Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.comJPTSInternetWeblInterLabeIDetail.do 12/6/2007
a
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Office of Citizen Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Telephone (850) 414-3990 SUNCOM 994-3990
FAX (850) 410-1630 SUNCOM 210-1630
December 14,2007
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 Southwest 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Per your request, we are enclosing copies of the documents you previously forwarded to
this office.
We will retain your information in our consumer files to help this office organize its
priorities. Thank you for contacting the Attorney General's Office.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES
Florida Attorney General's Office
OCS/fb
Enclosures
ANAFFIRMAnVEACnON/EQUALOPPORTUNITYEMPLOYER
NeilJ.Gillespie
8092SWIIS
th
Loop
Ocala,Florida34481
Telephone: (352)854-7807
VIAFIRSTCLASSMAIL
December11,2007
AttorneyGeneralBillMcCollum
Officeof theAttorneyGeneral
TheCapitol
Tallahassee,Florida32399
DearAttorneyGeneralMcCollum:
ThankyouforyourletterdatedDecember7,2007.(copyenclosed). Inorderfor
metocomplywithyourreferrals,Iwillneedthereturnof thedocumentsIprovidedyou.
Alistof theenclosuresisprovidedbelow. Iamwillingtopaythecostof returningmy
documents. Youmaycallmeattheabovephonenumberforpaymentbycreditcard,or
youmaysendabillwiththedocumentsandIwillsendpayment. Pleaseadvise.
Sincerely,
ExhibitA: ComplaintForFraudAndBreachOfContract
ExhibitB: OrderOnDefendants'MotionToDismissAndStrike
ExhibitC: Answer,AffirmativeDefensesAndCounterclaim
ExhibitD: Plaintiff'sMotionForPunitiveDamagesPursuantToSection768.72FloridaStatutes
ExhibitE: ListOfExhibits(1 through50)totheabovemotion
HALT'samicus curiae briefintheIllinoiscaseof Cripev. Leiter
HALT' samicus curiae briefinthematterofMarkM. Hager
LetterfromGovernorCharlieCristdatedNovember21,2007
LettertoGovernorCharlieCrist,October22,2007(letteronly)
LettertoMr. FranciscoR. Angones,President,TheFloridaBar,October22,2007(letteronly)
LettertoMr. DonaldM. Spangler,Director,ACAP,October16,2007(letteronly)
LettertoMr. KennethLawrenceMarvin,Directorof LawyerRegulation,October12,2007
LettertoMr. KennethLawrenceMarvin,Directorof LawyerRegulation,June20,2007
1
Exhibit 7 - International legal authorities and Treaties of the United States
U.S. Const. Article II, Section 2 Constitutional Provision, Treaties of the United States
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present
concur" (Article II, section 2)
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
U.S. Const. Article VI, Clause 2 a ratified treaty of the United States is the Supreme Law of the
land and all state law provisions which conflict with the treaty are overridden by the treaty.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the J udges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a6
Supremacy Clause The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which comprises
Article VI, Clause 2, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties
as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law
in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when
a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any
state...Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Legal aid, a right in itself UN Special Rapporteur - GENEVA (30 May 2013)
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13382&LangID=E
GENEVA (30 May 2013) The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence
of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, today urged world governments to develop and
sustain effective legal aid systems as an essential component of a fair and efficient justice
system founded on the rule of law.
Legal aid is both a right in itself and an essential precondition for the exercise and
enjoyment of a number of human rights, including the rights to a fair trial and to an
effective remedy, said Ms. Knaul, presenting her latest report to the UN Human Rights
Council. It represents an important safeguard that contributes to ensuring the fairness
and public trust in the administration of justice....
U.N. Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) Corruption is a complex social, political and
economic phenomenon that affects all countries. UNCAC is the only legally binding
universal anti-corruption instrument.
7
2
Signed by President Bush December 9, 2003, ratified October 30, 2006.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/
UNCAC, English PDF
http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/Convention/08-50026_E.pdf
Entry into Force (online)
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=XVIII-14&chapter=18&lang=en
The U.N. Global Compact site anti-corruption resources
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/tools_resources/anti_corruption.html
UNODC's Action against Corruption and Economic Crime
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/corruption/index.html
Article 6. Preventive anti-corruption body or bodies. 1. Each State Party shall, in accordance
with the fundamental principles of its legal system, ensure the existence of a body or bodies, as
appropriate, that prevent corruption by such means as:
(a) Implementing the policies referred to in article 5 of this Convention and, where
appropriate, overseeing and coordinating the implementation of those policies;
(b) Increasing and disseminating knowledge about the prevention of corruption.
2. Each State Party shall grant the body or bodies referred to in paragraph 1 of this article
the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal
system, to enable the body or bodies to carry out its or their functions effectively and free
from any undue influence. The necessary material resources and specialized staff, as well
as the training that such staff may require to carry out their functions, should be provided.
3. Each State Party shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the name
and address of the authority or authorities that may assist other States Parties in
developing and implementing specific measures for the prevention of corruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Corruption
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Signed by President Carter October 5, 1977, ratified J une 8, 1992
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
Review of the United Sates of America has been canceled, postponed until March 2014
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/ReviewUSA.aspx
The Carter Center: www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html
US Senate Executive Report 102-23 (102d Cong., 2d Sess.), Report-Ratification ICCPR
3
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/drwcasebook/files/senate_committee_on_foreign_relat
ions_report_o n_the_iccpr.pdf
Entry into Force (online)
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en
The United States declares that it accepts the competence of the Human Rights
Committee to receive and consider communications under article 41 in which a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
The U.S. Department of State, December 30, 2011
The Florida Commission on Human Relations, Annex A to the Common Core Document
of the United States, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Human Rights Organizations
and Programs.
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/179782.htm
1. State, local, tribal, and territorial human rights organizations and programs play a
critical role in U.S. implementation of the human rights treaties to which the United
States is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD), the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution, and
child pornography. This Annex contains information on state, local, tribal, and territorial
laws, enforcement mechanisms, and outreach programs related to the issues addressed in
the treaty reports...
Interpreting the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by Kendra D. Presswood
The Florida Bar J ournal, December, 2013 Volume 87, No. 10
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/J N/J NJ ournal01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829
/e3a5261cda8a57c085257c2f005d3183!OpenDocument
Defining the Hourglass--When Is a Claim Under the Florida Civil Rights Act Time
Barred? by Meenu T. Sasser and Stafford N. Shealy, The Florida Bar J ournal, December,
1999 Volume LXXIII, No. 11
http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/67a
77147a133b44485256adb005d62b9!OpenDocument
FAQ: The Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR) - ACLU
https://www.aclu.org/human-rights/faq-covenant-civil-political-rights-iccpr
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Signed by President Reagan April 18, 1988, ratified October 21, 1994
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx
4
U.N. Audiovisual Library of International Law - CAC
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html
Definition of torture Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person,
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed
or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or
for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising
only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment under Article 16.
Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective
measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute
and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to
justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public
emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot
be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it
be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on
torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all
people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is
exercised.[6] Since the convention's entry into force, this absolute prohibition has
become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6]
Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly
absolute and non-derogable.[6]
The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this
absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.[6]
PSYOPS - Psychological Operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations
5
Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR), or the basic aspects of modern psychological
operations (PSYOP), have been known by many other names or terms, including Psy
Ops, Political Warfare, Hearts and Minds, and Propaganda.[1] Various techniques are
used, and are aimed at influencing a target audience's value system, belief system,
emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. It is used to induce confessions or reinforce
attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives, and are sometimes
combined with black operations or false flag tactics. Target audiences can be
governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
KUBARK - The CIAs interrogation manual
Alice in Wonderland confusion technique KUBARK, page 76
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA%20Kubark%2061-112.pdf
Alice in Wonderland
The aim of the Alice in Wonderland or confusion technique is to confound the
expectations and conditioned reactions of the interrogatee. He is accustomed to a world
that makes some sense, at least to him: a world of continuity and logic, a predictable
world. He clings to this world to reinforce his identity and powers of resistance.
