Defendants Motion To Disqualify and Remove Counsel Phipps and OCCCRC

Filing # 109909167 E-Filed 07/07/2020 06:50:44 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. 2019-CF-4193
vs.
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

__________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND REMOVE COUNSEL

ZACHARY GLENN PHIPPS AND THE OCCCRC FOR 5th D.C.A.
Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, here in the first
person, hereby files Defendant’s Motion To Disqualify And Remove Counsel Zachary Glenn
Phipps And The OCCCRC For 5th D.C.A., from representing me in this case, and states,
1. The record in this case shows the appointment of Mr. Phipps and the Office of Criminal
Counsel and Civil Regional Counsel for the 5th D.C.A. (“OCCCRC”) by the Court to represent
me was unlawful. Mr. Phipps and the OCCCRC must be removed as my counsel, without a
Nelson Hearing, for the following reasons:
a. The appointment of the Public Defender and/or OCCCRC in this case was not
supported by law; also, each office had, and continues to have, a conflict with me.
b. I waived my right to a lawyer July 2, 2020 under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(4) which
included two witnesses. Unfortunately my waiver of June 19, 2020 was not witnessed.
c. I successfully waived my right to a lawyer during a Faretta Hearing before Judge Ann
Craggs on June 14, 2020 in Case No. 2020-CF-2417. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(5).
d. Mr. Phipps and I have an adversarial relationship because he is a perpetrator regarding

a violation of law in this case, Judge Tatti’s Order Appointing Expert For Competency,
and the failure to comply with Rule 3.210(b) this part, "the court shall immediately enter
its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant’s mental condition, which
shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion, and may
order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3 experts, as needed, prior to the
date of the hearing. Attorneys for the state and the defendant may be present at any
examination ordered by the court." The record shows no such hearing was held under
Rule 3.210(b) prior to the Order Appointing Expert For Competency.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND REMOVE COUNSEL CASE #2019-CF-4193
e. Mr. Phipps is likely a witness in matters contained in emails provided him by Marion
County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) General Counsel Timothy T. McCourt, Bar No. 44604.
f. Mr. Phipps provided me with ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
g. My attorney-client relationship with Mr. Phipps is irretrievably broken.
h. Mr. Phipps may not meet the requirements of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.113.
i. On February 20, 2020, I emailed Judge Tatti, inter alia, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
REPLACE OCCCRC 5th DCA AS COUNSEL (CONFLICT). In response, Judge Tatti
entered on February 26, 2020 ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED, a non sequitur suggesting bias or incompetence of the trial judge.
Apparently Judge Tatti is unaware of 27.40(9), or choose to ignore 27.40(9) to deprive
me of rights under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. Sec. 27.40(9) provides:
27.40(9) Any interested person may advise the court of any circumstance
affecting the quality of representation, including, but not limited to, false or
fraudulent billing, misconduct, failure to meet continuing legal education
requirements, solicitation to receive compensation from the client the attorney is
appointed to represent, or failure to file appropriate motions in a timely manner.
REVIEW OF COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL IN THIS CASE
2. 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))
3. 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.
2
4. 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.
5. 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). I knew I had a conflict with the
Public Defender (PD). Private Conflict Counsel (27.40(2)(a) would be okay. But I knew I had a
conflict with the OCCCRC, and brought pleadings with me stating the grounds of the conflicts,
and motion for appointment of counsel other than the PD / OCCCRC. But the Court discouraged
Defendants from speaking during Arraignment. I have come to believe in Marion County Florida
that Defendants are not provided due process (Art. I, sec. 9, Fla. Const.) during First Appearance
(Rule 3.130) or Arraignment (Rule 3.160) because constitutional due process is not expedient.
6. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Exhibit 4), dated
December 10, 2019, states in part:
3. I believe the Public Defender has a conflict of interest in this case. On Wednesday,
June 19, 2019 at 4:29 AM I emailed Susan D. Bailey, Assistant Public Defender, about a
former client, Sarah May Thompson, an employee I hired as a live-in home health
provider.
5. My email and attachment to Ms. Bailey appears at Exhibit 1. I wrote Ms. Bailey in
part,
“Last week Ms. Thompson moved into my home as a live-in home health
provider, see attached. On June 16, 2019 Sarah admitted to taking prescription
medication from my room. Sarah apologized and promised not to take my pills
again. I don’t know what to do. I have no faith in the Marion County Sheriff’s
Office, over issues related to my home foreclosure (2013-CA-00115)”.
Ms. Bailey did not respond then, or to subsequent contacts related to this case.
7. I believe the 5th DCA Region Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel,
3
has a conflict with me, because Jeffrey D. Deen, Regional Counsel, obstructed my
attempts to obtain counsel in my HECM reverse mortgage foreclosure case 2013-CA-
00115.
8. I believe the 2nd DCA Region Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional
Counsel, has a conflict with me, because Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, obstructed
my attempts to obtain counsel in Hillsborough County case 2005-CA-7205.
7. On November 21, 2019 I met with private counsel to represent me, the result of direct
mail advertising from attorney Jerrod Williams, 1408 SW 15th Avenue, Ocala, FL 34471.
8. Mr. Jerrod’s letter to me dated November 14, 2019 appears at Exhibit 5. Ultimately I was
unable to afford Mr. Jerrod’s fee as provided in his email to me December 4, 2019:
$4,500 is the case fee up to trial, with a $1,500 trial fee but only if needed. 50% of the
case fee up front, which is $2,250. As far as the monthly payment goes, I am flexible
based on one's budget.
9. On December 16, 2019 the Public Defender filed a Notice of Appearance by and through
Kristina Belanger, FL Bar #1012137, Asst. Public Defender. Exhibit 6. The Notice of
Appearance is problematic as stated:
The Office of Public Defender, pursuant to Rule 3.030, Florida Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and the Order of Appointment entered herein, enters this Notice of
Appearance as attorney of record for the Defendant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,
requests copies of all motions, pleadings, orders, notices, demands and similar papers
filed herein.
The Notice is problematic because Rule 3.030 only pertains to Service and Filing of Pleadings
and Documents, not appointment of counsel, and there is no Order of Appointment that I know
about, see paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, and Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 to this pleading.
10. On January 7, 2020 the Public Defender moved to withdrawal as counsel citing conflict.
The motion filed by Ms. Belanger appears at Exhibit 7 and states in part:
The Office of the Public Defender has determined that an adverse relationship exists, and
therefore has determined that a conflict of interests exists.
4
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that this Motion to Withdraw as Counsel be granted
and that substitute counsel be provided per Section 27.5303(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015).
11. It is unclear why Ms. Belanger cited to a 2015 version of the statute when the 2019
version of the statute was the law. Section 27.5303(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2019) states:
(1)(a) If, at any time during the representation of two or more defendants, a public
defender determines that the interests of those accused are so adverse or hostile that they
cannot all be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff without conflict of
interest, or that none can be counseled by the public defender or his or her staff because
of a conflict of interest, then the public defender shall file a motion to withdraw and
move the court to appoint other counsel. The court shall review and may inquire or
conduct a hearing into the adequacy of the public defender’s representations regarding a
conflict of interest without requiring the disclosure of any confidential communications.
The court shall deny the motion to withdraw if the court finds the grounds for withdrawal
are insufficient or the asserted conflict is not prejudicial to the indigent client. If the court
grants the motion to withdraw, the court shall appoint one or more attorneys to represent
the accused, as provided in s. 27.40. The public defender shall submit to the Justice
Administrative Commission a copy of the order granting the motion to withdraw within
30 days after the motion is granted. The commission shall report quarterly to the
Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
on the number of orders granting motions to withdraw for each circuit.
12. There are several problems with the motion of Ms. Belanger. First, since I am the only
Defendant in case 2019-CF-4193, what was the basis of counsel’s motion?
13. It does not appear that Ms. Belanger complied with 27.5303(1)(e):
(e) In determining whether or not there is a conflict of interest, the public defender or
regional counsel shall apply the standards contained in the Uniform Standards for Use in
Conflict of Interest Cases found in appendix C to the Final Report of the Article V
Indigent Services Advisory Board dated January 6, 2004. Before a motion to withdraw is
filed under this section, the public defender or regional counsel serving the circuit, or his
or her designee, must:
1. Determine if there is a viable alternative to withdrawal from representation which
would remedy the conflict of interest and, if it exists, implement that alternative; and
2. Approve in writing the filing of the motion to withdraw.
(2) The court shall appoint conflict counsel pursuant to s. 27.40, first appointing the
office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel and, if the office is found to have a
conflict, appointing private counsel. The appointed private attorney may not be affiliated
with the public defender, any assistant public defender, the regional counsel, or any
assistant regional counsel in his or her official capacity or any other private attorney
appointed to represent a codefendant. The public defender or regional counsel may not
5
participate in case-related decisions, performance evaluations, or expense determinations

