Habeas Petition 5D23-0913 Judge Peter Brigham

Filing # 172221023 E-Filed 05/02/2023 09:46:43 AM
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,

Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-0913
LT CASE NO.
BILLY WOODS, SHERIFF OF THE
MARION COUNTY JAIL AND
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents.
_________________________________/
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
The Petitioner, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer
appearing pro se, files this Amended Petition For Writ Of Habeas
Corpus, and states:
This Court granted the Petitioner leave to file an amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus by order of April 11, 2023.
Pursuant to Rule 9.100(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, see
the Table of Contents below.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page Contents

Section I 2 9.100(g)(1) the basis for invoking the jurisdiction of
the court;
Section II 8 9.100(g)(2) the facts on which the petitioner relies;
Section III 32 9.100(g)(3) the nature of the relief sought; and
Section IV 34 9.100(g)(4) argument in support of the petition and
appropriate citations of authority.
1
Section I The Basis For Invoking The Jurisdiction Of The Court
“The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, freely
and without cost...” Art. I, § 13, Fla. Const. The writ is an original
proceeding in this Court, Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App.
P. 9.030(b)(3), and is governed by Fla. R. App. P. 9.100, and
Chapter 79 of the Florida Statutes.
The writ of habeas corpus addresses the legality of the
restraint. In Jones v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 48 So. 3d 704 (Fla.
2010), the Florida Supreme Court found that habeas corpus was
the proper remedy to determine the validity of a restraint under
which a person is held.
The record this case shows the Petitioner initially mailed a
handwritten petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 29, 2023
(certificate of service date) to the Marion County Clerk of Court, P.O.
Box 1030, Ocala, FL 34478, for filing as a "New Civil Action" in the
Marion County Circuit Court while he was held as Inmate
#A0255941 in the Marion County Jail, in Ocala, Florida.
The record this case shows the Respondent is Sheriff Billy
Woods, the person who had custody of the Petitioner in the Marion
2
County Jail, Ocala, Florida, from January 25, 2023 through March
20, 2023.
Gregory C. Harrell is the Clerk of Court and Comptroller for
Marion County, Florida (Clerk Harrell). Pursuant to Rule 9.100(f)(3),
Fla. R. App. P., "Duties of the Circuit Court Clerk. When a petition
prescribed by this subdivision is filed, the circuit court clerk shall
forthwith transmit the petition to the administrative judge of the
appellate division, or other appellate judge or judges as prescribed
by administrative order, for a determination as to whether an order
to show cause should be issued."
It appears Clerk Harrell failed to file the petition as a new civil
action. Somehow the Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus,
submitted as a "New Civil Action" on January 29, 2023, ended up
filed by Clerk Harrell as some kind of motion in the Petitioner's
criminal cases, nos. 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286, and 2022-CF-
1143, with Circuit Judge Peter M. Brigham presiding. (Judge
Brigham)
On February 12, 2023, the Petitioner mailed a handwritten
letter from jail to Clerk Harrell, and asked:
3
Mr. Harrell,
Since January 26, 2023 I have submitted the following 6
pleadings but I do not show any acknowledgment from the
Clerk's office:
1. Petition For writ of Habras Corpus, Jan-29-2023, copy

enclosed
2. Notice of Appeal, Feb-01-2023, copy enclosed
3. Notice of Appeal, Feb-05-2023, copy enclosed
4. Motion to Mitigste Sentence, Jan-26-2023
5. Declaration of Neil Joseph Gillespie, Feb-05-2023
6. Notice of Withdrawal, Motion to Mitigate Sentence, Feb-08-
2023
Has the Clerk received, filed and docketed my 6 pleadings? Is

P.O. Box 1030, Ocala, FL 34478 still a valid mailing address
for the Clerk? Thank you for the Courtesy of a response.
Sincerely,
/s/ Neil Joseph Gillespie, #A0255941

Marion County Jail, 3290 NW 10th Street, Ocala, FL 34475
On February 13, 2023, the Petitioner mailed a handwritten
letter from jail to the Clerk of Court, Fifth District Court of Appeal,
300 S. Beach Street, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, with a hand copy of
his letter to Clerk Harrell, and this message:
Dear Clerk,
I was jailed Jan-25-2023 for direct criminal contempt. The
Marion County Clerk has failed to file my pleadings since then.
Please see enclosed my letter to Gregory Harrell, Clerk. I am
due to be released February 22, 2023. Please docket my
enclosed appeals to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Also,
please see my complaint to the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement (FDLE) filed January 24, 2023 in the above
4
cases. [2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-286, and 2-22-CF-1143].
Thank you.
/s/ Neil Joseph Gillespie, #A0255941

Marion County Jail, 3290 NW 10th Street, Ocala, FL 34475
On February 28, 2023 the Petitioner received in the jail a letter
dated February 27, 2023 from H. Hustosky, Deputy Clerk,
responding on behalf of Clerk Harrell. The letter was not mailed, but
appeared to be an unstamped inter-office type communication. The
response on behalf of Clerk Harrell omits any mention of the
Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus mailed January 29,
2023, but otherwise admits receiving the other 5 pleadings.
(Appendix).
On March 6, 2023 the Petitioner received in the jail an Order
Dismissing Defendant's Petition For Writ OfHabeas Corpus entered
February 27, 2023 in cases 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286, and
2022-CF-11443 (sic), by Judge Brigham. The envelope containing
the Order is postmarked February 28, 2023, and addressed to Neil
J. Gillespie, #A0255941, Marion County Jail, 3290 NW 10th Street,
Ocala, FL 34475. The Order states: (Appendix)
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on February 1, 2023.
5
The Defendant is challenging the Court's order of direct
criminal contempt entered on January 26, 2023. However, on
February 14, 2023, the Defendant appealed this Court's Order
Finding Facts and Holding the Defendant in Direct Criminal
Contempt to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Accordingly,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant Petition.
It is hereby,
ORDERED: The Defendant's prose Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED this 27 day of February 2023, at Ocala, Florida
On February 24, 2023 the Petitioner received in the jail a letter
postmarked and dated February 20, 2023 from Sandra Williams,
Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeal, by /s/ J. Diaz, Deputy Clerk,
with a copy of the Petitioner's letter of February 12, 2023 to Clerk
Harrell, stamped "Received Feb 16 2023 District Court of Appeal
Fifth District", and this message: (Appendix)
X Notices of appeal attached to the enclosed

correspondence has been sent to Marion County for
certification.
The record this case shows the Petitioner mailed from jail a
new handwritten petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court
(Fifth DCA) on March 5, 2023 (certificate of service date), while he
was held as Inmate #A0255941 in the Marion County Jail, in Ocala,
Florida, received March 8, 2023 by this Court (Fifth DCA).
6
The record in this case shows the Petitioner mailed from jail a
handwritten pleading to this Court (Fifth DCA) on March 7, 2023
(certificate of service date) "RE: Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus"
with this message:
On March 6, 2023, the petitioner received by U.S. Mail "Order

Dismissing Defendant's Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus"
entered February 27, 2023 by Circuit Judge Peter M. Brigham
in Marion County Cases 2019CF4193, 2021CF286, and
2022CF1143.
The Petitioner enclosed the Order Dismissing Defendant's
Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus received from Judge Brigham in
his letter to the Clerk (Fifth DCA). (Appendix)
7
Section II The Facts On Which The Petitioner Relies
On January 3, 2023, the Petitioner served a motion to
disqualify Circuit Judge Peter M. Brigham ("Judge Brigham") who is
the trial judge in the Petitioner's criminal cases, nos. 2019-CF-
4193, 2021-CF-0286 and 2022-CF-1143.
The Petitioner's motion to disqualify states in relevant part:
1. I hereby move to disqualify Judge Peter Brigham (Judge

Brigham) as judge in the above captioned cases under Fla. R.
Jud. Admin. 2.330, Canon 3E(1) Code of Judicial Conduct for
the State of Florida, Fla. Stat. § 38.10, and State ex rel. Davis
v. Parks because I fear I will not receive a fair trial or hearing
because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge:
a. On December 29, 2022 Judge Brigham appointed attorney

D. Gary Lashley as standby counsel in this matter, see, Order
Allowing the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional
Counsel to Withdrawal Stand By Counsel, entered by Judge
Brigham.
b. Judge Brigham knows Mr. Lashley [h]as an ethical conflict

with me, see, Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed by Mr. Lashley
on October 26, 2022, at paragraph 5: “The Defendant’s
outlandish and threatening conduct left the undersigned with
no choice but to file a motion to withdrawal due to an ethical
conflict.”
c. Judge Brigham knows that under the U.S. Sixth

Amendment, and The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, an
attorney with an ethical conflict is prohibited from
representing a client.
8
d. Judge Brigham knows I filed a motion for a Nelson hearing
on February 10, 2022 to remove Mr. Lashley as my appointed
counsel. The motion is still pending.
e. Judge Brigham knows I filed a complaint against Mr.

Lashley with The Florida Bar.
f. Judge Brigham knows I stated in open court on several

occasions that I do not want Mr. Lashley to represent me
because of Lashley’s professional negligence that caused me
harm.
The motion to disqualify Judge Brigham was served prior to a
1:30 PM hearing in courtroom 3B of the Marion County Courthouse
on January 3, 2023.
The motion to disqualify Judge Brigham shows on page 9,
"I served this Motion to Disqualify, with my affidavit, prior to

filing on the Portal, by U.S. Mail. Service by mail is complete
upon mailing. Rule 2.516 (b)(2), Fla. R. Jud. Admin."
The Certificate of Service on the motion to disqualify Judge
Brigham shows on page 10:
I Hereby Certify that on January 3, 2023 this motion and

affidavit was served by U.S. Mail, Tracking Number 9405 5036
9930 0446 8056 26 to,
Hon. Peter Brigham

Marion County Judicial Center
110 N.W. 1st Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475
9
by me personally taking the Priority Mail envelope to the Ocala
Post Office, 400 SW 1st Ave., Ocala, FL 34478. In addition,
after service by U.S. Mail to Judge Brigham, I returned to my
office at Workspace Cooperative and served the motion on the
Portal to the names on the Portal Notice of Service of Court
Documents, including:
 The Hon. Peter Brigham, kplemmons@circuit5.org

 State Attorney’s Office, 110 North West 1st Avenue, Suite
5000, Ocala, FL 34475. Eservicemarion@Sao5.Org
U.S. Postal Service Click-N-Ship Payment Details email to the
Petitioner shows the postage to mail the motion to disqualify Judge
Brigham was purchased at 9:14 AM on January 3, 2023:
Click-N-Ship® Payment Details

Acct #: 53003279
Transaction Number: 579725621
Transaction Date/Time: 01/03/2023 09:14 AM CST
Transaction Amount: $9.90
Payment Method: VISA-2586
The motion to disqualify Judge Brigham shows it was served
on the Florida Portal prior to the 1:30 PM hearing on January 3,
2023, as follows:
Filing # 163965610 E-Filed 01/03/2023 12:42:39 PM [2019-

CF-4193]
Filing # 163965951 E-Filed 01/03/2023 12:45:34 PM [2021-
CF-0286]
Filing # 163966234 E-Filed 01/03/2023 12:47:57 PM [2022-
CF-1143]
10
Judge Brigham took the motion to disqualify him under
advisement during the hearing on January 3, 2023 that began at
1:30 PM, as shown on the transcript, Jan-03-2023, Page 5, lines
10-12.
Judge Brigham violated Florida law by failing to immediately
rule on the motion to disqualify him, as required by case law:
Once a motion for disqualification has been filed, no further

action can be taken by the trial court, even if the trial court is
not aware of the pending motion. Brown v. State, 863 So.2d
1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2004.
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.
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.
The rule places the burden on the judge to rule immediately,

the movant is not required to nudge the judge nor petition for
a writ of mandamus. G.C. v. Department of Children and
Families, 804 So.2d 525 Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2002.
On January 5, 2023, Judge Brigham entered Order Denying
Defendant's Motion To Disqualify Judge. The Order states:
(Appendix)
11
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Disqualify Judge Peter Brigham, filed on January 3, 2022.
When a court is presented with a motion to disqualify the
court, the court shall not pass judgment on the truth of the
allegations but shall only determine the legal sufficiency of the
motion. Rule 2.330(h), Fla. R. Jud. Admin. When determining
the legal sufficiency, the court should determine ''whether the
alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a
well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial."
Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1274 (Fla. 2005). The
Court finds a reasonably prudent person would not have a
well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial in
the above-styled cases. Therefore, Defendant's Motion is legally
insufficient. It is
ORDERED: Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Judge Peter

Brigham is DENIED.
During a Pretrial Conference and Contempt Hearing on
January 25, 2023, Judge Brigham confirmed on the record his
decision to deny the motion to disqualify him, shown on page 7 of
the transcript, beginning at line 14:
14. THE COURT: All right, now, we’re going to bring up

15 something that Mr. Klein is not your stand-by attorney
16 and you have no attorney on.
17. The last time we were in court you yelled at me.
18. THE DEFENDANT: I’m sorry, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: And I didn’t, and I didn’t appreciate
20 it. And the one reason why I didn’t find you in direct
21 contempt at that moment is because you also filed a
22 motion to recuse me, and I didn’t think it would be fair
23 to hold you in contempt while that motion was pending.
24 So I went back and I looked at the motion, and I
25 found that the thing you were complaining at was all a
12
Continued on page 8 of the transcript, beginning at line 1:
1 clerical error, all right. When you asked for a

2 stand-by counsel, the wheel came up with that attorney’s
3 name and that’s what went on the order, and I signed it.
4 I don’t have the best memory in the world. I have over
5 a thousand cases. It didn’t even occur to me that there
6 was going to be a problem with that. And once I
7 realized it just needed to be another attorney off of
8 the wheel –- and that happens to be Mr. Klein –- I
9 signed the order.
10 But the reason I denied your motion to recuse was
11 no reasonable person would be in fear of that because
12 it’s a clerical error. I didn’t know. I just flat-out
13 didn’t remember that attorney had been on your case
14 before. Just don’t remember. I got too many cases.
Judge Brigham's own statement shows he improperly ruled on
the merits when he denied the motion to disqualify him: Judge
Brigham said he denied the motion because the appointment of Mr.
Lashley was a "clerical error". In determining whether the
allegations that movant will not receive a fair trial so as to disqualify
a judge are sufficient, the facts alleged must be taken as true.
Frengel v. Frengel, 880 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2004, and must
be viewed from the movant's perspective. Siegel v. State, 861 So.2d
90, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2003.
13
From the Petitioner's perspective, the facts alleged are true:
Judge Brigham appointed attorney D. Gary Lashley as standby
counsel. 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.
Furthermore, it appears Judge Brigham appointed Mr. Lashley
with malice aforethought on December 29, 2022, see the Order
Allowing The Office Of Criminal Conflict And Civil Regional Counsel to
Withdrawal Stand By Counsel (Appendix), which states as follows:
THIS CAUSE having come 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 D. Gary Lashley, Esquire is hereby
appointed to represent the Defendant in this cause. As
standby counsel; initial [As standby counsel is
handwritten]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Criminal Conflict

and Civil Regional Counsel shall forward all discovery
14
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 29 day of December 2022.
Judge Brigham's Order Allowing The Office Of Criminal Conflict
And Civil Regional Counsel to Withdrawal Stand By Counsel,
henceforth called "Order Appointing Mr. Lashley", shows the
following:
First, Judge Brigham wrote he was "fully advised in the
premises" in appointing Mr. Lashely.
Second, the handwritten part of the Order, As standby
counsel, is initialed by Judge Brigham.
Third, the handwritten part of the Order is inconsistent with
the electronic filing of court documents. As it stands, the electronic
part of the Order appoints Mr. Lashley "to represent the Defendant
in this cause" with no mention that the appointment was As
standby counsel only. The result was to create the illusion
throughout the court system that Mr. Lashley was appointed as
defense counsel for the Petitioner under the U.S. Sixth Amendment
15
"to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" as held by
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
Fourth, the Certificate of Service for the Order Appointing Mr.
Lashley shows it was not served on the Florida Portal. Instead, the
Order was served by email to the SAO, the OCCCRC and to Mr.
Lashley, but not served by email to the Petitioner. The Petitioner
was served by U.S. Mail to an old address, see:
Office of the State Attorney

(Via Electronic Mail: eservicemarion@sao5.org)
John Witherspoon. Assistant Regional Counsel

