Chief Judge Manuel Menendez-Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida-RESIGN

7/27/2019 Chief Judge Manuel Menendez-Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida-RESIGN

1/49

VIA U.P.S. No. lZ64589FP294937280 September 27, 2013Manuel Menendez, Jr., ChiefJudgeThirteenth Judicial Circuit OfFlorida800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603Tampa, Florida 33602Dear Judge Menendez:Your response to my records request ofAugust 15, 2013 shows the existence of judicialmisconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State ofFlorida.Your misconduct and disability shows you are not able to perform your duties under Article V,section 2(d), Florida Constitution, as a circuit chiefjudge and the administrative head of thecircuit, "responsible for the administrative supervision of the circuit courts and county courts inhis circuit" or attend to the business of the court in an efficient and expeditious manner.My August 15, 2013 record request specifically excluded a response by David A. Rowland, yethe responded anyway August 30, 2013 and claimed you "directed" him to respond.Unfortunately Mr. Rowland is a criminal. He engaged in fraud or impairment of a legitimategovernment activity, 18 U.S.C. 371, when he obstructed Petition No. 12-7747, a conspiracyagainst rights, 18 USC 241, and a depravation of rights under color of law, 18 USC 242.The records response by Mr. Rowland is defective. Rowland's letter is dated August 30, 2013,but the U.S.P.S. tracking no. 9114 9011 5981 5305 5834 13 shows the letter was not mailed untilSeptember 9, 2013, and not delivered until September 11, 2013. Mr. Rowland has notoriouslymisrepresented dates in this matter, like his fraud and obstruction in Petition No. 12-7747,described in my letter to Kemleth Wilson A.A.G. May 16, 2013.Rowland's letter wrongly claims "we responded" to earlier records request. No, the ThirteenthJudicial Circuit did not respond. Instead, Sandra Burge, a purported "paralegal assistant",provided inaccurate and misleading responses on plain paper, not the Cour t's letterhead.Rowland provided in his response a concocted email, the "AMENDED INVOICE: JudicialRecords Request", that contains this additional text: "Expires: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:00AM". The email I got from Sandra Burge June 06, 2013 12:34 PM does not have this additionaltext. Rowland's document shows other evidence of fabrication. It is missing the email address ofthe sender Sandra Burge and my email address, and wrongly displays the name David Rowland.In addition, I will not send payment for records to David Rowland, who I know as a liar.Judge Menendez, I have not addressed every problem with Mr. Rowland's response, orresponded to every misstatement of fact by him, but Rowland's response does not fulfill yourobligation as records custodian to nlY request. Mr. Rowland has a conflict of interest due to hiscrimes in this matter as described above, 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 241 and 18 U.S.C. 242.Rowland's misconduct will become more problematic as he tries to cover-up his wrongdoing.


2/49

ChiefJudge Manuel Menendez, Jr. August 27, 2013Thirteenth Judicial Circuit OfFlorida Page - 2The Florida Press Association wrote you November 16, 2011, as shown in the enclosed letter,"[T]o convey our serious concern that foreclosure hearings in Hillsborough County are beingconducted in a manner that inappropriately impedes public access to judicial proceedings. It hasrecently come to our attention that members of the public encounter significant obstacles whenattempting to observe foreclosure proceedings, and in some instances are unable to do so at all.We believe this practice violates Florida law's robust guarantee of open courts."The Press Association's letter was provided "cc" to Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice CharlesT. Canady. Signatories to the November 16, 2011 letter include:

Samuel J. Morley, General Counsel, The Florida Press Association Talbot D'Alemberte, The Florida Press Association Barbara Peterson, President, First Amendment Foundation Larry Schwartztol, StaffAttorney, The American Civil Liberties Union Gil Thelen, Executive Director, Florida Society ofNews Editors Randall C. Marshall, Legal Director, The American Civil Liberties Union ofFlorida

Judge Menendez, enclosed is my letter to you of January 27, 2010 informing you ofproblems inmy case 05-CA-7205. I do not show a response from you, or evidence of remedial action. Mycomplaints with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit are similar to those made by The Florida PressAssociation, and are not isolated or sporadic events, but part of your policy ofoppression.The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit was created by statute to administer, apply, and interpret the lawsof the state ofFlorida in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion, improperinfluence, personal self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.Unfortunately Judge Menendez, you and Mr. Rowland do not operate the Thirteenth JudicialCircuit in a fair and unbiased manner. Instead, you corruptly run the Thirteenth Judicial Circuitfor your benefit, and as a criminal enterprise through a pattern of racketing activity contrary toRICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968.It is time for you to resign Judge Menendez. You are not able to perform your duty as ChiefJudge in an effective and expeditious manner. Do not direct Mr. Rowland contact me again. I donot want to hear from that lying criminal anymore. I will proceed next with the records request toLisa Goodner, State Courts Adnlinistrator, and federal options beyond that ifnecessary.Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th Lo pOcala, Florida 3448Enclosurescc: Lisa Goodner, State Courts Administrator, VIA UPS No. lZ64589FP294806091cc: David A. Rowland, letter only, VIA UPS No. lZ64589FP293610866


3/49

VIA U.P.S. No. lZ64589FP293018775 August 15, 2013Chief Judge Manuel Menendez, Jr.Thirteenth Judicial Circuit OfFlorida800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603Tampa, Florida 33602Dear Chief Judge Menendez:Cal Goodlett, General Counsel's Office, Office of the State Courts Administrator, identified youas the Records Custodian for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida. Rule 2.420(b)(3).This is my third request for public records. Two prior requests were met with false andmisleading responses from Sandra Burge, a purported "paralegal assistant".On information and belief, it appears Ms. Burge engaged in the Unlicensed Practice ofLaw(UPL) in her employment with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Prior to any complaint againstMs. Burge for UPL, I want to review her personnel file.Henceforth, I request no further contact of any kind from Sandra Burge.Kindly provide the following public records:1. The personnel file of Sandra Burge.2. The personnel file ofDavid A. Rowland.3. Copies of the following documents I served Mr. Rowland December 10,2012, and

that were delivered December 11, 2012 to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida. Kindlyinclude copies of the date-stamp received December 11, 2012 by the receiving person orentity for Mr. Rowland and/or the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida.1. U.S. Supreme Court Petition, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al.2. Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis3. Rule 29 proofof service, December 10,20124. Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.5. My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10,2012

The petition, Rule 39 motion, Rule 29 proof of service, CD, and cover letter, were servedDecember 10, 2012 as provided for by Rule 29, by United Parcel Service (UPS), tracking no.lZ64589FP297520287. UPS records show delivery the next day, December 11,2012 at 10:55AM to the address Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 33602.The UPS proofof delivery for lZ64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows "DAVIS" atthe front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature "D. Davis".


4/49

ChiefJudge Manuel Menendez, Jr. August 15, 2013Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida Page - 2Previously I provided a pre-addressed UPS Ground return shipping label from my UPS accountfor return shipment ofpublic records to nle. Since then I decided on a different method of gettingpublic records from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Please return the unused UPS label provided.Kindly provide public records by the United States Postal Service, with delivery confirmation,and no signature required for delivery. This will allow for tracking, and preserve my rights under18 U.S.C. 1341 and 18 U.S.C. 1346, etc.You may provide an updated invoice for the records by United States Postal Service mail, and Iwill provide payment by United States Postal Service money order.Please delegate the task of responding to this records request to a competent person, not someonewho was part of the scheme to falsely portray to Kenneth Wilson, Florida A.S.A., that I did notserve Mr. Rowland my petition per U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29. That list of persons includesRowland, Burge, Chris Nauman, and perhaps others, maybe you too.Henceforth, I request no email from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, or its employees.Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.

cc: by email to Cal Goodlett, General Counsel' s Office, Office of the State Courts Administrator


5/49

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTSTHIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

LEGAL DEPARTMENTDAVID A. ROWLAND GENERAL COUNSEL

August 30, 2013Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481Mr. Gillespie:

Chief Judge Menendez directed me to respond to your August 15, 2013public records request. You requested a copy of my personnel file, a copy of myparalegal assistant's personnel file, and copies of documents you sent to me inDecember 2012. You also requested us to return the unused pre-addressed UPSground rehlrn shipping label you previously provided to us.You previously requested the "December 2012 records" by letters datedMay 16, 2013 and June 3, 2013. We responded to each of your letters. Weresponded to your May 16, 2013 letter with an invoice dated May 21, 2013 and we

responded to your June 3, 2013 letter with an amended invoice dated June 6, 2013.These letters and invoices are self-explanatory and I've enclosed them. The bottomline is that you have previously requested the December 2012 records, we haveresponded by advising you of the fee of which we required advanced payment, andwe have not yet received any payment.As to your request for a copy of the personnel files, understand that manydocuments include a social security number which must be redacted before sendingto you in accordance with section 119.071(4)(1), Florida Statutes. Additionally,some records in the personnel files will not be accessible because the law treats

them as confidential. Examples of confidential records in the personnel files thatwould not be provided are: deferred compensation records - section 112.215(7),Florida Statutes; direct deposit records - section 17.076(5), Florida Statutes;emergency notification records - section 119.071(5)0)1, Florida Statutes; andmedical records - section 760.50(5), Florida Statutes.

800 EAST TWIGGS STREET SUITE 603 . TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 PHONE (813) 272-6843 WEB: www.fljud13.org


6/49

Neil J. GillespieAugust 30, 2013Page 2

The number ofpages of the December 2012 records and the publiclyaccessible records in the personnel files is 416. The fee for these records underFlorida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(i)(3), and by reference section119.07, Florida Statutes, is $0.15 per page for a subtotal cost of $62.40. Theduplicate fee of the CD is $15.00. The postage fee required to accommodate yourrequest for delivery by United States Postal Service, with delivery confirmationand no signature required, is $12.00. The total fee for sending you a copy of therequested judicial'records is $89.40.Please send the above fee to my attention via a United States Postal moneyorder made payable to: "B.O.C.C." The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is funded by theState ofFlorida and the Hillsborough County Board ofCounty Commissioners.The county provides us with technical resources used to provide copies of records.That's why the money order should be made out to the "B.O.C.C."We will begin the process of redacting confidential information from thepersonnel files upon receipt of the fee mentioned above. You can expect therecords to be placed in the mail within 5-10 business days upon receipt of the fee.As you requested, I am enclosing your pre-addressed UPS shipping label.

Sincerely,

Enclosurescc: The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr. Chief JudgeHeather Thullbery, Personnel Director, Administrative Office of the Courts


7/49

Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481

VIA EXPRESS MAILJanuary 27, 2010The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr.Chief Judge Thirteenth Judicial Circuit800 E. Twggs Street, Room 602Tampa, Florida 33602

RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook,Case No.: 05-CA-7205, Division C

Dear Chief Judge Menendez:I am writing you about the above captioned lawsuit. The case has not been managedlawfully. The requirements ofRule 1.200 Pretrial Procedure, Fla.R.Civ.P, and Rule 2.545Case Management, Fla.R.Jud.Admin. have not been followed. The court has neglected itsduty. This appears due to misplaced deference to attorney Ryan C. Rodems. The courtmay have neglected its ministerial duties relative to the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) and several requests I made for accommodation. The result is a failure to provideaccess to the courts as se t forth in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution.My lawsuit will ultimately show that Mr. Rodems and his law frrm utilized a corruptbusiness model that worked as follows:

A. Usurp the client's fiduciary interest.B. Procure a signed agreement from the client by any means, including fraud.C. Rely upon the parol evidence rule to enforce the settlement.

While Mr. Rodems has refused to provide most of the discovery required in this case, hisapplication to the JNC lists two other clients who complained to the Florida Bar that hecharged an inappropriate fee in a contingency case, Rita Pesci and Roslyn Vazquez.This Court shows a disparate treatment of litigants. The Court imposed extreme sanctionsof$II,550 against me for relatively minor transgressions. I made a discovery misstep thatcould have been easily been corrected in 2006 with case management but was not.Contemporaneously Mr. Rodems has not provided most of his required discovery, and mymotion to compel his discovery has been pending since December 14, 2006.


8/49

The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr. Page - 2Chief Judge Thirteenth Judicial Circuit January 27,2010

Conclusive evidence ofofficial wrongdoing in this case comes from a law review by TheHonorable Claudia Rickert Isom titled Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSONL. REv. 323,324 (1998). In it, Judge Isom described the issue ofadversar ial parties anddiscovery problems, which she calls "cutting up". This is what Judge Isom wrote: "Whenthis litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court' s ability to effectively bring cases toresolution, the judge must get involved to assist the process." So apparently extrememeasures such as $11,550 sanctions are not the next step in the process.It is outrageous that Judge Isom would ignore her own law review in my case that wasbefore her Court February 5, 2007. Clearly the 13 th Judicial Circuit is prejudiced againstme as either a pro se litigant or a person with disabilities, or both.For a time attorney Robert W. Bauer ofGainesville represented me, but he toocomplained about Mr. Rodems in open court: " .. .Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided totake a full nuclear blast approach instead of us trying to work this out in a professionalmanner. It is my mistake for sitting back and giving him the opportunity to take this fullblast attack. (transcript, Aug-14-08 hearing before Judge Crenshaw, p. 16, line 24).Please find enclosed copies of the documents listed below. When can I expect to receive aresponse from Court Counsel David Rowland? Calls to his office go unanswered. DoesMr. Rowland still serve as Court Counsel? Thank you for considering my concerns.

cc: Governor Charlie Crist, with enclosuresThe Honorable James M. Barton, II, letter onlyRyan Christopher Rodems, letter onlyEnclosures:1. Letter to The Honorable James M. Barton, II dated January 26, 2010, with enclosuresa. Law review by The Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom titled Professionalism and

Litigation Ethics, 28 STETSON L. REv. 323, 324 (1998)b. Letter to Mr. K. Christopher Nauman, Assistant Court Counsel, August 25, 2008c. Writing by Ryan Christopher Rodems commenting about a witness in a jurytrial he lost, WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc.2. Letter faxed to Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, January 14,20103. Letter to Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, January 4,20104. Letter to Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, February 5, 2009


9/49

m3."I'"

c..

..- - - - ----;

000000"t) )10 "U )10 "t) )10s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s::

"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OFFICE"OCALA, F1 ori da3447499981143840606 -009601/27/2010 (352)861-8188 04:57:02

Product Sales ReceiptSale Unit FinalDescription Qty Price PriceTAMPA FL 33602 Zone-2 $13.6Express Mail PO-Add5.70 oz.Label #: EH601917427USNext Day Noon / Normal DeliverySignature Requested

Issue PVI: $13.6TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 $1.Zone-2 First-ClassLarge Env5.10 oz.

Issue PVI: $1.Total: $15.3Paid by:Cash $20.0Change Due: -$4.6Order stamps at USPS. com/shop or call1-800-Stamp24. Go to USPS.com/c1icknshito print shipping labels with postage.For other information call 1-800-ASK-USPBi11#: 1000402608987Clerk: 05

All sales final on stamps and postageRefunds for guaranteed services onlyThank you for your busi ness********************************************************************************

HELP US SERVE YOU BETTERGo to : https://posta1experience.com/Pos

TELL US ABOUT YOUR RECENTPOST Al EXPERIENCEYOUR OPINION COUNTS****************************************

* * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Customer Copy


10/49


January 26, 2010VIA HAND DELIVERYThe Honorable James M. Barton, IICircuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial CircuitCircuit Court, Division C800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 512Tampa, Florida 33602

RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook,case no.: 05-CA-7205, Division C

Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution claims to provide access to the courts toevery person for redress of any injury, but for an ordinary citizen justice is often notadministered fairly and is frequently denied or delayed - Neil GillespieDear Judge Barton:I apologize for the late timing of this letter, but yesterday I became aware ofRule 2.540Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Notices to Persons with Disabilities:All notices of court proceedings to be held in a public facility, and all process compellingappearance at such proceedings, shall include the following:"Ifyou are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order toparticipate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision ofcertain assistance. Please contact [identify applicable court personnel by name, address,and telephone number] within 2 working days ofyour receipt of this [describe notice]; ifyou are hearing or voice impaired, call 711."Yesterday I tried to clarify this issue with Court Administrator Mr. Bridenback and left amessage for his assistant Tracy at (813) 272-5368, but no one called back. In addition tothe Rule 2.540 notice, I have a question about how and where to submit my ADAAssessment and Report. I retained author and health professional Ms. Karin Huffer, MS,MFT as my Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations Designer andAdvocate. Some of the accommodations requested are a limit on the number ofmotionsconsidered in a single hearing. lbis Courts December 30, 2009 Order setting "all pending


11/49

The Honorable James M. Barton, II Page - 2January 26,2010motion" is not acceptable. First a detennination should be made of the pending motions,then a reasonable schedule must be set to hear them.The Court 's Order setting today's hearing does not comply with Rule 2.540. Because theGeorge E. Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 East Twiggs Street, Tampa is a public facility, Ibelieve any notice for a hearing there is subject to Rule 2.540. Also, none of Mr. Rodems'notices for hearings in the courthouse have contained a Rule 2.540 disclosures throughoutthis litigation. In all fairness, neither did any of my notices, but I am just an ordinarycitizen and pro se litigant. (Note: the Court's web site cites Rule 2.065).More importantly, while reading Rule 2.540, I noticed Rule 2.545, Case Management.For whatever reason none of the judges assigned to this case have implemented any casemanagement in over four years. In addition, Rule 1.200 provides for Pretrial Procedureand a Case Management Conference. In the past I asked Court Counsel about this and didnot receive a response. One of my letters to Court Counsel is enclosed. The problem is sobad in this case that I believe it should have been designated Complex Litigation underRule 1.201, Fla.R.Civ.P because A "complex action" is one that is likely to involvecomplicated legal or case management issues and that may require extensive judicialmanagement to expedite the action, keep costs reasonable, or promote judicial efficiency.But the conclusive evidence of official wrongdoing in this case is from a law review byThe Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom titled Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28STETSON L. REv. 323,324 (1998). In it, Judge Rickert described the issue of adversarialparties and discovery problems, which she calls "cutting up". This is what Judge Isomwrote: "When this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectivelybring cases to resolution, the judge must get involved to assist the process." So apparentlyextreme measures such as $11,550 sanctions are not the next step in the process. It isoutrageous that Judge Isom would ignore her own law review in my case that was beforeher Court on February 5, 2007. Clearly the 13 th Judicial Circuit is prejudiced against meas either a pro se litigant or a person with disabilities, or both.Because of this newly discovered evidence I believe a motion for reliefunder Rule 1.540,Fla.R.Civ.P is appropriate to overturn this Court's Order Determining Amount ofSanctions, and Final Judgment of March 27,2008. This sanction of attorney's fees is evenmore outrageous given the fact that plaintiff' s motion to compel defendants' discoveryhas not been heard and is pending since December 14, 2006. How can this Court award$11,550 against me when defendants are guilty of the same offense?I commenced two lawsuits pro se in August 2005 (one being the instant case) because Icould not find or afford counsel to represent him. One lawsuit in federal court involved acredit card dispute, Gillespie v. HSBC Bank, et al, case no. 5:05-cv-362-0c-WTH-GRJ,US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. The HSBC lawsuit wasresolved a year later with a good result for the parties. Plaintiff was able to work amicablywith the counsel for HSBC Bank, Traci H. Rollins and David J. D'Agata, counsel withSquire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP and the entire case was concluded in 15 months.


12/49

The Honorable James M. Barton, II Page - 3January 26,2010

August 17, 2005, Complaint filed, Gillespie v HSBC Bank, et. al September 25, 2006, Order establishing a cause of action (US District Judge William

Terrell Hodges) October 23,2006, Settlement Agreement and Release November 17, 2006, civil judgment entered dismissing caseApart from these proceedings 1 am a law abiding, engaged citizen. 1am a former businessowner and graduate ofThe Wharton School (Evening Division), University ofPennsylvania, and The Evergreen State College. Since 1994 1have been disabled, acondition that affects me ability to represent himselfwhen confronted by a hostile lawyerlike Mr. Rodems who knows ofmy disability from his fIrm's prior representation. Inaddition, Mr. Rodems sued plaintiff for libel over a letter about a closed bar complaint.Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, recognizes the inequitable balance of power that mayexist between an attorney who brings a defamation action and the client who must defendagainst it. Attorneys schooled in the law have the ability to pursue litigation through theirownmeans and with minimal expense when compared with their former clients.And there is more newly discovered evidence. Mr. Rodems' application to the 13 thCircuit JNC lists two other clients who complained to the Florida Bar that he charged aninappropriate fee in a contingency case, Rita Pesci and Roslyn Vazquez. This shows thatMr. Rodems and his law fum utilize a corrupt business model that works as follows:

A. Usurp the client's fIduciary interest.B. Procure a signed agreement from the client by any means, including fraud.C. Rely upon the parol evidence rule to enforce the settlement.

Because Mr. Rodems failed to provide this information in discovery, it was not availablefor my defense on March 20, 2008 for the sanction hearing to determine attorneys fees.And the discovery that Mr. Rodems was actively seeking appointment to the bench onMarch 20, 2008 was a conflict and explains his obsession with the status of judges both atthe hearing and during the course of this litigation. The Commentary to Judicial Canon 2Astates a judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judgemusttherefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome bythe ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.In addition to relief from judgment it is time for Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,which will include a count ofBreach ofFiduciary Duty, which is appropriate given thefacts and can be added under Rule 1.190(c), Fla.R.Civ.P and the relation back doctrine.Breach ofFiduciary Duty was fIrst argued in this case in 2005, October 7,2005, seePlaintiff's Rebuttal To Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike.Mr. Rodems testifIed at the March 20, 2008 hearing on the attorney's fees that "I amboard-certifIed in civil trial law and I've been practicing law since 1992." (transcript, page14, line 23). Mr. Rodems also testifIed that "I've been trying cases for the last 16 years."(transcript, page 15, line 4). On cross examination, Mr. Bauer asked: "How many 57.105


13/49

The Honorable James M. Barton, n Page - 4January 26, 2010

actions have you been involved in?" (transcript, page 15, line 18). Mr. Rodems testified:"I filed 1believe two in this case and 1may have filed one or two other ones in my careerbut 1couldn't be sure exactly." (transcript, page 15, line 20).Since the March 20,2008 hearing, Mr. Rodems has filed two additional section 57.105motions in this lawsuit. On July 31, 2008, Mr. Rodems submitted his third section 57.105motion in this lawsuit, because 1did not withdrawn my Complaint For Breach ofContractand Fraud. Mr. Rodems submitted his fourth section 57.105 motion in this case, also onJuly 31, 2008, because 1did not withdrawal my motion for rehearing, which wasnecessitated when Mr. Rodems lied to the Court at the October 31, 2007 hearing aboutthe existence of a signed contingent fee agreement - there is no signed contract withBarker, Rodems & Cook, PA and Mr. Rodems falsely told the court otherwise.Furthermore, Mr. Rodems threatened to file another section 57.105 motion against Mr.Bauer in April, 2007, and again in May, 2007, regarding appellant's reinstatement of hisclaims voluntarily dismissed, which the 2DCA upheld in 2D07-4530.So far in this lawsuit Mr. Rodems has filed four (4) section 57.105 motions andthreatened another - while in the balance ofhis sixteen (16) year career Mr. Rodemstestified that he may have filed one or two other ones but he couldn't be sure exactly. I tis clear that Mr. Rodems is misusing the section 57.105 motion as a weapon in his"full nuclear blast approach" because he has a conflict of interest in this lawsuit andshould have been diSqualified as counsel upon appellant's motion, Plaintifrs Motionto Disqualify Counsel, submitted February 4, 2006.As for Judge Nielsen's Order ofMay 12,2006, the Order states "The motion to disqualifyis denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and on thatbasis, the motion is denied without prejudice." As for Mr. Rodems being a witness, thenature of this case is that he is essentially a perpetual witness. The transcripts show thathis representation is essentially ongoing testimony about factual matters. Mr. Rodemsshould be disqualified, it is long overdue.Finally a letter written by Mr. Rodems surfaced relative to a lawsuit disclosed on his JNCapplication, WrestleReunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Television Holdings, Inc., United StatesDistrict Court, Middle District ofFlorida, Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27, trial August 31September 10,2009. Mr. Rodems lost the case and then wrote a letter attacking thecredibility ofEric Bischoff, a witnesses. The letter is enclosed and may also be foundonline at: www.declarationofmdependents.net/doi/pages/corrente91O.htmlMr. Rodems' letter calls into question his mental well-being. After the jury spoke and thecase was over Mr. Rodems wrote the following: "It is odd that Eric Bischoff, whose welldocumented incompetence caused the demise ofWCW, should have any comment on theoutcome of the WrestleReunion, LLC lawsuit. The expert report Bischoffsubmitted inthis case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was not even called to testify by ClearChannel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009


14/49

The Honorable James M. Barton, II Page - 5January 26,2010

before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his seriousproblems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head ofWCW."Mr. Rodems also wrote, "To even sit in the room and question him was one of the mostdistasteful things I've ever had to do in 17 years of practicing law. In fact, we understandthat Bischoffwas afraid to even come to Tampa and testify because he would have toanswer questions under oath for a third time about his embarrassing past."Mr. Rodems continued his attack on the witness writing, "The sad state of professionalwrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman, whose previous careerhighlights include selling meat out of the back of a truck, before he filed bankruptcy andhad his car repossessed. Today, after running WCW into the ground, Bischoffpeddlesschlock like "Girls Gone Wild" and reality shows featuring B-listers."In conclusion, my former lawyer, the congenial Robert W. Bauer, complained about Mr.Rodems in open court: " .. .Mr. Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full nuclear blastapproach instead ofus trying to work this out in a professional manner. It is my mistakefor sitting back and giving him the opportunity to take this full blast attack. (transcript,Aug-14-08 hearing before Judge Crenshaw, p. 16, line 24).Thank you for your kind consideration.

cc: Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel (letter only)Mr. Mike Bridenback, Court Administrator in the 13th Judicial Circuit (letter only)Mr. Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator for the 13 th Judicial Circuit (letter only)Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems


15/49

* 1998, Claudia Rickert Isom. All rights reserved. Circuit Judge, Thirteenth

Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 1991Present; B.S.Ed., University of Iowa, 1972; J.D.,

Florida State University, 1975; Vice-Chair and member, Florida Bar Standing Committee

on Professionalism; Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 19791982;

District VI Legal Counsel, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,

19841986; Shareholder, Isom, Pingel and Isom-Rickert, P.A., 19861990.

PROFESSIONALISM AND LITIGATION ETHICS

Hon. Claudia Rickert Isom*

My first assignment as a newly elected circuit judge was to the

family law division. Although I considered myself to be an experi-

enced trial attorney, I was somewhat naive about my role as a judge

presiding over discovery issues. I assumed that the attorneys as-

signed to my division would know the rules of procedure and the

local rules of courtesy. I also assumed that, being knowledgeable,

they would comply in good faith with these provisions. I soonlearned that attorneys who were entirely pleasant and sociable crea-

tures when I was counted among their numbers, assumed a much

different role when advocating for litigants.

For example, take Harvey M. (not his real name). Harvey and I

had bantered for years, having many common interests. Perhaps

this familiarity gave rise to, while not contempt, a certain lackadai-

sical attitude about complying with case management and pretrial

orders. Harvey challenged me to establish my judicial prerogative

and assist him in achieving goals not of his own making.

A common assumption regarding family law is that clients re-

ceive the quality of legal representation that they deserve. However,my time in the family law division has convinced me that this is not

necessarily true. Often times, a case that has wallowed along, seem-

ingly hung up in endless depositions and discovery problems, be-

comes instantly capable of resolution by bringing all parties together

in the context of a pretrial conference. Apparently, some attorneys

feel that cutting up is a large part of what their clients expect

them to do. When this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial

court's ability to effectively bring cases to resolution, the judge must

get involved to assist the process.

Recently, the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges con-


16/49

324 Stetson Law Review [Vol. XXVIII

1. See ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES:

PROFESSIONALISM PROBLEM SOLVING (1998).

2. See JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR AND

CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTYJUDGES 1998HANDBOOK 89 (1998).

ducted an educational seminar designed to guide circuit judges inappropriately responding to unprofessional and unethical behavior.1

Various scenarios were presented on video, after which the judges

voted on what they felt would be the appropriate court response. A

surprising number of judges voted to impose sanctions or report

unethical behavior to the Florida Bar Grievance Section. However,

the most common response was to do nothing or to privately counsel

the offending attorney.

A common theme at meetings of the Florida Bar Standing

Committee on Professionalism is that, while attorneys can aspire to

greater professionalism, the courts can be a bully pulpit to encour-

age professional behavior. Perhaps the perceived backlash of crack-ing down on unprofessional behavior is unrealistic for Florida's cir-

cuit judges who are elected officials. However, that perception

shapes the judicial response, even when responding theoretically at

a seminar.

The Joint Committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida

Bar and the Conferences of Circuit and County Court Judges' 1998

Handbook on Discovery Practice admonishes trial judges to fully

appreciate their broad powers to end discovery abuses and the 1998

Handbook reassuringly states that the appellate courts will sustain

the trial court's authority if it is exercised in a procedurally correct

manner.2 Once again, this rallying cry ignores the reality of our

situation.

As a new judge, the lessons urged by bar leadership have been a

matter of trial and error (pun intended). Harvey quickly established

his reputation, not as a fellow member of my legal community, but

as a problematic litigator whose behavior had to be controlled and

modified by court order for the legal process to smoothly progress.

For example, hearing time was made available to address discovery

issues, very specific orders were entered regarding who was to do

what, when, and how, verbal commitments were elicited on the re-

cord about document production and interrogatory responses, in an

attempt to avoid additional hearings. Cases involving Harvey were,

by necessity, intensely case managed.


17/49

1998] Litigation Ethics 325

Resentment, of course, is a by-product of such intensive casemanagement. Attorneys may perceive that the court is trying to

prevent them from earning additional attorney fees by streamlining

the process. However, clients rarely complain once they realize that

the underlying purpose is to bring the case to timely resolution.

In Harvey's case, extreme tools reporting Harvey to the Flor-

ida Bar, striking responses, striking witnesses, imposing financial

sanctions, and conducting contempt hearings were never impli-

cated. What did happen was that Harvey trained me to be a better

judge by showing me how, in a nonconfrontational manner, I could

effectively case manage Harvey and similar counsel without having

to take off the gloves.Fortunately, not every litigator requires the case management

skills of a Harvey situation. Most attorneys are well-intentioned,

have a legitimate interest in pursuing discovery efficiently, and do

not seek to unnecessarily delay the resolution of a case. What a re-

lief it is to have a case with opposing counsel who are both of this

school of thought.

New attorneys, or attorneys who are appearing in front of a

judge for the first time, must remember that their reputation is

primarily built on the judge's personal experiences with them. No

bench book exists with a list of which attorneys are trustworthy

professionals and which are not. Instead, the individual judge keeps

a mental catalog of experiences. For example, does this attorney

routinely generate complaints from opposing counsel in other cases

about not clearing depositions with their office? Is this attorney

often the subject of motions to compel? Can this attorney be trusted

when he tells you that the responses to interrogatories are in the

mail? Once a negative reputation has been established with the

court, an attorney's job will be much more challenging in establish-

ing credibility with the court. And certainly, with so many issues up

to the court's discretion, an attorney's reputation as trustworthy and

ethical is of utmost importance.

And, what about Harvey? Do his clients suffer? Of course they

do. But, with effective case management and an experienced judi-ciary, the damage and delay caused by the Harveys of this world can

be minimized while still allowing clients the freedom to choose their

own counsel.


18/49

o oNeil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115 th LoopOcala, Florida 34481

Telephone: (352) 854-7807

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPTArticle No.: 7008 1140000060169155August 25,2008Mr. K. Christopher Nawnan, Assistant Court CounselAdministrative Offices OfThe CourtsThirteenth Judicial Circuit Of FloridaLegal Department800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603Tampa, Florida 33602RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook, case no.: 2005 CA 7205Hillsborough County Circuit Civil Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaDear Mr. Nauman:It has come to my attention that the above captioned lawsuit may not have been properlymanaged by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. I spoke with you two years ago about thiscase against my former lawyers. At that time I was seeking court appointed counselunder the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). I have subsequently retained counsel,Robert W. Bauer ofGainesville. Still, questions remain about the court's management ofthis lawsuit from when I appeared pro se. That is why I am writing you today.To recap, this case has been ongoing for over three years now. The case has moved fromJudge Nielsen to Judge Isom and is currently before Judge Barton. So far there have beenthree appeals before the Second District Court ofAppeals (2DCA) in this case, with morelikely. I have incurred over $40,000 in attorney's fees, expenses, and court costs. OnMarch 20,2008, Judge Barton ordered an $11,550 judgment for discovery and section57.105 sanctions against me. This amount is currently on appeal to the 2DCA.Nonetheless, my former lawyers, by and through Mr. Rodems, served a Writ ofGarnishment on my current lawyer earlier this month to take all the money out ofmyclient trust fund, which in effect denies me legal representation. My former lawyers also


19/49

Mr. K. ChristopherNa tA , Assistant Court Counsel o Page - 2Legal Department, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida August 25, 2008used a Writ of Garnishment to take all the money out of my bank account, even thoughthis money was from Social Security disability payments and therefore exempt.The original amount at issue in this case was $6,224.78, with a demand for punitivedamages of$18,674.34. My former lawyers countersued me for libel over a barcomplaint. By almost any objective standard, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has failed toprovide an adequate forum to resolve this controversy.It appears the following procedures were not followed by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit:1. Failure to refer to mediation. During a hearing on February 1,2007, the Court (J.Isom) asked about mediation to resolve this lawsuit without litigation:THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolvethis without litigation?MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.(Transcript, Feb-Ol-07, page 15, beginning at line 20)2. Failure to follow Pretrial Procedure, Fla.R.Civ.P., Rule 1.200(a), failure to hold aCase Management Conference. This rule is especially important in this case, where a prose litigant is suing his former lawyers. It may have prevented the abuse that occurredhere, where Mr. Rodems, a skilled lawyer, used discovery rules to trap me and obtain$11,550 with the blessing of the court. This misuse of discovery is contrary to Floridacase law. Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, toencourage the settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. (Elkins v. Syken, 672So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996). In this case the parties know the issues from Defendants' priorrepresentation of me on the same matter. The rules of discovery are designed to securethe just and speedy determination of every action (In re Estes' Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. CoastDental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5 th Dist. 1999), and to ensure thatjudgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd. Partnership v.Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not upon the skill andmaneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, State Dept. ofTransp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1977).3. Failure to provide equal courthouse security. The Court (1. Nielsen) unilaterallyestablished separate and unequal courthouse +security for pro se litigants on hearingsdone in chambers. This is discriminatory, and ironic given that my former lawyers arenotorious for throwing coffee in the face of opposing counsel during a mediation.THE COURT: I agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is on anycase in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just for futurereference you do not have to submit a request. (Responding to Mr. Rodems)

(Transcript, April 25, 2006, beginning page 6, at line 24)


20/49

Mr. K. Christopher NauA , Assistant Court Counsel o Page - 3Legal Department, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida August 25, 2008

However, when I asked the court for protection from Mr. Rodems, who at a previoushearing waited outside chambers to provoke a fight, Judge Nielsen said the following:MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge. And, Your Honor, would you ask that Mr.Rodems leave the area. The last time he left, he was taunting me in the hallwayand I don't want that to happen today.THE COURT: Well, you can stay next to my bailiff until he goes home and thenyou can decide what you want to do, sir.(Transcript, June 28, 2006, beginning on page 21, at line 20)In conclusion, Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, recognizes the inequitable balance ofpower that may exist between an attorney who brings a defamation action and the clientwho must defend against it; and attorneys schooled in the law who have the ability topursue litigation through their own means and with minimal expense when comparedwith their former clients. That is what is happening to me in this lawsuit.Had the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ordered mediation, or required a Case ManagementConference (as done in federal court) or provided equal courthouse security, this casemay have been resolved by now.Mr. Nauman, why has the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit failed to manage this lawsuitaccording to the above cited rules and procedures?

6 L~ ; ; ~ ' / /li7 i .'", j/;:// ' ~ / " ," , . ~ . , / .1 , / ../ ~ ; / < . - ;? ' . ; '1. .---). (., :, 'y /' / '--::". I _:K _,. lL--


21/49

o o"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OfFICE"OCALA, florida3447499981143840606 -009808/25/2008 (352)861-8188 04:31:59 PM

Product Sales ReceiptSale Unit finalDescription Qty Price PriceTAMPA fL 33602 Zone-2 $0.42first-Class Letter0.80 oz.Return Rcpt (Green Card) $2.20Certified $2.70Label #: 70061140000060169155

1-800-Stamp24. Go to USPS.com/c1icknship

Issue PVI: $5.32Total: $5.32Paid by:Cash $10.32Change Due: -$5.00Order staMps at USPS. com/shop or callto print shipping labels with postage.for other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS.Bi11#: 1000202079561Clerk: 07

All sales final on stamps and postage.Refunds for guaranteed services only.Thank you for your business.** * * * ********.** * * ** *.*****.**HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER

Go to: http://gx.ga11up.com/posTELL US ABOUT YOUR RECENTPOSTAL EXPERIENCE

YOUR OPINION COUNTS* ** ** **.****.******** *.***** ** ****.*****

Customer COpy

U.S. Postal ServiceCERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT

Ll'I (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)Ll'I..-'l[J""..-'lCJ..l]CJCJCJCJCJ:: r..-'l.-'l

cerlffiedFeeReturn Receipt Fee(Endorsement Required) 1 - - - - - - 4 J ! ! ~ 1 Restricted Delivery Fee(Endorsement ReqUired) I- ---l""'"

Total Postage & Fees $-=. ....J

. . l ] L - - - - = = ~ . ; ; . . . . . . - = - r : . . . . . . . ; = - ~ i i _ i r T _ " T f t ' I ; y r . . - = : : . . . . . . . . : = - -

~ CJCJ[):II:-'I:-'J:::CJCJCJCJCJ[J""CJI:-'[J""..l]I:-'lnln

I,3

~ 7 / i ; , ~ ! ! ~ . ~ . k ~ t ! L ~ . I . . ~ ) d ! . f ! / J . L . ~ ~ ~ d : : ~ ~ : : ! . ~ . " ! ~ .. ~ ... .Z'f!.Lf_P:G. .. . ~ . : f f + . ~ . V . l . t . r . . .. ._ t- 3J ".tJ.2.-. .ity. State, Z I P ~


22/49

DOIwrestling.com - Declaration of Independents - The Number 1 Independent Pro Wrestl... Page 1 of3

DOIVIDEO.COM 'Tons of wrestling DVD's including original shoot i n t ~ ~ i e w s

Sal Corrente of WrestleReunion had a lawsuit against Clear Channel/Live Nation because they reneged on acontract with him. The case went before a jury and Mr. Corrente lost the case, which many feel was unjust.But Eric Bischoff made a statement on wrestlezone.com, which is below, that caused Sal's lawyer to send hisstatement:In my last post regarding the WrestleReunion/Live Nation lawSUit, I suggested that Bill Behrens and EricBischoff were expert witnesses for WrestleReunion. That was not the case as they were actually witnessesfor the Clear Channel/Live Nation side. I just spoke with Eric Bischoff who said he agreed to be an expertwitness after reading and taking interest in the case, however he was not called to the stand."The case wa s wrapped up quickly," Bischoff told Wrestlezone.com, "the jury didn't waste an ytime and came back with what I felt was the correct decision".Eric was happy with the outcome, to say the least. "Rob Russen an d Sal Corente give the wrestlingbusiness a ba d name," he stated, "so I'm glad justice prevailed and th e bottom feeders didn't winone".Bischoff wanted to make sure that everyone knew his comments and opinions were solely his and did notreflect those of Clear Channel/Live Nation.In regards to the above statement, we have a statement from Mr. Corrente's lawyer:" I t is odd that Eric Bischoff, whose well-documented incompetence caused th e demise of WCW,should have any comment on th e outcome of th e WrestleReunion, LLC lawsuit. Th e expert reportBischoff submitted in this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoff was no t even called to testifyby Clear Channel/Live Nation because Bischoff perjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009before running ou t and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious problemswith alcohol and sexual deviancy at th e Gold Club while the head of WCW. To even si t in theroom an d question him was one of the most distasteful things I 've ever had to do in 17 years ofpracticing law. In fact, we understand that Bischoff was afraid to even come to Tampa andtestify because he would have to answer questions under oath fo r a third t ime about hisembarrassing past.The sad state of professional wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oi l salesman,whose previous career highlights include selling meat out of th e back of a truck, before he filedbankruptcy and had his car repossessed. Today, after running WCW into the ground,Bischoff peddles schlock like "Girls Gone Wild" an d reality shows featuring B-Iisters.Sal Corrente, on the other hand, has always been an honorable man, and he delivered on everypromise and paid every wrestler while staging the three WrestleReunlon events. Unlike thecowardly Bischoff, Mr. Corrente took the stand In this case. Although his company did notprevail, Sal Corrente proved that he was man enough to f ight to th e finish -- something Bischoffcould never understand."Sincerely,Ryan Christopher RodemsBarker, Rodems &. Cook, P.A.400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100Tampa, Florida 33602813/489-1001E-mail: [email protected] just wanted to give Mr. Corrente's lawyer a chance to speak his mind.Georgie [email protected] I have always had wrestlers autograph signings as a speciality for any website I worked for, I know forsure, Mr. Corrente is an honest promoter who has NEVER stiffed a wrestler working for his shows or conventions. I would have heard about it.There are many promoters who do that in this business, which is very sad.The information on this website is exclusive property of the Declaration of Independents and cannot be used elsewtJBfS without proper ink credff. All 001 purchasesare non-refundab1e. All mail (electronic or postal) sent to the 00 1 becomes property of the 001 which allows the DOf to reprint that emaif In H's entirety by doing so, ffthe email is considered newsworthy.Copyright declarationofindependents.net & dorwrestting.com. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.declarationofmdependents.netldoi/pages/corrente91 O.html 1/28/2010


23/49

Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th Loop

O c a l ~ Florida 34481

VIA FIRST CLASS MAILFebruary 5, 2009Mr. David A. Rowland, Court CounselAdministrative Offices Of The CourtsThirteenth Judicial Circuit Of FloridaLegal Department800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603T a m p ~ Florida 33602Dear Mr. Rowland:

As per your letter of February 2, 2009, I contacted the clerk's office about the casefiles that may have been destroyed. A copy of my letter to Pat Frank, Clerk of CircuitCourt, is enclosed. In the past Ms. Pride was non-responsive to my communication.

On or about August 25,2008, I wrote K. Christopher Nauman, Assistant CourtCounsel, about the fact that my lawsuit may not have been properly managed by theThirteenth Judicial Circuit. (Copy enclosed). As of today Mr. Nauman has notresponded. Perhaps you can respond on his behalf?

Mr. Rowland, when court personnel fail to respond to correspondence, it creates acredibility problem for the court. It gives the impression that the court is incompetent orindifferent to the administration ofjustice. Is that the message your office intends torelay? When can I expect a reply to my August 25, 2008 letter to Mr. Nauman?Sincerely,

enclosures


24/49

o oNeil J. Gillespie8092 SW 11Sth Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481Telephone: (352) 854-7807

VIA C : E R 1 ] f ~ I E , D MAIL, RE1"URN RECEIPTArticle No.: 7008 1140 0000 6016 9155August 25, 2008Mr. K. Christopher Nauman, Assistant Court CounselAdministrative Offices Of l'he CourtsThirteenth Judicial Circuit Of f ~ l o r i d a [] COpyLegal Department800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603Tampa, Florida 33602RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook, case no.: 2005 CA 7205I-lillsborough County Circuit Civil Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaDear Mr. Nauman:It has come to my attention that the above captioned lawsuit may not have been properlymanaged by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. I spoke with you two years ago about thiscase against my former lawyers. At that time I was seeking court appointed counselunder the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). I have subsequently retained counsel,Robert W. 'Bauer of Gainesville. Still, questions remain about the court's management ofthis lawsuit from when I appeared pro see l"'hat is why I am writing you today.To recap, this case has been ongoing for over three years now. The case has moved fromJudge Nielsen to Judge Isom and is currently before Judge Barton. So far there have beenthree appeals before the Second District Court of Appeals (2DCA) in this case, with morelikely. I have incurred over $40,000 in attorney's fees, expenses, and court costs. OnMarch 20, 2008, Judge Barton ordered an $11,550 judgment for discovery and section57.105 sanctions against me. This amount is currently on appeal to the 2DCA.Nonetheless, my former lawyers, by and through Mr. Rodems, served a Writ ofGarnishment on my current lawyer earlier this month to take all the money out of myclient trust fund, which in etlect denies me legal representation. My former lawyers also


25/49

Mr. K. Christopher Na tA , Assistant Court Counsel o Page - 2Legal Department, I'hirteenth Judicial Circuit OfFlorida August 25, 2008used. a Writ ofGamishment to take all the money out ofmy bank account, even thoughthis money was from Social Security disability payments and therefore exempt.The original amount at issue in this case was $6,224.78, with a demand for punitivedamages of$18,674.34. My former lawyers countersued me for libel over a barcomplaint. By almost any objective standard, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has failed toprovide an adequate forum to resolve this controversy.It appears the following procedures were not followed by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit:1. .f'ailure to refer to mediation. During a hearing on February 1, 2007, the Court (J.Isom) asked about mediation to resolve this lawsuit without litigation:THE COURT: And you guys have already gone to mediation and tried to resolvethis without litigation?MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.(Transcript, Feb-OI-07, page 15, beginning at line 20)2. Failure to follow Pretrial Procedure, Fla.R.Civ.P., Rule 1.200(a), failure to hold aCase Management Conference. This rule is especially important in this case, where a prose litigant is s'uing his fonner lawyers.. It may have prevented the abuse that occurredhere, where Mr. Rodems, a skilled lawyer, used discovery rules to trap me and obtain$11,550 with the blessing of the court. This misuse ofdiscovery is contrary to Floridacase law. Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, toencourage the settlement of cases, and to avoid costly litigation. (Elkins v. Syken,672So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996). In this case the parties know the issues from Defendants' priorrepresentation of nle on the same nlatter. The rules of discovery are designed to securethe just and speedy detemlination of every action (In re Estes' Estate, 158 So ..2d 794 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1963), to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. CoastDental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure thatjudgments are rested on the real merits of causes (National Healthcorp Ltd. Partnership v.Close, 787 So.2d 22 (f'la. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not upon the skill andInaneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division ofAdministration, State Dept. ofTransp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1977).3. .Failure to provide equal courthouse security. The Court (J. Nielsen) unilaterallyestablished separate and unequal courthouse +security for pro se litigants on hearingsdone in chambers. This is discriminatory, and ironic given that my former lawyers arenotorious for throwing coffee in the face ofopposing counsel during a mediation.THE COURT: J agree. And as for the request for bailiff, my procedure is on anycase in which there is a pro se party, a bailiff is present. So just fo r futurereference you do not have to submit a request. (Responding to Mr. Rodems)(rrranscript, April 25, 2006, beginning page 6, at line 24)


26/49

Mr. K. Christopher NauA , Assistant Court Counsel o Page - 3Legal Department, Th.irteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida August 25, 2008

However, when I asl


27/49

o o"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OffICE"OCALA, fl od da3447499981143840606 -009808/25/2008 (352)861-8188 04:31:59 PM

Product Sales ReceiptSale Unit FinalDescription Oty Price PriceTAMPA FL 33602 20ne-2first-Class Letter0.80 01.Return Rcpt (Green Card)Certified

$0.42$2.20$2.70Label II: 70061140000060169155

........Issue PVI: $5.32Total: $5.32Paid by:Cash $10.32Change Due: -$5.00Order staMPs at USPS.com/shop or call1-BOO-Sta.p24. Go to USPS.com/clicknshipto print shipping labels with postage.for other inforMation call 1-800-ASK-USPS.Billll: 1000202079561Clerk: 07

All sales final on stamps and postage.Refunds for guaranteed services only.Thank you for your business.***.** ****R.*R** ** w

HELP US SERVE VOU BETTERGo to: http://gx.gallup.com/pos

TELL US ABOUT YOUR RECENTPOSTAL EXPERIENCEVOUR OPINION COUNTS** * . * . * * * ~ w * * *.*.w *

U.S. Postal ServiceCERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTLI')LI')

(Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage PrOVIded).-::tlr. . D L . . . . - - - = - . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . ; . . , . . . . . ; ; . . . ; : ; - - : ; " , . - r r . . . , : - - n m : . . . . . . : : : : : ; . . . - =.-::tCJ..D C8rllfilIdFeeCJCJ Retum Receipt FeeCJ ( E ~ Required)CJ Reslricled Delivery Fee t - - - - - - t ~ (Endoniement Requlred)CJ::z-.-::t Total POSI8ge & Fees.-::t0::(]CJCJ~

I - - - - - - ~ " " " " ' - - - - - - - - '


28/49


February 5, 2009Pat Frank, Clerk of the Circuit CourtThirteenth Judicial CircuitGeorge E. Edgecomb Courthouse800 E. Twiggs StreetTampa, FL 33602Dear Ms. Frank:The enclosed communication of October 2, 2008, to Lisa Pride, Director, Circuit CivilDivision, has not been answered. Four months have passed and Ms. Pride has notresponded. Is there a problem with Ms. Pride?Ms. Frank, as Clerk of the Court, please respond to my concerns that my lawsuit may nothave been properly managed by the Circuit Civil Division of the Thirteenth JudicialCircuit, since Ms. Pride is either unwilling or unable to do so.On another matter, David A. Roland, Court Counsel, suggested I contact the clerk's officeabout two case files that may have been destroyed:

Case no. OO-CA-004187, Levine v. Alpert; andCase no. 99-CA-007662, Buccaneers v. Alpert

Have the above case files, in fact, been destroyed? If yes, are either case files available inanother format, such as microfilm or computer file? Normally I would have directed thisquestion to Ms. Pride, but she has not responded to my letters in the past.Thank you in advance for your kind communication.Sincerely,

[j COpy~ enclosurescc: David A. Roland, Court Counsel, letter only


29/49


VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPTArticle No.: 7009 1410 0001 5637 1467January 4, 2010David A. Rowland, Court CounselAdministrative Offices Of The CourtsThirteenth Judicial Circuit Of FloridaLegal Department800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603Tampa, Florida 33602Dear Mr. Rowland:This is a request for information and any related public records.1. Please advise the undersigned if notice is required by Florida Statutes section768.28(6)(a) prior to instituting an action on a cla im against Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ofFlorida. If yes, kindly identify who is authorized to accept notice or service on behalf ofthe Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.2. Ifnotice is required by Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a), is one notice sufficient forthe entire court, or are separate notices required for the HCSO for claims pertaining tosecurity matters, or to the Clerk of Court for claims pertaining to the duties of the clerk?Is a separate notice required for claims pertaining to the ADA (Americans withDisabilities Act) office or coordinator?3. Please advise the undersigned what effect a notice under Florida Statutes section768.28(6)(a) would have on any litigation currently on the docket in the ThirteenthJudicial Circuit involving litigants now making a claim against the court pursuant toFlorida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a)? What would happen to the existing litigation?Would that create a conflict of interest?Thank you in advance for your cooperation.


30/49

============================================

YOURS TRULY CARDS and GIFTS INC8449 SW State Rd 200 Ste 137

Ocala, FL. 34481-9693116600-8001

01/04/2010 03:49:33 PM============================================

_______________ Sales Receipt -------------Product Sale FinalDescription Qty

Price

1st Letter 1 $0.44(Oomesti c)


31/49

Fax:From: Neil J. Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, FL 34481

To: David A. Rowland, Court CounselFax: (813) 272-5710Date: January 14, 2010Pages: three (3), including this cover pageRe: Florida Statutes, section 768.28Mr. Rowland,Accompanying this fax is my letter to you dated January 4, 2010. When can Iexpect a response from you?Neil J. Gillespie

NOTE: This fax and the accompanying infonnation is privileged and confidential and isintended only for use by the above addressee. I f you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this fax and the accompanyingcommwrications is strictly prohibited. I f you have received this commwrication in error,please immediately notify the sender by telephone, collect ifnecessary, and return the originalmessage to me at the above address via u.s. mail. Thank you for your cooperation.


32/49


VIA US CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPTArticle No.: 7009 14100001 5637 1467January 4,2010David A. Rowland, Court CounselAdministrative Offices OfThe CourtsThirteenth Judicial Circuit OfFloridaLegal Department800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603T a m p ~ Florida 33602Dear Mr. Rowland:This is a request for information and any related public records.1. Please advise the undersigned if notice is required by Florida Statutes section768.28(6)(a) prior to instituting an action on a claim against Thirteenth Judicial Circuit ofFlorida. If yes, kindly identify who is authorized to accept notice or service on behalfofthe Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.2. Ifnotice is required by Florida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a), is one notice sufficient forthe entire court, or are separate notices required for the HCSO for claims pertaining tosecurity matters, or to the Clerk ofCourt for claims pertaining to the duties of the clerk?Is a separate notice required for claims pertaining to the ADA (Americans withDisabilities Act) office or coordinator?3. Please advise the undersigned what effect a notice under Florida Statutes section768.28(6)(a) would have on any litigation currently on the docket in the ThirteenthJudicial Circuit involving litigants now making a claim against the court pursuant toFlorida Statutes section 768.28(6)(a)? What would happen to the existing litigation?Would that create a conflict of interest?Thank you in advance for your cooperation.


33/49

YOURS TRULY CARDS and GIFTS INC8449 SW State Rd 200 Ste 137

Ocala. FL. 34481-9693116600-8001

01/04/2010 03:49:33 PM= = = = = = : = = = = = = = = = = : : = : = = = = = = = = = = = = = ~ = : : = = = = = = _______________ Sales Receipt -------------Product Sale FInalDescription QW Price

1 $0.441st Letter(Dotwstic)(TAMPA. FL 33602)(Wetght:O Lb 0.45 02)

$2.80certified$2.30Return Rcpt 1

Total $5.54Cash $5.54

Thank youl8111.: 1-13168-3-385163-2Clerk: WINDOW3

All sales final on stamps and postage.

U.S. Postell ServiceCERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT(DomestIc Mall Only, No Insurance Coverage PrOVided)l" -~ . i i i i . i i i i i i i i i i l . ~

l " - L . - _ ~ - " ' ; : " ' - ' : " ' ' ' ' : ' : ' ' - : - i - ' ' : ' ' ' ' = - ; ' : ' ' - : ; - = - - - ' ; : : : : - : = - - - - - I m...DLr l

" .


34/49


35/49


36/49


37/49


38/49


39/49


40/49


41/49

Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Mark Stopa

My colleague, foreclosure defense attorney Matt Weidner, just re-posted the Foreclosure and Economic Recovery

Status Report which came out a few months back, openly wondering how Hillsborough County could have had

only 226 foreclosure cases dismissed in the 12-month period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.

This got me looking closer at the report, and something really, really jumped out at me.

Take a close lookat page 3. Do you see, not only that the Hillsborough court dismissed just 226 cases, a very low

number compared to other counties, but also that it entered 6,530 summary judgments?

Think about that ratio for a minute. 226 dismissals versus 6,530 summary judgments. Thats 29 summary

judgments for every dismissal a ratio of 29:1.

Now look at the other counties on the chart. Do you see any other counties with that type of ratio? I sure dont

there arent any.

In the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit (Broward), the ratio is less than 2:1.

In the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (Palm Beach), the ratio is approximately 1:1.

In the Twelfth Judicial Circuit (Manatee and Sarasota), there were more dismissals than summary judgments!

In the Sixth Judicial Circuit (Pinellas and Pasco), the ratio is 4:1.

Incredibly, 4:1 is the highest ratio of any county in Florida other than Hillsborough, and the ratio in Hillsborough

is 29:1.

Think about that for a minute, and ask yourself with 20 judicial circuits in Florida, why does Hillsborough have

such an astronomically higher ratio of summary judgments to dismissals than every other circuit in Florida?

Simply from a statistical standpoint, an outlier like this cannot be a coincidence can it?

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

This entry was posted in Main. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties

Foreclosure Defense & Strategic DefaultStopa Law Blog Florida Homeowners

CASECLARITYsays:

October 29, 2011 at 9:15 pm

Page 1 of 2Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties | Foreclosure Defense ...

10/30/2011http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/?p=1861


42/49

Foreclosure Defense & Strategic Default

One view of this 29:1 summary judgment/dismissal ratio is that Hillsborough County will likely have many more defective

real property titles than other Florida counties. Buyers beware.

Reply

Mark Stopasays:

October 29, 2011 at 9:37 pm

Good point.

Reply

roudly powered by WordPress.

Page 2 of 2Comparing Hillsboroughs Dismissal rate to other Florida counties | Foreclosure Defense ...

10/30/2011http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/?p=1861


43/49

Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Status Report

Quarter Ending September 2006 through June 2011

Quarter

Number of

Additional

Backlog Cases

Added1

Clearance

Rate2

July - September 2006 4,184 78.6%

October - December 2006 8,689 64.5%

January - March 2007 13,748 57.0%

April - June 2007 16,808 54.7%

July - September 2007 26,192 45.9%


January - March 2008 49,989 38.5%

April - June 2008 50,937 43.9%

July - September 2008 52,864 45.9%


Number of Additional Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure Cases

Added to Backlog and Percent of Cases Disposed

January - March 2009 50,025 53.7%

April - June 2009 36,397 63.2%

July - September 2009 35,012 64.0%


January - March 2010 13,392 83.7%

April - June 2010 -17,393 127.6%

July - September 2010 -16,508 125.4%

October - December 2010 -17,866 154.4%

January - March 2011 -24,790 191.5%

April - June 2011 -30,946 205.0%

1Number of Additional Backlog Cases Added was determined by subtracting the number of SRS dispositions from the number

of SRS filings for the quarters ending September 30, 2006 through June 30, 2011.2

Clearance Rate was determined by dividing the number of SRS dispositions by the number of SRS filings for the quarters

ending September 30, 2006 through June 30, 2011.

Note: The backlog of mortgage foreclosure cases was significantly reduced during the year-long initiative. With more than

200,000 cases disposed, the backlog fell from more than 462,000 cases to under 261,000 cases. The clearance rates, as can be

seen above, jumped dramatically during the initiative.

It is important to note that beginning in the second quarter of the year, the number of cases disposed decreased significantly and

that trend continued for the rest of the year. However, this was due in large part to the voluntary moratorium imposed by some of

the major lenders in Florida. In addition, it was reported that almost half of scheduled hearings were cancelled due to the

voluntary moratorium in late 2010.

It is also important to note that half of the total cases disposed during the year were dismissed. Dismissals, which can occur for a

number of reasons, may take place after a hearing by a judge, at the request by the plaintiffs attorney or following a review by a

case manager. Variances in case management practices may influence which cases are scheduled for hearings, which would

affect the number of dismissals and summary/final judgments.

epared by OSCA, Research and Data Pag


44/49

Circuit

Real Property/

Mortgage

Foreclosure

Backlog as of

June 30, 20101

First Quarter

in FY 2010-11

InitiativeDispositions

2

(July 2010 to

September 2010)

Second Quarter

in FY 2010-11


2

(October 2010 to

December 2010)

Third Quarter

in FY 2010-11


2

(January 2011 to

March 2011)

Fourth Quarter

in FY 2010-11


2

(April 2011 to

June 2011)

Total

FY 2010-11

Initiative

Dispositions2

Balance o

Backlog Aft

FY 2010-1

Initiative

1 10,979 1,098 983 842 1,433 4,356 6,

2 3,460 417 370 399 335 1,521 1,

3 1,115 220 211 245 152 828 2

4 17,916 2,436 1,739 3,407 2,768 10,350 7,

5 16,281 1,008 1,105 1,084 800 3,997 12,2

6 31,791 3,575 1,750 868 745 6,938 24,

7 18,440 3,792 2,086 1,643 1,854 9,375 9,0

8 1,926 536 519 446 375 1,876

9 39,700 7,816 5,322 4,478 4,747 22,363 17,

10 11,045 3,159 1,614 1,378 1,805 7,956 3,0

11 75,326 5,553 5,154 8,177 12,164 31,048 44,2

Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Status ReportBalance of Backlog

First, Second, Third, and Fourth Quarters in FY 2010-11

12 21,617 2,305 3,122 1,405 2,048 8,880 12,

13 32,843 4,207 1,720 449 380 6,756 26,0

14 3,897 854 506 388 546 2,294 1,

15 46,438 10,234 3,948 3,949 4,582 22,713 23,

16 2,259 183 233 372 245 1,033 1,2

17 48,675 9,651 3,768 3,670 3,838 20,927 27,18 27,117 3,557 2,375 1,767 2,152 9,851 17,2

19 19,061 1,273 501 932 800 3,506 15,

20 32,453 9,707 4,717 6,210 4,322 24,956 7,4

Total 462,339 71,581 41,743 42,109 46,091 201,524 260,8

1Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure Backlog as of June 30, 2010 was determined by subtracting the number of SRS dispositions from the number

SRS filings for July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2010.2Initiative Dispositions are based on data that is provided to the OSCA on a monthly basis by each trial court. First, second, third, and fourth quart

data are the reported information on cases disposed using the new resources. Total represents the sum of the first, second, third, and fourth quarter

In addition, Desoto County and Okeechobee County did not receive Foreclosure and Economic Recovery funding and are not included above.3

Balance of Backlog After FY 2010-11 Initiative was determined by subtracting the Total FY 2010-11 Initiative Dispositions from the number of RProperty/Mortgage Foreclosure Backlog as of June 30, 2010.



45/49

Circuit Dismissed

Summary/

Final

Judgment Trial Other2

Unidentified

Total

Disposed

1 2,727 1,624 3 2 0 4,356

2 794 676 4 47 0 1,521

3 512 309 0 7 0 828

4 5,531 4,615 1 1 202 10,350

5 2,877 1,082 3 35 0 3,997

6 1,329 5,602 1 6 0 6,938

7 4,254 5,103 11 7 0 9,375

8 931 759 6 180 0 1,876

9 8,830 13,529 3 1 0 22,36310 3,517 4,430 1 8 0 7,956

11 23,794 7,224 30 0 0 31,048

12 5,067 3,728 79 6 0 8,880


Type of Dispositions1

July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011

, ,

14 1,187 1,107 0 0 0 2,294

15 11,638 11,044 31 0 0 22,713

16 729 303 1 0 0 1,033

17 8,838 12,088 1 0 0 20,927

18 5,695 4,075 19 62 0 9,851

19 2,042 1,454 4 2 4 3,506

20 13,608 11,348 0 0 0 24,956

Total 104,126 96,630 198 364 206 201,524

1Type of Dispositions are based on the initiative data that is provided to the OSCA on a monthly basis by each trial court.

These data represent the reported information on cases disposed from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 using the new

resources. In addition, Desoto County and Okeechobee County did not receive Foreclosure and Economic Recovery

funding and are not included above.2

Other is used to report cases disposed when they are: administratively dismissed, consolidated into a primary case,

transferred or have a change of venue, etc.

Note: Numerous methods are used by the circuits to calendar real property/mortgage foreclosure cases which could affectthe number of dismissals and summary/final judgments within a circuit. These methods are: 1) following a review by a

case manager; 2) at the request of the plaintiffs' attorney; and 3) after hearing by a judge. The majority of circuits calendar

hearings following a case review by a case manager. These cases are calendared for either a case management or lack of

prosecution hearing. A number of circuits also calendar cases at the request of the plaintiffs' attorneys. These cases are

either calendared based upon the request alone or based upon the request and ensurance that the case meets the threshold

for a summary/final judgment.



46/49

Circuit

Cases

Disposed

Cases

Active2

Cases

Inactive3

Cases

Stayed4

1 4,356 113 6,586 61

2 1,521 1,190 1,407 15

3 828 184 249 35

4 10,350 11,743 6,557 304

5 3,997 705 13,431 1

6 6,938 5,332 24,178 218

7 9,375 5 10,721 389

8 1,876 1,466 641 21

9 22,363 7,154 31,273 16

10 7,956 6,020 4,614 168

11 31,048 50,785 1,730 0

12 8,880 3,390 10,405 166

13 6,756 26,757 379 9

14 2,294 2,461 1,380 54


Case Status1

As of June 30, 2011

15 22,713 32,157 5,619 142

16 1,033 1,040 755 26

17 20,927 24,781 28,202 0

18 9,851 103 22,466 26

19 3,506 16,757 4,017 91

20 24,956 4,069 5,570 518Total 201,524 196,212 180,180 2,260

1Cases Status is based on the initiative data that is provided to the OSCA on a monthly basis by each

trial court. Cases Disposed represent the reported information on dispositions from July 1, 2010 through

June 30, 2011 using the new resources and the status of the remaining pending cases. In addition,

Desoto and Okeechobee Counties did not receive Foreclosure and Economic Recovery funding and are

not included above.2

Cases Active represents those cases the court is actively working to resolve. Court administration may

not be made aware immediately when a case moves from inactive to active status.3

Cases Inactive represents cases where judicial action cannot be concluded due to extenuating

circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to, cases inactive due to attorney inactivity, cases with

insufficient pleadings or documentation, cases involved in mediation/settlement negotiations, and other

similar matters. It is important to note that all cases at the beginning of the initiative in July 2010 were

identified as inactive.4

Cases Stayed includes bankruptcy cases, cases pending resolution of another case, cases where there is

an agreement of the parties, and cases pending appeal.



47/49

http://mattw eidnerlaw.com/blog/2011/10/hillsborough-county-appealing-every-s ingle-foreclosure-case-thatll-make-the-point/ October 30, 2011

HILLSBOROUGH FORECLOSURE COURT- Very DisturbingNumbers, a system gone awry | Matt Weidner - Fighting ForThe American People

Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Status ReportType of Dispositions1July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011

13th Judicial Circuit= 226 Dismissals 6,530 Summary Judgments 0Trials 6,756 Cases Disposed Of

ReportCard

The numbers detailed above are very, very disturbing. They reflect a court system that is out ofwhack, and I dont like the way the numbers are tilted. These numbers come from the Office of

State Court Administrator and they are so far out of line from every other judicial circuit that theywarrant high level review from the United States Justice Department or from someone, anyone whohas any ability or willingness to stand up and speak for justice, the Rule of Law and basic rights. Buwe have very much thrown the towel in on those concepts in this country now, havent we? Anddefendants in foreclosure especially, what rights are they entitled to. I mean, after all, this country isowned by the banks, right? Right~!

These numbers simply cannot be ignored and they certainly cannot be explained away. And theexecution of the procedures that lead to these numbers are even more disturbing that must beinvestigated.if only anyone with authority would look into them. But again, the government in thiscountry has lost its way and forgotten that it was meant to serve The People and not The Banks and

The Corporations. These numbers are very real and concrete examples of just how far lostthis country has become.

Another 800 Pound Gorrilla that sits smack dab in the middle of these numbers is the allegedinvestigations of the foreclosure industry by Floridas Attorney General. There were nine, count emnine separate investigations into improper practices and many of those issues relate directly to thecases identified above, but this states attorney general has just walked away from thoseinvestigations.

Its beyond disturbing. Its tyranny. Its treason. Its the kind of abject corruption and repression thatleads to people rioting in the streets and Revolution. There simply is no choice when things

become so bad.

Mark Stopa ran a post this morning about the inability to appeal Motions to Dismiss and theproblems this causes in foreclosure cases and frankly throughout all of our civil court case lawbecause the inability to directly appeal Motions to Dismiss prevents any sort of clear case law orguidance that would develop clearstandards for Motions to Dismiss.

Like Mark, I am terribly frustrated by the practice that has been instituted in Hillsborough Countywhere I am not entitled to have my Motions to Dismiss heard, they are ruled on without a hearingand more often than not, Motions to Dismiss are DENIED. Now I believe the entire ex parteconsideration of Motions to Dismiss is improperespecially when the very same motions are

routinely granted in virtually every other county. (One judge commented, We never grant these kindof motions over here.)
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ReportCard.pdfhttp://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/?author=2http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ReportCard.pdfhttp://www.printfriendly.com/print/v2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmattweidnerlaw.com%2Fblog%2F2011%2F10%2Fhillsborough-county-appealing-every-single-foreclosure-case-thatll-make-the-point%2F


48/49

Denying my Motion to Dismiss. A few days later, the judge sends back the pre-printed Ordersigned, DENIED, answer the complaint. My response is the same every single time, MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION. And the response is the same every time, DENIED.

Well my job as an attorney is to use every tool in my disposal to defend my clients and to protect thelaw. Mark makes a very good point and its one every single one of us needs to consider. Losingthe MTD is a real gut punchsome attorneys just blow it off, but I take every single loss at a hearingvery hard and I dont take kindly to losing a properly plead Motion to Dismiss.beyond the short

term impact for me, the real problem is this is chipping away at the foundation of our entire legalsystem.and we cannot let this continue.

So I am committing to being prepared to file appeals in every case where these situations comeup. Now granted an appeal is not yet timely in most cases. And the fact of the matter is, Ive onlylost like three summary judgments (each of which were reversed), but were just going to lay herein wait with these MTD denials and keep on re-hearing and documenting the error in the ex partedenial of MTD. If the case ever gets to an improper judgment, this will all just be added together withall the other procedural errors that are going to be made along the way and will make fertile groundsfor a nice big appeal.

Given the current state of the law in some jurisdictions, we must begin to view the case as ripe forappeal from the inceptionand the file must be treated and documented that way from the verybegining.

Now for all you pro-se people out there, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not try this yourselves.You know I am the biggest supporter of consumer and citizen rights and I affirm the principles thatThe People and not lawyers own the courthouses and The Law, but bad appellate decisions destroyour laws and improperly taken appeals cannot be reversed.

And so I ask my colleagues out there to consider this.make a stand, lets make the point.

Chief Judge Manuel Menendez-Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida-RESIGN

Documents

Transcript of Chief Judge Manuel Menendez-Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida-RESIGN