in conflict cases.
14. On January 13, 2020 Judge Tatti entered ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL
(CONFLICT), (Exhibit 8) that appointed the OCCCRC to represent me, without following the
safeguards established by this part of 27.5303(1)(a):
The court shall review and may inquire or conduct a hearing into the adequacy of the
public defender’s representations regarding a conflict of interest without requiring the
disclosure of any confidential communications. The court shall deny the motion to
withdraw if the court finds the grounds for withdrawal are insufficient or the asserted
conflict is not prejudicial to the indigent client. If the court grants the motion to
withdraw, the court shall appoint one or more attorneys to represent the accused, as
provided in s. 27.40.
15. Judge Tatti’s ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL (CONFLICT) cited to a 2012
version of the statute when the 2019 version of the statute was the law. The Order states in
relevant part:
ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL (CONFLICT)
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
(Conflict) for the above named Defendant filed by the Office of the Public Defender, and
the Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Motion should be granted
and a substitution of counsel should be approved at once; it is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDICATED as follows:
1. The Office of the Public Defender is hereby relieved of any further responsibility in
connection with this case.
2. Under the authority of Section 27.5303(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), Criminal

Conflict Regional Counsel, Fifth District of Florida, 307 N.W. 3rd Street, (Email:
Rccmarion@rc5state.com), Ocala, Florida 34475, a member in good standing of the
Florida Bar and practicing before this Court, is hereby appointed as substitute counsel for
this Defendant, and shall be compensated for services as provided in Section 27.5304,
Florida Statutes (2012).
3. The conflict attorney shall IMMEDIATELY file a Notice of Appearance with a copy
to the assigned judge.
6
4. Substitute counsel is authorized to incur court reporter fees and transcription costs,
expert fees and other due process costs pursuant to Fifth Circuit Administrative
guidelines.
5. Copies hereof shall be furnished to the newly appointed counsel; the Office of the
Public Defender; the Office of the State Attorney; and to the above named Defendant, by
the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
DONE AND ORDERED in Ocala, Marion County, Florida, on this 13 day of January,
2020.
ANTHONY M. TATTI
CIRCUIT JUDGE
16. Because the Court granted Ms. Belanger’s motion to withdrawal as counsel for conflict,
she was required by 27.5303(1)(a) to submit a copy of the order to the JAC within 30 days:
The public defender shall submit to the Justice Administrative Commission a copy of the
order granting the motion to withdraw within 30 days after the motion is granted. The
commission shall report quarterly to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives on the number of orders granting motions to
withdraw for each circuit.
Accordingly, on July 7, 2020 I made a public record request to Rip Colvin, Executive Director of
the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) to verify whether Ms. Belanger complied with the
above portion of 27.5303(1)(a). I am currently awaiting a response from the JAC..
17. On January 16, 2020 Zachary Glenn Phipps of the OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A. filed a notice
of appearance to represent me in this case, a written plea of not guilty, waiver of arraignment,
request for copy of indictment or information and request for ten days to file motions. Exhibit 9.
18. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to
criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The U.S.
Supreme Court has applied most of the protections of this amendment to the states through the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The text of Sixth Amendment provides:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
7
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have
the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
The right to the Assistance of Counsel under the Sixth Amendment has been upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, and Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45.
19. Fla. Stat. sec. 29.007(1) Court-appointed counsel (2019), provides.
For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution, the elements of
court-appointed counsel to be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law
are as follows: (1) Private attorneys appointed by the court to handle cases where the
defendant is indigent and cannot be represented by the public defender or the office of
criminal conflict and civil regional counsel...This section applies in any situation in
which the court appoints counsel to protect a litigant’s due process rights...
20. A litigant has a right to conflict-free counsel. Whether counsel is retained or appointed,
the defendant has a right to counsel without a conflict of interest *. If an actual conflict of
interest is present, and that conflict results in any adverse effect on the representation, the result
is automatic reversal.[17] The general rule is that conflicts can be knowingly and intelligently
waived,[18] but some conflicts are unwaivable. [19] *Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153
(1988), conflicts of interest, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel
[17] Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980);
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978).
[18] See United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir. 1982).
[19] See, e.g., United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v.
Fulton, 5 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 1993).
21. On July 6, 2020 I made a public record request to David R. Ellspermann, Marion County
Clerk of Court & Comptroller, for a copy of my approved application for criminal indigent
status in this case. The Clerk’s General Counsel Greg Harrell, responded July 7, 2020:
For Case No. 19.CF.4193, we only have the incomplete one dated 11.10.19. The criminal
application form is slightly different than the civil one in that, among other things, it
8
includes a reference to the $50 application fee that is assessed by law when application is
made for court-appointed counsel in criminal matters.
22. Therefore, appointment of the Public Defender to represent me in this case was unlawful.
I was not found indigent in this case 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). I
did not pay the $50 application fee to the clerk required by § 27.52(b) for each application for
court-appointed counsel filed, because I have not filed a compete application. Both court-
appointed attorneys know this, Ms. Belanger and Mr. Phipps, because I raised the issue with
them, I told them I did not pay the $50.00 fee, and asked what I needed to do to correct this
apparent issue. Neither attorney responded to my question. I take that to mean both Ms. Belanger
and Mr. Phipps knew I did not have a lawful counsel appointment under § 27.52.
23. 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.
24 NOTICE TO JUDGE TATTI AND THE JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMISSION: I was not found indigent in this case #19-CF-4193 under § 27.52.
Judge Tatti’s Order Appointing Substitute Counsel (Conflict) of Mr. Phipps and the
OCCCRC is void or voidable.
Pursuant to 27.40(9) Any interested person may advise the court of any circumstance
affecting the quality of representation, including, but not limited to, false or fraudulent billing,
misconduct, failure to meet continuing legal education requirements, solicitation to receive
compensation from the client the attorney is appointed to represent, or failure to file appropriate
motions in a timely manner.
9
ADDITIONAL FACTS FOR REMOVAL OF MR. PHIPPS/ OCCCRC AS COUNSEL
25. I waived my right to a lawyer July 2, 2020 under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(4) which
included two witnesses. 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
26. I successfully waived my right to a lawyer during a Faretta Hearing before Judge Ann
Craggs on June 14, 2020 in Case No. 2020-CF-2417. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(3).
(d) Waiver of Counsel.

