Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony Tatti

Filing # 113156036 E-Filed 09/10/2020 01:36:04 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

CASE NO. 2020-CF-2417
vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

__________________________________/
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI

This Motion is Verified by Neil Joseph Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
The Defendant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, in the first
person, files Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti, and states:
1. I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti (“Judge Tatti”) as judge in,
STATE OF FLORIDA v NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE NO. 2020-CF-2417

STATE OF FLORIDA v NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330, Canon 3E(1) Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida,
Fla. Stat. § 38.10, and State ex rel. Davis v. Parks because I fear I will not receive a fair trial or
hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.

______________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I P.2 Opening Statement: The State’s Problem: Criminal Charges Without Merit
Section II P.3 Judge Tatti’s Prejudicial and Biased Appointment of Counsel
Section III P.6 Judge Tatti’s Prejudicial and Biased Demand for Competency Evaluation
Section IV P.10 Judge Tatti’s Conflict of Interest: Marion County Bar Association, Inc.
Section V P.13 Judge Tatti’s Conflict of Interest: Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Section VI P.14 Judge Tatti’s Nonsensical Order Striking Defendant’s Jury Trial Demanded
Section VII P.15 Judge Tatti and COVID-19 Complaint to Florida Department of Health
Section VIII P.16 Conclusion: Disqualification/Recusal of Judge Required as Matter of Law
Sections A-E P.16 Legal Argument Section Follows Section VIII
Affidavit of Neil Joseph Gillespie Re: Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti
Appendix A Transcript of hearing July 9, 2020 on State’s Motion To Revoke Bond 19-CF-4193
Appendix B Transcript of arraignment July 28, 2020 in Case 20-CF-2417
Appendix C Affidavit of Neil Joseph Gillespie Re: Zachary Glenn Phipps, Bar ID 65936
______________________________________________________________________________
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
Section I Opening Statement: The State’s Problem: Criminal Charges Without Merit
2. The State has a problem in this case: It brought criminal charges against me without
merit on affidavits by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office. (MCSO). I was arrested on November
10, 2019 in State of Florida vs. Neil Joseph Gillespie, Marion County Circuit Criminal Court,
Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z, and charged with two crimes:
Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1a Interception of Oral Communication;

Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1c Disclosure of Communication
The State knows, or should know, that Chapter 934 of the Florida Statutes is unconstitutional as
charged, and as set forth in my letter May 23, 2014 to Paul Wysopal Special Agent in Charge,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tampa.
3. I was arrested on June 7, 2020 in State of Florida vs. Neil Joseph Gillespie, Marion
County Circuit Criminal Court, Case No. 2020-CF-2417, and charged with two crimes:
Fla. Stat. sec. 784.03.1A1 Battery

Fla. Stat. sec. 812.131.2b Robbery by Sudden Snatching Without Deadly Weapon
The State knows, or should know, that I was defending myself and my home from the crime of
home invasion, Fla. Stat. sec. 812.135, committed by Sarah May Thompson, a 35 year-old
convicted felon, with multiple arrests and convictions, a known drug user, and a homeless thief
and commercial sex worker, who primarily trolls CR 484 from Summerfied Florida to Dunellon
Florida in search of drugs, money for drugs, and sex. In January 2020 I sought the State’s help for
Ms. Thompson, whom I believe is a vulnerable adult under Fla. Stat. sec. 415.102(28) due to drug
addiction. The State’s negligence thereto is the basis for my lawsuit in Case No. 20-CA-934.
4. The State’s apparent “solution” to its problem is to find me incompetent, and to deny me
the opportunity to represent myself against its wrongful prosecution. Appointed counsel does not
2
provide zealous representation; certain appointed counsel may undermine my case. A finding of
incompetence may prevent me from representing myself in a seven (7) year home foreclosure,
Case No. 13-CA-115, on a HECM reverse mortgage on my Florida homestead, a loan rife with
wrongdoing by the lender and its affiliates, misconduct by lawyers for the foreclosing Plaintiff,
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., and criminality by local judge(s) and the MCSO.
Section II I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL

NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL OR HEARING BECAUSE OF
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PREJUDICE OR BIAS OF THE JUDGE:
• Judge Tatti’s Prejudicial and Biased Appointment of Counsel.
5. I am not indigent. I am not entitled to court-appointed counsel. I do not want court-
appointed counsel. I reject court-appointed counsel. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975),
was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a
constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
6. In Florida court-appointed counsel is governed by Chapter 27, Florida Statutes, Part III,
Public Defenders and Other Court-Appointed Counsel (ss. 27.40 - 27.61) and consists of:
A. The Public Defender (Fla. Stat. sec. 27.51)

B. Office of Criminal Counsel and Civil Regional Counsel (Fla. Stat. sec. 27.511)
C. Private court-appointed counsel (Fla. Stat. sec. 27.40(2)(a))
7. On November 10, 2019 I refused to sign an application for criminal indigent status
presented to me at the Marion County Jail because it wrongly stated I was homeless, and it
wrongly stated “I am seeking the appointment of the public defender”. (Exhibit 1). I am not
homeless. I have lived at the same address in Marion County since 2005. Also, I knew I had a
conflict with the public defender. I did not want the public defender to represent me.
3
8. I was released on bond prior to the First Appearance (Rule 3.130), and in any event I was
not timely informed of it, so I did not attend First Appearance. The so-called First Appearance
Findings and Orders by Judge McCune (Exhibit 2) does not bear my signature.
9. On December 10, 2019 I attended an Arraignment (Rule 3.160) where Judge Herndon
provisionally appointed the public defender /private conflict counsel to represent me because
my affidavit of indigent status was incomplete. (Exhibit 3).
10. On January 7, 2020 the public defender moved to withdrawal as counsel citing conflict.
11. On January 13, 2020 Judge Tatti entered Order Appointing Substitute Counsel (Conflict)
that appointed the OCCCRC to represent me, without following the safeguards established by
Fla. Stat. § 27.5303(1)(a).
12. On July 7, 2020 the Clerk’s General Counsel Greg Harrell informed me that there was no
approved application for criminal indigent status for Case No. 19-CF-4193.
13. Therefore, appointment of the public defender in Case No. 19-CF-4193 was unlawful.
I was not found indigent under § 27.52. The court may not appoint the public defender to
represent, even on a temporary basis, any person who is not indigent. § 27.51(2).
14. Likewise, the Order Appointing Substitute Counsel (Conflict) of Mr. Phipps and the
OCCCRC is void or voidable. I was not found indigent in this case under § 27.52.
15. I waived my right to a lawyer July 2, 2020 under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(4) which
included two witnesses. (Exhibit 4). See,
DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A LAWYER

WITH TWO ATTESTING WITNESSES, RULE 3.111(d)(4)
Filing # 109766038 E-Filed 07/02/2020 11:48:43 PM
16. I successfully waived my right to a lawyer during a Faretta Hearing before Judge Ann
4
Craggs on June 14, 2020 in Case No. 2020-CF-2417. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3).
17. I successfully waived my right to a lawyer during a Faretta Hearing before Judge Tatti
on July 28, 2020 in Case No. 2020-CF-2417. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3).
18. The public online docket in Case No. 19-CF-4193 appearing at DOC-103 date 07-22-
2020 shows Application for Indigent Status Original (filled out).
19. The public online docket in Case No. 19-CF-4193 appearing at DOC-104 date 07-22-
2020 shows Application for Indigent Status Original - With Clerks Determination [DENIED].
20. Therefore, I am not eligible for appointed counsel in Case No. 19-CF-4193. I am not
indigent. I am not entitled to court-appointed counsel. I do not want court-appointed counsel. I
reject court-appointed counsel. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
21. The foregoing not withstanding, Judge Tatti made this statement on the record July 28,
2020 during the arraignment in 20-CF-2417: (Appendix B, Transcript, beginning at page 8)
1 THE COURT: Well, you can't fire court-appointed

2 counsel.
3 THE DEFENDANT: He's court-appointed based on
4 what?
5 THE COURT: Based on a court order.
22. There is no court order, only a provisional order, and the provision has not been met. If
Judge Tatti does not understand this fact, I call into question his competency and specifically
described prejudge or bias of the judge.
23. On August 6, 2020 Mr. Phipps moved to withdrawal from representing me.
24. On August 6, 2020 The Regional Counsel's Office determined and certified that a conflict
of interest exists that prohibits the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 5th
District from representing me.
5
25. On August 6, 2020 Judge Tatti entered Order Allowing The Office of Criminal Conflict
And Civil Regional Counsel To Withdrawal. The Order wrongly appointed Brenda H. Smith,
Esquire to represent me.
26. On August 24, 2020 attorney Brenda Smith filed Motion To Withdraw. The motion notes
that Ms. Smith did not file a Notice of Appearance or Acceptance of Appointment because on
August 7, 2020 I filed Defendant's Motion to Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se as permitted by
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and Fla, R. of Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3).
27. Judge Tatti’s prejudicial and biased appointment of counsel is ongoing. I fear I will not
receive a fair trial or hearing because of this specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.
Section III I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT
RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL OR HEARING BECAUSE OF SPECIFICALLY
DESCRIBED PREJUDICE OR BIAS OF THE JUDGE:
• Judge Tatti’s Prejudicial and Biased Demand for a Competency Evaluation
28. As set forth in Appendix C, Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Re: Zachary Glenn Phipps, Bar
ID # 65936, paragraph 7:
On July 30, 2020 at 12:26 PM Mr. Phipps and I spoke by telephone on a recorded line.
Mr. Phipps agreed to withdrawal the motion to determine competency. Mr. Phipps agreed
I am competent to stand trial. Phipps also said the prosecution in 2020-CF-2417 was an
"abuse of discretion". However before he filed the motion, Mr. Phipps moved to
withdrawal from the case.
29. A transcript of my phone call with Mr. Phipps July 30, 2020 at 12:26 PM states in part:
Page 7
8 MR. PHIPPS: Okay. All right. Well, like I said,
9 I will file that motion to withdraw the -- for the
10 competency eval, okay?
Page 8
6 MR. PHIPPS: Okay. Well, no, you're right, you
7 did eventually get away from that and I'll put that as
6
8 part of my basis for the reasoning to withdraw this

9 motion, okay?
10 But I will file a motion to withdraw the -- I'll
11 withdraw the motion for the competency evaluation. I
12 can't guarantee that I can file anything about
13 withdrawing for the financial reasons.
Page 11
20 MR. PHIPPS: Mr. Gillespie, though, it's kind of
21 moot point at this point because I told you I'm going
22 to withdraw my motion.
Page 12
25 MR. PHIPPS: Mr. Gillespie, this is part of the
Page 13
1 reason why I'm going to withdraw my motion because
2 obviously, I have seen now, you know, what's going on
3 between you and the Marion County Sheriff's Office.
4 And I am in agreement with you that this 2020 case is
5 being pushed forward as a way, as retribution, I guess,
6 for, you know, the things that you, you know, request
7 from them and, you know, litigation and all that stuff.
8 I agree with you there, okay? And that is part of the
9 basis why I'll withdraw the motion.
10 You know, I've been part of those conversations
11 too. I've seen, you know, Mr. McCourt's responses and
12 then obviously, you know, you have an issue with
13 certain, you know, officers there, so, you know, when
14 that whole issue went down and all that stuff and it
15 seemed at first that nothing was going to come of it,
16 you know, they didn't assist you and you were the
17 rightful homeowner and then all of a sudden you wind up
18 being the one that's arrested, I thought that was, you
19 know, I thought that was a, at the very least, abuse of
20 their discretion.
30. On August 6, 2020 Mr. Phipps moved to withdrawal from representing me. The Regional
Counsel's Office determined and certified that a conflict of interest exists that prohibits the
Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 5th District from representing me.
7
31. On August 6, 2020 Judge Tatti entered Order Allowing The Office Of Criminal Conflict
And Civil Regional Counsel To Withdraw. The Order wrongly appointed Brenda H. Smith,
Esquire to represent me.
32. On August 24, 2020 attorney Brenda Smith filed Motion To Withdraw. The motion notes
that Ms. Smith did not file a Notice of Appearance or Acceptance of Appointment because on
August 7, 2020 I filed Defendant's Motion to Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se as permitted by
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3).
33. It does not appear Ms. Smith set her Motion To Withdraw for a hearing.
34. In fact, I do not have counsel because Ms. Smith did not file a Notice of Appearance or
Acceptance of Appointment; the current status prevents me from appearing pro se.
35. Judge Tatti’s Order Compelling Defendant To Appear For Evaluation (Exhibit 6) entered
August 20, 2020 in case 2019-CF-4193, calls into question the judge’s neutrality. The Order
falsely states “Defendant has refused to appear for a previously ordered evaluation”. Responding
to this false accusation is frustrated by the fact that Judge Tatti does not identify the previously
ordered evaluation where I allegedly refused to appear. Dr. Harry Krop, appointed March 17,
2020 by Order Appointing Expert For Competency Evaluation, withdrew from the appointment
by letter March 27, 2020. Dr. Krop cited two issues for not doing the evaluation: The
“coronavirus pandemic”, and a “conflict of interest”.
36. Judge Tatti’s Order Compelling Defendant To Appear For Evaluation (Exhibit 6) was
not lawfully served:
• The Order was entered on August 20, 2020 in case 2019-CF-4193