(Via Electronic Mail: rccmarion@rc5statc.com)
Neil Joseph Gillespie

8092 SW 115th Loop
OCALA, FL 34481
and
Attorney:_ D. Gary Lashley, Esquire gary@lashleylaw.com
Fifth, because the handwritten part of the Order is
inconsistent with the electronic filing of court documents, the
Clerk's online docket in the Petitioner's criminal cases shows he is
represented by counsel.
16
Sixth, because Clerk's online docket in the Petitioner's
criminal cases shows he is represented by counsel, he was denied
pro se legal services while held in the Marion County Jail, according
to the jail's letter to him. (Appendix)
Seventh, because the handwritten part of the Order is
inconsistent with the electronic filing of court documents, the Court
Minutes filed in the Petitioner's criminal cases shows he is
represented by counsel, not just standby counsel.
The Order Appointing Mr. Lashley shows Judge Brigham
intended to appoint Mr. Lashley to represent the Petitioner, that
Judge Brigham was "fully advised in the premises" in appointing
Mr. Lashely, and that the appointment of Mr. Lashley in this
manner (and later Mr. Klein as standby counsel) by use of a
handwritten note on an otherwise electronically filed court
document would result in creating the illusion throughout the court
system that Mr. Lashley was appointed as defense counsel for the
Petitioner under the U.S. Sixth Amendment "to have the Assistance
of Counsel for his defence" as held by Gideon v. Wainwright.
17
The record shows Judge Brigham entered three Order(s) On
Payment Of Attorney's Fees to Mr. Lashley on November 3, 2022,
and paid Lashley the full $935 statutory fee in each of three cases
for Lashley's prior representation of the Petitioner, even though the
Justice Administrative Commission objected by letter to Mr. Lashley
in each case claiming a presumption under section 27.5304(11)
that he was not entitled to the full fee. (2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-
286, 2022-CF-1143). Judge Brigham's authorization of full payment
of $2,805 in legal fees to Mr. Lashley is further evidence that Judge
Brigham knowingly intended to appoint Mr. Lashley, since Lashley
had already been paid-in-full by the court system.
Judge Brigham's authorization of full payment of $2,805 in
legal fees to Mr. Lashley is further evidence for the Petitioner, or a
reasonable person, to question the Judge's partiality. 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. Whether the
motion is legally sufficient is a pure question of law; it follows that
18
the proper standard of review is the de novo standard (Sume v.
State, 773 So.2d 600 Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2000) and an order denying a
motion to disqualify a trial judge is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
King v. State, 840 So.2d 1047, Fla., 2003.
Therefore, the Petitioner's motion to disqualify Judge
Brigham was automatically granted; Judge Brigham failed to
immediately rule on the motion, and then two days later the
Judge ruled on the merits, claiming a "clerical error". In fact,
the foregoing shows Judge Brigham knowingly appointed Mr.
Lashley, then tried to deny the fact of the appointment.
Judge Brigham lost jurisdiction over the Petitioner when the
motion to disqualify was served him prior to a hearing at 1:30 PM
January 3, 2023.
On January 25, 2023 Judge Brigham held the Petitioner in
direct criminal contempt for speaking too loud at the January 3,
2023 hearing and immediately sentenced and jailed him for 30 days
in the Marion County Jail.
Because Judge Brigham lacked jurisdiction, the contempt
ruling is void.
19
The Petitioner's incarceration in the Marion County Jail was
unlawful.
On January 25, 2023 Judge Brigham entered Order Finding
Facts and Holding The Defendant In Direct Criminal Contempt. The
Order does not reflect what is shown in the transcripts. The gulf
between what the Order states, and what actually happened as
shown in the transcripts, calls directly into question the veracity of
Judge Brigham. The Order states: (Appendix)
The Defendant is hereby held in direct criminal contempt, by

and through the undersigned Circuit Court Judge.
This Court conducted a hearing of the defendant's motion on

his cases on January 3, 2023. At the beginning of the hearing
the Defendant had an outburst of anger and shouted at the
Court. When challenged the defendant offered a disingenuous
excuse that the Court could not hear him because he
had a speech impediment. The Defendant does indeed have a
speech impediment, but this Court has never had any trouble
understanding the Defendant. At that same hearing the
Defendant provided a motion to disqualify the Court. This
Court did not want to appear to be retaliating against the
Defendant for filing a motion to disqualify, thus the Court
granted the Defendant's underlying motion, took the motion to
disqualify under advisement, and concluded the hearing with
no further mention of the Defendant's outburst and shouting.
All the Defendant's cases were set for a pretrial conference on
January 25, 2023.
20
After reviewing the Defendant's motion to disqualify, this
Court entered an order denying the same.
The Defendant and Stand-by Counsel appeared before the

undersigned for the January 25, 2023, pretrial conference. At
the conclusion of the pretrial conference the Court Conducted
a Direct Criminal Contempt hearing regarding the Defendant's
outburst and shouting at the hearing on
January 3, 2023, hearing.
The undersigned held a summary proceeding and found

Defendant in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to
30 days in the Marion County Jail but accessed no fine. The
Defendant failed to show cause on why he should not be held
in contempt. The Defendant failed to show if there were
any excusing or mitigating circumstances. The Defendant
quibbled with the Court and attempted to deny that he had
shouted at the Court, attempted to assert yet again that this
Court could not hear him because of his speech impediment,
but finally settled on he was merely projecting his voice. The
Defendant finally conceded that he had, in fact, "raised his
voice."
The Defendant's outburst and shouting were his deliberate

actions were calculated to embarrass, hinder, and specifically
designed to obstruct the administration of justice and lessen
this Court's authority and dignity.
The Defendant is scheduled to appear before the Court again

on June 9, 2023, for trial priority.
A Transcript from the January 3, 2023 hearing shows the
Petitioner said, "The State already submitted an order to you." The
Court responded "Settle down". (Transcript January 3, 2023, page
3, lines 13-15). Previously ASA Yaveth Parodi emailed the Judge
21
asking if this hearing was necessary, since the state did not object
to the Petitioner's motion to waive confidentially for a report finding
him competent to stand trial.
The Petitioner appeared pro se on January 3, 2023. The
Petitioner appeared pro se on January 25, 2023 during the
contempt trial where he was found guilty and immediately taken to
jail for 30 days.
Later on January 3, 2023 Judge Brigham accused the
Petitioner of yelling at him, on page 4, beginning at line 20. and
continuing to page 5, line 1-2:
20 THE DEFENDANT: May I, may I speak?

21 THE COURT: If you’re not going to yell at me, yes.
22 THE DEFENDANT: No, I’m not going to yell at Your
23 Honor.
24 THE COURT: Well, you already have.
25 THE DEFENDANT: I, I just tried to speak up. I
1 have a speech impairment. It’s hard for me to project
2 my voice.
At no time did the Petitioner ever mention anything about
whether Judge Brigham could hear him or not. Judge Brigham
concocted that statement out of whole cloth, in order to criminalize
the Petitioner and incarcerate him, or, as the transcript shows, to
again call into question his competency. Either way, it now appears
22
the Court either wanted to find the Petitioner guilty of a new crime,
use that new crime to forfeit his bond, and keep the Petitioner
incarcerated until he accepted a plea deal; or find the Petitioner
incompetent to further deny his liberty.
The transcript from the January 25, 2023 contempt trial
shows the Petitioner reiterated his statement from January 3, 2023
that he only tried to project his voice, and not disrespect the Court.
From the transcript of the hearing January 25, 2023, page 8,
beginning at line 15:
15 I didn’t hold you in contempt that day. But I’m

16 going to hold you in contempt right now, all right. You
17 cannot yell at me in court. Do you understand?
18 THE DEFENDANT: I, I’m sorry, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: I know you’re sorry.
20 THE DEFENDANT: I, I didn’t, I didn’t feel that I
21 had yelled at you. I have a
22 THE COURT: Your, your feelings are immaterial,
23 sir. I got the recording. I went back and watched it.
24 You yelled at me, for no reason.
25 THE DEFENDANT: I was trying to project my voice.
Transcript, January 25, 2023, page 9, beginning at line 1:
1 THE COURT: No, you weren’t. You gave me that

2 excuse then, too, and you also said, “Oh, I have a
3 speech impediment.” I hear you perfectly. You don’t
4 have to yell at me. Those are just lame excuses, sir,
5 because you can’t control your temper.
6 THE DEFENDANT: I’m sorry, Your Honor.
23
7 THE COURT: So I’m finding you in direct contempt
8 for yelling at me that day.
9 So is there any reason why I shouldn’t sentence you
10 in a summary proceeding for contempt right now? Any
11 reason why I shouldn’t sentence you?
12 THE DEFENDANT: Well, if, if –- I would ask for
13 counsel for that.
14 THE COURT: You don’t get counsel for direct
15 contempt. It’s a summary proceeding. There’s no
16 counsel. Any reason why I can’t sentence you today?
17 Any legal reason? Are you incompetent? Are you
18 mentally incompetent?
19 THE DEFENDANT: I’m competent, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Okay, all right. So what should I do?
21 I can put you in jail for up to 180 days and fine you, I
22 think, 500 bucks. What should I do? Why shouldn’t I do
23 that to you?
24 THE DEFENDANT: It was unintentional. There was no
25 intent to yell at you, Your Honor. I was just
1 projecting my voice.
2 THE COURT: I’ve already told you twice: That’s a
3 bunch of garbage. You were angry and you yelled at me.
4 THE DEFENDANT: What, what did I yell?
5 THE COURT: I don’t even remember. The fact that
6 you yelled at me was so startling I don’t even remember
7 what you said. But that’s irrelevant.
8 THE DEFENDANT: Well, you said you listened to the
9 tape.
10 THE COURT: I did.
11 THE DEFENDANT: Well, what did I say?
12 THE COURT: I don’t know. I don’t remember. All I
13 know is you yelled at me for no reason, and that’s the
14 problem. That’s why I’m holding you in direct contempt.
15 THE DEFENDANT: I raised my voice, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Well, now, now we agree with each
24
17 other. You absolutely did, shouting at me. Absolutely.
18 THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, --
19 THE COURT: I’ve asked staff attorneys to look into
20 this and watch the video. I’ve asked other people to
21 look at it and make sure I wasn’t out of bounds here.
22 I’m not out of bounds. You were.
23 THE DEFENDANT: Can I respond?
24 THE COURT: What I want to know from you is what
25 should I do about it? Should I put you in jail for 180
1 days?
2 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor, I think you should
3 give me a pass on it.
4 THE COURT: Mr. Gillespie, part of the reason
5 you’re not even in jail right now is I agreed to let you
6 out if you promised to get a psychological evaluation.
7 Do you remember that?
8 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: I stuck my neck out for you. I don’t
10 appreciate getting yelled at in court.
12 THE COURT: I absolutely do not appreciate it, and
13 none of these people do, too. You got people here who
14 want to resolve their cases and they expect me to do a
15 good job. And they see me putting up with you, yelling
26 at me. That throws the court system into disrepute.
17 Not just me personally; the court system.
18 This is not your plaything, all right. There’s no
19 fine, but you’re going to jail for 30 days right now.
20 I’ll see you in 30 days.
21 THE BAILIFF: Hands in front of you.
22 THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, can I make provisions
23 to get my vehicle taken care of?
24 THE COURT: They got a phone at the jail. You can
25 call whoever you need to call.
25
On January 29, 2023 the Petitioner mailed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus to the Clerk Harrell while he was held as Inmate
#A0255941 in the Marion County Jail, but the Clerk failed to file
the petition as a new civil action. Instead, Judge Brigham dismissed
the petition by order on February 27, 2023 in the three criminal
cases, 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286 AND 2022-CF-1143.
(Appendix)
On January 31, 2023, ASA Yaveth Parodi moved to revoke the
Petitioner's bond for direct criminal contempt. The Petitioner was
not served the motion in jail.
On February 15, 2023, appointed standby counsel John Klein
moved to withdrawal from representing the Petitioner, but failed to
serve the Petitioner, or give him notice of the hearing. On April 27,
2023 Mr. Klein informed the Petitioner that his legal mail was sent
to the wrong mailing address in the jail.
WRONG: Marion County Jail, 700 NW 30th Avenue, Ocala, FL

34475
CORRECT: Marion County Jail, 3290 NW 10th Street, Ocala,
FL 34475
26
On February 17, 2023 Judge Brigham allowed Mr. Klein to
withdrawal as standby counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner
appeared pro se in the jail.
On February 17, 2023, Judge Brigham held a hearing to
revoke the Petitioner's bond. The Petitioner appeared pro se in the
jail and did not have notice of the hearing. The Petitioner argued
caselaw obtained from another inmate that Double Jeopardy
clauses apply to criminal contempt and should prevent
reinstatement of direct criminal contempt proceedings to revoke the
Petitioner's bond in cases 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286, and 2022-
CF-1143, see De La Portilla v State, 142 So3d 928, citing United
States v. Dixon, 509 US 688.
At the hearing Judge Brigham said he would take the matter
of revoking the Petitioner's bond under advisement, but the Judge
never made a ruling.
On February 20, 2023, Judge Brigham entered Order To
Revoke Bond, but failed to serve the Petitioner in jail. The Order
states: (Appendix)
THIS CAUSE coming to be heard before me this day upon the

foregoing Motion to Revoke Bond, filed herein by the State of
27
Florida and dated 01/31/2023, and the Court being fully
advised in the premises, it is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's bond be

revoked and that the Sheriff of MARION County shall take said
Defendant (NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, W/M, DOB
03/19/1956, SSN: [Redacted] LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: 8092
SW 115TH LOOP, Ocala, FL 34481-3567) into custody and
detain said Defendant at the MARION County Jail, pending
further order of this Court as this Court finds probable cause
to believe Defendant committed a new crime while on pretrial
release in the above styled cause.
IT IS FURTHER ORDER AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant

be held on a NO BOND status until further Order of this
Court.
On February 22, 2023, the Petitioner completed his 30 day
sentence for direct criminal contempt but was not released from
jail. Therefore the Petitioner concluded that somehow Judge
Brigham acted to keep him in jail.
On February 23, 2023, the incarcerated Petitioner mailed a
handwritten Notice of Change of Plea to the Marion County Clerk to
accept the state's plea offer. The Petitioner did this so he could be
released from jail. Otherwise the Petitioner's next court appearance
was not until June 9, 2023.
The Petitioner could not afford to spend further time in jail
without significant consequences to his life and health, as set forth
28
in his motion to mitigate sentence mailed to the Marion County Clerk
on January 26, 2023, including:
The Defendant will soon be age 67 and suffers the following

physical ailments needing exam and treatment.
 A diabetic eye exam is scheduled in Ocala on or about
February 16, 2023
 New patient exam with Dr. Huq, Ultimate Health Plans
 On January 23, 2023 the Defendant fell in the parking lot
at McDonalds and injured his left arm and ribs and is in
significant pain.
 A retina exam is needed at Wills Eye Hospital [Philadelphia,
PA]
 Defendant is currently legally blind - left eye.
The Defendant has a number of financial obligations needing

his personal attention as soon as possible:
Rent is due on February 1, 2023
Vehicle payment is due February 5, 2023
Outstanding loan payments are due February 2-5, 2023
The Defendant is single, never married, no children.

The Defendant has no one to assist him while in jail.
The Defendant's only brother, Mark Gillespie, died on July 3,
2022.
A woman Defendant planned to marry died on May 12, 2021
(Sarah Thompson). The Defendant needs to return to work as
soon as possible.
The Defendant recently lost his home of the past 17 years to
foreclosure.
The Petitioner later withdrew his motion to mitigate sentence
because he wanted to fight the charges because he is not guilty;
29
and no longer wanted to take a plea deal suggested by standby
counsel John Klein, who withdrew Feb-17-2023.
The Petitioner was unable to schedule his change of plea for a
hearing because he was not represented by counsel. The Petitioner
could not call Judge Brigham's office to schedule a hearing with his
judicial assistant as is the usual practice. And ASA Yaveth Parodi
did not respond to the Petitioner's letters.
The Petitioner therefore in March 2023 hired Attorney Markus
Murden for the limited purpose of scheduling a change of plea
hearing for him.
The Petitioner was released from the Marion County Jail on
March 20, 2023 after appearing pro se at a change of plea hearing
before Judge Brigham, where he plead no contest, and was
sentenced in Marion County case nos. 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-
0286, and 2022-CF-1143 to time served, payment of certain fines,
costs and fees, no probation, and adjudication withheld. However,
convictions for direct criminal contempt remain on the Petitioner's
record in Marion County case nos. 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286,
and 2022-CF-1143.
30
On April 19, 2023, the Petitioner filed a Motion To Withdraw
Plea After Sentencing in case nos. 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286,
and 2022-CF-1143.
The Petitioner moved pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l) to
withdraw his pleas of no contest made on March 20, 2023 while
held in the Marion County Jail because the pleas violate his rights
as a Defendant, are unjust, and resulted in unlawful sentences. The
Petitioner's pleas were involuntary to get out of jail while held on a
no-bond order. Separately and in addition, the Petitioner asserts
that the Judge Brigham lacked jurisdiction after the Petitioner
served a meritorious motion to disqualify the Judge on January 3,
2023.
31
Section III The Nature Of The Relief Sought
The Petitioner contends that Judge Brigham lacked
jurisdiction over the Petitioner in case nos. 2019-CF-4193, 2021-
CF-0286, and 2022-CF-1143, after the Petitioner served a
meritorious motion to disqualify the Judge on January 3, 2023.
Therefore, the Petitioner seeks to overturn or void the following
Orders in Marion County case nos. 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286,
and 2022-CF-1143:
 Order Denying Defendant's Motion To Disqualify Judge,

entered January 5, 2023 by Judge Brigham
 Order Finding Facts and Holding The Defendant In Direct

Criminal Contempt, entered January 25, 2023 by Judge
Brigham
 Order Dismissing Defendant's Petition For Writ Of Habeas

Corpus, entered February 27, 2023 by Judge Brigham
 Order to Revoke Bond, entered February 20, 2023 by Judge

Brigham
 Plea agreement and sentence, entered March 20, 2023 by

Judge Brigham
The fraud and misconduct alleged in this matter goes beyond
the actions of Judge Brigham. As such, the Petitioner believes
32
removal to another venue may be appropriate, and in the interest of
justice, to adjudicate the following:
Jan-23-2023 Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss 19-CF-

4193
Jan-23-2023 Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss 21-CF-

0286
Jan-23-2023 Defendant's Notice of Claim of Immunity 22-CF-

1143
Jan-24-2024 Request To The FDLE For Investigation of the

Incarceration of Neil Joseph Gillespie in the Marion
County Jail
33
Section IV Argument In Support Of The Petition And
Appropriate Citations Of Authority
Judge Brigham lost jurisdiction over the Petitioner when the timely
motion to disqualify was served on him prior to a hearing at 1:30 PM
January 3, 2023.
Judge Brigham wrongly took issue with the motion and ruled on
its merits.
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. 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.
LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE BRIGHAM
“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....”
34
Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be
Subject to Suit? Robert Craig Walters, Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2
(Fall 1987)
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).
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(b) “Parties. Any party, including the
state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on
grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Under Canon 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of
Florida,
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself where his or her

impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not
limited to...”. Canon 3E(1)
Commentary for Canon 3E(1)
Canon 3E(1). Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the

judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of
whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.
Disqualification under Canon 3E(1) does not require actual bias or
actual prejudice, but “whenever the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned”.
Rule 2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges. Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
states in relevant part,
35
RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES
(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant
relies as the grounds for disqualification;
(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by
a separate affidavit; and
(d) Grounds. A motion to disqualify shall show:

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

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

initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall
determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not
pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally
sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting
disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion
is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall
immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated,
and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.
The importance of the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is
that of doing it in such a manner as would raise no suspicion of the
fairness and integrity of the judge. State ex rel. Arnold v. Revels, 113
So.2d 218, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 1959.
36
Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of
an impartial judge, (Mathew v. State, 837 So.2d 1167, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,
2003) and the law intends that no judge will preside in a case in which
he or she is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent.
State v. Steele, 348 So.2d 398, Fla.App. 1977.
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 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,
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.
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
37
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).
Question of disqualification of a trial judge focuses on those
matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's
impartiality rather than the court's own perception of its ability to act
fairly and impartially. West’s F.S.A. § 38.10, Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli,
903 So.2d 214, Fla.App. 3 Dist., 2005 reh'g denied, (Feb. 17, 2005).
Sufficiency of motion or affidavit of prejudice
A motion to disqualify must show that the party fears that he or
she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because: (1) of a specifically
described prejudice or bias of the judge; Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule
2.330(d)(1).
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.
If a motion to recuse is technically sufficient and the facts alleged
therein also would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he
38
or she could not get a fair and impartial trial from the judge, the motion
is legally sufficient and should be granted. Coleman v. State, 866 So.2d
209, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2004.
The motion to disqualify a judge should contain facts germane to
the judge's undue bias, prejudice, or sympathy. Chamberlain v. State,
881 So.2d 1087, Fla., 2004.
Whether a motion to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient requires
a determination as to whether the alleged facts would create in a
reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair
and impartial trial. Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160 (f), Rodriguez v.
State, 919 So.2d 1252, Fla., 2005, as revised on denial of reh'g, (Jan.
19, 2006).
The primary consideration in determining whether motion to
disqualify trial judge should be granted is whether the facts alleged, if
true, would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a
fair and impartial trial. Arbelaez v. State, 898 So.2d 25, Fla., 2005, reh'g
denied, (Mar. 18, 2005).
A motion for disqualification must be granted if the alleged facts
would cause a reasonably prudent person to have a well-founded fear
39
that he/she would not receive a fair and impartial trial. Jarp v. Jarp,
919 So.2d 614, Fla.App. 3 Dist., 2006.
The test a trial court must use in determining whether a motion to
disqualify a judge is legally sufficient is whether the facts alleged would
place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and
impartial trial. Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2005,
reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005).
The motion to disqualify a judge must be well-founded and contain
facts germane to the judge's undue bias, prejudice, or sympathy. Scott v.
State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2005, reh'g denied, (Sept. 2,
2005).
Disqualification is required when litigants demonstrate reasonable,
well-grounded fear that they will not receive fair and impartial trial, or
that judge has pre-judged case. Williams v. Balch, 897 So.2d 498,
Time for filing motion; waiver of objection
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
40
the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an
immediate ruling. Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160(e).
Judicial determination of initial motion.
The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify us directed
shall determine only the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall not pass
on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.330(f).
No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial
shall not take issue with the motion. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.330(f).
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).
In determining whether the allegations that movant will not receive
a fair trial so as to disqualify a judge are sufficient, the facts alleged
must be taken as true (Frengel v. Frengel, 880 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 2
Dist.,2004), and must be viewed from the movant's perspective. Siegel v.
State, 861 So.2d 90, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2003.
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
41
v. State, 773 So.2d 600 Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2000) and an order denying a
motion to disqualify a trial judge is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
King v. State, 840 So.2d 1047, Fla., 2003.
Once a motion for disqualification has been filed, no further action
can be taken by the trial court, even if the trial court is not aware of the
pending motion. Brown v. State 863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2004.
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.
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.
The rule places the burden on the judge to rule immediately, the
movant is not required to nudge the judge nor petition for a writ of
mandamus. G.C. v. Department of Children and Families, 804 So.2d 525
Judge Brigham's Prejudicial Attitude Toward The pro se Petitioner
42
Judge Brigham began acting with prejudice toward the Petitioner
after appointed counsel D. Gary Lashley, Jr. withdrew from representing
him on June 8, 2022, and the Petitioner proceeded pro se without
counsel.
Judge Brigham presided over a 1:30 PM status hearing with the
Petitioner on October 26, 2022 in Courtroom 3B of the Marion County
Courthouse. A transcript of the hearing shows prejudice by the Judge
directed toward the Petitioner. The following Assistant State Attorneys
were present:
JANINE NIXON, Esquire

YAVETH PARODI, Esquire
E. ANDREW BRANDIES, Esquire
The Petitioner arrived on time for the 1:30 PM hearing, but was not
called by Judge Brigham until 8:35 PM.
The transcript shows this information on the cover page:
TRANSCRIPTIONIST’S CERTIFICATE: The digital recorder

notations reflect the Defendant as in-custody and appearing
via video. The transcript reflects the in-person out-of-custody
appearance of the Defendant, per the recording itself.
Page 2 of the transcript October 26, 2022, shows as follows:
2 MS. NIXON: State versus Neil Gillespie,

3 2022-CF-1143, --
4 THE COURT: We’re going to pass that one.
5 Have a seat, Mr. Gillespie.
43
6 (Digital recorder annotates proceedings stop at 8:35 p.m,
7 recalled at 8:43 p.m., further proceedings recorded as
8 follow:)
9 MS. NIXON: State versus Neil Gillespie,
10 2022-CF-1143, 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-286.
11 THE COURT: All right. How are you doing, Mr.
12 Gillespie?
13 THE DEFENDANT: Hello, Your Honor. Fine, thank
14 you.
15 THE COURT: Let me find this here. All right, so
16 you are pro se on these cases again; is that right?
17 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Now, I ROR’d you so you could do
19 something. Do you remember? You don’t remember, do
20 you?
The Petitioner recalled Judge Brigham released him ROR on April
7, 2022, so he could get a competency evaluation with Dr. Bloomfield,
but the Judge's remark seemed odd: "You don't remember, do you?"
Since the evaluation was competed long ago on April 18, 2022, the
Petitioner responded as follows, beginning on page 2 of the transcript of
the October 26, 2022 hearing:
21 THE DEFENDANT: Why don’t you refresh my memory.

22 THE COURT: Were you supposed to go see somebody?
23 THE DEFENDANT: And who was that, Your Honor?
24 THE COURT: All right.
Continued on transcript page 3, October 26, 2022:
1 THE DEFENDANT: I have a list of attorneys I went

2 to see.
3 THE COURT: Well, did you hire anybody?
44
4 THE DEFENDANT: Well, they’re not taking my case.
5 Even Jack Maro, who previously agreed to represent me,
6 he’s not taking the case.
7 THE COURT: So nobody wants to help you out; is
8 that right?
9 THE DEFENDANT: Well, that’s Jack Maro. Melanie
10 Slaughter; he referred me to Melanie Slaughter. She
11 would only represent me – and I’m paraphrasing – if I
12 was found incompetent, but your doctor found that I was
13 competent.
14 And I currently have a motion pending. It’s been
15 pending for quite a while in your court. I’d like to
16 get a ruling on that.
17 THE COURT: Well, you have to, you have to set them
18 for hearing. Just because you file a motion is not
19 enough.
20 THE DEFENDANT: Well, I was going to ask you if you
21 need a hearing on that. That was –
22 THE COURT: Your, your – I don’t need anything.
23 This is what you need to do. You’re acting as your own
24 attorney.
25 THE DEFENDANT: Right. And I told you that I
1 wanted to hire counsel, but when you’re blacklisted from

2 counsel, you’re not able to hire counsel.
3 THE COURT: Look this isn’t the McCarthy era.
4 You’re not blacklisted. They just don’t want to work
5 for you. You’re hard to get along with. Do you realize
6 that, right?
7 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Okay. All right. That’s been my
9 experience, that you’re hard to get along with. In any
10 event, you’re not blacklisted. This isn’t –
45
The "McCarthy era" cited by Judge Brigham refers to, I believe,
former U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, and McCarthyism, see
Wikipedia:
"McCarthyism, also known as the second Red Scare, was the

political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals and a
campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and socialist
influence on American institutions and of Soviet espionage in the
United States during the late 1940s through the 1950s…"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
The problem now, according to U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (R.,
Ohio) may be the weaponization of government against certain
Americans.
Representative Jordan is Chairman of the House Judiciary Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
In Florida, Governor Rick DeSantis has weaponized government,
such as in the matter of Andrew Warren, the former State Attorney for
the 13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, who was suspended and
removed from elected office by Gov. DeSantis in Executive Order No. 22-
176, on August 4, 2022.
Andrew Warren sued Gov. Desantis, see Warren vs. DeSantis, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00302, U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida.
46
Mr. Warren is represented by the law firms Perkins Coie LLP,
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick LLP and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
On January 20, 2023, the Tallahassee Democrat reported in part:
"TALLAHASSEE — A federal judge on Friday dismissed former

State Attorney Andrew Warren's lawsuit against Gov. Ron
DeSantis, ruling that the former Hillsborough prosecutor did
nothing wrong but that the court didn't have the power to restore
him to office."
"U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said that DeSantis violated the
Florida Constitution and Warren's First Amendment rights under
the U.S. Constitution. However, because the suspension didn't
hinge on the federal constitutional violation, the court lacked the
authority to grant the relief Warren was looking for, mainly to
reinstate him as Hillsborough's top prosecutor."
"The record includes not a hint of misconduct by Mr. Warren,"

Hinkle wrote in a 59-page order explaining his reasoning. "So far
as this record reflects, he was diligently and competently
performing the job he was elected to perform, very much in the
way he told voters he would perform it. He had no blanket
nonprosecution policies. Any minimally competent inquiry would
have confirmed this."
The case in on appeal, see Warren vs. DeSantis, 23-10459, US CA11.
Also see in the Florida Supreme Court, Warren vs. DeSantis, SC23-
247, Petitions For Writs of Quo Warranto and Mandamus.
On April 26, 2023, Walt Disney Parks And Resorts U.S., Inc., sued
Governor Rick DeSantis and his confederates, see Disney v Desantis,
4.23-cv-00163, U.S. District Court, NDFL. In the lawsuit, Disney claims
47
that DeSantis is engaging in “a targeted campaign of government
retaliation”.
Disney is represented by the law firms Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, O'Melveny & Myers, and Losey PLLC.
Back to State of Florida v. Neil Joseph Gillespie. Continued on the
transcript of the hearing October 26, 2022, page 4:
11 THE DEFENDANT: Well, I’m, I’m working and I get

12 what they call a rock star rating, so some people get
13 along with me.
14 THE COURT: A rock star rating? I don’t have no
15 idea what that is.
16 THE DEFENDANT: Well, I’m, among other things, I’m
17 a temp worker with PeopleReady. And if an employer is
18 happy with you, they can rate you from one star to five
19 star, and five star is what they call a rock star
20 rating, and I’ve gotten quite a few of those.
21 THE COURT: Okay.

22 THE DEFENDANT: So there’s people that are happy
23 with me and –
24 THE COURT: Yeah, but they’re not lawyers, are
48
25 they?
Continued on the transcript of the October 26, 2022 hearing, page :
1 THE DEFENDANT: Well, maybe it’s a problem with the

2 lawyers and not the rest of the world.
3 THE COURT: Maybe, but I’m not sure about that. So
4 what are you trying to do here?
5 THE DEFENDANT: Well, I have, also, motions pending
6 in your court to dismiss the telephone one-party consent
7 cases. You put those on hold until I was determined
8 competent to represent myself. Your doctor said I am,
9 so shall we set those motions to dismiss the cases?
10 THE COURT: Well, that’s up to you to set them for
11 hearing, not “we”. We shall not do anything. You’re
12 acting as your own lawyer. It’s up to you, so.
13 THE DEFENDANT: All right. Well, then I’ll start
14 to do that.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 THE DEFENDANT: But I just want to be on the record
17 with all the lawyers I spoke with.
18 THE COURT: I’m not, I’m not interested, Mr.
19 Gillespie. This is why I called you last: Because you
20 can’t stay on point, your mind wanders, and you, quite
21 frankly, very often waste my time.
23 THE COURT: So I do, I do not want to hear about
24 the laundry list of lawyers you can’t hire. It’s not
25 helpful. Do you understand?
Continued on the transcript of the October 26, 2022 hearing, page 6:
1 THE DEFENDANT: Well, I’m entitled to counsel.

2 THE COURT: Well, if you can hire one, but no one
3 wants to work for you, apparently.
4 THE DEFENDANT: And why is that, Your Honor?
5 THE COURT: I don’t know.
6 THE DEFENDANT: Well, let’s subpoena them all and
49
7 bring them in here and question them.
8 THE COURT: No, absolutely not. That is
9 ridiculous. No. You’re not subpoenaing lawyers who
10 won’t work for you to come to court. No. Not at all.
11 THE DEFENDANT: Maybe it’s the cases aren’t any
12 good and they don’t want to get in between you and the
13 state attorney.
14 THE COURT: I don’t think that’s the case, Mr.
15 Gillespie.
16 THE DEFENDANT: Well, that’s my opinion.
21 THE DEFENDANT: All right. And what about my right

22 to counsel, Your Honor?
23 THE COURT: You’re free to hire one, if you want.
24 That’s it. I don’t know what else to tell you. Hire
25 one.
1 THE DEFENDANT: All right, well, like I say, I,

2 I’ve been blacklisted on that.
3 THE COURT: Well, that’s a little melodramatic, but
4 anyway.
8 THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Do you think you

9 qualify for a public defender?
10 THE DEFENDANT: I think I qualify for assistance of
11 counsel.
Note: The Petitioner is homeless, but has rented a shared office at
the Starting Gate Executive Offices, 2801 SW College Rd., Suite 3,
Ocala, FL 34474.
50
U.S. Supreme Court Petition No. 20-929 for writ of certiorari,
docketed January 11, 2021, Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner v. Florida, shows
the Petitioner, like Disney, is subject to “a targeted campaign of
government retaliation” by Marion County government authorities, a
campaign later joined by Gov. Ron Desantis.
See Petition No. 20-929, STATEMENT OF THE CASE, beginning on page 7:
My name is Neil Joseph Gillespie, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, a

person with disabilities, henceforth in the first person. I am age
64, with no prior criminal record. Before moving to Florida in 1993
I owned and operated several businesses in Pennsylvania. I am
educated with degrees in business (Wharton/UPenn) and
psychology (The Evergreen State College). I am single, never
married, and do not have children.
In 2005 moved to Ocala Florida and cared for my Mother who later
died of Alzheimer’s disease in 2009. I have lived at the same
address since 2005, my Florida residential homestead, 8092 SW
115th Loop, Ocala, Marion County, Florida 34481. (My home is in
foreclosure).
In 2006 I contacted the Marion County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) to

no avail about financial fraud by Bank of America and my sister
and a scheme that wrongly encumbered Mom’s home with a
$40,000 mortgage.
In 2008 I replaced that loan and consolidated other debts with a

Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, also called a HECM reverse
mortgage, currently in litigation. During this time I have become a
target of the MCSO, the Marion County Bar Association, The
Florida Bar, the Courts, and State Attorney Brad King, and have
been denied rights under color of law.
51
I was arrested on November 10, 2019 in STATE OF FLORIDA VS
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Marion County Circuit Criminal Court,
Case No. 2019-CF-004193-A-Z, and charged with two crimes:
Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1a Interception of Oral Communication;

Fla. Stat. § 934.03.1c Disclosure of Communication
My arrest was politically motivated by Marion Co. Sheriff Billy

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

Filing # 109909167 E-Filed 07/07/2020 06:50:44 PM
Sheriff Woods was vice president of Marion Senior Services, Inc.
The complainant, Chonnie Phillips, is a temp employee of Marion

Senior Services, Inc. where Sheriff Billy Woods is vice president.
I did not intercept oral communication with Ms. Phillips while she
was employed by Marion Senior Services, Inc. Instead, I was a
party to the telephone call with Phillips who answered the phone
when I called.
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/
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
52
is a civil dispute best resolved through the civil system, see
Samantha Shealy Rauba, RFA No. 20-5317.
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
The Petitioner was arrested on June 7, 2020 in STATE OF

FLORIDA VS NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Marion County Circuit
Criminal Court, Case No. 2020-CF-2417, and charged with two
crimes:
Fla. Stat. sec. 784.03.1A1 Battery

Fla. Stat. sec. 812.131.2b Robbery by Sudden Snatching Without
Deadly Weapon
The alleged victim, Sarah May Thompson, is a convicted felon who

served time in Florida prison, who is also addicted to heroin and
other drugs.
Ms. Thompson was a dear friend with a terrible drug addiction.
Sarah died of a drug overdose on May 12, 2021 in the hotel room of
Matthew Paul Smith, a convicted drug dealer. The Petitioner warned the
Marion County authorities that Sarah needed help, but they only used
her to disrupt the Petitioner's life.
Attorney Zachary Glenn Phipps of the Office of Criminal Counsel
and Civil Regional Counsel for the 5th Judicial Circuit represented the
53
Petitioner on July 30, 2020, when he finally he admitted the Petitioner
was subject to retribution by the Marion County authorities, and not
incompetent, as memorialized during a one-party consent phone call
that was lawfully recorded under 18 USC 2511(2)(d), and the Law of the
Land in Florida under Article VI, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the
Supremacy Clause. The transcript July 30, 2020 on page 12, shows at
line 15:
15 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, here's the other thing.

16 Here's the other thing. You know, you claim that early
17 on, my references to Sarah Thompson were immaterial.
18 But actually, they're very material. And if you look
19 at the record in this, clearly, the police, the Marion
20 County Sheriff's Office are using her and defending her
21 criminality to get to me, okay? There's no reason that
22 they should have stood there and let her tear my house
23 apart. It was a home invasion, okay? And they're
24 making it out --
25 MR. PHIPPS: Mr. Gillespie, this is part of the
Continued on page 13 of the transcript:
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
54
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.
On January 20, 2021 Judge Gary Sanders refused to grant the
Petitioner a 60 day stay in a proceeding that day to allow him time to
get eye surgery to fix a detached retina, because Sanders planned to
have the Petitioner arrested again on another one-party consent phone
recording charge (2021-CF-0286), a call with a nurse who collaborated
Sarah's drug addiction. The Petitioner hoped providing this evidence
would compel the state to help Sarah, who was a vulnerable adult
under Fla. Stat. sec. 415.102(28) for drug addiction.
The Petitioner was arrested February 4, 2021 in Pennsylvania on a
bench warrant following retina surgery January 28, 2021 at Wills Eye
Hospital. The Petitioner was extradited to Florida on a DeSantis
Governor's Warrant after Judge Sanders refused to rescind his pickup
order so the Petitioner could voluntarily return home, and help Sarah
55
who wrote him three jailhouse postcards from The Marion County Jail.
Sarah's bunk mate sent another from Sumter County Jail.
 Sarah's postcard transcript Jan-26-2021 - Marion County Jail1
Dear Neil,
Well as you can see my sister really got me this time or I guess I
got me, not really sure, I was hoping my charges would be dropped
by now, but in order for that to happen Johanna would have to go
to the state attorney’s office and recount her statement. I’m not
sure if she even knows how to do that because I’m not allowed any
contact with her directly or indirectly. I have been thinking about
you a lot wishing/dreaming I was there cooking food now. I’m
constantly starving. I’m hoping you can figure out how to get me
out of here. When I ask your help something always seems to
happen so I hope to be able to spend Valentine’s day face to face.
My next court date is 02/08 my PD is Sean Gravel, 30 yr old new
attorney and my Sumter PD is Greg Williams. I miss you, Love
Sarah. Help me plz
 Sarah's postcard transcript Feb-16-2021 - Marion County Jail
Dear Neil, (miss you!) Hopefully be home soon

Hey! I hope this postcard finds you well! I’ve been thinking about
you and cooking food at your house. I’m starving all the time, I go
to court 02/24 and will be getting time served but I still got my
charges in Sumter County. So I have to wait until they come to get
me. My attorney for Sumter is Gregory Williams. Maybe you could
let him know I will be done with my case on the 24th and see if he
can put me in to be transported right away. Or see if I can do video
court from here. I just wanna get out of here. I will have been
locked up 48 days when I go to court. I am in lock too so I’m in all
for real for real. Hope you had a good Valentines Day. (heart)
Sarah
 Sarah's postcard transcript Mar-19-2021 - Marion County Jail

1
State of Florida v. Sarah M. Thompson, Marion County Case No: 2021-MM-171
56
Hey Neil. (hearts) (star) I hope you are alive (star) and well. I
haven’t heard anything from you or received any books so my
imagination is starting to get the best of me. As you can see I am
still sitting in Marion County Jail, still have no idea what is going
on in my Sumter case, and I’m still the happiest I have been in a
long time!! (smile) I now have 70 days sobriety and I have no desire
to ever go back to that life again!! This “vacation” is just what
I needed to start getting my life on the right track and realizing
frankly fuck every1! HaHa I just gotta start doing what’s best for
me all the time and not worry about everyone else. My new slogan,
not my pussy, not my problem. I must love you. Sarah.
The Desantis extradition warrant listed wrong crimes. The
Petitioner was extradited beyond 90 days. The Petitioner arrived at the
Marion County Jail on May 10, 2021 and held without a bond hearing
for 333 days.
Sarah Thompson was released from the Sumter County Jail on
Apr-21-2021, State of Florida v. Sarah M. Thompson, Sumter County
Case No: 2020-CF-971.
The Petitioner was not able to get Sarah's phone call for help when
she was released because he was held in the Bucks County Jail in
Pennsylvania.
Sarah's sister Johanna Thondike was not able to help Sarah once
she was arrested and jailed for 30 days on May 11, 2021 by the Marion
County Sheriff.
57
Given Sarah's scoresheet and drug charges, the Petitioner believes
she should have been set to prison, where she may still be alive today.
But it appears from the record that Sarah only got time served. Sarah
died of a drug overdose on May 12, 2021, just 21 days after her release
from the Sumter County Jail.
The Autopsy Report for Sarah Thompson by Barbara C. Wolf, M.D.,
District Medical Examiner, shows for the Cause of Death: Combined
drug toxicity (heroin, fentanyl and methamphetamine). A Toxicology
Report was done by NMS Labs and provided to Dr. Wolf.
The Certification of Death shows Sarah Thompson died at a
hotel/motel located at 2430 Northeast 2nd Street, apartment 118,
Ocala, Marion County, 34470. The Stay & Save Extended Stay Hotel in
Ocala is located at that address
On April 29, 2022, the Petitioner spoke with the hotel’s manager,
John, and he confirmed that Sarah Thompson died in room 118 of a
drug overdose. John confirmed that room 118 was rented on May 12,
2021 to Matthew Smith. John said Sarah was a "mess" when he saw
Smith take her to room 118.
58
The Marion County Clerk’s public online docket shows Matthew
Paul Smith was adjudicated guilty on February 17, 2021 in Case No.
2020-CF-3414. Smith's five criminal charges include possession of
methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance with intent to
distribute (downgraded from trafficking in fentanyl), possession of drug
paraphernalia, giving a false name or identity to law enforcement, and
no valid driver’s license.
The Marion County Clerk’s public online docket shows Matthew
Paul Smith was released from jail February 17, 2021 with credit for 188
days time served, a little over 6 months, and sentenced to 15 years
probation and other such. Case No. 2020-CF-3414 shows Smith
violated probation on February 7, 2022 for possession of
methamphetamine, and was confirmed by him signing a positive drug
usage statement. Smith volunteered to participate in the Alternative
Sanctioning Program.
Sarah's brother Andrew Coutu, age 27, was with Matthew Paul
Smith on or about January 5, 2020 when he overdosed on drugs.
Andrew Coutu spent two months in the intensive care unit at the
59
Advent Health Hospital in Ocala. Andrew survived but is permanently
disabled and currently in rehabilitation out of state.
The Petitioner was threatened by attorney D. Gary Lashley for
pursuing his inquiry into Sarah's wrongful death. Mr. Lashley told the
Petitioner on several occasions to "find something else to do".
Sarah Thompson, age 36, did not deserve to die like this. The
Petitioner will fight for her, and for her family, so to establish that her
death was not in vain.
60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been

furnished on May 2, 2023 to the names below on the Florida Portal.
Office of the Attorney General Sheriff Billy Woods

444 Seabreeze Blvd. Marion County Jail
5th Floor 3290 NW 10th St.
Daytona Beach, FL 32118 Ocala, FL 34475
CrimAppDAB@MyFloridaLegal.com Timothy McCourt, General
Counsel, tmccourt@marionso.com

2801 SW College Road, Ste 3
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
Email: celticein@yahoo.com
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FRAP 9.045(e)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this document was computer-

generated using Bookman Old Style 14-point font (FRAP 9.045(b)),
and is in compliance with the word count limits of FRAP 9.100(g).
Respectfully submitted and served, May 2, 2023
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

Petitioner pro se
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
61
Filing # 174127823 E-Filed 05/28/2023 09:42:50 PM

FIFTH DISTRICT

Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-0913
LT CASE NO.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents.
_________________________________/
APPENDIX TO THE PETITION

AMENDED MAY 28, 2023

Petitioner pro se
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
1
INDEX TO THE PETITION
Date Pleading Page
Dec-29-2022 Order Allowing The Office Of Criminal Conflict 14

And Civil Regional Counsel To Withdrawal Stand
By Counsel a.k.a. the Order Appointing Mr. Lashley
Jan-05-2023 Order Denying Defendant's Motion To Disqualify 11

Judge
Jan-25-2023 Order Finding Facts and Holding The Defendant 20

In Direct Criminal Contempt
Feb-20-2023 Order to Revoke Bond 27
Feb-20-2023 Fifth DCA Clerk's letter and Enclosure to Petitioner 6
Feb-27-2023 Order Dismissing Defendant's Petition For Writ 7

of Habeas Corpus
Feb-27-2023 Marion County Clerk jail letter to the Petitioner 5
Jan-31-2023 Jail notice, denial of legal services (est. not dated) 17
Mar-23-2021 Ron DeSantis' Governor's Warrant 55
May-10-2021 Gillespie Extradition May-10-2021 57
Jan-23-2023 Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss 19-CF-4193 33
Jan-23-2023 Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss 21-CF-0286 33
Jan-23-2023 Defendant's Notice of Claim of Immunity 22-CF-1143 33
Jan-24-2024 Request To The FDLE For Investigation of the 33

Incarceration of Neil Joseph Gillespie in the Marion
County Jail
2
Apr-19-2023 Motion to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing 31
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished

on May 28, 2023 to the names below on the Florida Portal.

CrimAppDAB@MyFloridaLegal.com c/o Timothy McCourt, General

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
3
Filii1g # 163818679 E-Filed 12/29/2022 12:07:49 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

FIFTII JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No.: 2019-CF-4193-A, 2021-CF-0286-A

2022-CF-l 143-A
Plaintiff,
Vs.

Defendant.
--------------I
OR))Jc~R AIJLOWING Tlllt: OF:ncE Ole' CRIMINAL CONFLICT AND CIVIL
REGIONAL COUNSl~L TO WITHDRAW STAND BY COUNSJ!:L
THIS CAUSJt: having come 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
ORDEIU:D AND ADJUDGED that the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional
Counsel, is hereby allowed to withdntw from further representation of the Defendant in the
above-styled cause and D. Gary Lashley, Esquire is ~ y ~inted to represent the
Defendant in this cause. ~~ s\.,~, Co..>~ . ~
IT IS fi'URTIII~R ORD}:Rt:D 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.
DONfi: AND OIU>Jt:RJi:D at Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida, this 2 'f' day
of )\ lAr., l;«A, , 2022.
~- PETER M BRIGHAM
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Electronically Filed Marion Case # l 9CF004 l 93AX 12/29/2022 12:07 :49 PM
4
I HJ.~REHY CERTU'Y that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
by Facsimile and U.S. Mail to the following on this Z q: day of f'ut~cA..f,a..,c. . . _
2022. '
(Via Electronic Mail: eservicemarion@sao5.org)
John Witherspoon, Assistant Regional Counsel

(Via Electronic Mail: rccmarion@rc5state.com)

8092 SW I 15th Loop
OCALA, FL 34481
and
Attorney:_ D. Gary Lashley, Esquire gary@lashleylaw.com
Next court date:_ January 25, 2023 pre-trial 9:00 am
5
Filing # 164166839 E-Filed 01/05/2023 03:16:36 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

STATE OF FLORIDA,
vs. CASE NO.: 2019-CF-4193

2021-CF-0286
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, 2022-CF-11'
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - -I
0 RD ER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
TIDS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Judge
Peter Brigham, filed on January 3, 2022. When a court is presented with a motion to
disqualify the court, the court shall not pass judgment on the truth of the allegations but
shall only determine the legal sufficiency of the motion. Rule 2.330(h), Fla. R. Jud
Admin. When determining the legal sufficiency, the court should determine "whether
the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not
receiving a fair and impartial trial." Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1274 (Fla.
2005). The Court finds a reasonably prudent person would not have a well-founded
fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial in the above-styled cases. Therefore,
Defendant's Motion is legally insufficient. It is
ORDERED: Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Judge Peter Brigham 1s
DENIED.
ORDERED in Ocala, Florida, this~day of January 2023.
~~=--=-----
PETER M. BRIGHAM
Circuit Judge
Page 1 of 2
6
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been
provided by U.S. mail/Florida Court's e-portal this ~day of January 2023, to the
following:

eservicemarion@sao5.org
Neil Gillespie
11100 SW 93rd Court Road
Ocala, FL 34481
celticein@yahoo.com
Judicial Assistant
Page 2 of 2
7
Filing# 165491461 E-Filed 01/26/2023 08:33:31 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND

FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
State of Florida
CASE NOS. 2019-CF-4193
2021-CF-286
2022-CF-1143
vs.
Neil Joseph Gillespie,
Defendant.
---------------'
ORDER FINDING FACTS and HOLDING THE DEFENDANT IN DIRECT
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
The Defendant is hereby held in direct criminal contempt, by and
through the undersigned Circuit Court Judge.
This Court conducted a hearing of the defendant's motion on his cases
on January 3, 2023. At the beginning of the hearing the Defendant had an
outburst of anger and shouted at the Court. When challenged the defendant
offered a disingenuous excuse that the Court could not hear him because he
had a speech impediment. The Defendant does indeed have a speech
impediment, but this Court has never had any trouble understanding the
Defendant. At that same hearing the Defendant provided a motion to
disqualify the Court. This Court did not want to appear to be retaliating
Electronically Filed Marion Case# 19CF004193~~J,2fij?a' 08:33 :31 AM
8
against the Defendant for filing a motion to disqualify, thus the Court granted
the Defendant's underlying motion, took the motion to disqualify under
advisement, and concluded the hearing with no further mention of the
Defendant's outburst and shouting. All the Defendant's cases were set for a
pretrial conference on January 25, 2023.
After reviewing the Defendant's motion to disqualify, this Court entered
an order denying the same.
The Defendant and Stand-by Counsel appeared before the
undersigned for the January 25, 2023, pretrial conference. At the conclusion
of the pretrial conference the Court Conducted a Direct Criminal Contempt
hearing regarding the Defendant's outburst and shouting at the hearing on
January 3, 2023, hearing.
The undersigned held a summary proceeding and found Defendant in
direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in the Marion County
Jail but accessed no fine. The Defendant failed to show cause on why he
should not be held in contempt. The Defendant failed to show if there were
any excusing or mitigating circumstances. The Defendant quibbled with the
Court and attempted to deny that he had shouted at the Court, attempted to
assert yet again that this Court could not hear him because of his speech
Page 2 of 4
9
t
impediment, but finally settled on he was merely projecting his voice. The
Defendant finally conceded that he had, in fact, "raised his voice."
The Defendant's outburst and shouting were his deliberate actions
were calculated to embarrass, hinder, and specifically designed to obstruct
the administration of justice and lessen this Court's authority and dignity.
The Defendant is scheduled to appear before the Court again on June
9, 2023, for trial priority
DONE and ORDERED this z_5 day of January 2023.
PETER M. BRIGHAM
Circuit Judge
----
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Response has been furnished to the following, by U.S. Mail or the Florida
Court's e-portal, on Zf, day of January 2023.

Page 3of4
10
Inmate Neil Joseph Gillespie
Marion County Jail
3290 NW 10th Street
Ocala, FL 344 75
Q
Karen Plemmons
Judicial Assistant
Page 4 of4
11
Filing# 167155506 E-Filed 02/20/2023 04:06:48 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY
STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 2019-CF-004193-A
vs CHARGES: UNLAWFUL
INTERCEPTION OF ORAL
COMMUNICATION
UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION OF
ORAL COMMUNICATION

Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -I
ORDER TO REVOKE BOND
THIS CAUSE coming to be heard before me this day upon the foregoing Motion to
Revoke Bond, filed herein by the State of Florida and dated O1/31/2023, and the Court being
fully advised in the premises, it is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's bond be revoked and that the Sheriff
of MARION County shall take said Defendant (NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, W/M, DOB
03/19/1956, SSN: LAST KNOWN ADDRESS:8092 SW 115TH LOOP, Ocala, FL
34481-3567) into custody and detain said Defendant at the MARION County Jail, pending
further order of this Court as this Court finds probable cause to believe Defendant committed a
new crime while on pretrial release in the above styled cause.
IT IS FURTHER ORDER AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant be held on a NO
BOND status until further Order of this Court.
February, 2023. ru
DONE AND ORDERED at Ocala, MARION County, Florida, this
-=~:...=====:::===-~
·z O day of
PETER MATTHEW BRIGHAM

CIRCUIT JUDGE
Electronically Filed Marion Case# I9CF004193AX 02/20/2023 04:06:48 PM

M-2019-50323-A
12
STATE OF FLORIDA VS. NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE
CASE NO. 2019-CF-004193-A
ORDER TO REVOKE BOND
PAGE2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above has been furnished to John Klein 999 Douglas
Ave Ste 3309 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Office of the State Attorney 110 NW 1 Ave, Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475 eservicemarion@sao5.org, MARJON COUNTY JAIL 3290 NW 10TH ST Ocala, FL
34475-4550, by hand or mail delivery or electronic service, thislDh day of February, 2023.
c:;;.26~ 9 d t;::... _._. ,

Judicial Assistant/Dep,!t) Clc. k
M-2019-S0323-A
13
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 947-1530
DATE: February 20, 2023 CASE NO:
Mr./Mrs.: Gillespie
In response to your recent correspondence, please see the paragraph(s) marked below:
There is no case pending in this Court on your behalf.
Please contact the clerk of the trial court.
This proceeding is still pending in this Court. You or your attorney, if you are represented, will be notified by
mail when a decision is rendered.
Your appointed counsel is. Please direct your inquiry to your court-appointed or retained counsel.
The Motion for

- - - -has not been filed as of this date.
The Clerk's office cannot provide legal services. Must reach for a counsel assistance.
Every order signed by the Clerk is authorized by the Judges. The Clerk's signature is merely certification
that the order is the Judges' decision.
The above-numbered case was disposed on
The motion for rehearing

The Court's mandate was issued on
A mandate is not issued when a case is disposed of by order
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits the judges from reading or considering your
correspondence.
Copies are $1.00 per page. §§35.22, 28.24, Florida Statutes. The documents requested must
be clearly stated. **Please enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope for copies to be
sent to you** **Please put sufficient postage on envelope for the amount of pages you have
requested.***!ndigent status is only for the fili ng fee , not for copies. ***
All parties, whether represented by counsel or not, must comply with the Florida Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The rules may be found in law libraries or accessed online at
http://www.5dca.org. This Court cannot provide copies of rules or forms.
X Notices of appeal attached to the enclosed correspondence has been sent to Marion County for
certification.
Sandra Williams, Clerk BY: /s/ J. Diaz, Deputy Clerk
14
----c-,,---t-(!)
-=- hr. :.__F-=L=--'='C_J'--L-.:.____-L.:'!!..E~
c ...._
· !"'!! C~E~IV~E=D~ _ _ __....::::.~~ · l-
( ---=Ct ~ g !c
: :.r:. . _--'!,,,;z ==--- - -1
~_,,; /}' Ge- /II/3
t-------t-•- - - -- - - --~l-6-202-3,- - - - -
___.__,_ _~ rrsrRrcn:ooRTOF'APPEAl:- - - - - - - -- - - - --1
FIFTH DISTRICT
-r: A.11 ·,xe ·cJj,M t fi::.d._· ·_ E_,:; ! It)Q)/c ( Pl~ A- "'-' > b ...J t
"e k '$ & ll?a:: I
\ Peir'hw Fci.e iUA.,+ t:i_r- 0be..rJS. {b,__~r_l C 6 c->/Jckis.e d

.). FcJ, ~o {- Zo-A3 cofy t,v<-""/os d
IA 4:".""t2E./).£ 61-; -
-, /1.J~hcc 0£ llff-c.;1/ fe.tJ -~.. Zr:) 2. 3 Cff---t e d2sed·
___,1,"-l_b._oiw ·-fl; 1 · - _ e tv -- ;)(b ~- ~ o;)l 5
JMA', cJrJor/Jer/s;s$.1/.;6t/l:. rt: . F-ch -~.s- ,-_2c,~~
r.Pcfccc Jw11'.d,~1l o cu /o .AiLh:.µt.fe=. s.~<k..ce . Fe.J-e,,J>-2,c;,~3
s 7k Cler>.-k:. ~e ·ei\,~d ./J .vJ <kJ:.e/e.d-

rs AD !Jo ' /030
15
Filing# 167589839 E-Filed 02/27/2023 11 :36:38 AM

STATE OF FLORIDA
vs. CASE NO.: 2019-CF-4193

2021-CF-0286
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, 2022-CF-11443
Defendant.
----------I
0 RD ER DISMISSING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Defendant's prose Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus, filed on February 1, 2023. The Defendant is challenging the
Court's order of direct criminal contempt entered on January 26, 2023. However,
on February 14, 2023, the Defendant appealed this Court's Order Finding Facts and
Holding the Defendant in Direct Criminal Contempt to the Fifth District Court of
Appeal. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant Petition.
It is hereby,
ORDERED: The Defendant's prose Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED this ~day of February 2023, at Ocala, F orida.
PETER M. BRIGHAM
Circuit Judge
Electronically Filed Marion Case# 19CF004193A~a~2fti9~ 11 :36:38 AM
16
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has
been provided by U.S. MaiVthe Florida Court's e-portal on this~ day of
February 2023, to the following:
Neil J. Gillespie
#A0255941
Marion County Jail
3290 NW l 0th Street
Ocala, FL 34475

~~~~
udicial Assistant
., ...
Page 2 of2
17
GREGORY C. HARRELL
CLERK OF COURT AND COMPTROLLER - MARION COUNTY. FLORIDA
CLERK OF COURT POST OFFICE BOX 1030

RECORDER OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OCAlA, FLORIDA 344 7 8-1 030
CLERK AND ACCOUNTANT OF THE BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS TELEPHONE (352) 6 71-5604
CUSTODIAN OF COUNlY FUNDS AND COUNlY AUDITOR WWW.MARIONCOUNTYCLERK.ORG
February 27, 2023
Neil Gillespie/A0255941
Marion County Jail
3290 NW 10th Street
Ocala, FL 34475
State v Neil Gillespie
Case No. 19-CF-4193, 21-CF-286, 22-CF-1143
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Please be advised that our office received your inquiry in reference to several filings filed
in the above referenced cases.
Please be advised that our office has received all filings listed in your inquiry.
Notice of Appeal
Notice of Appeal
Motion to Mitigate Sentence

Declaration of Neil Gillespie
Notice of Withdrawal, Motion to Mitigate Sentence
In response to your inquiry as to the address, yes 1030 P.O. Box, Ocala, FL 34478 is a
valid mailing address for the Courthouse.
Sincerely,
l/~.~Jptog;---
H. Hustosky
Deputy Clerk
18
l
.
This inmate knows that he/she

did not meet the criteria. Clerk of
courts records indicate the case
has been closed ~I • that the
19
•.-
inmate has an attorney assigned.

I
This inmate will need to contact

,.
the attorney for '111 legal material.

\ 1,\11. UI· 11.URIIJ.\
QE)fficr of tlJr @ourrnor

1111 C \l'l lnl
1\11 :\ll ,\'>'>l l· . 1101(11).\ ·21'1•) 1111111
\\\I\\. fl gO\ .CPlll

R ON DESA NTI S l-::\0-7 17-9-l 18
G OVERNOR
March 22, 2021
Extradition Officer
Crimina l Justice Specialist
Governor's Office of General Counsel
Criminal Unit-Extraditions
333 Market St., 17th Floor
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101-2210
901h day on or about: 5/5/2021
Dear Officer:
At the request of Governor DeSantis, I am enclosing an extradition requisition for the return
of NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE to the State of Florida.
If this requisition is honored, please forward the necessary papers and the agent's
appointment to the BUCKS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA,
requesting them to notify the following agency when the subject is available for release to Florida:
The Honorable Billy Woods

Sheriff, Marion County
Post Office Box 1987
Ocala, Florida 34478-1987
352-351-8077
sherickson@marionso.com
Extradition Coordinator
850.717.9311
CC: Janine Nixon

Sh eila Erickson
20
ST ATE OF FLORIDA
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
TO ALL SHERIFFS TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETINGS:
I, RON DESANTIS, GOVERNOR, hereby appoint SHERIFF WILLIAM MICHAEL WOODS

and/ or authorized agent(s) of the State of Florida to receive NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, fugitive
from justice, who is in the custody /jurisdiction of BUCKS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA, and convey said fugitive to the State of Florida, to be dealt
with according to the law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and caused to be affixed the Great
Seal of State, at Tallahassee, Florida this 23rd day of March A.O., 2021.
BY THE GOVERNOR
21
STATE OF FLORIDA
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF
THE ST ATE OF PENNSYLVANIA:
WHEREAS, it appears by the annexed application for requisition and copies of

INFORMATION, AFFIDAVIT and allied papers, which I certify are authentic and duly
authenticated in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, that under the laws of this State
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE stands charged with the crimes of UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION OF
ORAL COMMUNICATION (2 COUNTS); ROBBERY BY SUDDEN SNATCHING AND
BATTERY; AND UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATION (2 COUNTS),
committed in this State, and it has been represented and is satisfactorily shown to me that the
accused was present in this State at the time of the commission of said crimes and thereafter fled
from the justice of this State, and is now to be found in the State of PENNSYLVANIA.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Florida, do hereby
respectfully demand that the above-named fugitive from justice be arrested, secured and delivered
to SHERIFF WILLIAM MICHAEL WOODS and/ or authorized agent(s) hereby authorized to
receive, convey, and transport this fugitive to this State, to be dealt with according to law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and caused to be affixed the Great
Seal of State, at Tallahassee, Florida this 23rd day of March A.D., 2021.
BY THE GOVERNOR
22
PTS of America
US Corrections
US Prisoner Transport Invoice
P.O. BOX 171078
NASHVILLE, TN 37217 Date Invoice#
5/10/2021 207447
Bill To Remit To
MARION COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE (FL) U.S. CORRECTIONS, LLC
AlTN:ACCOUNTSPAYABLE P.O. BOX 171078
RRUTKOSKI@MARIONSO.COM NASHVILLE, TN 37217
INVOICES@MARIONSO.COM
Terms Due Date Customer#

DUE UPON RECEIPT 5/10/2021 433
PASSENGER NAME Passenger ID# Destination Amount Due

GILLESPIE, NEIL 246005 FROM: BUCKS CO (PA) SHERIFF'S OFFICE 3,922.00
DOYLESTOWN, PA
TO: MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (FL)
OCALA, FL
MILES: 979 D/0: 5/10
i: ••:
DESCt<IPTION: .z)r'I
I
'7!l.-ANSN tt, r
I. • •..
Total $3,922.00
Thank you for your business. We appreciate it very much!!!
Phone# Fax # E-mail

(866) 388-8488 (615) 352-9737 bi 11 ing@prisonertransporl.net
23
Christman, Vickie
From: McCourt,Tim
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 2:06 PM
To: Christman, Vickie
Cc: Peterson,Brian; Chisholm, Alesia; Crill, Marissa
Subject; Re: ref: Extradition Approval
Yes, please extradite
Sent from the iPhone of

Timothy Mccourt
General Counsel
Marion County Sheriffs Office
Florida Bar No. 44604
On Apr 30, 2021, at 11:37 AM, Christman, Vickie <vchristman@marionso.com> wrote:
Good morning Mr. Mccourt,
I've attached a copy of a transport with the current cost and the pre-pandemic cost. Total current cost
for this transport is $3,922.00. Pre-Pandemic cost would've been $969.21. Total upcharge due to the
pandemic is $2,952.79.
Inmate Gillespie's charges are - INVADE PRIVACY, EAVESDROPPING, INTERCEPTION OF ORAL

COMMUNICATION X2, ROBBERY BY SUDDEN SNATCHING W/0 DEADLY WEAPON & BATIERY.
I'm pretty sure the SAO will want Inmate Gillespie transported but I'm asking for approval due to the
cost.
Thank you in advance,
Master Sergeant V. Christman #1216

Marion County Sheriffs Office
Detention Bureau
Transportation Supervisor
Email -vchristman@marionso.com
Cell phone - 352-843-4315
Office - 352-351-8077 ext. 2286
<imageOOl.png>
<Neil Gillespie.pdf>
<Quote - Gillespie, Neil.pdf>
1
24
5/10/21
Deadline Date: - - - ---
Revised Date:- - - - - -
Transport # Drop Date:
------
246005
www. PrisonerTransport. net WAIVER TRIP#: _ __ __
Requesting Agency: MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Mileage: __9_79_..,..
Name of Assignor/Phone#: VICKI CHRISTMAN 352-843-4315 Taken By: MICHELLE TICE
Prisoner Information
Name ( Last, First, Middle ):_---=G..:..:IL=L=E-=-S:....:.Pl;.;;;;Ec:...

, ;_NE=-1;.;;;;L_ _ ........:...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _
Race: WHITE/NON-HISPANIC Weight: Height: ___:;.

5.:..c
09;..___
- 280
- - -- SSN #: - - - -- -
Gender: USC MALE-FLIGHT Hair / Eyes: BROWN/HAZEL DOB: 03/19/ 1956
Offense: INVADE PRIVACY & EAVESDROPPING AKA: - - - - - - - - -- -----
Holding Agency Pick Up: _ _ _ _ _ __
Agency Name: BUCKS CO (PA) SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Facility Address: 1730 SOUTH EASTON ROAD Phone(Day):._ _-'(=21.;..:5:..<. ). . =.3.45
. :. c=--3
-=--7:....:.7.. .=.6_ _
City, State, Zip: DOYLESTOWN , PA 18901 Phone(Jail): - - """"(._2_15_,_)_3_45_-_38_0_0_ _
Scheduled With:
- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
Destination Agency Delivered Fina l:_ __ _ _ __
Agency Name: MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (FL)
Facility Address: 700 NW 30TH AVENUE Phone(Day): (352) 351-8077 x 2240
City, State, Zip: OCALA, FL 34482 Phone(Jail): _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Scheduled With:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -
Comments / Special Instructions:
$3,922.00
$969.2j PRE-PANDEMIC
EMAILED CLIENT ..4/30MT
****PLEASE INCLUDE THE PRE-PANDEMIC COST WITH THIS QUOTE**** N/A NIA
25
Filing # 165291758 E-Filed 01/23/2023 10:28:37 PM

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
Defendant.
__________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE (“Gillespie”), a nonlawyer appearing pro se,
hereby files Defendant’s Amended Motion To Dismiss, and states:
1. Gillespie moves pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(b) to dismiss the information against
him under Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and 18 USC
2511(2)(d), Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.
2. The information filed by the State on December 5, 2019 (DOC 21) alleges in two counts
(DOC 22) that Gillespie’s one-party consent telephone recording violated section 934.03(1)(a) of
the Florida Statutes, Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited, on or
about October 16, 2019, [and] did intentionally intercept or endeavor to intercept the wire, oral,
or electronic communication of another person, to wit: Chonnie Phillips, in violation of Florida
Statute 934.03(1)(a).
3. The arrest affidavit on which the information is based alleges Gillespie was a party to a
telephone call he recorded with Chonnie Phillips. Gillespie recorded the telephone call alleged,
and did so lawfully as a party to the communication not acting under color of law, pursuant to
the one-party consent federal statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), Interception and disclosure of wire,
oral, or electronic communications prohibited, that states:
26
Amended Motion to Dismiss, 2019-CF-4193
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law
to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the
communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent
to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of
committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States or of any State.
4. Gillespie is a person who was a party to the alleged intercepted communication; and as a
party, Gillespie consented to the alleged intercepted communication.
5. Gillespie is a person who was not acting under color of law.
6. Gillespie is a citizen of the state of Florida, and a citizen of the United States.
7. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), the federal
one-party consent statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), is the Law of the Land in Florida that Judges of
the state are bound to follow.
8. Gillespie’s alleged one-party consent recorded telephone call with Chonnie Phillips was a
lawful interception of wire, oral or electronic communication under 18 USC 2511(2)(d).
9. Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
10. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal
laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of
the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts
are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.
11. In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute
is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means
2
27
that a state law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two
conditions (or both) exist:
1. Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible

2. "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress"
12. First, in this case, compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible.
18 USC 2511(2)(d) permits Gillespie’s one-party consent interception of wire, oral, or electronic
communication. The State alleges Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03(1)(a) prohibits Gillespie’s one-party
consent interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication. Therefore, 934.03(1)(a) violates
the Supremacy Clause because compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible.
13. Second, "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress". Here, Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03(1)(a) is an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives that Congress enacted under
18 USC 2511(2)(d), because 934.03(1)(a) prohibits or stands as an obstacle to Gillespie’s
accomplishment of one-party consent interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication, the
full purpose and objective that Congress enacted and intended under 18 USC 2511(2)(d).
14. In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court
held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of
the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action. In the instant case, Congress expressly
intended to act, and expressly intended to legalize one-party consent interception of wire, oral or
electronic communication by persons not acting under color of law, which nullifies the Florida
law. Tellingly, both 18 USC 2511 and Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03 have the identical statutory name:
Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. Congress
3
28
expressly intended to legalize Gillespie’s one-party consent interception of wire, oral, or
electronic communication, which nullifies the state action under the Supremacy Clause.
15. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530
U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state
law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives".
Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over state laws either, because Congress may
implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.
16. Therefore, Defendant Gillespie, acting pro se, moves this Honorable Court under Rule
3.190(b) to dismiss with prejudice the State’s Information filed against him because under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), the federal one-party consent
statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), is the Law of the Land in Florida that Judges of the state are bound
to follow. Gillespie’s alleged one-party consent recorded telephone call with Chonnie Phillips
was a lawful interception of wire, oral or electronic communication under 18 USC 2511(2)(d).
17. Separately and in addition, Gillespie moves to dismiss this case under the Sixth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A witness favorable to the Defendant is deceased. The U.S.
Sixth Amendment provides Gillespie shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor. At trial, Gillespie would call Cathy Betancourt, who died, as a favorable witness to
impeach witness Vicki Ellen Tomlinson shown the arrest affidavit by Officer A. Lewis, #4482,
Marion County Sheriff’s Office, dated October 30, 2019, report number MCSO55ARR00119S.
WHEREFORE, Gillespie moves this Honorable Court under Rule 3.190(b) for an Order
of Dismissal with prejudice of the information filed against him because under the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), the federal one-party consent statute,
4
29
18 USC 2511(2)(d), is the Law of the Land in Florida that Judges of the state are bound to
follow, and thus Gillespie’s alleged one-party consent recorded telephone call with Chonnie
Phillips was a lawful interception of wire, oral or electronic communication. Separately and in
addition, Gillespie moves to dismiss the information with prejudice under the Sixth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution because a witness favorable to the Defendant is deceased.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED January 23, 2023.
Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant pro se

11100 SW 93rd Court Rd.
Suite 10-220
Ocala, FL 34481-5188
Phone: 352-239-9037
VERIFICATION OF NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,

F.S. § 92.525(2) Verification of documents
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that the
facts stated in it are true.
January 23, 2023

Neil Joseph Gillespie Date
5
30
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 23, 2023 Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss
was served on the Florida Portal to:
State Attorney’s Office

110 North West 1st Avenue
Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
Eservicemarion@Sao5.Org
and to the names on the Florida Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents.
6
31
Filing # 165291772 E-Filed 01/23/2023 10:30:56 PM

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CASE NO. 2021-CF-286
Defendant.
__________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS
hereby files Defendant’s Amended Motion To Dismiss, and states:
1. Gillespie moves pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(b) to dismiss the information against
him under Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and 18 USC
2511(2)(d), Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.
2. The information filed by the State on June 2, 2021 alleges in two identical counts that
Gillespie’s one-party consent telephone recording violated section 934.03(1)(a) of the Florida
Statutes, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited:
COUNT I: UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATION (F3)

934.03(1)(a)
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE on or about November 24, 2020, did intentionally intercept
or endeavor to intercept, or procure another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept
the wire, oral, or electronic communication of another person, to wit: Janine Luker, in
violation of Florida Statute 934.03(1)(a).
COUNT II: UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATION (F3)

934.03(1)(a)
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE on or about November 24, 2020, did intentionally intercept
or endeavor to intercept, or procure another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept
the wire, oral, or electronic communication of another person, to wit: Janine Luker, in
violation of Florida Statute 934.03(1)(a).
32
3. The arrest affidavit on which the information is based alleges Gillespie was a party to a
telephone call he recorded with Janine Luker. Gillespie recorded the telephone call alleged, and
did so lawfully as a party to the communication not acting under color of law, pursuant to the
one-party consent federal statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), Interception and disclosure of wire, oral,
or electronic communications prohibited, that states:
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law
to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the
communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent
to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of
committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States or of any State.
4. Gillespie is a person who was a party to the alleged intercepted communication; and as a
party, Gillespie consented to the alleged intercepted communication.
5. Gillespie is a person who was not acting under color of law.
6. Gillespie is a citizen of the state of Florida, and a citizen of the United States.
7. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), the federal
one-party consent statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), is the Law of the Land in Florida that Judges of
the state are bound to follow.
8. Gillespie’s alleged one-party consent recorded telephone call with Janine Luker was a
9. Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
10. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal
laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of
2
33
the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts
are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.
11. In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute
is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means
that a state law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two
conditions (or both) exist:
1. Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible

2. "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress"
12. First, in this case, compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible.
18 USC 2511(2)(d) permits Gillespie’s one-party consent interception of wire, oral, or electronic
communication. The State alleges Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03(1)(a) prohibits Gillespie’s one-party
consent interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication. Therefore, 934.03(1)(a) violates
the Supremacy Clause because compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible.
13. Second, "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress". Here, Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03(1)(a) is an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives that Congress enacted under
18 USC 2511(2)(d), because 934.03(1)(a) prohibits or stands as an obstacle to Gillespie’s
accomplishment of one-party consent interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication, the
full purpose and objective that Congress enacted and intended under 18 USC 2511(2)(d).
14. In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court
held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of
the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action. In the instant case, Congress expressly
intended to act, and expressly intended to legalize one-party consent interception of wire, oral or
3
34
electronic communication by persons not acting under color of law, which nullifies the Florida
law. Tellingly, both 18 USC 2511 and Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03 have the identical statutory name:
Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. Congress
expressly intended to legalize Gillespie’s one-party consent interception of wire, oral, or
electronic communication, which nullifies the state action under the Supremacy Clause.
15. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530
U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state
law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives".
Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over state laws either, because Congress may
implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.
16. Therefore, Defendant Gillespie, acting pro se, moves this Honorable Court under Rule
3.190(b) to dismiss with prejudice the State’s Information filed against him because under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), the federal one-party consent
statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), is the Law of the Land in Florida that Judges of the state are bound
to follow. Gillespie’s alleged one-party consent recorded telephone call with Janine Luker was a
17. Separately and in addition, Gillespie moves to dismiss this case under the Sixth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A witness favorable to the Defendant is deceased. The U.S.
Sixth Amendment provides Gillespie shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor. At trial, Gillespie would call Sarah Thompson, who died May 12, 2021, as a favorable
witness to impeach the arrest affidavit by Corporal Billy Burleson, #5542, Marion County
Sheriff’s Office, dated January 20, 2021, report number MCSO55ARR00431S.
4
35
WHEREFORE, Gillespie moves this Honorable Court under Rule 3.190(b) for an Order
of Dismissal with prejudice of the information filed against him because under the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), the federal one-party consent statute,
18 USC 2511(2)(d), is the Law of the Land in Florida that Judges of the state are bound to
follow, and thus Gillespie’s alleged one-party consent recorded telephone call with Janine Luker
was a lawful interception of wire, oral or electronic communication. Separately and in addition,
Gillespie moves to dismiss the information with prejudice under the Sixth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution because a witness favorable to the Defendant is deceased.

Suite 10-220
Ocala, FL 34481-5188
Phone: 352-239-9037

January 23, 2023

5
36
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 23, 2023 Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss
was served on the Florida Portal to:

Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
6
37
Filing # 165291803 E-Filed 01/23/2023 10:33:18 PM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

CASE NO. 2022-CF-1143
vs.

__________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF CLAIM OF IMMUNITY UNDER

SECTION 776.032 FLORIDA STATUTES
hereby gives Defendant’s Notice of Claim of Immunity Under Section 776.032 Florida Statutes,
and states:
Gillespie hereby give Notice to the State Attorney of his Claim of Immunity in this
prosecution Under Section 776.032 Florida Statutes.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 23, 2023 Defendant’s Notice of Claim of Immunity
Under Section 776.032 Florida Statutes was served on the Florida Portal to:

Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
38
Filing # 165363235 E-Filed 01/24/2023 03:21:41 PM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

CASE NO. 2022-CF-1141
vs. CASE NO. 2021-CF-286
CASE NO. 2020-CF-2417
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
__________________________________/
REQUEST TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

For an Investigation of the Incarceration of Neil Joseph Gillespie in the Marion County Jail
The Defendant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, in the
first person, requests the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigate my
incarceration in the Marion County Jail.
Mark Glass, Commissioner

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)
FDLE Headquarters
2331 Phillips Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Tel. (850) 410-7000
Email: agencyclerk@fdle.state.fl.us
Email: info@fdle.state.fl.us
Commissioner Glass:
This is a request for an investigation of my incarceration in the Marion County Jail for
333 days on no bond, from May 10, 2021 to April 7, 2022, when was released ROR, on
my own recognizance. Last Friday I made the attached a public records request to
Gregory C. Harrell, Marion County Clerk of Court and Comptroller, and Rob Davis,
General Counsel, for records related to my release April 7, 2022 that suggest my
appointed counsel D. Gary Lashley, Jr. knew Sarah Thompson was deceased but failed to
inform me. Mr. Davis acknowledged my record request but the Clerk has not yet
provided any records.
Ms. Thompson was the “victim” in case no. 2020-CF-2417 and died of a drug overdose
on May 12, 2021 in the hotel room of a convicted drug trafficker. Initially I learned this
fact from Sarah’s sister after I was released from the Marion County Jail. On April 27,
2022 I sent the attached email to Mr. Lashley with the news of Sarah’s death, and
provided a certification of death. The state then filed a nolle prosequi in the case.
Mr. Lashley was appointed July 30, 2021 to represent me by Judge Peter Brigham. Mr.
Lashley told me in August 2021 during our first conversation that my pretrial release was
39
Request To The Florida Department of Law Enforcement
For an Investigation of the Incarceration of Neil Joseph Gillespie
in the Marion County Jail
unlikely because of the risk to Ms. Thompson. However, Sarah was already dead by then.
Sarah died two days after I was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail.
In March I turn age 67, am college educated, and have never been convicted of a crime.
Prior to moving to Florida I was a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Pennsylvania, where I
was born. Today I own and operate Justice Network, located in the Starting Gate
Executive Offices, 2801 SW College Road, Suite 3, Ocala, Florida, 34474. Justice
Network is engaged in advocacy, education, news gathering & dissemination, and
helping people fight injustice. Recently I have worked at day labor jobs because the
pending criminal cases against me prevent me from passing a background check for other
employment.
Please find attached my Motions to Dismiss cases 2019-CF-4193 and 2021-CF-286. Also
attached is Defendant’s Notice of Claim of Immunity Under Section 776.032 Florida
Statutes in case 2022-CF-1143. My defense in this matter, inter alia, is found in Fla. Stat.
776.012(1), Use or threatened use of force in defense of person, after an inmate
threatened to kill me in retaliation for reporting his theft of another inmate's food tray,
which I witnessed. Section 776.032 gives Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil
action for justifiable use or threatened use of force. Separately I will request an
investigation into why the Marion County Jail failed to protect me while incarcerated.
But for now I am providing you DOC 20 from federal court in one of my 3 habeas corpus
petitions, case 5:22-cv-00037-RBD-PRL, Notice of Filing: Marion County Jail Not Safe
for Inmate Neil Gillespie.
Finally, on December 6, 2022, Assistant State Attorney Yaveth A. Parodi emailed me the
attached global plea offer and scoresheet. Oddly the scoresheet shows points for cases
that were nolle prosequi in 2020-CF-2417, Robbery by Sudden Snatching (5.4 points)
and battery (0.2 points). I emailed ASA Parodi about this but did not get a response.
Neil J. Gillespie

Suite 10-220
Ocala, FL 34481-5188
Phone: 352-239-9037
2
40
Request To The Florida Department of Law Enforcement
For an Investigation of the Incarceration of Neil Joseph Gillespie
in the Marion County Jail
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 24, 2023, Request To The Florida

Department of Law Enforcement For an Investigation of the Incarceration of Neil Joseph
Gillespie in the Marion County Jail was served on the Florida Portal to:
Mark Glass, Commissioner

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)
FDLE Headquarters
2331 Phillips Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Tel. (850) 410-7000
Email: agencyclerk@fdle.state.fl.us
Email: info@fdle.state.fl.us

Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
3
41
Yahoo Mail - Public Records Request https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/AMBdEzx_lJmjY8r4FQl...
Public Records Request
From: Neil J. Gillespie (celticein@yahoo.com)
To: gharrell@marioncountyclerk.org
Cc: celticein@yahoo.com; robertd@marioncountyclerk.org
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 at 03:22 PM EST
Gregory C. Harrell, Marion County Clerk of Court

and Comptroller
gharrell@marioncountyclerk.org
Rob Davis, General Counsel

RobertD@marioncountyclerk.org
Gentlemen:
This is a public records request. (Art. I, sec 24(a),

Fla. Const.)
Please provide records, if any, of a Motion to set

ROR bond in case 2020-CF-2417 by Mr. Lashley.
DOC 370 appears on the docket in 2020-CF-2417,
but it shows Mr. Lashley designated the motion for
case 2019-CF-4193.
Please provide records, if any, of an Order Granting

Defendant’s Request For ROR entered by Judge
42
1 of 4 1/24/2023, 1:50 PM
Brigham in cases 2020-CF-2417, 2021-CF-286 and

2022-CF-1143. DOC 521 shows an Order Granting
Defendant’s Request For ROR entered in 2019-
CF-4193, but all the other cases only show a
Sheriff’s ROR form filed, no judicial orders entered.
Please find attached, for reference, the following

PDFs:
DOC 501 ROR BOND MOTION 2019-CF-4193

DOC 521 ORDER GRANTING ROR ENTERED
2019-CF-4193

(SHOWS 2019-CF-4193)
DOC 390 ROR BOND FORM FILED 2020-
CF-2417

CF-286

CF-1143
43
2 of 4 1/24/2023, 1:50 PM
Because I do not see a ROR Bond Motion filed in

2020-CF-2417 (it shows 2019-CF-4193 instead),
and because I do not see an Order Granting
Defendant’s Request For ROR entered by Judge
Brigham in case 2020-CF-2417, I am concerned
that the lack of the respective motion and order in
case 2020-CF-2417 is evidence that the bench and
bar knew Ms. Thompson died (May 12, 2021), and
that case 2020-CF-2417 would be nolle prosequi,
but withheld that information from me at the bond
hearing. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Suite 10-220
Ocala, FL 34481-5188
Phone: 352-239-9037
DOC 15 ROR BOND FORM FILED 2022-CF-1143.pdf
28kB
DOC 114 ROR BOND MOTION 2021-CF-286.pdf
128.7kB
27.4kB
DOC 370 ROR BOND MOTION 2020-CF-2417 (SHOWS 2019-CF-4193).pdf
131.8kB
44
3 of 4 1/24/2023, 1:50 PM

31.6kB
DOC 501 ROR BOND MOTION 2019-CF-4193.pdf
129.3kB
DOC 521 ORDER GRANTING ROR ENTERED 2019-CF-4193.pdf
31.5kB
45
4 of 4 1/24/2023, 1:50 PM
Yahoo Mail - Sarah Thompson died on May 12, 2021 https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/276/messages/ALw34qwdfnkEYmm...
Sarah Thompson died on May 12, 2021
From: Neil J. Gillespie (celticein@yahoo.com)
To: gary@lashleylaw.com
Cc: bps.psych@gmail.com
Bcc: mark.gillespie@att.net
Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 05:11 PM EDT
D. Gary Lashley, Jr., Esq.

The Lashley Law Firm, PLLC
200 E Robinson St Ste 1140
Orlando, FL 32801-1962
Cell: 407-867-7612
Office: 407-401-8255
Fax: 407-602-3228
gary@lashleylaw.com
Mr. Lashley,
Today I learned that Sarah Thompson died on May 12, 2021, see the attached Certificate of Death.
A few days ago I got access to my Facebook account, which had been locked because my primary email address is no longer
works, and my linked TracFone account terminated because it was an old 3G system. https://www.facebook.com/neil.gillespie.186/
I found two messages from Sarah sent 4/22/21 at 2:11 PM

Message 1: what are you doing?
Message 2: I was trying to call u all night
Sarah was released from the Sumter County Jail on 04/21/2021 at 7:40 PM, see attached. Apparently she tried to contact me, but I
was in jail in Bucks County Pennsylvania.
Sarah’s last post on Facebook is dark

https://www.facebook.com/scarah6985
Today I read a post on Sarah’s sister’s page, Johanna Cimpher, that displayed a T-shirt with their photos and Sarah’s name, followed
by "1985-2021" https://www.facebook.com/JoJo.Cimpher
Also attached is my NOTICE OF FILING LOVE LETTERS FROM SARAH THOMPSON TO NEIL GILLESPIE, filed May 4, 2021 in case
2020-CF-2417
I am providing this email to Dr. Bloomfield in the event he would like to correct the spelling of Sarah Thompson’s name.
I am sick over this news.
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Home: 352-854-7807
2021, 05-12-21, CERTIFICATION OF DEATH - SARAH MAE THOMPSON.pdf

709.3kB
2021, 05-04-21, NOTICE OF FILING LOVE LETTERS FROM SARAH THOMPSON TO NEIL GILLESPIE.pdf
296.3kB
46
1 of 2 1/24/2023, 1:44 PM
Yahoo Mail - Sarah Thompson died on May 12, 2021 https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/276/messages/ALw34qwdfnkEYmm...
Sumter County Jail Inmate Search (1).pdf

164.3kB
47
2 of 2 1/24/2023, 1:44 PM
THIS DOCUMENT HAS A LIGHT BACKGROUND ON TRUE WATERMARKED PAPER . HOLD TO LIGHT TO VERIFY FLORIDA WATERMARK.
BUREAU of VITAL STATISTICS
CER~IFICATION OF DEATH
STATE FILE NUMBER: 2021093235 DATE ISSUED: APRIL 27, 2022
DECEDENT INFORMATION DATE FILED: MAY 18, 2021
NAME: SARAH MAE THOMPSON
DATE OF DEATH: MAY 12, 2021 SEX: FEMALE AGE: 035 YEARS
DATE OF BIRTH: JUNE 9, 1985 SSN: ***.**-9222
BIRTHPLACE: NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA, UNITED STATES
PLACE WHERE DEATH OCCURRED: HOTEUMOTEL
FACILITY NAME OR STREET ADDRESS : 2430 NORTHEAST 2ND STREET, APARTMENT 118
LOCATION OF DEATH: OCALA, MARION COUNTY, 34470
RESIDENCE: 642 SE 31 AVENUE, OCALA, FLORIDA 34471, UNITED STATES
COUNTY: MARION
OCCUPATION , INDUSTRY: CASHIER, RESTAURANT
EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR GED COMPLETED EVER IN U.S. ARMED FORCES?NO
HISPANIC OR HAITIAN ORIGIN? NO, NOT OF HISPANIC/HAITIAN ORIGIN
RACE: WHITE
SURVIVING SPOUSE / PARENT NAME INFORMATION

(NAME PRIOR TO FIRST MARRIAGE, IF APPLICABLE)
MARITAL STATUS: NEVER-MARRIED
SURVIVING SPOUSE NAME: NONE
FATHER'S/PARENrS NAME: JOHN THOMPSON
MOTHER'S/PARENrs NAME: PATRICIA LYNN THOMPSON
INFORMANT, FUNERAL FACILITY AND PLACE OF DISPOSITION INFORMATION

INFORMANrs NAME: PATRICIA LYNN THOMPSON
RELATIONSHIP TO DECEDENT: MOTHER
INFORMANrS ADDRESS : 658 WEBBER POND ROAD, VASSALBORO, MAINE 04989, UNITED STATES
FUNERAL DIRECTOR/LICENSE NUMBER: AMOS J. FOSTER JR, F077059
FUNERAL FACILITY: EASTSIDE FUNERAL HOME INC - LEESBURG F041874
210 KNOTT ST, LEESBURG, FLORIDA 34748
METHOD OF DISPOSITION : CREMATION
PLACE OF DISPOSITION : METRO CREMATORY
OCOEE, FLORIDA
CERTIFIER INFORMATION
TYPE OF CERTIFIER: DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER MEDICAL EXAMINER CASE NUMBER: 210501116
TIME OF DEATH (24 HOUR): FOUND AT 1852 DATE CERTIFIED: JULY 12, 2021
CERTIFIER'S NAME: BARBARA CAROL WOLF
CERTIFIER'S LICENSE NUMBER: ME83748
NAME OF ATIENDING PRACTITIONER (IF OTHER THAN CERTIFIER) : NOT ENTERED
The first live digits of the decedent's Social Security Number have been redacted pursuant to §119.071(5), Florida Statutes.
, STATE REGISTRAR
REQ: 2023921500
TH E ABOVE SIGNATURE CERTIFIES THAT THIS IS A TRU E AND CORRECT COPY OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD ON FlLE IN THIS OFFICE.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED OR PHOTOCOPIED ON SECURITY PAPER WITH WATERMARKS OF THE GREAT
SEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. DO NOT ACCEPT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE PRESENCE OF THE WATER·
MARKS. THE DOCUMENT FACE CONTAINS A MULTICOLORED BACKGROUND, GOLD EMBOSSED SEAL, AN D
THERMOCHROMIC FL. THE BACK CONTAINS SPECIAL LINES WITH TEXT. THE DOCUMENT WILL NOT PRODUCE
A COLOR COPY.
OH FORM 1946 (03· 13)
IIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII
ht ·
48
· ftrmumttn:tttffttns r rft:ht:ttnnnmm