(3) Regardless of the defendant's legal skills or the complexity ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
My waiver of counsel was made in open court and complied with Rule 3.111(d)(4).

(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.
Furthermore, Rule 3.111(d)(5) provides,

(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.
27. Mr. Phipps and I have an adversarial relationship because he is a perpetrator regarding a
violation of law in this case, shown in Judge Tatti’s Order Appointing Expert For Competency,
and the failure to comply with Rule 3.210(b) this part,
"the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the
defendant’s mental condition, which shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of
the filing of the motion, and may order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3
10
experts, as needed, prior to the date of the hearing. Attorneys for the state and the
defendant may be present at any examination ordered by the court."
The record shows no such hearing was held under Rule 3.210(b) prior to the Order Appointing
Expert For Competency. Judge Tatti and Mr. Phipps skipped that step in the proceedings
required by Rule 3.210(b) against due process. Mr. Phipps' motion raising competency is also
defective, and failed to comply with Rule 3.210(b)(1) this part: "the motion shall contain a recital
of the specific observations of and conversations with the defendant that have formed the basis
for the motion". Mr. Phipps did not recite any specific observations of conversations with the
defendant that have formed the basis for the motion, just two dates and a general non-statement.
This is an example where Mr. Phipps provided me with ineffective assistance of counsel.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
MR. PHIPPS IS A WITNESS TO MATTERS CONTAINED IN EMAILS PROVIDED

HIM BY MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S (MCSO) OFFICE GENERAL COUNSEL
28. Mr. Phipps is a witness in matters contained in emails provided him by Marion County
Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) General Counsel Timothy T. McCourt, Bar No. 44604. This is an
ongoing issue for many months where Mr. McCourt believes he has a duty under Florida Bar
Rules to “copy” Mr. Phipps on every email, even email that has nothing to do with this case.
MR. PHIPPS PROVIDED ME WITH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
29. Mr. Phipps provided me with ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984). For example, on June 6, 2020 I emailed Mr. Phipps in part, “It my bond
being forfeited over case no. 2020-OFF-011393 in order to jail me indefinitely?” Mr. Phipps
responded in part: (Exhibit 10)
Hello Mr. Gillespie. I have looked into the recent filings in your case in which we
represent you, and unfortunately it does appear that the bonding agency in that case has
filed a surrender form as to both your charges, the result being that your current status is
11
“off-bond”, which means you currently do not have a bond posted on either count in that
case. They appear to have done this when you were in jail a few days ago, as they claim
you were in custody on other charges when they surrendered your bond. You do have the
option of trying to find another bonding agent for those charges, but that may require
some persuasion on your part, and they may require a higher fee. Additionally, the State
has just filed a Motion to Revoke Bond in your 2019 case, so even if you are able to find
another bonding agent, you would likely only be out on the new bond for a matter of
days/weeks before a hearing on the State’s motion is heard...
Mr. Phipps is wrong. I personally spoke with John T. Greene, III, the bond agent for 1st Choice
Bail Bonds, 720 NW 30th Ave., Ocala, FL 34475 who posted my bonds. First, I am NOT “off-
bond” as Phipps claimed. The bonding agency in that case DID NOT file a surrender form as to
both my charges, as Phipps wrote. I am NOT “off-bond as Phipps wrote because Mr. Greene
reposted my bonds as reflected on the docket following my arrest on June 13, 2020.
73 06/14/2020 SURETY BOND POSTED

71 06/14/2020 Bond AS51353874 is POST BOND/DEPOSIT for 2000.00
Mr. Greene reposted my bonds at no additional cost. So again, Phillps is wrong. Phipps is also
wrong when he wrote, “You do have the option of trying to find another bonding agent for those
charges, but that may require some persuasion on your part, and they may require a higher fee.”
No Mr. Phipps, I DO NOT NEED TO FIND ANOTHER BONDING AGENT! My current
bonding agent reposeted my bonds at no cost. While it is true that the State filed a Motion to
Revoke Bond in my 2019 case, that is independent of Mr. Greene and 1st Choice Bail Bonds.
30. Today I filed DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECOGNIZANCE BOND, something I
previously requested of Mr. Phipps. My motion states in relevant part,
1. Pursuant to Rule 3.131(b)(1), Fla. R. Crim. P., “there is a presumption in favor of

release on nonmonetary conditions for any person who is granted pretrial release.”
12
2. On November 10, 2019, I was arrested and charged with two non-violent felony crimes,
and released on a $4,000 bond total in case no. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z. My arrest was
politically motivated, see Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie and Marion Senior Services, Inc.
Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03.1a Interception of Oral Communication; ($2,000 surety bond)
Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03.1c Disclosure of Communication ($2,000 surety bond)
3. The arrest warrant signed by Judge S. Sue Robbins on November 7, 2019 authorizes
modification of bail by the judge presiding at first appearance.
4. At the time of my arrest on November 10, 2019 I was eligible for Recognizance Bond
based upon the following facts:
A. I had no criminal record.
B. I had a valid Florida driver’s license in good standing.
C. I lived at my Florida residential homestead property, 8092 SW 115th Loop, Ocala,
34481, Marion Co., Florida, continuously and uninterruptedly since February 5, 2005.
D. I was age 63 and suffering the infirmaries of aging, including type 2 diabetes.
E. My income was limited to Social Security disability payments.
F. I am educated, with undergraduate degrees in business and psychology.
5. On March 9, 2020 at 3:50 PM I emailed my appointed counsel, Zachary Glenn Phipps of

the OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A., and requested, “can you move for an order for release on my
own recognizance? (and end the bail bond).” Mr. Phipps failed to seek ROR on my behalf in
March 2019. Mr. Phipps failed to respond to my request for a recognizance bond.
6. It appears Mr. Phipps did not want me released on a recognizance bond at that time.
7. Bail reduction is a legitimate function of defense counsel and zealous representation.
8. The foregoing example is evidence that Mr. Phipps and the OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A
has not provided zealous advocacy on my behalf.
This is another example where Mr. Phipps provided me with ineffective assistance of counsel.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
31. I emailed Mr. Phipps on June 24, 2020 at 10:40 AM, in relevant part:
Apparently Judge Tatti has ignored my motion to disqualify him in 2019-CF-4193, and
set a hearing for July 9, 2020 on the state's motion to revoke bond. Since you still appear
as my counsel on the case, I take that to mean Judge Tatti ignored my waiver of right to
counsel. Is that right Mr. Phipps? Since you are still counsel of record, please move to
disqualify Judge Tatti. I also need a disability accommodation under the ADA, hearing
aids, as I previously notified you. Since I have sued the Fifth Judicial Circuit, it has a
conflict with me, and I believe my cases must be transferred to another judicial circuit.
Therefore kindly move to transfer this case to another circuit. Thank you.
13
32. Mr. Phipps responded by email June 24, 2020 4:19 PM (Exhibit 11) and wrote in part:
MR. PHIPPS WROTE: As to the other issues you have raises I will attempt to answer
them as best I can through email. Judge Tatti has struck your Motion to Recuse in the
2019 case as you have Court appointed Counsel, and therefore any motions in that case
will have to filed by our office. The issues you’ve raised concerning Judge Tatti
presiding over your case unfortunately do not meet the threshold required for our office
to file such a motion at this time. I am bound by the obligations of the Florida BAR as
they control my license to practice in the state of Florida, and Motions to Recuse as well
as for a Change of Venue are heavily scrutinized.
My response to Mr. Phipps today: Pursuant to 27.40(9) “Any interested person may
advise the court of any circumstance affecting the quality of representation, including, but not
limited to, false or fraudulent billing, misconduct, failure to meet continuing legal education
requirements, solicitation to receive compensation from the client the attorney is appointed to
represent, or failure to file appropriate motions in a timely manner.” Therefore I am providing
this motion to the Florida Justice Administrative Commission (JAC)
MR. PHIPPS WROTE: The fact that Judge Tatti presided over Ms. Thompson’s case,
which you were not a recognized party to, does not present a conflict in your case.
My response to Mr. Phipps today: Case law holds, “For matters in prior representation to
be “substantially related” [and therefore a conflict] to the present representation for purposes of
motion to disqualify, matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons
would understand as important to the issues involved.[5] McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc.,
890 F.Supp. 1029. Therefore, I believe a reasonable person would see a conflict in the following
cases for Judge Tatti:
Florida v. Sarah Thompson 20-CF-516 Judge Tatti presiding (felony drug case dismissed)
Florida v. Neil Gillespie 19-CF-4193 Judge Tatti presiding (bad counsel appointment)
Florida v. Neil Gillespie 20-CF-2417 Judge Tatti presiding (Sarah Thompson’s home-
invasion robbery (812.135) against me, aided and abetted by the Marion County Sheriff’s
Office, with Judge Craggs’ aid as an accessory after the fact. (777.03(1)(a)).
14
MR. PHIPPS: Additionally, when Defendant’s file Motions Pro Se while having Court
appointed counsel, it is standard procedure to strike them as Judge Tatti did as they are
considered ex parte communication.
My response to Mr. Phipps today: Pursuant to 27.40(9) “Any interested person may
advise the court of any circumstance affecting the quality of representation, including, but not
limited to, false or fraudulent billing, misconduct, failure to meet continuing legal education
requirements, solicitation to receive compensation from the client the attorney is appointed to
represent, or failure to file appropriate motions in a timely manner.”
MR. PHIPPS WROTE: I don’t see this as an attempt to confuse the record as in one of
your previous filings you were attempting to make the court aware that you did not wish
to waive your right to a jury trial. As for your civil suit against the Fifth Circuit, if that
were grounds to allow a change of Venue, then most people facing felony charges in
Marion County would be advised to do just that, in hopes of transfer to the Ninth Circuit.
My response to Mr. Phipps today: If you honestly think DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
REPLACE OCCCRC 5th DCA AS COUNSEL (CONFLICT) was my attempt to make the court
aware that I did not wish to waive my right to a jury trial, I believe YOU need a competency
hearing. Likewise, my civil suit against the Fifth Circuit was filed December 31, 2018. My arrest
was in this case November 10, 2019, 314 days AFTER my civil suit against the Fifth Circuit was
filed. So how would that benefit “people facing felony charges” unless the people were
clairvoyant and filed a civil case almost a year prior to their arrest?
My attorney-client relationship with Mr. Phipps is irretrievably broken
33. My attorney-client relationship with Mr. Phipps is irretrievably broken. First and
foremost, the attorney-client relationship is based on trust and is sacred in the eyes of the law. I
no longer have trust in Mr. Phipps as set forth in this motion. Phipps and the OCCCRC never
had a legitimate counsel appointment to represent me. Mr. Phipps provided me with ineffective
assistance of counsel in this case. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
15
Mr. Phipps may not meet the requirements of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.113.
34. On June 1, 2020 I made a public record request to The Florida Bar for Phipps:
Provide public records showing that attorney Zachary Glenn Phipps, ID# 65936, has met
the requirements of Rule 3.113, Fla. R. Crim. P., Minimum Standards For Attorneys In
Felony Cases. Rule 3.113 states:
Before an attorney may participate as counsel of record in the circuit court

for any adult felony case, including postconviction proceedings before the trial
court, the attorney must complete a course, approved by The Florida Bar for
continuing legal education credits, of at least 100 minutes and covering the legal
and ethical obligations of discovery in a criminal case, including the requirements
of rule 3.220, and the principles established in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
The Florida Bar responded by and through Rick Courtemanche, Deputy General Counsel. On
June 4, 2020 I asked Mr. Courtemanche, “So does the CLE history show compliance by Mr.
Phipps with the Brady/Giglio requirement?” Mr. Courtemanche replied, “Not on the face of the
report...” On June 5, 2020 Mr. Phipps wrote,
Good afternoon Mr. Gillespie. Attached is a more updated version of the CLE courses
I’ve taken since being admitted to the Florida Bar. The Regional Counsel Summit #1
CLE #1807243N, held in October of 2018 had a course specifically to cover Brady
material and comply with Rule 3.113. Hope this answers your compliance question.
The reply by Mr. Phipps does not answer my compliance question. Only a definitive response by
The Florida Bar and/or the Supreme Court of Florida is acceptable. (Art. V, sec 15, Fla. Const.)
JUDGE ANTHONY TATTI: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER

COLOR OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. sec 242
35. On February 2, 2020 I emailed Judge Anthony Tatti assigned to this case (DOC-42),
along with,
• NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE CHAPTER 934 (DOC-43) &

• DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REPLACE OCCCRC 5TH DCA AS COUNSEL
(CONFLICT), (DOC-44)
16
The Clerk placed the foregoing on the public court docket as DOC-42, DOC-43, and DOC-44.
36. On February 26, 2020 Judge Tatti entered “Order Striking Defendant’s Jury Trial
Demanded” (DOC-38). Clearly the Order is a non sequitur as I did not file a Motion for Jury
Trial, suggesting bias or incompetence of the trial judge. Apparently Judge Tatti is unaware of
27.40(9), or choose to ignore 27.40(9) to deprive me of rights under color of law, in violation of
18 U.S.C. 242. Sec. 27.40(9) provides:
27.40(9) Any interested person may advise the court of any circumstance affecting the
quality of representation, including, but not limited to, false or fraudulent billing,
misconduct, failure to meet continuing legal education requirements, solicitation to
receive compensation from the client the attorney is appointed to represent, or failure to
file appropriate motions in a timely manner.
The Order is also grounds for disqualification/recusal of Judge Tatti, see
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY TATTI

This Motion is Verified by Neil J. Gillespie F.S. § 92.525(2)
Filing # 109217029 E-Filed 06/22/2020 03:28:46 PM
As of the time of this pleading Judge Tatti has not filed an order in response to my motion to
disqualify him as trial judge. (Note, my motion sought Judge Tatti’s disqualification in two
cases, 19-CF-4193 and 20-CF-2417). However Mr. Phipps advised me by email on June 24,
2020, "Judge Tatti has struck your Motion to Recuse in the 2019 case as you have Court
appointed Counsel, and therefore any motions in that case will have to filed by our office."
CLERK JOHN TOMASINO, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
37. On June 30, 2020 I emailed John Tomasino, Clerk, Florida Supreme Court (Exhibit 12),
text below. I do not show a response from Mr. Tomasino.
John Anthony Tomasino, Clerk

