Appeal Order Denying Motion To Withdraw Plea 5D23-2005

M A N D A T E
from
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY

APPEAL OR BY PETITION, AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION THE
COURT HAVING ISSUED ITS OPINION OR DECISION;
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED THAT FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BE HAD IN SAID CAUSE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING OF THIS COURT AND WITH THE
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
WITNESS THE HONORABLE JAMES A. EDWARDS, CHIEF JUDGE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
FIFTH DISTRICT, AND THE SEAL OF THE SAID COURT AT DAYTONA
BEACH, FLORIDA ON THIS DAY.
DATE: March 18, 2024
FIFTH DCA CASE NO.: 5D 23-2005
CASE STYLE: NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORIGIN: Marion
TRIAL COURT CASE NO.: 2022-CF-1143, 2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-286
I hereby certify that the foregoing is

(a true copy of) the original Court mandate.
Mandate and Opinion to: Clerk Marion

cc: (without attached opinion)
Douglas T. Squire Office of the Attorney Neil Joseph Gillespie

General
INDEX FOR SCRIBD - 5D23-2005
FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, CASE No. 5D23-2005

NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Appeal of Judge Peter M. Brigham's Order Denying Defendant’s Motion To
Withdraw Plea After Sentencing
2024, 03-18-24, MANDATE 5D23-2005

Docket 5D23-2005
2023, 09-27-23, INITIAL BRIEF 5D23-2005
2023, 09-27-23, Notice of Constitutional Question 5D23-2005
2023, 09-27-23, Notice of Related Cases, Rule 9.900(k)
2023, 10-27-23, ANSWER BRIEF 5D23-2005
2023, 12-01-23, REPLY BRIEF 5D23-2005
2023, 12-26-23, ORDER PANNEL ASSIGNED
2024, 01-02-24, NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY, RULE 9.900(j)
2024, 02-20-24, ORDER AFFIRMED w JUDGE PAGES
2023, 08-25-23, CERTIFICATE OF CLERK FOR RECORD

2023, 08-25-23, APPELLANTS NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL
2023, 08-31-23, APPELLANTS SECOND NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL
2023, 08-31-23, ORDER FOR MOTION TO CORRECT RECORD
2023, 08-31-23, APPELLANTS MOTION TO CORRECT OR SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL
2023, 09-05-23, ORDER MOTION DENIED
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
23-2005
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

vs
STATE OF FLORIDA
Date
06/08/2023 Status: Closed Proceeding: Appeal Nature: Final
Filed:
Judgment and 5th Judicial
Type: Criminal Category: Circuit:
Sentence Circuit
Date Type Pleading Note

03/18/2024 Event West Publishing
03/18/2024 Brief/Record Returned Records NO RECORD EFILED
03/18/2024 Mandate Mandate
02/20/2024 Disposition Affirmed PCA
Notice of
01/02/2024 Notice Supplemental
Authority
NOTICE OF PANEL
12/26/2023 Order
ASSIGNMENT
12/01/2023 Brief/Record Appellant's Reply Brief
Appellee's Answer
10/27/2023 Brief/Record
Brief
09/29/2023 Notice Notice of Appearance
09/27/2023 Notice Notice of Related Case TO 23-1176 AND 23-888
"NOTICE TO ATTORNEY
09/27/2023 Notice Notice of Filing GENERAL RULE 9.900 (m)
Notice
09/27/2023 Brief/Record Initial Brief on Merits
Order Deny Motion to
09/05/2023 Order
Supplement Record
Motion To File
08/31/2023 Motion OR CORRECT ROA
Supplemental Record
SECOND NTC
INCOMPLETE ROA
08/31/2023 Order Miscellaneous Order
ACKNOWLEDGED; AA
ADVISED
OF INCOMPLETE RECORD
08/31/2023 Notice Notice ON APPEAL - SECOND
NOTICE
08/28/2023 Brief/Record Received Records 4152 PAGES
OF INCOMPLETE RECORD
08/25/2023 Notice Notice
ON APPEAL
Order Granting Time
07/07/2023 Order Extension To File BY 8/25
Record
Motion Extension of
06/23/2023 Motion
Time To File Record
Acknowledgement
06/09/2023 Letter AMENDED
Letter 1
Acknowledgement
06/08/2023 Letter
Letter 1
06/08/2023 Notice Notice of Appeal Filed FILED BELOW 6/7/23
Filing # 182766078 E-Filed 09/27/2023 11:44:34 PM
IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant, pro se,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005

LT NO. 2022-CF-1143
STATE OF FLORIDA 2021-CF-286
Appellee. 2019-CF-4193
APPELLANT’S INITIAL BRIEF
Date: September 27, 2023

Petitioner, pro se
2801 SW College Rd., STE 3
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel. 352-239-9037
Email: [email protected]
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Section I
Section page
I 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
II 3 TABLE OF CITATIONS
III 4-17 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IV 18-23 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
V 24-40 ARGUMENT
VI 41-43 CONCLUSION
VII 44-45 AMENDED NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL

RULE 9.900 (m) Notice of Constitutional Question
VIII 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IX 47 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
2
TABLE OF CITATIONS - Section II
The Record on Appeal is cited (Record; R x-x). page
Amend. V, US Const, Due Process 30

Amend. XIV, US Const, Due Process 30
Amend. VI, US Const, Right to Counsel 18, 24
Art. I, Sec. 9, Fla Const, Due Process 31
10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law § 480 31

10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law § 483 32
7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed 42
Fla. Stat. sec. 38.10 Disqualification of judge 10, 18, 26

Fla. Stat. sec. 38.22 Power to punish contempts 19
Fla. Stat. sec. 38.23 Contempt defined 19
Fla. R. Crim. P., 3.830. Direct Criminal Contempt 19-26

Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330, Disqualification of Trial Judges 24-28
FL Bar R. 4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor 17
ABA Rule 3.8, Model Rules of Professional Conduct 17
Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 19-38
Contempt Benchguide December 2018 21-39
Bonet v. State, 937 So.2d 209, (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 21

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963) 16
Brinson v. State, 789 So.2d 1125, Fla.App. 2 Dist., 2001 28
Brown v. State, 863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2004 27
Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) 42
Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063, Fla., 2000 27
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 18-41
Jada v. Harrison, 5D23-535 29
Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968) 42
Morris v. State, 667 So. 2d 982, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) 21
Robles v. State, 336 So.3d 378 (2022) 24-41
Tubbs v. State, 229 So.3d 1256 (2017) 24-41
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reeves, 30
92 So. 3d 249, 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be 41

Subject to Suit? Robert Craig Walters, Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall
1987) http://www.tulanelink.com/pdf/judicial_immunity_waters.pdf
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE - Section III
This case is an appeal of Circuit Judge Peter M. Brigham's Order
Denying Defendant’s Motion To Withdraw Plea After Sentencing (“Order”)
Efiled May 10, 2023. (R 3418-3420). The Misc Supporting Documents
appear at R 3421-3436 (Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C)
The Order states:
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se Motion to

Withdraw Plea After Sentencing, filed on April 19, 2023. The Court
considered the Motion, reviewed the record, and being otherwise duly
advised, finds as follows:
As background, Defendant was charged as follows: 2019-CF-4193,

unlawful Interception of Oral Communication (Count I), Unlawful
Disclosure of Oral Communication (Count II); 2021-CF-0286,
unlawful Interception of Oral Communication (Count I), Unlawful
Disclosure of Oral Communication (Count II); 2022-CF-1143, battery
by a detained person. See, Exhibit A, Informations. Each of the
aforementioned charges is a third degree felony and is punishable by
up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Id. Direct Criminal
Contempt of Court was charged in all the above-styled cases. See,
Exhibit B, Order Finding Facts and Holding the Defendant in Direct
Criminal Contempt. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in the
Marion County Jail. Id. Subsequently, the State moved to have
Defendant's bond revoked and an Order revoking Defendant's bond
was entered stating that "the Court finds probable cause to believe
Defendant committed a new crime while on pretrial release in the
above-styled cases." See, Exhibit C, Orders to Revoke Bond.
On March 20, 2023, Defendant entered a plea of no contest in the

above-styled cases, excluding the direct criminal contempt charge.
Pursuant to the global plea agreement, the Court withheld
adjudication and sentenced Defendant to credit time served in all the
above-styled cases.
4
In the instant Motion, Defendant claims he wants to withdraw his
pleas because his "pleas were involuntary to get out of jail while held
on a no-bond order." The Court finds Defendant's Motion fails to
allege that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest
injustice. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Plea After
Sentencing is facially insufficient. See Powell v. State, 929 So. 2d 54
(Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED: Defendant's pro se Motion to Withdraw Plea After

Sentencing is DENIED. This decision may be appealed to the Fifth
District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of this Court's ruling.
ORDERED this 9 day of May 2023, at Ocala, Florida .

[signed]
PETER BRIGHAM
Circuit Judge
The Appellant contests the Order, and in particular the Court’s finding
that the “Defendant's Motion fails to allege that withdrawal of his plea is
necessary to correct a manifest injustice”, see paragraph 6.
The Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing (“Motion”)
(With Attached Evaluation) was Efiled April 19, 2023 by the Appellant-
Defendant, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, and appears at R 3294-3303.
The Appellant’s Motion states:
Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE ("Gillespie"), a nonlawyer

appearing pro se, hereby files Motion To Withdraw Plea After
Sentencing, and states:
1. Gillespie moves pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3 .170(1) 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
5
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 202 l-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 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
6
(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 prose 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:
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-
7
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 hypemasal 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."
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
8
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.
WHEREFORE, Gillespie moves this Honorable Court under Rule 3

.170(1) 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.

Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant prose
Judge Brigham held the Appellant in Direct Criminal Contempt on
January 25, 2023, for an alleged incident that did not happen on January
9
25, 2023, but was alleged to have occurred on January 3, 2023 at a prior
hearing. Prior to the hearing on January 3, 2023, the Appellant served
Judge Brigham a motion with affidavit to disqualify him as trial judge, see,
R 3022-3034.
Fla. Stat. sec. 38.10 states in relevant part that “whenever a party to
any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or
she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on
account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in
favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further...”. Once
Judge Brigham was served with a motion and affidavit to disqualify, the
Judge was required to “proceed no further” and cancel the hearing.
Judge Brigham did not cancel the hearing on January 3, 2023 as the
law required he do under Fla. Stat. sec. 38.10. Instead, Judge Brigham
proceeded with the hearing. The Appellant appeared pro se, without
counsel, at the hearing January 3, 2023.
The Appellant has a speech impairment called velopharyngeal
insufficiency (VPI), caused by a congenital structural defect, a cleft palate.
On January 3, 2023, Judge Brigham accused the Appellant of yelling
at him. The transcript (R 3304-3309) shows the Appellant said, “The State
already submitted an order to you." The Court responded "Settle down". (R
10
3306. lines 13-15). Later on January 3, 2023 Judge Brigham accused the
Appellant of yelling at him, on page 4-5 (R 3307-3308):

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.
1 have a speech impairment. It’s hard for me to project
2 my voice.
The Order Finding Facts And Holding The Defendant In Direct Criminal
Contempt (R 3109-3112) misstates the foregoing facts:
“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.”
The transcript (R 3307-3308) shows the Appellant never said that the
Court could not hear him because he had a speech impediment. The
Appellant said he just tried to speak up because he has a speech impairment
and it’s hard for him to project his voice. This is due to an oral-nasal fistula
and velar limits.
On January 25, 2023, the Appellant’s appointed standby counsel
John Nicholas Klein IV made a spontaneous utterance to him just after
Judge Brigham held another Defendant, Gary Leon White, in Direct
11
Criminal Contempt. White, inmate ID A0260475, appeared by video from
the Marion County Jail for a Faretta hearing. Seeing what just happened to
Mr. White, Mr. Klein warned the Appellant while outside the courtroom that
Judge Brigham does not like pro se defendants. Soon afterward Judge
Brigham held the Appellant in Direct Criminal Contempt.
The Appellant began representing himself pro se in June 2022
because his prior appointed counsel D. Gary Lashley, Jr. was ineffective.
From that point forward, when the Appellant appeared pro se, the
record shows Judge Brigham acted rude and disrespectful toward him.
For example, the transcript October 26, 2022 (R 3397-3417) shows
on page 2 (R 3398) that Judge Brigham put the Appellant last to be heard
at a hearing, after ASA Nixon tried to proceed with the ordinary schedule:
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.
The Appellant asked Judge Brigham on October 26, 2022 (R 3397-3417)
about a pending motion, and if it needed a hearing. The SAO did not object
to the motion to waive confidentiality of the Appellant’s favorable
competency exam. (Oct-26-2023, page 3, R 3399)
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.
12
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.
Later during the hearing Judge Brigham, accused the Appellant of being
“hard to get along with”. Transcript page 4, October 26, 2022: (R 3400)
5 [THE COURT]...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...
Judge Brigham has not explained his prejudice against the Appellant.
This exchange is from a hearing February 16, 2022. Transcript (R 2861-
2875) at page 10 (R 2870):
14 THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, can I, can I mention

15 something else? I’ve been listening to you all day
16 today, and you had some very favorable comments about my
17 alma mater, University of Pennsylvania.
18 THE COURT: Yeah.
19 THE DEFENDANT: I’m a graduate of the University of
20 Pennsylvania, the Wharton School.
21 THE COURT: Congratulations. Congratulations.
22 THE DEFENDANT: I’m an honors graduate.
23 THE COURT: Oh, wow.
24 THE DEFENDANT: And you can trust me, Your Honor,
25 to keep this appointment, whenever we can arrange it
13
Oddly, since then the Appellant has heard Judge Brigham complain
in open court that he had to go to a state college, he said he could not get
into an Ivy League University or a prestigious college. Judge Brigham has
made such statements at several other hearings the Appellant attended.
Judge Brigham puts the Appellant last to be heard at hearings, so he
has heard a lot. Not only in the Appellant’s cases, but in other cases.
Apparently Judge Brigham is age 62. Ballotpedia shows the judge
received a bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida and a
J.D. from the University of Florida. So why is Judge Brigham still
complaining - at age 62 - about his education? Something is not right about
that. Does Judge Brigham somehow believe affirmative action is the
reason he did not get into whatever school he wanted? Does he believe a
minority or a person with a disability got a place to which he feels entitled?
The Appellant now regrets saying anything about his education
because Judge Brigham may hold that against him. For the record, the
Appellant was age 29 when he entered PENN in the Summer of 1985, in
the evening division. After high school the Appellant worked as a laborer at
U.S. Steel, Fairless Works. Eventually the Appellant owned and operated a
business as a licensed vehicle dealer in Pennsylvania. The Appellant was
successful, but nothing was handed to him. The Appellant was not a
14
person of privilege. The Appellant supported his family, not a wife and
children, but his parents and sister. Fortunately many of the Appellant’s
clients were immigrants and more accepting of his imperfect speech and
congenital deformity than certain people of privilege.
Later in 1995 the Appellant earned another degree at The Evergreen
State College, in Olympia, Washington, a BA in the Psychosocial Aspects
of Craniofacial Disorders. The Appellant has a web page about it,
FaceMatters-org, and is prepared to testify as an expert witness.
https://www.nosue.org/facematters-org/
There is nothing wrong with a state school. In fact the last time the
Appellant saw his business law lecturer from PENN, he was in jail over
money missing from a client’s trust fund, and was later disbarred, see
496 U.S. 902, 110 S.Ct. 2582, Supreme Court of the United States In the
Matter of Disbarment of Jordan L. PElPER No. D-874, June 4, 1990.
Jordan had also done paid legal work for the Appellant.
During a hearing June 8, 2022, the transcript (R 3389-3396) shows
on page 5 (R 3393), that Judge Brigham made this comment, lines 21-23:
21 THE COURT: Hold on a second. Hold on a second.

22 Hold on a second. One thing at a time. I’m not as
23 smart as you are, remember?...
15
The Ocala Star-Banner newspaper reported a story on February 17,
2017, Assistant State Attorney appointed to the bench, that begins:
Assistant State Attorney Peter Brigham will be seeing the courtroom

from a different perspective beginning April 1.
Gov. Rick Scott appointed Brigham, 56, on Feb. 14 as a Fifth Judicial

Circuit Judge to Hernando and Citrus counties. Brigham, who was
one of six candidates for the job, will fill the vacancy created by the
resignation of Judge Richard Tombrink Jr...
Judge Brigham is quoted in the story as saying:
"I'm not there because I'm the best attorney in the room," he said,
"I'm there because I went through the (selection) process.
It appears Judge Brigham may have an issue with his own competence.
https://www.ocala.com/story/news/crime/2017/02/17/assistant-state-
attorney-appointed-fifth-circuit-judge/22429955007/
Judge Brigham is a former Assistant State Attorney in the Florida
Fifth Judicial Circuit. The record in this matter shows Defendant’s Notice of
Prosecutorial Misconduct filed in cases 2021CF286 and 2019CF4193
(R 3694-3731) regarding the Appellant’s one-party consent telephone
recording, and multiple violations by the SAO of Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). In prosecuting this case,
the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and
for Marion County, and certain Assistant State Attorneys, violated the civil
rights of the Appellant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, including his right to
16
due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violated
the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, R. Regul. FL. Bar 4-3.8, and
violated the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, Rule 3.8, Model Rules
of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association. Also see the
Appendix at R 3732-3772, and the Appendix at R 3773-3971.
The record in this matter shows Defendant’s Notice of Prosecutorial
filed in case 2022CF1143 (R 3464-3487). In prosecuting this case, the
State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for
Marion County, and certain Assistant State Attorneys, violated the civil
rights of the Appellant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, including his right to
due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, failed to
provide Brady information in this case, violated the Special Responsibilities
of a Prosecutor, R. Regul. FL. Bar 4-3.8, and violated the Special
Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, Rule 3.8, Model Rules of Professional
Conduct of the American Bar Association. Furthermore, there is evidence
showing the Appellant’s court appointed counsel D. Gary Lashley, Jr.,
failed to provide zealous and competent representation, and that the State
Attorney's Office and the Court cooperated with Lashley in denying the
Appellant his right to counsel under the U.S. Six Amendment. Also see the
Appendix at R 3488-3506, and the Appendix at R3507-3693.
17
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT - Section IV
The Appellant has a right to counsel under the U.S. Sixth
Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
The Appellant 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.
The Appellant contends that while the Court has the power to punish
contempt as defined under law, in this case the Court lacked jurisdiction
over the Defendant on January 3, 2023 after Judge Brigham was served
with a motion and affidavit to disqualify him as trial judge. (R 3022-3034)
18
Judge Brigham was served with a motion and affidavit to disqualify, the
Judge was required to “proceed no further” and cancel the hearing.
Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct, 3B(1) requires a judge shall hear
and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which
disqualification is required. Here, after Judge Brigham was served with a
motion and affidavit to disqualify him trail judge, Fla. Stat. sec. 38.10
required him to “proceed no further”. Judge Brigham ignored 38.10 and
failed to cancel the hearing January 3, 2023. Judge Brigham ignored 38.10
and proceeded with the hearing January 3, 2023. (R 3304-3309)
The power to punish contempt is found in Fla. Stat. sec. 38.22:
38.22 Power to punish contempts.—Every court may punish

contempts against it whether such contempts be direct, indirect, or
constructive, and in any such proceeding the court shall proceed to
hear and determine all questions of law and fact.
Contempt is defined in Fla. Stat. sec. 38.23:
38.23 Contempt defined.—A refusal to obey any legal order, mandate

or decree, made or given by any judge relative to any of the business
of the court, after due notice thereof, is a contempt, punishable
accordingly.
Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.830 governs Direct Criminal Contempt:
RULE 3.830. DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
A criminal contempt may be punished summarily only if the

court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt
committed in the actual presence of the court. The court shall
strictly comply with the following five procedural requirements.
19
(a) Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform
the defendant of the accusation against the defendant and inquire
as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she
should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and
sentenced therefor.
(b) The court shall provide the defendant the opportunity to

present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.
(c) The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital

of those facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based, and
confirm compliance with the five procedural requirements of this rule.]
(d) The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.
(e) Sentence shall be pronounced in open court.
If necessary to ensure safety of individuals in the courtroom, the

court may order the defendant be temporarily detained and removed
from the courtroom; however once the danger to individuals in the
courtroom has abated, the defendant should be returned to the
courtroom to allow for the procedures set forth in this rule.
In order to protect the due process rights of the defendant, this rule
and the statutory requirements must be strictly followed. For example, prior
to an adjudication of guilt, the judge shall inform the defendant of the
accusation and give him/her the opportunity to show cause why her or she
should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court.
The defendant must also be given an opportunity to present evidence of
excusing or mitigation circumstances before sentencing. Rule 3.830 Fla. R.
Crim. P. Direct criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
20
The trial court’s direct contempt conviction is invalid if there is no
written judgment reciting the facts on which the adjudication of guilt is
based. Morris v. State, 667 So. 2d 982, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rule for direct
criminal contempt proceedings constitutes a fundamental error. Bonet v.
State, 937 So.2d 209, (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Therefore, if the trial court fails to adhere to the strict procedural
requirements of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830, the correct remedy is to reverse
and remand with instructions for a new contempt hearing that complies with
the rule.
The Contempt Benchguide December 2018 shows, “Contempt “must
be used only rarely and with circumspection. The provocation must never
be slight, doubtful, or of shifting interpretations. The occasion should be
real and necessary, not murky, and not ameliorated in some less formal
manner.” Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), quoting
Schenck v. State, 645 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).”
Contempt does not exist just because a judge feels aggrieved or
vexed. McRoy v. State, 31 So. 3d 273, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), citing Via
v. State, 633 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
21
The exercise of the contempt power must “never be used by a judge
in a fit of anger, in an arbitrary manner, or for the judge’s own sense of
justice.” In re Inquiry Concerning Perry, 641 So. 2d 366, 368 (Fla. 1994);
Forbes v. State, 933 So. 2d 706, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
The offender’s due process rights must be protected in contempt
proceedings. In re Inquiry Concerning Perry, 641 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1994).
Direct criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Hicks
on behalf of Feiock v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d
721 (1988); Braisted v. State, 614 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The
contemnor must be present for the criminal contempt hearing to proceed.
The due process rights of the contemnor must be protected in the
adjudication process, and rule 3.830 must be scrupulously followed. Shook
v. Alter, 729 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Direct criminal contempt involves conduct that occurs in the presence
of the court that is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the
administration of justice. Punishment is used to vindicate the authority of
the court and to punish the contemnor.
In all cases, the due process rights of contemnors must be protected,
even for those that are the most resistant to the authority of the court.
22
“Scrupulous compliance with rule 3.830 is required because its
provisions constitute the essence of due process.” Peters v. State, 626 So.
2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also J.A.H. v. State, 20 So. 3d 425
(Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
“The purpose of these requirements is to assure the liberty interests
of even the most refractory are protected.” Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895,
896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Double Jeopardy: “[A] later criminal prosecution for the same conduct
which gave rise to a criminal contempt prosecution can violate a
defendant’s double jeopardy rights.” McCray v. State, 640 So. 2d 1215,
1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (citing U.S. v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct.
2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993)).
23
ARGUMENT - Section V
withdraw a guilty plea.
On January 3, 2023, the Appellant served a motion to disqualify
Judge Brigham as trial judge in his criminal cases, nos. 2019-CF-4193,
2021-CF-0286 and 2022-CF-1143. (R 19, Motion to Disqualify Judge Peter
Brigham Efiled by Defendant). (R 3022-3034)
The motion to disqualify Judge Brigham was served prior to a 1:30
PM hearing in the Marion County Courthouse on January 3, 2023. The
motion to disqualify Judge Brigham shows on page 9: (R 3030)
"The Clerk's office (Mr. Harrell) contends "the procedural path of Rule
2.330(c)>Rule l.080>Rule 2.516 can still be adhered to and done in a
manner consistent with A-2012-25-B, if the filer of such a motion
mails a copy of the motion to the judge." Therefore, I 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
24
(b)(2), Fla. R. Jud. Admin. Therefore, the subject Judge is served
prior to filing on the Portal, because Service by mail is complete upon
mailing. Rule 2.516 (b)(2).."
The Certificate of Service on the motion to disqualify Judge Brigham
shows on page 10: (R 3031)
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
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, [email protected]

• State Attorney’s Office, 110 North West 1st Avenue, Suite 5000,
Ocala, FL 34475. [email protected]
U.S. Postal Service Click-N-Ship Payment Details email to the
Appellant 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
25
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]

The Record shows the Court Minutes for January 3, 2023, for case
19CF4193 (R 3035), case 21CF286 (R 3036), case 22CF1134 (R 3037):
HEARING RESULTS: MOTION TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY FOR

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT TO
SUBMIT ORDER. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE, COURT
TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT (R 3035-3037)
Judge Brigham was served with a motion and affidavit to disqualify, he
was required to “proceed no further” and cancel the hearing.
Judge Brigham violated Fla. Stat. sec. 38.10 by his misconduct once
the motion to disqualify him was served PRIOR to the 1:30 PM hearing on
January 3, 2023, by him continuing to hold a hearing and issue an Order
not related to disqualification after service of the motion to disqualify him.
26
Judge Brigham broke the law in FIVE ways:
1. Judge Brigham failed to cancel the January 3, 2023 hearing after
being served a motion to disqualify him prior to the 1:30 PM hearing. 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.
2. Judge Brigham wrongly held the hearing on January 3, 2023 after
being served a motion to disqualify him prior to the 1:30 PM hearing. 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.
3. Judge Brigham failed to immediately rule on the motion to
disqualify him, as required by case law. 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.
27
4. Judge Brigham waited until January 5, 2023 to rule on the motion to
disqualify him. (R 3041-3042, Order Denying Motion To Disqualify Judge).
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.
Because Judge Brigham lacked jurisdiction as shown above, the
Order finding Direct Criminal Contempt (R 3109-3112) is void.
5. Judge Brigham refuted the facts of the motion to disqualify him,
and then denied the motion. 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.
The Order Denying Motion To Disqualify Judge (R 3041-3042)
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
28
DENIED.
ORDERED in Ocala, Florida, this 5th day of January 2023.