* 4 3 2 9 8 9 1 4 *
_ _ _ _L_11fl:.r·~~i_hp se /VeilY->$ef,l ~)/~d1ee- a/Z &h.'1),---
---~~~~ ~t-t ~ '11.e.t~~e, I 6JJ.bpLe,7A.d s'f&:fes:
--~<:X~,~~:....__eM&:T?.11.Ji)d~~ cfH?ds F~ 7k t/82-i J ·

'
IS FiuJ.-vf- ~ ,de &f ~~ ,..sK~OfJ.3_ili_1YMi1.,.
.3, ~b lJ.JJMie. He IN~~IJl.5-f ktie JtJJ" <Pttl ~J.112.~--

_ _ ________..f-t4&;/u_l_9-11v-;-/JAJ4-!--:T_JJ~__Jn_):tl)u s Scb~.eiy,_tJ-_ucL/-/4=1te___
... _
_ _ __.A}_Q des 1(?..e to 8.Jell.,Qo__b~k/4!,}i'_b..Ec_~/j.,__1.__ __ __
1
1- ",
,: J/%'-08~t
- - --- 1- '-'iA-"'eru."'"""·'?/-l tia2, ~ - dQ.,?d, ,'tlt1-tf1i_e.: .m: /J_(J~r~-;-f>o4h:t d-/1111 L2l:.J:::._

_ _ __ i-.:;;....
JIJ :....::;_
:;.,__
· ~e,'t 1ha, ·Posf<tJ~:::, 1)/otJJlf t1 Vee I:, 119-~s "j~-4/_so_)~_._
49
7, Mue, ~Lf-
<:~.:l~-r;r,l 1>.orf+e11JrJ6"e.l?Jl/ttr:J- fi:tv@..JJt,ey../,AL,~es iN fYw.J(M) (t1.J~
1c, ),4(JM ~k... td- H~ A1vJ. lv~il ~ d1~@.."11tCscJR.. L,v-e.s.
8. aa..o-eA..,. k b~/...,,e,J? J.,f) ~ ~we,( ?£k.Le .l},J.l s-4,.u/ ~4'7-· f-o ,fl~_
_ _ _ _g~~-B~ex:!5, AMd li. J.gvte AAl EJl.lf'4jr;.kJ /lf~ Foa- l~
_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _{!eg.f;fi·4fe aF SeA.v1ct2..
- --------l--~::z;~~li~ea~e~~"'"'"Y~Ce~~~t,fy 7/,tJ,t r 11& 1 led tfiJ.s ~ dM,t; o.v
---~~:z~,-,~~ O~S- FJIL$fe./dt.{M!)ll ta & /bddvM~~·J. _ __ _
----1-'-'-LL'---'-=~~~=....:.-,,-.....=~i------ ~Jl,.Ml. C'?k) .$dJ·a.l

- --~~~c~~-~a~~~~~b~~~ -- --~s&k~~&AIBY-
a 1
F/c),Q_,J,4 ~lJ'-IZR. ,S~ ~ ofl(ce
I{) NW .st IJM Suk, ~
- - - - - 1 - : a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -- - -~ cJf9-kJi r/O£J J4 3 't.'-t-7£_ _
50
I
I ,.,
I .!
~ i r
.1 . !
:.J
. I:
I
'i
.
"!
:
;
'I
Ii
. l
!
i
.! I
1
1
.;
·.,
··.
.
.. ,
;;
I
i
.I
'•i
.,
\
j
:!
I
I
·I
I
1
,.,i
I
;
!
!l
· 1
;;
~i
·I
. ·i
'!
'
51
52
/l)e,i G1/~~,e ***********
t:>c~ # 1"3116t
/J v?i:..'3 G). ~A) ts IS-
:11m:
*~ .:~~~~~~
* r.., ,w..:-.
YG4f47 EL
..~ -- 4tllikna**
*
*L~™z2lk._
&UMild
"'E...._
173~ S . lf'As'hs)u ~~J_ *USA*FOREVER*
f)~/eo ~ J f~ 1~96/ MCCC - CRlb'iffINAL
MAR, ot<J CouN'ly cJrd.. MAY 4 '21 PM3:2l
53
P, 4 130)( )t)30
Oc~/IJ-1 ,:1o/JJ IA 3 LJ'-17!
- ,. ·. ~ ,4?;t~:~~1.e- . : .'· . :..~-9,,'¥·t:1::i:,'1T.::1$Q(.~'f.:i~CI ,. .,· ,,,m ,.,, 111, ,11·,1:1.11.,J1 ,J 111 ,11
,,I, ,n 1, ,.1,11., 1u1;-11,1,, 111 fi 1
-·-···-· - ~--~----
...
4/23/2022 Sumter County Jail Inmate Search
Florida Inmate Search

Home A-C D-G H-I L-M N-P S-W
Home > Sumter County
Sumter County Jail Inmate Search

St. Lucie County Inmate Search
6
Santa Rosa County Inmate Searc
Seminole County Inmate Search
Sumter County Inmate Search
Go to Facebook
Suwannee County Inmate Search
Volusia County Inmate Search
Connect, share, enjoy. Go to Walton County Inmate Search
Facebook.
Facebook®
Visit Site
To find out jail inmate records in Sumter County Florida, use Sumter County online inmate search
or jail roster. Inmate details include photo, name, gender, DOB, status, booking number, MNI
number, booking date, age on booking date, bond amount, CELL assigned, address given, charge,
statute, court case number, degree, level and bond. If you want to schedule a visit or send
mail/money to an inmate in Sumter County Detention Center, please call the jail at (352) 793-
0225 to help you.
Sumter County Jail Contact Information
Jail Address Phone
Sumter County Detention Center 219 E Anderson Avenue, Bushnell, FL 33513 (352) 793-0225
State prisons in Sumter County, FL
State Prison Address Phone
Sumter Correctional Institution 9544 County Road 476B, Bushnell, FL 33513-0667 (352) 569-6100
Florida state prison inmate search, click here
Federal prisons in Sumter County, FL
Federal Prison Address Phone
Coleman United States Penitentiary I 846NE 54th Terrace, Sumterville, FL 33521 (352) 689-6000
Coleman United States Penitentiary II 846NE 54th Terrace, Sumterville, FL 33521 (352) 689-7000
Coleman Federal Correctional Institution Low 846NE 54th Terrace, Sumterville, FL 33521 (352) 689-4000
Coleman Federal Correctional Institution Medium 846NE 54th Terrace, Sumterville, FL 33521 (352) 689-5000
Federal prison inmate search, click here
http://www.inmatesearchfl.org/Sumter_County.html
54 1/2
4/23/2022 Sumter County Jail Inmate Search
Now, search for inmates in Sumter County Jail in Florida.
Number of Inmate Records Returned: 2
THOMPSON, SARAH MAY (W/ FEMALE / DOB: 6/9/1985 )

Status: Released
Booking No: SC SO20JBN002260 MniNo: SC SO19MNI007095
Booking Date: 08/31/2020 03:48 AM Released: 10/05/2020 06:50 PM
Age On Booking Date: 35
Bond Amount: $0.00
C ELL Assigned:
Enlarge Photo Address Given: OC ALA, FL
THOMPSON, SARAH MAY (W/ FEMALE / DOB: 6/9/1985 )

Status: Released
Booking No: SC SO21JBN000861 MniNo: SC SO19MNI007095
Booking Date: 03/25/2021 11:37 AM Released: 04/21/2021 07:40 PM
Age On Booking Date: 35
Bond Amount: $0.00
C ELL Assigned:
Enlarge Photo Address Given: OC ALA, FL
CHARGES
STATUTE COURT CASE NUMBER CHARGE DEGREE LEVEL BOND
[+] 901.11 2020C F971 (SUMTER C OUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFIC E) C ONTEMPT OF C OURT N $0.00
$0.00
[+] 901.11 2020C F971 (SUMTER C OUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFIC E) C ONTEMPT OF C OURT N N
[+] 901.11 2020C F971 (SUMTER C OUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFIC E) C ONTEMPT OF C OURT N N $0.00
C ontact:
Version:2.0.5.17
Contact Us Privacy Policy

Copyright © Inmatesearchfl.org
http://www.inmatesearchfl.org/Sumter_County.html
55 2/2
Filing # 171386451 E-Filed 04/19/2023 11:05:33 PM

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
CASE NO. 2021-CF-0286
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, CASE NO. 2022-CF-1143
Defendant.
__________________________________/
MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING
hereby files Motion To Withdraw Plea After Sentencing, and states:
1. Gillespie moves pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l) to withdraw his pleas of no contest
made on March 20, 2023 while held in the Marion County Jail in the above captioned cases
because the pleas violate his rights as a Defendant, are unjust, and resulted in unlawful
sentences. Gillespie's pleas were involuntary to get out of jail while held on a no-bond order.
2. Separately and in addition, Gillespie asserts that the trial judge, the Hon. Peter Brigham,
lacked proper jurisdiction after Gillespie served a meritorious motion to disqualify the Judge on
January 3, 2023. That issue and other issues are currently before the Fifth District Court of
Appeal in case nos. 5D23-0814, 5D23-0888, 5D23-0913 and 5D23-1176.
3. Four (4) counts of one-part consent telephone recording in two cases (2019-CF-4193 and
2021-CF-0286) are lawfully permitted, so any sentence in those cases is unlawful. Judge
Brigham is bound by the rule of law to dismiss each case as shown in Gillespie's Amended
Motions To Dismiss, under Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause,
and 18 USC 2511(2)(d), Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications
prohibited. Gillespie was a party to the communication and not acting under color of law,
pursuant to the one-party consent federal statute, 18 USC 2511(2)(d), which is the Law of the
56
Land in Florida. Separately and in addition, Gillespie moved to dismiss each case under the U.S.
Sixth Amendment because a witness favorable to him in each case is deceased.
4. In the remaining case no. 2022-CF-1143, battery by a detained person, Gillespie filed a
claim of immunity under Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes, and is entitled to a stand your
ground hearing, and ultimately a dismissal of the charge.
5. The foregoing raises constitutional issues of due process denied to Gillespie.
6. The Court ruled Gillespie was indigent during a hearing on October 26, 2022. Gillespie
has a right to counsel under the U.S. Sixth Amendment. Gillespie did not validly waive his right
to counsel prior to entering a no contest plea. The court's deprivation of the Defendant's right to
assistance of counsel without valid waiver was sufficient to constitute prejudice and manifest
injustice. See Robles v. State, 336 So.3d 378 (2022). In Tubbs v. State, 229 So.3d 1256 (2017),
the District Court of Appeal held that an evidentiary hearing was required on a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea.
7. On January 25, 2023, Judge Brigham held an unannounced bench trial and found
Gillespie guilty of direct criminal contempt for speaking too loud during a hearing on January 3,
2023, and immediately sent him to the Marion County Jail for 30 days. The transcript shows
Gillespie said, "The State already submitted an order to you." The Court responded "Settle
down". (Transcript January 3, 2023, page 3, lines 13-15). Previously ASA Parodi emailed the
Judge asking if this hearing was necessary, since the state did not object to Gillespie's motion to
waive confidentially for a report finding him competent to stand trial. Gillespie appeared pro se
on January 3, 2023. Gillespie appeared pro se on January 25, 2023 during the bench trial where
he was found guilty and immediately taken to jail for 30 days.
8. Later on January 3, 2023 Judge Brigham accused Gillespie of yelling at him, on page 4:
2
57
20 THE DEFENDANT: May I, may I speak?

21 THE COURT: If you’re not going to yell at me, yes.
22 THE DEFENDANT: No, I’m not going to yell at Your
23 Honor.
24 THE COURT: Well, you already have.
25 THE DEFENDANT: I, I just tried to speak up. I
1 have a speech impairment. It’s hard for me to project
2 my voice.
9. Gillespie was evaluated by Dr. Jane Scheuerle, Ed.D., CCC-SLP, Professor, University
of South Florida, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, in Tampa, and
provided the attached three page report as co-Director, Tampa Bay Craniofacial Center to Dr.
Robert E. Williams, Ed.D., Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Department of Labor and
Employment Security, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, on June 2, 1993, that states in part:
"…Mr. Gillespie has sustained the surgical results of multiple treatments for a congenital
cleft lip and palate. While he is facially intact, he retains several incomplete elements of
the sequelae of this congenital dysmorphology. Because of the oro-nasal fistula and velar
limits, Mr. Gillespie is utilizing extreme measures to make his speech intelligible. He is
applying undue stress to the laryngeal and pharyngeal musculature a control the normal
air stream. Because of his extra effort in striving to meet the demands of society, he is at
risk for damaging his larynx. Also, the unnatural openings between the nose and mouth
invite incidence of infection and irritation to sensitive tissues that were never meant to
associate in this way. Exchange of food stuffs and secretions between the two cavities
must be stopped to promote complete healing and maximal function…"
"…Because of his present oro-facial-pharyngeal status, Mr. Gillespie is not advised to

use his full voice in long-term verbalization. That is, prior to closure of the fistulae, and
correction of the palate, he would be ill advised to lecture, or undertake public speaking.
He can communicate intelligibly on a one-to-one basis and as such he displays an astute
mind with considerable experience with interpersonal communication. This level of
communication is possible due to Mr. Gillespie's conscientious and accurate speech
articulation. When he attempts to use a stronger (louder) voice, the increased air pressure
increases the hypernasal resonance and thereby decreases the effectiveness of his speech.
He looses intelligibility and fatigues rapidly.
"…Mr Gillespie is experiencing severe speech expression problems due to inadequate

intra-oral and oronasal structures. Although he has had several surgeries in an earnest
attempt to resolve this problem, none of the procedures have completed the treatment he
requires in order to produce clear verbal communication."
3
58
10. In 1994 Gillespie moved to Portland Oregon to become a patient of Dr. Robert Blakeley,
Ph.D., Professor of Speech Pathology, and Director of the Craniofacial Disorders Program, at the
Oregon Health Sciences University, as shown in the attached letter of June 1, 1994. Gillespie
wore a temporary speech prosthesis for a number of years, but was unable to get the results
sought by Dr. Blakeley. Eventually the prosthesis was no longer viable, leaving Gillespie with
his current speech disability.
11. On April 14, 2023, Gillespie's primary care doctor in Ocala agreed to refer him for
additional surgery to correct velopharyngeal insufficiency after hearing what happened in court.
12. Gillespie's Amended Motions To Dismiss the one-party consent telephone recording
cases, 2029-CF-4193 and 2021-CF-0286, were filed on January 23, 2023 at 10:28 PM and 10:30
PM. Gillespie's Notice of Claim of Immunity Under Section 776.032 Florida Statutes was filed
on January 23, 2023 at 10:33 PM. Gillespie was jailed for 30 days by Judge Brigham on direct
criminal contempt January 25, 2023 at 4:25 PM.
13. On February 17, 2023, Gillespie argued at a hearing while incarcerated that criminal
contempt proceedings in this matter constitute Double Jeopardy, see attached a handwritten
pleading citing De La Portilla v State, 142 So3d 928, etc. Judge Brigham said he would take the
matter under advisement, but never made a ruling. Instead, the Judge later forfeited his bond on
the state's motion and held him on no-bond status. Gillespie plead no contest to get out of jail.
14. As a practical matter, because of his pleas, Gillespie is unable to get employment driving
for Uber or Lyft, for failing a Checkr criminal background check, and even denied employment
delivering food, notwithstanding adjudication was withheld in all three cases. Prior to this
matter, Gillespie, age 67, had never been convicted of a crime.
4
59
WHEREFORE, Gillespie moves this Honorable Court under Rule 3.170(l) to withdraw
his pleas of no contest made on March 20, 2023 while held in the Marion County Jail in the
above captioned cases.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED April 19, 2023.

11100 SW 93rd Court Rd., Suite 10-220
Ocala, FL 34481-5188
Phone: 352-239-9037

April 19, 2023

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 19, 2023 the Defendant's Motion To Withdraw Plea
After Sentencing was served on the Florida Portal to:

Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
5
60
June 2, 1993 Department of Communication Sciences
and Disorders
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Florida
Robert E. Williams, Ed.D. 4202 East Fowler Avenue, BEH 255
Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Tampa, Florida 33620-8100
Department of Labor and Employment Security (813) 97 4-2006
Divisional of Vocational Rehabilitation FAX (813) 974-2668
11213 B North Nebraska Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33612
Re.: Neil J. Gillespie
Dear Dr. Willia~s,
Thank you for your letter of inquiry concerning Mr.

Neil Gillespie's health and employment status and
potential. Each of your five questions concerning Mr.
Gillespie's diagnosis and treatment plan is listed and
addressed below.
1. What is Mr. Gillespie's disability (ies) and what

is the level of severity? ._,.
Mr. Gillespie has sustained the surgical results
of multiple treatments for a congenital cleft lip and
palate. While he is facially intact, he retains several
incomplete elements of the sequelae of this congenital
dysmorphology. Because of the oro-nasal fistula and
velar limits, Mr. Gillespie is utilizing extreme measures
to make his speech intelligible. He is applying undue
stress to the laryngeal and pharyngeal musculature a
control the normal air stream. Because of his extra
effort in striving to meet the demands of society, he is
at risk for damaging his larynx. Also, the unnatural
openings between the nose and mouth invite incidence of
infection and irritation to sensitive tissues that were
never meant to associate in this way. Exchange of food
stuffs and secretions between the two cavities must be
stopped to promote complete healing and maximal function.
2. What is Mr. Gillespie's functional level? What

physical limitations (e.g., speaking, hearing,
communicating, etc.) are imposed by the disabilities?
Because of his present ore-facial-pharyngeal
status, Mr. Gillespie is not advised to use his full voice
in long-term verbalization. That is, prior to closure of
the fistulae, and correction of the palate, he would be
ill advised to lecture, or undertake public speaking. He
can communicate intelligibly on a one-to-one basis and as
such he displays an astute mind with considerable ~
experience with interpersonal communication. This level
of communication is possible due to Mr. Gillespie's
conscientious and accurate speech articulation. When he
attempts to use a stronger (louder) voice, the increased
61
'<\MPA ST. PETERSBURG SARASOTA FORT MYERS LAKELAND
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA IS m AFFIRMATIVE ACTION I EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION
air pressure increases the hypernasal resonance and
thereby decreases the effectiveness of his speech. He
looses intelligibility and fatigues rapidly.
Because I have no objective data on his hearing

status, I can only be suspicious that it is currently
within normal range, but also that he has sustained the
effects of early, untreated middle ear effusions that
usually result in conductive hearing loss during infancy.
effort was seen yesterday at the Tampa Bay Craniofacial
Center for assessment of the current status of his
congenital orofacial cleft condition. Mr Gillespie is
experiencing severe speech expression problems due to
inadequate intr~-oral and oronasal structures. Although
he has had several surgeries in an earnest attempt to
resolve this problem, none of the procedures have
completed the treatment he requires in order to produce
clear verbal communication.,
3. What is the probable future course of the

disability (ies)?
If untreated, Mr. Gillespie r.:1,..sks irritation.and
abuse with abrasion to the laryngeal tissues, continued
irritation to the upper airway and mutual irritation and
possible infection to the oral and nasal mucosa due to the
uncontrolled exchange of cavity contents during every day
living activities.
4. Are there any work environments that must be

avoided?
If untreated, Mr. Gillespie must work in settings
that provide minimal irritants to the nasal, oral and
pharyngeal mucosa. He must avoid excessive drying of
those tissues and the linings of the larynx. He must not
shout, use his speaking voice in excess, or be exposed to
excessive or continual loud noise because of both the
hearing factor and the need to override the noise with use
of a loud voice.
5. Will treatment ease, alleviate, or remove the

disability (ies)? If so, what treatment is recommended?
Treatments are available to alleviate the current
problems and remaining dysmorphologies that underlie the
problems cited above. However, the exact mode of
treatment requires an objective examination of Mr.
Gillespie's intra-oral, oro-nasal, and oro-pharyngeal
structures. The approach that has been suggested by the
craniofacial Team at the Tampa Bay Craniofacial Center
includes the following steps.
A. - out patient hospitalization for nasendoscopy to
determine the present cause of immobility in the soft
tissue of the soft palate and to visualize the extent of
the nasopharyngeal gap. If the last surgical result has
modified over time, it m~y be desirable to surgically
62
modify the present condition by severing any tethering
tissue that is limiting palatal function. Prior or
subsequent to the hospital experience, a complete
audiological assessment would be helpful to rule out any