Supreme Court of Florida
tomasino@flcourts.org
Mr. Tomasino:
17
RE. STATE OF FLORIDA VS NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

Case No. 2019-CF-4193
Mr. Phipps advised me by email on June 24, 2020, "Judge Tatti has struck your Motion
to Recuse in the 2019 case as you have Court appointed Counsel, and therefore any
motions in that case will have to filed by our office."
First, my motion to disqualify/recuse Judge Tatti in 2019-CF-4193 is the same as my

motion to disqualify/recuse Judge Tatti in 2020-CF-2417, where I appear pro se.
Second, nothing in the record shows what Mr. Phipps claims. I do not see where Judge
Tatti entered any orders.
So it appears I have two issues: A bad lawyer, Mr. Phipps who refuses to recuse, and a
bad judge who refuses to recuse. While there are a number of other reasons supporting
the removal of Mr. Phipps and Judge Tatti from my case(s), I believe the most important
one concerns the fact that Mr. Phipps and I have an adversarial relationship because he is
both a perpetrator and a witness with regard to a violation of law in this case, Judge
Tatti’s Order Appointing Expert For Competency, and the failure to comply with Rule
3.210(b) this part, "the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing
to determine the defendant’s mental condition, which shall be held no later than 20 days
after the date of the filing of the motion, and may order the defendant to be examined by
no more than 3 experts, as needed, prior to the date of the hearing. Attorneys for the state
and the defendant may be present at any examination ordered by the court." The judge
and my lawyer skipped that step against due process. Mr. Phipps' motion raising
competency is also defective.
I see no other alternative at this point to a petition for a writ of prohibition in the FSC. I
want Phipps removed from my case ASAP, prior to a hearing July 9, 2020 before Judge
Tatti on the state's motion to revoke bond. I have grounds to dismiss the case, but not so
long as Phipps remains appointed to represent me.
What is the current procedure for filing a new case for a petition for a writ of prohibition
in the FSC?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
Signature block omitted;
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY TATTI deleted.
18
38. The appointment of the Public Defender to represent me in this case was unlawful. I was
not found indigent in this case 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). Tthe 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.
WHEREFORE, the Order Appointing Substitute Counsel (Conflict) of Mr. Phipps and
the OCCCRC is void or voidable. Mr. Phipps and the OCCCRC cannot represent me. I was not
found indigent in this case #19-CF-4193 under § 27.52. I waived my right to a lawyer July 2,
2020 under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(4) which included two witnesses.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED July 7, 2020.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that copy of the foregoing has been furnished July 7, 2020 to
Zachary Glenn Phipps, OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A., 307 NW 3rd St., Ocala, FL 34475-6638 at
RCCMarion@rc5state.com, and the State Attorney’s Office, 110 North West 1st Avenue, Suite
5000 (Eservicemarion@Sao5.Org), Ocala, FL 34475, by e-service July 7, 2020, and to all the
names on the Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents,
Neil J. Gillespie, Defendant
19
1
2
3
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. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z

vs. 42-2019-CF-004193-CFAXXX
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

__________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

4
COMES NOW the Defendant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, age 63 and suffering the
infirmaries of aging, an indigent nonlawyer, a person with disabilities, and a vulnerable adult,
henceforth in the first person, files Defendant’s Motion For Appointment of Counsel, and states,
1. On November 27, 2019 the Clerk determined I was indigent in Marion County Civil Case
No. 2013-CA-00115 for an appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Appeal No. 5D19-3479.
2. Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, I move for Assistance of
Counsel for my defense. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45.
3. I believe the Public Defender has a conflict of interest in this case. On Wednesday, June
19, 2019 at 4:29 AM I emailed Susan D. Bailey, Assistant Public Defender, about a former
client, Sarah May Thompson, an employee I hired as a live-in home health provider.
4. In October 2017 Dr. Umana MD, primary care, referred me to the pain management
clinic of Chayapathy Jollu, MD, 10238 SW 86th Circle, Suite 300, Ocala, Florida 34481. Dr.
Jollu’s notes of my office visit October 25, 2017 show, inter alia, “Counseled the patient about
the independent living facility but the patient suddenly was upset and said he will terminate the
STATE OF FLORIDA
VS
2019-CF-004193-A-Z
visit and left the office.” In lieu of pain management and assisted living, I replaced my doctors,
and sought in-home care, in an effort to improve my health and quality of life.
5. My email and attachment to Ms. Bailey appears at Exhibit 1. I wrote Ms. Bailey in part,
“Last week Ms. Thompson moved into my home as a live-in home health provider, see
attached. On June 16, 2019 Sarah admitted to taking prescription medication from my
room. Sarah apologized and promised not to take my pills again. I don’t know what to do.
I have no faith in the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, over issues related to my home
foreclosure (2013-CA-00115)”.
Ms. Bailey did not respond then, or to subsequent contacts related to this case.
6. My Employer Identification Number (EIN) 22-3884681 was confirmed on Oct. 09, 2008
by letter of the Internal Revenue Service. (IRS) for my address in Marion County at 8092 SW
115th Loop, Ocala, FL 34481. The IRS letter appears at Exhibit 2.
7. I believe the 5th DCA Region Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel,
has a conflict with me, because Jeffrey D. Deen, Regional Counsel, obstructed my attempts to
obtain counsel in my HECM reverse mortgage foreclosure case 2013-CA-00115.
8. I believe the 2nd DCA Region Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel,
has a conflict with me, because Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, obstructed my attempts to
obtain counsel in Hillsborough County case 2005-CA-7205.
9. Fla. Stat. § 29.007 Court-appointed counsel.—For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V
of the State Constitution, the elements of court-appointed counsel to be provided from state
revenues appropriated by general law are as follows: (1) Private attorneys appointed by the court
to handle cases where the defendant is indigent and cannot be represented by the public defender
or the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel.
2
STATE OF FLORIDA
VS
2019-CF-004193-A-Z
WHEREFORE, I respectfully move this Court for appointment of counsel.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED December 10, 2019
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Tel. 352-854-7807
3
Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

