Turner v. Rogers, October 2010 Term, Docket 10-10
For the politically motivated arrest warrant of Judge James Arnold , scroll down to the middle of the page
US Supreme Court, Turner v. Rogers
SCOTUSblog Turner v. Rogers, Docket 10-10
Supreme Court Of The United States Blog
TURNER v. ROGERS, Slip Opinion, 564 U. S. ____ (2011)
Argued March 23, 2011 - Decided June 20, 2011
10-10 Turner v Rogers.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [226.4 KB]
Turner v. Rogers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. __ (2011) is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, that held that a state must provide safeguards to reduce the
risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases such as child support cases. The decision, however, stopped short of requiring that a state provide counsel to indigent defendants in
civil contempt cases. Read more
Supreme Court Finds No Automatic Right to Counsel in Child Support Contempt Proceedings
ABA Journal Law News Now
by Debra Cassens Weiss
June 20, 2011
The U.S. Supreme Court has found no automatic right to counsel for indigent civil defendants facing jail time, though it ruled on behalf of a father who served a year in
prison for failing to pay child support.
The father, Michael Turner, was deprived of his 14th Amendment right to due process, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision.
Free lawyers aren't required in such situations, but states must have procedural safeguards in place to help determine whether the parent is able to comply with the
support order, according to the majority opinion (PDF) by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Turner had told the trial judge who sentenced him to prison that he was unable to pay because "dope had a hold to me" until he broke his back and was laid up for two
months. "And, now I’m off the dope and everything," he told the court. "I just hope that you give me a chance."
The judge sentenced Turner to a year in jail without making an express finding about his ability to pay. Turner's appeal, brought with the help of a pro bono lawyer,
argued he had the right to counsel at his contempt hearing.
Breyer's opinion found that Turner did not get due process in his case, but said a lawyer was not an automatic requirement.
The 14th Amendment’s due process clause allows a state to provide fewer procedural protections to civil contempt defendants than in a criminal case, which is governed by
the Sixth Amendment, Breyer said. He noted that both parties in a child support case are often unrepresented by lawyers, and providing a lawyer to just the noncustodial parent "could create an
asymmetry of representation" altering significantly the nature of the proceeding.
He also noted the argument of the Solicitor General that alternate procedural safeguards can help reduce the risk of wrongful incarceration. They include: notice that
ability to pay is a critical issue, the use of a form to elicit financial information, an opportunity for the defendant to answer questions about his financial status, and an express finding by the
court on ability to pay.
Breyer said his opinion does not address a situation where child support is owed to the state, possibly as reimbursement of welfare payments to the parent with custody.
Nor does the opinion address the due-process requirement for counsel in a particularly complex case.
Four dissenting justices agreed there is no right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants facing incarceration in civil contempt proceedings. They would not have
reached the issue of the need for alternative procedural safeguards.
The ABA had argued in
an amicus brief that poor people should have the right to a lawyer in civil contempt proceedings carrying a threat of jail time. The case is Turner v. Rogers. Read more
ABA Brief Supports Right to Counsel for Civil Contempt Defendants Facing Possible Jail Time
ABA Journal, Law News Now
By: Debra Cassens Weiss
January 12, 2011
The ABA argues in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief that poor people should have the right to a lawyer in civil contempt proceedings carrying a threat of jail
time.
The petitioner in the case, Michael Turner, served a year in prison for failing to pay child support. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled the sentence was coercive,
rather than punitive, and Turner had no right to a lawyer.
According to the brief (PDF), the ABA has concluded that
low-income people should have a right to counsel in adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving sustenance, safety, health, or child custody determinations.
The rationale underlying this position also supports a right to counsel in civil contempt cases where an indigent defendant faces possible jail time.
The ABA also notes the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice support a right to counsel when incarceration is a possibility. “The line between civil and criminal contempt proceedings has become increasingly blurred,” the brief says, “and thus cannot provide a useful basis for determining the right to counsel where personal liberty is at stake.”
The brief argues that the added costs of appointed counsel should be balanced with the costs of incarceration and the possible increased support payments. Read more
Concurring Opinions, Turner v. Rogers
Online Symposium on the implications of Turner v. Rogers. It is being moderated by Richard Zorza and David Udell of the Cardozo Law School National Center for Access to Justice.
Judge James D. Arnold
800 E. Twiggs St., Room #514
Tampa, Florida 33602
Courtroom #501
Judicial Assistant: Judy D. Williams
phone: (813) 272-6991
Judge Arnold does not permit pro se litigants to appear telephonically at hearings. Pro se litigants cannot set motions using JAWS, the Judicial Automated Workflow System used by attorneys to calendar and set motions for hearings. Read more about Judge Arnold and his procedures and preferences here
Judge James D. Arnold wrongfully issued a politically motivated arrest warrant on the motion of Ryan Christopher Rodems in Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Circuit Court, Fla.
Motion To Strike Notice of Assignment of Claims, Motion to Strike Dismissal of Action with Prejudice, Motion To Strike Settlement Agreement Made While In Custody of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO)
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, et al.
Case No. 5:10-cv-00503, US District Court, MD Florida, Ocala
June 30, 2011, with exhibits
2011, 06-30-11, NJG Motion Strike, Set A[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [5.5 MB]
June 30, 2011, without exhibits
2011, 06-30-11, NJG Motion Strike, Set A[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [657.2 KB]
June 30, 2011
2011, 06-30-11, Plaintiff NJG notice re [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [206.7 KB]
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, Appeal
Case No. 2D10-5197, 2d DCA, Florida
July 11, 2011
2011, 07-11-11, ORDER, appellees directe[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [255.8 KB]
July 1, 2011, Case No. 2D10-5197, 2d DCA, FL
2011, 07-01-11. Motion to Reinstate Dism[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [12.6 MB]
July 1, 2011, Case No. 2D10-5197, 2d DCA, FL
2011, 07-01-11. Motion to Reinstate Dism[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [457.3 KB]
Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al.
Case No. 05-CA-007205, Hillsborough Co., Florida
July 6, 2011, Motion to Strike Settlement Agreement
2011, 07-06-11, Motion Strike Joint Stip[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [193.4 KB]
July 6, 2011, Motion to Strike Settlement Agreement
2011, 07-06-11, Motion Strike Joint Stip[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [12.8 MB]
Plaintiff’s Motion To Quash Writ Of Bodily Attachment And To Recind Warrant For Plaintiff’s Arrest
June 16, 2011
2011, 06-16-11, P's Motion Quash Writ Bo[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [448.0 KB]
June 16, 2011
2011, 06-16-11, Notice of Appearance, EP[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [71.5 KB]
June 16, 2011
2011, 06-16-11, TRANSCRIPT, Judge Arnold[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [67.8 KB]
Hearing On Civil Contempt With Incarceration
Link to the Hillsborough Clerk of Court docket. Search for case 05-CA-007205 on "Case Number Search". Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
June 1, 2011
2011, 06-01-11, Active Arrest Order, war[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [39.0 KB]
June 1, 2011
2011, 06-01-11, Writ of Bodily Attachmen[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [49.8 KB]
June 1, 2001
2011, 06-01-11, Order Relieving Public D[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [54.9 KB]
June 1, 2011
2011, 06-01-11, Public Defender Motion F[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [182.3 KB]
June 1, 2011
2011, 06-01-11, TRANSCRIPT, Judge Arnold[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [43.1 KB]
Letter to Judge Arnold, cannot appear unrepresented at contempt hearing
May 27, 2011
The Honorable James D. Arnold
Circuit Court Judge
Circuit Civil Division J
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 514
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, Case No. 05-CA-7205, Circuit Civil Division J, Hillsborough County, Florida
Dear Judge Arnold:
Please find enclosed courtesy copies of the following:
1. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, ADA ACCOMODATION REQUEST, and MEMORANDUM OF LAW
2. VERIFIED NOTICE OF FILING DISABILITY INFORMATION
OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Please note that Mr. Rodems mislead you during the hearing about my attempts to resolve this matter. Please read the motion for appoint of counsel, and my letter to Mr.
Rodems dated November 8, 2010, copy attached with notice of filing. Mr. Rodems also mislead you about my disability and ADA requests. Please see the notice of filing disability
information.
I cannot appear at any contempt hearing without counsel. I cannot have unmoderated contact with Mr. Rodems, his partners or employees. I may file an emergency stay with
the US Supreme Court. If the hearing is not canceled or I do not obtain counsel I may file chapter 7 bankruptcy which will dispose of defendants’ judgment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
(352) 854-7807
cc: Mr. Rodems, letter only
Enclosures
May 27, 2011
2011, 05-27-11, NJG to Judge Arnold, can[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [542.9 KB]
May 27, 2011
2011, 05-27-11, Notice, NJG disability i[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [123.4 KB]
May 24, 2011
2011, 05-24-11, P's Motion For Appointme[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [308.7 KB]
May 24, 2011, with Exhibits 1-45
2011, 05-24-11, P's Motion For Appointme[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [26.5 MB]
Plaintiff's Amended ADA Accomodation Request, 2007
March 5, 2007
2007, 03-05-07, Plaintiff's Amended Acco[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [320.7 KB]
Perjury Complaint Against Mr. Rodems to Tampa Police
February-March 2010
Perjury complaint against Mr. Rodems to [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [2.9 MB]
Misuse of Discovery - $11,550 Sanctions, Contempt, Incarceration, Bribery of Judges
From the outset of this case opposing counsel has misused discovery as a trip-and-trap model to obtain sanctions, and now incarceration, to force a settlement. In Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971) the United States Supreme Court found that pro se pleadings should be held to "less stringent standards" than those drafted by attorneys. For more, see Motion For Reconsideration, $11,550 Sanctions, June 18, 2010, below in PDF.
The rules of discovery are designed to secure the just and speedy determination every action (In re Estes’ Estate, 158 So.2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1963),
to promote the ascertainment of truth (Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services, Inc. 739 So.2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999), and to ensure that judgments are rested on the real merits of causes
(National Healthcorp Ltd. Partnership v. Close, 787 So.2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001), and not upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel. (Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, State
Dept. of Transp. 344 So.2d 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1977).
June 18, 2010
2010, 06-18-10, Motion for Reconsiderati[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [4.5 MB]
July 27, 2010
2010, 07-27-10, Notice Of Fraud On The C[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [4.6 MB]
June 14, 2010
2010, 06-14-10, P's motion cancel deposi[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [2.1 MB]
July 7, 2010
2010, 07-07-10, P's Notice of Filing, NJ[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [2.3 MB]
December 15, 2009
2009, 12-15-09, Plaintiff's motion hold [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [2.9 MB]
2008 appeal of $11,550 sanction, Initial Brief 2D08-2224
July 3, 2008 by Robert W. Bauer, Esq. (Appeal Denied)
2DCA appeal of $11,550 sanction, Initial[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1.4 MB]
2011, Rule 22 Application, Justice Thomas, SCOTUS
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Emergency Petition For Writ of Prohibition
Application to Justice Clarence Thomas
June 11, 2011
2011, 06-11-11, Application to Justice T[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [350.8 KB]
June 15, 2011
2011, 06-15-11, reply by Clayton R. Higg[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [37.8 KB]
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Emergency Petition For Stay or Injunction
Application to Justice Clarence Thomas
May 31, 2011, With exhibits 2- 4, 6, 9-10
2011, 05-31-11, Application to Justice T[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [673.7 KB]
June 2, 2011
2011, 06-02-11, reply by Danny Bickell, [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [46.7 KB]
More case documents, Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., Case No. 05-CA-007205
Notice of Appeal, Final Summary Judgment, Count 1
October 22, 2010
2010, 10-22-10, Notice of Appeal, w atta[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1.7 MB]
Emergency Motion Disqualify Defendants' Counsel
July 9, 2010
2010, 07-09-10, Emergency Motion to Disq[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [13.1 MB]
Plaintiff's Motion Reconsideration, Disq[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1.5 MB]
TRANSCRIPT, Judge Isom, Hearing Feb-05-2[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [3.4 MB]
February 4, 2006, Case No. 05-CA-7205
Plaintiff's Motion Disqualify Counsel (R[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [187.5 KB]
April 25, 2006 (Rodems 05-CA-7205)
TRANSCRIPT, Judge Nielsen, Hearing Disqu[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1.5 MB]
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, May 5, 2010
May 5, 2010
2010, 05-05-10, Plaintiff's First Amende[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [5.3 MB]
Plaintiff’s Motion For Rehearing
July 16, 2008, Tanya Uhl, Law Office Robert W. Bauer
2008, 07-16-08, Plaintiff's motion for r[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [689.0 KB]
Plaintiff’s Motion For Punitive Damages, 768.72 Fla Stat
January 18, 2007
2007, 01-18-07, P's motion for Punitive [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [2.8 MB]
January 18, 2007
2007, 01-18-07, P's motion for Punitive [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [11.8 MB]
Plaintiff's Motion Sum Judg, April 2006 (not heard)
April 25, 2006
2006, 04-25-06, P's Motion for Summary J[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [3.2 MB]
April 25, 2006
2006, 04-25-06, P's Affidavit in Support[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [213.1 KB]
Defendants' Answer and Libel Counterclain
January 19, 2006
2006, 01-19-06, Defendants Answer, Affir[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [512.5 KB]
Gillespie prevailed on Motion to Dismiss Jan-13-2006
January 13, 2006
2006, 01-13-06, Order on Defendants' Mot[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [101.0 KB]
October 31, 2005
2005, 10-31-05, P second rebuttal to D m[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1.3 MB]
October 10, 2005
2005, 10-10-05, D reply to P rebuttal, D[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [352.8 KB]
October 7, 2005
2005, 10-07-05, P rebuttal to D motion d[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [6.0 MB]
October 7, 2005
2005, 10-07-05, P notice of service case[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [3.8 MB]
August 29, 2005
2005, 08-29-05, Defendants' Motion to Di[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [87.4 KB]
Complaint, Fraud and Breach of Contract, Aug-11-2005
August 11, 2005
2005, 08-11-05, original pro se complain[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1.0 MB]
Federal Civil Rights, ADA, September 28, 2010
2010, 09-28-10, federal complaint, Gille[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [1.3 MB]
May 5, 2010
2010, 05-05-10, Plaintiff's First Amende[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [5.3 MB]
Indigent Determination
Allison Raistrick of the Clerk’s Indigent Screening Unit determined that I was indigent May 27, 2011, under section 27.52 Florida Statutes to appoint the public
defender. Judge Arnold relieved the public defender from representing me stating current law does not provide for counsel to represent indigent persons in this situation, a civil contemnor facing
incarceration.
Under section 27.52 a person is indigent if their income is equal to 200% or less of the federal poverty guidelines. The federal poverty guidelines for a single person
household is $10,890 per year per the US Department of Health and Human Services. 200% of that amount is $21,780. My disability income is $1,741 per month x 12 months, or $20,892 annually. So
my indigent status is borderline. See the following:
The Clerk of the Court denied my indigent status under section 57.082 Florida Statutes, and even refused to proved the application form to determine
indigence.
Under section 57.082(1) a person seeking relief from payment of filing fees based upon an inability to pay must apply to the clerk of the court for a determination of
civil indigent status using an application form developed by the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation with final approval by the Supreme Court.
Pursuant to 57.082(1)(b) The clerk shall assist a person who requests assistance in completing the application.
Pursuant to 57.082(2) The clerk of the court shall determine whether an applicant seeking such designation is indigent based upon the information provided in the
application and the criteria prescribed in this subsection. The Clerk failed to make the determination based on the application.
Pursuant to 57.082(a)1. An applicant is indigent if the applicant’s income is equal to or below 200 percent of the then-current federal poverty guidelines prescribed
for the size of the household of the applicant by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Pursuant to 57.082(d) The duty of the clerk in determining whether an applicant is indigent is limited to receiving the application and comparing the information
provided in the application to the criteria prescribed in this subsection. The determination of indigent status is a ministerial act of the clerk and may not be based on further investigation or the
exercise of independent judgment by the clerk. The clerk may contract with third parties to perform functions assigned to the clerk under this section. Since the clerk has not received or reviewed my
application, its determination that I am not indigent is unlawful. The Clerk wrote that the Court should make the final determination of indigent status.
Read my email with the Clerk of the Court about the foregoing, below in PDF.
Email, Clerk of Court, denied indigent, [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [402.7 KB]
Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Ocala, determined that I was indigent, see the letter below in PDF. Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida referred me to Bay Area Legal Services, Inc. of Tampa who determined that I was not indigent. Read below PDF.
June 3, 2011
2011, 06-03-11, Glenn Shuman to NJG, ref[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [67.2 KB]
June 6, 2011
2011, 06-06-11, letter from Joan Cain Bo[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [69.9 KB]
I was declared insolvent within the meaning of chapter 57, Florida Statutes, by the Second District Court of Appeal and it waived fees in three cases: 2D10-5197, 2D10-5529, and 2D11-2127. The Florida Supreme Court waived fees in case SC11-858.
Law review: Florida Civil Gideon
The 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) established that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to
afford their own attorneys.
The concept of Civil Gideon follows this line of reasoning. Talbot "Sandy" D’Alemberte wrote about the right to legal representation in civil cases in his law
review Tributaries of Justice: The Search For Full Access, 25 Fla. St. U. L. Rev 631
V. Tributary Four: A Civil Gideon Fund From A Service Tax On For-Profit Legal Services.
"Some court opinions hint that access to legal representation in civil cases might be a constitutional entitlement. footnote 58, See In re Amendments to Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar—1-3.1(a) and Rules of Judicial Administration—2.065 (Legal Aid), 598 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1992) (noting that "the right to counsel is no longer limited to criminal
cases")."
"Such a proposal has already been offered which estimates that a one percent sales tax would raise $20 million each year for a proposed state Civil Gideon Fund. footnote 59, See Keith Beyler &
Ronald Spears, Funding Access to Civil Justice 34 (May 14, 1992) (unpublished manuscript presented at the Illinois State Bar Association’s Allerton House Conference) (on file with author). A Civil
Gideon Fund is a fund designed to help meet the legal needs of the poor."
Talbot "Sandy" D’Alemberte, Spring, 1998
Tributaries of Justice, The Search For F[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [312.9 KB]
Talbot "Sandy" D’Alemberte
25 Fla. St. U. L. Rev 631.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [201.1 KB]
noting that "the right to counsel is no longer limited to criminal cases")
In re Amendments to Rules Regulating The[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [226.3 KB]
Print