/s/
PETER M. BRIGHAM
Circuit Judge
Here, the Court issued a finding that took issue with the motion to
disqualify: “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.” Instead of simply “Defendant's Motion is legally insufficient.”
A recent case in the Fifth District Court of Appeal is case 5D23-535,
Hani N. Jada, Petitioner, v. Nancy C. Harrison, Esquire, P.L. and Nancy C.
Harrison, Esquire, granting the petition for writ of prohibition. Petition for
Writ of Prohibition, Michael S. Sharrit, Respondent Judge. Opinion by
WALLIS, J., EISNAUGLE, J., concurs., SOUD, J., concurs, with opinion.
Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.330(h)

clearly informs a trial judge against whom an initial motion to
disqualify is filed that he “may determine only the legal sufficiency of
the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged.” The
same rule further explains that “[n]o other reason for denial shall be
stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.”
Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(h).
The Florida Supreme Court has provided additional guidance by

stating that:
Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the

motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly
provide, and we have repeatedly held, that a judge who is presented
with a motion for his disqualification “shall not pass on the truth of the
29
facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification.” When a
judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion
of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has
then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis
alone established grounds for his disqualification.
The concurring opinion by Judge Soud sums it up, last sentence: “It cannot
be reiterated too strongly to the esteemed trial judges in this State that,
when denying motions to disqualify, less is truly more.
The record shows the Appellant had grounds to disqualify Judge
Brigham before January 3, 2023, but other factors prevented him from
doing so. First, the Appellant did not yet have transcripts due to a lack of
funds; being homeless (after foreclosure eviction); and lacking a place to
work on his pleadings. The Appellant did not get office space (a desk at
Workspace Collective) until December 6, 2022, past the time to file a timely
motion based on earlier grounds.
This appeal alleges Judge Brigham has continued to exercise
jurisdiction over the Appellant without lawful authority. In doing so, Judge
Brigham has engaged in Fraud Upon the Court:
“Fraud upon the court is an egregious offense against the integrity of

the judicial system and is more than a simple assertion of facts in a
pleading which might later fail for lack of proof.” Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Reeves, 92 So. 3d 249, 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
Judge Brigham has also denied the Appellant’s constitutional rights
under color of law, including his right to due process:
30
Amend. V, U.S. Const.; Amend. XIV, U.S. Const.
DUE PROCESS, Legal Information Institute
WEX article Author: Peter Strauss
“The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth

Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be
"deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The
Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven
words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation
of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance
that all levels of American government must operate within the law
("legality") and provide fair procedures.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
Fla. Const., Art. I, Sec. 9. Due process. - No person shall be deprived

of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put
in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal
matter to be a witness against oneself.
10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law § 480 (2007).
The guaranty of due process of law extends to every type of legal
proceeding. Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d
Dist. 1974); Tomayko v. Thomas, 143 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d
Dist. 1962). Whenever life, liberty, or property rights are involved in any
official action, the organic requirements of due process of law must be
afforded, whether such action is the exercise of the powers of government
by governmental departments, State ex rel. Barancik v. Gates, 134 So. 2d
497 (Fla. 1961); Williams v. Kelly, 133 Fla. 244, 182 So. 881 (1938) or a
duly authorized administrative or ministerial function or duty. State ex rel.
31
Barancik v. Gates. The constitutional guaranty of due process of law
applies not only to court and administrative procedures, but also to
legislative acts. Williams v. U.S., 179 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1950), cert.
granted, 340 U.S. 849, 71 S. Ct. 77, 95 L. Ed. 622 (1950) and judgment
aff'd, 341 U.S. 70, 71 S. Ct. 581, 95 L. Ed. 758 (1951) (implied overruling
on other grounds recognized by, U.S. v. McDermott, 918 F.2d 319 (2d Cir.
1990)) and (overruling on other grounds recognized by, Brzonkala v.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 169 F.3d 820, 136 Ed.
Law Rep. 15 (4th Cir. 1999)).
10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law § 483 (2007)
Due process encompasses both substantive and procedural due
process. McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994); M.W. v. Davis,
756 So. 2d 90, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S334 (Fla. 2000); State v. O.C., 748 So.
2d 945, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S425 (Fla. 1999).
The Appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to present
evidence of excusing or mitigation circumstances before sentencing. Rule
3.830 Fla. R. Crim. P. Direct criminal contempt must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rule for direct
32
criminal contempt proceedings constitutes a fundamental error. Bonet v.
State, 937 So.2d 209, (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
On January 3, 2023, the transcript (R 3304-3309) shows the
Appellant said, “The State already submitted an order to you." The Court
responded "Settle down". (R 3306. lines 13-15). There is no indication on
January 3, 2023 that the Appellant’s statement tended to “embarrass,
hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice or lessen the
court’s authority or dignity”. The Appellant was assisting the court in the
administration of justice by saying “The State already submitted an order
to you." From the Contempt Benchguide 2018:
Where the court had given no prior warnings or explicit directions not
to display reaction to verdict, an attorney who pounded his fist and
yelled “yes” upon receiving a favorable verdict could not be held in
contempt. Berman v. State, 751 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Use of the single word “sh--” uttered in frustration while the defendant
was leaving the courtroom, without further developed record, did not
constitute contempt. Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA
2007), disapproved on other grounds, Plank v. State, 190 So. 3d 594
(Fla. 2016) (isolated remark will be considered contemptuous only if it
constitutes imminent threat to administration of justice).
Later on January 3, 2023 Judge Brigham accused the Appellant of
yelling at him, on page 4-5 (R 3307-3308):

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.
33
1 have a speech impairment. It’s hard for me to project
2 my voice.
The Order Finding Facts And Holding The Defendant In Direct Criminal
Contempt (R 3109-3112) misstates the foregoing facts:
“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.”
The transcript (R 3307-3308) shows the Appellant never said that the
Court could not hear him because he had a speech impediment. The
Appellant said he just tried to speak up because he has a speech impairment
and it’s hard for him to project his voice. This is due to an oral-nasal fistula
and velar limits. See R 3299-3301: The Appellant was evaluated by Dr. Jane
Scheuerle, Ed.D., CCC-SLP, Professor, University of South Florida,
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, in Tampa. Dr.
Scheuerle provided a 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, 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
34
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…"
The Appellant reiterated his defense on January 25, 2023. From the
Transcript, January 25, 2023, pages 8, 9, and 10. (R 4061-4062)
25 THE DEFENDANT: I was trying to project my voice.
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.
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
35
23 that to you?
24 THE DEFENDANT: It was unintentional. There was no
25 intent to yell at you, Your Honor. I was just
Transcript, January 25, 2023, page 10, beginning at line 1:
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.
The fact that the Court described the Appellant’s defense as a “bunch
of garbage” suggests prejudice, and a lack of respect by the Court toward a
pro se Defendant. The Appellant was also denied due process. Given the
circumstances, it was not possible to present medical evidence. Given the
Court’s anger at the moment, it is unlikely that such evidence would have
been fairly considered. Also this statement by the Court: (R 4061)
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.
The record on January 3, 2023 does not show Judge Brigham was startled.
On January 25, 2023, the Appellant’s appointed standby counsel
John Nicholas Klein IV made a spontaneous utterance to him just after
Judge Brigham held another Defendant, Gary Leon White, in Direct
Criminal Contempt. White, inmate ID A0260475, appeared by video from
the Marion County Jail for a Faretta hearing. Mr. White has five cases
36
before Judge Brigham: 2020-CF-5067, 2020-CF-5068, 2020-CF-5069,
2021-CF-0442 and 2021-CF-1091.
01/25/2023 HEARING RESULTS: COURT FINDS DEFENDANT IN

DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND SENTENCES DEFENDANT
TO 60 DAYS MCJ
Judge Brigham on 01/26/2023 Efiled a Response from the Lower
Tribunal in Fifth DCA Case no. 5D22-2668 for Prohibition. Mr. White’s
Florida Supreme Court case SC23-241 was dismissed February 14, 2023.
Seeing what just happened to Mr. White, Mr. Klein warned the
Appellant while outside the courtroom that Judge Brigham does not like pro
se defendants. Soon afterward Judge Brigham held the Appellant in Direct
Criminal Contempt.
On February 5, 2023 the Appellant submitted the Declaration of Neil
Joseph Gillespie under sec. 92.525(2) that states: (R 3153-3156)
I, Neil Joseph Gillespie, Declares under oath:
1. I am the Defendant appearing pro se in the above captioned cases

with Circuit Judge Peter M. Brigham presiding. (“Judge Brigham”)
2. On January 25, 2023 a member of The Florida Bar told me that

Judge Brigham does not like pro se Defendants.
3. My Court appointed standby counsel knows the name of The

Florida Bar member who told me Judge Brigham does not like pro se
Defendants.
4. Lawyers are obligated to report judicial conduct that is prejudicial

to the administration of justice.
37
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 92.525(2), under the penalty of perjury, I
declare that I have read the foregoing Declaration of Neil Joseph
Gillespie and that the facts stated in it are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief. Signed Neil Joseph Gillespie.
The Clerk docketed the Declaration as “Correspondence or
Memorandum From Defendant” in the following cases on February 8, 2023.
2019-CF-4193, DOC 618

2021-CF-286, DOC 227
2022-CF-1143, DOC 124
Judge Brigham violated Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct. A Judge
Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently.
3B(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants,

jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in
an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and
of staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and
control.
Commentary: Canon 3B(4). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly

and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose
promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and
business-like while being patient and deliberate.
3B (5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or
conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or
prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability,
age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit
staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and
control to do so.
Commentary: Canon 3B(5). A judge must perform judicial duties

impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a
proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the
38
judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in
addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the
proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial
bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived
as prejudicial.
E. Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which

the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but
not limited to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a

party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
Judge Brigham is prejudiced against pro se Defendants like the Appellant,
and like Gary Leon White.
According to the Contempt Benchguide 2018, page 22, Incarceration:
Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense, Parisi v. Broward

County, 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000); however, it is neither a felony
nor a misdemeanor. Giordano v. State, 32 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA
2009); Saridakis v. State, 936 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006);
Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The
maximum punishment that can be imposed for direct criminal
contempt is one year. § 775.02, Fla. Stat. However, any punishment
of more than six months requires a jury trial before imposition. Aaron
v. State, 345 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 868, 985
S.Ct. 208, 54 L.Ed.2d 146.
As argued by the Appellant on February 17, 2023 (R 3323-3344)
regarding double jeopardy preventing the revocation of his bond, the
Contempt Benchguide 2018, page 24, Double Jeopardy, states:
39
“[A] later criminal prosecution for the same conduct which gave rise to a
criminal contempt prosecution can violate a defendant’s double jeopardy
rights.” McCray v. State, 640 So. 2d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (citing
U.S. v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993)).
40
CONCLUSION - Section VI
withdraw a guilty plea. Furthermore:
"A decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a

decision at all, and never becomes final." *
“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....”
Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be

Subject to Suit? Robert Craig Walters, Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall
1987) http://www.tulanelink.com/pdf/judicial_immunity_waters.pdf
Judge Brigham engaged in Fraud Upon the Court January 3, 2023
when he failed to cancel the motion hearing set for 1:30 PM after being
served beforehand with a motion to disqualify as required by Fla. Stat sec.
41
38.10. Had Judge Brigham acted lawfully, the hearing would have been
canceled, there would be no allegation of direct criminal contempt, and
Judge Brigham would have recused himself as required by law.
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding
in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v.
United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated
"Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery
itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false
statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or
influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed
his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have
been directly corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does,
or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of
the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual
manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for
adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal
Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision
produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and
never becomes final."*
42
The Order Denying Defendant’s Motion To Withdraw Plea After
Sentencing (“Order”) Efiled May 10, 2023. (R 3418-3420), is another in a
series entered by Judge Brigham without lawful jurisdiction, produced by
fraud upon the court, and never becomes final.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED September 27, 2023
Neil Joseph Gillespie

Appellant pro se
2801 SW College Road, STE 3
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
43
AMENDED NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL - Section VII
NOTICE IS GIVEN of compliance with the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure 9.425, with respect to a constitutional challenge brought
pursuant to section 934.03 of the Florida Statutes, Interception of wire, oral,
or electronic communications prohibited. (R 3773-3971)
The Amended Notice separately accompanies this initial brief.
The Notice is amended with the affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, the
Appellant, regarding a jail Emessage received from his appointed counsel,
Doyle Gary Lashley, Jr., that states in relevant part:
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. On July 30, 2021, I was an incarcerated Defendant in the Marion

County Jail since May 10, 2021 in three Marion County Florida
criminal cases: 2019-CF-4193, 2020-CF-2417, and 2021-CF-286;
case 2020-CF-2417 was later nolle prosequi by the prosecutor on
April 28, 2022.
3. Case 2019-CF-4193 and case 2021-CF-286 each alleged I

violated Florida Statute 934.03, Interception and disclosure of wire,
oral, or electronic communications prohibited.
4. On July 30, 2021, Circuit Judge Peter Brigham failed to inform me

that he appointed on that day attorney Doyle Gary Lashley, Jr., FL
Bar ID 86786, to represent me.
5. On August 11, 2021, while incarcerated, I filed a pro se Complaint

in federal court for a Constitutional Challenge to Florida Statute
934.03, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
44
communications prohibited: Neil Joseph Gillespie v. State of Florida,
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, case no.
5:21-cv-00416-PGB-PRL.
6. On August 23, 2021 I learned that Judge Brigham had appointed

Mr. Lashley to represent me. I called Mr. Lashley later that day from
jail but he refused to take my phone call.
7. On August 24, 2021 I sent Mr. Lashley an Emessage from jail

asking him in part to “see case 5:21-cv-00416, U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division”.
8. On September 1, 2021 Mr. Lashley responded to me in jail with an

Emessage Case Update that stated: “5:21-cv-00416 is not relevant to
your criminal cases”. A paper copy of Mr. Lashley’s Emessage to me,
as provided to me by the jail, is attached to this affidavit.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
The Appellant asserts that case 5:21-cv-00416, U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, is relevant to his criminal cases,
and contends the failure of Mr. Lashley to acknowledge that fact, or assist
the Appellant with his defense thereto, is evidence of ineffective assistance
of counsel, and evidence of a denial of the Appellant’s right to effective
counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As of today the pending state prosecution in 2019-CF-4193 and
2021-CF-286 has not provided the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity
for vindication of his federal constitutional rights, contrary to the holding in
the Order (DOC 23) of United States District Judge Paul G. Byron.
45
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Section VIII
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished
on September 27, 2023 to the names below on the Florida Portal.
Office of the Attorney General Marion County Clerk

444 Seabreeze Blvd. Marion County Courthouse
5th Floor P.O. Box 1030
Daytona Beach, FL 32118 Ocala, FL 34478-1030
[email protected] [email protected]

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
46
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - Section IX
FOR COMPUTER-GENERATED BRIEFS
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this document was computer-generated
using Arial 14-point font (FRAP 9.045(b)), and is in compliance with the
word count and page limits of FRAP 9.210(a)(2)(B).
Respectfully submitted and served, September 27, 2023.

Petitioner pro se
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
47
Filing # 182766078 E-Filed 09/27/2023 11:44:34 PM

STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE,

Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
LT CASE NOS. 2022-CF-1143
STATE OF FLORIDA, 2019-CF-4193
___________________________/
AMENDED NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL

NOTICE IS GIVEN of compliance with the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure 9.425, with respect to a constitutional challenge brought
pursuant to section 934.03 of the Florida Statutes, Interception of wire, oral,
or electronic communications prohibited. This Notice is amended to include
the Appellant’s affidavit regarding a jail Emessage received from his
appointed counsel regarding the Constitutional Challenge.
The undersigned complied by serving Ashley Moody, Attorney
General for the State of Florida, and William Gladson, State Attorney for
the Fifth Judicial Circuit, with a waiver of service summons and complaint
challenging the constitutionality of section 934.03 of the Florida Statutes,
Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited , United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Neil Joseph
Gillespie v. State of Florida, case no. 5:21-CV-00416-PGB-PRL.

A Return of Service for Ashley Moody, Attorney General, is attached,
and shows service November 5, 2021 @10:24 AM at 107 W Gaines Street,
Tallahassee, FL 32399 by James Kady for ABC Legal.
A Return of Service for William Gladson, State Attorney for the Fifth
Judicial Circuit, is attached, and shows service November 5, 2021 @8:17
AM at Marion County Judicial Center, 110 NW 1st Ave Ste 5000 Ocala, FL
34475-6614, by Kenneth Kelley for ABC Legal.
On April 4, 2022, United States District Judge Paul G. Byron entered
the attached Order of Dismissal (DOC 23) without prejudice under the
Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), on the premise
that ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and
sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights.” Hughes
v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1264 n. 7 (11th Cir. 2004).
This Notice is amended with the attached affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie,
the Appellant, regarding a jail Emessage received from his appointed
counsel, Doyle Gary Lashley, Jr., that states in relevant part:
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. On July 30, 2021, I was an incarcerated Defendant in the Marion

County Jail since May 10, 2021 in three Marion County Florida
criminal cases: 2019-CF-4193, 2020-CF-2417, and 2021-CF-286;
2
case 2020-CF-2417 was later nolle prosequi by the prosecutor on

April 28, 2022.
3. Case 2019-CF-4193 and case 2021-CF-286 each alleged I

violated Florida Statute 934.03, Interception and disclosure of wire,
4. On July 30, 2021, Circuit Judge Peter Brigham failed to inform me

that he appointed on that day attorney Doyle Gary Lashley, Jr., FL
Bar ID 86786, to represent me.
5. On August 11, 2021, while incarcerated, I filed a pro se Complaint

in federal court for a Constitutional Challenge to Florida Statute
934.03, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
communications prohibited: Neil Joseph Gillespie v. State of Florida,
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, case no.
5:21-cv-00416-PGB-PRL.
6. On August 23, 2021 I learned that Judge Brigham had appointed

Mr. Lashley to represent me. I called Mr. Lashley later that day from
jail but he refused to take my phone call.
7. On August 24, 2021 I sent Mr. Lashley an Emessage from jail

asking him in part to “see case 5:21-cv-00416, U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division”.
8. On September 1, 2021 Mr. Lashley responded to me in jail with an

Emessage Case Update that stated: “5:21-cv-00416 is not relevant to
your criminal cases”. A paper copy of Mr. Lashley’s Emessage to me,
as provided to me by the jail, is attached to this affidavit.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
The Appellant asserts that case 5:21-cv-00416, U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, is relevant to his criminal cases,
and contends the failure of Mr. Lashley to acknowledge that fact, or assist
the Appellant with his defense thereto, is evidence of ineffective assistance
3
of counsel, and evidence of a denial of the Appellant’s right to effective
counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As of today the pending state prosecution in 2019-CF-4193 and
2021-CF-286 has not provided the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity
for vindication of his federal constitutional rights, contrary to the holding in
the Order (DOC 23) of United States District Judge Paul G. Byron.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED September 27, 2023.

2801 SW College Road, Ste 3
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY I furnished the foregoing on September 27,
2023 to the names below on the Florida Portal.

4
Court Stamp Here
RETURN OF SERVICE
Court MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION
Plaintiff Case #
5:21-CV-00416-PGB-PRL
Defendant Hearing Date

STATE OF FLORIDA
Person to be Served Came to Hand Date/Time

Ashley Moody, Florida State Attorney
11/05/2021 10:18 AM
Manner of Service Service Date/Time
Substitute
11/05/2021 10:24 AM
Documents Service Fee
SUMMONS;COMPLAINT
$75.00
On 11/05/2021 at:
107 W Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399 I served Ashley Moody, Florida State Attorney by:
Personally leaving 1 copy(ies) of SUMMONS and COMPLAINT at his/her usual place of abode with Regia Mompeller ,
who is 15 years of age or older, a person residing therein of who confirmed the Defendant resides at the above address
and informed that person of the contents thereof, with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me.
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE COPY OF THIS PROCESS WAS LEFT IS AS FOLLOWS:
I delivered the documents to Regia Mompeller who indicated they were the agency clerk, co-resident with
identity confirmed by subject stating their name. The individual accepted service with direct delivery. The
individual appeared to be a black-haired white female contact 45-55 years of age, 5'6"-5'8" tall and weighing 140-
160 lbs with glasses
Notary not required pursuant to F.S. 92.525(2).

I am over 18 years of age, not a party to nor interested in this case and I have the proper authority in the jurisdiction where I effected
service, pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 48. Per U.S. Code § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
065 / 065 / 065 / 065 /

065 / 065 11/05/2021
James Kady Process Server ID Date Executed
Ref REF-9086366 Tracking # 0078851100

Neil Gillespie
<[email protected]>
Court Stamp Here
RETURN OF SERVICE
Court MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION
Plaintiff Case #
5:21-CV-00416-PGB-PRL
Defendant Hearing Date

STATE OF FLORIDA
Person to be Served Came to Hand Date/Time

William McDonald Gladson, 5th Judicial District State Attorney
11/04/2021 1:56 PM
Manner of Service Service Date/Time
Substitute
11/05/2021 8:17 AM
Documents Service Fee
COMPLAINT;NOTICE OF A LAWSUIT AND REQUEST TO WAIVE SERVICE OF A
SUMMONS
$75.00
On 11/05/2021 at:
Marion County Judicial Center, 110 NW 1st Ave Ste 5000 Ocala, FL 34475-6614 I served William McDonald
Gladson, 5th Judicial District State Attorney by:
Personally leaving 1 copy(ies) of COMPLAINT and NOTICE OF A LAWSUIT AND REQUEST TO WAIVE SERVICE OF
A SUMMONS at his/her usual place of abode with KATHY DELTORO, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, who is 15 years
of age or older, a person residing therein of who confirmed the Defendant resides at the above address and informed that
person of the contents thereof, with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me.
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE COPY OF THIS PROCESS WAS LEFT IS AS FOLLOWS:
I delivered the documents to KATHY DELTORO, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT who indicated they were the
authorized employee with identity confirmed by subject stating their name. The individual accepted service with
direct delivery. The individual appeared to be a brown-haired white female contact 45-55 years of age, 5'4"-5'6"
tall and weighing 140-160 lbs with glasses
Notary not required pursuant to F.S. 92.525(2).

I am over 18 years of age, not a party to nor interested in this case and I have the proper authority in the jurisdiction where I effected
service, pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 48. Per U.S. Code § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
03-4-14
11/08/2021
Kenneth Kelley Process Server ID Date Executed
Ref REF-9086366 Tracking # 0078957598

Neil Gillespie
<[email protected]>
Case 5:21-cv-00416-PGB-PRL Document 23 Filed 04/04/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 310
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:21-cv-416-PGB-PRL
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee at the Marion County Jail proceeding pro se, initiated
this action by filing a civil rights complaint. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff complains that the statute
under which he is charged is unconstitutional. (Id.)
The case is currently before the Court for screening pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The PLRA requires the Court to dismiss a case if the Court
determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must liberally construe a pro se Plaintiff’s
allegations. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); see also Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F. 2d
986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981).
This Court must abstain from passing on Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Younger
v. Harris abstention doctrine. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “Under Younger v. Harris and its
1
progeny, federal district courts must refrain from enjoining pending state court
proceedings except under special circumstances.” Old Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Tillis
Trucking Co., Inc., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997). “The policy of equitable restraint
expressed in [Younger] . . . is founded on the premise that ordinarily a pending state
prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of
federal constitutional rights.” Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1264 n. 7 (11th
Cir. 2004).
The exceptions to Younger are very narrow and apply only if there is evidence of
state proceedings motivated by bad faith, irreparable injury would occur, or there is no
adequate alternative state forum where the plaintiff’s constitutional issues can be raised.
Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004). In his most recent filing,
received by the Court on March 10, 2022, Plaintiff has communicated that his state
criminal case is ongoing. (Doc. 22.) None of the Younger exceptions apply in the present
case.
For the reasons stated herein, the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending
motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Ocala, Florida, on April 4, 2022.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
SA: OCAP-2
Filing # 182766078 E-Filed 09/27/2023 11:44:34 PM

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
___________________________/
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES, Rule 9.900(k)
NOTICE IS GIVEN of Neil Joseph Gillespie v. State of Florida, case
no. 5D23-1176, and Neil Joseph Gillespie v. State of Florida, case no.
5D23-0888, both pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, are related to
this matter because the same facts from which the matters arise are similar
to the legal issues in this case.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED September 27, 2023.

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES, Rule 9.900(k)
I HEREBY CERTIFY I furnished the foregoing on September 27,
2023 to the names below on the Florida Portal.