To: <sbailey@pdo5.org>
Cc: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 4:29 AM
Attach: Sarah Thompson Home health provider.pdf
Subject: Previously you represented Sarah May Thompson, DOB June 9, 1985, an unremarried widow
Susan D. Bailey
Assistant Public Defender
Florida Bar No. 193290
204 N.W. 3rd Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475-6634
(352) 671-5454
E-Service Email: E-Marion@pdo5.org
Other email: sbailey@pdo5.org
Dear Ms. Bailey,
Previously you represented Sarah May Thompson, DOB June 9, 1985, an unremarried widow, in Marion
County Criminal Case 42-2014-CF-002361-AXXX-XX.
Count I: Evidence Tampering; Alprazolam pill
Count II: Retail Petit Theft; Fishing reel, coffee, or a recorder
Count III: Resist Law Enforcement Officer Without Violence
Last week Ms. Thompson moved into my home as a live-in home health provider, see attached. On June
16, 2019 Sarah admitted to taking prescription medication from my room. Sarah apologized and promised
not to take my pills again.
I don’t know what to do. I have no faith in the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, over issues related to my
home foreclosure (2013-CA-00115). I have no faith in the UDEST or DCF. I do not want to report Sarah
to L.E. (I support legalizing drugs). But I may not be the best person to help Sarah. I am aware she placed
a newborn for adoption in 2015. She arrived at my door the result of mistaken identity through a website.
Initially Sarah seemed nice, and she needed a place to stay. I felt compassion for a homeless, unremarried
widow. And it is difficult for a single man age 63 with health issues and limited income to find competent
help. Previously two other providers did not work out, one age 40 (drugs) and one age 43
(drinking/smoking).
Currently Sarah has a broken tooth that needs extraction, but she refuses medical treatment I found, see
https://www.truecaredentistocala.com/emergency-dentist.html
I don’t want to throw Sarah out into the street. I believe she needs stability, but the people in her life may
not be stable. I would appreciate any suggestions you may have. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
352-854-7807
neilgillespie@mfi.net
1
7/7/2019
June 19, 2019
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
DOB: March 19, 1956
Age: 63
CHAYAPATHY JOLLU, MD
10238 SW 86th Circle, Suite 300
Ocala, Florida 34481
FOLLOW-UP VISIT for Neil J. Gillespie
Date of Service: 10/25/2017
Plan (in part) “Counseled the patient about the independent living facility but the patient
suddenly was upset and said he will terminate the visit and left the office.”
Gillespie’s unilateral Plan B: In lieu of the independent living facility, I changed doctors, and
want to have a live-in home health provider / personal assistant.
Position: Home health provider
Live-in position includes a private bedroom, private toilet, shared shower, use of a red lap-top
HP computer and WI-FI service. All utilities are included. Use of a washer/dryer, use of the
common areas of the home, and use of the amenities at Oak Run are included. Gillespie will
provide dish washing soap, laundry detergent, bleach, fabric softener, and dryer sheets.
.
Provider duties include meal planning, shopping, meal preparation, housekeeping, and
exercise/walking partner, in lieu of any form of payment.
• Meal planning means making a monthly menu plan of meals served twice a day (lunch and
dinner, about 60 meals a month), within a monthly budget.
• Shopping means obtaining food and other items for the monthly menu plan of meals.
• Meal preparation means preparing, serving, and clean-up for the monthly menu plan.
• Housekeeping means cleaning the shared walk-in shower, cleaning the kitchen, cleaning the
common areas of the home, cleaning provider’s room, sweeping the patio, and pulling weeds.
Provider will share the expense for food. Provider must provide her own personal hygiene
products, shampoo, conditioner, soap, toothbrush and toothpaste.
The Provider is an independent contractor without any benefits not expressly stated. The
provider is free to engage in other work or activity that is separate and independent from the
live-in position. The Provider assumes any and all risks associated with other work or activity.
The provider must have a current Florida driver’s license because this is a rural area without
adequate public transportation. The provider must be a non-smoker due to Gillespie’s health.
Provider must not take items or medication not belonging to them, unless granted permission.
1
Conditional provider: Sarah May Thompson, an unremarried widow.
Most recent address: homeless.
Previous address: 14671 SW 41 St. Ave. Road, Ocala, FL 43373.
Previous address: 3770 SW 161ST Loop, Ocala, FL 34473-3268.
DOB: June 9, 1985
Age: 34
Sarah May Thompson is a conditional provider due to the following:
• Adjudicated Guilty Marion County Criminal Case 42-2014-CF-002361-AXXX-XX

• Smokes cigarettes
• Does not have a valid Florida driver’s license
• Refused to accept dental care for a tooth needing extraction (interferes with work)
• Admitted to taking prescription medication from Gillespie’s room on June 16, 2019. Sarah
said she took six (6) Alprazolam; she ingested two pills, and she returned four pills to me.
• Hears voices; can be argumentative; has mood swings; not a warm friendly personality.
____________________________ ___________________________
Neil Gillespie Sarah Thompson, also to provide
USCIS Form I-9 and IRS Form W-9
2
r~
iibl'll
IRS Internal
Department of the Treasury
Revenue ServIce
In reply refer to: 0244830968
CINCINNATI OH 45999-0038 Oct. 09, 2008 LTR 147C EO
22-3884681 000000 00 000
00002832
BODC: SB
NEIL J GILLESPIE
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA FL 34481-3567928
I'!:·t~~
~
010098
Employer Identification Number: 22-3884681
Dear Taxpayer:
Thank you for the inquiry dated Aug. 26, 2008.
This is a confirmation of a previously assigned Employer

Identification Number (EIN).
If you need forms, schedules, or publications, you may get them by

visiting the IRS web site at www.irs.gov or by calling toll free at
1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).
If you have any questions, please call us toll free at 1-800-829-0115.
If you prefer, you may write to us at the address shown at the top
of the first page of this letter.
Whenever you write, please include this letter and, in the spaces
below, give us your telephone number with the hours we can reach you.
Also, you may want to keep a copy of this letter for your records.
Telephone Number ( Hou r s _

)------------
2
0244830968
Oct. 09, 2008 LTR 147C EO
22-3884681 000000 00 000
00002833
NEIL J GILLESPIE
8092 SW 115TH LOOP
OCALA FL 34481-3567928
We apologize for any inconvenience we may have caused you, and thank
you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Henry Deering, Department Manager

Accounts Management Operations
Enclosure (s) :
COpy of this letter
5
6
7
8
9
Page 1 of 2
Neil Gillespie
From: "Zachary Phipps" <zphipps@rc5state.com>

To:
Cc:
Sent:
"Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
"Jeff Deen" <JDeen@rc5state.com>
Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:06 AM
10
Subject: RE: It my bond being forfeited over case no. 2020-OFF-011393 in order to jail me indefinitely?
Hello Mr. Gillespie. I have looked into the recent filings in your case in which we represent
you, and unfortunately it does appear that the bonding agency in that case has filed a
surrender form as to both your charges, the result being that your current status is “off-
bond”, which means you currently do not have a bond posted on either count in that case.
They appear to have done this when you were in jail a few days ago, as they claim you were in
custody on other charges when they surrendered your bond. You do have the option of
trying to find another bonding agent for those charges, but that may require some persuasion
on your part, and they may require a higher fee. Additionally, the State has just filed a Motion
to Revoke Bond in your 2019 case, so even if you are able to find another bonding agent, you
would likely only be out on the new bond for a matter of days/weeks before a hearing on the
State’s motion is heard. The State is only required to prove by a Preponderance of the
Evidence that you violated the terms of your Pretrial Release in the 2019 case for the Court to
revoke your bond. It has been my experience that they can accomplish this by proving to the
Court you were arrested for the 2020 case while out on bond in the 2019 case, and the 2020
case is still active. As the State has now filed a Motion to Revoke Bond in your 2019 case, I
can object to it on your behalf and request a hearing. If the Court were to grant the Motion to
Revoke your Bond in the 2019 case, it’s possible that you could be detained in that case until
it is resolved. The Court’s other options are to deny the motion or to increase the amount of
your bond in the 2019 case, both of which seem unlikely unless the 2020 case is dropped
prior to the hearing. The other option that you may choose would be to stipulate to the
Motion to Revoke Bond and turn yourself in, which you would be given credit for every day in
jail that you serve towards any sentence that is negotiated. Given your lack of criminal
history, the State’s previous offer of a Withhold of Adjudication and 36 months of Supervised
Probation, may still be available if you wanted to plea. If you were to plea to probation, any
hold in the 2019 case would end and you should be released on bond in the 2020 case, which
you’ve already posted. That of course is your decision, I’m just making you aware of your
options. If you desire to surrender before your bond is revoked, you can do this at the Marion
County Jail. If want me to object to the State’s Motion and request a hearing, it will likely be
on a Wednesday morning, as that is when Judge Tatti has been setting his hearings during the
courthouse closure due to COVID-19. Please advise as to how you wish to proceed on the
State’s Motion to Revoke Bond in 2019-CF-4193, and do not hesitate to email me any
additional questions you may have.