Alice in Wonderland: The Power of Applied Confusion
Terrorism: Commentary on Security Documents, page 446
Oceana Pubns; by Doug Lovelace, Kristen E Boon, Aziz Huq
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorism-Commentary-Terror-based-Interrogation-
International/dp/0195398149/
Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress - Florida Law
To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, a
compliant must allege four elements:
1. deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering;
2. outrageous conduct;
3. the conduct caused the emotional distress; and;
4. the distress was severe;
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 594-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
Section 784.048, Florida Statutes
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) Harass means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person
which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no
legitimate purpose.
(b) Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts
over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.
The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or
other organized protests.
6
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks
another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual
violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against
domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of
conduct toward the subject person or that persons property, knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the
offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Negligence per se Florida Law
Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas
354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 3d Dist. 1978).
Statutes or regulatory provision that either are designed to protect a particular class of
persons from their inability to protect themselves or establishes a duty to take precautions
to guard a certain class of persons from a specific type of injury. Failure to do so
establishes negligence per se.
Eggshell Skull Rule, a defendant is liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon
reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. If the defendant commits a tort
against the plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any
injury that is magnified by the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Resolution 217(A)(III) of the United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Home Page
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
U.S. State Dept. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/204710.pdf
A Magna Carta for all humanity - http://www.un.org/rights/50/carta.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/Pages/UDHRIndex.aspx
Basic Principals and Guidelines
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RemedyAndReparation.aspx
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/496/42/PDF/N0549642.pdf
7
Basic Principles of J ustice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dbpjvcap/dbpjvcap.html
U.N. Enable: About Enable, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disabout.htm
International Norms And Standards Relating To Disability
INTRODUCTION http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp001.htm
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
2.1 Review of provisions, ttp://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp202.htm
PART I. National Frameworks for the Protection of Rights of Persons with Disabilities
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp100.htm
PART II. The International Human Rights System
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp200.htm
PART III. The Regional Human Rights System
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp300.htm
PART IV. Towards a Rights Based Perspective on Disability
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp400.htm
PART V. Rights of Special Groups with Disabilities
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp500.htm
1
Exhibit 8 - Pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys
Under Equal Protection Clause (Art. XIV, sec. 1) and the doctrine of staire decisis, Florida must
follow U.S. Supreme Courts rulings, and other Appellate and Civil Courts on pro se pleadings.
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants'
pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. J enkins
v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd
240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233
Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of
controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the
achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its
effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment. Maty v. Grasselli
Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938).
Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should
endeavor to construe Plaintiffs Pleadings without regard to technicalities." Picking v.
Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Pro Se parties have the right to Appeal, and submit their briefs on appeal even though
they may be inartfully drawn, see Vega v. J ohnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998).
Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants consequences of technical
errors if injustice would otherwise result. U. S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir.
1996).
Moreover, the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the
allegations provide for relief on any possible theory. Bonner v. Circuit Court of St.
Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714,
716 (8th Cir. 1971).
The history of bias and prejudice against pro se litigants within the Courts is long.
Stephen Elias who had been with Nolo Press, the nation's leading publisher of self-help
law books, back in 1997, in an article Bias Against Pro Per Litigants ... stated:
From the moment they first contact the court system, most people who want to represent
themselves, without a lawyer, encounter tremendous resistance. Within the closed
universe of the courts, this bias is as pernicious as that based on race, ethnic origins or
sex.
People who cannot afford a lawyer are a rebuke to the organized bar's monopoly ,
because that monopoly is morally-if not legally-justified the ABA has admitted that 100
million Americans can't afford lawyers.
... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the
constitution and laws. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
8
2
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam)
Opinion by Circuit J udge Richard Posner in Prude v. Clarke, No. 11-2811, Court of
Appeals, 7th Circuit, decided March 27, 2012, the Court reaffirmed U.S. Supreme Court
rulings that complaints filed by unrepresented persons are supposed to be construed
liberally. E.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir.
2006); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2010).
Case law and pro-se litigants - U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Pro se parties are provided wide latitude when their pleadings and papers are construed.
When interpreting pro se papers, court should use common sense to determine what relief
party desires. S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, C.A.11. Fla., 1992. In case of pro se
action, court should construe complaint more liberally than it would formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers in resolving motion to dismiss complaint. Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d
1459, C.A.11.Fla., 1990.
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys,
and will therefore be liberally construed. Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d
1295, C.A.11. Ala., 2002. Pro se pleadings are held to less strict standard than pleadings
filed by lawyers and thus are construed liberally. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249,
C.A.11. Ga., 2008.
Pursuant to the less stringent standard applied to a pro se litigant's pleadings, wildly
implausible allegations in the litigant's complaint should not be taken to be true, but the
court ought not penalize the litigant for linguistic imprecision in the more plausible
allegations. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, C.A. 11. Fla., 2008.
The Court of Appeals is to give liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants.
Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, C.A.11. Fla., 2007. Pro se complaints are to be read
very liberally. Covington v. Cole, 528 F.2d 1365 C.A.5. Tex., 1976. Licensed attorney
could not be given advantage of liberal construction of complaint normally given pro se
litigants. Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192, C.A.5. Tex., 1977.
Court will use common sense in interpreting frequently diffuse pleadings of pro se
complaints. U. S. ex rel. Simmons v. Zibilich, 542 F.2d 259, C.A.5. La., 1976. In ruling
on summary judgment motion, court construes pro se complaint more liberally than it
would complaint of represented party.
Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912, C.A.11. Fla., 1995. Pro se pleadings are held to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally
construed. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, C.A.11. Fla., 2008.
3
Pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys. Byrd v. Stewart, 811 F.2d 554, C.A.11. Ga., 1987. Pro se complainants are
held to less pleading standards less stringent than those applicable to lawyers. U.S. v.
Roberts, 308 F.3d 1147, C.A.11. Fla., 2002. If a pro se complainant meets jurisdictional
requirements, a federal court can extend such leniency as justice requires in construing
the pleadings. Bolden v. Odum, 695 F.2d 549, C.A.11. Ga., 1983.
The pleadings of a pro se complaint should be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Shaw v. Briscoe, 541 F.2d 489, C.A.5. Tex., 1976.
Allegations of complaint, especially a pro se complaint, must be read in liberal fashion,
and they must be accepted as true in testing their sufficiency. Richardson v. Fleming, 651
F.2d 366, C.A.5. Tex., 1981.
Pro se pleadings are to be judged with a liberality unnecessary for those drafted by
skilled counsel. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A . Campbell v. Beto, 460 F.2d
765, C.A.5. Tex., 1972. Standard against which pro se complaints and petitions is
measured should be loose enough to accommodate in- artful pleader. Potts v. Estelle, 529
F.2d 450, C.A.5. Tex., 1976. Pro se complaints are to be read with especial liberality.
Patterson v. MacDougall, 506 F.2d 1, C.A.5. Ga., 1975.
34
Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL) in the state of Florida
UPL is a 3d felony subject to 5-yrs in prison (454.23), defined by Florida Bar Rule 10-2.1(a):
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
Mr. Rodems UPL complaint against me appears in this petition at Appendix L and alleges:
Neil J . Gillespie is not a lawyer. He has...represented a Trust in state and federal court
litigation, and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie...
I am not a lawyer. I appear pro se because I am indigent and financially unable to obtain counsel.
I deny Mr. Rodems allegation that I represented a Trust in state and federal court litigation,
and as a personal representative of the Estate of Penelope Gillespie... I represent only my
personal interest for myself, and my personal interest as co-trustee, as permitted by law:
First Amendment right to petition the Governmental for a redress of grievances.
28 U.S.C. 1654 - Appearance personally or by counsel.
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 17 capacity (a) real interest (1) own name (E) trustee of express trust
Fla Const, Art I, Sec 21: Access to courts. The courts shall be open to every person for
redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Florida Statutes, 454.18, any person, whether an attorney or not . . . may conduct
his or her own cause in any court of this state.
Fla. Prob. Rule 5.030(a) Exception, see Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy. I appear for my
own interest in the Estate. No one was appointed personal representative of the
Estate by Court Order. The last will and testament of my Mother names Mark
Gillespie personal representative and me as substitute personal representative.
Mark Gillespie, et al, represented in foreclosure by Tiffany Caparas Esq., Kaufman,
Englett and Lynd, PLLC; Notice of Consent to J udgment filed in 42-2013CA-000115
because they have no interest in the property. I only represent my interest in the trust.
Pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard, see Tannenbaum v. United States.
The Courts failed to make a counsel appoint for me on basis of mental, physical and
speech disability. I plan to make a new motion for counsel appointment ASAP.
Order of J udge Cook attached to Rodems UPL complaint is a sham. see U.S. v Terry
The ICCPR provides me additional rights to represent my own interest in a fair court.
I was a client of FLSMF and got legal advice on the foreclosure, no advice of UPL.
UPL by Mr. Rodems: Represented the state of Florida in 5:10-cv-503, J une 21, 2011, prohibited:
Only the Attorney General of Florida may represent the State of Florida in a federal court
action, Fla. Const. Art IV 4, F.S. 16.01, State ex rel. Shevin v. Weinstein.
Mr. Castagliuolo, misprision of felony 18 U.S.C. 4, J une 21, 2011 failed to report Rodems UPL.
UPL by Mr. Rodems: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, 05-CA-7205 (and 20 related cases),
prohibited by Fla. Bar Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, and McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.
UPL by paralegal Yolanda I. Martinez, McCalla Raymer, Rule 10-2.1(a), Ethics Opinion 70-62,
activity which requires the attorney's personal judgment and participation; Florida Court, see
emails Aug-07-2013 Gillespie-Martinez (Sep. Vol. App No. 2); District Court, see Rule 11
sanction motion (Doc. 15); Rule 55 motion for default judgment, (Doc. 16); Rule 72/Rule
60(b)(3) Verified Objection to Magistrate Order (Doc. 17); Affidavit 28 U.S.C. 144 (Doc. 22)
CLSMF
9
10
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)
11
1
Exhibit 12 This UPL investigation is an abuse of power by the Florida Supreme Court
This UPL investigation is an abuse of power by the Florida Supreme Court, by and through its
arm The Florida Bar, a Governmental Unit. Ms. Coaxum breached a duty as a Bar prosecutor by
allowing Mr. Rodems to use The Florida Bar vexatiously against me, a former client of his firm.
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 J une 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 and stole $7,143 in the AMSCOT case settlement 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. The $500,000 settlement agreement, and my
correspondence with Mr. Handberg appear at Exhibit 13. AG Bill McCollum at Exhibit 12.
The Florida Bar is responsible for allowing Mr. Rodems to conduct a state-sponsored reign of
terror against me since 2006. Susan Bloemendaal, Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel,
made a bad decision February 9, 2005 to dismiss my first written complaint against Mr. Cook of
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Unfortunately The Bar has defended her wrong decision since.
Ryan Christopher Rodems - Conflict of Interest
The problems in this case were caused by Mr. Rodemss misconduct due to his conflict of
interest representing his firm against me, a former client. J udge Barton came to this conclusion.
J udge Baron agreed with J udge Nielsens Order, and suggested during a hearing J anuary 26,
2010 that I make a renewed motion to disqualify Mr. Rodems, whose misconduct was the
central obstacle in resolving this case. Transcript, J anuary 26, 2010, page 31:
1 [MR. GILLESPIE]...This is what the Judge wrote: "This
2 motion to disqualify is denied with prejudice
3 except as to the basis that Counsel may be a
4 witness and on that basis the motion is denied
5 without prejudice." Now, for Mr. Rodems being a
6 witness, the nature of this case is essentially he
7 is a perpetual witness. The transcripts show that
8 his representation is essentially on going
9 testimony about factual matters. Many times in the
10 transcripts he is confused. He is saying, Judge,
11 we -- Oh, I don't mean we, I mean I as my attorney
12 for the firm think this about my client, which is
13 actually myself. That confusion is evident in the
14 transcripts over and over again. I really believe
15 he needs to be disqualified because of his ongoing
12
2
16 testimony in this matter.
17 THE COURT: All right. Well, I assume there
18 will be a renewed motion to disqualify that will be
19 filed and then again set for a hearing once we
20 establish our procedure, but we can't do that until
21 we get what I directed you to produce within ten
22 days from Ms. Huffer.
Closing Statement Fraud - Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation
William J . Cook and his two partners Ryan Christopher Rodems and Chris A. Baker concocted a
closing statement fraud when they represented me in the Amscot
1
case by asserting a phony
claim of $50,000 in court-awarded fees and costs. However the district court did not award
any fees. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, and the matter settled for the
business reasons of Amscot while on appeal to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit, no. 01-14761-AA.
Mr. Cook and his partners took a 90% fee of a $56,000 total recovery, instead of a 45% fee
permitted by Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(5), which denied me and two other clients $9,143 each,
our lawful share of the $56,000 total recovery. This resulted in an unjust enrichment of $21,431
for Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., who paid me and the other two clients $2,000 each instead of
$9,143 each, causing each client a loss of $7,143. The preceding figures are not mine, but
determined in 2009 by Florida attorney Seldon J . Childers for me.
Mr. Cook claimed he was not required to disclose or itemize under Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) costs of
$3,580.67, or show $2,544.79 paid to Mr. Alpert, because AMSCOT Corporation separately
paid my attorneys $50,000.00 to compensate my attorneys for their claim against AMSCOT for
court-awarded fees and costs. But the claim to $50,000.00 for court-awarded fees and costs
was later determined false. There were no court-awarded fees of $50,000. Mr. Cooks Closing
Statement Fraud was a trick to evade the terms of the contingent fee agreement, and payment to
me of $9,143, my lawful share of the $56,000 total recovery. The closing statement is attached.
Prior to litigation I complained to The Florida Bar. In 2003 I called ACAP, RFA 03-18867. In
response Barker, Rodems & Cook accused me of criminal extortion. On J une 7, 2004 I made a
written complaint to The Bars Tampa Branch Office. Asst. Staff Counsel William L. Thompson,
opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C). Six months later Thompson was gone. Susan Bloemendaal
was then, and is today, Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel. Ms. Bloemendaal closed the
file by letter February 9, 2005 without a finding of misconduct.
Barker, Rodems & Cooks former representation of client Neil J . Gillespie
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA is a successor firm to Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook,
P.A. that formerly represented me in some of the same matters.
1
Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, and Neil Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation,
Case No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
3
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA (BRC) is a small, three partner law firm and Florida professional
service corporation formed August 4, 2000 with corporate officers, partners and key employee:
a. Chris A. Barker, Florida Bar ID no. 885568, president of BRC. (Barker)
b. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID no. 947652, vice president of BRC. (Rodems)
c. William J . Cook, Florida Bar ID no. 986194, secretary/treasurer of BRC. (Cook)
d. Lynne Anne Spina, notary public and legal assistant. (Spina)
Prior to BRC, Messrs. Barker, Rodems, Cook and Ms. Spina were employed by Alpert, Barker,
Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A., a law firm led by J onathan Alpert.
Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino & Cook, P.A (Alpert firm) was a law firm and Florida
professional service corporation that ended on or about December 8, 2000. The Alpert firm had
the following partners, associate, and key employee:
a. J onathan Louis Alpert, Florida Bar ID no. 121970 (partner)
b. Chris A. Barker, Florida Bar ID no. 885568 (partner)
c. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Florida Bar ID no. 947652 (partner)
d. David Dominick Ferrentino, Florida Bar ID no. 908754 (partner)
c. William J . Cook, Florida Bar ID no. 986194 (partner)
d. Scott J ames Flint, Florida Bar ID no. 85073 (associate)
e. Lynne Anne Spina, notary public and legal assistant
The Alpert firm is not a party to this action. BRC and the Alpert firm coexisted for a period of
four (4) months, August 4, 2000 through December 8, 2000.
The Alpert firm formerly represented me as a client in the AMSCOT case, and ACE Cash
Express case. I do not have a dispute with the Alpert firm. The Alpert firm is not part of this
litigation. I did not make complaints against the Alpert firm.
In addition to the loss sued for in Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation,
no. 01-14761-AA, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, William J . Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
(BRC) represented or consulted with me on other payday loan cases where I did not waive
conflict, did not initiate civil litigation against BRC, and did not make Bar complaints against
lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A:
Neil Gillespie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., case no. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B, in United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. (Circuit Court, Hillsborough
Consolidated Case No. 99-9730). This was a payday loan case like AMSCOT.
Other Matters Where BRC Formerly Represented Gillespie
William Cook and Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA consulted with me on disability and
employment matters where I did not waive conflict, did not initiate civil litigation against BRC,
and did not make Bar complaints against the lawyers at Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.:
4
EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater, National Cash Advance, Florida Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and St. Petersburg J unior College. The payday loan
matters with EZ Check Cashing of Clearwater and National Cash Advance began as
Alpert firm matters. The matters with the Florida DVR and St. Pete J unior College were
brought to the Alpert firm during the period of coexistence of the Alpert firm and BRC,
but put on hold until BRC was in full operation.
Documentary evidence that BRC formerly represented me, for the purpose of disqualification:
J anuary 16, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Neil Gillespie about lawsuit EZ Check
Cashing of Clearwater.
March 27, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Neil Gillespie about matter with the Florida
Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation.
May 25, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Neil Gillespie about matter with St. Petersburg
J unior College.
May 30, 2001 letter from BRC/Mr. Cook to Kelly Peterson, branch manager of National
Cash Advance, This firm represents Neil Gillespie
Mr. Rodems representation of Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA against me was the ULP
The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 417 (Fla. 1980). the single most important concern
in the Court's defining and regulating the practice of law is the protection of the public from
incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation.
I am a member of the public, and a FORMER CLIENT, harmed by Mr. Rodems UPL.
Rule 4-8.6 Authorized Business Entities (d) Violation of Statute or Rule. A lawyer who, while
acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, manager, agent, or employee of an
authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the
violation of...the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall be subject to disciplinary action.
Unfortunately The Florida Bar has failed to administer, apply, and interpret The Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar in a fair and unbiased manner without favoritism, extortion,
improper influence, personal self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest.
Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component of the administration of
justice, and, as such, his conduct is subject to judicial supervision and scrutiny. State ex
rel. Florida Bar v. Evans, 94 So.2d 730 (1957).
The Florida Bar has not held Mr. Rodems accountable to the Standards of Professionalism found
in Florida Supreme Court Order SC13-688:
5
1.1 Standards of Professionalism: The Standards of Professionalism are set forth in the
Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar, The Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism, The
Florida Bar Ideals and Goals of Professionalism, The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar
and the decisions of The Florida Supreme Court.
or Rules found in the Ethics Department Informational Packet Candor Toward the Tribunal, and
Rule 4-8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Rule 4-8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Florida Bar has not protected me from Mr. Rodems UPL as defined by Rule 10-2.1(a),
Rules Governing Unlicensed Practice, 10-2 Definitions
Rule 10-2.1. Generally
(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law shall mean the practice
of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.
The Florida Bar has not protected me from Mr. Rodems UPL as prohibited by The Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar, and case law like McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc, especially,
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. Mr. Rodems representation of his firm
and partner against me, a former client violated (a) Representing Adverse Interests (2)
substantial risk that the representation of his firm and partner materially limited the
lawyer's responsibilities to me, a former client, by a personal interest of Mr. Rodems. See
Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems &
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, J uly 9, 2010, 05-CA-7205, 190 pages and posted on
Scribed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-
Christopher-Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-J uly-09-2010
Rule 4-1.9 Conflict of Interest; Former Client. A lawyer shall not (a) represent another
person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are
materially adverse to the interests of the former client. (b) use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client. (c) reveal information relating to
the representation about the client. Mr. Rodems firm and law partner represented me the
Amscot and ACE lawsuits, and consulted with me on disability matters with Florida
DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR, and other matters. Id. at Emergency Motion to
Disqualify Ryan Christopher Rodems J uly 9, 2010.
Rule 4-1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest (a) Imputed Disqualification of All
Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing
so. Mr. Rodems has an imputed disqualification because his law firm and partner William
Cook previously represented me. Id. at Emergency Motion to Disqualify Ryan
Christopher Rodems J uly 9, 2010.
6
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995, see Exhibit 3.
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and
any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to
disqualify counsel, movant must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and
that the matters in pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter or cause of
action. [3] In determining whether attorney-client relationship existed, for purposes of
disqualification of counsel from later representing opposing party, a long-term or
complicated relationship is not required, and court must focus on subjective expectation
of client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] For matters in prior representation to be
"substantially related" to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify
counsel, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons would
understand as important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship between
instant case in which law firm represented defendant and issues in which firm had
previously represented plaintiffs created irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that
confidential information was disclosed to firm, requiring disqualification. [8]
Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior representation of
opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
Failure of The Florida Bar to Uphold Disability Statutes and Regulations, Etc.
The Florida Bar has not upheld disability statutes or regulatory provision that either are designed
to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves or establish a
duty to take precautions to guard a certain class of persons from a specific type of injury. Failure
to do so establishes negligence per se. Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d
1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 3d Dist. 1978).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)
Chapter 825 et seq., Fla. Stat., Abuse and Exploitation of Disabled Adults
Stalking or harassment, 784.048(2) and (4), Fla. Stat., and violation of court-imposed
prohibition thereof, which is crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 16(b) (2000), see In re Fernando
MALTA-Espinoza, Respondent, DOJ File A92 717 834 - Eloy
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et. seq.
Federal Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801
Counsel appointment, C.A.11, Addenda Five, 11th Cir. R., Non-Criminal J ustice Act
ABA Basic Principles of a Right to Counsel in Civil Legal Proceedings
Pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam); I was wrongly sanctioned $11,550 thereof.
Under the Eggshell Skull Rule, defendant is liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon
reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. If the defendant commits a tort against the
plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury that is magnified by
the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule
Main Office
400Nonh Tampa Street, Suite3200 300Nonh Hogan Street, Suite 700
o
o
Tampa, Florida 33602 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4270
813/274-6000
904/301-6300
813/274-6200(Fax) 904/301-6310(Fax)
2110FirstStreet, Suite3-137
u.s. Department of Justice
501 WestChurch Street, Suite300
FonMyers, Florida 33901 Orlando, Florida 32805
239/461-2200 United StatesAttorney 407/648-7500
239/461-2219(Fax) 407/648-7643(Fax)
MiddleDistrictof Florida
Replyto: Orlando, Florida
August1,2007
VIAUNITEDSTATESMAIL
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida34481
Re: YourJuly6, 2007letter
DearMr. Gillespie:
Thisis in responsetoyourJuly6, 2007letter. Asyou know, Iam nolongerwith
the FloridaAttorneyGeneral'sOffice. Ileftthatofficeattheend of2002, and Ihave
had no professionaldealingswithAceCash oranyofthe paydayloancasessincemy
departure. Forthatreason and others, IdonotbelievethatIamtheappropriateperson
towhomyourlettershould be directed. Asafederal prosecutor, Iam primarily
responsibleforprosecutingviolationsoffederal lawthatareinvestigated bylaw
enforcement. Yourrequestforan investigationneedsto bedirectedtoan investigating
agency.
