error(s) or omission(s). If the correction is made, the complaint will be dismissed. Ifno
correction is made, the complaint will advance to the next step in the process.
If the complaint is found to be legally sufficient, a preliminary investigation will be undertaken
by the investigative staff of the Commission. The next stage of the Commission's proceedings
involves the preliminary investigation of the complaint and a decision by the Commission of
whether there is probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of any of the ethics
laws. If the complaint is investigated, you and the complainant will be given an opportunity to
speak witll the investigator. You also will be sent a copy of our investigative report prior to any
action by the Commission and will be given the opportunity to respond to the report in writing.
If the Commission finds that there is no probable cause to believe that there has been a violation
of the ethics laws, the complaint will be dismissed and will become public at that time.
If the Commission finds that there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation of the
ethics laws, the complaint becomes public and enters the last stage of proceedings, which
requires that the Commission decide whether the law actually was violated and, if so, whether a
pel1alty should be recommended. At this stage, you have the right to request a public hearing
(trial) at which evidence would be presented, or the Commission may order that such a hearing
be held. Public hearings usually are held in or near the area where the alleged violation
occurred.
You are entitled to be represented by legal counsel during our proceedings. Upon written
request, documents and notices regarding the complaint will be provided to your attorney.
If you are unfamiliar with the ethics laws and the Commission's responsibilities, I encourage you
to access our website at www.ethics.state.fl.us. where you will find publications, rules, and other
information. If there are any questions concerning this complaint or the procedures being
followed by the Commission, please feel free to contact Ms. Kaye Starling, our Complaint
Coordinator, at (850) 488-7864.
Sincerely,

Virlindia Doss
Executive Director
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Neil J. Gillespie, Complainant
VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP291361933 January 24, 2014
Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director
Florida Commission on Ethics
325 John Knox Road
Building E, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Dear Ms. Doss:
Please find enclosed two (2) sworn complaints for Misuse of Public Position, 112.313(6) F.S.
for the Honorable Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, an elected public
officer, and the Clerks counsel Dale Kent Bohner, a local government attorney, in my civil
lawsuit in Hillsborough County, Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, and William J.
Cook, Case No. 05-CA-7205. August 11, 2005 - June 21, 2011.
Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner have refused to docket my pro se filings in the case since at least
July 11, 2011 as shown below. Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner claim reliance on an order entered
by Judge Martha Cook November 15, 2010 (enclosed) as the basis of their refusal to docket my
pleadings. This claim is belied by the following:
1. A judge cannot order the clerk of court to do anything absent a legislative mandate. In
civil court, court orders routinely contain language that the clerk is ordered to do so and so
forthwith. Unless the clerk is made a party to the lawsuit, these orders are meaningless. The
Clerk is not a party to case no. 05-CA-7205, thus the order is meaningless.
2. Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner docketed my pro se filings for almost eight months (8) after
the order was entered November 15, 2010, because the order was meaningless.
3. Opposing counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems wrote Clerk Frank May 31, 2011, in part,
Dear Ms. Frank:
I am counsel for William J. Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. in case
number 05-CA-7205.
On November 15, 2010, Judge Cook entered and Order barring the Plaintiff, Neil
J. Gillespie, from appearing pro se, and also directing the Clerks office not to
accept any more filing from Mr. Gillespie. Since that time, the Clerks office has
accepted a number of flings from Mr. Gillespie.
A copy of Judge Cooks Order is enclosed.
Would you please explain why your office has not complied with Judge Cooks
Order?
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director January 24, 2014
Florida Commission on Ethics Page - 2
Mr. Rodems letter to the Clerk is enclosed.
4. Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner corruptly conspired to use her and his official position,
property, and resources within her and his trust to secure a special privilege, benefit, or
exemption for Mr. Rodems and Rodems various constituencies, including those who received a
gift of legal services and settlement benefit to state of Florida judges, public officers, public
employees, and my former counsel Robert W. Bauer and his law firm, in my federal disability
and civil rights lawsuit against the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida, case no. 5:10-cv-00503,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge, and individually
James M. Barton, II, Circuit Judge, and individually
Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge, and individually
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, and individually
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, and individually
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 947652)
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)
In doing so, Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner corruptly conspired to use her and his official position,
property, and resources within her and his trust to deny me due process under color of law.
5. Please find enclosed my 64 page affidavit, June 14, 2013,
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA J. COOKS
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
that begins as follows,
1. My name is Neil J. Gillespie. I am over 18 years old. I was the Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant in the above-captioned case in Hillsborough County, Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit. (hereinafter this case). This affidavit is given on personal knowledge unless
otherwise stated.
2. I made this affidavit to impeach the Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing Pro
Se (the Order), a sham Order entered November 15, 2010 by Judge Martha J. Cook in
this case. (Exhibit 1). The Order is a sham and did not address a bona fide issue. Judge
Cook corruptly entered the Order during a conflict of interest, while she was a Defendant
in my federal disability and civil rights lawsuit. Judge Cook entered the Order with a
corrupt motive, to stop legitimate inquiry showing her personal and business financial
affairs violated the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Cook recused herself in this
case November 18, 2010, three days after entering the Order. Judge Cooks recusal
shows my motion to disqualify her was legally justified.
3. On May 1, 2013 Ryan Christopher Rodems submitted the sham Order, under penalty
of perjury, in his vexatious Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) complaint against me to
The Florida Bar, case 20133090(5) for representing myself and my related interest pro se
in other cases.
6. In June 2011 appointment of counsel was, on information and belief, required under 18
U.S.C. 3006A, and the Sixth Amendment, after Mr. Rodems corruptly obtained a
warrant for my arrest through honest services fraud with Judge Cook, who accepted
things of value (campaign donations) in return for official acts [18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)],
improper rulings on summary judgment, and civil contempt with arrest on writ of bodily
attachment, and who used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud me [18
U.S.C. 1341] of the intangible right of honest services. [18 U.S.C. 1346]. See U.S.
v. Terry, No. 11-4130, C.A.6.
6. Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner corruptly conspired to use her and his official position,
property, and resources within her and his trust to secure a special privilege, benefit, or
exemption for Mr. Rodems and Rodems various constituencies named in paragraph 4, to,
A. Clerks letter (unsigned) dated July 11, 2011, 7 pages enclosed,
Mr. Gillespie:
RE: Case # 05-CA-7205
This office is returning the following pleadings pursuant to the attached court order
signed on November 15, 2010:
1. Letter to clerk dated July 6, 2011.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Set Aside Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice
and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement.
and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement. Appendix 1.
and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement. Appendix 2.
Thank you,
Clerk Of Circuit Court
Circuit Civil Division
Hillsborough County, Florida
B. Clerks letter dated September 22, 2011, signed by John Richardson (?) 6 pages enclosed,
Mr. Gillespie:
This office is returning the following pleadings pursuant to the attached court order
signed on November 15, 2010:
1. Motion to Amend and Correct - Affidavit and Inventory of Personal Property
of Neil J. Gillespie and Designated Exemptions.
This was part of my effort to get back approximately $600 that Mr. Rodems wrongly garnished
from my bank account in 2008. I eventually got the money back directly from the Park Avenue
Bank (PAB) of Georgia shortly before it failed. PAB had not sent the money to the Clerk.
C. Docket entries,
07/13/2011 DO NOT ENTER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS USER ID=RICKERSJ
01/17/2012 DO NOT ENTER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PER D. BOHNER, LEGAL
ADVISOR TO CLERK (PER COURT ORDER DATED 11/15/10)
Docket page 22 printed today January 24, 2014 shows the above entries, and is enclosed.
D. APPELLANTS MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL
Case No.: 2D10-5197
Lower Court Case No. 05-CA-007205
July 18, 2011
The 20 page motion is enclosed. I believe 10 is relevant here, and the cited case law,
10. For almost eight (8) months the Clerk of the Circuit Court did not comply with Judge
Cooks Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Appearing Pro Se and accepted Gillespies
filings. (Exhibit 3). However in a letter dated July 11, 2011 (received by Gillespie July
14, 2011) the Clerk returned Gillespies filings submitted July 6, 2011 and filed July 7,
2011. (Exhibit 5). The Clerk even struck her own filed stamp. The Clerk returned
Gillespies Motion to Strike or Set Aside Joint Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice,
and Motion to Strike or Set Aside Settlement Agreement. (Exhibit 5). A pleading in a
cause after filing becomes a part of the record and should not be altered, amended, or
destroyed without permission of the court, on due notice to the opposite party, and should
be kept by the clerk in files of his office. Gracy v. Fielding, 83 Fla. 388, 91 So. 373.
Appellant did not receive notice that his pleading would be struck by the Clerk after the
Clerk filed the pleading July 7, 2011. The Clerk has a legal duty to maintain and to
provide access to the records contained in its files unless the records are legally exempt
from disclosure. Radford v. Brock, App. 2 Dist., 914 So.2d 1066 (2005). The Clerk has
failed her duty to maintain the file in this case.
7. The following from my affidavit to impeach Judge Cooks sham order is relevant,
53. I am a consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce in this case.
54. I commenced this lawsuit August 11, 2005 by filing the Complaint and paying a
$255 filing fee, in cash, to the Clerk of the Court. I paid an additional $40 cash August
11, 2005 to the Hillsborough County Sheriff to serve the Complaint on the Defendants.
55. The Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, is a court 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.
56. Martha Jean Cook is an elected judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and was by
virtue of that position of trust an officer and employee of state government, responsible
for lawfully performing and discharging her duties without bias, favoritism, extortion,
improper influence, personal self enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of
interest.
56. As shown in this affidavit, Judge Cook did not lawfully perform and discharge her
duties, but served as Mr. Rodems marionette as that term is used in U.S. v. Terry, No.
11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit, which affirmed a jury conviction against former Judge
Steven J. Terry of several honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption
statutes, one of which prohibits an official from accepting things of value in return for
official acts. 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).
8. In a letter to Mr. Bohner August 30, 2013 I notified the Clerk of errors and omissions
with the docket in 05-CA-7205, copy enclosed without attachments. I specifically pointed out
that Judge Cooks order entered November 15, 2010 was a sham, and should not be relied upon.
I also requested pursuant to Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Adnlin., the file in Neil J. Gillespie vs.
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA et al case no. 05-CA-007205 be surrendered to me prior to it being
destroyed in accordance with regular destruction schedules.
9. Mr. Bohner replied by letter dated September 12, 2013, copy enclosed. Relevant to this
complaint, he wrote,
5. You are entitled to apply to the Court for an order requiring the Clerk to deliver to you
the court records that are to be destroyed or disposed of under Rule 2.430(g). The Clerk
will obey the directions in such an order.
6. I have reviewed your position. If the referenced order is superseded by another order,
the Clerk will follow the directions contained in such an order.
I take this to mean Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner corruptly conspired to use their official position,
property, and resources within her and his trust to deny me due process under color of law.
10. In a letter to Mr. Bohner January 7, 2014 I notified the Clerk in part,
It has come to my attention that your attached letter September 12, 2013 is not correct,
6. I have reviewed your position. If the referenced order is superseded by another
order, the Clerk will follow the directions contained in such an order.
and this docket entry in not correct or valid,
01/17/2012, DO NOT ENTER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PER D.
BOHNER, LEGAL ADVISOR TO CLERK (PER COURT ORDER DATED
11/15/10
Take notice that the order by Martha Cook, Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Appearing
Pro Se, is not a legitimate order, but a sham order corruptly entered.
Nonetheless, the fact that the legislature cannot set a judge's vacation days brings up a
parallel and little known corollary: A judge cannot order the clerk of court to do anything
absent a legislative mandate. In civil court, court orders routinely contain language that
the clerk is ordered to do so and so forthwith. Unless the clerk is made a party to the
lawsuit, these orders are meaningless.
The Clerk is not a party to case no. 05-CA-7205, thus the order is meaningless. So you
may immediately remove from the docket Do Not Enter Additional Documents.
Previously pursuant to Rule 2.430(g), Fla.R.Jud.Admin., I requested the file in Neil J.
Gillespie vs. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA et al case no. 05-CA-007205 be surrendered to
me prior to it being destroyed in accordance with regular destruction schedules. I now
believe that procedure is not correct. Pursuant to Rule 2.430(g) I may apply for an order:
Rule 2.430(g) Disposition Other Than Destruction. Before destruction or
disposition of court records under this rule, any person may apply to the court for
an order requiring the clerk to deliver to the applicant the court records that are to
be destroyed or disposed of. All parties shall be given notice of the application.
The court shall dispose of that court record as appropriate.
I am a consumer of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce in this case.
I commenced this lawsuit August 11, 2005 by filing the Complaint and paying a $255
filing fee, in cash, to the Clerk of the Court. I paid an additional $40 cash August 11,
2005 to the Hillsborough County Sheriff to serve the Complaint on the Defendants.
The Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, is a court 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.
Pat Frank was elected Clerk of the Court and is by virtue of that public position of trust
an officer of state government responsible for lawfully performing and discharging her
duties without bias, favoritism, extortion, improper influence, personal self enrichment,
self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
On information an belief, Clerk of Court Pat Frank, and you as counsel, are subject to
112.313(6) F.S., Misuse of Public Position:
112.313 Standards of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and
local government attorneys.
(6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.No public officer, employee of an
agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or
her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her
trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or
exemption for himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to
conflict with s. 104.31.
Also see 760.51 F.S., Violations of constitutional rights, civil action by the Attorney
General; civil penalty. Please take notice that A Public Office is a Public Trust.
My letter is enclosed.
11. Mr. Bohner responded by letter dated January 14, 2014,
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your letter to me dated January 7, 2014. I
have read the position you take in your letter. If you apply to the Court for an
order under Rule 2.430(g) requiring the Clerk to deliver the court records that are
to be destroyed or disposed of in Case 05-CA-007205, the Clerk will follow the
directions of the Court. Your application, when filed, will be forwarded to the
Court for consideration.
12. As of today, the following docket entries remain,
07/13/2011 DO NOT ENTER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS USER ID=RICKERSJ
01/17/2012 DO NOT ENTER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PER D. BOHNER, LEGAL
ADVISOR TO CLERK (PER COURT ORDER DATED 11/15/10)
Docket page 22 printed today January 24, 2014 shows the above entries, and is enclosed.
Conclusion
Clerk Frank and Mr. Bohner corruptly conspired to use her and his official position, property,
and resources within her and his trust to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for Mr.
Rodems and Rodems various constituencies, including those who received a gift of legal
services and settlement benefit to state of Florida judges, public officers, public employees, and
my former counsel Robert W. Bauer and his law firm, in my federal disability and civil rights
lawsuit against the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida, case no. 5:10-cv-00503, while corruptly
denying me a due process right of filing pleadings under color of law.
F'lorida Commission on Ethics Page - 8
Thank you for your consideration of my complaint. Under penalty of perjury, I declare the
foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete.

,/ ,
1J. Gillespi
092 SW 115t Loop
Telephone: 352-854-7807
En1ail: [email protected]
Enclosures:
1. Ethics Complaint for the Hon. Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Hillsborough Co.
2. Ethics Complaint for Dale Kent Bohner, Counel to the Clerk of the Circuit Court
3. Page 22 from docket 05-CA-7205, Jan-24-2014
4. Mr. Rodems May 31, 2011 letter to Clerk of the Circuit Court Pat Frank
5. Order of Judge Cook, November 15,2010
6. Clerk's letter July 11,2011 to NJG, pleadings returned per court order signed Nov-15-2010
7. Clerk's letter Sep-22, 2011 to NJG, pleadings returned per court order signed Nov-15-2010
8. Motion to Amend Notice of AppeaI2DI0-5197, July 18,2011
9. Letter August 30,2013 of Gillespie to Dale Bohner, counsel to Clerk Pat Frank
10. Dale Bohner counsel to Clerk Pat Frank letter September 12, 2013 response to Gillespie
11. Letter January 7,2014 Gillespie to Dale Bohner, counsel to Clerk Pat Frank
12. Dale Bohner counsel to Clerk Pat Frank letter January 14, 2014 response to G-illespie
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE ON JUDGE MARTHA J. COOK'S
Order Prohibiting Plaintifffrom Appearing Pro Se [A Sham Order]
Also enclosed is Judge Who Would Not Conform [to corruption] that I referenced in the past.
------------------------------------
lSi" , uQ&Cl
i.: \ CommIsaIon#EE191610
: l. expiresJune6. 2016
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P. O. DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32317-5709
COMPLAINT
352-854-7807
8092SW115th Loop
ress: _
Add
C
Ot Ocala C t Marion Z C d 34481
1 y: oun y: Ip 0 e:
Currentor publicofficer,public candidate,orlobbyist- pleaseuseone
foreachpersonyouwish to against:
l\.T PatFrank rr I h l\.T b 813-276-8100
1. e ep one er:
Address:601 E. KennedyBlvd., 13th Floor
C
t Tampa C t Hillsborough County Z C d 33602
1 y: oun y: Ip 0 e:
Titleof officeorpositionheldorsought: ClerkoftheCircuitCourt, HillsboroughCountyFlorida
Please explain your fully, either on the reverse side of this or on additional sheets,
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions ofthe person above. Include relevant
dates and the and addresses ofpersons you believe be witnesses. Ifyou believe that a
particular provision ofArticle II, Section 8, Florida Constitution (the Sunshine or ofPart
III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and has been
violated, please state thespecific section(s). Pleasedo notattach copies oflengthy iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionof willsuffice. Also, pleasedonot videotapesoraudiotapes.
4. OATH
OFFLORIDA
OF (V\ Ar; 0 Yl

(oraffirmed) andsubscribedbeforeme
I, the person bringing this do this ;;t3 r dayof J'/tnLlArL.( ,
depose on oath or and say that
20 ,Lf by tV e.; I s: G If s jJ"e
,
thefacts setforth in theforegoingcomplaint (nameof personmakingstatement)

and theretoaretrueandcorrect
(Signature0 . ... R
tothebest knowledgeandbelief.
(Print,Type,or
PersonallyKnown ORProducedIdentification__
TypeofIdentificationProduced:
CE FORM 50-EFF.4/2008
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
STATEOFFLORIDA
COMMISSIONONETHICS
P.O.DRAWER15709,TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 82817-5709
COMPLAINT
Neil J. Gillespie T 1 h N b 352-854-7807
N
Address:8092SW115thLoop
C
't Ocala C t Marion Z C d 34481
1 y: oun y: Ip 0 e: _
Currentorformerpublicofficer,publicemployee,candidate,orlobbyist- pleaseuseonecomplaintform
foreachpersonyouwishtocomplainagainst:
Dale KentBohner T 1 h N b 813-276-8100
N
Address:601 E. KennedyBlvd., 13thFloor
City:Tampa
HillsboroughCounty Z C d 33602
C
oun
t
y: Ip 0 e: _
Titleof officeorpositionheldorsought: CounseltoClerkoftheCircuitCourt, Hillsborough CountyFlorida
Please explain your complaint fully, either on the reverse side of this form or on additional sheets,
providinga detailed description ofthe facts and the actions oftheperson named above. Include relevant
dates and the names and addresses ofpersons whom you believe may be witnesses. Ifyou believe that a
particular provision ofArticle II, Section 8, Florida Constitution (the Sunshine Amendment) or ofPart
III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees) has been
violated, please statethespecific section(s). Pleasedo notattachcopies oflengthydocuments; iftheyare
relevant,yourdescriptionofthemwill suffice. Also,pleasedonotsubmitvideotapesoraudiotapes.
STATEOFFLORIDA
COUNTYOF ....... .. .=...O...:...h....:.._
4. OATH
C.....;....t _
Swornto(oraffirmed) andsubscribedbeforeme
I, the person bringing this complaint, do this ;;<. 3 r:-- dayof :JAnLU4-ry ,
depose on oath or affirmation and say that
20 I Lf ,by 1 J:Gi JI e 5 fJ i e
thefacts setforth in theforegoingcomplaint _ (nameofpersonmakingstatement)
andattachmentstheretoaretrueandcorrect

(Signatureof NotaryPublic- StateOkida)
tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief.
CEFORM50-EFF.4/2008
(Print,Type,or ic)
VIA Email only [email protected] January 30, 2014
Virlindia A. Doss, Executive Director
Florida Commission on Ethics
325 John Knox Road
Building E, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32303
cc: Ethics Commission email list
Dear Ms. Doss:
What is the status of complaints No. 13-201 through No. 13-207?
When can I expect the courtesy of a response to issues presented last week, including but not
limited to the following?
Response to email January 09, 2014 2:03 PM and substantive matters
New matter, failure of SA Cervone to properly investigate ch. 825 allegations
New matter, public records not provided by AG Bondi for Mr. Castagliuolo
New matter, Mr. Rodems gift of legal services and settlement benefit to state
of Florida judges, public officers and employees
New matter, JQC right to sue letters for Judge Claudia Isom prohibited.
You have my complaint for Clerk of Court Pat Frank and counsel Dale Bohner. In addition, I
inadvertently failed to provide the following information, which was part of my rebuttal October
16, 2012 to The Florida Bar in Ryan Christopher Rodems; TFB File No. 2013-10,271 (13E):
In addition, successor Judge James Arnold did not obey Cooks order. Judge Arnold did
not follow the order from the day he assumed the case, November 15, 2010, through June
21, 2011. This made Mr. Rodems very angry, and he filed a motion April 26, 2011,
Defendants' Motion to Strike Pro Se Filings by Plaintiff. Rodems sent a cover letter to
Judge Arnold that appears to this rebuttal at Exhibit 19. Mr. Rodems wrote this to Judge
Arnold:
Dear Judge Arnold:
Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Defendants' Motion to Strike Pro Se Filings
by Plaintiff which was filed on even date in the above-referenced matter. By Order of
this Court entered November 15, 2010, Mr. Gillespie is prohibited from filing any
documents pro se.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Christopher Rodems
Virlindia A Doss, Executive Director January 30, 2014
Attached you will find Exhibit 19, Mr. Rodems letter. Shall I provide this information and letter
as an amendment? Shall I include Mr. Rodems Defendants' Motion to Strike Pro Se Filings by
Plaintiff that was not granted or otherwise considered by Judge Arnold? Please advise.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response. Time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: 352-854-7807
copy
BARKER,RODEMS& COOK
PROFESSIONALASSOCIATrON
ATIORNEYSATlAW
CHRISA BARKER Telephone8 1 3 4 8 9 ~ 1 1
400NorthAshleyDrive,Suite2100
RYANCHRISTOPHERRODEMS
Facsimile 813/489-1008
WILLIAM].COOK Tampa, Florida33602
April26,2011
TheHonorableJamesD. Arnold
CircuitCourtJudge
CircuitCivil,Division"J"
800E. TwiggsStreet,Room514
Tampa,Florida 33602
Re: NeilJ.Gillespiev.Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A.,
aFloridaCorporation;andWilliamJ.Cook
CaseNo.: 05-CA-7205;Division"J"
DearJudgeArnold:
EnclosedpleasefindacourtesycopyofDefendants'Motionto StrikeProSeFilingsbyPlaintiff
whichwasfiledonevendateintheabove-referencedmatter. ByOrderofthisCourtentered
November15,2010,Mr. Gillespieisprohibitedfromfilinganydocumentsprosee
Thankyouforyourtinleandattentiontothismatter.
Respectfullysubmitted,
RCR/so
Enclosure
cc:NeilJ.Gillespie(w/encl)
19
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 58-2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 29 of 42 PageID 1602
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, c/o Ms. Strickland U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, c/o Andrea
United States Senate, Florida United States Senate, Florida
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
A. Lee Bentley, III, Acting U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg, III, Asst. U.S. Attorney
Office of U.S. Attorney, Middle District, FL Office of U.S. Attorney, Middle District, FL
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
February 18, 2014
RE: My letter January 10, 2014
Dear Ladies and Gentleman:
Unfortunately I do not show a response to my request for investigation and prosecution of fraud
or impairment of Petition No. 12-7747. Your failure to respond is a violation of the public trust,
reflects discredit upon the Justice system, and suggests a breakdown in the rule of law.
I amend my request for investigation/prosecution to include Honest Services Fraud of Martha
marionette Judge Cook set forth in pages 35-37 Petition No. 13-7280, copy attached. The
supporting documents are found on the CD-ROM provided to each of you, see the folder 2013,
04-10-2013, Rule 21 Motion correct (out-of-time) and the following files therein:
2013, 04-10-13, SEP-VOL-APP, US v Terry 11-4130
2013, 04-10-13, SEP-VOL-APP, affidavit NJG
2013, 04-10-13, SEP-VOL-APP, Transcript Sep-28-2010
2013, 04-10-13, SEP-VOL-APP-J.Cook, 18 U.S.C. 1346
Petition No. 13-7280 also shows U.S. Judge William Terrell Hodges has engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts during his
tenure in the Middle District of Florida while presiding over my cases in the Ocala Division.
Also see Fair v Hodges, a meritorious 1971 citizen challenge to the investiture of Judge Hodges.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/179253446/
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala Florida 34481
Telephone: 352-854-7807
cc: John M. Fitzgibbons, Esq.
Chairman, Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission
The Law Offices of John M. Fitzgibbons
707 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, Florida 33602
cc: Curry Gary Pajcic
35
U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, C.A. 6 - Judge Martha Jean Cook and Ryan Christopher Rodems
A decision February 14, 2013 in U.S. v. Terry, No. 11-4130, U.S. Sixth Circuit is of a
substantial or controlling effect, which I submitted April 10, 2013 in Petition No. 12-7747 but
was returned out-of-time by the Clerk April 15, 2013, the same day the case closed.
U.S. v. Terry affirmed a jury conviction against former Judge Steven J. Terry of several
honest services fraud violations, citing federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an
official from accepting things of value in return for official acts. 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).
In U.S. v. Terry, the government proved to a jury that Terry accepted from political
benefactor Frank Russo campaign donations, a thing of value, in return for official acts, improper
rulings on summary judgment. An FBI wiretap provided evidence of the crime. The government
proved that the defendant used the mail to carry out a scheme or artifice to defraud another,
18 U.S.C. 1341, of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
In my case, Respondent Judge Martha J. Cook accepted campaign donations from
Respondent Ryan C. Rodems, and two of my former lawyers, his partners William J. Cook and
Jonathan Alpert, in return for improper rulings on summary judgment, and civil contempt, during
ex parte hearings September 28, 2010 in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205.
Hillsborough Deputy Christopher E. Brown, and Major James Livingston, provided evidence the
Respondents falsified the record of the hearing. The Respondents used the mail to carry out their
scheme or artifice to defraud me of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. 1346.
I only attended one of three hearings before Judge Cook September 28, 2010. The first
was my spoken motion to disqualify Judge Cook on the basis that she was a Defendant in
Gillespie v. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al, 5:10-cv-503, a 1983 civil rights and
ADA disability lawsuit. Judge Cook did not recuse, accused me in open court of feigning
36
disability, and ordered Deputy Brown to remove me. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.
required recusal because the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker
is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie shows the above,
and appears in a separate appendix. (See trial record Doc. 58-2, Exh 14, response to show cause).
Judge Cook falsified the record that I elected to leave the hearing, in violation of F.S.
839.13(1) and 837.06. The transcript and errata sheet appear in a separate volume appendix.
Judge Cook proceeded ex parte with the summary judgment hearing, and Mr. Rodems
complied with her instruction to create a false record, which false testimony went unchallenged
because no one represented me. Judge Cook then granted summary judgment for Mr. Rodems,
and immediately signed, without reading, a six page order at Mr. Rodems request, one he
prepared in advance. [Appendix 1]. Judge Cook mailed me a conformed copy order in a postage
prepaid envelope bearing her name & address, and mine. [Appendix 2]. See footnote
1
.
Next, Judge Cook proceeded ex parte with the civil contempt hearing, again falsified the
record that I elected to leave in violation of F.S. 839.13(1), and found me guilty. Because this
was civil contempt, and not criminal contempt, appointment of counsel was not required under
Gideon v. Wainwright. (The defender was appointed May 27, 2011, but relieved by the court).
Two days later September 30, 2010 Judge Cook signed an improper order holding me in
civil contempt [Appendix 4], filed October 1, 2010. This is the same proposed order that Mr.
Rodems provided by mail
2
, and instructed Judge Cook to sign, together with postage paid
envelopes. [Appendix 5]. Judge Cook obeyed Mr. Rodems and signed the order. The Order

1
The record shows I established a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract by order
January 13, 2006 [Appendix 3], making any subsequent summary judgment improper. May 5,
2010 I filed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, w/motion, on permission of Judge Barton, but
Judge Cook refused to consider the motion and denied ex parte leave to amend even one time.
2
Also enclosed was Mr. Rodems notice of voluntary dismissal of a vexatious counterclaim.
37
Adjudging Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie In Contempt states at footnote 1:
Prior to this motion being heard, the Court heard Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
During that hearing, Plaintiff Neil J. Gillespie voluntarily left the hearing and did not return.
Fortunately Deputy Brown told his Commander, Major James Livingstion that I did not leave the
hearing voluntarily, and that I was ordered removed by Judge Cook. Major Livingstion
in turn provided me a letter dated January 12, 2011 describing what happened. Appendix B.
Judicial elections in Florida are different than those of other elected officials, and as
described in Terry. Judicial elections are nonpartisan. Only qualified lawyers can run for judicial
office, putting judicial races in a unique category. Within the pool of lawyers qualified to seek
judicial office, there is pressure not to oppose a sitting judge. Lucy Morgan of the Tampa Bay
Times wrote May 2, 2008, Unopposed judges quietly keep their seats: [Appendix 8].
...Few incumbents have lost since Florida began electing judges in nonpartisan races in
the 1970s, but the early qualifying date lets even more avoid opposition, according to a
review of election results over the past 12 years. Judges frequently escape opposition
because only lawyers can run for the jobs, and few lawyers are willing to risk angering a
judge before whom they must appear. In recent years few incumbent circuit judges have
faced opposition, and only five have been defeated...
...For the qualifying that closed Friday, there were 283 circuit judge positions statewide.
Twenty-three of those are open seats and will be contested. Of the 260 remaining seats,
only eight will be contested. The other 252 won unopposed...Supreme Court and District
Court justices run under a merit retention system. No judge has been denied another term
since the merit retention system was adopted in the 1970s...
As in Terry, Judge Cooks collaboration came relatively cheap, $300 in her initial 2002 bid. See
Appendix 9 for the donation records of Messrs. Rodems, Cook, and Alpert - $100 each. An
honest services fraud agreement need not spell out which payments control which act, just that
Judge Cook was expected to act favorably to the donor as opportunities arose. Terry at p. 6.
Unfortunately, Judge Cook failed to discharge her judicial duties without fraud, concealment,
bias, favoritism or conflict of interest, but acted like Mr. Rodems marionette. Terry at p. 11.
John M. Fitzgibbons, Esq. February 18, 2014
Chairman, Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission VIA Email Only
707 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, Florida 33602
Dear Mr. Fitzgibbons:
I am writing you about the three finalists for the position of U.S. Attorney, Middle District of
Florida, and forwarding my January 10, 2014 correspondence with Senator Nelson, Senator
Rubio, Acting U.S. Attorney Bentley, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Handberg, as it relates to two
petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-7280 and No. 12-7747.
Mr. Handberg is familiar with some of the issues underlying this matter that involve payday loan
litigation. In 2001 the Florida Attorney General intervened in Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash
Express, Inc. citing Florida RICO jurisdiction. Roger B. Handberg, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Economic Crimes Division, appeared for the AG and got a $500,000 settlement for
Florida. Mr. Handberg was present June 12, 2002 at a mediation in Tampa and knew I was not
satisfied with Barker, Rodems & Cook (BRC) who represented me. On or about May 22, 2002 I
called the opposing counsel for ACE, Paul Watson, and told him I wanted to settle. That was
after BRC defrauded me of $7,143 in the AMSCOT case November 1, 2001.
I wrote Mr. Handberg in 2007 about BRCs fraud no avail. Since 2007 I also made written
complaints to the Florida Attorney General about The Florida Bar and Barker, Rodems & Cook,
first to AG Bill McCollum, and later to AG Bondi. Enclosed you will find the $500,000
settlement agreement, and my correspondence with Mr. Handberg, and AG Bill McCollum.
My correspondence with Mr. Handberg shows how he might respond to a request by a citizen for
the protection and assistance of the United States Attorney. I called Mr. Handberg January 28,
2014 and left a message. He did not return my call or otherwise respond.
Regarding Mr. Bentley, he apparently is not a member of The Florida Bar. In my view this
shows Mr. Bentleys independence, and independence is what we should expect of a United
States Attorney. In my view the integrated Florida Bar is a mistake and bad public policy. No
federal judge or U.S Attorney should be a member of The Florida Bar.
Unfortunately I have do not have a response from Mr. Bentley to my letter of January 10, 2014,
or to a telephone call placed to his office January 28, 2014 when I briefly spoke with Joanne.
Regarding Mr. Pajcic, I do not know him, and cannot make an informed comment. Thank you.
Sincerely,
cc: Senator Nelson, Senator Rubio
Neil J. Gillespie cc: Acting U.S. Attorney Bentley
8092 SW 115th Loop cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney Handberg
Ocala Florida 34481 cc: Curry Gary Pajcic
Telephone: 352-854-7807

James Comey, FBI Referral DOJ Public Integrity Section

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

James Comey, FBI Referral DOJ Public Integrity Section

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

James Comey, FBI Referral DOJ Public Integrity Section

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michelle S.

Klimt, Special Agent in Charge James Comey, Director

You might also like