From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:08 PM
7/7/2020
Page 2 of 2
To: Zachary Phipps <zphipps@rc5state.com>

Cc: Jeff Deen <JDeen@rc5state.com>; Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Subject: It my bond being forfeited over case no. 2020-OFF-011393 in order to jail me
indefinitely?

Zachary Glenn Phipps
OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A.
307 NW 3rd St
Ocala, FL 34475-6638
Email: zphipps@rc5state.com
Cc: Jeffery Dean: jdeen@rc5state.com
Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z
Mr. Phipps:
You are my counsel of record in the above case. I am contacting you in that capacity.
The attached docket shows recent activity:

It my bond being forfeited over case no. 2020-OFF-011393 in order to jail me indefinitely?
Please respond. Time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
7/7/2020
Page 1 of 3
Neil Gillespie
From: "Zachary Phipps" <zphipps@rc5state.com>

To: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 422019CF004193CFAXXX STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL JOSEPH
th
Good afternoon Mr. Gillespie. As you are aware the Court has set the State’s Motion to Revoke your Bond for July 9 . Due to
the extended closure of the courthouse due to COVID-19, this hearing will be conducted via ZOOM. Our office will email you
the link to appear, so I am hopeful attending the hearing this way will meet your requested accommodations, but please let me
know if you need anything else. Please be advised that standard procedure if the Motion is granted is to take the Defendant
into custody immediately. Since your hearing is being held via Zoom, if the Court grants the State’s Motion you will likely be
ordered to turn yourself into the Marion County jail, if not immediately then within 24 hours. I’m actually kind of surprised
your hearing was scheduled this way, and am cautiously optimistic the Court may be inclined to deny the Motion based on the
current circumstances at the courthouse and the jail. As to the other issues you have raises I will attempt to answer them as
best I can through email. Judge Tatti has struck your Motion to Recuse in the 2019 case as you have Court appointed Counsel,
and therefore any motions in that case will have to filed by our office. The issues you’ve raised concerning Judge Tatti
presiding over your case unfortunately do not meet the threshold required for our office to file such a motion at this time. I
am bound by the obligations of the Florida BAR as they control my license to practice in the state of Florida, and Motions to
Recuse as well as for a Change of Venue are heavily scrutinized. The fact that Judge Tatti presided over Ms. Thompson’s case,
which you were not a recognized party to, does not present a conflict in your case. Additionally, when Defendant’s file
Motions Pro Se while having Court appointed counsel, it is standard procedure to strike them as Judge Tatti did as they are
considered ex parte communication. I don’t see this as an attempt to confuse the record as in one of your previous filings you
were attempting to make the court aware that you did not wish to waive your right to a jury trial. As for your civil suit against
the Fifth Circuit, if that were grounds to allow a change of Venue, then most people facing felony charges in Marion County
would be advised to do just that, in hopes of transfer to the Ninth Circuit. Unfortunately, unless your civil or criminal case
attracted such media attention as to taint the jury pool, the Courts look at attempts to transfer jurisdiction as simply “Venue
shopping”. That’s why these motions are rarely granted and usually it’s because the Defendant is accused of something
extremely heinous. However, should anything transpire or come to my attention that would provide sufficient grounds to file
these motions, I will not hesitate to do so on your behalf. Additionally, since you currently represent yourself in the 2020
th
case, if you wish to have a Faretta hearing on July 9 , I believe that could be accomplished. As for your 2019 case in general,
after reading up on the caselaw and statutes, I am confident that you have a solid defense to Count 1, Intercepting
Communications. In fact were your case to go to trial, I believe you would have a strong argument for JOA as to that charge.
rd
As for Count 2, Disclosure to 3 Party, I am still researching but have yet to find caselaw that would provide as strong of an
argument as to Court 1. However, that is not to say you don’t have a legal defense, it is just not to the level that I believe the
Court would have to dismiss Count 2 instead of allowing the jury to decide. If our office is still appointed to the 2019 case
th
after the July 9 hearing, I will schedule depositions in an attempt to strengthen your defense to Count 2. I hope this answers
th
some of your questions and please let me know if you need any additional accommodations for the July 9 hearing.

From: Neil Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 10:40 AM
To: Zachary Phipps <zphipps@rc5state.com>; Jeff Deen <JDeen@rc5state.com>
Cc: John Anthony Tomasino <tomasino@flcourts.org>; Courtemanche, Richard <RCourtemanche@floridabar.org>; Neil
Gillespie <neilgillespie@mfi.net>; Eservicemarion@Sao5.Org
Subject: Fw: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 422019CF004193CFAXXX STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL
JOSEPH

Zachary Glenn Phipps
OCCCRC for 5th D.C.A.
307 NW 3rd St.
Ocala, FL 34475-6638
Email: zphipps@rc5state.com
Cc: Jeffery Dean: jdeen@rc5state.com

Case No. 2019-CF-4193
Mr. Phipps,
7/7/2020
Page 2 of 3
Apparently Judge Tatti has ignored my motion to disqualify him in 2019-CF-4193, and set a hearing for July 9, 2020 on the state's motion to
revoke bond. Since you still appear as my counsel on the case, I take that to mean Judge Tatti ignored my waiver of right to counsel. Is that
right Mr. Phipps? Since you are still counsel of record, please move to disqualify Judge Tatti. I also need a disability accommodation under
the ADA, hearing aids, as I previously notified you. Since I have sued the Fifth Judicial Circuit, it has a conflict with me, and I believe my
cases must be transferred to another judicial circuit. Therefore kindly move to transfer this case to another circuit. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
----- Original Message -----

From: eservice@myflcourtaccess.com
Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 422019CF004193CFAXXX STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL JOSEPH
Notice of Service of Court Documents
Filing Information
Filing #: 109217455
Filing Time: 06/22/2020 03:32:06 PM ET
Filer: Neil J. Gillespie 352-854-7807
Court: Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County, Florida
Case #: 422019CF004193CFAXXX
Court Case #: 19CF004193AX
Case Style: STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL JOSEPH
Documents
Title File
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY
TATTI.pdf
Motion To Disqualify Or Recuse
E-service recipients selected for service:
Name Email Address

Jared R Gainey eservicemarion@sao5.org
Office of Crim. Conflict & Civil rccmarion@rc5state.com
Regional Cousel
Office of the State Attorney eservicemarion@sao5.org
Michael Adam Smith Jr. ESERVICEmarion@SAO5.ORG
Neil J. Gillespie neilgillespie@mfi.net
Zachary Glenn Phipps zphipps@rc5state.com
rccmarion@rc5state.com
E-service recipients not selected for service:
Name Email Address