2
Filing # 184880816 E-Filed 10/27/2023 08:54:26 AM
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Appellant,
RECEIVED, 10/27/2023 08:55:21 AM, Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeal
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_______________________/
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLEE'S ANSWER BRIEF
ASHLEY MOODY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
DOUGLAS T. SQUIRE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
FLORIDA BAR NO. 0088730
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

444 Seabreeze Blvd., Suite 500
Daytona Beach, Florida 32118
Telephone: (386)238-4990
Facsimile: (386)238-4997
[email protected]
[email protected]
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE(S)
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CITATIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ISSUE
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY

DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA. (Restated) . . 3
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . 9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
i
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES PAGES
Canakaris v. Canakaris,
382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Caso v. State,
524 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Daniels v. State,
177 So.3d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Knight v. State,
770 So.2d 663 (Fla. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Lopez v. State,
536 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Powell v. State,
929 So.2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Savage v. State,
156 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
State v. Barber,
301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Stewart v. State,
315 So.3d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
OTHER
§924.051(7), Fla. Stat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fla. R. App. P. 9.045 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
With respect to the issue raised on appeal, Appellee offers the
following relevant additions to Appellant's statement of the case and facts.
In addition to filing a motion to revoke appointment of counsel
because he was not indigent, and a motion to refuse counsel and appear
pro se, Appellant filed at least six (6) waivers of his right to a lawyer. (R. at
pp. 510-511, 611-613, 833-834, 1034-1035, 2374, 2450, 2548, 2906).
Further, on February 17, 2023, during the hearing on stand-by counsel’s
motion to withdraw, Appellant stated that he wanted the assistance of
counsel, and that it would be an attorney that he “hire[d] and paid for.”
The trial court informed Appellant that Appellant was free to do that at any
time, and that the trial court did not control that. (R. at p. 3340). Finally, the
record shows that Appellant had the assistance of “stand-by” counsel,
Marcus Murden, Esquire, at the March 20, 2023, change of plea hearing.
Appellant was asked whether counsel, who was “standing right next to”
Appellant, had answered Appellant’s questions and had done what was
asked by Appellant to Appellant’s satisfaction, and Appellant answered in
the affirmative. (R. at pp. 3352-3353).
1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to summarily deny
Appellant's motion to withdraw plea, because Appellant's motion was
facially insufficient.
2
ARGUMENT
ISSUE
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS

DISCRETION BY DENYING APPELLANT'S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA. (Restated).
Standard of Review
The standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw
plea is abuse of discretion. Stewart v. State, 315 So.3d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2021). However, this standard of review only applies if the issue or
argument which appellant makes here was properly presented to the trial
court for resolution. State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974). Below,
Appellant filed a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing. (R. at pp. 3293-
3303).
Abuse of Discretion
In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (citing
Delno v. Market Street Railway Company, 124 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir.
1942)), the Florida Supreme Court defined abuse of discretion in the
following manner:
Discretion, in this sense, is abused when the judicial

action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another
way of saying that discretion is abused only where no
reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.
If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action
3
taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and
there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.
Thus, "discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would
take the view adopted by the trial court." Id. The appellate court must fully
recognize the superior vantage point of the trial judge and should apply the
"reasonableness test" to determine whether the trial judge abused his
discretion. Id. The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed
only when his decision fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness.
Presumption of Correctness and Burden of Persuasion
Because judgments are presumed correct, Appellant bears the
burden of persuading this Honorable Court of reversible error. Savage v.
State, 156 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Section 924.051(7) of the
Florida Statutes provides that,
In a direct appeal or a collateral proceeding, the party

challenging the judgment or order of the trial court has the
burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the
trial court. A conviction or sentence may not be reversed
absent an express finding that a prejudicial error occurred in
the trial court.
Moreover, it is the lower court's decision, not its reasoning, that is
presumed correct, and on appeal the decision will be affirmed if there is
any basis in the record for doing so. Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 424
(Fla. 1988).
4
Merits
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to
withdraw plea. The State disagrees.
"The burden of proving a trial court abused its discretion in refusing
to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea is on the defendant. After imposition of
sentence, that burden means that a defendant must show manifest
injustice." Lopez v. State, 536 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla. 1988)(internal citations
omitted).
Appellant spends much of his initial brief challenging the trial court’s
jurisdiction based on Appellant’s filing of a motion to disqualify on January
3, 2023; however, Appellant’s petition for writ of prohibition, challenging the
trial court’s jurisdiction over Appellant based on Appellant’s January 3,
2023, motion to disqualify, was denied on the merits by this Court on June
28, 2023. (Case No. 5D23-814). “Because this same claim was earlier
considered by the court and rejected on the merits, the present [challenge]
is procedurally barred under the doctrine of law of the case ....” Daniels v.
State, 177 So.3d 101, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
Regarding the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to withdraw
plea after sentencing, Appellant argues that he had a right to counsel prior
to entering his plea, and that he did not validly waive his right to counsel
5
prior to entering his plea. Appellant’s claim(s) are belied by the record on
appeal.
In addition to filing a motion to revoke appointment of counsel
because he was not indigent, and a motion to refuse counsel and appear
pro se, Appellant filed at least six (6) waivers of his right to a lawyer. (R. at
pp. 510-511, 611-613, 833-834, 1034-1035, 2374, 2450, 2548, 2906).
Further, on February 17, 2023, during the hearing on stand-by counsel’s
motion to withdraw, Appellant stated that he wanted the assistance of
counsel, and that it would be an attorney that he “hire[d] and paid for.”
The trial court informed Appellant that Appellant was free to do that at any
time, and that the trial court did not control that. (R. at p. 3340). Finally, the
record shows that Appellant had the assistance of “stand-by” counsel,
Marcus Murden, Esquire, at the March 20, 2023, change of plea hearing.
Appellant was asked whether counsel, who was “standing right next to”
Appellant, had answered Appellant’s questions and had done what was
asked by Appellant to Appellant’s satisfaction, and Appellant answered in
the affirmative. (R. at pp. 3352-3353). Clearly, the record shows that
Appellant was well aware of his right to appointed counsel, and that the
trial court had made every effort to see that the assistance of counsel was
available to Appellant at the change of plea hearing. On this record,
6
Appellant’s allegation that he was denied the assistance of counsel without
a valid waiver was without supporting proof and failed to show that his plea
was not voluntarily entered; therefore, the trial court properly denied
Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea, because it was facially insufficient.
See, e.g., Powell v. State, 929 So.2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (held that
Powell’s motion was facially insufficient because it failed to allege that
withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice). See
also Knight v. State, 770 So.2d 663, 670 (Fla. 2000) (“Standby counsel is a
constant reminder to a self-representing defendant of his right to
court-appointed counsel at any stage of the proceeding.”).
Regarding Appellant’s arguments addressing his direct criminal
contempt conviction and sentence, that separate offense is on direct
appeal in this Court in Case No. 5D23-888, and is not properly addressed
in this case.
7
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussions, the State respectfully requests
this Honorable Court affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence entered in
this case.
8
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished by e-mail to: Neil
Joseph Gillespie, Appellant, 2801 SW College Rd. Ste 3, Ocala, Florida
34474, by e-mail ([email protected]), on October 27, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
ASHLEY MOODY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/Douglas T. Squire
DOUGLAS T. SQUIRE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Florida Bar No. 0088730
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

444 Seabreeze Blvd., Suite 500
Daytona Beach, Florida 32118
Telephone: (386)238-4990
Facsimile: (386)238-4997
[email protected]
[email protected]
9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief complies with the applicable font and word
count limit formatting requirements of Fla. R. App. P. 9.045.
/s/Douglas T. Squire
Douglas T. Squire
Attorney for State of Florida
DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES
I hereby designate the following e-mail addresses for the purpose of
service of all documents required to be served pursuant to Rule 2.516 in
this proceeding:
Primary e-mail address: [email protected];
Secondary e-mail address: [email protected]
10
Filing # 187223371 E-Filed 12/01/2023 11:41:45 PM

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant, pro se,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005

LT NO. 2022-CF-1143
STATE OF FLORIDA 2021-CF-286
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Date: December 1, 2023

Petitioner, pro se
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel. 352-239-9037
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................ i
TABLE OF CITATIONS .................................................................. ii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................. 5
ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 8
ISSUES
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA
APPELLANT’S PLEAS OF NO CONTEST MADE ON MARCH 20, 2023

WHILE HELD IN THE MARION COUNTY JAIL ON NO BOND VIOLATED
HIS RIGHTS AS A DEFENDANT, WERE UNJUST, RESULTED IN
UNLAWFUL SENTENCES, AND WERE A MANIFEST UNJUSTICE
UNDER THE HOLDING IN MILLER V STATE OF FLORIDA, 5D23-0846,

THIS COURT SHOULD OVERTURN APPELLANT’S JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE, AND INSTRUCT THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER
JUDGMENTS OF NOT GUILTY IN HIS FAVOR ON ALL CASES
CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................. 14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 15
i
TABLE OF CITATIONS
page
Article VI, cl 2 U.S. Const. Supremacy Clause 1, 9, 19, 11

Article VI, cl 3 U.S. Const. Supremacy Clause 10
Amend. V, US Const, Due Process 3, 5, 11

Amend. XIV, US Const, Due Process 3, 5, 11
Amend. VI, US Const, Right to Counsel
18 USC 2511 (2)( d), Interception and disclosure of wire, 1, 9, 10, 11

FL Bar R. 4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor 3, 11
ABA Rule 3.8, Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3, 11
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 2, 3, 5, 11
Fla. Stat. 776.032, Claim of Immunity 2, 5, 11
Oren Miller v. State of Florida, No. 5D23-0846 5, 6, 7
Robles v. State, 336 So.3d 378 (2022) 1, 4, 8
Merchant v. Woods, et al, U.S. District Court, 6

MD Florida, Case No. 5:23-cv-00661-JSM-PRL
Whitley v. Woods et al, U.S. District Court, 7

MD Florida, Case No. 5:23-cv-00684-JSM-PRL
ii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
The Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing (“Motion”)
(R 3294-3303) alleged at paragraph 6 that withdrawal of his plea is
necessary to correct a manifest injustice (R 3295). The Appellant’s pleas of
no contest made on March 20, 2023 while held in the Marion County Jail
on no bond violated his rights as a Defendant, were unjust, and resulted in
unlawful sentences. (R 3294). Separately the Appellant alleged that the
trial judge lacked jurisdiction after being served a motion to disqualify on
January 3, 2023. (R 3294). Regarding unlawful sentences, the Appellant
alleged at paragraph 3 (R 3294).

cases (2019-CF-4193 and 2021-CF-0286) are lawfully permitted, so
The Appellant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Case 2019-CF-4193
appears at R 3047-3052. The Appellant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss
Case 2021-CF-0286 appears at R 3075-3080.
1
Tellingly, the Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea after Sentencing
shows a suspect timeline at paragraph 12 (R 3297):
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.
The Appellant alleged at paragraph 4 of the Motion: (R 3294)

The Appellant’s claim of immunity appears at R 3053.
The Initial Brief (13-15) shows the trial judge is biased against the
Appellant because he is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania.
The Initial Brief (36-38) shows the trial judge is biased against pro se
Defendants. (R 3153-3156). The Appellant appeared pro se.
The Initial Brief (16) shows the trial judge is a former Assistant State
Attorney for the Florida Fifth Judicial Circuit.
The record shows Defendant’s Notice of Prosecutorial Misconduct
filed in cases 2021CF286 and 2019CF4193 (R 3694-3731) regarding the
Appellant’s one-party consent telephone recording, and multiple violations
by the SAO of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2
The State violated the civil rights of the Appellant, including his right
to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
violated the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, R. Regul. FL. Bar 4-
3.8, and the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, Rule 3.8, Model
Rules of Professional Conduct of the ABA. (R3694-3731) Also see the
Appendix at R 3732-3772, and the Appendix at R 3773-3971.
filed in case 2022CF1143 (R 3464-3487). The State violated the civil rights
of the Appellant including his right to due process under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, failed to provide Brady information in
this case, violated the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, R. Regul.
FL. Bar 4-3.8, and violated the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor,
Rule 3.8, Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the ABA.
Evidence shows the Appellant’s court appointed counsel D. Gary
Lashley, Jr., failed to provide zealous and competent representation, and
that the State Attorney's Office and the Court cooperated with Lashley in
denying the Appellant his right to counsel under the U.S. Six Amendment.
Also see the Appendix at R 3488-3506, and the Appendix at R3507-3693.
entering a no contest plea. The court's deprivation of the Defendant's right
3
prejudice and manifest injustice. Robles v. State, 336 So.3d 378 (2022).
Regarding the State’s assertions about the Appellant waiving counsel
in its Answer, the Appellant prudently waived ineffective counsel who were
acting as shills for the prosecution.
Regarding this assertion in the State’s Answer on page 1,
Finally, the record shows that Appellant had the assistance of “stand-
by” counsel, Marcus Murden, Esquire, at the March 20, 2023, change
of plea hearing. Appellant was asked whether counsel, who was
“standing right next to” Appellant, had answered Appellant’s
questions and had done what was asked by Appellant to Appellant’s
satisfaction, and Appellant answered in the affirmative. (R. at pp.
3352-3353).
The Appellant appeared pro se on March 20, 2023.
Mr. Murden did not appear as “stand-by” counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Murden was in court that day to represent another client.
The Appellant hired Mr. Murden solely to schedule a hearing. The
scope of the representation was limited to scheduling a hearing. The
Appellant did not discuss any legal matters with Mr. Murden.
Mr. Murden did what the Appellant asked: He scheduled a hearing.
The only question Mr. Murden answered for the Appellant was to inform
him of the date and time of the hearing.
4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing alleges at
paragraph 6 that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest
injustice (R 3295). The Appellant’s pleas of no contest made on March 20,
2023 while held in the Marion County Jail on no bond violated his rights as
a Defendant to due process, were unjust, and resulted in unlawful
sentences. (R 3294). Separately the Appellant alleged that the trial judge
lacked jurisdiction after being served a motion to disqualify on January 3,
2023. (R 3294). Therefore, the Appellant’s motion is legally sufficient.
In the matter of Oren Miller v. State of Florida, Case No. 5D23-0846,
LT Case No. 2021-CF-4602-A, this Court overturned a Jury conviction on
November 9, 2023, with instructions that the trial court enter a judgment of
not guilty in favor of Miller.
The Appellant believes this Court should grant his motion to
withdrawal his plea of no contest after sentencing, rule on the pending
motions to dismiss, and instruct the trial court to enter a judgment of not
guilty in favor of the Appellant.
Oren Miller was quoted in a news story February 5, 2023 by Ryan
Grim of The Intercept about his time in the Marion County Jail, see
https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-villages-oren-miller/
5
The last 74 days had been an ordeal. There are about 1,800 people
in the county’s lockup facility; Miller was in a pod with 80, he said, but
there were just 56 seats for meals. On his first day, a jailmate offered
to adopt him and get him a seat at meals in exchange for some of his
food, a bargain he eagerly accepted. On the second day, he said, he
won protection from a gang leader. “Oren Miller, you are protected in
here because you’re a senior citizen,” the man said, according to
Miller. “‘But understand, don’t cross any lines.’ … And so I minded my
p’s and q’s.” Violence broke out regularly, Miller recounted, and he
watched two men beaten nearly to death. He moved to try to break
up the first fight, but two men held him back, explaining that if he got
involved, he’d be called later as a witness, and you don’t want to be a
witness against somebody who sleeps in the same open room as
you. So he let them fight.
Miller went days without his heart or thyroid medication, and grew
weak and dizzy. Complaining of chest pain, he was eventually given
an EKG, which the staff told him showed no problems. “My EKG
hasn’t been good in 15 years,” he said. “I will never have a good
EKG. I’ve got an irregular heartbeat all the time.” He said they gave
him medication despite claiming to detect no heart trouble — the
same type of heart medication he’d been prescribed but hadn’t been
getting.
On November 6, 2023, Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods was sued
in federal court for the wrongful death of inmate Cory Merchant, see
Merchant v. Woods, et al, U.S. District Court, Middle District of

Florida (Ocala), Case No. 5:23-cv-00661-JSM-PRL
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Krysti Merchant as Personal
Representative for the estate of Cory Merchant, against Defendant Billy
Woods, Sheriff of Marion County, Florida, in his official capacity, Defendant
Justin Kosinski, Deputy, Defendant Joseph Miller, Deputy, and Defendant
Jerome Dukes, Sergeant.
6
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Murray Slater, Slater Legal PLLC, Tallahassee, FL

Bhavani K. Raveendran, Romanucci & Blandin LLC, Chicago, IL
Sam Harton, Romanucci & Blandin, Chicago, IL 60654
On November 27, 2023, Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods was sued
in federal court for the wrongful death of inmate Scott L. Whitley, III, see,
Whitley v. Woods et al, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida

(Ocala), Case No. 5:23-cv-00684-JSM-PRL
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Pamela C. Whitley, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Scott L. Whitley, III, on behalf of the Estate,
and Scott L. Whitley, Jr. and Margaret M. Whitley, survivors. against
Defendant Billy Woods, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Marion County,
Florida, and the following Defendants:
Defendant: Robert Andrew Walters, Captain

Defendant: Ashleigh Snodgrass, Sargent
Defendant: Arnault Canelle, Corporal
Defendant: Jordon Ortega, Corporal
Defendant: Carl Holmer, Deputy
Defendant: Christopher Kristensen, Deputy
Defendant: Xavier McMiller, Deputy
Defendant: Demontra Smith, Deputy
Defendant: Sa'Quan Wyman, Deputy
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Evan Levine, Stewart, Tilghman, Fox & Bianchi, PA, Miami, FL
James Murray Slater, Slater Legal PLLC, Tallahassee, FL
7
ARGUMENT
The Appellant did not validly waive assistance of counsel on March
20, 2023. The court's deprivation of the Defendant's right to assistance of
counsel without valid waiver was sufficient to constitute prejudice and
manifest injustice. Robles v. State, 336 So.3d 378 (2022).
Regarding the State’s assertions about the Appellant waiving counsel
in its Answer, the Appellant prudently waived ineffective counsel who were
acting as shills for the prosecution.
The Appellant appeared pro se on March 20, 2023. Mr. Murden did
not appear as “stand-by” counsel for the Appellant. Mr. Murden was in
court that day to represent another client.
As set forth in the Appellant’s Constitutional Challenge of Florida
Statute 934.03, Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic
Communication Prohibited, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida,
Ocala Division, Case No. 5:21-cv-416-PGB-PRL, (R 3773-3971), 934.03 is
unconstitutional and cannot serve as a basis for a judgment and sentence.
The Appellant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Case 2019-CF-4193
appears at R 3047-3052. The Appellant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss
Case 2021-CF-0286 appears at R 3075-3080. Regarding unlawful
sentences, the Appellant alleged at paragraph 3 of his motion (R 3294).
8
cases (2019-CF-4193 and 2021-CF-0286) are lawfully permitted, so
As a citizen of the United States, Appellant has rights and protections
available to him under the constitution and laws of the United States.
Federal law permits one-party consent to record calls (18 U.S.C.
2511(2)(d)) Under F.S. 934.02(22) Definitions, “state” means any state of the
United Statesm the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
or any other possession or treaty of the United States.
The Constitution and laws of the United States are the “Supreme Law
of the Land”, Art. VI, cl. 2, U.S. Const., the “Supremacy Clause”:
Thus 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 Sate shall be bound
thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the
contrary not withstanding.
9
Under Art. VI, cl. 3, U.S. Const., “All...judicial officers, both of the
United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or
affirmation, to support this Constitution.
Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication is lawful under
federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) where one person is a party to the
communication, and not acting under color of law.
The Appellant did not act under color of law
Title 18, Chapter 119 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) states at 18
U.S.C.(2)(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.
Therefore, Appellant did not unlawfully intercept oral communication
under federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) because he was a party to the
communication and was not acting under color of law.
Under the U.S. Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, U.S. Const., 18
U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is the Supreme Law of the Land, and must be followed
by every state court judge in the United States, including every judge in
Marion County and Florida.
10
Because 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is the Supreme Law of the Land in the
United States, and must be followed by every state court judge, Appellant
did not unlawfully intercept communications as stated in the probable
cause affidavit in case 2019CF4193, and Gillespie did not unlawfully
intercept communication as stated in the probable cause affidavit in case
2021CF286. As such, the undisputed material facts of case 2019CF4193
and case 2021CF286 fail to establish a prima facie case of guilt against the
Appellant. F.S. 934.03 is unconstitutional under the Constitution and laws
of the United States.
The Appellant alleged at paragraph 4 of the Motion: (R 3294)

The Appellant’s claim of immunity appears at R 3053.
filed in case 2022CF1143 (R 3464-3487). The State violated the civil rights
of the Appellant including his right to due process under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, failed to provide Brady information in
this case, violated the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, R. Regul.
FL. Bar 4-3.8, and violated the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor,
Rule 3.8, Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the ABA.
11
The Initial Brief (13-15) shows the trial judge is biased against the
Appellant because he is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania.
The Initial Brief (36-38) shows the trial judge is biased against pro se
Defendants. (R 3153-3156). The Appellant appeared pro se.
12
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Appellant respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to overturn the Appellant’s judgment and sentence in
cases 2019-CF-4193 and 2021-CF-0286 rule on the pending motions to
dismiss, and instruct the trial court to enter a judgment of not guilty in favor
of the Appellant in cases 2019-CF-4193 and 2021-CF-0286.
Honorable Court to overturn the Appellant’s judgment and sentence in case
2022-CF-1143, grant him immunity from prosecution, and instruct the trial
court to enter a judgment of not guilty in favor of the Appellant in case
2022-CF-1143.
Honorable Court to overturn the Appellant’s judgment and sentence for
direct criminal contempt, and instruct the trial court to enter a judgment of
not guilty of criminal contempt in favor of the Appellant.
13
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished
on December 1, 2023 to the names below on the Florida Portal.
DOUGLAS T. SQUIRE
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
444 Seabreeze Blvd.
5th Floor
Daytona Beach, FL 32118
[email protected]
[email protected]

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
FOR COMPUTER-GENERATED BRIEFS
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this document was computer-generated
using Arial 14-point font (FRAP 9.045(b)), and is in compliance with the
word count and page limits of FRAP 9.210(a)(2)(B).
Respectfully submitted and served, December 1, 2023.

Petitioner pro se
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
15
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
LT CASE NO. 2022-CF-1143,
2019-CF-4193, 2021-CF-286
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________
DATE: December 26, 2023
NOTICE OF PANEL ASSIGNMENT
This is to advise you that this cause has been assigned to the
following panel of judges, listed in their order of seniority:
HONORABLE SCOTT MAKAR

HONORABLE HARVEY L. JAY
HONORABLE ADRIAN G. SOUD
Please be advised that the panel composition is subject to change at

any time and without further notice.

(a true copy of) the original Court order.
cc:
Douglas T. Squire Neil Joseph Gillespie
Filing # 188888158 E-Filed 01/02/2024 10:07:47 AM

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
___________________________/
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY, RULE 9.900(j)
Appellant Neil Joseph Gillespie, a nonlawyer appearing pro se,
submits as supplemental authority the Order of Marion County Circuit
Judge Peter M. Brigham, a copy of which is attached to this notice, and
appearing in the Record on Appeal in 5D23-2005 (R: 3045-3046).
Judge Brigham’s Order Granting Pro Se Motion To Waive
Confidentiality For Psychological Evaluation (“Order”) shows evidence of
fraud upon the court, or judicial incompetence, in the following particulars:
1. The Order, Filing #164229700, was E-Filed 01/06/2023 (R: 3045-3046).
2. The Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents (copy attached) shows

the Order, Filing #164229700, was E-Filed 01/06/2023 by Judge Brigham.
3. The Order (R: 3045-3046) shows it was signed by Judge Brigham on

December 5, 2022. This date is prior to the hearing January 3, 2023 on the
Appellant’s Motion To Waive Confidentiality For Psychological Evaluation
E-Filed 06/13/2022. (R: 2983-3000).
4. The Certificate of Service for the Order (R: 3045-3046) shows it was
served November 28, 2022, a date prior to when the Order was signed on
December 5, 2023 by Judge Brigham.
5. Therefore the Order signed by Judge Brigham December 5, 2023 (R:

3045-3046) would negate the need for a hearing on January 3, 2023,
because the matter had previously been decided by the judge, and Judge
Brigham had already signed the Order. (R. 3045-3046).
6. The Certificate of Service for the Order (R: 3045-3046) dated November
28, 2022 is evidence of either fraud on the court, or incompetence.
The Appellant became aware of this issue January 1, 2024 while
preparing to post the Order and related court documents online. The
Appellant is legally blind in his left eye (20/400), shown on the attached eye
glass prescription done December 7, 2022 by Dr. Amber Aria of MyEyeDr.,
11100 SW 93rd Court Road, #203, Ocala, FL 34481. The Appellant’s vision
disability prevented him from noticing this issue with the Order sooner.
The supplemental authority is pertinent to the issue on appeal
because the Order (R: 3045-3046) shows Judge Brigham had previously
granted the Appellant’s Motion To Waive Confidentiality For Psychological
Evaluation (R: 2983-3000) and had already signed the Order on December
5, 2022, almost a month prior to the hearing on the motion held January 3,
2023. Therefore the January 3 hearing was unnecessary.
The Appellant moved to disqualify Judge Brigham on January 3,
2023, prior to the hearing. (R. 3022-3034). Fla. Stat. 38.10, Disqualification
of judge, states in relevant part, “whenever a party to any action or
proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not
2
receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the
prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the
adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further...”. Once Judge Brigham
was served with a motion and affidavit to disqualify, the Judge was
required to “proceed no further” and cancel the hearing, as he had not yet
ruled on the motion to disqualify him. (Judge Brigham later denied the
motion to disqualify him as trial judge on January 5, 2023; R. 3041-3042).
Judge Brigham did not cancel the hearing on January 3, 2023 as the
law required he do under Fla. Stat. sec. 38.10. Instead, Judge Brigham
proceeded with the hearing. Then, 22 days later on January 25, 2023,
Judge Brigham held the Appellant in direct criminal contempt for allegedly
shouting at him so violently 22 days prior on January 3, 2023 as to require
the felony prosecution of Defendant Neil Gillespie for direct criminal
contempt, and to incarcerate him for 30 days in the Marion County Jail.
However, Gillespie was not released upon completion of his 30 day
contempt sentence. Instead, Judge Brigham set this scheme in motion:
• On January 31, 2023 Assistant State Attorney Yaveth Parodi moved to
revoke the Defendant’s bond, citing the contempt as a new crime
committed while he was out on bond. (R. 4050) and,
Motion To Revoke Bond, 2019-CF-4193 (R. 3130-3135)

3
• On February 20, 2023, Judge Brigham entered ORDER TO REVOKE
BOND, and Ordered "that the Defendant be held on NO BOND status
until further Order of this Court". (R. 4050) and,
Order To Revoke Bond, 2019-CF-4193 (R. 3192-3193)

• On March 20, 2023, the Defendant, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, pled
nolo contendere to his pending charges to get out of jail, to be released
from incarceration, so he could pay his rent (or become homeless),
make his car payment, and get medical care not provided in jail.
• On April 19, 2023, the Defendant, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, filed a
Motion To Withdraw Plea After Sentencing, see MOTION TO
WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING, Filing #171386451 E-Filed
04/19/2023 at 11:05:33 PM. (R. 3294-3303)
• On May 9, 2023, Judge Peter Brigham entered ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA AFTER SENTENCING
without a hearing. (R. 3418-3420)
• On June 7, 2023 the Defendant, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, gave
Notice of Appeal to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal of the Order
4
Denying Defendant's Motion To Withdrawal Plea After Sentencing
entered May 9, 2023 by Judge Peter Brigham. (R. 3437-3457)
• The Defendant's appeal is docketed in this Court, case no. 5D23-0888.
Regarding the Psychological Evaluation of the Defendant Neil Joseph
Gillespie (R. 2970-2974), Dr. Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D., appointed by
Judge Brigham to do the evaluation, wrote in part:
“Mr. Gillespie was affable and cooperative, interactive with me and

showed no deficits.” (R. 2972).
“In my opinion Mr. Gillespie is Competent to Proceed.” (R. 2972).
“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. (R. 2972).
“He described his time in jail, losing weight, some of his medical
illnesses subsiding because he lost over 100 pounds.” (R. 2973)
“It is my opinion that he is Competent to Proceed and nothing impairs

his ability to proceed with his case.” (R. 2973)
On December 27, 2023, in Appeal No, 5D23-1176, the Appellant filed
a motion for rehearing en banc, Fla. R. App. P. 9.331(d)(1), on the grounds
that the issue of habeas corpus is of exceptional importance, the right of an
inmate, detainee, or contemptor to challenge their confinement, in a
dangerous jail, as enshrined in Art. I, § 13, Fla. Const., Habeas corpus.
5
The Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (petition) (R 21-
24, 5D23-1176) challenged the Court's (Judge Brigham) jurisdiction over
the Defendant Neil Joseph Gillespie in his criminal cases after a motion to
disqualify the trial judge was served January 3, 2023, prior to a hearing that
day at 1:30 PM. Without jurisdiction, the Court would lack the authority to
proceed on January 3, 2023. In the absence of that authority the Court
would be prohibited 22 days later, after the fact on January 25, 2023, to
decide Gillespie did something so outrageous 22 days earlier that justified
his incarceration on no bond. The petition was a new civil action to test the
incarceration of Gillespie in the Marion County Jail.
As shown on page one of this Notice of Supplemental Authority, and
on the attached Order of Judge Brigham Granting Pro Se Motion To Waive
Confidentiality For Psychological Evaluation, appearing in the Record on
Appeal in 5D23-2005 (R: 3045-3046), the Order shows evidence of fraud
upon the court, or judicial incompetence, in the following particulars:
• The Order, Filing #164229700, was E-Filed 01/06/2023 (R: 3045-3046).
• The Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents (attached) shows the

Order, Filing #164229700, was E-Filed 01/06/2023 by Judge Brigham.
• The Order (R: 3045-3046) shows it was signed by Judge Brigham on

December 5, 2022. This date is prior to the hearing January 3, 2023 on
the Appellant’s Motion To Waive Confidentiality For Psychological
Evaluation E-Filed 06/13/2022. (R: 2983-3000).
6
• The Certificate of Service for the Order (R: 3045-3046) shows it was
served November 28, 2022, a date prior to when the Order was signed
on December 5, 2023 by Judge Brigham.
• Therefore the Order signed by Judge Brigham December 5, 2023 (R:

3045-3046) would negate the need for a hearing on January 3, 2023,
because the matter had previously been decided by the judge, and
Judge Brigham had already signed the Order. (R. 3045-3046).
• The Certificate of Service for the Order (R: 3045-3046) dated November
28, 2022 is evidence of either fraud on the court, or incompetence.
“Fraud upon the court is an egregious offense against the integrity of
the judicial system and is more than a simple assertion of facts in a
pleading which might later fail for lack of proof.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.
Reeves, 92 So. 3d 249, 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
“The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on truthful
disclosure of facts. A system that depends on an adversary's ability to
uncover falsehoods is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct
must be discouraged in the strongest possible way. . . . This is an area
where the trial court is and should be vested with discretion to fashion the
apt remedy.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
NOTE: The Integrity of the criminal justice system depends on an
honest and competent trial judge. As noted by Robert Craig Walters, in
“Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be Subject to
7
Suit?, Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987), cited in the Appellant’s Initial
Brief in 5D23-2005, on page 41, about “serious threats to individual liberty”:
“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....”
"In Florida what constitutes 'Fraud upon the Court'." This occurs
when, "...a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme
calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to
adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly
hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense." Cox
v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil
Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1 st Cir. 1989).
“Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding
in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court"”. In Bulloch v.
United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated
"Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery
itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false
statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or
influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed
his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have
8
been directly corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does,
or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of
the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual
manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for
adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal
Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision
produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and
never becomes final."
“It is beyond question that a federal court may investigate a question
as to whether there was fraud in the procurement of a judgment.” Universal
Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 90
L.Ed. 1447. “This is to be done in adversary proceedings as in the case
before us.” See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S.
238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307
U.S. 161, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184; and United States v. Throckmorton,
98 U.S. (8 Otto) 61, 25 L.Ed. 93.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED January 2, 2024
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Appellant pro se

9
Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
I HEREBY CERTIFY I furnished the foregoing on January 2, 2024 to
the names below on the Florida Portal.
DOUGLAS T. SQUIRE
Assistant Attorney General
[email protected]
10
Filing# 164229700 E-Filed 01/06/2023 12:02:34 PM
IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIIE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MAR.ION COUNTY
STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 2019-CF-004193-A

2020-CF-002417-A
2021-CF-000286-A
2022-CF-001143-A
vs
ORDER GRANTING PRO SE MOTION TOW AIVE CONFIDENTIALITY FOR

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon Defendant's PRO SE MOTION TO
WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION, and the Court
having considered same, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's PRO SE MOTION TO WAIVE
CONFIDENTIALITY FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION be, and the same is hereby
granted.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the entire 5-pagc 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.
DONE AND ORDERED at Ocala, Marion County, Florida, this the 5th day of
7/L
December, 2022.
PETER MATTIIEW BRJGIIAM --===

CIRCUIT JUDGE
Electronically Filed Marion Case# 19CF004193AX 01/06/2023 12:02:34 PM M-2019-50323-A
Page 3045
CER'ITFICATE OP SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy ofthc above has been furnished to NEIL GILLESPIB 8092
SW 115TH LOOP OCALA, FL 344813567, Office of the State Attorney 110 NW 1 Ave, Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475 [email protected], by hand or mail delivery or electronic service, this 28th day
of November, 2022.
~io91ftllill'ill'1"r.tr.""'3-a----
Judicial Assistanl/Ilspu1y Clerk
M-2019-50323-A
Page 3046
1/17/23, 12:25 AM Yahoo Mail - SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 422019CF004193CFAXXX STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLES…
SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 422019CF004193CFAXXX STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL
JOSEPH
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 at 12:02 PM EST
Notice of Service of Court Documents
Filing Information
Filing #: 164229700
Filing Time: 01/06/2023 12:02:34 PM ET
Filer: Peter Matthew Brigham 352-401-7810
Court: Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County, Florida
Case #: 422019CF004193CFAXXX
Court Case #: 19CF004193AX
Case Style: STATE OF FLORIDA VS GILLESPIE, NEIL JOSEPH
Documents
Title File
Order Not To Be Recorded eval .pdf
E-service recipients selected for service:
Name Email Address

Alicia Winterkorn [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Brenda H Smith [email protected]
Danielle B Ruse [email protected]
Doyle Gary Lashley Jr. [email protected]
Justice Administrative Commission [email protected]
Erik John Rauba [email protected]
Jared R Gainey [email protected]
Joshua A Woodard [email protected]
Office of Crim. Conflict & Civil Regional Cousel [email protected]
Office of the State Attorney [email protected]
Dr. Harry Krop [email protected]
Brenda H Smith [email protected]
Kristina Belanger [email protected]
Mark Dale Simpson [email protected]
Michael Adam Smith Jr. [email protected]
Neil J. Gillespie [email protected]
Jonathan Lin [email protected]
Kristina Valdez [email protected]
Rip Colvin JAC Executive Director [email protected]
Justice Administrative Commission [email protected]
John Tomasino, FSC Clerk [email protected]
David R. Ellspermann, Clerk [email protected]
Greg Harrell, General Counsel [email protected]
Michael Graves, Public Defender [email protected]
Chief Frank Talbot, DOJ-MDFL [email protected]
Deputy Chief Kelly S. Karase [email protected]
Civil Rights Division, MDFL [email protected]
Rick Swearingen FDLE [email protected]
about:blank 1/3
Name Email Address

FBI Tampa Division [email protected]
FBI Jacksonville Division [email protected]
Mark Gillespie [email protected]
Wesley Heidt, Office of the Attorney General [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorney General for Constitutional Challenge [email protected]
Chief Judge Daniel B. Merritt, Jr. [email protected]
TONIA WERNER, MD [email protected]
Donald Savoie, Registered Agent [email protected]
Dustin W. Metz, Senior Attorney II [email protected]
Joshua E. Doyle Executive Direrctor [email protected]
Brittany Quinlan Assistant Attorney General [email protected]
[email protected]
Richard D. Courtemanche Jr. Deputy General [email protected]
Counsel
Blan L. Teagle Executive Director [email protected]
[email protected]
Molly J. Paris, Esq., Assistant Director [email protected]
[email protected]
Wynn Smith Vickers Registered Agent and Treasurer [email protected]
Jacqueline Paige Beddow ESQ [email protected]
Carla Sue Grant [email protected]
[email protected]
Katherine Elizabeth Curham ESQ [email protected]
Jeffery K. Fuller ESQ [email protected]
Roy Lee Wolgamuth ESQ [email protected]
Zuleyma Vargas [email protected]
Sandra Tatti [email protected]
Florida Office of Attorney General, Daytona Beach [email protected]
Judge Gary L. Sanders [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT [email protected]
Peter Matthew Brigham **********
Doyle Gary Lashley Jr. [email protected]
Dr. Stephen Bloomfield [email protected]
John N. Klein IV [email protected]
Richard Thomas Jones [email protected]
[email protected]
#1 @ 1ST CHOICE BAIL BONDS [email protected]
PUBLIC DEFENDER [email protected]
STATE ATTORNEY [email protected]
E-service recipients not selected for service:
Name Email Address
No Matching Entries
This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email.
Document Access Link(s) will be active for 14 days (excluding weekends) after the Clerk accepts the submission or it is abandoned. In addition to
access to the link for 14 days (excluding weekends), the documents will also be available, after acceptance by the Clerk, to counsel of record in
the portal on the My Cases page, by clicking on the case number and then the document name, or by accessing the Clerk’s website.
about:blank 2/3
Thank you,
The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal
about:blank 3/3
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D23-2005

LT Case Nos. 2019-CF-4193
2021-CF-286
2022-CF-1143
_____________________________
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

Peter M. Brigham, Judge.
Neil Joseph Gillespie, Ocala, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T.

Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
February 20, 2024
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
MAKAR, JAY, and SOUD, JJ., concur.

_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
2
Florida  Search Find My District Court (/Find-My-District-Court) Fifth DCA 
Fifth District Court Of Appeal
Accessible | Fair | Effective | Responsive | Accountable
(/)
Find My District Court (/Find-My-District-Court) Fifth DCA 

Search Fifth DCA Search Opinions Search... Search Fifth DCA
Judges (/Judges) (/Clerk- Opinions (/Opinions) (/Oral- (https://onlinedocketsdca.flcourts.org

eDCA (http://edca.5dca.org/) (/About- (/About-
Clerk's Office Oral Arguments Online Docket
s-Office) Arguments) /?court=5) the- About the Court the-
Marshal's Office
Court/Marshal- Court)
s-Office)
Home (/) / Judges (/Judges) / Judge Scott Makar
Judge Scott Makar
Judge Scott Makar was appointed to the First District Court of Appeal by Governor Rick Scott on February 6, 2012, and recommissioned to the Fifth District Court of Appeal by Governor Ron DeSantis on
January 1, 2023.
Born October 1959, in Mahopac, New York; Florida resident since 1969.
Degrees:
• Ph.D. (economics), University of Florida, 1993.
• J.D. (upper 10%), University of Florida College of Law, 1987.University of Florida Law Review
◦ Gertrude Brick Law Review Award, Best Note, Fall 1985
◦ University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, Founder & Editor-in-Chief
◦ Book Awards: Antitrust & Florida Constitutional Law
• M.B.A. (finance), University of Florida, 1982.

• M.A. (economics), University of Florida, 1982.
• B.S. (mathematics & economics) (magna cum laude), Mercer University, 1980.
◦ Member, Golf & Tennis Teams
• Manatee High School, Bradenton, Florida 1977.
Legal Offices & Positions:

• Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal (recommissioned by Governor Ron Desantis, January 1, 2023 - present)
• Judge, First District Court of Appeal (Appointed by Governor Rick Scott) (2012 to 2022).
• Solicitor General, State of Florida, (2007-2011, appointed by Attorney General Bill McCollum) and (2011-2012, appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi).
• Chief, Appellate Division, Office of General Counsel, Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Florida (2001-2007).
• Capital Partner/Partner/Associate/Summer Associate, Holland & Knight, Jacksonville, Tallahassee & Tampa offices (1986, 1987, 1989-2001).
• Judicial Clerk, Judge Thomas A. Clark, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Atlanta, Georgia (1988-89).
• Legal Intern, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Transportation Section, Washington, D.C. (1985).
Honors & Awards:

U.S. Supreme Court, Cases Argued: Holland v. Florida (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_09_5327), 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010); Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1151), 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010);Sullivan v. Florida (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_7621), 130 S. Ct.
2059 (2010); Graham v. Florida (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_7412), 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010); Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2326 (2008). Most
cases (4) argued by a state solicitor general in a single term of the U.S. Supreme Court (2009 Term).
Manager of the Year, Office of the Attorney General (2009); Distinguished Service Award, Office of the Attorney General (2010)
Barbara W. Sanders Writing Competition Award (annual award for best legal writing), The Florida Bar, 1994-95 (1st Place); 1992-93 (2nd Place); 1991-92 (2nd Place).
Judicial & Bar Activities:

• Member, American Law Institute (elected December 1999).
• The Florida Bar: Founding Member & Executive Council, Appellate Practice and Advocacy Section (1994-1997; member 1994-present). Past Member, Antitrust Committee, Franchise Committee, Media
Law Committee, Health Care Law Committee; Judicial Administration, Selection and Tenure Committee; & Public Utilities Committee.
• Chair, 2005-07; Chair-Elect 2003-04; & Member, Florida Supreme Court Standard Jury Instructions Committee (Civil) (1995-2010).
• Master Lawyer & Alumnus, William H. Stafford American Inn of Court (Tallahassee, Florida) (2007-present).
• Master Lawyer, First District Appellate Inn of Court (Tallahassee, Florida). 2008-present.
• Board of Directors, American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education (ALI-ABA) (2000-2003).
• Jacksonville Bar Association/Tallahassee Bar Association.
• Chair, Jacksonville Bar Association, Appellate Practice Section (2001-02); founding member (2000-present).
• Member, Leadership Jacksonville, Class of 1999.
• Member, Governor’s Task Force on Capital Cases (appointed to 15 member group by Governor Jeb Bush on January 14, 2000).
• Member, Florida Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court Historical Societies, Eleventh Circuit Historical Society, and Florida Historical Society.
• CLE lecturer/articles on various constitutional law, antitrust, franchise, and civil rights topics.
Professional Associations & Memberships:

Teaching Positions
• Adjunct Professor, University of Florida College of Law (2011-present). Courses/times taught: Appellate Law and Policy (9); Florida, The Constitution & The United States Supreme Court.
• Richard W. Ervin Chair, FSU College of Law (2007-2011). Courses/times taught: Appellate Law and Policy (2); Judicial Opinion Writing; Florida, The Constitution & The United States Supreme Court;Famous
Florida Trials; Amicus Briefs; Topics in Florida Constitutional Law; & Solicitors General and Appellate Policy.
• Adjunct Professor, Florida Coastal School of Law (2000-2007). Courses/times taught: Florida Constitutional Law (9); Florida, The Constitution & The United States Supreme Court (2); Education and the
Constitution (2); Civil Rights; Antitrust Law; & Media Law and Ethics.
• Adjunct Instructor, University of North Florida, Department of Communications and Visual Arts. Course: Ethics and Law of Communications (Spring 1999, Fall 1999, & Spring 2000).
• Lecturer, Jacksonville University. Course: Education and Constitutional Law (Summer 1995).
• Adjunct Instructor, University of North Florida, Department of Political Science & Public Administration. Course: The United States Supreme Court and the Constitution (1993).
• Adjunct Instructor/Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Florida, College of Business Administration. Course/times taught: Legal Environment of Business. (1984-87)(6)/(1987-88)(2).
• Teaching Assistant, University of Florida, College of Business Administration, Courses: Introductory Finance; Macroeconomics; & Microeconomics.
Articles & Publications:

Law Reviews and Journals
• Free Press in 1940s Florida: Pennekamp v. Florida, 42 J. SUP. CT. HISTORY 295 (Vol. 3 2017).
• A Modest Proposal: Raise the Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age, 18 FLA. COASTAL L. REV. 477 (2016.
• Last Words on Recent Developments: Browning v. Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.: A Case Study in Judicial Opinion Writing, 41 STETSON L. REV. 477 (2012).
• Reflections on Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 61 SYRACUSE LAW REV. 281(Fall 2010).
• Tenth Anniversary of Florida’s Solicitor General: Introductory Remarks, 37 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 215 (Fall 2009).
• Dedication: Chesterfield Smith, 15 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 1 (Fall 2003).
• Son of Snyder: Municipal Annexations and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings, 1 FLORIDA COASTAL LAW JOURNAL 133 (Summer 1999) (with Michael L. Buckner)
• Proverbially Speaking: Bad Apples, Philadelphia Lawyers, and Red Cows, 7 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 113 (1995), reprinted in 70 FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL 48
(January 1996).
• The Essential Facility Doctrine and the Health Care Industry, 21 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 913 (1994).
• Workers’ Compensation Group Self-Insurance Funds: Some Reform Proposals, 12 JOURNAL OF INSURANCE REGULATION 57 (Fall 1993) (with Tom Jones and David Nye).
• Antitrust Immunity Under Florida’s Certificate of Need Program, 19 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 149 (1991).
• Antitrust and the State Action Doctrine: An Analysis of Recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit Cases, 4 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 59 (1991).
• The Structure of the Medical Malpractice Insurance Market: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It, 5 YALE JOURNAL ON REGULATION 427 (1988) (with Roger Blair).
• In Defense of Franchisors: The Law and Economics of Franchise Quality Assurance Mechanisms, 44 VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW 721 (1988) (lead article).
• “In the Ordinary Course of Business”: The Legal Limits of Workplace Wiretapping, 10 HASTINGS JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW 901 (1988) (lead article with Martha
Barnett).
• Attorney Advertising: The Case for Quality and Self-Laudatory Claims, 37 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LAW REVIEW 969 (1985), reprinted as lead article in 35 LAW REVIEW DIGEST 4 (1986).
Other Articles
• Litigious Students and Academic Disputes, The Chronicle of Higher Education, B20 (Nov. 8, 2002) (discussing trends in student litigation).
• Litigating the Amount of Attorneys’ Fees: A Proposal For Reform, 73 Florida Bar Journal 16 (October 1999) (with Judge James C. Hauser).
• In Praise of Older Judges: Raise the Mandatory Retirement Age?, 71 Florida Bar Journal 48 (April 1997).
• Post-Judgment Motions For Attorneys’ Fees: Time For A Bright-Line Rule, 71 Florida Bar Journal 4 (February 1997) (lead article).
• Geographic Information Systems: Legal and Policy Implications, 70 Florida Bar Journal 44 (November 1995) (with Michael R. Makar, Jr.), reprinted in 3 GIS Law 12 (1996).
• Vanishing Precedent: Settlement Vacatur on Appeal, 69 Florida Bar Journal 18 (November 1994) (lead article & Sanders Award).
• Local Government, Privatization, and Antitrust Immunity, 68 Florida Bar Journal 38 (April 1994).
• Professionalism, Civility, and Aspirational Conduct, 68 Florida Bar Journal 14 (March 1994) (lead article with Ray Ehrlich).
• Judicial Staff and Ethical Conduct, 66 Florida Bar Journal 10 (Nov. 1992) (lead article).
• “Honey I Shrunk the First Amendment”: Free Speech on High School and University Campuses, 66 Florida Bar Journal 13 (June 1992) (lead article & Sanders Award), reprinted in 14 Children’s Legal
Rights Journal 29 (Winter/Spring 1993).
• Anticompetitive Actions in the Administrative Forum: Antitrust and State Law Remedies, 66 Florida Bar Journal 33 (Feb. 1992) (Sanders Award).
Chambers Staff:
Abigail Pafford, Law Clerk (University of Florida)
Dilara Demirel, Law Clerk (Florida International University College of Law)
Katryna Santa Cruz, Law Clerk (Florida International University College of Law)
Judges
Chief Judge James A. Edwards (/Judges/Chief-Judge-James-A.-Edwards)
Judge Scott Makar (/Judges/Judge-Scott-Makar)
Judge F. Rand Wallis (/Judges/Judge-F.-Rand-Wallis)
Judge Brian D. Lambert (/Judges/Judge-Brian-D.-Lambert)
Judge Harvey L. Jay (/Judges/Judge-Harvey-L.-Jay)
Judge Eric J. Eisnaugle (/Judges/Judge-Eric-J.-Eisnaugle)
Judge Adrian G. Soud (/Judges/Judge-Adrian-G.-Soud)
Judge John M. Harris (/Judges/Judge-John-M.-Harris)
Judge Joe Boatwright (/Judges/Judge-Joe-Boatwright)
Judge Paige Kilbane (/Judges/Judge-Paige-Kilbane)
Judge John MacIver (/Judges/Judge-John-MacIver)
Judge Jordan E. Pratt (/Judges/Judge-Jordan-E.-Pratt)
Former Judges (/Judges/Former-Judges)
Senior Judges (/Judges/Senior-Judges)
View Larger Judges Photo (https://cc-flcourts-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/flcourts-master/images/3/9/5/2/9702593-1-eng-US/CJ-Edwards.jpg)
Court Resources
Judges (/Judges) Online Docket (https://onlinedocketsdca.flcourts.org/?court=5)
Clerk's Office (/Clerk-s-Office) Opinions (/Opinions)
Oral Arguments (/Oral-Arguments) eDCA (http://edca.5dca.org/)
About the Court (/About-the-Court)
Florida Courts
Florida Supreme Court (http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/) Third DCA (http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/)
First DCA (http://www.1dca.org/) Fourth DCA (https://www.4dca.org/)
Second DCA (http://2dca.org/) Sixth DCA (https://6dca.flcourts.gov/)
Florida Courts (http://www.flcourts.org/)
Using this Site (/Using-this-Site) | Privacy Policy (/Privacy-Policy) | Accessibility Statement (/Accessibility-Statement)
All Content Copyright 2024 Fifth District Court of Appeal
Florida Courts
(/)


Marshal's Office
s-Office)
Home (/) / Judges (/Judges) / Judge Harvey L. Jay
Judge Harvey L. Jay
Judge Harvey L. Jay was recommissioned to the Fifth District Court of Appeal on January 1, 2023 by Governor Ron Desantis.
Judge Harvey Jay was appointed to the First District Court of Appeal in February of 2016 by Governor Rick Scott. Prior to this appointment, Judge Jay served as a circuit judge in Duval County, having been
appointed to that position in 2011.
During his tenure as a circuit judge, Judge Jay served in the family and civil divisions of the Fourth Judicial Circuit. As a trial judge, he presided over numerous bench and jury trials and conducted hundreds
of evidentiary hearings involving petitions for protective injunctions. In 2015, Judge Jay received the Jurist of the Year Award from the Jacksonville Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates.
Before taking the bench, Judge Jay was an equity partner at the law firm of Saalfield Shad where he provided trial and appellate representation to parties involved in complex litigation. As a civil trial lawyer for
over twenty years, Judge Jay tried a broad spectrum of cases including actions for medical malpractice, false arrest, maritime negligence, and wrongful death. He also represented hospitals, physicians, and
nurses in administrative proceedings. While practicing law, he received an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer rating for legal knowledge and ethics.
Judge Jay was born in Jacksonville, Florida. He received his bachelor’s degree from Stetson University and his law degree from the University of Florida. He is married and has two daughters.
Judges
Court Resources
Florida Courts
Florida Courts
(/)


Marshal's Office
s-Office)
Home (/) / Judges (/Judges) / Judge Adrian G. Soud
Judge Adrian G. Soud
Judge Adrian G. Soud was appointed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal by Governor Ron DeSantis on January 1, 2023.
Before his appointment, Judge Soud served on the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida from 2009-2022, having been first elected in August 2008. In this capacity, Judge Soud presided over cases in every
division of the Fourth Circuit. Judge Soud served as Administrative Judge of the Circuit Felony divisions in Duval County from 2020-2022. Previously, Judge Soud presided in civil, family, felony and appellate
divisions of the Fourth Circuit, in Duval County. From 2015-2016, Judge Soud presided over Division A of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Nassau County, hearing civil cases, probate and guardianship cases,
juvenile cases, family law cases and appeals from the Nassau County Court. Judge Soud also served as a Mentor Judge in the Judicial Mentor Program, which is designed to guide new judges on matters such
as judicial administration, proper professionalism and decorum, compliance with judicial canons, and other practical matters to service on the bench.
In 2021, Judge Soud was appointed to the State Council for Interstate Adult Offender Supervision. In 2017, Judge Soud was appointed as the State Courts System’s representative on the Commission for
Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation, an independent organization overseeing the accreditation of law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Florida. Additionally, in 2013, Judge Soud was
recognized with the Judicial Award by the Victim Assistance Advisory Council of the City of Jacksonville for ensuring the due process rights of victims of crime.
Judge Soud began his legal career at Holland & Knight LLP. His general litigation practice included work in the areas of medical malpractice defense, commercial litigation, product liability, maritime law and
others. In late 2002, he joined his brother in legal practice as a partner in The Soud Law Firm, specializing in representing individuals in civil matters in state and federal court.
In the community, Judge Soud actively serves as a lecturer and curriculum contributor with The University of US, an organization providing scholarships to achieving high school students in Northeast Florida
who participate in a six-month educational program teaching the foundational principles of our Constitution and the founding of our country. Judge Soud has provided lectures on such topics as the Bill of
Rights and the constitutional pillars of federalism and the separation of powers (as set forth in The Federalist papers). Judge Soud also is a member of The Federalist Society.
Judge Soud has long served in his local Church, including service as a Sunday school teacher, trustee and deacon. While a young lawyer, Judge Soud served as a member of the Discovery Board of The
Ronald McDonald House, an organization offering care, lodging and other support for families with critically ill, chronically ill or seriously injured children being treated in Jacksonville.
Judge Soud was born and raised in Jacksonville, Florida. He obtained his bachelor’s degree in 1996 from the University of Florida and his law degree, cum laude, in 1999 from Stetson University College of
Law, where he was a member of the nationally recognized trial team.
Judge Soud and his wife Marcie have two children, Emily and Elizabeth.
Judges
Court Resources
Florida Courts
Florida Courts
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
FROM THE COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY FLORIDA

Appellant, Case Number: 23DC113AX
DCA Case#: 5D 23-2005
vs. Appealed Case: 19CF4193AX
Appealed Case: 21CF286AX
STATE OF FLORIDA Appealed Case: 22CF1143AX
Appel lee.
CERTIFICATE OF CLERK
I, Gregory C. Harrell, Clerk of Court and Comptroller for the County of

MARION, State of Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing Pages
1 through 4152, inclusive, contain a correct transcript of the Order,
Judgment or Decree in the above-styled case and a true and correct
recital and inclusion of all such original papers and proceedings in said
cause as appears from the records and files of my office.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Court on 25th of August, 2023
Gregory C. Harrell
Clerk of Court and Comptroller
BY: - - - - - - - - - -
A McHenry, Deputy Clerk
Page 4152
Filing # 180493296 E-Filed 08/25/2023 05:18:50 AM

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
___________________________/
APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL
The Appellant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing
pro se, gives notice of an incomplete record on appeal, and states:
1. On July 7, 2023 this Court granted an EOT to transmit the record:
ORDERED that the Motion for an Extension of Time to File the

Record, filed June 23, 2023, is granted. Appellant shall cause the
Record on Appeal to be transmitted to this Court as soon as possible
but no later than August 25, 2023.
2. The Appellant has instructed the Marion County Clerk to transmit the
record on appeal, which he expects to be done today, August 25, 2023.
3. However, email received yesterday from Rob Davis, General Counsel
for Clerk Greg Harrell, says the record will not include the Appellant’s
Notice of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021.
4. The email of Mr. Davis is attached, along with the Appellant’s Notice
of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021.

5. Previously the Appellant told Mr. Davis that he believes the record on
appeal should also include case no. 2020-CF-2417, which was not
prosecuted due to the death of Sarah Thompson. At this time the Appellant
do not know if the Clerk’s record will include case no. 2020-CF-2417 or not.
6. Governor Ron DeSantis has suspended and removed from office two
elected State Attorneys, Andrew Warren (13th Judicial Circuit), and
Monique H. Worrell (9th Judicial Circuit). The Appellant believes that State
Attorney William Gladson should also be removed from office for misusing
the criminal justice system against the Appellant, and for Gladson’s role in
the death of Sarah Thompson on May 12, 2021. Below is the essence of a
Facebook post by Sarah’s sister, Johanna, on September 14, 2022.
Aiden, Johanna, Ya ya and Sarah

“God how I miss you! I wish I could tell you what’s going on, you would be so proud of
me. Man Sarah when will The pain of loosing you stop. You deserved so much more then
you where giving. I wish I could tell you how much I love you and how amazing you
where. Ya ya is getting so tall and beautiful and Aiden still has a golden heart. You will
never be forgotten. I will never stop missing you.” - Johanna to Sarah on Facebook,
September 14, 2022.
2
7. The Appellant believes the record on appeal should include his
Notice of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021, with the
Appendix of Exhibits and the Motions Hearing transcript, and case no.
2020-CF-2417, State of Florida v. Neil Joseph Gillespie.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED August 25, 2023

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037
I HEREBY CERTIFY I furnished the foregoing on August 25, 2023 to

3
01231245ÿ7899ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
#$%ÿ'#()*+,'ÿ#$-.#/ÿ,)ÿ0/1231440
5678%#79ÿ/:;<=ÿ>679?6@AB8:6<7CD7EC@FDG?6HI76JK
'7% D?G@<D?<CBF:L77ID78MÿJL:66?GGB8:6<7CD7EC@FDG?6HI76J
/:@?%'LE6=A:FNÿ(EJE=@ÿ1ONÿ1412ÿ:@ÿ4O%O1ÿP+ÿ$/'
QRSTUÿWXYÿZX[ÿ\R]ÿY^_S\]ÿ̀a[bÿcdee]f^d]bÿÿQX_SWgfÿhedTifÿjdeeÿTX\ÿk]ÿSke]ÿ\Xÿk]
dTleY_]_ÿdTÿ\R]ÿ[]lX[_ÿ\[STfmdnSèÿSfÿTX\]_ÿk]eXjÿ̀kY\ÿoÿS^^[]ldS\]ÿWXYÿe]pTi
YfÿUTXjÿ\RS\ÿ\R]WÿRSq]ÿk]]Tÿhe]_b
ÿ
QSU]ÿlS[]`
ÿ
r
ÿ
XkÿsSqdf
tuvÿxyz{|
}~~ÿ~5ÿ
432"!3"97ÿÿ~ ~
{ÿÿuÿ uÿÿy
ÿ~ÿÿÿÿ~
ÿÿ!9495ÿÿÿ477"0!949
432"!397ÿÿ ~
~~ÿÿ~~ÿÿ~ÿ~ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡u¢£ÿ~ÿ¤ÿ}~~ÿ¥~~ ¦
§¨©£ÿ5ÿÿ275ÿ2924ÿ4830ÿ
ªu£ÿ}~ÿ~ÿ¥}~ ~¦«ÿÿ ÿ¥~ ~¦
§¬v©£ÿ~8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
ÿ
®¯°±²ÿ́µ¶ÿ·¹̧ÿº°»¼½¹ÿ¾°¸¿¼À¸ÿÁµÂ°´ÿÃÿÄ¼¿ÀÂÿÅµÁ¼ÆÀÿµÄÿÇ¼¿¼±Èÿ®¸°±½Æ¸¼ÉÁ
µÄÿ·µÁ¼µ±½ÿÊÀ°¸¼±ÈÿË°±¶°¸´ÿÌÍÎÿÌÍÌÏ¹
ÿ
®¯ÀÿÆµ¶¸Áÿ̧ÀÉµ¸ÁÀ¸ÿ̧À½Éµ±ÂÀÂÐÿÃÄÿ́µ¶ÿ̄°»Àÿ°¿¸À°Â´ÿÄ¼¿ÀÂÿÁ̄ÀÿÁ̧°±½Æ¸¼ÉÁ½
Ñ¼Á̄ÿÁ̄ÀÿÒ¿À¸²Îÿ́µ¶ÿÂµ±ÓÁÿ̄°»ÀÿÁµÿ̧ÀÄ¼¿ÀÿÁ̄ÀÔ¹ÿÿ®¯À´ÿÑ¼¿¿ÿÉ¶¿¿ÿÁ̄ÀÔÿ¼±
ÁµÿÁ̄Àÿ°ÉÉÀ¿¿°ÁÀÿÆ°½À¹
ÿ
ÅÀ¼¿ÿË¹ÿÕ¼¿¿À½É¼Àÿ
8 !1"
01231245ÿ7899ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
ÿ
ÿ#$%&5ÿ'$ÿ275ÿ2924ÿÿ9(89!84(ÿ ÿ5ÿÿ)$ÿ*#+#%,- #.&.+#/#'0ÿ1#+8
ÿ
ÿ
2%ÿ-#'ÿ#/ÿ2+$3+5
ÿ
ÿ)+ÿ.4#-+%ÿÿ1+ÿ)+ÿ#+.+)+%ÿ&#ÿ4'ÿ4#-ÿ'$ÿ225ÿ2924ÿ5+ÿ.+ÿ4
6'ÿ%ÿ#++ÿ33+%.+$7/ÿÿ+&ÿ#+ÿÿ&+ÿ)+1+ÿÿ+ÿ3.ÿ$ÿ+&ÿ$ÿ++%
ÿ'ÿ#'ÿÿ#+%.ÿ#+)+15ÿÿ1+ÿ)+ÿ#+.+)+%ÿ+-ÿ%ÿ+&ÿ1ÿ+ÿ.%+%
ÿ+ÿ#+.#%/ÿÿ81+)+#5ÿ&ÿ%.-+$ÿÿ&+ÿ4+%ÿÿ+ÿ.$+$ÿÿ33+ÿ1ÿÿ+
.%+%ÿÿ+ÿ#+.#%ÿ#$-5ÿ$ÿ+ÿ#+.#%ÿ#$-ÿ3#+3#ÿ3#.+$$ÿ$
#+%&ÿ+'/
ÿ
ÿ&5
ÿ
ÿ)$
ÿ
9:;ÿ=>?@A
2++#ÿ$+5ÿ%-$#
432B!C3!97ÿDÿ#+#%,- #.&.+#/#'
EFF@GHÿ:FÿIJHK:JLÿMNÿO>JJHPP
#ÿ&ÿ+#ÿ4ÿ#ÿ%ÿ-3#+#
QÿRSÿC9495ÿ.ÿ6Tÿ477!0C949
432B!C3B97ÿDÿ111/- #.&.+#/#'
U8+#+ÿÿ$+#)+ÿ%ÿ3#+.ÿ+ÿ3.ÿ#$U
ÿ
ÿ
VJ:WXÿ+ÿY/ÿ2+$3+ÿ*.+.+,&/.-0
ZH[\Xÿ]+%+$%&5ÿ'$ÿ245ÿ2924ÿ7839ÿQ
^:Xÿ2#+'ÿ8##+ÿ*28##+,- #.&.+#/#'0_ÿÿ)$ÿ*+#,- #.&.+#/#'0
Z`;aHG\Xÿ+8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
ÿ
bcdÿefghij
ÿ
8 21!
01231245ÿ7899ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
"#$%&ÿ()*ÿ+),ÿ()*,ÿ-.$/01ÿ2-34ÿ5ÿ.-$%ÿ6*789989:9;1ÿ2-3ÿ,-7$,</%7
=)>/?-ÿ)+ÿ@/0/%7ÿ",$%3?,/A>ÿ+),ÿB$%89:89:9C1ÿ6%<ÿ5ÿD/00ÿ?)%>$?>ÿ>#-
?)*,>ÿ,-A),>-,1
ÿ
=-/0ÿB1ÿE/00-3A/-
ÿ
ÿFGHGIHJ5ÿKIÿ245ÿ2924ÿÿ97877842ÿL ÿ5ÿÿMIÿNOGOHPQ ORJRGOSOKTÿUOG8
ÿ
ÿ
OSÿVGIWG5
ÿ
ÿUÿOGIWHÿÿKOGGOÿHGÿQOOU5ÿÿXOI5ÿJÿOGXGOGRGÿÿXKÿXOQÿYOJ
225ÿ2924SÿÿÿJÿQGÿZKIÿ225ÿ2924[\
ÿ
GRH5ÿHÿÿOGHÿROOGRJÿÿJÿOGÿIÿWKÿÿXK5ÿXOÿRIÿÿG
OGROH5ÿÿRGÿXÿ]KÿOIROWÿXÿIÿ^GOKÿYOJÿ295ÿ292_\ÿ
ÿ
OH5ÿOGKOHKÿJOÿXÿ̀GIÿÿGÿROÿOGWOGOI5ÿÿHÿÿUSÿÿÿQ J
UIÿÿRRÿGRÿROÿOGWOGOÿHOGRJÿXÿJÿMGÿJÿ̀GIIÿÿGO
KIS
ÿ
ÿJ5
ÿ

ÿ
8 41!
01231245ÿ7899ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
"#$ÿ&'()*
+,,-ÿ.,5ÿ/0.-
4321!23!97ÿ3ÿ-,-/40 -565,-7-8
9::);<ÿ#:ÿ=><?#>@ÿABÿC'>><DD
-ÿ6ÿ,-ÿEÿ-ÿ/ÿ0F-,-
GÿHIÿ29495ÿ5ÿJKÿ477!02949
4321!23197ÿ3ÿLLL70 -565,-7-8
MN,-,ÿÿ.,-O,ÿ/ÿF-,5ÿ,ÿF5ÿ-.M
ÿ
ÿ
P>#QRÿ,ÿS7ÿ+,.F,ÿT5,5,46750U
V<WXRÿY,/,./65ÿ8.ÿ245ÿ2924ÿ2282Zÿ
[#Rÿ+-,8ÿN--,ÿT+N--,40 -565,-7-8U\ÿÿO.ÿT,-40 -565,-7-8U
A;Rÿ,ÿS7ÿ+,.F,ÿT5,5,46750U
V]$^<;XRÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
ÿ
_àbc`dÿfgÿhi`àjjkÿli`mcnÿfconpdÿfja`qÿcrÿfco`pÿinsÿfctup̀cjja`
bvi`àjjwti`mcnxconpdxja`qgc`b
ÿ
yczÿ{i|m}kÿ_anaìjÿfcon}aj
ycza`p{wti`mcnxconpdxja`qgc`b
ÿ
y~ÿylÿy~f y{ÿÿ{
ÿ
_anpjatankÿ
ÿ
nÿxctujminxaÿmpvÿpvaÿippixvasÿ`sa`ÿmnÿ{kÿvipÿscÿdco
naasÿr`ctÿtaÿpcÿp̀in}tmpÿpvaÿ̀axc`sÿzdÿobo}pÿkÿ
ÿ
vanÿxinÿÿauaxpÿtdÿrmjmnbÿr`ctÿinoi`dÿkÿÿpcÿzaÿscxqapasÿ
inpÿpvaÿrcjjcmnbÿp̀in}tmppasÿmpvÿpvaÿ̀axc`s
8 71!
01231245ÿ7899ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
ÿ
#$%$&#'&()*ÿ&+(,-$ÿ+%ÿ%,.,&/ÿ*('($0$&(ÿ+%
/1,$2'&-$
'3456789:ÿ;6<=ÿ#6:8>6?6<@ÿ'7<ÿA'#'BCÿ'D3696:<58<6E4ÿ+5D45ÿ'FGHGI
HFIJ
%6?69KÿLÿHMGHMNNFGÿ$I%6?4DÿGMOFFOFGFNÿGPQRFQSHÿ'0
ÿ
'TT$&#,Uÿ*<8<4349<ÿVWÿ/564E8974
ÿ
'TT$&#,Uÿ$386?ÿ-V33X9678<6V9
ÿ
'TT$&#,Uÿ04D678?ÿ,9WV538<6V9ÿWV5ÿ&46?ÿYZÿ/6??4:[64
ÿ
,9ÿ78:4ÿFGFFI-%IHHNSCÿ
#$%$&#'&()*ÿ&+(,-$ÿ+%ÿT1+*$-\(+1,'.ÿ0,*-+&#\-(
%6?69KÿLÿH]MGGMHNFÿ$I%6?4DÿG]OFHOFGFNÿG^QNSQF]ÿT0Cÿ_6<=
8[[49D6̀A:BCÿ
ÿ
8?:Vÿ<VVÿ69ÿ.(ÿ78:4:ÿFGHÎ-%ISH^Nÿ89DÿFGFHI-%IFMPCÿ
#$%$&#'&()*ÿ&+(,-$ÿ+%ÿT1+*$-\(+1,'.ÿ0,*-+&#\-(
%6?69KÿLÿH]MGF^GM]ÿ$I%6?4DÿG]OFSOFGFNÿGMQGFQGNÿ'0Cÿ_6<=
8[[49D6̀A:B
8 31!
01231245ÿ7899ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
ÿ
$%ÿ%&&'ÿ(%ÿ)&%%*+,-ÿ.ÿ),('ÿ/&0*1-ÿ&2ÿ3*,*'4ÿ56('%16*)0ÿ&2ÿ7&0*&'%
8-(6*'4ÿ9(':(6;ÿ<=>ÿ<=<?>ÿ+-2&6-ÿ@*61:*0ÿ9:A4-ÿB(6;ÿC('A-6%Dÿ$ÿ2-E
A(;%ÿ(4&ÿ.ÿF(Aÿ0F*%ÿF-(6*'4ÿ06('%16*+-ADÿ5F-ÿ/&0*1-ÿ6-G(*'%ÿ0&ÿ+-
A6(20-Aÿ('Aÿ2*,-ADÿ.ÿA*Aÿ'&0ÿ())-(6ÿ2&6ÿ0F*%ÿF-(6*'4ÿ+-1(:%-ÿ.ÿF(Aÿ4&'-
0&ÿHF*,(A-,)F*(ÿ2&6ÿ6-0*'(ÿ%:64-6;ÿ(0ÿI*,,%ÿJ;-ÿ8&%)*0(,Dÿ9:A4-
C('A-6%ÿA-'*-Aÿ0F-ÿG;ÿG&0*&'ÿ2&6ÿ(ÿK=ÿA(;ÿ%0(;ÿ2&6ÿ-;-ÿ%:64-6;Dÿ$,%&>
&'ÿ9(':(6;ÿ<L>ÿ<=<Lÿ76DÿM(N*%ÿ)6&N*A-Aÿ('ÿ-G(*,ÿ1&'2*6G*'4ÿG;
G&0*&'ÿF(Aÿ+--'ÿO,&1P-AOÿ&'ÿ0F-ÿA&1P-0QÿR'&Eÿ:',&1P-ASÿ
ÿ
MJ3J/M$/5TCÿ7U5.U/ÿ5Uÿ@$/@JVÿUWÿ@U/5./XJÿ$VV
8J$W./BCÿX/5.Vÿ3XW58JWÿ/U5.@J>ÿM.C$Y.V.5Z
$@@U77UM$5.U/ÿWJ[XJC5JMÿ$/MÿIWU/BVZÿMJ/.JM>ÿ
3*,*'4ÿ\ÿ??]^_K=_^ÿJ`3*,-Aÿ??a=?a<=<=ÿ=^Q==QL<ÿH7
ÿ
9:A4-ÿC('A-6%ÿ),(''-Aÿ0&ÿ(66-%0ÿG-ÿ(0ÿ0F(0ÿF-(6*'4ÿ&'ÿ('&0F-6ÿ&'-`
)(60;ÿ1&'%-'0ÿ0-,-)F&'-ÿ1(,,ÿ6-1&6A*'4ÿ1(%-Dÿ.'ÿF*'A%*4F0ÿ.ÿE(%ÿ(+,-ÿ0&
4-0ÿ6-0*'(ÿ%:64-6;ÿ*'ÿHF*,(A-,)F*(ÿ0F(0ÿ.ÿ&0F-6E*%-ÿE&:,AÿF(N-ÿ+--'
A-'*-Aÿ+;ÿ0F-ÿ7(6*&'ÿ@&:'0;ÿ9(*,ÿF(Aÿ.ÿ())-(6-ADÿ9:A4-ÿC('A-6%ÿ(,%&
A-'*-AÿG-ÿ(%%*%0('1-ÿ&2ÿ1&:'%-,bÿY6-'A(ÿ8DÿCG*0F>ÿ3VÿY(6ÿ/&DQ
c?cK]c>ÿE(%ÿ())&*'0-Aÿ+:0ÿ6-2:%-Aÿ0&ÿ-'0-6ÿF-6ÿ())-(6('1-ÿ&6ÿ(11-)0
0F-ÿ())&*'0G-'0Dÿ9:A4-ÿC('A-6%ÿ%06:1Pÿ(ÿ':G+-6ÿ&2ÿG;ÿ)6&ÿ%-ÿ2*,*'4%
+-1(:%-ÿ7%DÿCG*0FÿE(%ÿG;ÿ(,,-4-Aÿ1&:'%-,ÿ&2ÿ6-1&6ADÿ
ÿ
5F-6-ÿ(6-ÿ(,%&ÿ%-N-6(,ÿF('AÿE6*00-'ÿG&0*&'%ÿ0&ÿA*%G*%%ÿ*'ÿ<=<?`@3`
<dK>ÿ('Aÿ(ÿF('AE6*00-'ÿG&0*&'ÿ*'ÿ<=<=`@3`<_?cÿ.ÿE('0ÿ0&ÿ*'1,:A-Dÿ
ÿ
.ÿ(,%&ÿ:'A-6%0('Aÿ0F(0ÿ06('%16*)0%ÿ&2ÿF-(6*'4%ÿ(,6-(A;ÿ2*,-Aÿ&'ÿ0F-
A&1P-0ÿ*'ÿ7(6*&'ÿ@&:'0;ÿ'--Aÿ0&ÿ+-ÿ06('%G*00-Aÿ+;ÿ0F-ÿ1&:60ÿ6-)&60-6
0&ÿ0F-ÿ$))-,,(0-ÿ@&:60>ÿ0F(0ÿ*%ÿ6*4F0eÿ5F('Pÿ;&:D
8 !1"
01231245ÿ7899ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ3242993
ÿ
#$%&'(')*+
,-,
.'$)ÿ/0ÿ1$))'-2$'
3456ÿ#7ÿ89))':'ÿ;<0+ÿ#=>ÿ?
@&A)A+ÿBCÿ?DDED
FG9%'Hÿ?I3J3?KJK5?E
>LA$)Hÿ&')M$&'$%N*AG990&9L
8 !1!
Filing # 180463641 E-Filed 08/24/2023 03:51:07 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

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

CASE NO. 2019-CF-4193
vs. CASE NO. 2020-CF-2417

__________________________________/
NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING JANUARY 20, 2021
The Defendant, NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, gives Notice
of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021, and states:
1. The Defendant hereby files a transcript of a Motions Hearing held on January 20, 2021
before Circuit Judge Gary Sanders. Assistant State Attorney Alicia Winterkorn appeared for the
State of Florida. Brenda Smith is alleged to be the attorney for the Defendant.
2. The Defendant did not appear at the hearing and had gone to Philadelphia for retina
surgery at Wills Eye Hospital. On November 1, 2020 the Defendant filed a motion to cancel or
continue all hearings until further notice because he had a detached retina needing surgery,
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CANCEL OR CONTINUE ALL HEARINGS UNTIL

FURTHER NOTICE, DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION REQUESTED AND
WRONGLY DENIED, Filing # 115946049 E-Filed 11/01/2020 09:00:32 PM
3. On January 23, 2023 Mr. Rob Davis, General Counsel for the Marion County Clerk,
provided an email confirming the Defendant’s motion (DOC 226) had been “locked” on the
docket as confidential, which was wrong. The Defendant’s motion states in part,
3. I am currently disabled with a detached retina, an eyesight disability, and cannot attend
any hearings now. Detached retina is an urgent and serious medical condition that could
result in blindness if not promptly treated. My medical records with Dr. Parrot appear at
Exhibit 4.
7. I live in Ocala Florida. Dr. Parrot does surgery only in Gaineville at an out-patient only
surgical pavilion which requires a family member drive the patient to and from the
surgery and wait for the patient during the surgery and recovery, about 5 hours plus travel
time. Transport by Uber or taxi is prohibited. This is the protocol I found at other
ophthalmologists. I do not have family in Florida to accompany me. So Dr. Parrot cannot
do the surgery I need. Retina surgery is not done in Ocala, they say. The other option is
to have retina surgery done in-patient at UF Health Shands in Gainesville. Dr. Parrot does
not have practice privileges at UF Health Shands in Gainesville. I was unable to find a
suitable doctor at Shands. So I am still trying to arrange surgery with a competent doctor.
I am considering options in Miami and Philadelphia.
4. The Defendant’s motion was served on the Court, the State Attorney’s Office, Brenda
Smith, Esq. and the names indicated on the Portal service of court documents.
5. Judge Sanders scheduled a motions hearing anyway for January 20, 2021.
6. Judge Sanders had planned to bring the Defendant into Court to arrest him on another
one-party consent phone call recording crime, which became case no. 2021-CF-286. Previously
the Defendant was arrested for one-party consent phone call recording in case no. 2019-CF-
4193. One-party consent phone call recording is lawful under 18 USC 2511(2)(d) when not
acting under color of law, and is the Law of the Land in Florida under the Supremacy Clause of
the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. In addition, all calls on the Defendant’s home office
telephone extension (352) 854-7807 were recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to
the business use exemption of Fla. Stat. sec. 934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health
Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991), as publicly
announced on the Defendant’s website at https://www.nosue.org/telephone-recording/
7. Circuit Judge R. Gregg Jerald signed the arrest warrant for the Defendant in case no.
2021-CF-286. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Mr. Jerald was General Counsel to the
Marion County Sheriff’s office, and in that role knew the Defendant lawfully recorded calls.
8. The arrest affidavit by Corporal Billy Burleson, #5542, Marion County Sheriff’s Office,
dated January 20, 2021, report number MCSO55ARR00431S, falsely described the calls.
2
9. Judge Sanders and the Fifth Judicial Circuit had a conflict with the Defendant. On
December 1, 2020, Circuit Judge Edward Scott had entered an Order granting the Defendant
leave to amend his civil rights complaint in case no. 2018-CA-2640 against Judge Ann Melinda
Craggs and the Fifth Judicial Circuit in the wrongful foreclosure of the Defendant’s home on a
federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, also called a HECM reverse mortgage. (Exhibit 1)
10. Furthermore, on November 18, 2020, the Defendant, as Plaintiff in case no. 2020-CA-
934 filed SECOND NOTICE PURSUANT TO F.S. § 768.28 WAIVER OF IMMUNITY, in his
unlawful detainer/civil rights lawsuit that alleged at paragraph 3:
As a proximate cause of the state’s negligence, I was diagnosed October 22, 2020
with detached retina that needs immediate surgery. I am now partially blind....
and where the Defendants included: (Exhibit 2)
SARAH MAY THOMPSON, MARION

COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BOCC), MARION
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (MCSO),
TIMOTHY MCCOURT GENERAL COUNSEL
MCSO, LT. CHARLES WELCH SOUTH
MARION DISTRICT COMMANDER MCSO,
WILLIAM WOODS SHERIFF MARION
COUNTY MCSO, BRAD KING STATE
ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE STATE
ATTORNEY FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FLORIDA,
MICHAEL GRAVES PUBLIC DEFENDER, OFFICE
OF MIKE GRAVES PUBLIC DEFENDER,
SUSAN D. BAILEY ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER,
11. The Defendant commenced this lawsuit at the suggestion of Marion County Sheriff’s
Deputy Nicholas Austin, after he refused to remove Sarah Thompson from the Defendant’s
home. Sarah was addicted to illegal drugs. After getting kicked out of her boyfriend’s home on
June 7, 2020, Sarah tried to establish residency with the Defendant. The Defendant offered to
pay for a motel room for a week to help Sarah, and get a storage unit for her belongings. While
3
under the influence of illegal drugs, Sarah smashed a glass window and door of the Defendant’s
home, while deputies of the Sheriff’s Office stood by and failed to assist him.
12. On June 13, 2020, Judge Ann Melinda Craggs signed a search warrant against the
Defendant in case 2020-CF-2417 allowing the Marion County Sheriff’s Office to smash open the
door to his home and search the property related to the incident with Sarah on June 7, 2020. The
Defendant’s appointed counsel in case 2019-CF-4193, Zachary Phipps, Office of Criminal
Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, told the Defendant his arrest in 2020-CF-2417 was an
abuse of discretion. From the transcript, July 30, 2020, page 12, 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
Transcript, July 30, 2020, page 11, lines 1-24.
1 reason why I'm going to withdraw my motion because

2 obviously, I have seen now, you know, what's going on
3 between you and the Marion County Sheriff's Office.
4 And I am in agreement with you that this 2020 case is
5 being pushed forward as a way, as retribution, I guess,
6 for, you know, the things that you, you know, request
7 from them and, you know, litigation and all that stuff.
8 I agree with you there, okay? And that is part of the
9 basis why I'll withdraw the motion.
10 You know, I've been part of those conversations
11 too. I've seen, you know, Mr. McCourt's responses and
12 then obviously, you know, you have an issue with
13 certain, you know, officers there, so, you know, when
14 that whole issue went down and all that stuff and it
15 seemed at first that nothing was going to come of it,
16 you know, they didn't assist you and you were the
4
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.
21 MR. GILLESPIE: And not only that, the judge that
22 signed the arrest warrant is Craggs. The judge that
23 appeared at the first appearance was Craggs. The judge
24 that granted my Faretta hearing is Craggs. And now
13. Sarah Thompson was arrested for drugs in Sumter County, Florida on August 31, 2020
case no. 2020-CF-971. Sarah’s cell mate wrote to the Defendant from jail saying she was sorry.
14. Sarah Thompson was arrested for domestic violence in Marion County, Florida on
January 8, 2021, case no. 2021-MM-171. Sarah wrote to the Defendant from jail as follows:
Sarah's postcard transcript Jan-26-2021 - Marion County Jail
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
5
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.
15. Sarah Thompson died of a drug overdose in Ocala on May 12, 2021, just 21 days after
being released from the Sumter County Jail.
16 The Defendant had retina surgery at Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia, see the records
at Exhibit 3. The “Preparations for Retina Surgery” shows on the logistics and details page:
“You may not drive yourself to or from surgery. Please make sure you have arranged for
transportation. Please be aware that Uber/Lyft and taxicabs are not acceptable modes of
transportation.”
The Defendant believes this is a ridiculous rule that serves no legitimate purpose. Instead, this
requirement is a barrier to getting timely retina surgery for certain patients like the Defendant
who do not have family in the area. Marion Senior Services transportation refused to go to
Gainesville, which is outside Marion County. The Defendant’s elderly neighbors in his 55+
community were unable to travel that far or agree to an all-day commitment of time. The
Defendant’s old friend and business associate in Pennsylvania drove him to the surgery, but later
wrecked the Defendant’s Dodge Grand Caravan when he struck a deer.
17. Judge Sanders denied the Defendant assistance of counsel; Brenda H. Smith, FL Bar No.:
717657, was appointed to represent the Defendant she but refused to enter her appearance or
accept the appointment. Judge Sanders failed to appoint another lawyer who would represent the
Defendant. Instead, Judge Sanders struck a number of the Defendant’s pro se filings because Ms.
Smith was his alleged counsel of record, but did not represent him. Ms. Smith testified at the
hearing before Judge Sander as follows, see the transcript, page 5, lines 20-24:
6
20 He was there late on either a Friday or a Saturday night

21 near Christmas, and the only reason I know about it is
22 my secretary was there wrapping gifts for her children
23 that she had hid in my office, and she was so concerned
24 that it prompted us to call the Umatilla Police.
18. The Defendant denies the testimony of Ms. Smith. Last week the Defendant made a
public records request to Jessica Burnham, Records Custodian for the City of Umatilla, for
records of Ms. Smith’s call to the Umatilla Police. Ms. Burnham responded by email on August
23, 2023: No records were found in regards to Neil Gillespie. Please see below for the record
found with the name Brenda Smith. The record appears at Exhibit 4, and shows Ms. Smith
complained on December 12, 2020 about another man who was “hanging around each night” and
drove a Red Kia Sol. The Defendant does not own or drive a Red Kia Sol. The Defendant
believes Ms. Smith lied to Judge Sanders to excuse her own professional negligence.
19. Previously Ms. Smith told the Defendant that she did not have access to her office
because of something to do with her estranged husband in a divorce proceeding. Smith also
claimed her office was closed under COVID-19 quarantine. In 2020 a lone sign on the property
for “Shear Grace”, showed an image of a pair of scissors, suggests a hair salon, not a law office.
20. The Defendant attempted to hire attorney David Oscar Markus, FL Bar No. 119318, of
Miami, but he declined. The Defendant wants to be represented by counsel who will provide him
with zealous representation; otherwise he will reluctantly represent himself.
21. Judge Sander complained on the record about Defendant’s Motion To Cancel Lynching
Today At 3:00 PM Today, which Judge Sanders said “Hopefully, that was meant to be
hyperbole” (transcript page 7, line 6). The Defendant’s motion explained, at paragraph 2:
2. The Court has scheduled a court event today at 3:00 PM best described as a lynching, a
depravation of rights under color of law, against the Defendant, Neil Joseph Gillespie, in
violation of, inter alai, 18 USC 242, 42 USC 1983, and the ADA Amendments Act 2008.
7
22. Judge Sanders also stated on the record: (transcript, pp 8-9, beginning at line 23)
23 THE COURT: Okay. The Court will take notice that

24 we were supposed to have an evidentiary hearing today on
25 an order to show cause as to why Mr. Gillespie should
1 not be held in contempt of court for failure to appear
2 at the pretrial conference that was held in this matter
3 back in January.
4 The Court acknowledged today and by order that I
5 have reviewed his written response, but denied the
6 motion to continue today’s hearing, hoping to hear from
7 him more about why he failed to appear. He has once
8 again failed to appear today.
23. The Defendant’s written response cited by Judge Sander stated he “was not served notice
of the Pretrial Conference Order as required by the rules of procedure”, see,
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING JANUARY 20, 2021
Filing # 119881964 E-Filed 01/19/2021 11:52:05 PM
24. On February 23, 2021, Circuit Judge Edward Scott GRANTED the Defendant’s
Amended Motion for a 60 Day Stay For Eye Surgery in case no. 2018-CA-2640. (Exhibit 5).
Counsel for the State of Florida, Assistant Attorney General Brittany Quinlan, did not object.
25. Judge Sanders got reassigned to case no. 2018-CA-2640 and dismissed the case on April
14, 2021 while the Defendant was held in the Marion County Jail on no bond.
26. The Defendant’s amended motion to dismiss case 2021-CF-286 appears at Exhibit 6.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED August 24, 2023.
NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Defendant pro se

Ocala, FL 34474
Telephone: 352-239-9037
8
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 24, 2023 the Defendant’s Notice of Filing
Transcript of Motions Hearing January 21, 2021, was filed on the Florida Portal and served to,
State Attorney’s Office

110 NW 1st Avenue
Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
and to the names on the Florida Portal Notice of Service of Court Documents.
9
Filing # 180952131 E-Filed 08/31/2023 08:36:29 PM

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
___________________________/
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO CORRECT OR SUPPLEMENT

THE RECORD ON APPEAL
pro se, moves to correct or supplement the Record on Appeal, and states:
1. On Monday, August 28, 2023, at 10:23 AM, the Appellant was served
by 5DCA CaseMail a Record on Appeal by Marion County Clerk Gregory
Harrell, consisting of 4,152 pages and dated August 25, 2023.
2. The Record on Appeal is still missing the Appellant’s Notice of Filing
Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021 as shown in his Notice of
Incomplete Record on Appeal filed in this Court on August 25, 2023.
3. The Certificate OF Clerk on page 4152 of the Record states,

recital and inclusion of all such original papers and proceedings in
said cause as appears from the records and files of my office.
4. Appellant’s Notice of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20,
2021 was filed on the Florida Portal on August 24, 2023 as follows:
Filing # 180463632 E-Filed 08/24/2023 03:51:03 PM, case 2019-CF-4193

Therefore the Certificate of Clerk appearing on page 4152 is not correct.
5. The Appellant believes the Record on Appeal should include his
Appendix of Exhibits and the Motions Hearing transcript, because the
Notice shows that the State of Florida knew the Appellant’s lawful one-
party consent phone recording was not a crime, but charged him anyway,
not once, but twice, Case No. 2019-CF-4193 and Case No. 2021-CF-286.
6. Furthermore, the Appellant’s Notice shows intentional wrongdoing by
certain Marion County Circuit Judges, misconduct by the State Attorney,
and serious harm to the Defendant, negligence resulting in a detached
retina, wrongful denial of disability accommodation, wrongful incarceration
on no bond for 428 days, and evidence of retaliation by the Fifth Judicial
Circuit, et al, for filing a civil rights case over the wrongful foreclosure of his
home on a HECM reverse mortgage, Case No. 2018-CA-2640, and in
2
Case No. 2020-CA-934, the failure to protect the Appellant, and the failure
to protect Sarah Thompson, who died May 12, 2021 of a drug overdose.
7. On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM, the Appellant emailed Mr.
Rob Davis, General Counsel to the Marion County Clerk:
Mr. Davis,
Regarding My filing from Thursday, Aug-24-2023, I see it has not yet

been docketed. While reviewing the document over the weekend, I
found an error in paragraph 25:
"25. Judge Sanders got reassigned to case no. 2018-CA-2640 and

dismissed the case on April 14, 2021 while the Defendant was held in
the Marion County Jail on no bond."
Actually Judge Scott dismissed the case on April 14, 2021. For some
reason the Clerk’s online docket in case 2018-CA-2640 did not
appear fully functional last Thursday and I was only able to view the
docket entries and not the actual records. A docket entry shows the
case was dismissed on April 14, 2021 but does not show the judge.
Over the weekend I found the Order of Dismissal by Judge Scott that
was also filed in federal case 5:21-cv-00416-PGB-PRL as Exhibit 13,
see attached.
Judge Sanders was on the case by July 29, 2021 when he entered
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE
Filing # 131691198 E-Filed 07/29/2021 04:16:40 PM
So I can correct that with an amended NOTICE OF FILING

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING JANUARY 20, 2021.
Also, regarding paragraph 7,
"7. Circuit Judge R. Gregg Jerald signed the arrest warrant for the
Defendant in case no. 2021-CF-286. Prior to his appointment to the
bench, Mr. Jerald was General Counsel to the Marion County
3
Sheriff’s office, and in that role knew the Defendant lawfully recorded
calls."
please see attached my letter to Mr. Gregg Jerald, General Counsel,

Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), January 21, 2016 regarding
Detective Erik B. Dice assigned to investigate Elder Abuse and
financial crimes in 2006, see the letter beginning at the bottom of
page 2, continued on page 3:
"I believe Detective Dice telephoned me twice, initially on November

9, 2015, and again on November 17, 2015. Each time Detective Dice
was informed by a Telephone Recording Announcer that all calls are
recorded for quality assurance purposes, at the beginning of the
telephone call. Counsel has advised me that Detective Dice, or
anyone else, provides consent if the caller continues to talk after
hearing the announcement."
"When Detective Dice telephoned me on November 17, 2015, I

asked him if he heard the Telephone Recording Announcer. Dice
responded yes, but said he did not give his consent to be recorded,
and proceeded to engage in double-talk and subterfuge on the
issue."
"I rely on the holding in Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-
Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). In my view Florida
law prohibits "interception" of certain communication, but not all
recording. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that
because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical
or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the
ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate
the law. In other words, the telephone set "intercepts" the call, not the
recording device, and the phone call is lawfully recorded after lawful
interception. This is in contrast to a court-ordered wiretap where a
call is "intercepted" before it reaches the telephone set. The land-line
home office telephone that I use lawfully intercepts a call before
lawfully recording the call. See enclosed my letter to Special Agent
Paul Wysopal, FBI Tampa Re-Telephone Recording."
My letter to the FBI is posted on Scribd here,
4
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237040363/Paul-Wysopal-FBI-Tampa-
Special-Agent-in-Charge
Please note the Appendix of Exhibits provided, which are available.
Also note, my letter was provided "Cc" to the following persons:
Cc: Brad King, State Attorney; Cc: Sheriff Chris Blair MCSO
Cc: Marion County BOCC; Cc: Captain Bill Sowder MCSO
Cc: Guy Minter, County Attorney; Cc: Detective Erik B. Dice MCSO
Cc: David R. Ellspermann, Marion County
Clerk of Court & Comptroller
Cc: Gregory C. Harrell, General Counsel
Cc: Lt. Ryan Robbins, Public Information Officer; Lauren Lettelier,
Public Information Officer
Regarding my phone calls with Detective Dice, those were

transcribed. During the call on November 9, 2015 Dice does not
acknowledge hearing on page 2:
12 AUTOMATED OPERATOR: This call is being

13 recorded for quality assurance purposes.
so during the phone call with Detective Dice on November 17, 2015, I
asked him if he heard the Telephone Recording Announcer, see the
transcript and what ensued.
Also, a foreclosure hearing in case 2013-CA-115 before Judge Hale

Stancil on December 18, 2014 was recorded and transcribed, and
shows on the attached transcript on page 2:
23 NOTE: Immediately prior to the hearing, Judge

Stancil placed a call and the following was recorded:
24 (Automated message:· This call is being recorded for
quality assurance purposes.)
25 The hearing was then recorded as follows:
But regardless of the automated message, "One-party consent phone

call recording is lawful under 18 USC 2511(2)(d) when not acting
5
under color of law, and is the Law of the Land in Florida under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2." as
shown in Paragraph 6 of NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT OF
MOTIONS HEARING JANUARY 20, 2021, and my letter to the FBI.
So I can file a corrected Notice if you like. BTW, was there a problem
with the Clerk’s online docket on Thursday, August 24, 2023? Thank
you.
Neil J. Gillespie
8. Mr. Davis responded Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:30 AM:
Good morning Mr. Gillespie,
Thank you for your email. Your filings from 8/24/23 are still in the
process of being reviewed for redactions and will be made available
on the public-facing docket once that takes place.
Any documents that you wish to have filed to your cases will need to
be mailed in, submitted over the counter, or e-filed.
Regarding your question about the online dockets on 8/24/23, our

office did experience server issues that day and images were down
for a time. Images were again available before the end of the day.
Thank you,
Rob Davis
9. The Appellant’s email chain with Mr. Davis is attached.
10. On August 29, 2023, the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Filing
Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021, with Appendix and
Transcript, Filing # 180766585 E-Filed 08/29/2023 03:39:19 PM
11. The Appellant moves to correct or supplement the Record on Appeal
to include his Amended Notice of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing
6
January 20, 2021, with the Appendix and Transcript, filed August 29, 2023,
Filing # 180766585 E-Filed 08/29/2023 03:39:19 PM.
WHEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully moves this Court for an
Order to correct or supplement the Record on Appeal to include his
Amended Notice of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021,
with Appendix of Exhibits (Amended) and Motions Hearing Transcript,
Filing # 180766585 E-Filed 08/29/2023 03:39:19 PM.

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037


7
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%ÿ'#()*+,'ÿ#-./#0ÿ,)ÿ102342551
6789%#8:ÿ0;<=>ÿ?78:$7@AB9;7=8CD8EC@FDG$7HI87JK
'8% D$G@=D$=CBF;L88ID89MÿJL;77$GGB9;7=8CD8EC@FDG$7HI87J
.D% D$G@=D$=CBF;L88ID89
0;@$%+8CA;FNÿ(EJE>@ÿ2ONÿ2523ÿ;@ÿ5P%35ÿ(+ÿ-0'
QRRSÿURVWXWYÿZV[ÿQX\\]^_X]`
abcWdÿeRfÿgRVÿeRfVÿ]UcX\[ÿÿhRfVÿgX\XWY^ÿgVRUÿijkljkmÿcV]ÿ^nX\\ÿXW
nb]ÿ_VRo]^^ÿRgÿp]XWYÿV]qX]r]SÿgRVÿV]SconXRW^ÿcWSÿrX\\ÿp]ÿUcS]
cqcX\cp\]ÿRWÿnb]ÿ_fp\XosgcoXWYÿSRod]nÿRWo]ÿnbcnÿncd]^ÿ_\co][
tWeÿSRofU]Wn^ÿnbcnÿeRfÿrX^bÿnRÿbcq]ÿgX\]SÿnRÿeRfVÿoc^]^ÿrX\\
W]]SÿnRÿp]ÿUcX\]SÿXWÿ̀^fpUXnn]SÿRq]Vÿnb]ÿoRfWn]V̀ÿRVÿ]sgX\]S[ÿÿ
u]YcVSXWYÿeRfVÿvf]^nXRWÿcpRfnÿnb]ÿRW\XW]ÿSRod]n^ÿRWÿijkljkm`
RfVÿRggXo]ÿSXSÿ]w_]VX]Wo]ÿ^]Vq]VÿX^^f]^ÿnbcnÿSceÿcWSÿXUcY]^ÿr]V]
SRrWÿgRVÿcÿnXU][ÿÿxUcY]^ÿr]V]ÿcYcXWÿcqcX\cp\]ÿp]gRV]ÿnb]ÿ]WSÿRg
nb]ÿSce[
abcWdÿeRf`
uRpÿycqX^
z{|}~ÿÿÿÿ
~ÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£¤¢¢¤¥¥ÿ
¦|~ÿ§ÿ̈§§ÿ¨§§§§©§ªÿ«¬ÿ®ÿ«¬§§§©§
¯°~ÿÿÿÿ
±²³°~ÿ«¤ÿ́«µ¶´ÿ«·¸¹«ÿ¶ÿº¢»¡¡º
ÿ
ZV[ÿycqX^`
8!" 3133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%&'()*%ÿ,-ÿ.)/)*%ÿ.'01ÿ234'5(&-6ÿ74%89:89;9<6ÿ=ÿ5$$ÿ)>ÿ3&5ÿ*0>ÿ-$>
?$$*ÿ(0@A$>$(BÿC3)/$ÿ'$D)$E)*%ÿ>3$ÿ(0@41$*>ÿ0D$'ÿ>3$ÿE$$A$*(6ÿ=
.04*(ÿ&*ÿ$''0'ÿ)*ÿF&'&%'&F3ÿ9GH
I9GBÿJ4(%$ÿK&*($'5ÿ%0>ÿ'$&55)%*$(ÿ>0ÿ@&5$ÿ*0Bÿ9;LM8N789O:;ÿ&*(
()51)55$(ÿ>3$ÿ@&5$ÿ0*ÿ7F')/ÿL:6ÿ9;9LÿE3)/$ÿ>3$ÿP$.$*(&*>ÿE&5ÿ3$/(ÿ)*
>3$ÿ,&')0*ÿN04*>-ÿJ&)/ÿ0*ÿ*0ÿ?0*(BI
7@>4&//-ÿJ4(%$ÿK@0>>ÿ()51)55$(ÿ>3$ÿ@&5$ÿ0*ÿ7F')/ÿL:6ÿ9;9LBÿQ0'ÿ501$
'$&50*ÿ>3$ÿN/$'AR5ÿ0*/)*$ÿ(0@A$>ÿ)*ÿ@&5$ÿ9;LM8N789O:;ÿ()(ÿ*0>
&FF$&'ÿ.4//-ÿ.4*@>)0*&/ÿ/&5>ÿ234'5(&-ÿ&*(ÿ=ÿE&5ÿ0*/-ÿ&?/$ÿ>0ÿD)$Eÿ>3$
(0@A$>ÿ$*>')$5ÿ&*(ÿ*0>ÿ>3$ÿ&@>4&/ÿ'$@0'(5Bÿ7ÿ(0@A$>ÿ$*>'-ÿ530E5ÿ>3$
@&5$ÿE&5ÿ()51)55$(ÿ0*ÿ7F')/ÿL:6ÿ9;9Lÿ?4>ÿ(0$5ÿ*0>ÿ530Eÿ>3$ÿS4(%$B
TD$'ÿ>3$ÿE$$A$*(ÿ=ÿ.04*(ÿ>3$ÿT'($'ÿ0.ÿP)51)55&/ÿ?-ÿJ4(%$ÿK@0>>ÿ>3&>
E&5ÿ&/50ÿ.)/$(ÿ)*ÿ.$($'&/ÿ@&5$ÿGH9L8@D8;;:LO8UVW8U#Xÿ&5ÿYZ3)?)>ÿL<6
5$$ÿ&>>&@3$(Bÿ
J4(%$ÿK&*($'5ÿE&5ÿ0*ÿ>3$ÿ@&5$ÿ?-ÿJ4/-ÿ9[6ÿ9;9LÿE3$*ÿ3$ÿ$*>$'$(ÿ
T#PY#ÿPY\]=\VÿUX7=\2=QQ^Kÿ,T2=T\ÿ2Tÿ#Y=\K272Y
N7KY
Q)/)*%ÿ_ÿL<LO[LL[MÿY8Q)/$(ÿ;à9[a9;9Lÿ;:HLOH:;ÿU,
K0ÿ=ÿ@&*ÿ@0''$@>ÿ>3&>ÿE)>3ÿ&*ÿ&1$*($(ÿ\T2=NYÿTQÿQ=X=\V
2#7\KN#=U2ÿTQÿ,T2=T\KÿbY7#=\VÿJ7\c7#]ÿ9;6ÿ9;9LB
7/506ÿ'$%&'()*%ÿF&'&%'&F3ÿ̀6
I`BÿN)'@4)>ÿJ4(%$ÿ#BÿV'$%%ÿJ$'&/(ÿ5)%*$(ÿ>3$ÿ&''$5>ÿE&''&*>ÿ.0'ÿ>3$
P$.$*(&*>ÿ)*ÿ@&5$ÿ*0Bÿ9;9L8NQ89MOBÿU')0'ÿ>0ÿ3)5ÿ&FF0)*>1$*>ÿ>0ÿ>3$
?$*@36ÿ,'BÿJ$'&/(ÿE&5ÿV$*$'&/ÿN04*5$/ÿ>0ÿ>3$ÿ,&')0*ÿN04*>-
K3$')..R5ÿ0..)@$6ÿ&*(ÿ)*ÿ>3&>ÿ'0/$ÿA*$Eÿ>3$ÿP$.$*(&*>ÿ/&E.4//-
'$@0'($(ÿ@&//5BI
8!" 4133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%&'%ÿ'%%ÿ&))&*+%,ÿ-.ÿ$%))%/ÿ)0ÿ1/2ÿ3/%44ÿ5%/&$,6ÿ3%7%/&$ÿ8097'%$6
1&/:07ÿ8097).ÿ;+%/:<<='ÿ><<:*%ÿ?18;>@6ÿ5&79&/.ÿAB6ÿACBDÿ/%4&/,:74
E%)%*):F%ÿG/:HÿI2ÿE:*%ÿ&'':47%,ÿ)0ÿ:7F%'):4&)%ÿG$,%/ÿJK9'%ÿ&7,
<:7&7*:&$ÿ*/:-%'ÿ:7ÿACCD6ÿ'%%ÿ)+%ÿ$%))%/ÿK%4:77:74ÿ&)ÿ)+%ÿK0))0-ÿ0<
#&4%ÿA6ÿ*07):79%,ÿ07ÿ#&4%ÿLM
NOÿK%$:%F%ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%ÿ)%$%#+07%,ÿ-%ÿ)P:*%6ÿ:7:):&$$.ÿ07ÿQ0F%-K%/
R6ÿACBS6ÿ&7,ÿ&4&:7ÿ07ÿQ0F%-K%/ÿBT6ÿACBS2ÿG&*+ÿ):-%ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%
P&'ÿ:7<0/-%,ÿK.ÿ&ÿU%$%#+07%ÿV%*0/,:74ÿJ77097*%/ÿ)+&)ÿ&$$ÿ*&$$'ÿ&/%
/%*0/,%,ÿ<0/ÿW9&$:).ÿ&''9/&7*%ÿ#9/#0'%'6ÿ&)ÿ)+%ÿK%4:77:74ÿ0<ÿ)+%
)%$%#+07%ÿ*&$$2ÿ8097'%$ÿ+&'ÿ&,F:'%,ÿ-%ÿ)+&)ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%6ÿ0/
&7.07%ÿ%$'%6ÿ#/0F:,%'ÿ*07'%7)ÿ:<ÿ)+%ÿ*&$$%/ÿ*07):79%'ÿ)0ÿ)&$Hÿ&<)%/
+%&/:74ÿ)+%ÿ&77097*%-%7)2N
NX+%7ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%ÿ)%$%#+07%,ÿ-%ÿ07ÿQ0F%-K%/ÿBT6ÿACBS6ÿOÿ&'H%,
+:-ÿ:<ÿ+%ÿ+%&/,ÿ)+%ÿU%$%#+07%ÿV%*0/,:74ÿJ77097*%/2ÿE:*%ÿ/%'#07,%,
.%'6ÿK9)ÿ'&:,ÿ+%ÿ,:,ÿ70)ÿ4:F%ÿ+:'ÿ*07'%7)ÿ)0ÿK%ÿ/%*0/,%,6ÿ&7,
#/0*%%,%,ÿ)0ÿ%74&4%ÿ:7ÿ,09K$%Y)&$Hÿ&7,ÿ'9K)%/<94%ÿ07ÿ)+%ÿ:''9%2N
NOÿ/%$.ÿ07ÿ)+%ÿ+0$,:74ÿ:7ÿV0.&$ÿZ%&$)+ÿ8&/%ÿ;%/F'26ÿO7*2ÿF2ÿ5%<<%/'07Y
[:$0)ÿ\:<%ÿO7'2ÿ8026ÿRA]ÿ^2A,ÿABSÿ?BB)+ÿ8:/2ÿBRRB@2ÿO7ÿ-.ÿF:%Pÿ^$0/:,&
$&Pÿ#/0+:K:)'ÿN:7)%/*%#):07Nÿ0<ÿ*%/)&:7ÿ*0--97:*&):076ÿK9)ÿ70)ÿ&$$
/%*0/,:742ÿU+%ÿ_2;2ÿG$%F%7)+ÿ8:/*9:)ÿ809/)ÿ0<ÿJ##%&$'ÿ+&'ÿ+%$,ÿ)+&)
K%*&9'%ÿ07$.ÿ:7)%/*%#):07'ÿ-&,%ÿ)+/094+ÿ&7ÿN%$%*)/07:*6ÿ-%*+&7:*&$
0/ÿ0)+%/ÿ,%F:*%Nÿ&/%ÿ:$$%4&$ÿ97,%/ÿ^$0/:,&ÿ$&P6ÿ)%$%#+07%'ÿ9'%,ÿ:7ÿ)+%
0/,:7&/.ÿ*09/'%ÿ0<ÿK9':7%''ÿ)0ÿ/%*0/,ÿ*07F%/'&):07'ÿ,0ÿ70)ÿF:0$&)%ÿ)+%
$&P2ÿO7ÿ0)+%/ÿP0/,'6ÿ)+%ÿ)%$%#+07%ÿ'%)ÿN:7)%/*%#)'Nÿ)+%ÿ*&$$6ÿ70)ÿ)+%
/%*0/,:74ÿ,%F:*%6ÿ&7,ÿ)+%ÿ#+07%ÿ*&$$ÿ:'ÿ$&P<9$$.ÿ/%*0/,%,ÿ&<)%/ÿ$&P<9$
:7)%/*%#):072ÿU+:'ÿ:'ÿ:7ÿ*07)/&')ÿ)0ÿ&ÿ*09/)Y0/,%/%,ÿP:/%)&#ÿP+%/%ÿ&
*&$$ÿ:'ÿN:7)%/*%#)%,NÿK%<0/%ÿ:)ÿ/%&*+%'ÿ)+%ÿ)%$%#+07%ÿ'%)2ÿU+%ÿ$&7,Y$:7%
+0-%ÿ0<<:*%ÿ)%$%#+07%ÿ)+&)ÿOÿ9'%ÿ$&P<9$$.ÿ:7)%/*%#)'ÿ&ÿ*&$$ÿK%<0/%
$&P<9$$.ÿ/%*0/,:74ÿ)+%ÿ*&$$2ÿ;%%ÿ%7*$0'%,ÿ-.ÿ$%))%/ÿ)0ÿ;#%*:&$ÿJ4%7)
[&9$ÿX.'0#&$6ÿÎOÿU&-#&ÿV%YU%$%#+07%ÿV%*0/,:742N
8!" 2133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$ÿ&'((')ÿ(*ÿ(+'ÿ,-.ÿ/0ÿ1*0('2ÿ*3ÿ45)/62ÿ+')'7
+((1899:::;05)/62;5*<92*59=>?@A@>B>9CDE&FG$0*1D&F,-.FHD<1DF
41'5/D&FIJ'3(F/3FK+D)J'
C&'D0'ÿ3*('ÿ(+'ÿI11'32/Lÿ*MÿNL+/6/(0ÿ1)*O/2'27ÿ:+/5+ÿD)'ÿDOD/&D6&';ÿ
I&0*ÿ3*('7ÿ<$ÿ&'((')ÿ:D0ÿ1)*O/2'2ÿPK5Pÿ(*ÿ(+'ÿM*&&*:/3Jÿ1')0*308
K58ÿ-)D2ÿQ/3J7ÿ4(D('ÿI((*)3'$RÿK58ÿ4+')/MMÿK+)/0ÿ-&D/)ÿ#K4S
K58ÿ#D)/*3ÿK*E3($ÿ-SKKRÿK58ÿKD1(D/3ÿ-/&&ÿ4*:2')ÿ#K4S
K58ÿTE$ÿ#/3(')7ÿK*E3($ÿI((*)3'$RÿK58ÿU'('5(/O'ÿN)/Vÿ-;ÿU/5'ÿ#K4S
K58ÿUDO/2ÿW;ÿN&&01')<D337ÿ#D)/*3ÿK*E3($
K&')Vÿ*MÿK*E)(ÿXÿK*<1()*&&')
K58ÿT)'J*)$ÿK;ÿYD))'&&7ÿT'3')D&ÿK*E30'&
K58ÿZ(;ÿW$D3ÿW*66/307ÿCE6&/5ÿ.3M*)<D(/*3ÿSMM/5')RÿZDE)'3ÿZ'(('&/')7
CE6&/5ÿ.3M*)<D(/*3ÿSMM/5')
W'JD)2/3Jÿ<$ÿ1+*3'ÿ5D&&0ÿ:/(+ÿU'('5(/O'ÿU/5'7ÿ(+*0'ÿ:')'
()D305)/6'2;ÿUE)/3Jÿ(+'ÿ5D&&ÿ*3ÿ[*O'<6')ÿ\7ÿ=@]^ÿU/5'ÿ2*'0ÿ3*(
D5V3*:&'2J'ÿ+'D)/3Jÿ*3ÿ1DJ'ÿ=8ÿ
]=ÿI_HS#IHNUÿSCNWIHSW8ÿH+/0ÿ5D&&ÿ/0ÿ6'/3Jÿ
]>ÿ)'5*)2'2ÿM*)ÿ̀ED&/($ÿD00E)D35'ÿ1E)1*0'0;ÿ
0*ÿ2E)/3Jÿ(+'ÿ1+*3'ÿ5D&&ÿ:/(+ÿU'('5(/O'ÿU/5'ÿ*3ÿ[*O'<6')ÿ]?7ÿ=@]^7
.ÿD0V'2ÿ+/<ÿ/Mÿ+'ÿ+'D)2ÿ(+'ÿH'&'1+*3'ÿW'5*)2/3JÿI33*E35')7ÿ0''ÿ(+'
()D305)/1(ÿD32ÿ:+D(ÿ'30E'2;ÿ
I&0*7ÿDÿM*)'5&*0E)'ÿ+'D)/3Jÿ/3ÿ5D0'ÿ=@]>FKIF]]^ÿÿ6'M*)'ÿaE2J'ÿYD&'
4(D35/&ÿ*3ÿU'5'<6')ÿ]b7ÿ=@]Aÿ:D0ÿ)'5*)2'2ÿD32ÿ()D305)/6'27ÿD32
0+*:0ÿ*3ÿ(+'ÿD((D5+'2ÿ()D305)/1(ÿ*3ÿ1DJ'ÿ=8
=>ÿ[SHN8ÿ.<<'2/D('&$ÿ1)/*)ÿ(*ÿ(+'ÿ+'D)/3J7ÿaE2J'
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ4(D35/&ÿ1&D5'2ÿDÿ5D&&ÿD32ÿ(+'ÿM*&&*:/3Jÿ:D0ÿ)'5*)2'28
8!" 7133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$ÿ&'()*+,)-.ÿ+-//,0-12ÿ345/ÿ6,77ÿ5/ÿ8-590ÿ:-6*:.-.ÿ;*:
ÿÿÿÿÿ<(,75)=ÿ,//(:,96-ÿ>(:>*/-/?@
#Aÿ34-ÿ4-,:590ÿB,/ÿ)4-9ÿ:-6*:.-.ÿ,/ÿ;*77*B/1
C()ÿ:-0,:.7-//ÿ*;ÿ)4-ÿ,()*+,)-.ÿ+-//,0-DÿEF9-G>,:)=ÿ6*9/-9)ÿ>4*9-
6,77ÿ:-6*:.590ÿ5/ÿ7,B;(7ÿ(9.-:ÿHIÿJKLÿ#AHH&#@&.@ÿB4-9ÿ9*)ÿ,6)590
(9.-:ÿ6*7*:ÿ*;ÿ7,BDÿ,9.ÿ5/ÿ)4-ÿM,Bÿ*;ÿ)4-ÿM,9.ÿ59ÿN7*:5.,ÿ(9.-:ÿ)4-
K(>:-+,6=ÿL7,(/-ÿ*;ÿ)4-ÿJ?K?ÿL*9/)5)()5*9Dÿ':)567-ÿOPDÿL7,(/-ÿ#?Eÿ,/
/4*B9ÿ59ÿQ,:,0:,>4ÿRÿ*;ÿSF3PLTÿFNÿNPMPSUÿ3V'SKLVPQ3ÿFN
WF3PFSKÿXT'VPSUÿY'SJ'VZÿ#[Dÿ#[#HDÿ,9.ÿ+=ÿ7-))-:ÿ)*ÿ)4-
NCP?
K*ÿPÿ6,9ÿ;57-ÿ,ÿ6*::-6)-.ÿS*)56-ÿ5;ÿ=*(ÿ75\-?ÿC3]DÿB,/ÿ)4-:-ÿ,ÿ>:*87-+
B5)4ÿ)4-ÿL7-:\^/ÿ*9759-ÿ.*6\-)ÿ*9ÿ34(:/.,=Dÿ'(0(/)ÿ#$Dÿ#[#_`ÿ34,9\
=*(?
S-57ÿY?ÿU577-/>5-
!ÿabcd5ÿebÿ475ÿ4942ÿÿ97874827ÿf ÿ5ÿÿgbÿhaacij a!k!dka"laemÿna8
!"ÿdÿoaÿÿpc 5ÿalÿqbplÿÿcdrbÿo!ebÿnÿ!ÿÿÿÿÿ!kcc
!ÿÿakacÿa!bj 5ÿbÿ!cÿn5ÿÿÿppakÿdÿ!eÿbÿ"!nÿ ÿd
gÿ!ÿocl
ÿ
"ÿka5
ÿ
ÿgb
ÿ
8!" 133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
$%&ÿ()*+,
-!.ÿ!/5ÿ01!/.!
24#23297ÿ3ÿ..041 .!5!65."7.8
9::+;<ÿ%:ÿ=><?%>@ÿABÿC)>><DD
.!ÿ!6ÿ."ÿEÿ.ÿ!0ÿ1F..
GÿHIÿ39295ÿ5ÿJKÿ277203929
24#23#97ÿ3ÿLLL71 .!5!65."7.8
MN.ÿÿ/.Oÿ!0ÿF.5ÿÿF5ÿ./M
ÿ
ÿ
P>%QRÿÿS7ÿ-/FÿT55!46751U
V<WXRÿ./065ÿ8/ÿ475ÿ4942ÿ280ÿG
Y%Rÿ-.8ÿN..ÿT-N..41 .!5!65."7.8UZÿÿO/ÿT.41 .!5!65."7.8U
V[&\<;XRÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
ÿ
]^_àÿcdeÿfghÿi_jklhÿm_gnkogÿpdq_cÿrÿsknoqÿtdpkuoÿdsÿvknk̀wÿ]g_`lugkxp
dsÿfdpkd`lÿyo_gk̀wÿz_è_gcÿ{|}ÿ{|{~h
ÿ
]ôÿudegpÿgoxdgpogÿgolxd`qoqÿrsÿcdeÿ^_joÿ_ngo_qcÿsknoqÿpôÿpg_`lugkxpl
kp^ÿpôÿnoga}ÿcdeÿqd`pÿ^_joÿpdÿgosknoÿpôhÿÿ]ôcÿknnÿxennÿpôÿk̀
pdÿpôÿ_xxonn_poÿu_loh
ÿ
toknÿzhÿknnolxkoÿ
ÿ
!ÿ./065ÿ8/ÿ475ÿ4942ÿÿ989282ÿ ÿ5ÿÿO/ÿT..041 .!5!65."7.8UÿL.8
ÿ
ÿ
-0ÿ1.!!8ÿ.7ÿ-/F5
ÿ
ÿOÿ5!E.10ÿ ÿLÿOÿ.5O0ÿ6.ÿE!8ÿE.1ÿ8/ÿ445ÿ4942ÿÿ5ÿE
J!8ÿ!0ÿ.ÿFF!05/7ÿÿ6ÿ.ÿ!ÿ6ÿOLÿÿÿF5ÿ/ÿ6ÿ/ÿ!0
ÿ8ÿ.8ÿÿ.05!ÿ.OL5ÿÿLÿOÿ.5O0ÿ1ÿ!0ÿ6ÿLÿÿ!500
!ÿÿ.5.07ÿÿNLO.5ÿ!6ÿ051!/ÿ!ÿ6ÿE0ÿÿÿ5//ÿ!ÿFFÿLÿ!ÿ
8!" #133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
!$%%ÿ!ÿÿ&$&%ÿ&!'( 5ÿ'ÿÿ&$&%ÿ&!'( ÿ)&)&!ÿ)&$''ÿ'