• The Certificate of Service certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished by U.S. Mail and/or E-Mail delivery this 31 day of July 2020
8
The Order was not served on July 31, 2020. The Order was likely served 20 days later on August
20, 2020. Moreover, the Certificate of Service shows service to Brenda H. Smith, Esquire on
July 31, 2020 - - 6 days before Ms. Smith was appointed to represent me. In my view this Order
is void for lack of valid Certificate of Service.
37. I emailed a question about the Certificate of Service to Ms. Smith but I did not get a
response from her. Therefore I conclude the Order Compelling Defendant To Appear For
Evaluation is void and of no effect in this case, meaning the Order cannot compel me to appear.
38. Pursuant to Rule 3.210(b), Motion for Examination...”Attorneys for the state and the
defendant may be present at any examination ordered by the court.” Since I was appointed
counsel, but I do not have actual appointed counsel, I am unable to avail myself of the benefit of
counsel under Rule 3.210(b) to have counsel present during the examination.
39. Regarding Order Appointing Expert For Competency Evaluation (Exhibit 7), the Order
cites to an obsolete Administrative Order A2008-41-A. Assistant Attorney General Quinlan
confirmed to me that AO A2008-41-A was rescinded and was replace by AO A-2017-23 on July
1, 2017. Without a valid Administrative Order authorizing payment at the correct rate of
compensation, the providers involved cannot get paid for doing the evaluation.
40. I also question how the Order Appointing Expert For Competency Evaluation can require
a nonlawyer, even a nonlawyer doctor, to comply with paragraph 2, and 2(a) because it requires
a nonlawyer to make legal determinations about Rules 3.210, and 3.211 of the Florida Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and section 916.12 of the Florida Statutes, which may amount to UPL.
41. In summation, Mr. Phipps agreed to withdrawal his Motion To Determine Defendant’s
Competency To Stand Trial, which wrongly raised the issue of a competency evaluation. A
9
competency evaluation is not needed under the law and circumstances described herein. Judge
Tatti’s instance that I undergo a competency evaluation when none is needed amounts to
prejudice of bias of the judge, and I fear I will not receive a fair trial or hearing.
Section IV I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT

• Judge Tatti’s Conflict of Interest: Marion County Bar Association, Inc.
42. I was arrested on November 10, 2019 in State of Florida vs. Neil Joseph Gillespie,
Marion County Circuit Criminal Court, Case No. 2019-CF-4193, and charged with two crimes:
Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1a Interception of Oral Communication;

Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1c Disclosure of Communication
43. My arrest was politically motivated by Marion Co. Sheriff Billy Woods, see,
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE Re: Marion Senior Services, Inc.

Filing # 109909167 E-Filed 07/07/2020 06:50:44 PM
Sheriff Woods was vice president of Marion Senior Services, Inc. The complainant, Chonnie
Phillips, is a temp employee of Marion Senior Services, Inc. where Sheriff Billy Woods is vice
president. I did not intercept oral communication with Ms. Phillips while she was employed by
Marion Senior Services, Inc. Instead, I was a party to the telephone call with Phillips who
answered the phone when I called.
44. Attorney Samantha Shealy Rauba, FL Bar #59503, serves on the Board of Directors of
Marion Senior Services, Inc. A web page for Attorney Shealy Rauba states:
Mrs. Shealy Rauba is highly active in the Marion County legal and
professional community. She serves on the board of Marion Senior
Services...She has been married to her husband, Erik, since 2010 and
they have two daughters.
https://www.smrmlaw.com/samantha-shealy-rauba/
10
Mrs. Shealy Rauba was president and registered agent for the Marion County Bar Association,
Inc. when she refused to provide me the charter as required by F.S. § 617.1623. The Florida Bar
responded to my complaint October 22, 2019 and determined this is a civil dispute best resolved
through the civil system, see Samantha Shealy Rauba, RFA No. 20-5317.
45. The Marion County Bar Association, Inc. is housed in the State Attorney’s Office, 110
NW 1st Ave. Ste 5000, Ocala, FL 34475-6614. Mrs. Shealy Rauba is married to Erik John
Rauba, FL Bar # 59429. Mr. Rauba is employed by the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial
Circuit, 110 NW 1st Ave. Ste 5000, Ocala, FL 34475-6614, Email: erauba@sao5.org
46. From 1988 to 2011, Judge Tatti served as an Assistant State Attorney with the State
Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court. Twenty-three years in the SAO is antithetical to the
role of a neutral judge. Before that, Judge Tatti was an assistant public defender for three years.
47. Anthony Tatti faced actual voters in a contested judicial race in 2004 but came in third.
He was appointed judge by Governor Rick Scott in March 25, 2011. That ensured Judge Tatti
never has to face actual voters again, thanks to Florida’s rigged judicial elections. So long as the
local lawyers and the Marion County Bar Association, Inc., are happy with him, Judge Tatti will
never have an opponent. Judge Tatti was “elected” that way in 2012 and again in 2018. Judge
Tatti is a member of the Marion County Bar Association, Inc., which entertains lawyers and
judges at the Golden Ocala Golf and Equestrian Club. Ballotpedia reported: (Exhibit 8)
“Unopposed races and the practice of post-dating judicial resignations to block elections
highlighted questions about the role of democracy in Florida's circuit and county judicial
seats in the 2016 election cycle. Only the 60 opposed seats out of the total 252 seats up
for election on these courts saw a vote on August 30, 2016. All unopposed candidates
were automatically elected without ever appearing on a ballot or facing a public vote.”
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_local_trial_court_judicial_elections,_2016
11
46. Florida judges take an oath (Art. 2, sec. 5, Fla. Const).
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution
and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified
to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully
perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me
God.”,
Under Florida’s Constitution, Article V, Section 10(b)(1) The election of circuit judges shall be
preserved...and Article VI, Section 1. Regulation of elections. All elections by the people shall
be by direct and secret vote. So how does a Florida judge support Article V, Section 10(b)(1) and
Article VI, Section 1 AND be faithful to the oath, if the judge benefits from unopposed races and
the practice of post-dating judicial resignations to block elections? Resignation from office
would be the ethical course of action, and then running for judicial office in a contested election.
Judge Tatti has not resigned to run in a contested election, and has broken the oath of office.
Florida’s own Robert Craig Walters penned “Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should
A Judge Be Subject to Suit?” Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987)
“In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be
imagined than a corrupt judge. Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass
judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of
liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may
be severe and enduring....”
http://www.tulanelink.com/pdf/judicial_immunity_waters.pdf
47. Because Judge Tatti is a member of the Marion County Bar Association, Inc. (MCBA) a
voluntary membership, a conflict exists with me, Judge Tatti, the MCBA, Mrs. Shealy Rauba,
Erik John Rauba, and the SAO, specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge that causes
me to fear I will not receive a fair trial or hearing.
12
Section V I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT

• Judge Tatti’s Conflict of Interest: Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida.
48. Assistant Attorney General Brittany Quinlan, Tampa Civil Litigation Bureau, Florida
Office of the Attorney General, represents the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida, and Circuit Judge
Ann Melinda Craggs in my civil rights and ADA lawsuit, Case No. 2018-CA-2640. It is my
understanding that AAG Quinlan will represent State of Florida Defendants of the Fifth Judicial
Circuit in Case No. 20-CA-934, including,
Brad King, State Attorney

Office of the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit Florida
Michael Graves, Public Defender
Office of Mike Graves Public Defender
Susan D. Bailey, Assistant Public Defender
Therefore I believe Judge Tatti’s conflict of interest with Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida is
sufficient for disqualification, because specifically described prejudice and bias of the judge
causes me to fear I will not receive a trial or hearing. Therefore, I believe all my criminal and
civil cases must be transferred to another judicial circuit, or federal court, a federal court outside
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
13
Section VI I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT

• Judge Tatti’s Nonsensical Order Striking Defendant’s Jury Trial Demanded
49. On February 20, 2020 I emailed two motions to Judge Tatti: (Exhibit 9)
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE CHAPTER 934

SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS; SURVEILLANCE (DOC-043)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REPLACE OCCCRC 5th DCA AS COUNSEL

(CONFLICT) (DOC-044)
On February 26, 2020 Judge Tatti entered an order in 19-CF-4193, at DOC-048, Order Striking
Defendants Jury Trial Demanded. The Order is nonsensical and calls into question Judge Tatti’s
competence. The Order appears at Exhibit 10 and states:
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT'S JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
That Defendant filed a Jury Trial Demanded on February 24, 2020. Because the
Defendant is represented by counsel, his pro se Demand is unauthorized. Logan v. State,
846 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2003) (holding a Defendant is not entitled to represent himself and
have the assistance of counsel); Salser v. State, 582 So.2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
(Defendant does not have the right to a "hybrid" representation). It is,
ORDERED:
The Defendant's Jury Trial Demanded is STRICKEN.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 26 day of February 2020 in Ocala, Marion
County, Florida.
ANTHONY M. TATTI
Circuit Judge
Contrary to what the ORDER claims, the Clerk filed my motions as DOC-043 and DOC-044.
Because the Order is nonsensical and calls into question Judge Tatti’s competence, I fear I will
not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice of bias of the judge.
I am referring this non-sequitur Order Striking Defendants Jury Trial Demanded to Florida
Lawyers Assistance, as it suggests a breakdown in the judge’s thinking and competence.
14
Section VII I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT
• Judge Tatti and COVID-19 Complaint to Florida Department of Health
50. On July 26, 2020 I filed a 68 page COVID-19 complaint for Marion County, Florida with
the Florida Department of Health. Filing # 110871408 E-Filed 07/27/2020 10:01:40 PM
This complaint was prompted by the MCSO and its refusal to protect me from Ms. Thompson
who failed to comply with any COVID-19 rules, which put my health at risk, being age 64 and in
a high-risk group. Mr. Phipps also failed to respond to my COVID-19 concerns even after a
referral by MCSO general counsel Tim McCourt. Judge Tatti was in the news over COVID-19.
The news reported Judge Tatti went head to head with Gainesville Attorney Adam Stout, Stout
Defense, P.A. Attorney Stout accused Judge Tatti of inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment”
forbidden by the Florida Constitution upon Louis Early Payton, a 74-year-old inmate with
serious health problems being held without bond after he violated his probation conditions on a
misdemeanor charge. Attorney Adam Stout filed a number of lawsuits:
Louis Early Payton vs. Billy Woods, As Sheriff of Marion County and the State of
Florida. Lower Tribunal Case(s):19-CF-001821-A Marion County Florida.
Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case Number 5D20-1442

Criminal Habeas Corpus Petition from Marion County
Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case Number 5D 20-1479

Criminal Prohibition Petition from Marion County
Judge Tatti refused to recuse himself in the Payton case. One issue, Judge Tatti claimed he was
not served properly, which goes to the issue of Fifth Judicial Circuit Administrative Order A-
2012-25-B and its interference with the Florida Portal and Rule 2.330, Disqualification of Trial
Judges. Because of Judge Tatti’s prejudice and bias, I fear I will not get a fair trail or hearing.
15
Section VIII I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT
• Conclusion: Disqualification of Judge Tatti Required As A Matter of Law
51. In my view, no ordinary person can get a fair trial or hearing before Judge Tatti because
of prejudice and bias of the judge, specifically twenty-three years spent as a prosecutor, an
Assistant State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida, AND, as a judge, he is not held
accountable by the voters, or by the U.S. Supreme Court, or anyone else, but the local lawyers
and the Marion County Bar Association, Inc., and the practice of unopposed races and post-
dating judicial resignations to block elections cited to by Ballotpedia. It appears as if Judge Tatti
is still working for the State Attorney’s Office as a prosecutor. Judge Tatti pays little attention to:
Under the American system of criminal justice, a defendant is

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY
and
Due Process. The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment
says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same
eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.
These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American
government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures....
• Wex Article by Richard Strauss, Legal Information Institute Cornell Law,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE TATTI
• Section A Legal Argument
52. It has long been said in the courts of this state that “every litigant is entitled to nothing
less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 194 So. 613, 615
(Fla. 1939). (Opening citation in the Opinion filed December 17, 2014, Third District Court of
16
Appeal, No. 3D14-2625, Lower Tribunal No. 14-8506, Great American Insurance Company of
New York, Petitioner, vs. 2000 Island Boulevard Condominium Association, Inc., et al.,
Respondents. A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.)
53. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(b) “Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to
disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the
Code of Judicial Conduct. (Emphasis added).
54. Under Canon 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida,
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself where his or her impartiality

might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to...”. Canon 3E(1)
Commentary for Canon 3E(1)
Canon 3E(1). Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of
the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.
55. Disqualification under Canon 3E(1) does not require actual bias or actual prejudice, but
“whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
56. Rule 2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. states in relevant part,
RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES

(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant
relies as the grounds for disqualification;
(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by
a separate affidavit; and
(d) Grounds. A motion to disqualify shall show:

(1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or
hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; or
(e) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time

not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the
motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling...
17
(f) Determination — Initial Motion. The judge against whom an initial

motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the
legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged.
If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order
granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is
legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No
other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue
with the motion.
57. The importance of the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is that of doing it in such a
manner as would raise no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of the judge. State ex rel. Arnold
v. Revels, 113 So.2d 218, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 1959.
58. Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge,
(Mathew v. State, 837 So.2d 1167, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2003) and the law intends that no judge will
preside in a case in which he or she is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent.
State v. Steele, 348 So.2d 398, Fla.App. 1977.
59. When a judge enters into the proceedings and becomes a participant, a shadow is cast
upon judicial neutrality so that his or her disqualification is required. Evans v. State, 831 So.2d
808, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2002. The conditions requiring the disqualification of the judge to act in
that particular case are prescribed by statute. § 38.02 Fla. Stat.
60. The basic tenet for the disqualification of a judge is that a judge must satisfy the
appearance of justice. Hewitt v. State, 839 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2003.
61. The question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may
reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his or her ability
to act fairly and impartially. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So.2d 1123, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1996.
18
62. The term "recusal" is most often used to signify a voluntary action to remove oneself as a
judge; however, the term "disqualification" refers to the process by which a litigant may seek to
remove a judge from a particular case. Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2000.
63. Question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on those matters from
which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception
of his ability to act fairly and impartially. West’s F.S.A. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1),
Stevens v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist.
2006).
64. Question of disqualification of a trial judge focuses on those matters from which a
litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the court's own perception of
its ability to act fairly and impartially. West’s F.S.A. § 38.10, Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903
So.2d 214, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2005 reh'g denied, (Feb. 17, 2005).
• Section B Sufficiency of motion or affidavit of prejudice.
65. A motion to disqualify must show that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair
trial or hearing because: (1) of a specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; Fla. R. Jud.
Admin., Rule 2.330(d)(1).
66. Generally, the critical determination in deciding the legal sufficiency of a motion to
disqualify has been whether the facts alleged would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear
he or she would not receive a fair trial, Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836 Fla., 2002.
67. If a motion to recuse is technically sufficient and the facts alleged therein also would
prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he or she could not get a fair and impartial trial
19
from the judge, the motion is legally sufficient and should be granted. Coleman v. State, 866
So.2d 209, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2004.
68. The motion to disqualify a judge should contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias,
prejudice, or sympathy. Chamberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087, Fla., 2004.
69. Whether a motion to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient requires a determination as to
whether the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not
receiving a fair and impartial trial. Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160 (f), Rodriguez v. State, 919
So.2d 1252, Fla., 2005, as revised on denial of reh'g, (Jan. 19, 2006).
70. The primary consideration in determining whether motion to disqualify trial judge should
be granted is whether the facts alleged, if true, would place a reasonably prudent person in fear
of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Arbelaez v. State, 898 So.2d 25, Fla., 2005, reh'g
denied, (Mar. 18, 2005).
71. A motion for disqualification must be granted if the alleged facts would cause a
reasonably prudent person to have a well-founded fear that he/she would not receive a fair and
impartial trial. Jarp v. Jarp, 919 So.2d 614, Fla.App. 3 Dist., 2006.
72. The test a trial court must use in determining whether a motion to disqualify a judge is
legally sufficient is whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of
not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2005,
reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005).
73. The motion to disqualify a judge must be well-founded and contain facts germane to the
judge's undue bias, prejudice, or sympathy. Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2005,
reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005).
20
74. Disqualification is required when litigants demonstrate reasonable, well-grounded fear
that they will not receive fair and impartial trial, or that judge has pre-judged case. Williams v.
Balch, 897 So.2d 498, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2005.
• Section C Time for filing motion; waiver of objection.
75. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after
discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to
the court for an immediate ruling. Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160(e).
76. Although a petition to disqualify a judge is not timely filed, extraordinary circumstances
may warrant the grant of an untimely motion to recuse. Klapper-Barrett v. Nurell, 742 So.2d
851, Fla.App. 5 Dist., 1999. I believe extraordinary circumstances warrant the grant of an
untimely motion to recuse in this case, given the amount of time The Florida Bar spent on the
Investigation of UPL for Marty Stone, File No. 20191041 (17A).
• Section D Judicial determination of initial motion.
77. The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify us directed shall determine only
the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R.
Judicial Admin. 2.330(f).
78. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with
the motion. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.330(f).
79. Accordingly, a judge may not rule on the truth of the facts alleged or address the
substantive issues raised by the motion but may only determine the legal sufficiency of the
motion. Knarich v. State, 866 So.2d 165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004).
21
80. In determining whether the allegations that movant will not receive a fair trial so as to
disqualify a judge are sufficient, the facts alleged must be taken as true (Frengel v. Frengel, 880
So.2d 763, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2004), and must be viewed from the movant's perspective. Siegel v.
State, 861 So.2d 90, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2003.
81. Case law forbids trial judges to refute facts set forth in a motion to disqualify, and their
doing so will result in judicial disqualification irrespective of the facial sufficiency of the
underlying claim. Brinson v. State, 789 So.2d 1125, Fla.App. 2 Dist., 2001.
82. A trial judge's attempt to refute charges of partiality thus exceeds the scope of inquiry on
a motion to disqualify and alone establishes grounds for disqualification. J & J Industries, Inc. v.
Carpet Showcase of Tampa Bay, Inc., 723 So.2d 281, Fla.App. 2 Dist., 1998.
83. Whether the motion is legally sufficient is a pure question of law; it follows that the
proper standard of review is the de novo standard (Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600 Fla.App. 1
Dist., 2000) and an order denying a motion to disqualify a trial judge is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. King v. State, 840 So.2d 1047, Fla., 2003.
84. Once a motion for disqualification has been filed, no further action can be taken by the
trial court, even if the trial court is not aware of the pending motion. Brown v. State 863 So.2d
1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2004.
85. A judge presented with a motion to disqualify him-or-herself must rule upon the
sufficiency of the motion immediately and may not consider other matters before considering the
disqualification motion. Brown v. State 863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2004.
22
86. The court is required to rule immediately on the motion to disqualify the judge, even
though the movant does not request a hearing. Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063,
Fla., 2000.
87. The rule places the burden on the judge to rule immediately, the movant is not required to
nudge the judge nor petition for a writ of mandamus. G.C. v. Department of Children and
Families, 804 So.2d 525 Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2002.
88. Certification. The undersigned movant certifies that the motion and the movant's
statements are made in good faith.
89. NOTICE: Fifth Judicial Circuit Florida Administrative Order AO A-2012-25-B
undermines Rule 2.330(c)(4) service of a motion to disqualify a judge on the Florida Portal.
Per AO A-2012-25-B, no attorney or pro se litigant is authorized to send any unsolicited
correspondence, motion, or proposed email to a presiding judge on a particular case. Fla. R. Jud.
Admin. 2.330 governs Disqualification of Trial Judges (along with F.S. ch 38, the Florida Code
of Judicial Conduct, and case law). Therefore, I believe A-2012-25-B is unconstitutional to the
extent it undermines well-established law on judicial disqualification. The procedural path on
service of a motion to disqualify is established by Rule 2.330(c)>Rule 1.080>Rule 2.516>Rule
2.520>2.525. In particular, Rule 2.330(c)(4) mandates immediate service on the judge, see
"In addition to filing with the clerk, the movant shall immediately serve a copy of the
motion on the subject judge as set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080."
The Clerk’s office (Mr. Harrell) contends “the procedural path of Rule 2.330(c)>Rule
1.080>Rule 2.516 can still be adhered to and done in a manner consistent with A-2012-25-B, if
the filer of such a motion mails a copy of the motion to the judge.” Therefore, I mailed this
Motion to Disqualify Judge Tatti, and served it in various other ways as shown in the Certificate
23
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
of Service, including service to email addresses outside the Portal, and to the general counsel and
lawyers of the Fifth Judicial Circuit who may represent the judge, and to AAG Quinlan.
VERIFICATION OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE

F.S. § 92.525(2) Verification of documents
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the
facts stated in it are true.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED September 10, 2020.
My affidavit pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 38.10 accompanies this Verified Motion To Disqualify
Circuit Judge Anthony M Tatti.
2~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Neil Joseph Gillespie, HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Verified
Motion to Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti was served September 10, 2020, or as soon
as possible thereafter, in compliance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c), Disqualification of Trial
Judges; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.080, Service and Filing of Pleadings, Orders and Documents; Fla. R.
Jud. Admin. 2.516, Service of Pleadings and Documents; and Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.520,
Documents; and Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.525, Electronic Filing, to Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti
by hand delivery to the Marion County Judicial Center, U.S. Certified Mail, U.S. First Class
Mail, United Parcel Service (U.P.S.), Email Service OFF PORTAL, and to the following names
on the Florida e-Filing Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents, including:
1. Anthony M. Tatti (FL Bar #473626)

Circuit Judge, Marion County
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Marion County Judicial Center
110 N.W. 1st Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
Office: 352-401-6740; Fax: 352-401-6789
Email: atatti@circuit5.org
Email: atatti@cox.net
2. HAND DELIVERED Marion County Judicial Center

Anthony M. Tatti (FL Bar #473626)
110 N.W. 1st Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
3. U.S. Certified Mail

Article No. 7020 0090 0000 5897 0276
110 N.W. 1st Avenue, Ste 4017
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
4. U.S. Mail, First Class

Ocala, FL 34475-6601
CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE - September 10, 2020
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE M. ANTHONY TATTI
5. United Parcel Service (UPS)

Tracking No. 1Z 645 89F 03 9812 4280
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
6. Sandra Tatti
Email: sjtatti@cox.net
(marriage makes husband and wife one person,
State ex rel. Perez et al. v. Wall, Judge,
49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020)
7. Zuleyma Vargas
Judicial Assistant for Judge Tatti
110 N.W. 1st Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
Office: 352-401-6740
Email: zvargas@circuit5.org
8. David R. Ellspermann
Marion County Clerk and Comptroller
110 NW 1st Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34475
Email: Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org
9. Gregory C. Harrell (FL Bar #173975)

General Counsel to David R. Ellspermann,
Marion County Clerk of Court & Comptroller
P.O. Box 1030
Ocala, Florida 34478-1030
(352) 671-5603
Email: GHarrell@marioncountyclerk.org
10. Roy Lee Wolgamuth (FL Bar #73968)

General Counsel
550 W Main St.
Tavares, FL 32778-3126
Office: 352-253-4433
Email: rwolgamuth@circuit5.org
11. Jonathan Lin

Trial Court Administrator
110 NW 1st Avenue
Email: jlin@circuit5.org
12. Jeffery K. Fuller (FL Bar #58623)

Chief Deputy Court Administrator
550 W Main St
Tavares, FL 32778-3126
Office: 352-742-4393
Email: jfuller@circuit5.org
13. Katherine Elizabeth Curham (FL Bar #91382)

Supervising Trial Court Staff Attorney
110 NW 1st Ave.
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
Office: 352-401-6756
Email: kcurham@circuit5.org
14. Carla Sue Grant (FL Bar #1015678)

Trial Court Staff Attorney (Marion County)
110 NW 1st Ave
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
Office: 352-401-6768; 352-401-7832
Email: cgrant@circuit5.org
Email: carla.grant17@gmail.com
15. Jacqueline Paige Beddow (FL Bar #1022456)

Trial Court Staff Attorney (Marion County)
110 NW 1st Ave
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
Office: 352-401-6795
Email: pbeddow@circuit5.org
16. Brad King (FL Bar #341045)

State Attorney
Jared Gainey (FL Bar #1010232)
Assistant State Attorney
Office of the State Attorney
110 NW 1 Ave., Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
(352) 671-5800
Email: Eservicemarion@Sao5.Org
17. Wynn Smith Vickers (FL Bar #111785)

(Assistant State Attorney)
Registered Agent and Treasurer
Marion County Bar Association, Inc.
110 NW 1st Ave. Ste 5000
Ocala, FL 34475-6614
Email: wsmith@sao5.org
18. Molly J. Paris, Esq., Assistant Director (FL Bar #90486)

Florida Lawyers Assistance
2335 E Atlantic Blvd. Ste. 410
Pompano Beach, FL 33062
Tel: 954-566-9040
Toll Free: 800-282-8981
Website: https://www.fla-lap.org/
Confidential Judicial Hotline: (888) 972-4040
https://www.fla-lap.org/judges
Email: mail@fla-lap.org;
Email: molly@fla-lap.org
19. Blan L. Teagle (FL Bar #570516)

Executive Director
Judicial Qualifications Commission
P.O. Box 14106
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4106
(850) 488-1581
Email: bteagle@floridajqc.com
Email: contact@floridajqc.com
20. Brittany Quinlan (FL Bar #102701)

Assistant Attorney General
Tampa Civil Litigation Bureau
Florida Office of the Attorney General
501 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33602
Office: 813-233-2880
Direct: 813-577-4535
Fax: 813-233-2886
Email: Brittany.Quinlan@myfloridalegal.com
Email: citizenservices@myfloridalegal.com
21. Joshua E. Doyle (FL Bar #25902)

Executive Director
Email: jdoyle@floridabar.org
Richard D. Courtemanche Jr. (FL Bar # 762865)
Deputy General Counsel
Email: RCourtemanche@floridabar.org
The Florida Bar
651 E Jefferson St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-6584
Office: 850-561-5600
22. John Anthony Tomasino (FL Bar #106021)

Clerk
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1925
(850) 488-0125
Email: tomasino@flcourts.org
23. Office of State Court Administrators (OSCA)

Elisabeth H. Kiel, State Courts Administrator
Dustin W. Metz, Senior Attorney II (FL Bar #64002)
Email: metzd@flcourts.org
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900
24. Donald Savoie, Registered Agent

President/ Chief Executive Officer
Meridian Behavioral Healthcare Inc.
4300 SW 13th Street
Gainesville, FL 32608-4006
Tel. 352-374-5600, x8366
Email: don_savoie@mbhci.org
25. Tonia Werner, M.D.,

Vice President, Medical Services
Chief Medical Officer
Meridian Behavioral Healthcare Inc.
4300 SW 13th Street
Gainesville, FL 32608-4006
Tel. 352-374-5600, x8155
Email: tonia_werner@mbhci.org
26. Chief Frank Talbot, DOJ-MDFL

Florida Bar No.: 24661
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
300 N. Hogan Street, Suite 700
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Email: frank.m.talbot@usdoj.gov
27. Deputy Chief Kelly S. Karase

New York State Bar No. 4360087
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Email: kelly.karase@usdoj.gov
CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE - September 10,2020
28. U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division, MDFL

Email: USAFLM.Civil.Rights@usdoj .gov
29. Brenda H. Smith (FL Bar #717657)

871 S Central Ave. Ste A
Umatilla, FL 32784-9290
Email: smith.brenda.atty@gmail.com
Email: hartwright2002@yahoo.com
30. Rick Swearingen, Commissioner

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)
2331 Phillips Road
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Email: RickSwearingen@fdle.state.fl.us
31. Email Service OFF PORTAL: atatti@circuit5.org

Email ServiceOFFPORTAL:atatti@cox.net
32. Email ServiceOFFPORTAL:sjtatti@cox.net

Sandra Tatti
(marriage makes husband and wife one person,
State ex reI. Perez et ai. v. Wall, Judge,
49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020)
Signed and certified September 10, 2020.

1
2
3
Filing # 109766038 E-Filed 07/02/2020 11:48:43 PM

vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
4
DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A LAWYER
Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, an indigent nonlawyer appearing pro se, here in
the first person, files Defendant'S Waiver ofRight To A Lawyer, and states:
1. I am the Defendant in this case. I am indigent but waive my right to a lawyer in this case.
This is an unequivocal request to represent myself. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(4) states,
(d) Waiver of Counsel.

(4) A waiver of counsel made in court shall be of record; a waiver made out of court shall
be in writing with not less than 2 attesting witnesses. The witnesses shall attest the
voluntary execution thereof.
2. The Court appointed substitute counsel Zachary Glenn Phipps, OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A.,
on January 13, 2020 to replace the Office of the Public Defender. Separately I will file,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND REMOVE COUNSEL

ZACHARY GLENN PHIPPS AND THE OCCCRC FOR 5th D.C.A.
3. During a Faretta Hearing June 14, 2020 before Judge Ann Melinda Craggs in another
case, Florida v. Neil Joseph Gillespie, Case No. 2020-CF-2417, Judge Craggs accepted my
Waiver ofRight to Lawyer. My Waiver is attached as Exhibit 1, and is signed by Judge Craggs,
who found "the above-named defendant is alert and intelligent and executed the above Waiver of
Right to Lawyer freely and voluntarily for the purposes therein expressed."
4. This is an unequivocal request to represent myself. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3) states:

DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A LAWYER CASE NO. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z
(3) Regardless of the defendant's legal skills or the complexity of the case, the court shall
not deny a defendant's unequivocal request to represent himself or herself, if the court
makes a determination of record that the defendant has made a knowing and intelligent
waiver of the right to counsel, and does not suffer from severe mental illness to the point
where the defendant is not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself or herself.
5. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(5) states:

(5) If a waiver is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of
counsel shall be renewed by the court at each subsequent stage of the proceedings at
which the defendant appears without counsel.
6. Pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516, my email addressis:neilgillespie@mfi.net
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED July 2, 2020
Tel. 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARION
~
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, this 'i' day of July, 2020,
by Neil J. Gillespie, who is personally known to me, or who has produced r L / h L as
identification and states that he is the person who made this affidavit . ontents are
truthful to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
(SEAL) Shamira A. Rodriguez
I>•
,
My Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
::!STATE OF FLORIDA
• Comm# GG098397
Expires 5/1812021
~ . \-0 · "Lo? \
NOTARY PUBLIC
0~,~ \La~l-" ~~Q--z...-

Print Name of Notary Public
WITNESSES: The witnesses attest to the voluntary execution of this waiver. Rule 3.111(d)(4)
DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A LAWYER CASE NO. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z

July 2,2020
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been furnished
to Zachary Phipps, OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A., 307 NW 3rd St., Ocala, FL 34475-6638 at
RCCMarion@rc5state.com; and to the State Attorney's Office, 110 North West 1st Avenue,
Suite 5000 (Eservicemarion@Sao5.0rg), Ocala, FL 34475, bye-service on July 2, 2020.
Tel. 352-854-7807
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF T'HE FIFTH JUD~CI.AL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COURT PROCEEDING Q8!S
~st Appearance
_ _Arraignment
_ _Plea
_ _Trial
STATE OF FLORIDA
V5.
GJi\\e5r~.Q. ~.L.\
FINDING BY THE COURT

The under$igned Judge finds that the above-named defendant Is alert and Intelligent and executed the above
Waiver of Right to Lawyer freely and voruntarUv for the purposes therein expres ed.
Date
MCCC ,.. CASE INTAKE

McdM~ ~mrAKE
. JUa~ '15 '20 AM9: 12 ~".,
AMSCOT FINANCIAL SERVICES
191 SOUTH OCALA
OCALA, FL 34481
Window - J1
('352)282-4660
07/02/2020 12:06 PM
Transaction 273712
Amount Fee
NOTARY 10.00
1D PRESENTED: FL DL G421630560990
Subtotal 10100
Tendered 20.00
Change (currency) 10.00
We do not disclose your non~public

personal information to any~ne
except as requ1red by law. The full
version of our privacy policy' 'fs'
available upon request or at
www.amscot.com/pr1vacy. For
ions or concerns please call
Amscot Customer Care line at
(800)333-6130.
*Rece;pt stub required for Money
Order stop payments & copy requests*
AMSCOT - You're OK with Us!

Filing # 111470516 E-Filed 08/07/2020 03:14:33 PM

IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
Vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,

Defendant.
________________________________/ 5
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REFUSE COUNSEL AND APPEAR PRO SE
Motion to Strike Order Appointing Expert for Competency Evaluation
Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, here in the
first person, files Defendant’s Motion to Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se, and Motion
to Strike Order Appointing Expert for Competency Evaluation, and states,
1. This Court granted a motion by attorney Zachary Phipps and the Office Of
Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (OCCCRC) to withdraw as counsel in this
case on August 6, 2020. The Order appoints BRENDA H. SMITH, ESQUIRE to
represent the Defendant in this cause.
2. I hereby assert my right to refuse counsel, and appear pro se, as provided by
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3).
3. I reject representation by Brenda H. Smith at this time. Rule 3.111(d)(5).
4. In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United
States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and
represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
5. Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3) states:
(3) Regardless of the defendant's legal skills or the complexity of the case, the
court shall not deny a defendant's unequivocal request to represent himself or
herself, if the court makes a determination of record that the defendant has made a
knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and does not suffer from
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REFUSE COUNSEL AND APPEAR PRO SE Case #2019-CA-4193
severe mental illness to the point where the defendant is not competent to conduct
trial proceedings by himself or herself.
6. The Defendant in this case was found competent to waive the right to a lawyer
and represent himself during two (2) Faretta hearings in 2020-CF-2417, by Judge Tatti on
July 28, 2020 (arraignment) and by Judge Craggs on June 14, 2020 (first appearance).
7. I also move to strike Order Appointing Expert for Competency Evaluation. On
March 13, 2020 attorney Zachary Phipps filed a groundless Motion To Determine
Defendant’s Competency To Stand Trial. During a telephone call with me last week
Phipps agreed to withdrawal the motion; Mr. Phipps agreed I am competent to stand trial.
However before he filed the motion, Mr. Phipps moved to withdrawal from the case.
During our conversation Mr. Phipps also said the prosecution in 2020-CF-2417 was an
“abuse of discretion”
WHEREFORE, I respectfully move this Court to GRANT Defendant’s Motion to
Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se, and GRANT Motion to Strike Order Appointing
Expert for Competency Evaluation.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED August 7, 2020.

/s/
Neil J. Gillespie, PETITIONER PRO SE, a nonlawyer
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel. (352) 854-7807
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing was filed August 7, 2020 on the Florida
Portal and served to the names on the Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents.
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
2
6
7
9/9/2020 Florida local trial court judicial elections, 2016 - Ballotpedia
DO N AT E  S UBS CRIBE
8
Renew Your Panda with 50% Off
Limited-time Renewal Offer: Panda Antivirus with 50% Off! Keep Your
Devices Protected Now!
Florida local trial court judicial elections, 2016

Unopposed races and the practice of post-dating judicial resignations to block elections
highlighted questions about the role of democracy in Florida's circuit and county judicial
seats in the 2016 election cycle. Only the 60 opposed seats out of the total 252 seats up for
election on these courts saw a vote on August 30, 2016. All unopposed candidates were
automatically elected without ever appearing on a ballot or facing a public vote.
Three judges used advance notice of their resignations to serve almost the entirety of their
elected terms before leaving the bench, which effectively blocked the election of their
successors.
2016 Local Judicial
Elections
HIGHLIGHTS
The state was sued by prospective candidate Steve Pincket over the practice of
canceling elections for judicial of ces due to post-dated judicial resignations that create View judicial elections by state:
short vacancies in the of ces. Select a state:
Florida voters rejected replacing contested judicial elections with a merit selection
alternative in 2000.
Select court type:
Beyond elections canceled by vacancies, over three-quarters of the seats up for
election in 2016 were canceled because only one candidate led for a seat.
Reset
Legal precedent required vacancies as short as one business day in a judicial of ce to be lled
by a gubernatorial appointment, no matter how far in advance the resignation is known and
regardless of whether or not a scheduled election could be held before the resignation would
Elections Information
take effect. Judges who have utilized this method have explicitly stated their intention to
Election dates • State judicial
prevent elections in favor of an appointed judiciary system. One potential judicial candidate,
elections
Steve Pincket, sued the state over the matter, arguing that these methods usurped the will of
Poll opening and closing times
the voters and the state's constitution.
The low candidacy interest in these races and practice of post-dated resignations to force
appointments by sitting judges con icted with voter resistance to ending the practice of
contested elections. Voters could have ended the practice of contested elections for county
and circuit court judges in 2000, but all of the counties and circuits voted to reject a switch to merit appointments with retention
elections.
Issues Election analysis Circuit court County court Election rules Recent news
Democracy and the courts

HIGHLIGHTS
Steve Pincket challenged a precedent of canceling elections when vacancies as short as one day occur.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected Pincket's petition, but a majority of the court voiced opposition to the practice of
post-dating resignations to avoid elections.
Voters rejected one alternative to contested elections for county and circuit court judges in 2000.
The Florida Constitution provides for regularly scheduled elections of county and circuit court judges, which allow for newcomers
to le to join the courts, whether or not they are elected automatically in an unopposed race. It also requires vacancies in those
of ces to be lled by gubernatorial appointments. Rulings from the state’s high court have supported an interpretation of these
provisions to use gubernatorial appointments to prevent gaps of service in the of ces, even
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_local_trial_court_judicial_elections,_2016 1/6
provisions to use gubernatorial appointments to prevent gaps of service in the of ces, even
when those gaps are as short as one business day.
Steve Pincket led a petition for writ of mandamus with the state’s supreme court on May 5,
2016. A writ of mandamus seeks to compel a public of cer to perform a duty required by
law. Pincket sought to convince the court in his ling that the law required the election to be
held. If accepted by the court, the petition would have forced the secretary of state to hold an
election for a judicial post with a post-dated vacancy.[1]
In his petition, Pincket argued that post-dated resignations were being used to circumvent
court precedent and the state constitution that call for circuit court judges to be elected. The
high court, however, ruled against the claim. A mandamus can only be used to enforce rights
already "clearly and certainly established in the law," and the supreme court ruled that the
law did not provide a basis to enforce Pincket's request. The court approved the use of a
gubernatorial appointment and accepted no motions for rehearing.[1][2]
Despite a unanimous vote by the court, four of the seven supreme court justices wrote or
joined in independent opinions that indicated sympathy to Pincket’s arguments. Following Steve Pincket sued the state of
the rejection of his mandamus claim, Pincket led a complaint for declaratory and injunctive Florida over the secretary of state's
relief against the state in the 2nd Circuit Court.[3][4][5] decision not to place a judicial seat
on the ballot following a post-dated
resignation in the of ce.
Pincket's argument
Judge Olin W. Shinholser (left) served in the Group 6 seat on the 10th Circuit Court until his resignation took effect on December 26, 2016, a week
before his term was set to end. While his resignation was announced in April 2016, prior to the candidacy ling deadline for the seat's election, the
state argued the vacancy must be lled by gubernatorial appointment rather than election. Judge Scott M. Brownell (middle) of the 12th Circuit
Court Group 4 seat and Judge Joseph G. Will (right) of the 7th Circuit Court Group 8 seat also announced post-dated resignations from their seats
for the stated purpose of avoiding having their successor chosen by election.
Pincket had hoped to succeed retiring Judge Olin W. Shinholser, serving in the Group 6 seat on the 10th Circuit Court. Shinholser’s
seat was set for election in 2016. In a letter dated April 1, 2016, Shinholser noti ed Gov. Rick Scott (R) that he would resign from
of ce on December 26, 2016, rather than serve until his term's expiration on January 2, 2017. Shinholser explicitly stated his
purpose in resigning early rather than not seeking re-election in the 2016 cycle, saying in the letter:
It is my desire and request that my successor be appointed by you. While there are certainly debateable points as to the
“ pros and cons of succession by appointment verses election, it is my belief based upon year of observation that the
appointment process is superior to the election process in the judicial context.[6]
”
—Judge Olin W. Shinholser (April 1, 2016)[1]
If Shinholser had not sought re-election, the regular election for the Group 6 would have carried forward according to plan. By
post-dating his resignation to a week before his term was set to end, however, Shinholser created a vacancy in the of ce. Pincket
led to run for the seat on May 4, 2016. He received a letter from Florida Secretary of State’s Deputy Chief of Election Records
Kristi Reid Bronson saying that the secretary declined the ling because the seat required a gubernatorial appointment.[1]
Pincket stated in his petition to the supreme court, “Whether a judge can properly submit a resignation in such a way as to avoid an
election is not only a question of constitutional law but also a question of judicial administration.” He further argued that the
secretary of state did not have the legal authority to cancel the 10th Circuit Court Group 6 election and that the secretary “had a
ministerial duty to accept [his] qualifying papers and place him on the ballot.”[1]
In the ling, Pincket noted Shinholser’s reason for resigning—to avoid having the seat lled by election. He also noted two other
seats in which similar reasoning was given by resigning judges: Judge Scott M. Brownell of the 12th Circuit Court Group 4 seat and
Judge Joseph G. Will of the 7th Circuit Court Group 8 seat. Both Brownell and Will announced post-dated resignations to take
effect on December 28, 2016. According to Pincket’s petition, “In each of these cases, including this one, the resigning judge
expressly stated the purpose of resigning with an effective date so far off in the future was to ensure that his successor would be
selected by an appointment rather than an election.” Candidates did le for both seats' elections and were refused in the same
manner as Pincket: Elizabeth M. Boyle for the 12th Circuit Court and Linda Gaustad for the 7th Circuit Court.[1]
Pincket argued the following in his petition:
There is no reason why the seat that will be vacated by Judge Shinholser should not be lled by an election in accordance
“ with this provision. It is true that a resignation before the qualifying period would ordinarily require an appointment. But a
resignation that is post-dated this far in the future to a point of just a few days before the end of the term is really nothing
more than a decision not to seek election for another term.[6]
”
—Steve Pincket (May 5, 2016)[1]
Precedent from Spector v. Glisson prioritizes electoral process for judicial of ces when possible
Pincket referred to the precedent set in Spector v. Glisson, 305 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1974). In that case, a judge announced a post-
dated resignation for the end of his term for the purpose of giving lawyers a notice that he would not seek re-election and that the
seat would be open in the upcoming election cycle. Candidates who led for the seat, however, were rejected on the basis that the
resignation created a vacancy that required an appointment, according to the secretary of state. The state supreme court,
however, rejected that argument and stated that an election was required. In the case, the court argued:
We feel that it necessarily follows from this consistent view and steadfast public policy of this state as expressed above,
“ that if the elective process is available, and if it is not expressly precluded by the applicable language, it should be utilized
to ll any available of ce by vote of the people at the earliest date possible.[6]
”
—Florida Supreme Court (1974)[1]
The court also clari ed that when a resignation is “clearly and unconditionally xed” and an election is scheduled to occur before it
takes effect, the vacancy should be “ lled by the intervening elective machinery.”[1]
Pincket argued in his petition that his case was essentially the same and that the 10th Circuit Court vacancy created by
Shinholser’s resignation could have been led by the 2016 election cycle before it took effect; “Judge Shinholser resigned before
the start of the qualifying period. Therefore, any candidate who is interested in running for his seat could easily qualify.”[1]
Anyone elected to succeed Shinholser would not take of ce until a week after his resignation, leaving a one week vacancy in the
of ce. Pincket addressed this point in his petition, pointing to an advisory opinion issued after Spector vs. Glisson, which clari ed
that gubernatorial appointments were still necessary to prevent “unreasonable vacancy” in a judicial of ce. Pincket argued that
this precedent was then applied in several other cases, but always to avoid a physical or actual vacancy in the of ce.[1]
Precedent from Trotti v. Detzner empowers judges to force appointment, rather than election, of
successors
The case of Trotti v. Detzner, 147 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), however, extended the argument to say that a physical vacancy of
any length required a gubernatorial appointment and could not be replaced by an election. In that case, a resignation was
announced before the candidate ling period but post-dated to take effect one business day before the end of the judge’s term.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that this one day physical vacancy required a gubernatorial appointment.[1]
Pincket argued that judges in the case of Trotti and his own were using post-dated resignations with a “nominal physical vacancy"
to avoid the rule in Spector. He pointed to the Trotti decision as ipping the previous application of Spector:
We are no longer using a physical vacancy in the of ce as the reason to appoint a person to ll a large gap in service, as
“ was the case in all the post-Spector decisions. Now we are using it as an excuse to justify the need for an appointment.[6] ”
—Steve Pincket (May 5, 2016)[1]
The refused candidate went on to critique the power to choose a successor the Trotti had given sitting judges. Referring to the
original case of Spector, he stated, “Justice Ervin’s noble gesture (to give notice to all interested candidates that the seat will be
open for an election) became a tool that can be used to defeat the constitutional right of voters to choose their circuit judge in an
election.”[1]
The maximum time period for the appointment process is 120 days. Pincket stated that Shinholser’s resignation nine months in
advance meant that if the governor appointed his replacement according to the timeline “we will have a judge-in-waiting for a
period of ve months.”[1]
Supreme court rejects petition, but majority criticize practice

All seven of the state's supreme court justices rejected Pincket's mandamus claim against the secretary
of state, stating that he had not made the case that the existing law "clearly and certainly" established Florida Supreme
the right to the election that he sought. The court's order upheld the secretary of state's decision to have Court
the vacancy lled by gubernatorial appointment and did not allow for motions for rehearing.[2]
A majority of the court, however, made clear that the case raised concerns that could not be addressed
by a writ of mandamus. Justices Fred Lewis and Barbara Pariente wrote separate opinions and Justices
Peggy Quince and James E.C. Perry concurred with Pariente's opinion.[2]
Pariente reluctantly upheld the precedent set by Trotti that requires vacancies of even one day to be
lled by appointment but criticized the court that formed that decision, saying it was not "faithful to the
true purpose of the Florida Constitution and the voters' preference for election of their circuit and county
court judges." She voiced a similar critique to Pincket's and argued that, "The personal preferences of Court Information
individual judges, however well-motivated their intentions, should not be the basis for determining
whether a vacancy exists that can be lled by election or appointment."[2] Justices: 7
Founded: 1845
Lewis expressed a similar view to Pariente and stated that if he "were writing on a clean slate" he would
defer to the ruling of Spector. He also highlighted that the state's constitution allows for a vote of the Location:
citizens of each circuit court to change the method of election from a contested election system to a Salary
merit selection and retention election system, but voters had previously rejected this option. "It therefore
Chief: $162,000
de es both logic and common sense that an elected judge in the last year of a term could unilaterally
Associates: $162,000
effect such a change by simply resigning before the statutory qualifying period with an effective date just
days before the end of the term," Lewis stated in his opinion. He went on to say: Judicial Selection
While I may even agree that the merit selection and retention of judges is far superior to the Method: Assisted
“ election of judges, the citizens of Florida clearly disagree. Thus, it is truly a sad day for Floridians
when their trial court judges may manipulate the electoral process and prioritize their personal
appointment
Term: 6 years
preferences over those espoused in the very Constitution they swore to defend. In any event,
such is the state of our law and this is a Court of law, not one of personal preferences.[6]
” Active justices
C. Alan Lawson
—Justice Fred Lewis (June 3, 2016)[2] Carlos Muñiz
Charles Canady
John D. Couriel
Debating elected versus appointed judges Jorge Labarga
Ricky Polston
Pincket stated in his petition for writ of mandamus, “Whether a judicial vacancy should be lled an
appointment or by an election should be determined by an objective legal standard. It should not be left
to the discretion of the departing judge.” Additionally, he criticized Shinholser’s resignation stating, “Whether the appointment
process is superior to the elective process, as Judge Shinholser believes, is simply not a matter for the departing judge to
decide.”[1]
One alternative method of judicial selection was previously put before voters. In 1998, a
Amendment 7 modi ed the state's constitution to allow each county and circuit to hold a vote
on switching to a method of merit selection and retention election. In this system, judges would
Methods of
have been appointed to their initial term on a court by the governor. After serving their rst
term, the judges would be subject to a retention vote. In a retention election, voters either
judicial selection
approve of the judge staying in of ce for another term or remove them from of ce. If removed,
the seat is lled by a new gubernatorial appointment, and the process begins anew.
After the amendment was approved, the votes were set for the general election two years later
on November 7, 2000. The alternative selection system was defeated in all counties and all
circuits.
The defeat of the alternative, however, did not necessarily indicate satisfaction with the existing
system. States across the country utilize a range of judicial selection methods, including
options besides contested elections and retention elections. Additionally, how to handle
vacancies in any elected or appointed of ce vary from state to state and of ce to of ce. In
some states, certain timelines in vacancy determine whether an appointment or election Assisted appointment
process will be used to ll the of ce. Pincket suggested in his petition for writ of mandamus, “If Gubernatorial appointment
this Court [the state supreme court] were so inclined, it could prohibit judges from resigning Legislative election
more than 120 days in the future,” in line with the appointment process timeline.[1]
Partisan elections
With most races going unopposed, however, the question remained to what degree using an Nonpartisan elections
electoral process provided voters with real choice. The system of canceling unopposed Retention election
elections meant voters did not have the option of casting write-in votes against unopposed
candidates.
See also
Judicial elections, 2016
Florida judicial elections
Judicial selection in Florida
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

To: <atatti@circuit5.org>
Cc: <zphipps@rc5state.com>; "Jeffrey Deen" <jdeen@rc5state.com>; "Kristina Belanger"
<kbelanger@pdo5.org>; "Michael Graves" <mgraves@pdo5.org>; <frank.m.talbot@usdoj.gov>;
<kelly.karase@usdoj.gov>; "Woods, William" <wwoods@marionso.com>; "McCourt,Tim"
<Tmccourt@marionso.com>; "Brad King" <bking@sao5.org>; "David Ellspermann"
<Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org>; "Greg Harrell" <GHarrell@marioncountyclerk.org>; "Neil
Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 11:56 AM
Attach: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.pdf; DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
REPLACE OCCCRC 5th DCA AS COUNSEL (CONFLICT).pdf
Subject: STATE OF FLORIDA VS NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z
The Honorable Anthony Michael Tatti

110 NW 1st Ave. Ste 4017
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
Office: 352-401-6740
Cell: 352-401-6740 - No Text Messages 9
Fax: 352-401-6789
Email: atatti@circuit5.org
https://www.floridabar.org/mybarprofile/473626
RE: STATE OF FLORIDA VS NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z
Your Honor:
I am Neil Joseph Gillespie, the Defendant in Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z.
Please find attached the following pleadings:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REPLACE OCCCRC 5th DCA AS COUNSEL (CONFLICT)

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel: 352-854-7807
9/10/2020
10
Filing # 113156036 E-Filed 09/10/2020 01:36:04 PM

vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193

CASE NO. 2020-CF-2417
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS.:
COUNTY OF MARION )
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

RE: Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti
BEFORE ME, this day personally appeared NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, who upon oath
deposes upon personal knowledge and states:
1. My name is Neil Joseph Gillespie. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify
as to the facts and matters set forth herein.
2. This Affidavit is in support of my Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M Tatti
("Judge Tatti") because I fear I will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically
described prejudice or bias of Judge Tatti, including:
A. Judge Tatti's prejudicial and biased appointment of counsel, including the wrongful
appointment of the public defender, wrongful appointment of the Office a/Criminal
Conflict And Civil Regional Counsel to represent me by and through ineffective counsel
Zachary Glenn Phipps, and the wrongful appointment of attorney Brenda Smith who has
failed to enter a notice of appearance, failed to accept the appointment, filed a motion to
withdraw, but failed to set the nlotion for a hearing.
B. Judge Tatti's prejudicial and biased denial to represent myself pro see
C. Judge Tatti's prejudicial and biased demand for a competency evaluation.
D. Judge Tatti's conflict of interest with the Marion County Bar Association, Inc. and
unopposed races and the practice of post-dating judicial resignations to block elections.
E. Judge Tatti's conflict of interest with the Fifth Judicial Circuit Florida and my civil
litigation in case no. 18-CA-2640 and case no. 20-CA-934.
RE: Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti
3. Because of the foregoing specifically described prejudice or bias of Judge Tatti, I fear I
will not receive a fair trial or hearing in this case where he presides as trial judge.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, this ~O da~of S~ptember, 2020,
by Neil J. Gillespie, who is personally known to me, or who has produced l:}~ :~e as .
identification and states that he is the person who made this affidavit and that its contents are
(SEAL) SSUSAN M. WATERMAN

NOTMY PUBLIC
~)~
STATE OF FLORIDA
• • Comm# GG051973
OTARY PUBLIC
Expire. 12/1/2020
~ <; G- r--.WcdeL~ C Y'-.
Print Name of Notary Public
My Commission Expires: 1...4:) 11 'Gao
Filing # 113156036 E-Filed 09/10/2020 01:36:04 PM