Dr. Harry Krop combehserv@gmail.com
Kristina Belanger e-marion@pdo5.org
7/7/2020
Page 3 of 3
This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not
receive email.
Thank you,
The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal
request_id#:109217455;Audit#:368825179;UCN#:422019CF004193CFAXXX;
7/7/2020
Page 1 of 3
Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>

To: "John Anthony Tomasino" <tomasino@flcourts.org>
Cc: "Neil Gillespie" <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:25 PM
Attach: Motion To Disqualify Or Recuse.pdf
Subject: Procedure for filing new petition for a writ of prohibition to remove Mr. Phipps and Judge Tatti
John Anthony Tomasino, Clerk
Supreme Court of Florida
12
tomasino@flcourts.org
Mr. Tomasino:

Case No. 2019-CF-4193
Mr. Phipps advised me by email on June 24, 2020, "Judge Tatti has struck your Motion to Recuse in the 2019 case as you have Court
appointed Counsel, and therefore any motions in that case will have to filed by our office."
First, my motion to disqualify/recuse Judge Tatti in 2019-CF-4193 is the same as my motion to disqualify/recuse Judge Tatti in 2020-CF-
2417, where I appear pro se.
Second, nothing in the record shows what Mr. Phipps claims. I do not see where Judge Tatti entered any orders.
So it appears I have two issues: A bad lawyer, Mr. Phipps who refuses to recuse, and a bad judge who refuses to recuse. While there are a
number of other reasons supporting the removal of Mr. Phipps and Judge Tatti from my case(s), I believe the most important
one concerns the fact that Mr. Phipps and I have an adversarial relationship because he is both a perpetrator and a witness with regard to a
violation of law in this case, Judge Tatti’s Order Appointing Expert For Competency, and the failure to comply with Rule 3.210(b) this part,
"the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant’s mental condition, which shall be held no
later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion, and may order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3 experts, as
needed, prior to the date of the hearing. Attorneys for the state and the defendant may be present at any examination ordered by the court."
The judge and my lawyer skipped that step against due process. Mr. Phipps' motion raising competency is also defective.
I see no other alternative at this point to a petition for a writ of prohibition in the FSC. I want Phipps removed from my case ASAP, prior to a
hearing July 9, 2020 before Judge Tatti on the state's motion to revoke bond. I have grounds to dismiss the case, but not so long as Phipps
remains appointed to represent me.
What is the current procedure for filing a new case for a petition for a writ of prohibition in the FSC?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Tel. 352-854-7807
----- Original Message -----

From: eservice@myflcourtaccess.com
Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 422019CF004193CFAXXX STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL JOSEPH
Notice of Service of Court Documents
Filing Information
Filing #: 109217455
Filing Time: 06/22/2020 03:32:06 PM ET
Filer: Neil J. Gillespie 352-854-7807
Court: Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County, Florida
Case #: 422019CF004193CFAXXX
Court Case #: 19CF004193AX
Case Style: STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL JOSEPH
7/7/2020
Page 2 of 3
Documents
Title File
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE

Motion To Disqualify Or Recuse
ANTHONY TATTI.pdf
E-service recipients selected for service:
Name Email Address
Jared R Gainey eservicemarion@sao5.org
Office of Crim. Conflict & rccmarion@rc5state.com

Civil Regional Cousel
Office of the State Attorney eservicemarion@sao5.org
Michael Adam Smith Jr. ESERVICEmarion@SAO5.ORG
Neil J. Gillespie neilgillespie@mfi.net
Zachary Glenn Phipps zphipps@rc5state.com
rccmarion@rc5state.com
E-service recipients not selected for service:
Name Email Address
7/7/2020
Page 3 of 3
Dr. Harry Krop combehserv@gmail.com
Kristina Belanger e-marion@pdo5.org
This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not
receive email.
Thank you,
The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal
7/7/2020

Defendants Motion To Disqualify and Remove Counsel Phipps and OCCCRC

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Defendants Motion To Disqualify and Remove Counsel Phipps and OCCCRC

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Filing # 109909167 E-Filed 07/07/2020 06:50:44 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND REMOVE COUNSEL

Nelson Hearing, for the following reasons:

d. Mr. Phipps and I have an adversarial relationship because he is a perpetrator regarding

f. Mr. Phipps provided me with ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v.

g. My attorney-client relationship with Mr. Phipps is irretrievably broken.

REVIEW OF COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL IN THIS CASE

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

provisionally appointed the Public Defender/private Conflict Counsel to represent me because

6. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Exhibit 4), dated

December 10, 2019, states in part:

Appearance is problematic as stated:

Defendant in case 2019-CF-4193, what was the basis of counsel’s motion?

participate in case-related decisions, performance evaluations, or expense determinations

safeguards established by this part of 27.5303(1)(a):

15. Judge Tatti’s ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL (CONFLICT) cited to a 2012

ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL (CONFLICT)

ORDERED AND ADJUDICATED as follows:

2. Under the authority of Section 27.5303(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), Criminal

above portion of 27.5303(1)(a). I am currently awaiting a response from the JAC..

19. Fla. Stat. sec. 29.007(1) Court-appointed counsel (2019), provides.

(1988), conflicts of interest, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel

24 NOTICE TO JUDGE TATTI AND THE JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE

OCCCRC is void or voidable.

misconduct, failure to meet continuing legal education requirements, solicitation to receive

motions in a timely manner.

ADDITIONAL FACTS FOR REMOVAL OF MR. PHIPPS/ OCCCRC AS COUNSEL

included two witnesses. See,

DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A LAWYER

(d) Waiver of Counsel.

(d) Waiver of Counsel.

Furthermore, Rule 3.111(d)(5) provides,

(d) Waiver of Counsel.

and the failure to comply with Rule 3.210(b) this part,

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

MR. PHIPPS IS A WITNESS TO MATTERS CONTAINED IN EMAILS PROVIDED

MR. PHIPPS PROVIDED ME WITH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

responded in part: (Exhibit 10)

73 06/14/2020 SURETY BOND POSTED

No Mr. Phipps, I DO NOT NEED TO FIND ANOTHER BONDING AGENT! My current

30. Today I filed DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECOGNIZANCE BOND, something I

previously requested of Mr. Phipps. My motion states in relevant part,

1. Pursuant to Rule 3.131(b)(1), Fla. R. Crim. P., “there is a presumption in favor of

5. On March 9, 2020 at 3:50 PM I emailed my appointed counsel, Zachary Glenn Phipps of

7. Bail reduction is a legitimate function of defense counsel and zealous representation.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

represent, or failure to file appropriate motions in a timely manner.” Therefore I am providing

this motion to the Florida Justice Administrative Commission (JAC)

cases for Judge Tatti:

represent, or failure to file appropriate motions in a timely manner.”

My response to Mr. Phipps today: If you honestly think DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

My attorney-client relationship with Mr. Phipps is irretrievably broken

Before an attorney may participate as counsel of record in the circuit court

report...” On June 5, 2020 Mr. Phipps wrote,

JUDGE ANTHONY TATTI: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER

• NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE CHAPTER 934 (DOC-43) &

18 U.S.C. 242. Sec. 27.40(9) provides:

The Order is also grounds for disqualification/recusal of Judge Tatti, see

VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY TATTI

CLERK JOHN TOMASINO, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT