Filing # 151417347 E-Filed 06/13/2022 10:28:26 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
vs. CASE NO. 2020-CF-2417
CASE NO. 2021-CF-286
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, CASE NO. 2022-CF-1143
Defendant.
__________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY FOR

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Defendant pro se, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, (“Gillespie”) hereby files Defendant’s

Motion to Waive Confidentiality For Psychological Evaluation, and states:

1. Pursuant to Rule 2.420(j), Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration,

Gillespie moves the Court for an order to waive confidentiality for a court-ordered psychological

evaluation that currently appears confidential (locked) on the public docket in the following

cases captioned above: 2019-CF-4193, 2020-CF-2417, 2021-CF-286 and 2022-CF-1143.

2. Mr. Rob Davis, General Counsel, Office of Gregory C. Harrell, Marion County Clerk of

Court and Comptroller, provided Gillespie an email on June 10, 2022 at 3:22 PM that appears at

Exhibit A and describes the process to waive confidentiality under Rule 2.420(j), Fla. R. Gen.

Prac. & Jud. Admin. Mr. Davis wrote Gillespie in part:

Please file a motion as described in Rule 2.420(j) in each of the cases in which you want
to remove confidentiality protections. In order for this office to remove confidentiality as
to the psychological evaluation, please ensure that any order granting your motion
contains the following (or similar) language:

"The entire 5 page psychological evaluation that is the subject of the motion is no longer
confidential and the Clerk of Court is directed to change the privacy and image privacy
settings pertaining to such psychological evaluation in its case management system to
'public.' Unless and until subsequently amended by order of this Court, the psychological
evaluation shall be viewable, in unredacted form, by any and all entities and individuals."
3. Previously the Court ordered Gillespie to be evaluated in accordance with the provisions

of Rule 3.210 and 3.211 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine whether he is

competent to proceed pursuant to the criteria set forth in Florida Statutes 916.12 and Rules 3.210

and 3.211, that is whether Gillespie has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with

a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational, as well as factual

understanding of the proceedings against him.

4. Gillespie was released on his own recognizance (ROR) from the Marion County Jail on

April 7, 2022, and upon release immediately scheduled by telephone a competency evaluation

with Dr. Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D., (“Dr. Bloomfield”) a Licensed Psychologist appointed by

Marion County Circuit Court Judge Peter M. Brigham (“Judge Brigham”) to do the evaluation.

5. A previously appointed psychologist, Harry D. Krop, Ph.D, (“Dr. Krop”) withdrew from

the appointment by letter March 27, 2020 to the Court (Judge Anthony Tatti) citing a “conflict of

interest”, see, Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Conflict with Harry D. Krop, Ph.D. (Exhibit B)

6. On April 18, 2022 Dr. Bloomfield notified Judge Brigham by letter (emailed) that he had

evaluated Gillespie. (Exhibit C). Gillespie also hand-delivered the letter to the Judge’s office.

7. On April 20, 2022 Dr. Bloomfield provided a report of his evaluation of Gillespie to

Judge Brigham. (Exhibit D). Dr. Bloomfield’s report states in the conclusion:

In that regard it is my opinion that pursuant to the criteria set forth in 916.12 Florida
Statute and Rules 3.210 and 3.211, that Mr. Gillespie has sufficient present ability to
consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a
rational, as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him specifically the
six listed in the Court.

It is my opinion that he is Competent to Proceed and nothing impairs his ability to

proceed with his case.

8. Dr. Bloomfield’s report of his evaluation of Gillespie is currently a locked, confidential,

or restricted document on the Marion County Clerk’s public online docket in the above cases.

2
9. On June 8, 2022, in open court, Judge Brigham allowed appointed counsel D. Gary

Lashley, Jr. to withdrawal from representing Gillespie in the above captioned cases. Judge

Brigham ruled that Gillespie now represents himself pro se in the above captioned cases.

10. Gillespie made a spoken motion on June 8, 2022, in open court, to waive confidentiality

for the court-ordered psychological evaluation that is currently a locked, confidential, or

restricted document on the public docket in the above captioned cases. Judge Brigham directed

Gillespie to the Clerk for assistance with his request to waive confidentiality. Mr. Rob Davis,

General Counsel, responded for the Clerk, see Exhibit A, and paragraph 2 of this motion.

WHEREFORE, Gillespie moves the Court enter an Order GRANTING Defendant’s

Motion to Waive Confidentiality For Psychological Evaluation as provided by Rule 2.420(j),

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin, where the Order shall contain the following (or similar)

language as stated in the email (Exhibit A) of Mr. Rob Davis, the Clerk’s General Counsel:

"The entire 5 page psychological evaluation that is the subject of the motion is no longer
confidential and the Clerk of Court is directed to change the privacy and image privacy
settings pertaining to such psychological evaluation in its case management system to
'public.' Unless and until subsequently amended by order of this Court, the psychological
evaluation shall be viewable, in unredacted form, by any and all entities and individuals."

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 13, 2022.

Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant pro se

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

3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 13, 2022 a copy of Defendant’s Motion to Waive

Confidentiality For Psychological Evaluation was furnished on the Florida Portal by email to:

State Attorney’s Office

110 North West 1st Avenue
Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
[email protected]

and to the names on the Florida Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents.

Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant pro se

4
6/13/2022 Request to Waive Confidentiality Regarding Psychological Evaluation - Yahoo Mail

Request to Waive Confidentiality Regarding Psychological Evaluation Yahoo Mail/Inbox

Rob Davis <[email protected]> Jun 10 at 3:22 PM

To: [email protected]

Good afternoon Mr. Gillespie,

I understand that you recently visited our office to request to waive confidentiality as to a
psychological evaluation filed in cases 22-CF-1143, 21-CF-0286, 19-CF-4193, and 20-CF-
2417. Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xxi)
requires "the clerk of court [to] maintain as confidential information . . . as specifically stated
. . . (xxi) [f]orensic behavioral health evaluations under Chapter 916." Accordingly, although
this office is required to keep such information confidential, we are only required to do so "
[e]xcept as provided by court order . . . ." Rule 2.420(j) explains the procedure by which an
individual may obtain a court order allowing access to confidential court records, such as
the psychological evaluation at issue here. I pasted a copy of Rule 2.420(j) for your review
below:

A
Please file a motion as described in Rule 2.420(j) in each of the cases in which you want to
remove confidentiality protections. In order for this office to remove confidentiality as to the
psychological evaluation, please ensure that any order granting your motion contains the
following (or similar) language:

"The entire 5 page psychological evaluation that is the subject of the motion is no longer
confidential and the Clerk of Court is directed to change the privacy and image privacy
settings pertaining to such psychological evaluation in its case management system
to 'public.' Unless and until subsequently amended by order of this Court, the
psychological evaluation shall be viewable, in unredacted form, by any and all entities and
https://mail.yahoo.com/b/folders/1/messages/AMuVcepzL-UXYqOZ4g7U4FHJ5Us?.src=ym&folderType=INBOX&offset=0&unblockNow=false&action=printMes… 1/2
6/13/2022 Request to Waive Confidentiality Regarding Psychological Evaluation - Yahoo Mail

individuals."

Please contact me with any questions.

Thank you,

Rob Davis

Rob Davis
General Counsel, Administration
352-671-5704 | [email protected]

Office of Gregory C. Harrell

Marion County Clerk of Court and Comptroller
PO Box 1030, Ocala FL 34478-1030
352-671-5604 | www.marioncountyclerk.org
"Here to serve and protect the public trust"

https://mail.yahoo.com/b/folders/1/messages/AMuVcepzL-UXYqOZ4g7U4FHJ5Us?.src=ym&folderType=INBOX&offset=0&unblockNow=false&action=printMes… 2/2
 AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Conflict with Harry D. Krop, Ph.D

STATE OF FLORIDA )
) SS.:
COUNTY OF MARION )

BEFORE ME, this day personally appeared NEIL J. GILLESPIE, who upon oath deposes

upon personal knowledge and states:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify as to the facts and matters set

forth below. I make this affidavit upon personal knowledge unless otherwise expressly stated.

2. Harry D. Krop, Ph.D is licensed as a psychologist by the Board of Psychology, license

number: PY2364. ("Dr. Krop"). Dr. Krop's license verification page with the Florida

Department of Health is attached, dated March 20, 2020, and shows his address of record, 1212

NW 12th Avenue, Suite B, Gainesville, FL 32601.

3. Dr. Krop was Court-Ordered to evaluate me to assess my Competency to Proceed by

Marion County Circuit Judge Anthony Tatti in case no. 2019-CF-4193 for Interception and

disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. (Fla.. Stat. sec. 934.03).

4. The Department of Health reports that Dr. Krop has Discipline on File and a Public

Complaint, and shows online DOH Case No.: 2004-33680 and the Final Order Rejecting

Stipulation And Accepting Stipulated Counter Tenns.

5. The Final Order in DOH Case No.: 2004-33680 shows, inter alia, Dr. Krop was ordered

to pay $3,039.11 in costs to the Board, was fined $5,000 by the Board, and was Ordered to pay

$2,500 in restitution, for violations of Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, violations of Chapter 490,

Florida Statutes, and violation of Rule 64B 19-19.0025(2) of the Florida Administrative Code,

related to an evaluation in a child custody case. The Board found the evaluation was, inter alia,

"inequitable and unbalanced".

B
6. I expressed concern with Dr. Krop due to the Discipline on File and Public Complaint.

7. In response, Dr. Krop provided Judge Tatti a letter dated March 27, 2020, and wrote in

part, "Given his concerns, it would seem that my involvement could be viewed as a conflict of

interest and, accordingly, I am requesting that the Court appoint another expert to conduct the

evaluation on Mr. Gillespie." Dr. Krop's three page letter to Judge Tatti is attached.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, this ~~ June, 2022,
by Neil J. Gillespie, who is personally known to me, or who has produced '- 0 L
as identification and states that he is the person who made this affidavit and that its ontents are
truthful to the best of his kno Ide.

NO~~'------
. . ~~v·'-ii~. THOMAS HUCGE
(1m .) Notary Public· State of Florid.
SEAL ~~W;i Commission' HH 261520
.......'?!..fJ..... My Camm. Expires May 21,2026

5\ "l.~
My Commission Expires: ~-----l\"""'-
-
\~\)~~--
1,i>l.U _ Print Name of Notary I!I\blic

2
312012020 Fl DOH MQASearch Portal I

mm8'a Department of Health

HEALTH

HARRY D KROP

License Number: PY2364

Data As Of 3/20/2020
Profession Psychologist
Ucense PY2364
License Status CLEAR/ACTNE
License Expiration Date 5/31/2020
License Original Issue Date 03/11/1982
Address of Record 1212 NW 12TH AVENUE, SUITE B
GAINESVILLE, FL 32601
UNITED STATES
Discipline on File Yes
Public Complaint Yes
The information on this page is a secure, primary source for License verification provided by the FLorida
Department of HeaLth, Division of Medical Quality Assurance. This website is maintained by Division staff and is
updated immediateLy upon a change to our Licensing and enforcement database.

https:/IappsrY1:ladoh.state.ft .usJM QASearctlSenAcesJHealthCarePrcNdersllicenseVerificationPractitiooerPrintFriendy?Liclnd=356&Procde=2701 1/1

Community Behavioral Services Harry Krop, Ph.D., Director
Psychological Counseling, Assessment and Forensic Services licensed Psychologist
1212 NW 12th Avenue, Suite B
Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 372-6645 Kristin Taylor
Fax: (352) 373-1237 Office Manager
Email: [email protected]

March 27, 2020

The Honorable Anthony Tatti

Circuit Judge
Email: [email protected]

RE: NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

CASE NO(S): 2019-CF-4193-A
008: 03/19/1956

Dear Judge Tatti:

As you know, this examiner was Court-Ordered to evaluate Mr. Gillespie to assess his
Competency to Proceed. Although we received the Order on March 23, 2020, we have not yet
scheduled him for the evaluation due to the current circumstances related to the coronavirus
pandemic. As the Court also likely knows, Mr. Gillespie has been writing to various individuals
expressing his various concerns related to the Court Order as well as this examiner's professional
competency. Given his concerns, it would seem that my involvement could be viewed as a
conflict of interest and, accordingly, I am requesting that the Court appoint another expert to
conduct the evaluation on Mr. Gillespie.

Thank you for your consideration and I would appreciate being notified as to the Court's decision
in this matter..

The opinions and recommendations expressed in this report reflect my conclusions based upon
the currently available information. Additional information or new facts might significantly alter
my professional opinion and/ or change my recommendations. Please be advised my opinions are
offered with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty and are independent of the
requesting agent.

Respectfully submitted,

~~?h·b.
Harry Krop, Ph.D..
Licensed Psychologist
FL license No. PY2364
GILLESPIE, Neil
March 27, 2020
Page 2

HK/dh/vb

cc:
Neil Gillespie
Email: neilgillespie@mfLnet

Zachary Phipps, Esquire

Assistant Regional Counsel
Email: [email protected]

Kristina Belanger, Esquire

Assistant Public Defender
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

Jared Gainey, Esquire

Assistant State Attorney
Email: [email protected]

John Anthony Tomasino

Clerk
Email: [email protected]

Frank M. Talbot, Esquire

Chief Assistant US Attorney
Email: [email protected]

Kelly Karase
Deputy Chief
Email: [email protected]

Civil Rights Division, MDFL

Email: [email protected]

Jeffrey Deen, Esquire

Assistant Regional Counsel
Email: [email protected]

Brad King, Esquire

State Attorney
[email protected]
GILLESPIE. Neil
March 27, 2020
Page 3

David Elispermann
Clerk
Email: [email protected]

Greg Harrell
Clerk
Email: [email protected]
April 18, 2022

The Honorable Peter Brigham

Circuit Court Judge
Marion County Courthouse

Re; State of Florida vs. Neil Joseph Gillespie

Cases 2019-cf-4193; 2020-cf- 2417; 2021-cf-172

Dear judge Brigham,

Pursuant to a court order I conducted a competency evaluating of Mr. Gillespie on this

date. He requested I inform the court of same.
The report should be ready no later than early next week.

Very truly yours

Stephen I. Bloomfield

Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

Licensed Psychologist

c.c.
Neil Gillespie
Doyle Gary Lashley Jr, Esq
Office of State Attorney

C
 Bloomfield Psychological Services
Forensic and Clinical Psychology

Serena Lurie Bloomfield, Ed.D. Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

Licensed Psychologist Licensed Psychologist
FL License # PY4692 FL License # PY4901
MA License # 3957

April 20, 2022

The Honorable Peter Brigham

Circuit Court Judge
Fifth Judicial Circuit
Marion County Judicial Center
110 N.W. First Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475

RE: State of Florida v. Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant

In the Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit
In and For Marion County, Florida
Case No.: 2019-CF-4193; 2020-CF-2417; 2021-CF-172

Dear Judge Brigham:

Pursuant to an Order of the Court, I conducted a Psychological Evaluation Assessment and

Examination of the Defendant, Mr. Gillespie. The purpose of the evaluation was competence. I
was unable to see him via electronic means at the jail and apparently he informed me that you
released him ROR and he immediately called me to continue the evaluation.

I evaluated the Defendant in accordance with the Provisions of Rule 3.210 and 3.211 of the
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine whether the Defendant is competent to
proceed for the purposes indicated int his Order pursuant to the criteria set forth in Florida
Statutes 916.12 and Rules 3.210 and 3.211, that is whether the Defendant has sufficient present
ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether
he has a rational, as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.

In that regard I was provided with a good deal of information which included State Attorney’s
information for two counts: unlawful interception of oral communication; unlawful disclosure of
oral communication:

• Probable Cause Affidavit

__________________________________________________________________________________________
• Mailing and Billing Address: 94 San Juan Drive, Ponte Verde, FL 32082 • (904) 448-1519 • [email protected]
•

D
 • Warrant Service
• State Attorney’s information for robbery by sudden snatching and battery
• Warrant Service.

Mr. Gillespie himself sent me a packet of information while he was incarcerated which included
the following:

• Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

• Order on Motion for Nelson Hearing
• Handwritten note, letter from Mr. Gillespie indicating what he enclosed
• A certified copy of Motion to Withdraw Hearing transcribed from digital recording
• Court minutes (several copies and pages)
• Handwritten Motion for Nelson Hearing
• List from Mr. Gillespie of his medical and psychological conditions
• Handwritten notice to Judge Peter Brigham re: Competency Evaluation; ROR Motion
• Acknowledgement of new case (Neil J. Gillespie versus Billie Woods, Sheriff)
• Order on Motion to Rescind Order appointing Dr. Tonie Werner to do a competency
evaluation and Order compelling Defendant to do a competency evaluation and Order
compelling Defendant to appear for evaluation
• Recorder telephone conversation between Defendant and his attorney, Zachary Phillips,
transcribed from digital recordings.

As I listed earlier Mr. Gillespie provided me with his medical history (partial) which included
past surgery and treatments, as well as medical conditions which list Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) ICD-9-CM Code 309.81.

This is related to panic attacks, a 1988 mugging and his trauma regarding a cleft pallet as a child.

Also listed are Anxiety Disorder due to medical condition 293.89; Anxiety State Unspecified
300.00; Dysthymic Disorder (Chronic Depression) 300.4; Depression/Depressive Disorder
296.3/311; Brain Tumor, head Injury from a mugging in 1998; History of Head Injury
Unspecified.

Also Mr. Gillespie provided a list of his medications which are lengthy some of which he is not
taking at this time. He has been prescribed medications for psychological conditions but at this
moment is not taking them.

As soon as Mr. Gillespie was released from incarceration he called me to set up an appointment.
We did that and the evaluation took place on April 18, 2022. I provided Mr. Gillespie, his
attorney and the Court with verification of him presenting and participating in that evaluation.

I conducted various tests of mental control and mental status.

Throughout the course of the evaluation there were no limitations that were obvious during the
interview process. He did not use any unusual kinds of logic or strange associations. There was
2
no psychosis or organicity. He showed an average number of thoughts which were neither
speeded nor slowed and his thinking seem normal from the perspective of productivity,
relevance, and coherence.

Based upon mental status there were no limitations in any of the domains assessed by my
examination. There is no evidence or signs of a thought disorder or a major cognitive behavioral
disorder, no such signs or symptoms were elicited. He showed no abnormalities of thought,
affect, or behavior and no gross abnormalities. I did not find any unusual kinds of logic or
strange associations. There were no obvious indications of psychosis or organicity and no
hallucinations in any field. He experienced thoughts in a spontaneous and normal manner while
remaining lucid and coherent. There was no indication of disordered mentation in the form of
incoherent or incomprehensible speech. His speech was relevant, spontaneous, and productive.
He showed an average number of thoughts which were neither speeded nor slowed. His thinking
seemed normal from the perspective of productivity, relevance, and coherence. He presented his
thoughts in an appropriately paced, understandable, and relevant fashion. His thoughts were
coherent well organized and relevant to the subject at hand. He reached the goal of his thought
process without introducing any irrelevant material. His train of thought was goal directed,
relevant, logical, coherent, focused, without digressions. There was no tangentiality,
circumstantiality or distractibility. His speech was relevant, appropriate, without evidence of
unusual ideation.

He showed no obsessions or phobias, ideas of reference, hallucinations, delusions, and faulty

perceptions, and perceptual disturbances, misrepresentations of consensual reality or psychotic
distortions.

Mr. Gillespie was affable and cooperative, interactive with me and showed no deficits. He is not
on any pain medication.
Years ago he took SSRT. He has never been married and does not have any children.

He was released ROR. We talked about his various cases and medical history and we reviewed
the competency issues.

In my opinion Mr. Gillespie is Competent to Proceed.

1. Appreciation of the charges or allegations (FS 916.12(3)a): He explained to me in detail the

charges against him involving recording a phone call. He did tell me that his own phone presents
a caveat that phone calls would be recorded and I called him and heard that caveat. He also
described the sudden snatching and battery and his relationship with Ms. Thomas.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

2. Appreciation of the range and nature of possible penalties if applicable which may be
imposed in the proceedings against the defendant (FS 916.12(3)b): He understands he could
receive up to five years for each offense. The best outcome would be for the charges to be

3
dropped. He also indicated there was an incident in jail where he had to defend himself against
another inmate.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

3. Appreciation of the adversarial nature of the legal system (FS 916.12(3)c): He was able to
provide an elaborate explanation of the role of his attorney, his previous attorneys, the role of the
State Attorney, the role of the Court, the role of the jury if there is a trial and the protocols
regarding a trial.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

4. Capacity to disclose to his attorney facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue (FS 916.10(3)d):
He is able to provide rational, lucid and coherent information regarding the instant offenses
without difficulty and could do same with his attorney. He is able to contribute to his defense
without difficulty.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

5. Ability to manifest appropriate courtroom behavior (FS 916.12(3)e): He shows that he can
manifest appropriate courtroom behavior and is able to do so without difficulty.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

6. Capacity to testify relevantly and coherently (FS 916.12(3)f): I believe he could be cross-
examined and provide information regarding cross-examination of witnesses.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

He described his time in jail, losing weight, some of his medical illnesses subsiding because he
lost over 100 pounds. He described his relationship with Ms. Thomas and he could do so with his
attorney.

In that regard it is my opinion that pursuant to the criteria set forth in 916.12 Florida Statute and
Rules 3.210 and 3.211, that Mr. Gillespie has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational, as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him specifically the six listed in the Court.

It is my opinion that he is Competent to Proceed and nothing impairs his ability to proceed with
his case.

If I can provide additional and/or clarifying information, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

4
Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

Licensed Psychologist

SIB/tk

cc: Doyle Gary Lashley, Jr. Esq.

([email protected])

Office of the State Attorney

([email protected])

Neil Joseph Gillespie