middle ear dysmorphologies connected with the congenital
problem. .
·B. - Clini9al observation indicates that following
this careful, objective examination, Mr. Gillespie will
need surgical correction of (a) the anterior oronasal
fistula; (b) bone graft to complete the maxillary alveolar
arch; and (c) 'secondary palatoplasty to form a pharyngeal
flap to reduce the hypernasality. [Please note that the ·
order in which these are listed assure that the separation
of cavities, the continuation of the airway and the
skeletal support of soft tissue modification will prevent
any future deterioration of these same tissues.) . ..
. · C. · . - Following surgeries to correct all .t he current
interfer.ing dysmorphologies, Mr • . · Gillespie will . need to
· have six months of speech therapy to : assurethat he no
· ·. longer over-activates his larynx and ·- learns to utilize
;, fully the ~re-configured oral and oro..;;pharyngeal . •· ..·
: structures. · · · .· · · ·
· ·.::c:,: Due to his current physical disability ·Mr. Gill~spie
is experiencing rejection in job applications • . It is the
opinion of the Craniofacial Team that correction of the
·identified · sequelae of the congenital dysmorphology, this
young may will be able to find employment in any current
or emerging job site that requires his type of skills. He
is competent in matters of business, and has a keen
interest in dealing with people. He may seek employment
in human service areas, personnel management, or
counseling whether in business or in some specialized area .
of human ·. communication. As a student at the University of
South Florida and a promising contributor to our
community, this young man needs support to pursue
appropriate treatment for the remaining dysmorphologies of
his mouth, throat and face. ·
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance
to you in your efforts to provide the needed assistance to
Mr Gillespie.
rle~:l~y,~ , £ / V
~ic euerle,
Professor
CCC-SLP
Co-Director, Tampa Bay Craniofacial Center
63
OREGON
m
I-IEALTI-f SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
CIIILD DEVELOPMENT & REIIAUILITA"llON CENTER
P.O. Box 57,1, l'ortlantl, Oregon 97207-0574
Se,vicesfnr Cbildre11 u•ilb Special Health Needs
U11t1:er.sity Affiliated Program
June 1, 1994
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Neil Gillespie
This 38 year old man has a repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate. His primary surgery was
done in Pennsylvania and he had some secondary work including a pharyngeal flap for
speech, in Florida.
Since speech treatment for serious hypernasality has been unsuccessful up to this point, the
patient came to me for consultation about a speech plan.
Examination shows objectionable hypernasality with moderate nasal emission of air which
markedly weakens all 16 air pressure phonemes. Use of the fiber-optic nasendoscope on May
26th verified that the pharyngeal flap, done three years ago (for speech), has pulled loose.
The treatment plan is to utilize a temporary speech prosthesis (for circa two years) to
markedly obturate all sounds from entering the nasal cavity. After normal oral resonance is
obtained and maintained for about four to five months, an obturator reduction program would
begin whereby the throat and palate musculature would be "challenged" by slowly making the
obturator smaller, in stages. At the end of approximately two years, it is expected that oral-
nasal resonance and oral air pressure would be close to normal limits and that pharyngeal and
palate musculature Would have improved considerably. This is expected to make the patient's
velopharyngeal system much more amenabie to a surgical procedure to substitute for the
speech prosthesis without compromising the patient's nasal airway.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Blakeley, Ph.D.

Professor of Speech Pathology,
Director, Craniofacial Disorders Program
blak/b:gille~pi.
64
I -J.I'
,.ttl / ~
65
D!STR!CT COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH DISTRICT
. 6""
I
q_
· · hv'f '~~ulrl
/
A /2,c~;!_. M '
u s. /.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: 19CF004193AX

vs. Agency Case Number: S 19028054
DOB: 03/19/1956
RACE: White
GENDER: Male
COURT MINUTES
Judge: PETER M BRIGHAM Event Date: 02/17/2023

State Attorney: J2'\}H}U~ ALICii ~.n;x;o:w Hearing Type: HEARING- f)cFc~d
Defense Attorney: ~\Je.t-A.., p{'\.i<s;!,, d.[ -Defet1dam P1=0s0at with Attemey P/Jb se
Arrest Data:
Date: Booking#: Agency Case #: OBTS#:
11/10/2019 S1928054 S1928054 4203171189
05/10/2021 S19028054 4203189842
01/25/2023 S19028054 4203211581
1 934.03.la INTERCEPTION OF ORAL Felony 11/10/2019

COMMUNICATION Third Degree
DOCKETS:
HEARING RESULTS: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS STANDBY COUNSEL - GRANTED.
ATTORNEY JOHN KLEIN WILL NO LONGER BE STANDBY COUNSEL OR
COUNSEL IN ANY OTHER FORM ON MR. GILLESPIE'S CASES.
DEFT'S PROSE MOTION FOR MITIGATION OF SENTENCE REGARDING CONTEMPT
·OF COURT CHARGES - DEFT WITHDRAWS SAID MOTION.
STATE'S MOTION TO REVOKE BOND - NO ACTION TAKEN. COURT TO RULE AT A
LATER DATE.
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of

a copy of this form and understand that I
must comply with all applicable Filed in open court on February 17, 2023.
conditions noted above.
Deputy Clerk
Defendant's Signature
*Copies to SAO/Probation/MO _ _ __
*NC0P - Not a Condition of Probation
qhutobvw.alt I Page 1 of 2

vs. Agency Case Number: S21001350
DOB: 03/19/1956
RACE: White
GENDER: Male
COURT MINUTES
Judge: PETER M BRIGHAM Event Date: 02/17/2023 .1 f

State Attorney: -MN·INE ALICE NIXffl,q Hearing Type: HEARING ~ e_.~dA~
Defense Attorney: j,tvef:-1~ PtH~d t./A!.'A f
-9efCftdGRt PreseH.t wita A-tterae;' · Q)_c; tj e_
Arrest Data:
Date: Booking#: Agency Case #: OBTS#:
05/10/2021 S21001350 S21001350 4203189842
01/25/2023 S21001350 4203211581

DOCKETS:
ATTORNEY JOHN KLEIN WILL NO LONGER BE STANDBY COUNSEL OR
COUNSEL IN ANY OTHER FORM ON MR. GILLESPIE'S CASES.
DEPT'S PROSE MOTION FOR MITIGATION OF SENTENCE REGARDING CONTEMPT
OF COURT CHARGES - DEFT WITHDRAWS SAID MOTION.
STATE'S MOTION TO REVOKE BOND - NO ACTION TAKEN. COURT TO RULE AT A
LATER DATE.

Deputy Clerk
*Copies to SAO/Probation/MCJ _ _ __
*NCOP - Not a Condition of Probation
n/51sxj3.31f I Page 1 of 2

vs. Agency Case Number: S22005832
DOB: 03/19/1956
RACE: White
GENDER: Male
COURT MINUTES
Judge: PETER M BRIGHAM Even: Date: 02/17/2023 . . r,, _-t

State Attorney: HtNINE ALICE }Jl)fQ};f . Hearmg Type: HEARING G)eFe(l..,6(~ ..
Defense Atto~ey: Yrt
Ve-f-1:...., PSn.edt Befeftdaat PreseB:t 1Ni-th 1\t-teras,r -~{\o €:e..
Arrest Data:
Date: Booking#: Agency Case #: OBTS #:
03/25/2022 S22005832 S22005832 4203200706
01/25/2023 S22005832 4203211581
1 784.082.3 BATTERY BY PERSON IN Felony 03/25/2022

DETENTION FACILITY Third De ree
DOCKETS:
ATTORNEY JOHN KLEIN WILL NO LONGER BE STANDBY COUNSEL OR COUNSEL
IN ANY OTHER FORM ON MR. GILLESPIE'S CASES.
DEPT'S PROSE MOTION FOR MITIGATION OF SENTENCE REGARDING CONTEMPT OF
COURT CHARGES - DEFT WITHDRAWS SAID MOTION.
STATE'S MOTION TO REVOKE BOND - NO ACTION TAKEN. COURT TO RULE AT A LATER
DATE.

11100 S\V 93RD COURT RD SUITE
10-220
OCALl.., FL 34481
Mailing Address
*Copies to SAO/Probation/MCJ _ _ __
*NCOP - Not a Condition of Probation
3wlqichv.5nj / Page 1 of 1
.--
~
M M
-
...J t
Ii. •. Cl.
w
...J- M
....
...J
·>
N
0
z N
0
:~ U)
~ ~
~
<t
:E
-
~ ~ .
I""\
,:,,-,
(\l
0
0
Iii
I
....•::t, .
....,
N
{i)
,.
,-:,~. tt~.'
r~;_\~~:;f
·r1f~.::'.7
~i:~·-.·.'".:i!'
Fifth District Court of Appeal
Briefs
Case File My My in Help &
| Case | Docket | | | | Logoff | |
List Document Notifications Profile Other Support
Cases
Alert: Due to creation of Sixth DCA and other boundary changes, affected pending
cases will be transferred to the applicable DCA and assigned a new case number.
The recipient DCA will send an acknowledgement letter.
Case No: 5D Search
23-0913

vs
BILLY WOODS, SHERIFF OF THE MARION COUNTY JAIL AND STATE OF FLORIDA
Date Filed: 02/16/2023 Status: Closed Proceeding: Petition Nature:

Type: Habeas Corpus Category: Criminal Circuit: 5th Judicial Circuit
Date Type Pleading Note

Supreme Court SC23-949 CASE
07/05/2023 SC Event
Disposition DISMISSED
Review Sent to
07/03/2023 SC Event
Supreme Court
NOTICE OF
07/03/2023 SC DISCRETN. Filed by: Neil Gillespie
JURISDICTN
06/20/2023 Brief/Record Returned Records NO RECORD EFILED
06/20/2023 Mandate Disp. w/o Mandate
06/01/2023 Disposition Dismissed
Order Dismissing
06/01/2023 Order
Original Petition
Grant Miscellaneous MOT ACCEPT AMENDED
05/31/2023 Order
Motion APX GRANTED
05/28/2023 Brief/Record Appendix to Petition AMENDED
TO ACCEPT AMENDED
05/28/2023 Motion Miscellaneous Motion
APPENDIX
MOT GRANTED;
Grant Miscellaneous AMENDED PET
05/18/2023 Order
Motion ACCEPTED; MOT EOT
DENIED
TO ACCEPT PETITION AS
05/02/2023 Motion Miscellaneous Motion
TIMELY FILED
Miscellaneous Docket
05/02/2023 Event AMENDED PETITION
Entry
Motion for Extension of TO FILE AMENDED
04/21/2023 Motion
Time PETITION
RESPONSE
ORD-Discharging Show ACKNOWLEDGED; PT
04/11/2023 Order
Cause FILE AMENDED PET W/IN
10
04/10/2023 Response RESPONSE PER 3/28 ORDER
Order - Show Cause for
03/28/2023 Order failure to file amended PT W/IN 10 DYS
Petition
PT W/IN 15 DYS FILE
ORD-Stricken
03/09/2023 Order SECOND AMENDED PET;
(certificate of service)
AMENDED PE
AMENDED PER 2/17/2023
Miscellaneous Docket
03/08/2023 Event ORDER - CRT OF SVC
Entry
3/5/2023;
ORD-PT to File
02/17/2023 Order PT W/IN 15 DYS
Amended Petition
Acknowledgement
02/16/2023 Letter
Letter 1
02/16/2023 Petition Petition Filed CERT OF SVC 1/29/23
Filing # 176588226 E-Filed 06/30/2023 10:42:24 PM

FIFTH DISTRICT

Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-0913
LT CASE NO.
RECEIVED, 06/30/2023 10:43:21 PM, Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeal

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents.
_________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
NOTICE IS GIVEN that the Petitioner pro se, NEIL JOSEPH
GILLESPIE, appeals to the Supreme Court of Florida the Order entered
June 1, 2023 dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed
January 29, 2023 (certificate of service), and Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, filed May 2, 2023. The Order is attached.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 30, 2023

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
I HEREBY CERTIFY I furnished this Notice of Appeal to the Supreme
Court of Florida on June 30, 2023 to the names below on the Florida
Portal.

CrimAppDAB@MyFloridaLegal.com c/o Timothy McCourt, General

FIFTH DISTRICT
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-0913

LT CASE NO.
BILLY WOODS, SHERIFF OF
THE MARION COUNTY JAIL
AND STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents.
________________________/
DATE: June 01, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed
Habeas Corpus, filed May 2, 2023, are dismissed. See Richardson v.
State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
I hereby certify that the foregoing is

(a true copy of) the original Court order.
Panel: Judges Jay, Boatwright and MacIver
cc:
Office of the Attorney Billy Woods, Sheriff of Neil Joseph Gillespie
General the Marion County Jail
FIFTH DISTRICT
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-0913

LT CASE NO.
BILLY WOODS, SHERIFF OF
THE MARION COUNTY JAIL
AND STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents.
________________________/
DATE: June 01, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed
Habeas Corpus, filed May 2, 2023, are dismissed. See Richardson v.
State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
I hereby certify that the foregoing is

(a true copy of) the original Court order.
Panel: Judges Jay, Boatwright and MacIver
cc:
Office of the Attorney Billy Woods, Sheriff of Neil Joseph Gillespie
General the Marion County Jail
5DCA CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the
instrument(s) filed in this office.
Witness my hand and official seal this July 3, 2023 .
Sandra B. Williams, Clerk of the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
By: /s/ Kathy Palmere

JAMES A. EDWARDS
CHIEF JUDGE SANDRA B. WILLIAMS
CLERK
SCOTT MAKAR SHEILA N. STANBRO

CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
F. RAND WALLIS
BRIAN D. LAMBERT
AARON R. SOLTZ
HARVEY L. JAY
MARSHAL
ERIC J. EISNAUGLE
JOHN M. HARRIS DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JUSTINE HORLER
ADRIAN G. SOUD FIFTH DISTRICT CHIEF DEPUTY MARSHAL
JOE BOATWRIGHT 300 SOUTH BEACH STREET
PAIGE KILBANE SHARON SERRA
DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 32114
JOHN MACIVER DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
JORDAN E. PRATT (386) 947-1500 COURT
JUDGES
July 3, 2023
Hon. John A. Tomasino, Clerk

Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927
Re: Gillespie Appeal No. 5D23-13

vs Trial Court No. 2019-CF-4193; 2021-CF-286;
Billy Woods, Sheriff of 2022-CF-1143
Marion County Jail Trial Court Judge:
Dear Hon. Tomasino:
Attached is a certified copy of the Notice Invoking the Discretionary Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court pursuant to Rule 9.120, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, along with a copy of this
Court's opinion or decision relevant to this case.
The filing fee prescribed by Section 25.241(3), Florida Statutes, was received by
this court and will be forwarded.
The filing fee prescribed by Section 25.241(3), Florida Statutes, was not received
by this Court.
Petitioner/Appellant has been previously determined insolvent by this Circuit Court
or our court.
No filing fee is required because:
Summary Appeal (Rule 9.141)
Unemployment Appeals Commission
Habeas Corpus
Juvenile case
Other- Petition
Sincerely,
SANDRA B. WILLIAMS, CLERK
By: /s/ Kathy Palmere
Deputy Clerk
Attachments
cc: Neil Joseph Gillespie, Office of the Attorney General, John A. Tomasino
FAX NUMBER (386) 947-1562

E MAIL ADDRESS 5dca@flcourts.org
Supreme Court of Florida
MONDAY, JULY 3, 2023
Neil Joseph Gillespie, SC2023-0949

Petitioner(s) Lower Tribunal No(s).:
v. 5D23-0913;
422019CF004193CFAXXX;
Billy Woods, etc., et al, 422021CF000286CFAXXX;
Respondent(s) 422022CF001143CFAXXX
Petitioner’s Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction,

seeking review of the order or opinion issued by the Fifth District
Court of Appeal on June 1, 2023, is hereby dismissed. This Court
lacks jurisdiction to review an unelaborated decision from a district
court of appeal that is issued without opinion or explanation or that
merely cites to an authority that is not a case pending review in, or
reversed or quashed by, this Court. See Wheeler v. State, 296 So. 3d
895 (Fla. 2020); Wells v. State, 132 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 2014);
Jackson v. State, 926 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2006); Gandy v. State, 846
So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2003); Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974 (Fla.
2002); Harrison v. Hyster Co., 515 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1987); Dodi
Publ’g Co. v. Editorial Am. S.A., 385 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1980); Jenkins
v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980).
No motion for rehearing or reinstatement will be entertained
by the Court.
A True Copy
Test:
SC2023-0949 7/3/2023
CASE NO.: SC2023-0949
Page Two
SC2023-0949 7/3/2023
TW
Served:
CRIMINAL APPEALS ATTORNEY GENERAL DAB

NEIL J. GILLESPIE
HON. GREGORY C. HARRELL
TIMOTHY THOMAS MCCOURT
SANDRA WILLIAMS

Habeas Petition 5D23-0913 Judge Peter Brigham

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Habeas Petition 5D23-0913 Judge Peter Brigham

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing # 172221023 E-Filed 05/02/2023 09:46:43 AM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The Petitioner, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer

Corpus, and states:

This Court granted the Petitioner leave to file an amended

petition for writ of habeas corpus by order of April 11, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 9.100(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, see

the Table of Contents below.

Section Page Contents

“The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, freely

proceeding in this Court, Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App.

P. 9.030(b)(3), and is governed by Fla. R. App. P. 9.100, and

Chapter 79 of the Florida Statutes.

The writ of habeas corpus addresses the legality of the

restraint. In Jones v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 48 So. 3d 704 (Fla.

the proper remedy to determine the validity of a restraint under

which a person is held.

The record this case shows the Petitioner initially mailed a

handwritten petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 29, 2023

(certificate of service date) to the Marion County Clerk of Court, P.O.

Marion County Circuit Court while he was held as Inmate

#A0255941 in the Marion County Jail, in Ocala, Florida.

The record this case shows the Respondent is Sheriff Billy

Gregory C. Harrell is the Clerk of Court and Comptroller for

Marion County, Florida (Clerk Harrell). Pursuant to Rule 9.100(f)(3),

prescribed by this subdivision is filed, the circuit court clerk shall

forthwith transmit the petition to the administrative judge of the

appellate division, or other appellate judge or judges as prescribed

by administrative order, for a determination as to whether an order

to show cause should be issued."

It appears Clerk Harrell failed to file the petition as a new civil

action. Somehow the Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus,

submitted as a "New Civil Action" on January 29, 2023, ended up

filed by Clerk Harrell as some kind of motion in the Petitioner's

criminal cases, nos. 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286, and 2022-CF-

1143, with Circuit Judge Peter M. Brigham presiding. (Judge

On February 12, 2023, the Petitioner mailed a handwritten

letter from jail to Clerk Harrell, and asked:

1. Petition For writ of Habras Corpus, Jan-29-2023, copy

Has the Clerk received, filed and docketed my 6 pleadings? Is

/s/ Neil Joseph Gillespie, #A0255941

On February 13, 2023, the Petitioner mailed a handwritten

300 S. Beach Street, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, with a hand copy of

his letter to Clerk Harrell, and this message:

/s/ Neil Joseph Gillespie, #A0255941

On February 28, 2023 the Petitioner received in the jail a letter

dated February 27, 2023 from H. Hustosky, Deputy Clerk,

appeared to be an unstamped inter-office type communication. The

response on behalf of Clerk Harrell omits any mention of the

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus mailed January 29,

2023, but otherwise admits receiving the other 5 pleadings.

On March 6, 2023 the Petitioner received in the jail an Order

Dismissing Defendant's Petition For Writ OfHabeas Corpus entered

February 27, 2023 in cases 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-0286, and

2022-CF-11443 (sic), by Judge Brigham. The envelope containing

the Order is postmarked February 28, 2023, and addressed to Neil

J. Gillespie, #A0255941, Marion County Jail, 3290 NW 10th Street,

Ocala, FL 34475. The Order states: (Appendix)

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se

On February 24, 2023 the Petitioner received in the jail a letter

postmarked and dated February 20, 2023 from Sandra Williams,

Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeal, by /s/ J. Diaz, Deputy Clerk,