1
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
2 IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 STATE OF FLORIDA,
APPENDIX A
4 Plaintiff,
5 v. CASE NO.: 19-CF-4193
6 NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,
7 Defendant.
8 ------------------------------------------------------------
9 ********** TRANSCRIBED FROM ECR RECORDING **********
10 PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO REVOKE BOND (VIA ZOOM)
11 BEFORE: HONORABLE ANTHONY M. TATTI

Circuit Judge
12 Fifth Judicial Circuit, In and
For Marion County, Florida
13
TRANSCRIBED BY: LORNA W. CABLE, CET
14 Certified Electronic Transcriber
15 DATE AND TIME: JULY 9, 2020; 8:29 A.M.
16 LOCATION: MARION COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER

110 N.W. First Avenue
17 Hearing Room 4A
18
APPEARANCES: JARED R. GAINEY, ESQUIRE
19 Assistant State Attorney
110 N.W. First Avenue, Suite 5000
20 Ocala, Florida 34475
Attorney for the State of Florida
21
ZACHARY PHIPPS, ESQUIRE
22 OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A.
307 NW 3rd St
23 Ocala, FL 34475-6638
Attorney for the Defendant
24
25
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
(352) 624-2258 * owenassocs@aol.com
2
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 THE COURT: This is State of Florida versus Neil
3 Gillespie. It's 19-CF-4193. Counsel, please identify
4 yourselves for what we have of a record.
5 MR. GAINEY: Jared Gainey for the State.
6 MR. PHIPPS: Zach Phipps, Regional Counsel, on
7 behalf of Mr. Gillespie.
8 THE COURT: Okay. And this was set on the State's
9 Motion to Revoke Bond.
10 Mr. Gillespie has been sending e-mails to my
11 judicial assistant which ended up in her junk because
12 he sends stuff that looks like junk mail. But
13 apparently, he expressed that he was having some
14 difficulty with Zoom. I don't know how he could have
15 the difficulty before we even tried to have the
16 hearing, but he's obviously not joined.
17 Did you have any argument on the State's motion?
18 MR. PHIPPS: Well, yes, Your Honor. For starters,
19 we would request, first, that this hearing be reset.
20 Our office recently closed down due to the spike in
21 Corona virus cases again and therefore, Mr. Gillespie
22 is not able to attend at my office.
23 He did indicate to me that he has an antiquated
24 computer that does not have a microphone and therefore,
25 would not be able to attend by the Zoom app, regardless
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
3
1 of even having a webcam for it. I sent him the number
2 with the pass codes to call in. I do not see that has
3 happened at this moment.
4 THE COURT: No. You don't have any argument on
5 the issue of whether or not he was arrested for a new
6 crime while he was on pretrial release in this case, do
7 you?
8 MR. PHIPPS: Well, Your Honor, as far as legal
9 argument to the motion, I would argue that the case,
10 the 2020 case that the State is using as a basis for
11 their motion, they have not filed an Information.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Hang on a sec. He's --
13 something's happened. Let's see if he's there.
14 All right.
15 MR. PHIPPS: It appears he's trying to join.
16 THE COURT: Yep. Let's see if I can get him
17 unmuted.
18 Mr. Gillespie, can you hear me? Mr. Gillespie?
19 Well, I can't hear him. He's not muted.
20 Presumably, he can hear me. But we're here on the
21 State's Motion to Revoke Bond.
22 Mr. Phipps, have you had the opportunity to review
23 the motion?
24 MR. PHIPPS: Yes, Your Honor. And just to bring
25 Mr. Gillespie up to speed if he's able to hear us, I
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
4
1 did ask that the hearing be reset so that he could
2 appear by Zoom for it.
3 Additionally, as far as legal argument against the
4 motion, the State has not filed an Information in the
5 2020 case which is the basis for the motion to revoke
6 my client's bond.
7 On top of that, Your Honor, my client has quite a
8 contentious relationship with the Marion County
9 Sheriff's Office. He's recently been trespassed from
10 one of their substations, as well as an ongoing legal
11 issue with a Captain Welch there. And this arrest
12 seems to be contemporaneous with these issues.
13 And Your Honor, my client would argue that the
14 whole basis for his arrest on the 2020 was to prevent
15 him from pursuing his legal options against the Marion
16 County Sheriff's Office.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Well, that doesn't comport with
18 the probable cause affidavit I wrote. The incident
19 didn't appear to involve the sheriff until somebody
20 called them.
21 MR. PHIPPS: Initially, Your Honor, my client did
22 call the Marion County Sheriff's Office on the alleged
23 victim in the 2020 case. For the alleged incident that
24 occurred, she was a -- she would argue she was a
25 tenant. Mr. Gillespie would argue that she was a guest
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
5
1 who had been asked to leave the residence and they got
2 into a physical altercation over that issue, along with
3 some other issues, where my client asserts that he was
4 actually the one who was the victim of an assault and
5 battery inside his home and that the Marion County
6 Sheriff's Office refused to assist him or to act on his
7 behalf in that regard.
8 MR. GAINEY: And Your Honor, just so the Court's
9 aware, I did have an intake, a video intake with the
10 victim yesterday, late yesterday and I did sign an
11 Information this morning charging one count of robbery
12 by sudden snatching and one count of battery. That
13 wouldn't be in the court system yet but it's working
14 its way through.
15 THE COURT: Well, the statute which authorizes
16 this motion also authorizes the Court to revoke a bond
17 on its own motion. So technically, I don't know that a
18 hearing is required to accomplish the revoking of the
19 bond when a judge determines that there's probable
20 cause to believe that someone committed a new crime
21 while on pretrial release.
22 Based on the documents I've seen, including the
23 sworn probable cause affidavit supporting Mr.
24 Gillespie's most recent arrest, there is probable cause
25 to believe that he's committed a new crime while on
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
6
1 pretrial release in Case Number 2019-CF-4193.
2 I am going to order that his bond be revoked in
3 that case and that he be held without bail.
4 MR. PHIPPS: Your Honor, my client has also filed
5 several motions to dismiss counsel. Would the Court
6 wish to hear those at this moment?
7 THE COURT: Well, no, because you asked me to
8 appoint a mental health expert. Dr. Krop apparently
9 sent a copy of what he sent to everybody except me. He
10 actually sent it to my assistant at her old public
11 defender e-mail address so I never saw it until this
12 morning.
13 Do you want -- do you have somebody else in mind
14 to appoint?
15 MR. PHIPPS: Your Honor, Dr. Krop is the only one
16 that I'm aware of in Marion County. If the Court or
17 the State has somebody else that they know.
18 THE COURT: Mr. Gainey, any suggestions?
19 MR. GAINEY: I don't have any particular
20 suggestion.
21 THE COURT: I know we use Dr. Ward on the APD
22 cases.
23 MR. GAINEY: I would be fine with Dr. Ward.
24 THE COURT: But I'm thinking he's not been real
25 willing to go do evaluations under the current
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
7
1 circumstances.
2 MR. GAINEY: Yeah. I was trying to remember who
3 it was that there was an issue with on another case
4 going to the jail.
5 THE COURT: I believe it was Dr. Ward.
6 All right. Well, I'm going to task -- Mr. Phipps,
7 if you want him evaluated, pursuant to the motion that
8 you filed, then I need a suggestion of an expert. You
9 decide on that, run it by Mr. Gainey. If the State
10 wants a second, let me know. I mean, there can be up
11 to three appointed. But we need to get that in process
12 at this point. And then I will deal with Mr.
13 Gillespie's various filings.
14 MR. GAINEY: Yes, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Okay. All right. That will conclude
16 this hearing.
17 MR. GAINEY: I'll e-mail you an order, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Thank you.
19 THE CLERK: Was there a motion for competency?
20 THE COURT: Yeah, back in March, I had signed an
21 order.
22 THE CLERK: Okay. So you already signed an order.
23 THE COURT: It's just Dr. Krop. He's been sending
24 all his stuff to Dr. Krop.
25 THE CLERK: Okay.
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
8
1 (The hearing was concluded at 8:37 a.m.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
9
1 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF FLORIDA)
3 COUNTY OF MARION)
4 I, LORNA W. CABLE, Certified Electronic
5 Transcriber, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and
6 did transcribe the foregoing court proceedings held on July
7 9, 2019 before the Honorable Anthony M. Tatti, Circuit Court
8 Judge, Marion County, Florida, Fifth Judicial Circuit, as
9 digitally recorded in the case of STATE OF FLORIDA vs. NEIL
10 GILLESPIE, Case Number 19-CF-4193; and that the foregoing
11 pages numbered 1 through 8 inclusive, constitute a true and
12 correct record of the requested recorded proceedings to the
13 best of my ability.
14 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,
15 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
16 I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
17 counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
18 interested in the action.
19 DATED this 7th day of September, 2020, at Ocala,
20 Marion County, Florida.
21
22
LORNA W. CABLE, CET
AAERT CET-518
24
25
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
Filing # 113156036 E-Filed 09/10/2020 01:36:04 PM
1
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
2 IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 STATE OF FLORIDA,
APPENDIX B
4 Plaintiff,
5 v. CASE NO.: 20-CF-2417
6 NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,
7 Defendant.
8 ------------------------------------------------------------
9 ********** TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITAL RECORDING **********
10 PROCEEDINGS: ARRAIGNMENT
11 BEFORE: HONORABLE ANTHONY M. TATTI

Circuit Judge
12 Fifth Judicial Circuit, In and
For Marion County, Florida
13
TRANSCRIBED BY: LORNA W. CABLE, CET
15 DATE: JULY 28, 2020
16 LOCATION: MARION COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER

110 N.W. First Avenue
17 Ocala, Florida 34475
18 APPEARANCES: JARED R. GAINEY, ESQUIRE

Assistant State Attorney
19 110 N.W. First Avenue, Suite 5000
20 Attorney for the State of Florida
21
22
23
24
25
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
2
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 THE COURT: Next?
3 MR. AVEN: Number 31 on the docket, Neil Joseph
4 Gillespie, Case Number 2020-CF-2417.
5 An Information was filed on July 8th charging the
6 defendant with one count of robbery by sudden
7 snatching, a third degree felony, punishable by up to
8 five years and/or a $5,000 fine and one count of
9 battery, punishable by up to one year and a $1,000
10 fine.
11 THE COURT: All right. Would you raise your right
12 hand, please.
13 (Defendant sworn by the Court.)
14 THE DEFENDANT: I do.
15 THE COURT: Can you tell me your full name, sir?
16 THE DEFENDANT: Neil Joseph Gillespie.
17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gillespie, I'm going
18 to sort through what you've filed. Okay.
19 All right. It does appear you filled out an
20 application requesting the appointment of a lawyer; is
21 that correct?
22 THE DEFENDANT: No. I do not want a public
23 defender. I do not want the office of counsel.
24 In talking to -- right now, I'm appearing pro se.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
3
1 THE DEFENDANT: I am willing to talk to an
2 attorney, a private attorney. No public attorneys.
3 THE COURT: Okay. So you don't want to be
4 considered for the appointment of a lawyer?
5 THE DEFENDANT: Absolutely not.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, just "no" is fine.
7 THE DEFENDANT: No.
8 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So do you have the
9 charging document?
10 MR. GAINEY: I do.
11 THE COURT: Okay. The gentleman behind you is
12 going to hand you a copy of your charging document.
13 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
14 MR. GAINEY: Yes, sir.
15 THE COURT: Now, Mr. Gillespie, you have the right
16 to have that read out loud to you or you are entitled
17 to read it to yourself. Which would you prefer?
18 THE DEFENDANT: I think I've read it already, but
19 I'll read it again myself.
20 THE COURT: All right. That will be fine.
21 In order to give you an opportunity to try to hire
22 private counsel, then what we'll do today is enter a
23 plea of not guilty for you. That will give you time to
24 go hire a lawyer, give your lawyer time to investigate
25 your case.
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
4
1 You are assigned to my docket, so your next
2 scheduled court date with a private attorney would be
3 October 20th at 1:30.
4 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. But may I interrupt, Your
5 Honor?
6 THE COURT: Sure.
7 THE DEFENDANT: Right now, I'm appearing pro se
8 for myself.
9 THE COURT: Right.
10 THE DEFENDANT: I filed the documents with the
11 Court that will allow me to do that and that's what I
12 want to do right now.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm basing what I just
14 said on what you told me a moment ago, is that you were
15 going to try to hire a private attorney.
16 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, but in the meantime, I'm
17 representing myself.
18 THE COURT: Okay. I understand that and there's
19 going to be a document you're going to be asked to sign
20 today, indicating that you're giving up your right to a
21 lawyer, but that's just for today, okay? Next time you
22 come to court, if you don't have a lawyer with you, I'm
23 going to go through this process again, okay? Because
24 I have to make sure if you want a lawyer, you have the
25 right, you know, that you have the opportunity to have
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
5
1 one appointed if you don't have one, okay?
2 THE DEFENDANT: All right.
3 THE COURT: Now, Mr. Gillespie, I know you have
4 another case pending, okay, because I know that's on my
5 docket as well. And as a result of being arrested for
6 this case, I signed an order revoking your bond on the
7 previous case.
8 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
9 THE COURT: Okay? Have you talked to a
10 psychologist yet in connection with the first case?
11 THE DEFENDANT: He doesn't want to do it.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 THE DEFENDANT: He's against it.
14 THE COURT: All right.
15 THE DEFENDANT: You talked about Dr. Krop.
16 THE COURT: Well, yeah, because you said some
17 things about Dr. Krop, and one of the things that
18 you --
19 THE DEFENDANT: Well, the whole procedure of
20 getting to that point didn't follow the Florida Rules
21 of Criminal Procedure.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't want to argue
23 with you about what the rules are and what the rules
24 are, okay? The point -- the issue in your case is the
25 lawyer that was appointed to your case raised or filed
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
6
1 a motion to have you evaluated because he had concerns
2 about your competence, okay? I can't go forward with
3 anything in your case until that issue is resolved. So
4 I know you file things on a regular basis. Until
5 somebody tells me you're competent to represent
6 yourself, I'm not going to address those things. So
7 it's vitally important that you cooperate with having
8 an evaluation done. Once that's done, then we can kind
9 of move forward on your case.
10 THE DEFENDANT: Well, first of all, are you
11 talking about the other case or this case?
12 THE COURT: The other case.
13 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. Well, I wasn't aware that
14 we were going to be here on a different case.
15 THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to explain to you
16 what the situation, the overall situation is. Because
17 you see, these guys here are about to put handcuffs on
18 you and take you into custody. And I'm trying to
19 explain to you perhaps an alternative to that today,
20 okay?
21 THE DEFENDANT: So you're saying I have to go get
22 a psychological evaluation or you're going to throw me
23 in jail?
24 THE COURT: No, sir. I'm saying that I have to
25 have you evaluated and get an evaluation report done
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
7
1 for me to determine what your level of competence is.
2 THE DEFENDANT: Well, another judge already did
3 that, Judge Craggs. She found I was competent to
4 represent myself in this case.
5 THE COURT: Judge Craggs is not a criminal judge.
6 That was a family law proceeding.
7 THE DEFENDANT: Well, she's a circuit court judge.
8 THE COURT: Yes, sir, but not assigned to either
9 one of your cases.
10 THE DEFENDANT: So you're saying that that
11 determination, that --
12 THE COURT: It may become relevant at some point,
13 but no, it's not going to be sufficient to address the
14 issue in circuit court.
15 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. Well, there's -- we can
16 have a Faretta hearing right now.
17 THE COURT: A Faretta hearing doesn't have
18 anything to do with your competence.
19 THE DEFENDANT: Sure it does.
20 THE COURT: Other than your competence to
21 represent yourself. And I have a member of the bar
22 that's filed a motion indicating that he had concerns
23 about your competence. So I --
24 THE DEFENDANT: He's not even supposed to be
25 representing me.
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
8
1 THE COURT: Well, you can't fire court-appointed
2 counsel.
3 THE DEFENDANT: He's court-appointed based on
4 what?
5 THE COURT: Based on a court order.
6 THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, the applications that
7 I signed --
8 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gillespie, I'm going
9 to do you one favor today and that's it, okay? I'm
10 going to set aside the order revoking the bond for now,
11 okay? Given the situation in the jail and the
12 situation that may arise if they try to take you to
13 jail, it's not worth any of it to them or to you. I'm
14 going to give you a chance to stay at liberty, okay?
15 But I need you to cooperate at least to the extent
16 that we can get an evaluation scheduled and then we can
17 begin to make some headway on your cases.
18 THE DEFENDANT: But you're talking about another
19 case, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Yes, I am.
21 THE DEFENDANT: We're here on this case.
22 THE COURT: Right. And I'm going to enter a plea
23 of not guilty. You're going to get set for another
24 court date. That was all that was going to happen on
25 that case today.
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
9
1 THE DEFENDANT: And you're aware that I filed a
2 motion in each case to disqualify you from the case.
3 THE COURT: Right. And I've explained to you that
4 because of the pending competency issue, all of your
5 motions are on hold until I resolve that.
6 THE DEFENDANT: Do we have a -- is this being
7 recorded?
8 THE COURT: Oh, absolutely it is.
9 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. Can I get a transcript of
10 it?
11 THE COURT: You'd have to pay for that, sir.
12 THE DEFENDANT: Fine. I want to say on the record
13 right now, I want a transcript of this hearing and I
14 want it expedited.
15 THE COURT: That would cost about three times as
16 much.
17 THE DEFENDANT: Well, whatever it costs, sir. I
18 don't set the prices.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Then the electronic court
20 reporter will make a transcript of the proceeding and
21 once you pay for it, it will be available to you.
22 THE DEFENDANT: Now, Your Honor, regarding this
23 competency hearing in another case, that attorney
24 tricked me. He said they were going to evaluate my
25 disability, not competency. So we've got two different
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
10
1 things.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 THE DEFENDANT: But as I understand the rule as it
4 was told to me by private counsel, there's supposed to
5 be three doctors. The State picks one, I pick one --
6 THE COURT: It says no more -- what the rule says,
7 Mr. Gillespie, is no more than three. It doesn't
8 require three. It says no more than three. I know
9 what the rules says.
10 THE DEFENDANT: Well, it's supposed to be you pick
11 one, I pick one and then there's a third one.
12 THE COURT: Not necessarily.
13 THE DEFENDANT: So what are you saying, you're
14 denying me that?
15 THE COURT: No, sir. The not guilty plea has been
16 entered. This hearing is over today. I'm not going to
17 order you taken into custody. I'm setting aside the
18 order revoking your bond in the other case. You're
19 still at liberty on bond. But I'm telling you that
20 this is going to continue to be an issue until you
21 agree to be evaluated by a mental health professional.
22 THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. Well, per se, you know, I
23 don't really have a problem with that.
24 THE COURT: Well, good, then we won't have a
25 problem.
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
11
1 THE DEFENDANT: Because of my congenital birth
2 defects, I've had doctors poke and prod me all my life
3 so I know what the whole game is about.
4 THE COURT: Okay. All right, sir. Then pay
5 attention to your mail, okay? It's going to be very
6 important you keep track of what's going on with your
7 case.
8 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
9 And what is the status of my $5,000 bond in this
10 case?
11 THE COURT: If you posted a $5,000 bond, you're
12 out on your $5,000 bond.
13 THE DEFENDANT: Well, my brother posted it.
14 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Just make sure
15 you come to court when you're ordered to.
16 THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to ask that I be
17 released on recognizance.
18 THE COURT: No, sir, I'm not going to address that
19 today.
20 THE DEFENDANT: I'm 64 years old. I've never been
21 arrested -- I've never been convicted of anything.
22 THE COURT: Right. And you're out. You're not in
23 custody. I'm not going to address how much you paid to
24 get out of custody today.
25 THE DEFENDANT: Well, at this point, it seems
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
12
1 ambiguous about what you're asking for me.
2 THE COURT: I'm not asking you to do anything,
3 other than pay attention to your mail and when you are
4 notified that another doctor has been appointed to
5 evaluate you, that you cooperate with that. That's the
6 thing I've really asked you to do today.
7 THE DEFENDANT: And what is your concern, Your
8 Honor?
9 THE COURT: I want to resolve the legal issue of
10 your competence and I have no choice but to follow
11 through because the motion has been filed.
12 THE DEFENDANT: But the motion is defective. I
13 pointed that out. I mean, you can hold a Faretta
14 hearing.
15 THE COURT: The motion was not defective.
16 THE DEFENDANT: You can hold a Faretta hearing.
17 THE COURT: And I'm not going to argue any more
18 today, Mr. Gillespie.
19 THE DEFENDANT: All right. All right, Your Honor.
20 I would like a copy of the transcript.
21 THE BAILIFF: Over here, Mr. Gillespie. You have
22 to sign your paperwork, okay?
23 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
24 (The hearing was concluded.)
25
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
13
1 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF FLORIDA)
3 COUNTY OF MARION)
4 I, LORNA W. CABLE, Certified Electronic
5 Transcriber, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and
6 did transcribe the foregoing court proceedings held on July
7 28, 2019 before the Honorable Anthony M. Tatti, Circuit
8 Court Judge, Marion County, Florida, Fifth Judicial Circuit,
9 as digitally recorded in the case of STATE OF FLORIDA vs.
10 NEIL GILLESPIE, Case Number 20-CF-2417; and that the
11 foregoing pages numbered 1 through 12 inclusive, constitute
12 a true and correct record of the requested recorded
13 proceedings to the best of my ability.
14 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,
15 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
16 I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
17 counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
18 interested in the action.
19 DATED this 7th day of September, 2020, at Ocala,
20 Marion County, Florida.
21
22
LORNA W. CABLE, CET
AAERT CET-518
24
25
OWEN & ASSOCIATES

P.O. Box 157
Filing # 113156036 E-Filed 09/10/2020 01:36:04 PM

vs. CASE NO. 20I9-CF-4I93
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/ APPENDIX C
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS.:
COUNTY OF MARION )
RE: Zachary Glenn Phipps, Bar ID # 65936
BEFORE ME, this day personally appeared NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, who upon oath
deposes upon personal knowledge and states:
1. My name is Neil Joseph Gillespie. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify
as to the facts and matters set forth herein.
2. Judge Anthony Tatti wrongly appointed the Office OfCriminal Conflict And Civil
Regional Counsel to represent me by and through attorney Zachary Glenn Phipps, Bar ID #
65936, in this case on January 13, 2020 in his Order Substituting Counsel (Conflict).
3. I am not indigent. I am not entitled to court-appointed counsel. Judge Tatti's previous

appointment of the Public Defender was wrong. I do not want court-appointed counsel. I did not
request court-appointed counsel. I reject court-appointed counsel.
4. On March 13,2020 attorney Zachary Phipps filed a groundless Motion To Determine

Defendant'S Competency To Stand Trial. Mr. Phipps lied to me during the arraignment in 2019
CF-4193 when he asked me, at the last moment, to agree to a review of disability. Mr. Phipps did
not get my informed consent. Mr. Phipps did not seek a review of disability. Instead, he sought
to determine my competency to stand trial, without my informed consent.
5. On March 27,2020 I fired Mr. Phipps as my counsel by email (Exhibit 1) for ineffective
assistance of counsel, and failure to recuse. My complaint for Phipps to The Bar was attached.
6. Mr. Phipps refused to recuse himself and remained as my counsel of record, even though
we no longer had a legitimate attorney-client relationship. During this time Mr. Phipps acted
with malice aforethought to harm me and cause my wrongful incarceration on a bond issue.
7. On July 30,2020 at 12:26 PM Mr. Phipps and I spoke by telephone on a recorded line.
Mr. Phipps agreed to withdrawal the motion to determine competency. Mr. Phipps agreed I am
competent to stand trial. Phipps also said the prosecution in 2020-CF-2417 was an "abuse of
discretion". However before he filed the motion, Mr. Phipps moved to withdrawal from the case.
RE: Zachary Glenn Phipps, Bar ID # 65936
8. On July 30, 2020 at 2:58 PM I emailedMr.Phipps to confirm out agreement. Exhibit 2.
"This is to confirm our telephone discussion earlier today where you decided to
withdrawal your "Motion To Determine Defendant's Competency To Stand Trial" filed
March 13, 2020."
"Please do so ASAP as I expect Judge Tatti to soon enter another ORDER

APPOINTING EXPERT FOR COMPETENCY EVALUATION. Judge Tatti contends he
only needs 1 expert, not 3 permitted under the rule."
9. On August 6, 2020 Mr. Phipps moved to withdrawal from representing me. Exhibit 3.
10. On August 6, 2020 The Regional Counsel's Office determined and certified that a conflict
of interest exists that prohibits the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 5th
District from representing me. Exhibit 4.
11. On August 6, 2020 Judge Tatti entered ORDER ALLOWING THE OFFICE OF
CRIMINAL CONFLICT AND CIVIL REGIONAL COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW. Exhibit 5.
The Order wrongly appointed Brenda H. Smith, Esquire to represent me.
12. On August 24, 2020 attorney Brenda Smith filed Motion To Withdraw. Exhibit 6. The
motion notes that Ms. Smith did not file a Notice of Appearance or Acceptance of Appointment
because on August 7,2020 I filed Defendant's Motion to Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se as
permitted by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and Fla, R. ofCrim. P. 3.111(d)(3).
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETHNOT,
illespie
5t
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, this 1 day of September, 2020,
by Neil J. Gillespie, who is personally known to me, or who has produced fL Dl- as
identification and states that he is the person who made this affidavit and that its contents are
(SE ""'fI",
!~m~v't-~
~~I: ~. ~j
STEPH.ANIE LOZANO
Notary Public· State of Florida
-,}-Q-'
'••~" ~l Commission # GG 908543
"'",~~,,'Y. •••, My Comm. Expires Jun 21, 2022
~-k~~ U2a-1W
P~ame of Notary Public
My Commission Expires: at£! 1-1 20'-- L
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie

To: "Zachary Phipps" <zphipps@rc5state.com>
Cc: "Jeff Deen" <JDeen@rc5state.com>; <frank.m.talbot@usdoj.gov>; <kelly.karase@usdoj.gov>;
<USAFLM.Civil.Rights@usdoj.gov>; "John Anthony Tomasino" <tomasino@flcourts.org>;
<atatti@circuit5.org>; "Brad King" <bking@sao5.org>; "David Ellspermann"
<Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org>; "Greg Harrell" <GHarrell@marioncountyclerk.org>;
"Courtemanche, Richard" <RCourtemanche@floridabar.org>; "Doyle, Joshua"
<jdoyle@floridabar.org>; "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 7:11 PM
Attach: FLORIDA BAR COMPLAINT ZACHARY GLENN PHIPPS, ID# 65936.pdf
Subject: You are hereby terminated as my counsel, fired for your failure to recuse, and ineffective assistance
of counsel.
Zachary Glenn Phipps
OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A.
307 NW 3rd St
Ocala, FL 34475-6638
Email: zphipps@rc5state.com
RE. STATE OF FLORIDA VS NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE 1

Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z
Mr. Phipps,
You are hereby terminated as my counsel, fired for your failure to recuse, and ineffective assistance of
counsel. You may cancel our appointment you set for March 31, 2020 at 11:00 AM
To the Clerk: Attached is my FLORIDA BAR COMPLAINT ZACHARY GLENN PHIPPS, ID# 65936,
and documents too large for TFB’s 25 page limit. Please put this information on the record/case docket.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
9/1/2020
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie

To: <zphipps@rc5state.com>
Cc: "Jeffrey Deen" <jdeen@rc5state.com>; "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>;
<mnappi@rc5state.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 2:58 PM
Subject: Withdrawal of Motion To Determine Defendant's Competency To Stand Trial
Zachary Glenn Phipps
OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A.
Marion Office:
307 NW 3rd St.
Ocala, FL 34475-6638
Email: zphipps@rc5state.com 2
RE. STATE OF FLORIDA VS NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE
Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z
Mr. Phipps:
This is to confirm our telephone discussion earlier today where you decided to withdrawal your "Motion
To Determine Defendant’s Competency To Stand Trial" filed March 13, 2020.
Please do so ASAP as I expect Judge Tatti to soon enter another ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT FOR
COMPETENCY EVALUATION. Judge Tatti contends he only needs 1 expert, not 3 permitted under
the rule.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
JEFFREY DEEN – REGIONAL COUNSEL, FIFTH DISTRICT, jdeen@rc5state.com

Michael Nappi – Chief Assistant Regional Counsel, mnappi@rc5state.com
9/1/2020
Filing # 111365309 E-Filed 08/06/2020 09:07:28 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 2019-CF-4193-A
Plaintiff,
Vs.
Defendant.
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - -/
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel and moves this Court to enter an Order
permitting undersigned counsel to withdraw from representation of the Defendant, NEIL
JOSEPH GILLESPIE and files this Motion to Withdraw, and alleges the following in support
thereof:
1. That undersigned counsel was appointed to represent the Defendant in the

above-styled matter.
2. The Regional Counsel's Office has determined and is certifying that a conflict of
interest exists that prohibits The Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional
Counsel, 5th District from representing the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant by and through undersigned counsel respectfully

requests that this Honorable Court grant this motion and appoint another conflict attorney to
represent the Defendant.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document has been furnished to: Office of the
State Attorney, eservicen1arion@sa05.org, 110 NW 1st Ave., Ocala, FL 34475, by email, the
Defendant, 8092 SW 115th Loop, OCALA, FL 34481, by mail, this 5 day of August, 2020.
/S/ Zachary G. Phipps

Zachary G. Phipps Esq.
Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional
Counsel, 5th District
Rccmarion@rc5state.com
307 N.W. 3rd Street
Phone No. 352-732-1230
Fax No. 352-732-1228
Filing # 111365309 E-Filed 08/06/2020 09:07:28 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No: 2019-CF-4193-A
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

4
Defendant.
________________________________/
CERTIFICATION OF CONFLICT BY OFFICE OF REGIONAL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

CONFLICT, 5TH DISTRICT
The Office of Regional Criminal Conflict and Civil Counsel hereby certifies that a conflict does
in fact exist based upon one or more of the following and therefore withdrawal of this office from this
case is appropriate:
____ 1. Conflict of interest involving codefendants.
____ 2. This office previously represented a witness involved in the current case.
____ 3. The attorney assigned to this case previously represented a codefendant or material
witness in this case.
____ 4. This office has material and irreconcilable differences with the client.
 5. Other reasons requiring withdrawal. Specifically: The Regional Counsel's Office has
determined and is certifying that a conflict of interest exists that prohibits the Office of
Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 5th District from representing the
Defendant.
____ 6. The office cannot act on behalf of one client without materially affecting the
representation of another client, Thomas v State 785 So 2d 626 (FLA 2d DCA, 2001).
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing document has been furnished to: The Marion County
Clerk of Court, this 5 day of August, 2020.
/S/ Zachary G. Phipps___________
Zachary G. Phipps Esq.
Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional
Counsel, 5th District
Rccmarion@rc5state.com
307 N.W. 3rd Street
Px: 352-732-1230 Fx: 352-732-1228
Filing # 111402060 E-Filed 08/06/2020 02:49:50 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No.: 2019-CF-4193-A

Plaintiff,
Vs.
Defendant.
5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
ORDER ALLOWING THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL CONFLICT AND CIVIL

REGIONAL COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW
THIS CAUSE having conle to be heard this date upon Motion of the Office of Criminal
Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, to withdraw from further representation of the above
named Defendant, and the Court having been fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional
Counsel, is hereby allowed to withdraw from further representation of the Defendant in the
above-styled cause and BRENDA H. SMITH, ESoUIRE is hereby appointed to represent the
Defendant in this cause.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional
Counsel shall forward all discovery materials received in this matter to the newly appointed
attorney within three (3) days of the date of this Order. If no discovery has yet been received,
the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel shall immediately notify the newly
appointed attorney.
DONE AND ORDERED at Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida, this _6_day of
August, 2020.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
by Facsimile and u.s. Mail to the following on this ~ day of August, 2020.
Office of the State Attorney
(Via Electronic Mail: eservicemarion@sa05.org)
Zachary G. Phipps, Assistant Regional Counsel
(Via Electronic Mail: rccmarion@rc5state.com)
Neil Joseph Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
OCALA, FL 34481
and
Attorney: Brenda H. Smith, Esquire

Smith.brenda.atty@hmail.com
Next court date: No new dates currently

Filing # 112255477 E-Filed 08/24/2020 11:57:31 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCI]IT

IN AND FOR MAzuON COUNTY, FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 2019 CF 004193
vs.

Defendant. 6
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
Appointed counsel for the Defendant, Neil Joseph Gillespie, files her
Motion to Withdraw and, as grounds, states:
1. Counsel was appointed to represent the Defendant on August 6,2020. On
August 7,2020, Mr. Gillespie, pro se, filed his Defendant's Motion to
Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se. A copy is attached as Exhibit "A" .
Counsel did not file a Notice of Appearance or Acceptance of Appointrnent
because of this filing by Mr. Gillespie.
2. In the meantime, the Defendant, Mr. Gillespie, arrended his pending Writ
of Habeas Corpus to add counsel as a Defendant. The Writ of Habeas
Corpus was denied. However, this placed counsel in a position adverse to
that of Mr. Gillespie.
3. Mr. Gillespie notified counsel that he intended to file has filed a complaint
with the Florida Bar against counsel that, if filed, would also places her in a
position adverse to Mr. Gillespie. Please note that Mr. Gillespie notified
counsel that he no longer intend to file a complaint with the Florida Bar.
4. The foregoing has created a conflict of interest and counsel should be
allowed to withdraw from the order appointing her as counsel for Mr.
Gillespie.
5. Also, Mr. Gillespie has consistently maintained that he does not want courl
appointed counsel. Mr. Gillespie has also consistently rnaintained that he is
not indigent and not entitled to courl-appointed counsel.
WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully requests that she be allowed to withdraw from
the order appointing her as counsel for the Defendant and for such other and further relief
as is appropriate under the circumstances.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served, electronically and
via the State of Florida's efiling portal upon the Office of the State Attorney Neil J.
Gillespie, the Defendant this 24't' day of August , 2020,
/s/ Brenda H. Smith
Brenda H. Smith, Esq.

871 South Central Avenue, Suite A
Umatilla, Florida 327 84
(3s2) 669-4667
Email : smith.brenda. atlv@ gmail. com
Florida Bar No. 717657
Filing # 111470516 E-Filed0810712020 03:14:33 PM

IN AND FOR MARION COI.NTY FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
Vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193

Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REFUSE COLTNSEL AND APPEAR PRO SE

Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, here in the
first person, files De.fendant's Motion to Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se, and Motion
to Strike Order Appointing Expert.for Competency Evalua.tion, and states,
1. This Court granted a motion by attorney Zachary Phipps and the Office Of
Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (OCCCRC) to withdraw as counsel in this
case on August 6,2020. The Order appoints BRENDA H. SMITH, ESQUIRE to
represent the Defendant in this cause.
2. I hereby assert my right to refuse counsel, and appear pro se, as provided by
Faretta v. Californra,422 U.S. 806 (1975), and Fla, R. of Crim. P. 3.111(dX3).
3. I reject representation by Brenda H. Smith at this time. Rule 3.111(d)(5).
4. In Faretta v. Californra,422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United
States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and
represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
5. Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.1 1 1(dX3) states:
(3) Regardless of the defendant's legal skills or the complexity of the case, the
court shall not deny a defendant's unequivocal request to represent himself or
herself, if the court makes a determination of record that the defendant has made a
knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and docs not suffer from
Electronically Filed Marion Case # 19CF004193AX 08/0712020 03:14:33 PM
ttprt
DEFENDANT'S MOTION I'O REFUSE COLTNSEL AND APPEAR PRO SE Case #2019-CA-4193
Motion to Strike Order Appointing Experl for Competency Evaluation
severe mental illness to the point where the defendant is not competent to conduct
trial proceedings by himself or herself.
6. The Defendant in this case was found competent to waive the right to a lawyer
and represent himself during two (2) Faretta hearings in2020-CF-2417 , by Judge Tatti on
July 28, 2020 (anaignment) and by Judge Craggs on June 14,2020 (first appearance).
7. I also move to strike Order Appointing Expert for Competency Evaluation, On
March 13,2020 attorney Zachary Phipps filed a groundless Motion T'o Determine
Defendant's Competency T'o Stand Trial.Dwing a telephone call with me last week
Phipps agreed to withdrawal the motion; Mr. Phipps agreed I am competent to stand trial.
However before he filed the motion, Mr, Phipps moved to withdrawal from the case.
During our conversation Mr. Phipps also said the prosecution in 2020-CP-2417 was an
"abuse of discretion"
WHEREFORE, I respectfully move this Court to GRANT Defendant's Motion to
Re/use Counsel and Appear Pro Se, and GRANT Motion to Strike Order Appointing
Expert for Competency Evaluation.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED August 7, 2020.

lsl
Neil J. Gillespie, PETITIONER PRO SE, a nonlawyer
8092 SW I l5th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel, (3s2) 8s4-7807
Email : neilgillespie@mfi. net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing was filed August 7 ,2020 on the Florida
Portal and sewed to the names on the Portal Notice of Service of Courl Documents.
lsl
Neil J. Gillespie

Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony Tatti

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony Tatti

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Filing # 113156036 E-Filed 09/10/2020 01:36:04 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI

STATE OF FLORIDA v NEIL J. GILLESPIE, CASE NO. 2020-CF-2417

hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.

Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z, and charged with two crimes:

Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1a Interception of Oral Communication;

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tampa.

Fla. Stat. sec. 784.03.1A1 Battery

Section II I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL

5. I am not indigent. I am not entitled to court-appointed counsel. I do not want court-

A. The Public Defender (Fla. Stat. sec. 27.51)

my affidavit of indigent status was incomplete. (Exhibit 3).

Fla. Stat. § 27.5303(1)(a).

included two witnesses. (Exhibit 4). See,

DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A LAWYER

on July 28, 2020 in Case No. 2020-CF-2417. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3).

2020 shows Application for Indigent Status Original (filled out).

indigent. I am not entitled to court-appointed counsel. I do not want court-appointed counsel. I

reject court-appointed counsel. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).

2020 during the arraignment in 20-CF-2417: (Appendix B, Transcript, beginning at page 8)

1 THE COURT: Well, you can't fire court-appointed

described prejudge or bias of the judge.

District from representing me.

Esquire to represent me.

8 part of my basis for the reasoning to withdraw this

Esquire to represent me.

“coronavirus pandemic”, and a “conflict of interest”.

not lawfully served:

• The Order was entered on August 20, 2020 in case 2019-CF-4193

is void for lack of valid Certificate of Service.

cites to an obsolete Administrative Order A2008-41-A. Assistant Attorney General Quinlan

Section IV I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT

Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1a Interception of Oral Communication;

AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE Re: Marion Senior Services, Inc.

answered the phone when I called.

46. Florida judges take an oath (Art. 2, sec. 5, Fla. Const).

A Judge Be Subject to Suit?” Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987)

me to fear I will not receive a fair trial or hearing.

Section V I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT

Circuit in Case No. 20-CA-934, including,

Brad King, State Attorney

the jurisdiction of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Section VI I MOVE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TATTI BECAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE CHAPTER 934

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REPLACE OCCCRC 5th DCA AS COUNSEL

competence. The Order appears at Exhibit 10 and states:

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT'S JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Lawyers Assistance, as it suggests a breakdown in the judge’s thinking and competence.

the Florida Department of Health. Filing # 110871408 E-Filed 07/27/2020 10:01:40 PM

misdemeanor charge. Attorney Adam Stout filed a number of lawsuits:

Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case Number 5D20-1442

Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case Number 5D 20-1479

Under the American system of criminal justice, a defendant is

LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE TATTI

• Section A Legal Argument

Respondents. A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.)

Code of Judicial Conduct. (Emphasis added).

“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself where his or her impartiality

Commentary for Canon 3E(1)

“whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.