Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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,
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
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
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
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,
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,
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:
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(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.
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:
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
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
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
16. I successfully waived my right to a lawyer during a Faretta Hearing before Judge Ann
4
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
18. The public online docket in Case No. 19-CF-4193 appearing at DOC-103 date 07-22-
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
21. The foregoing not withstanding, Judge Tatti made this statement on the record July 28,
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
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
5
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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,
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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,
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
36. Judge Tatti’s Order Compelling Defendant To Appear For Evaluation (Exhibit 6) was
8
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
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
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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.
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:
43. My arrest was politically motivated by Marion Co. Sheriff Billy Woods, see,
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
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
“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
“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
12
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
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
13
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
49. On February 20, 2020 I emailed two motions to Judge Tatti: (Exhibit 9)
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
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
14
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
Section VII 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 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
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
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.
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
Section VIII 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:
• 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:
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
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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.,
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
54. Under Canon 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida,
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
56. Rule 2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. states in relevant part,
17
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
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.
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
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
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.
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
from the judge, the motion is legally sufficient and should be granted. Coleman v. State, 866
68. The motion to disqualify a judge should contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias,
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
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,
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,
20
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
that they will not receive fair and impartial trial, or that judge has pre-judged case. Williams v.
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
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.
78. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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.
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
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
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
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY M. TATTI
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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
88. Certification. The undersigned movant certifies that the motion and the movant's
undermines Rule 2.330(c)(4) service of a motion to disqualify a judge on the Florida Portal.
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
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
This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
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.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the
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:
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
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida
Marion County Judicial Center
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
Marion County Judicial Center
110 NW 1st Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34475
Email: Ellspermann@marioncountyclerk.org
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.
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,
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."
(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.
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.
I>•
,
My Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
::!STATE OF FLORIDA
• Comm# GG098397
Expires 5/1812021
~ . \-0 · "Lo? \
NOTARY PUBLIC
WITNESSES: The witnesses attest to the voluntary execution of this waiver. Rule 3.111(d)(4)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
CRIMINAL DIVISION
~st Appearance
_ _Arraignment
_ _Plea
_ _Trial
STATE OF FLORIDA
V5.
GJi\\e5r~.Q. ~.L.\
Date
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
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
Vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
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
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
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).
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
(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
Motion to Strike Order Appointing Expert 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 in 2020-CF-2417, by Judge Tatti on
July 28, 2020 (arraignment) and by Judge Craggs on June 14, 2020 (first appearance).
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”
Refuse Counsel and Appear Pro Se, and GRANT Motion to Strike Order Appointing
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!
Issues Election analysis Circuit court County court Election rules Recent news
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]
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_local_trial_court_judicial_elections,_2016 2/6
9/9/2020 Florida local trial court judicial elections, 2016 - Ballotpedia
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]
“ 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
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_local_trial_court_judicial_elections,_2016 4/6
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
Your Honor:
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Tel: 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
9/10/2020
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ADDENDUM FOR CASE 20 19-CF-4193
Addendum for paper documents only (not E-served) for
Filing # 113166514 E-Filed 09/10/202002:52:56 PM
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 ofTrial
Judges; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.080, Service and Filing ofPleadings, Orders and Documents; Fla. R.
Jud. Admin. 2.516, Service ofPleadings and Documents; to Circuit Judge Anthony M. Tatti by
hand delivery to the Marion County Judicial Center, and by United Parcel Service, as follows:
If the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the
person's usual place of abode (left in a conspicuous place by the front door)
[Filing # 113156036 E-Filed 09/10/2020 01 :36:04 PM (paper) was also served by hand]
NOTE: Mr. Greg Harrell, General Counsel to the Clerk, confirmed by email at
7.47 PM September 10,2020, that the courthouse does not have an after-hours, or
night depository for documents. The email is attached.
Marion County Judicial Center, 110 N.W. 1st Avenue, Ste 4017,
Ocala, FL 34475-6601
Neil Gillespie
Mr. Harrell, does the courthouse have an after-hours, or night depository for documents? I
realized that I must serve two sets of the paper motion to disqualify by mail, UPS and hand,
reflecting the different Portal numbers. I would like to do this before 12 midnight if
possible. Thanks.
9/10/2020
Filing # 113166514 E-Filed 09/10/2020 02:52:56 PM
BEFORE ME, this day personally appeared NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, who upon oath
1. My name is Neil Joseph Gillespie. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify
("Judge Tatti") because I fear I will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically
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
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE
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.
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
truthful to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
~)~
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
3 STATE OF FLORIDA,
APPENDIX A
4 Plaintiff,
7 Defendant.
8 ------------------------------------------------------------
25
2 with the pass codes to call in. I do not see that has
7 you?
14 All right.
17 unmuted.
23 the motion?
6 my client's bond.
20 called them.
12 morning.
14 to appoint?
20 suggestion.
22 cases.
16 this hearing.
21 order.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 STATE OF FLORIDA)
3 COUNTY OF MARION)
13 best of my ability.
21
22
LORNA W. CABLE, CET
23 Certified Electronic Transcriber
AAERT CET-518
24
25
3 STATE OF FLORIDA,
APPENDIX B
4 Plaintiff,
7 Defendant.
8 ------------------------------------------------------------
10 PROCEEDINGS: ARRAIGNMENT
21
22
23
24
25
10 fine.
12 hand, please.
21 that correct?
9 charging document?
23 plea of not guilty for you. That will give you time to
25 your case.
5 Honor?
8 for myself.
17 representing myself.
21 lawyer, but that's just for today, okay? Next time you
7 previous case.
18 you --
21 of Criminal Procedure.
23 with you about what the rules are and what the rules
20 okay?
23 in jail?
11 determination, that --
25 representing me.
2 counsel.
4 what?
7 I signed --
10 going to set aside the order revoking the bond for now,
7 recorded?
10 it?
14 want it expedited.
16 much.
14 denying me that?
15 THE COURT: No, sir. The not guilty plea has been
25 problem.
7 case.
10 case?
17 released on recognizance.
19 today.
3 other than pay attention to your mail and when you are
8 Honor?
14 hearing.
25
2 STATE OF FLORIDA)
3 COUNTY OF MARION)
21
22
LORNA W. CABLE, CET
23 Certified Electronic Transcriber
AAERT CET-518
24
25
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).
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE
"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."
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).
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
truthful to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
(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
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
Ocala, Florida 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
9/1/2020
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
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
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
9/1/2020
Filing # 111365309 E-Filed 08/06/2020 09:07:28 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
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:
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
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:
____ 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).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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
Florida Bar No.: 065936
Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional
Counsel, 5th District
Rccmarion@rc5state.com
307 N.W. 3rd Street
Ocala, Florida 34475
Px: 352-732-1230 Fx: 352-732-1228
Filing # 111402060 E-Filed 08/06/2020 02:49:50 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
Defendant.
5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
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.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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.
OCALA, FL 34481
and
vs.
Appointed counsel for the Defendant, Neil Joseph Gillespie, files her
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" .
2. In the meantime, the Defendant, Mr. Gillespie, arrended his pending Writ
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
the order appointing her as counsel for the Defendant and for such other and further relief
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
Vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
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
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
2. I hereby assert my right to refuse counsel, and appear pro se, as provided by
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
(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
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).
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"
Re/use Counsel and Appear Pro Se, and GRANT Motion to Strike Order Appointing
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