Ihaveenclosedthematerialsthatyou sentme.
Sincerely,
JAMES R. KLINDT
By:
AssistantUnited StatesAttorney
13
o
o
Neil J. Gillespie
8092SW115
th
Loop
Ocala,FL 34481
Telephone:(352)854-7807
email:neilgillespie@mfi.net RECEIVED
U.S. ATTORNFY'S OFFlCE
llUL 09Z007
July6, 2007
MIDDLE DISTRICT at=: FLORIDA
ORLANDO
RogerB. Handberg,Assista
US AttorneyOffice
501 W. ChurchStreet, Suite
Orlando,FL32805-2281
ntUS Attorney
300
DearMr. Handberg,
Sometimeago,inyourpositionwiththeFloridaAttorneyGeneral,youroffice
intervenedinalawsuitwhereIwasaplaintiffina"paydayloan"lawsuit,Neil Gillespie
v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., caseno. 8:00-CV-723-T-23B,inUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,
MiddleDistrictofFlorida,TampaDivision. ImetyouduringamediationJune 12,2002,
attheofficeof GasperJ. Ficarrotta. JustpriortothemediationIcalledACE'scounsel,
PaulWatson,tocomplainaboutmyownlawyers' behaviorandtotrytosettlemy
involvementinthelawsuit. Iamwritingyouaboutthecrimesof myformerlawyers.
MylawyerwasWilliamJ. Cookof Barker,Rodems& Cook,P.A. Mr. Cook
beganrepresentingmewhilehewaswiththefirmAlpert,Barker,Rodems,Ferrentino&
Cook,P.A. Mr. CookalsorepresentedmeinanotherpaydayloancaseagainstAmscot
Corporation. ThatcasesettledOctober30,2001,andIsuspectedthatmylawyers
defraudedmeduringthesettlement,butIcouldnotproveitatthetime. Forexample,
Amscot'slawyer,JohnAnthony,initiallyofferedMr. Cooka$5,000.00"improperpayoff
attempt"tosettlethecase. ShortlythereafterMr. Cooktoldmethathehadreceiveda
$50,000.00court-awardforcostsandattorneys'fees, andthatthisawardtookprecedent
overourcontingentfeeagreement,therebylimitingmyrecovery.
In2003 IlearnedthatMr. Cookdidnotreceive$50,000.00incourt-awardedcosts
andattorneys' fees, andthatMr. Cookdefraudedme. IcontactedTheFloridaBar,but
myformerlawyersaccusedmeofextortionforutilizingBar'sAttorney Consumer
Assistance Program (ACAP)inagood-faithefforttoresolvemydisputewithout
litigation. In2005 Isuedmyformerlawyersforfraudandbreachofcontract,andthey
countersuedmeforlibeloveraletteraboutthebarcomplaint.
InitiallyIproceededprosebecauseIcouldnotfindalawyerwillingtolitigate
againstmyformerlawyers,inpartbecauseof theirreputation,whichIlaterlearned
Roger B. Handberg, s ~ n t US Attorney
o
Page - 2
July 6,2007
includes Mr. Alpert throwing coffee in the face of opposing counsel during a mediation.
Nonetheless I prevailed on Mr. Cook's motion to dismiss and Judge Nielsen found I
stated a cause of action for fraud and breach of contract. Ryan Rodems is representing
Mr. Cook and the firm, and shortly thereafter he filed a false affidavit about a threat of
violence. A voice recording of the conversation later proved Mr. Rodems lied,
committed perjury, and Judge Nielsen recused himself. The antics continued with Judge
Isom, and she recused herself. Now Judge Barton has the case. In April, 2007 I found a
lawyer in Gainesville willing to take the case, Robert W. Bauer, but the case has been
damaged due to Mr. Rodems perjury and obstruction ofjustice.
My former lawyers are incompetent, not just because they failed to prevail in any
of the payday loan claims, but because of the coffee-throwing and other antics. In my
view these lawyers are little more than criminals with law degrees. Their behavior is
outrageous, and certainly more grievous than that of the payday lenders they sued.
I am writing you today about the criminal fraud by my former lawyers. Also, I am
complaining about Mr. Rodems' perjury, obstruction ofjustice, and his threats of
criminal prosecution issued to me during the course of litigation. The local state attorney,
Mark Ober, has not responded to my correspondence.
Enclosed you will find Plaintiffs Motion for Punitive Damages Pursuant to
Section 768.72 Florida Statues, with supporting exhibits 1 through 50. I believe this
document sets forth the facts needed to assist with your evaluation of my request. Also
enclosed is an amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case of Cripe v. Leiter. Amicus HALT
argued that over-billing a client is not part of the practice oflaw, and that lawyers are
subject to statutory consumer protection law in dealing with their clients.
Thank you for your consideration.
enclosures
c o
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
1h
Loop
Ocala,FL34481
VIAUNITEDSTATESCERTIFIEDMAIL
Articleno.: 70060100000733661075
October2, 2007
RogerB. Handberg,AssistantUS Attorney
US AttorneyOffice
501 W. ChurchStreet,Suite300
Orlando,FL32805-2281
DearMr. Handberg,
ThankyouforyourletterofAugust 1, 2007. Afterreadingyourresponse,Iam
confusedwhenyoudirectedmetoaninvestigatingagencyforaninvestigationofmy
former lawyers'criminalconduct. Inmy lettertoyouofJuly6, 2007,IwrotethatI
contactedthelocal StateAttorney,MarkOber,butthathedidnotrespondtomy
correspondence. IalsoprovidedyoucopiesofmyletterstoMr. Oberasexhibitsto
PlaintiffsMotionforPunitiveDamagesPursuanttoSection768.72FloridaStatues,
specificallythreelettersgroupedasexhibitnumber47,lettersdatedMarch7
th
, 16
1h
and
24
Ih
,2006. Inaddition,IwroteMr. OberonJuly 15,2006requestingareplytomy
correspondence,buthedidnotrespond. Isn'tMr. Ober,theStateAttorneyforthe
ThirteenthJudicialCircuit,theproperinvestigatingagency? Ifnot,whois?
ItakeMr. Ober'sfailureto replyoracknowledgemycorrespondenceasevidence
ofhistacitapprovalofmyformerlawyers' wrongdoing. TheStateAttorney'sfailure
deniedmycivilrightstoequalprotectionunderlaw,therightto dueprocess,protection
fromwitnessintimidationand/ortampering,andobstructionofjustice.
Icontactedyoubecauseasafederal prosecutor,youareresponsiblefor
prosecutingviolationsoffederal law. InthisinstancetheStateAttorneyhasdeniedmy
civilrights. Citizenshavefederal civilrightsthatparalleltheirstatecivilrights,and
historicallywhenthestatefailsto upholdacitizen'scivilrights,theU.SDepartmentof
Justiceacts. ThatiswhyIbelieveyouhaveboththeauthorityanddutytoact.
~ y ,
a ~ ~ -
. ~ ~
c
o
U.S. Postal Service c'
U')
r'-
CERTIFIED MAILr.1 RECEIPT
CJ (DomesticMailOnly;NoInsuranceCoverageProvided)
M
.JJ
.JJ
IT!
r'- CertJfled Fee S2.65 O?_.... , ...
CJ
CJ Return Receipt Fee 1-------1/,7 '1.
CJ (Endorsement Required) S2.15.
'(: (
CJ Restricted Delivery Fee I------ - - ... ,-.
SOOO
(Endorsement Required) $ .5.21' I t no?
CJ Total Postage &Fees"
.JJ L..:. --1 U;.; rS
CJ ntop_ntt:> .
/$
,
,..)
../v
__
II)
'"
N
U1
r'-
CJ
M
.JJ
.JJ
IT!
IT!
r'-
CJ
CJ
a.
'a;
CJ
a:
CJ
E
CJ :>
M
m
a:
CJ
0
II
CD
..ll
E
0
8
0
r'-
g
0
I
C\l
2
as
.lJ
Ql
u-
ll:
T'""
.8 EO
T'""
,g
GO
C')
.2
E
0
U-
en
N a..
"PADDOCK BRANCH POST OFFICE"
OCALA, Florida
344749998
1143840606 -0093
10/02/2007 (352)861-8188 03:28:24 PM
Product
Receipt
Sale Unit Final
Description Oty Price Price
ORLANDO FL 32805 Zone-2
First-Class Letter
0.50 oz.
Return Rcpt (Green Card)
Certified
$0.41
$2.15
$2.65
Label #:
70060100000733661075
Issue PVI:
$5.21
Total:
$5.21
Paid by:
Cash
$5.25
Change Due:
-$0.04
Order stamps at USPS.com/shop or call
1-800-Stamp24. Go to USPS.com/clicknship
to print shipping labels with postage.
For other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS.
Bill#: 1000701736984
Clerk: 02
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.gallup.com/pos
TELL US ABOUT YOUR RECENT
POSTAL EXPERIENCE
YOUR OPINION COUNTS
****************************************
****************************************
Customer Copy
STATEOFFLORIDA
DEPARTMENTOFBANKINGAND FINANCE
AND
OFFICEOFTHEAnORNEYGENERAL
INRE:
ACECASHEXPRESS,INC.d/b/a
ACEAMERICA'SCASHEXPRESS, DBF CASE NO.: 9177-F-9/02
----------------
I
SETILEMENTAGREEMENT
TheFloridaDepartmentofBankingand Finance, Division ofSecuritiesandFinance
("DBF"),theOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral (UAttorneyGeneral")and ACECash Express, Inc.
d/b/aACEAmerica'sCashExpress("Respondent"or"ACE")agreeas follows:
1. JURISDICTION. OBFis charged\vith the administrationofChapter516, 560,
and 687,Florida andtheAttorneyGeneral ischarged\viththeadministrationof
Chapters501, 559,687, 895" and 896, FloridaStatutes. Thisagreementapplies toFlorida
transactionsonly.
2. BACKGROUND.
AttorneyGeneral
a. TheAttorneyGeneral movedtointerveneas plaintiffintwo civil cases
thatwerependingagainst contendingthatACEhad violated Chapters501,
516, 559, 687, 895, and 896, FloridaStatutes, in connection withdeferred
.
depositcheckcashingservices.providedby ACE in Floridapriorto ApriL.2000.
Thosecasesare: Eugene aJld Neil Gille.. \pie alld .. ofFlorida,
Office qfthe Atlorlley Gellert,l, Depllrtnlent ofLegal Affairs liS. ACE Cash
Express. IIIC., Allerilative FinclJlcia/, IIIC ofthe Treas11re Il1e., Raymond
c. Henln1ig, DOllold H. Neusll1dl. Kll)' I). Zilliox, J. Schmitt, and unknowl1
FINAL
entities Gnd individuals, No. 9909730, in the Circuit Court for
the Thirteenth Judicial District of Florida (the "Clement" case); and Betls v. Ace
Cash 927 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 2002), (the "Betts" case). DBF was
not a named party in either case.
b. ACE and the other defendants disagreed with the claims made by the
Plaintiffs and the Attorney General in each of those cases.
c. The Attorney General's Inotion to intervene in the Betts case was denied.
d. In the Clement case, the individual Plaintiffs' clailns were dismissed with
prejudice, leaving the Attorney General as the sole Plaintiff. The Attorney
General's RICO claims were dislnissed with prejudice and are subject ofa
pending appeal before the Second District Coul1 of AppeaJ ofFlorida styled ..')tate
ofFlorida, Qffice ofthe AI/oriley General v. Zilliox, Case No. 2002-2340
(consolidated with Case No. 2002-3] 13). All of the claims asserted bythe
Attorney General in' the Clement case are to be settled pursuant to this
Agreement, with the Attorney General voluntarily dismissing their claims.
e. ACE 'and the individual defendants have denied and continue to deny that
they engaged in any wrongdoing., and this Agreement shall not constitute any
adlnission of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of ACE or any of the
individual defendants.
f. The, Attorney General and ACE wish to avoid the time and expense
involved, in further litigation.
FINAL 2
Department of Banking and Finance
g. Goleta National Bank, a national bank located in Goleta, California
("Goleta"), has offered loans to residents of Florida since April 2000. ACE has
provided agency services to Goleta related to those loans in Florida. On October
25 and 28, 2002. ACE and Goleta entered into separate consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States ("OCC"), pursuant
to which Goleta agreed, among other things, to generally cease the origination,
renewal and rollover of its loans in Florida and ACE agreed, among other things,
to generally cease providing services to Goleta related to the origination, renewal
and rollover of such Goleta loans, both by no later than December 31, 2002.
Goleta, ACE and the OC..c agreed that the loans provided by Goleta and serviced
by ACE were made pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 85 and that the interest rate charged
by Goleta was permissible under the laws of the United States for national banks
located in the State of California. DBF was not a party to the agreement between
Goleta, ACE, and the OCC..
h. ACE also offers a bill paying service through which it offers to accept or
receive voluntary utility payments from its Florida customers and, for a fee,
electronically transmit the payment to the utility. The DBF has informed ACE
that to offer this service, ACE should be licensed as a Funds Transmitter under
Part II, Chapter 560, Florida Statutes. ACE disagrees with the position taken by
the DBF, but, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation. ACE agreed to
file, and has pending with OBF. an application to act as a Funds Transmitter
FINAL J
..,
underPartII.. Chapter560,FloridaStatutes. TheDBFwill issuethatlicense, as
well asthelicenseauthorizingACE toactasaDeferredPresentmentProvider
underPartIV, Chapter560,FloridaStatutes,onorbeforethe effectivedateofthis
Agreement. Aceagreesthatfuturetransactions involvingthetransmissionof
funds will begovernedbytheprovisionsofPart II, Chapter560, FloridaStatutes,
and ACE will complywiththoseprovisions in all futuretransactions.
i. ACE is licensedwith DBFas aCheck Casherunder PartIII, Chapter560,
FloridaStatutes.
PurooseandIntent
J. Thepartieswishtoresolveand to releaseanyclailnsthatwere asserted,or
could havebeenasserted,orcouldbeasserted, becauseoforarising from the
investigation,litigation,pr regulatoryreviewconductedbythe DBV orthe
AttorneyGeneral.
k. TheDBFagreesthatACEhas fullycooperatedwith itin this matter.
I. Itis theintentofthepartiesthatthisagreementbeimplementedpromptly,
and withoutinjuryorinconvenienceto ACE customers.
m. Itis.theintentofthepartiesthatOBF issueorrenewany authorizationor
licensenecessaryforACEto toofferservicesin Florida, including
deferredpresentmenttransactions.. checkcashing, bill paying
9
debitcard
transactions, money wiretransfersand otherproductsthatareauthorized
underFloridalaw.
n. It'istheintentofthepartiesthatthisagreementbeimplementedwithout
causingcompetitivedisadvantageto ACE..
FINAL 4
3. CONSIDERATION. ACE, the DSF, and the Attorney General agree as follows:
8. ACE will cease providing agent services to Goleta in connection with the
origination,:'-enewal, or rollover of any Goleta loans in the State of Florida by
December 31, 2002. ACE may, howevef, continue to provide services to Goleta
related to the servicing and collection of Goleta loans originated, renewed, or
rolled overin the State of Florida before January 1, subject to paragraph
3(g) below.
b. ACE has applied fOf.. and DBF agrees to issue upon the issuance of the
final order contelnplated by this agreelnent, a license with an effective date of
December 30, 2002, authorizing ACE to act as a Deferred Presentment Provider
under Part IV, Chapter Florida Statutes. ACE agr,ees not to enter into any
deferred presentment trapsactions in Florida unless such deferred presentment
transactions are completed in accordance with Part IV-, Chapter 560, Florida
Statutes. DBF agrees that ACE may act as a Deferred Presentment Provider under
Part IV, Chapter 560.. Florida Statutes, and as a Funds Transmitter under Part II,
Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, between December 30, 2002 and the issuance of
the final' order, provided that all such funds transmission .and .deferred presentment
transactions engaged in during this tilne period are otherwise completed in
accordance with Part II, Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and Part IV, Chapter 560,
Florida Statutes. OBF agrees that this is consistent with the public interest and
will not constitute a violation of this Agreement or any applicable law, including
but not limited t0
9
501 .. 516,559,560,687,895 and 896, Florida
Statutes, or an Rules related to those statutes.
FINAL 5
c. ACE represents and warrants that it has obtained the consent of Goleta so
that no Goleta loans entered into before 'the effective date of this Agreement will
be extendect (except for the custolners' five-day extension options that are part of
the terms ofoutstanding loans) or converted, without full payment by the Goleta
loan customers, to any other type of transaction. Where applicable., ACE agrees
that it will not otler deferred presentlnent services to a Goleta loan customer
unless that customer's Goleta loan is or cancelled in accordance with
paragraph 3(g)-below. DBF agrees that the continued services provided under
the Goleta loan prograln authorized by this and by paragraph 3(a)
above are consistent with the public interest and will not constitute a violation of
this Agreement or any applicable including but not lilnited to, Chapters 501,
516.. 559, 560, 687, 8951lnd 896, Florida Statutes., or any Rules related to those
statutes.
d. DBF agrees to issue to ACE licenses pursuant to Part II, Chapter 560,
Florida Statutes, and Part IV, Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, with an effective date
of December 30, 2002 upon the issuance of the final order contemplated in this
Agreement. ACE and the DSF agree that, until the issuance of the final
contemplated in this. agreement.. ACE will continue to offer its bill paying service
in order to avoid injury to those customers who rely on that service. DBF and the
Attorney General agree that continuing to offer that service is consistent with the
public interest and will not constitute a violation of this Agreement or any
applicable law, including but not limited to, Chapters 501 .. 516, 559, 560, 687,
895, and 896.. Florida Statutes, or any Rules related to those statutes.
FINAL 6
e. DBF acknowledges that no additional in.formation is needed from ACE for
it to issue the Ijcenses contemplated by this Agreement..
f: ACe agrees to paya total of $500,000 in settlement and for issuance by
DBF of authorizations, licenses, or other approvals necessary for ACE to continue
in business in Florida, and for the releases in paragraphs 7 and 8 below. Of the
$500.000 total settlelnent, ACE has agreed to pay $250,000 to the DBF
Regulatory Trust Fund in full satisfaction of all attorney's fees, costs, and other
expenses incurred by the DBF in connection with this matter and, ACE has agreed
to deliver to the Attorney General, a contribution of$250,000 to the Florida State
University College of Law in full satisfaction of all attorney's fees, costs and
other expenses incurred by the Attorney General in connection with this matter.
These amounts will be p ~ by check, and will be delivered to the DBF or the
Attorney General upon entry of the Final Order as provided for herein.
g. ACE represents and warrants that it has obtained the consent of Goleta so
that loans that are delinquent as of October I,2002. and remain unpaid as of the
effective date of this agreement, from customers who engaged in Goleta loan
transactions commenced or originated before October I, 2002 in Florida
(collectively" the "Goleta Loan Custonlers") need not be repaid,. and the debt
owed to Goleta from Goleta Loan Customers will be cancelled.
h. If Goleta, either directly or through ACE, its agent,. .has notified a credit-
reporting agency ofa Goleta Loan Customer's delinquent debt to Goleta, then
ACE represents and warrants that it has obtained the consent of Goleta for ACE to
notify the credit agency that the delinquent amount has been cancelled. .
FINAL 7
I. In addition to the amount specified in paragraph 3(f) above, ACE will pay
up to $15,000 for an independent audit of the loan cancellations provided in
paragraph above, the credit reporting notifications provided in paragraph 3
(h) above, and verification of compliance with the transition from the Goleta loan
product to the state licensed product contemplated in paragraph 3(b) and 3(c)
above. DBF will select the independent auditor, after consultation with ACE.
The independent auditor selected will be required to report to the DBF within 90
days of the selection.
j. The entry ofa Final Order by OBF in the form of the Attachment to this
agreement.
k. Within 10 days after the entry of the final order contemplated herein, the
Attorney General will with prejudice its lawsuit, Eugene R. Clement alld
Neil Gillespie and State ofFlorida. qffice ofthe Attorney General, Department of
Legal Affairs vs. ACE Cash Express, IIlC., Altemative Financial, Inc., JS ofthe .
Treasure Coast, blc.,.Raymond C. Hemmig, DOllald H. Neustadt, Kay D. Zil/iox,
RonaldJ. Schmitt, alld unknown emilies and Consolidated Case No.
9909730, in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District of Florida, as to
all defendants.
1. Within 10 days after the entry of the final order contemplated in 30)
above, the Attorney General will dismiss with prejudice its appeal ofany orders in
the Clement case..litigation. including State ofFlorida, Office ofthe Attorney
General v. Zi//iox, Case No. 2002-2240 and Slale ofFlorida, Office ofthe
Attomey Gener,,1 1'. AItematil;e FiflCI/lc:i"t, /flC., Case No. 2002-3113.
FINAL 8
4. CONSENT. Without adlnitting or denying any wrongdoing, Respondent
consents to the issuance by the DBF ofa Final Order, in substantially the form of the attached
Final Order, which the terms of this Agreelnent.
5. FINAL ORDER. The Final Order incorporating this Agreelnent is issued
pursuant to Subsection 120.57(4),. Florida Statutes, and upon its issuance shall be a final
administrative order.
6. WAIVERS. Respondent knowingly and voluntarily waives:
a. its right to an adlninistrative hearing provided for by Chapter 120, Florida
Statutes,. to contest the specific agreements included in this Agreement;
b. any requirelnent that the Final Order incorporating this Agreenlent contain
separately stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or Notice of Rights;
c. its right to the isslJance ofa Recommended Order by an administrative law
judge froln the Division of Adlninistrative Hearings or froln the DBF;
d. any and all rights to object to or challenge in any judicial proceeding,
including but not limited to, an appeal pursuant to Section 120.68.. Florida
Statutes, any aspect, provision or requirement concerning the content, issuance,
procedure or timeliness of the Final Order incorporating this Agreement; and
e. any causes of action in law or in equity, which Respondent may have
arising out of the specific matters addressed in this agreement. DBF for itself and
the DBF.Released Parties, this release and waiver by Respondent without
in any way acknowledging or admitting that any such calise of action does or may
exist, and DBF, for and the DBF Released Parties, expressly denies that any
such right or cause of action does in .fact exist.
FINAL 9
7. ATIORNEY GENERAL The Attorney Genera]9 for himselfand
his predecessors. successors and assigns, hereby waives, releases and forever discharges ACE, its
predecessors, successors, aniliates, subsidiaries and parent corporations, shareholders, directors,
officers, attorneys, employees, agents.. franchisees and assigns, and Goleta, and its predecessors,
successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and parent corporations, shareholders, directors, officers,
attorneys, employees, agents, franchisees and assigns (collecti,vely, the "ACE Released Parties"),
from any and all claims, demands.. causes of action.. suits, debts, dues.. duties, sums of money,
accounts, fees, penalties, damages, judglnents'l 'Iiabi-tities and obligations, both contingent and
fixed, known and unknown.. foreseen and unforeseen. anticipated and unanticipated, expected
and unexpected, related to or arising out of Goleta's or ACE's operations in Florida prior to the
effective date of this agreement. This release includes.. but is not limited to, any claims related to
any loans renewed, or rolled over.bY Goleta in Florida and any services provided by ACE
or its franchisees related thereto.. any clainls related to any violation of Chapters 501,516,559,
560,687, 772, 895 and 896, Florida any clailns related to check cashing services
provided prior to the effective date of Part IV, Chapter 560, Florida and any claims
related to any licensing requirements for the services provided by ACE to its customers in
Florida prior to the effective date of this agreement. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, this release also includes all claims asserted or that could have been or could be
asserted against the parties named as defendants or that could have been named as defendants in
ElIgel1e R Clen1ell1 alld Neil Gi//eSlJie clIld (!f Flori,la, ofthe Att()rlley Gel/era!, .
Departn1!11t ofLegal A.ffairs liS. Ex/Jress. IIIC., A/JerI/alive Financial, [IIC., ,)5' a/the
rreaS!,re (;oast. IIIC., Raynl011d !-!enlnlig, [Jollald H. Neustadt. Kay [J. Zilliox, ROl1ald J.
GIld l1111a,OlVII entities and iJ,divi,hlllls, No. 99 09730. ACE, for itself
FINAL 10
and on behalf of the ACE Released Parties, accepts this release and waiver by the Attorney
General without in any way acknowledging or adlnitting that any such cause of action does or
may exist, and ACE, for and on behalf of the ACE Released Parties, expressly denies that
any such right or cause of action does in fact exist. Respondent hereby releases and
forever discharges the Attorney General and his respective employees.. agents, and
representatives (collectively, the lL Attorney'General Released Parties") from any causes of action'
in law or in equity, which Respondent may have arising out of the specific matters in
this agreement. The Attorney General, for themselves and the Attorney General Released
Parties, accept this release and waiver by Respondent without in any way acknowledging' or
admitting that any such cause of action does or may exist, the Attorney General, for himself and
the Attorney General Released Parties, expressly deny that any such right or cause of action does
in fact exist.
8. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE RELEASE. The DBF, for
itself and its predecessors, successors and assigns, hereby waives, releases and forever
discharges ACE and its predecessors, successors, subsidiaries and parent corporations,
shareholders, directors, officers, attorneys, elnployees, agents, franchisees andass-igns, and
Goleta, and its predecessors.. successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and parent corporations,
shareholders, directors, officers, attorneys.. employees, agents, franchisees and assigns
(collectively, the "ACE Released Parties"), froln any and all claims, demands, causes ofaction,
suits, debts, dues, duties, sums of money, accounts, fees, penalties, damages.. judgments,
liabilities and obligations, both contingent and fixed, known and unknown, foreseen and
unforeseen, anticipated and un.anticipated, expected and related to or arising out of
the conduct of ACE and/or Goleta in connection with the offering of deferred presentment
FINAL 11
services or loans in \vhere such conduct occurred prior to the effective date of this
Agreement.. This release includes.. but is not liJnited to, any claims related to any.loans made,
renewed, or rolled over by poleta in 'Florida and any services provided by ACE or its franchisees
related thereto, any claims related to any violation of Chapters 501, 516, 559, 560,687, 772, 895
and 896, Florida LS'tatllles.. any claims related to check cashing selVices provided prior to the
effective date of Part IV, Chapter 560, F/orid(J .."Illlllles, and any claims related to any licensing
requirements for the services provided by ACE to its custolners in Florida prior to the effective
date of this Agreelnent. ACE, for itself and on behalf of the ACE Released Parties, accept this
release and waiver by the Attorney General and the DBF without in any way acknowledging or
adtnitting that any such cause of action does or may and ACE
9
for itself and on behalf of
the ACE Released Parties, expressly denies that any such right or cause of action does in fact
exist.
9. EXCLUSION. This release does not include any claiIns under Chapter 560,
Florida Statutes, against franchisees of ACE related to deferred presentment transactions
engaged in after the effective date of Part IV.. Chapter 560" Florida Statutes, unless such
transactions were under the Goleta loan program.
10. ATTORNEYS' FEES. Each party to this Agreement shalJ be solely
for its separate costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the prosecution, defense or negotiation in
this matter up to entry of the Final Order incorporating this Agreelnent and the dismissals by the
Attorney General provided for in 3 (k) and 3 (I) above.
11. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this agreement is December 2002.
12. FAILURE TO COMPLY. Nothing in this Agreelnent limits Respondent's right
to contest any finding or determination made by DBF or the Attorney General concerning
FINAL 12
Respondent's alleged failure to comply with any of the terms and provisions ofthis Agreement
or of the Final Order incorporating this Agreement.
WHEREFORE. in of the foregoing. DBF. the Attorney General. and ACE
execute this Agreement on the dates indicated below.
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE
By: Date:
D N SAXON
Division Director
OFFICE 0t)TR
By:
Date:
RICHARD DORAN. Attorney General
ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC., d/b/a
ACE AMERICA'S CASH EXPRESS
By: Date:
ERIC C. NORRINGTON
Vice President
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF _
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority. personally appeared
as of ACE CASH EXPRESS. TNC.. d/b/a ACE AMERICA'S CASH
EXPRESS, who is personally known to me or who has produced
______--'- as identification. and who. after being duly sworn. states that he
has read and understands the contents of this Agreement and voluntarily executed the same on
behalfof ACE CASH EXPRESS. INC.. d/b/a ACE AMERICA'S CASH EXPRESS.
FINAL 13
Respondent'sallegedfailuretocomp1y any of thetennsarid provisionsofthisAgreement
oroftheFinalOrderincorporatingthisAgreement.
WHEREFORE.inconsidirationoftheforegoing, DBF,theAttome}"General,andACE
1.
executethisAgreementonthedatesindicatedbelow.
DEPARTMENT OF BANKINGAND FINANCE
By: Date:
DON SAXON
DivisionDirector
Date:
OFFICEOF
By:
RICHARDDORAN,AttorneyGeneral
ACECASHEXPRESS,INC.,d/b/a
ACEA RICA'SCASHEXPRESS
By: Date:
STATEOFFLORlDA
COUNTYOF
----
BEFOREME\the-undersignedauthority,personallyappeared _
as of ACE CASHEXPRESS,INC.,dIo/a ACE AMERICA"S CASH
EXPRESS,who is personallyknowntomeor\vhohasproduced
___________as identification,andwho, afterbeingdulysworn,statesthathe
hasreadandunderstandsth-econtentsofthisAgreementandvoluntarilyexecutedthesameon
behalfofACECASHEXPRE-SS.INC.,d/b/aACE AMERICA'8CASHEXPRESS.
FINAL 13
SWORNANDSUBSCRI.BEDbeforeme this__dayof ,2002.
NOTARY PUBLIC
StateofFlorida
Print Nalne:
My COlnlnission No.:
My C0111111ission Expires:
(SEAL)
FINAL 14
A
ACE Cash Express, Inc.
1231 Greenway Drive #600
Irving, Texas 75038
A"CE
(972) 550-5000
AIoIf",.."iC<\JIr'",'Ue
INVOICE
COMMENT GROSS DEDUCTION AMOUNTPAID
NUMBER DATE
12123/02 12123/02 Settlement
250,000.00 250.000.00
PAYMENTADVICE
WELLSFARGOBANK
A
CHECK
ACE Cash Express, Inc. NUMBER 005132
1231 Greenway Drive #600
Irving, Texas 75038
ACE
(972) 550-5000
AMf'CA'SGuNUJlfUJe
DATE AMOUNT
12/19/02 $**.... ~ 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0
PAY TwoHundredFiftyThousand 00/1 00dollars**....*****************..*************************'*******....*****..*******'**'*
TOTHEORDEROF
FlordiaState UniversityCollegeofLaw
425WestJeffersonStreet
Tallahassee, FL32306 ..
.
liP
liP
II005 Ii :I 211 I:~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ?a?0I:..? 5 b30011811
8