&%*ÿ+!,
ÿ
!"ÿ*5
ÿ
ÿ-'
ÿ
./0ÿ23456
7!&ÿ!'5ÿ%(!'&!
248#3#97ÿ9ÿ&&%:( &!$!*$&",&+
;<<5=>ÿ/<ÿ?@>A/@BÿCDÿE3@@>FF
&!ÿ!*ÿ&"ÿGÿ&ÿ!%ÿ()&&
HÿIJÿ39295ÿ$ÿKLÿ277#03929
248#3897ÿ9ÿMMM,( &!$!*$&",&+
NO&ÿÿ'&-ÿ!%ÿ)&$ÿÿ)$ÿ&'N
ÿ
ÿ
P@/QRÿÿS,ÿ7')ÿT$$!:*,$(U
V>WXRÿY%!'%*5ÿ+'ÿ425ÿ4942ÿ789ÿH
Z/Rÿ7&+ÿO&&ÿT7O&&:( &!$!*$&",&+U[ÿÿ-'ÿT&:( &!$!*$&",&+U
V\0]>=XRÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
ÿ
^_ÿ̀bcdefg
ÿ
hicjkÿlmnÿom_ÿlmn_ÿpqcer̀ÿspfgÿtÿqpcjÿunvwxxwxyxzÿ̀spfÿ_pvc_{ejv
|m}e~pÿmoÿerejvÿh_cjf~_e}ÿom_ÿcjwxywxyxÿ̀uj{ÿtÿerrÿ~mj}c~}ÿ}ip
~mn_}ÿ_pm_}p_`
ÿ
|perÿÿ̀errpfep
ÿ
!ÿY%!'%*5ÿ+'ÿ425ÿ4942ÿÿ97877824ÿH ÿ5ÿÿ-'ÿT&&%:( &!$!*$&",&+UÿM&8
ÿ
ÿ
8!" #133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$ÿ%&'5
ÿ
ÿ(ÿ#&'!)ÿ!ÿ*# #ÿ) ÿ+##(5ÿÿ,#&5ÿ-ÿ#,#!.ÿÿ,!*ÿ,#+ÿ/!#-
445ÿ4942$ÿÿÿ-ÿ+!ÿ0*&ÿ445ÿ494212
ÿ
.!)5ÿ)ÿÿ#)ÿ.##.-ÿ ÿ-ÿ#ÿ&ÿ'!!!*ÿ!ÿ,!*5ÿ,#ÿ!.&!ÿ!ÿ
#.#)5ÿÿ.ÿ,ÿ3!*ÿ#!&.#'ÿ,ÿ!&ÿ4#!*ÿ/!#-ÿ495ÿ49432ÿ
ÿ
#)5ÿ#*#)!*ÿ-#ÿ,!ÿ5&!ÿÿÿ.#ÿ#'##&5ÿÿ)ÿ!ÿ"!($ÿÿÿ+ -
(&ÿÿ.! .ÿ.ÿ.#ÿ#'##ÿ)#.-ÿ,ÿ-ÿ6ÿ!-ÿ5&!&ÿÿ#
* !&$
ÿ
!"ÿ-5
ÿ

ÿ
789ÿ;<=>?
%!#ÿ!&5ÿ)+!&#!
24@A3A97ÿBÿ##)C+ #!.!-.#"$#*
DEE>FGÿ8EÿHIGJ8IKÿLMÿN<IIGOO
#!ÿ!-ÿ#"ÿ,ÿ#ÿ!)ÿ+'##
PÿQRÿ39295ÿ.ÿ3Sÿ277A03929
24@A3@97ÿBÿ((($+ #!.!-.#"$#*
T4#ÿÿ&#6ÿ!)ÿ'#.ÿÿ'.ÿ#&T
ÿ
ÿ
UI8VWÿÿ/$ÿ%&'ÿX..!C-$.+Y
ZG[\Wÿ])!&)-5ÿ*&ÿ425ÿ4942ÿ3383^ÿ
_8Wÿ%#*ÿ4##ÿX%4##C+ #!.!-.#"$#*Yÿ̀ÿ6&ÿX#C+ #!.!-.#"$#*Y
LFWÿÿ/$ÿ%&'ÿX..!C-$.+Y
Za9bGF\Wÿ ÿÿÿ42499
ÿ
cdefgdhÿjkÿlmddennoÿpmdqgrÿjgsrthÿjneduÿgvÿjgsdtÿmrwÿjgxytdgnned
8!" 0133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
$%&''())*+&',-./-0.12/)('34-'$
ÿ
6-7ÿ8&9,:;ÿ<(.('&)ÿ=-0.:()
6-7('18*+&',-./-0.12/)('34-'$
ÿ
6>?ÿ@6ABCDE@ÿ6>=F68ÿEBÿG8HIJHKKG
ÿ
<(.1)(+(.;ÿ
ÿ
E.ÿ/-+L),&./(ÿM,1%ÿ1%(ÿ&11&/%(NÿF'N('ÿ,.ÿG8HIJHKKG;ÿM%&1ÿN-ÿ2-0
.((NÿO'-+ÿ+(ÿ1-ÿ1'&.:+,1ÿ1%(ÿ'(/-'Nÿ72ÿA0$0:1ÿHG;ÿHKHIP
ÿ
Q%(.ÿ/&.ÿEÿ(RL(/1ÿ+2ÿO,),.$ÿO'-+ÿS&.0&'2ÿHH;ÿHKHIÿ1-ÿ7(ÿN-/3(1(NPÿE
M&.1ÿ1%(ÿO-))-M,.$ÿ1'&.:+,11(NÿM,1%ÿ1%(ÿ'(/-'N?
ÿ
8>T>B8AB@UCÿBF@E=>ÿFTÿTEVEB<ÿC@A@>D>B@ÿFT
<6E>WAB=>
A+(',/&.:ÿQ,1%ÿ8,:&7,),12ÿA/1ÿXA8AY;ÿAN+,.,:1'&1,9(ÿF'N('ÿAHKZKJ
ZHJ[
T,),.$ÿ\ÿZ]KZ]IIHKÿ>JT,)(NÿK]^HH^HKHIÿK_?GH?`ZÿAD
ÿ
Aaa>B8EbÿC1&1(+(.1ÿ-Oÿ<',(9&./(
ÿ
Aaa>B8Ebÿ>+&,)ÿ=-++0.,/&1,-.
8!" #133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*+,*+--.,ÿ/0#$%12ÿ,+3..3.,.-ÿ,456.57*ÿ89
ÿ
8::/;<=>ÿ912$?@%ÿ=&ABCD@E$B&ÿABCÿ;1$%ÿFGÿH$%%1IJ$1
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*+,*+--.,ÿ/0#$%12ÿ,+3..3.,.-ÿ,456.57*ÿ89
ÿ
=&ÿ?@I1ÿ.,..0K#0**-7Lÿ
</#/;<8;MNOÿ;PM=K/ÿP#ÿ:QPO/KRMPQ=8Sÿ9=OKP;<RKM
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*T+,,+*-.ÿ/0#$%12ÿ,T3.*3.,.-ÿ,U5-75.Tÿ:9LÿV$EW
@JJ1&2$XYIZLÿ
ÿ
@%IBÿEBBÿ$&ÿSMÿ?@I1Iÿ.,*U0K#07*U-ÿ@&2ÿ.,.*0K#0.+4Lÿ
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*T+,.U,+Tÿ/0#$%12ÿ,T3.73.,.-ÿ,+5,.5,-ÿ89LÿV$EW
@JJ1&2$XYIZ
ÿ
8IÿIBB&ÿ@IÿJBII$[%1ÿ=ÿJ%@&ÿ;BE$?1ÿBAÿ#$%$&'ÿMC@&I?C$JEÿBAÿ9BE$B&I
\1@C$&'ÿF@&]@C^ÿ.,Lÿ.,.*Lÿ[1ABC1ÿK$C?]$EÿF]2'1ÿH@C^ÿO@&21CIGÿ8ÿA1V
2@Îÿ@'Bÿ=ÿW@2ÿEW$IÿW1@C$&'ÿEC@&I?C$[12GÿMW1ÿ;BE$?1ÿC1D@$&IÿEBÿ[1
2C@AE12ÿ@&2ÿA$%12Gÿ=ÿ2$2ÿ&BEÿ@JJ1@CÿABCÿEW$IÿW1@C$&'ÿ[1?@]I1ÿ=ÿW@2ÿ'B&1
EBÿ:W$%@21%JW$@ÿABCÿC1E$&@ÿI]C'1C^ÿ@Eÿ_$%%Iÿ/^1ÿ\BIJ$E@%GÿF]2'1
O@&21CIÿ21&$12ÿEW1ÿD^ÿDBE$B&ÿABCÿ@ÿ4,ÿ2@^ÿIE@^ÿABCÿ1^1ÿI]C'1C^Gÿ8%IBL
B&ÿF@&]@C^ÿ.-Lÿ.,.-ÿ9CGÿ<@`$IÿJCB`$212ÿ@&ÿ1D@$%ÿ?B&A$CD$&'ÿD^
DBE$B&ÿW@2ÿ[11&ÿa%B?b12aÿB&ÿEW1ÿ2B?b1E5ÿY&BVÿ]&%B?b12Zÿ
ÿ
</#/;<8;MNOÿ9PM=P;ÿMPÿK8;K/SÿPQÿKP;M=;R/ÿ8SS
\/8Q=;HOÿR;M=Sÿ#RQM\/Qÿ;PM=K/Lÿ<=O8c=S=Md
8KKP99P<8M=P;ÿQ/eR/OM/<ÿ8;<ÿ_QP;HSdÿ</;=/<Lÿ
8!" 39133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ**+,-./-,ÿ01#$%23ÿ**4/*45/5/ÿ/,6//675ÿ89
ÿ
:;3'2ÿ<=&32>?ÿ@%=&&23ÿABÿ=>>2?AÿC2ÿ=AÿAD=AÿD2=>$&'ÿB&ÿ=&BAD2>ÿB&21
@=>AEÿFB&?2&AÿA2%2@DB&2ÿF=%%ÿ>2FB>3$&'ÿF=?2GÿH&ÿD$&3?$'DAÿHÿI=?ÿ=J%2ÿAB
'2Aÿ>2A$&=ÿ?;>'2>Eÿ$&ÿ8D$%=32%@D$=ÿAD=AÿHÿBAD2>I$?2ÿIB;%3ÿD=K2ÿJ22&
32&$23ÿJEÿAD2ÿ9=>$B&ÿLB;&AEÿ:=$%ÿD=3ÿHÿ=@@2=>23Gÿ:;3'2ÿ<=&32>?ÿ=%?B
32&$23ÿC2ÿ=??$?A=&F2ÿBMÿFB;&?2%NÿO>2&3=ÿPGÿ<C$ADQÿ#RÿO=>ÿSBG6
T*T.+TQÿI=?ÿ=@@B$&A23ÿJ;Aÿ>2M;?23ÿABÿ2&A2>ÿD2>ÿ=@@2=>=&F2ÿB>ÿ=FF2@A
AD2ÿ=@@B$&AC2&AGÿ:;3'2ÿ<=&32>?ÿ?A>;FUÿ=ÿ&;CJ2>ÿBMÿCEÿ@>Bÿ?2ÿM$%$&'?
J2F=;?2ÿ9?Gÿ<C$ADÿI=?ÿCEÿ=%%2'23ÿFB;&?2%ÿBMÿ>2FB>3Gÿ
ÿ
VD2>2ÿ=>2ÿ=%?Bÿ?2K2>=%ÿD=&3ÿI>$AA2&ÿCBA$B&?ÿABÿ3$?C$??ÿ$&ÿ5/5*1L#1
5W.Qÿ=&3ÿ=ÿD=&3I>$AA2&ÿCBA$B&ÿ$&ÿ5/5/1L#15-*TÿHÿI=&AÿABÿ$&F%;32Gÿ
ÿ
Hÿ=%?Bÿ;&32>?A=&3ÿAD=AÿA>=&?F>$@A?ÿBMÿD2=>$&'?ÿ=%>2=3EÿM$%23ÿB&ÿAD2
3BFU2Aÿ$&ÿ9=>$B&ÿLB;&AEÿ&223ÿABÿJ2ÿA>=&?C$AA23ÿJEÿAD2ÿFB;>Aÿ>2@B>A2>
ABÿAD2ÿX@@2%%=A2ÿLB;>AQÿAD=Aÿ$?ÿ>$'DAYÿVD=&UÿEB;G
ÿ
<$&F2>2%EQ
4?4
S2$%ÿ:GÿZ$%%2?@$2
5W/*ÿ<[ÿLB%%2'2ÿ\3GQÿ<V0ÿ7
]F=%=Qÿ#Rÿ7--T-
8DB&26ÿ7+5157,1,/7T
0C=$%6ÿF2%A$F2$&Ê=DBBGFBC
8!" 33133
Filing # 180867828 E-Filed 08/31/2023 07:44:38 AM

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
___________________________/
APPELLANT'S SECOND NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL
pro se, gives Second Notice of Incomplete Record on Appeal, and states:
1. On Monday, August 28, 2023, at 10:23 AM, the Appellant was served
by 5DCA CaseMail a Record on Appeal by Marion County Clerk Gregory
Harrell, consisting of 4,152 pages and dated August 25, 2023.
2. The Record on Appeal is still missing the Appellant’s Notice of Filing
Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021 as shown in his Notice of
Incomplete Record on Appeal filed in this Court on August 25, 2023.
3. The Certificate OF Clerk on page 4152 of the Record states,

recital and inclusion of all such original papers and proceedings in
said cause as appears from the records and files of my office.
4. Appellant’s Notice of Filing Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20,
2021 was filed on the Florida Portal on August 24, 2023 as follows:

Therefore the Certificate of Clerk appearing on page 4152 is not correct.
Appendix of Exhibits and the Motions Hearing transcript, because the
Notice shows that the State of Florida knew the Appellant’s lawful one-
party consent phone recording was not a crime, but charged him anyway,
not once, but twice, Case No. 2019-CF-4193 and Case No. 2021-CF-286.
6. Furthermore, the Appellant’s Notice shows intentional wrongdoing by
certain Marion County Circuit Judges, misconduct by the State Attorney,
and serious harm to the Defendant, negligence resulting in a detached
retina, wrongful denial of disability accommodation, wrongful incarceration
on no bond for 428 days, and evidence of retaliation by the Fifth Judicial
Circuit, et al, for filing a civil rights case over the wrongful foreclosure of his
home on a HECM reverse mortgage, Case No. 2018-CA-2640, and in
Case No. 2020-CA-934, the failure to protect the Appellant, and the failure
to protect Sarah Thompson, who died May 12, 2021 of a drug overdose.
2
7. On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM, the Appellant emailed Mr.
Rob Davis, General Counsel to the Marion County Clerk:
Mr. Davis,
Regarding My filing from Thursday, Aug-24-2023, I see it has not yet

been docketed. While reviewing the document over the weekend, I
found an error in paragraph 25:
"25. Judge Sanders got reassigned to case no. 2018-CA-2640 and

dismissed the case on April 14, 2021 while the Defendant was held in
the Marion County Jail on no bond."
Actually Judge Scott dismissed the case on April 14, 2021. For some
reason the Clerk’s online docket in case 2018-CA-2640 did not
appear fully functional last Thursday and I was only able to view the
docket entries and not the actual records. A docket entry shows the
case was dismissed on April 14, 2021 but does not show the judge.
Over the weekend I found the Order of Dismissal by Judge Scott that
was also filed in federal case 5:21-cv-00416-PGB-PRL as Exhibit 13,
see attached.
Judge Sanders was on the case by July 29, 2021 when he entered
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE
Filing # 131691198 E-Filed 07/29/2021 04:16:40 PM
So I can correct that with an amended NOTICE OF FILING

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING JANUARY 20, 2021.
Also, regarding paragraph 7,
"7. Circuit Judge R. Gregg Jerald signed the arrest warrant for the
Defendant in case no. 2021-CF-286. Prior to his appointment to the
bench, Mr. Jerald was General Counsel to the Marion County
Sheriff’s office, and in that role knew the Defendant lawfully recorded
calls."
3
please see attached my letter to Mr. Gregg Jerald, General Counsel,
Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), January 21, 2016 regarding
Detective Erik B. Dice assigned to investigate Elder Abuse and
financial crimes in 2006, see the letter beginning at the bottom of
page 2, continued on page 3:
"I believe Detective Dice telephoned me twice, initially on November

9, 2015, and again on November 17, 2015. Each time Detective Dice
was informed by a Telephone Recording Announcer that all calls are
recorded for quality assurance purposes, at the beginning of the
telephone call. Counsel has advised me that Detective Dice, or
anyone else, provides consent if the caller continues to talk after
hearing the announcement."
"When Detective Dice telephoned me on November 17, 2015, I

asked him if he heard the Telephone Recording Announcer. Dice
responded yes, but said he did not give his consent to be recorded,
and proceeded to engage in double-talk and subterfuge on the
issue."
"I rely on the holding in Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-
Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). In my view Florida
law prohibits "interception" of certain communication, but not all
recording. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that
because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical
or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the
ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate
the law. In other words, the telephone set "intercepts" the call, not the
recording device, and the phone call is lawfully recorded after lawful
interception. This is in contrast to a court-ordered wiretap where a
call is "intercepted" before it reaches the telephone set. The land-line
home office telephone that I use lawfully intercepts a call before
lawfully recording the call. See enclosed my letter to Special Agent
Paul Wysopal, FBI Tampa Re-Telephone Recording."
My letter to the FBI is posted on Scribd here,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237040363/Paul-Wysopal-FBI-Tampa-
Special-Agent-in-Charge
4
Please note the Appendix of Exhibits provided, which are available.
Also note, my letter was provided "Cc" to the following persons:
Cc: Brad King, State Attorney; Cc: Sheriff Chris Blair MCSO
Cc: Marion County BOCC; Cc: Captain Bill Sowder MCSO
Cc: Guy Minter, County Attorney; Cc: Detective Erik B. Dice MCSO
Cc: David R. Ellspermann, Marion County
Clerk of Court & Comptroller
Cc: Gregory C. Harrell, General Counsel
Cc: Lt. Ryan Robbins, Public Information Officer; Lauren Lettelier,
Public Information Officer
Regarding my phone calls with Detective Dice, those were

transcribed. During the call on November 9, 2015 Dice does not
acknowledge hearing on page 2:
12 AUTOMATED OPERATOR: This call is being

13 recorded for quality assurance purposes.
so during the phone call with Detective Dice on November 17, 2015, I
asked him if he heard the Telephone Recording Announcer, see the
transcript and what ensued.
Also, a foreclosure hearing in case 2013-CA-115 before Judge Hale

Stancil on December 18, 2014 was recorded and transcribed, and
shows on the attached transcript on page 2:
23 NOTE: Immediately prior to the hearing, Judge

Stancil placed a call and the following was recorded:
24 (Automated message:· This call is being recorded for
quality assurance purposes.)
25 The hearing was then recorded as follows:
But regardless of the automated message, "One-party consent phone

call recording is lawful under 18 USC 2511(2)(d) when not acting
under color of law, and is the Law of the Land in Florida under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2." as
5
shown in Paragraph 6 of NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT OF
MOTIONS HEARING JANUARY 20, 2021, and my letter to the FBI.
So I can file a corrected Notice if you like. BTW, was there a problem
with the Clerk’s online docket on Thursday, August 24, 2023? Thank
you.
Neil J. Gillespie
8. Mr. Davis responded Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:30 AM:
Good morning Mr. Gillespie,
Thank you for your email. Your filings from 8/24/23 are still in the
process of being reviewed for redactions and will be made available
on the public-facing docket once that takes place.
Any documents that you wish to have filed to your cases will need to
be mailed in, submitted over the counter, or e-filed.
Regarding your question about the online dockets on 8/24/23, our

office did experience server issues that day and images were down
for a time. Images were again available before the end of the day.
Thank you,
Rob Davis
9. The Appellant’s email chain with Mr. Davis is attached.
10. On August 29, 2023, the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Filing
Transcript of Motions Hearing January 20, 2021, with Appendix and
Transcript, Filing # 180766585 E-Filed 08/29/2023 03:39:19 PM
Appendix and Transcript, filed August 24, 2023 or the Amended Notice.
6

Ocala, FL 34474
Tel: 352-239-9037

7
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%ÿ'#()*+,'ÿ#-./#0ÿ,)ÿ102342551
6789%#8:ÿ0;<=>ÿ?78:$7@AB9;7=8CD8EC@FDG$7HI87JK
'8% D$G@=D$=CBF;L88ID89MÿJL;77$GGB9;7=8CD8EC@FDG$7HI87J
.D% D$G@=D$=CBF;L88ID89
0;@$%+8CA;FNÿ(EJE>@ÿ2ONÿ2523ÿ;@ÿ5P%35ÿ(+ÿ-0'
QRRSÿURVWXWYÿZV[ÿQX\\]^_X]`
abcWdÿeRfÿgRVÿeRfVÿ]UcX\[ÿÿhRfVÿgX\XWY^ÿgVRUÿijkljkmÿcV]ÿ^nX\\ÿXW
nb]ÿ_VRo]^^ÿRgÿp]XWYÿV]qX]r]SÿgRVÿV]SconXRW^ÿcWSÿrX\\ÿp]ÿUcS]
cqcX\cp\]ÿRWÿnb]ÿ_fp\XosgcoXWYÿSRod]nÿRWo]ÿnbcnÿncd]^ÿ_\co][
tWeÿSRofU]Wn^ÿnbcnÿeRfÿrX^bÿnRÿbcq]ÿgX\]SÿnRÿeRfVÿoc^]^ÿrX\\
W]]SÿnRÿp]ÿUcX\]SÿXWÿ̀^fpUXnn]SÿRq]Vÿnb]ÿoRfWn]V̀ÿRVÿ]sgX\]S[ÿÿ
u]YcVSXWYÿeRfVÿvf]^nXRWÿcpRfnÿnb]ÿRW\XW]ÿSRod]n^ÿRWÿijkljkm`
RfVÿRggXo]ÿSXSÿ]w_]VX]Wo]ÿ^]Vq]VÿX^^f]^ÿnbcnÿSceÿcWSÿXUcY]^ÿr]V]
SRrWÿgRVÿcÿnXU][ÿÿxUcY]^ÿr]V]ÿcYcXWÿcqcX\cp\]ÿp]gRV]ÿnb]ÿ]WSÿRg
nb]ÿSce[
abcWdÿeRf`
uRpÿycqX^
z{|}~ÿÿÿÿ
~ÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£¤¢¢¤¥¥ÿ
¦|~ÿ§ÿ̈§§ÿ¨§§§§©§ªÿ«¬ÿ®ÿ«¬§§§©§
¯°~ÿÿÿÿ
±²³°~ÿ«¤ÿ́«µ¶´ÿ«·¸¹«ÿ¶ÿº¢»¡¡º
ÿ
ZV[ÿycqX^`
8!" 3133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%&'()*%ÿ,-ÿ.)/)*%ÿ.'01ÿ234'5(&-6ÿ74%89:89;9<6ÿ=ÿ5$$ÿ)>ÿ3&5ÿ*0>ÿ-$>
?$$*ÿ(0@A$>$(BÿC3)/$ÿ'$D)$E)*%ÿ>3$ÿ(0@41$*>ÿ0D$'ÿ>3$ÿE$$A$*(6ÿ=
.04*(ÿ&*ÿ$''0'ÿ)*ÿF&'&%'&F3ÿ9GH
I9GBÿJ4(%$ÿK&*($'5ÿ%0>ÿ'$&55)%*$(ÿ>0ÿ@&5$ÿ*0Bÿ9;LM8N789O:;ÿ&*(
()51)55$(ÿ>3$ÿ@&5$ÿ0*ÿ7F')/ÿL:6ÿ9;9LÿE3)/$ÿ>3$ÿP$.$*(&*>ÿE&5ÿ3$/(ÿ)*
>3$ÿ,&')0*ÿN04*>-ÿJ&)/ÿ0*ÿ*0ÿ?0*(BI
7@>4&//-ÿJ4(%$ÿK@0>>ÿ()51)55$(ÿ>3$ÿ@&5$ÿ0*ÿ7F')/ÿL:6ÿ9;9LBÿQ0'ÿ501$
'$&50*ÿ>3$ÿN/$'AR5ÿ0*/)*$ÿ(0@A$>ÿ)*ÿ@&5$ÿ9;LM8N789O:;ÿ()(ÿ*0>
&FF$&'ÿ.4//-ÿ.4*@>)0*&/ÿ/&5>ÿ234'5(&-ÿ&*(ÿ=ÿE&5ÿ0*/-ÿ&?/$ÿ>0ÿD)$Eÿ>3$
(0@A$>ÿ$*>')$5ÿ&*(ÿ*0>ÿ>3$ÿ&@>4&/ÿ'$@0'(5Bÿ7ÿ(0@A$>ÿ$*>'-ÿ530E5ÿ>3$
@&5$ÿE&5ÿ()51)55$(ÿ0*ÿ7F')/ÿL:6ÿ9;9Lÿ?4>ÿ(0$5ÿ*0>ÿ530Eÿ>3$ÿS4(%$B
TD$'ÿ>3$ÿE$$A$*(ÿ=ÿ.04*(ÿ>3$ÿT'($'ÿ0.ÿP)51)55&/ÿ?-ÿJ4(%$ÿK@0>>ÿ>3&>
E&5ÿ&/50ÿ.)/$(ÿ)*ÿ.$($'&/ÿ@&5$ÿGH9L8@D8;;:LO8UVW8U#Xÿ&5ÿYZ3)?)>ÿL<6
5$$ÿ&>>&@3$(Bÿ
J4(%$ÿK&*($'5ÿE&5ÿ0*ÿ>3$ÿ@&5$ÿ?-ÿJ4/-ÿ9[6ÿ9;9LÿE3$*ÿ3$ÿ$*>$'$(ÿ
T#PY#ÿPY\]=\VÿUX7=\2=QQ^Kÿ,T2=T\ÿ2Tÿ#Y=\K272Y
N7KY
Q)/)*%ÿ_ÿL<LO[LL[MÿY8Q)/$(ÿ;à9[a9;9Lÿ;:HLOH:;ÿU,
K0ÿ=ÿ@&*ÿ@0''$@>ÿ>3&>ÿE)>3ÿ&*ÿ&1$*($(ÿ\T2=NYÿTQÿQ=X=\V
2#7\KN#=U2ÿTQÿ,T2=T\KÿbY7#=\VÿJ7\c7#]ÿ9;6ÿ9;9LB
7/506ÿ'$%&'()*%ÿF&'&%'&F3ÿ̀6
I`BÿN)'@4)>ÿJ4(%$ÿ#BÿV'$%%ÿJ$'&/(ÿ5)%*$(ÿ>3$ÿ&''$5>ÿE&''&*>ÿ.0'ÿ>3$
P$.$*(&*>ÿ)*ÿ@&5$ÿ*0Bÿ9;9L8NQ89MOBÿU')0'ÿ>0ÿ3)5ÿ&FF0)*>1$*>ÿ>0ÿ>3$
?$*@36ÿ,'BÿJ$'&/(ÿE&5ÿV$*$'&/ÿN04*5$/ÿ>0ÿ>3$ÿ,&')0*ÿN04*>-
K3$')..R5ÿ0..)@$6ÿ&*(ÿ)*ÿ>3&>ÿ'0/$ÿA*$Eÿ>3$ÿP$.$*(&*>ÿ/&E.4//-
'$@0'($(ÿ@&//5BI
8!" 4133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%&'%ÿ'%%ÿ&))&*+%,ÿ-.ÿ$%))%/ÿ)0ÿ1/2ÿ3/%44ÿ5%/&$,6ÿ3%7%/&$ÿ8097'%$6
1&/:07ÿ8097).ÿ;+%/:<<='ÿ><<:*%ÿ?18;>@6ÿ5&79&/.ÿAB6ÿACBDÿ/%4&/,:74
E%)%*):F%ÿG/:HÿI2ÿE:*%ÿ&'':47%,ÿ)0ÿ:7F%'):4&)%ÿG$,%/ÿJK9'%ÿ&7,
<:7&7*:&$ÿ*/:-%'ÿ:7ÿACCD6ÿ'%%ÿ)+%ÿ$%))%/ÿK%4:77:74ÿ&)ÿ)+%ÿK0))0-ÿ0<
#&4%ÿA6ÿ*07):79%,ÿ07ÿ#&4%ÿLM
NOÿK%$:%F%ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%ÿ)%$%#+07%,ÿ-%ÿ)P:*%6ÿ:7:):&$$.ÿ07ÿQ0F%-K%/
R6ÿACBS6ÿ&7,ÿ&4&:7ÿ07ÿQ0F%-K%/ÿBT6ÿACBS2ÿG&*+ÿ):-%ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%
P&'ÿ:7<0/-%,ÿK.ÿ&ÿU%$%#+07%ÿV%*0/,:74ÿJ77097*%/ÿ)+&)ÿ&$$ÿ*&$$'ÿ&/%
/%*0/,%,ÿ<0/ÿW9&$:).ÿ&''9/&7*%ÿ#9/#0'%'6ÿ&)ÿ)+%ÿK%4:77:74ÿ0<ÿ)+%
)%$%#+07%ÿ*&$$2ÿ8097'%$ÿ+&'ÿ&,F:'%,ÿ-%ÿ)+&)ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%6ÿ0/
&7.07%ÿ%$'%6ÿ#/0F:,%'ÿ*07'%7)ÿ:<ÿ)+%ÿ*&$$%/ÿ*07):79%'ÿ)0ÿ)&$Hÿ&<)%/
+%&/:74ÿ)+%ÿ&77097*%-%7)2N
NX+%7ÿE%)%*):F%ÿE:*%ÿ)%$%#+07%,ÿ-%ÿ07ÿQ0F%-K%/ÿBT6ÿACBS6ÿOÿ&'H%,
+:-ÿ:<ÿ+%ÿ+%&/,ÿ)+%ÿU%$%#+07%ÿV%*0/,:74ÿJ77097*%/2ÿE:*%ÿ/%'#07,%,
.%'6ÿK9)ÿ'&:,ÿ+%ÿ,:,ÿ70)ÿ4:F%ÿ+:'ÿ*07'%7)ÿ)0ÿK%ÿ/%*0/,%,6ÿ&7,
#/0*%%,%,ÿ)0ÿ%74&4%ÿ:7ÿ,09K$%Y)&$Hÿ&7,ÿ'9K)%/<94%ÿ07ÿ)+%ÿ:''9%2N
NOÿ/%$.ÿ07ÿ)+%ÿ+0$,:74ÿ:7ÿV0.&$ÿZ%&$)+ÿ8&/%ÿ;%/F'26ÿO7*2ÿF2ÿ5%<<%/'07Y
[:$0)ÿ\:<%ÿO7'2ÿ8026ÿRA]ÿ^2A,ÿABSÿ?BB)+ÿ8:/2ÿBRRB@2ÿO7ÿ-.ÿF:%Pÿ^$0/:,&
$&Pÿ#/0+:K:)'ÿN:7)%/*%#):07Nÿ0<ÿ*%/)&:7ÿ*0--97:*&):076ÿK9)ÿ70)ÿ&$$
/%*0/,:742ÿU+%ÿ_2;2ÿG$%F%7)+ÿ8:/*9:)ÿ809/)ÿ0<ÿJ##%&$'ÿ+&'ÿ+%$,ÿ)+&)
K%*&9'%ÿ07$.ÿ:7)%/*%#):07'ÿ-&,%ÿ)+/094+ÿ&7ÿN%$%*)/07:*6ÿ-%*+&7:*&$
0/ÿ0)+%/ÿ,%F:*%Nÿ&/%ÿ:$$%4&$ÿ97,%/ÿ^$0/:,&ÿ$&P6ÿ)%$%#+07%'ÿ9'%,ÿ:7ÿ)+%
0/,:7&/.ÿ*09/'%ÿ0<ÿK9':7%''ÿ)0ÿ/%*0/,ÿ*07F%/'&):07'ÿ,0ÿ70)ÿF:0$&)%ÿ)+%
$&P2ÿO7ÿ0)+%/ÿP0/,'6ÿ)+%ÿ)%$%#+07%ÿ'%)ÿN:7)%/*%#)'Nÿ)+%ÿ*&$$6ÿ70)ÿ)+%
/%*0/,:74ÿ,%F:*%6ÿ&7,ÿ)+%ÿ#+07%ÿ*&$$ÿ:'ÿ$&P<9$$.ÿ/%*0/,%,ÿ&<)%/ÿ$&P<9$
:7)%/*%#):072ÿU+:'ÿ:'ÿ:7ÿ*07)/&')ÿ)0ÿ&ÿ*09/)Y0/,%/%,ÿP:/%)&#ÿP+%/%ÿ&
*&$$ÿ:'ÿN:7)%/*%#)%,NÿK%<0/%ÿ:)ÿ/%&*+%'ÿ)+%ÿ)%$%#+07%ÿ'%)2ÿU+%ÿ$&7,Y$:7%
+0-%ÿ0<<:*%ÿ)%$%#+07%ÿ)+&)ÿOÿ9'%ÿ$&P<9$$.ÿ:7)%/*%#)'ÿ&ÿ*&$$ÿK%<0/%
$&P<9$$.ÿ/%*0/,:74ÿ)+%ÿ*&$$2ÿ;%%ÿ%7*$0'%,ÿ-.ÿ$%))%/ÿ)0ÿ;#%*:&$ÿJ4%7)
[&9$ÿX.'0#&$6ÿÎOÿU&-#&ÿV%YU%$%#+07%ÿV%*0/,:742N
8!" 2133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$ÿ&'((')ÿ(*ÿ(+'ÿ,-.ÿ/0ÿ1*0('2ÿ*3ÿ45)/62ÿ+')'7
+((1899:::;05)/62;5*<92*59=>?@A@>B>9CDE&FG$0*1D&F,-.FHD<1DF
41'5/D&FIJ'3(F/3FK+D)J'
C&'D0'ÿ3*('ÿ(+'ÿI11'32/Lÿ*MÿNL+/6/(0ÿ1)*O/2'27ÿ:+/5+ÿD)'ÿDOD/&D6&';ÿ
I&0*ÿ3*('7ÿ<$ÿ&'((')ÿ:D0ÿ1)*O/2'2ÿPK5Pÿ(*ÿ(+'ÿM*&&*:/3Jÿ1')0*308
K58ÿ-)D2ÿQ/3J7ÿ4(D('ÿI((*)3'$RÿK58ÿ4+')/MMÿK+)/0ÿ-&D/)ÿ#K4S
K58ÿ#D)/*3ÿK*E3($ÿ-SKKRÿK58ÿKD1(D/3ÿ-/&&ÿ4*:2')ÿ#K4S
K58ÿTE$ÿ#/3(')7ÿK*E3($ÿI((*)3'$RÿK58ÿU'('5(/O'ÿN)/Vÿ-;ÿU/5'ÿ#K4S
K58ÿUDO/2ÿW;ÿN&&01')<D337ÿ#D)/*3ÿK*E3($
K&')Vÿ*MÿK*E)(ÿXÿK*<1()*&&')
K58ÿT)'J*)$ÿK;ÿYD))'&&7ÿT'3')D&ÿK*E30'&
K58ÿZ(;ÿW$D3ÿW*66/307ÿCE6&/5ÿ.3M*)<D(/*3ÿSMM/5')RÿZDE)'3ÿZ'(('&/')7
CE6&/5ÿ.3M*)<D(/*3ÿSMM/5')
W'JD)2/3Jÿ<$ÿ1+*3'ÿ5D&&0ÿ:/(+ÿU'('5(/O'ÿU/5'7ÿ(+*0'ÿ:')'
()D305)/6'2;ÿUE)/3Jÿ(+'ÿ5D&&ÿ*3ÿ[*O'<6')ÿ\7ÿ=@]^ÿU/5'ÿ2*'0ÿ3*(
D5V3*:&'2J'ÿ+'D)/3Jÿ*3ÿ1DJ'ÿ=8ÿ
]=ÿI_HS#IHNUÿSCNWIHSW8ÿH+/0ÿ5D&&ÿ/0ÿ6'/3Jÿ
]>ÿ)'5*)2'2ÿM*)ÿ̀ED&/($ÿD00E)D35'ÿ1E)1*0'0;ÿ
0*ÿ2E)/3Jÿ(+'ÿ1+*3'ÿ5D&&ÿ:/(+ÿU'('5(/O'ÿU/5'ÿ*3ÿ[*O'<6')ÿ]?7ÿ=@]^7
.ÿD0V'2ÿ+/<ÿ/Mÿ+'ÿ+'D)2ÿ(+'ÿH'&'1+*3'ÿW'5*)2/3JÿI33*E35')7ÿ0''ÿ(+'
()D305)/1(ÿD32ÿ:+D(ÿ'30E'2;ÿ
I&0*7ÿDÿM*)'5&*0E)'ÿ+'D)/3Jÿ/3ÿ5D0'ÿ=@]>FKIF]]^ÿÿ6'M*)'ÿaE2J'ÿYD&'
4(D35/&ÿ*3ÿU'5'<6')ÿ]b7ÿ=@]Aÿ:D0ÿ)'5*)2'2ÿD32ÿ()D305)/6'27ÿD32
0+*:0ÿ*3ÿ(+'ÿD((D5+'2ÿ()D305)/1(ÿ*3ÿ1DJ'ÿ=8
=>ÿ[SHN8ÿ.<<'2/D('&$ÿ1)/*)ÿ(*ÿ(+'ÿ+'D)/3J7ÿaE2J'
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ4(D35/&ÿ1&D5'2ÿDÿ5D&&ÿD32ÿ(+'ÿM*&&*:/3Jÿ:D0ÿ)'5*)2'28
8!" 7133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$ÿ&'()*+,)-.ÿ+-//,0-12ÿ345/ÿ6,77ÿ5/ÿ8-590ÿ:-6*:.-.ÿ;*:
ÿÿÿÿÿ<(,75)=ÿ,//(:,96-ÿ>(:>*/-/?@
#Aÿ34-ÿ4-,:590ÿB,/ÿ)4-9ÿ:-6*:.-.ÿ,/ÿ;*77*B/1
C()ÿ:-0,:.7-//ÿ*;ÿ)4-ÿ,()*+,)-.ÿ+-//,0-DÿEF9-G>,:)=ÿ6*9/-9)ÿ>4*9-
6,77ÿ:-6*:.590ÿ5/ÿ7,B;(7ÿ(9.-:ÿHIÿJKLÿ#AHH&#@&.@ÿB4-9ÿ9*)ÿ,6)590
(9.-:ÿ6*7*:ÿ*;ÿ7,BDÿ,9.ÿ5/ÿ)4-ÿM,Bÿ*;ÿ)4-ÿM,9.ÿ59ÿN7*:5.,ÿ(9.-:ÿ)4-
K(>:-+,6=ÿL7,(/-ÿ*;ÿ)4-ÿJ?K?ÿL*9/)5)()5*9Dÿ':)567-ÿOPDÿL7,(/-ÿ#?Eÿ,/
/4*B9ÿ59ÿQ,:,0:,>4ÿRÿ*;ÿSF3PLTÿFNÿNPMPSUÿ3V'SKLVPQ3ÿFN
WF3PFSKÿXT'VPSUÿY'SJ'VZÿ#[Dÿ#[#HDÿ,9.ÿ+=ÿ7-))-:ÿ)*ÿ)4-
NCP?
K*ÿPÿ6,9ÿ;57-ÿ,ÿ6*::-6)-.ÿS*)56-ÿ5;ÿ=*(ÿ75\-?ÿC3]DÿB,/ÿ)4-:-ÿ,ÿ>:*87-+
B5)4ÿ)4-ÿL7-:\^/ÿ*9759-ÿ.*6\-)ÿ*9ÿ34(:/.,=Dÿ'(0(/)ÿ#$Dÿ#[#_`ÿ34,9\
=*(?
S-57ÿY?ÿU577-/>5-
!ÿabcd5ÿebÿ475ÿ4942ÿÿ97874827ÿf ÿ5ÿÿgbÿhaacij a!k!dka"laemÿna8
!"ÿdÿoaÿÿpc 5ÿalÿqbplÿÿcdrbÿo!ebÿnÿ!ÿÿÿÿÿ!kcc
!ÿÿakacÿa!bj 5ÿbÿ!cÿn5ÿÿÿppakÿdÿ!eÿbÿ"!nÿ ÿd
gÿ!ÿocl
ÿ
"ÿka5
ÿ
ÿgb
ÿ
8!" 133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
$%&ÿ()*+,
-!.ÿ!/5ÿ01!/.!
24#23297ÿ3ÿ..041 .!5!65."7.8
9::+;<ÿ%:ÿ=><?%>@ÿABÿC)>><DD
.!ÿ!6ÿ."ÿEÿ.ÿ!0ÿ1F..
GÿHIÿ39295ÿ5ÿJKÿ277203929
24#23#97ÿ3ÿLLL71 .!5!65."7.8
MN.ÿÿ/.Oÿ!0ÿF.5ÿÿF5ÿ./M
ÿ
ÿ
P>%QRÿÿS7ÿ-/FÿT55!46751U
V<WXRÿ./065ÿ8/ÿ475ÿ4942ÿ280ÿG
Y%Rÿ-.8ÿN..ÿT-N..41 .!5!65."7.8UZÿÿO/ÿT.41 .!5!65."7.8U
V[&\<;XRÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
ÿ
]^_àÿcdeÿfghÿi_jklhÿm_gnkogÿpdq_cÿrÿsknoqÿtdpkuoÿdsÿvknk̀wÿ]g_`lugkxp
dsÿfdpkd`lÿyo_gk̀wÿz_è_gcÿ{|}ÿ{|{~h
ÿ
]ôÿudegpÿgoxdgpogÿgolxd`qoqÿrsÿcdeÿ^_joÿ_ngo_qcÿsknoqÿpôÿpg_`lugkxpl
kp^ÿpôÿnoga}ÿcdeÿqd`pÿ^_joÿpdÿgosknoÿpôhÿÿ]ôcÿknnÿxennÿpôÿk̀
pdÿpôÿ_xxonn_poÿu_loh
ÿ
toknÿzhÿknnolxkoÿ
ÿ
!ÿ./065ÿ8/ÿ475ÿ4942ÿÿ989282ÿ ÿ5ÿÿO/ÿT..041 .!5!65."7.8UÿL.8
ÿ
ÿ
-0ÿ1.!!8ÿ.7ÿ-/F5
ÿ
ÿOÿ5!E.10ÿ ÿLÿOÿ.5O0ÿ6.ÿE!8ÿE.1ÿ8/ÿ445ÿ4942ÿÿ5ÿE
J!8ÿ!0ÿ.ÿFF!05/7ÿÿ6ÿ.ÿ!ÿ6ÿOLÿÿÿF5ÿ/ÿ6ÿ/ÿ!0
ÿ8ÿ.8ÿÿ.05!ÿ.OL5ÿÿLÿOÿ.5O0ÿ1ÿ!0ÿ6ÿLÿÿ!500
!ÿÿ.5.07ÿÿNLO.5ÿ!6ÿ051!/ÿ!ÿ6ÿE0ÿÿÿ5//ÿ!ÿFFÿLÿ!ÿ
8!" #133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
!$%%ÿ!ÿÿ&$&%ÿ&!'( 5ÿ'ÿÿ&$&%ÿ&!'( ÿ)&)&!ÿ)&$''ÿ'

&%*ÿ+!,
ÿ
!"ÿ*5
ÿ
ÿ-'
ÿ
./0ÿ23456
7!&ÿ!'5ÿ%(!'&!
248#3#97ÿ9ÿ&&%:( &!$!*$&",&+
;<<5=>ÿ/<ÿ?@>A/@BÿCDÿE3@@>FF
&!ÿ!*ÿ&"ÿGÿ&ÿ!%ÿ()&&
HÿIJÿ39295ÿ$ÿKLÿ277#03929
248#3897ÿ9ÿMMM,( &!$!*$&",&+
NO&ÿÿ'&-ÿ!%ÿ)&$ÿÿ)$ÿ&'N
ÿ
ÿ
P@/QRÿÿS,ÿ7')ÿT$$!:*,$(U
V>WXRÿY%!'%*5ÿ+'ÿ425ÿ4942ÿ789ÿH
Z/Rÿ7&+ÿO&&ÿT7O&&:( &!$!*$&",&+U[ÿÿ-'ÿT&:( &!$!*$&",&+U
V\0]>=XRÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
ÿ
^_ÿ̀bcdefg
ÿ
hicjkÿlmnÿom_ÿlmn_ÿpqcer̀ÿspfgÿtÿqpcjÿunvwxxwxyxzÿ̀spfÿ_pvc_{ejv
|m}e~pÿmoÿerejvÿh_cjf~_e}ÿom_ÿcjwxywxyxÿ̀uj{ÿtÿerrÿ~mj}c~}ÿ}ip
~mn_}ÿ_pm_}p_`
ÿ
|perÿÿ̀errpfep
ÿ
!ÿY%!'%*5ÿ+'ÿ425ÿ4942ÿÿ97877824ÿH ÿ5ÿÿ-'ÿT&&%:( &!$!*$&",&+UÿM&8
ÿ
ÿ
8!" #133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$ÿ%&'5
ÿ
ÿ(ÿ#&'!)ÿ!ÿ*# #ÿ) ÿ+##(5ÿÿ,#&5ÿ-ÿ#,#!.ÿÿ,!*ÿ,#+ÿ/!#-
445ÿ4942$ÿÿÿ-ÿ+!ÿ0*&ÿ445ÿ494212
ÿ
.!)5ÿ)ÿÿ#)ÿ.##.-ÿ ÿ-ÿ#ÿ&ÿ'!!!*ÿ!ÿ,!*5ÿ,#ÿ!.&!ÿ!ÿ
#.#)5ÿÿ.ÿ,ÿ3!*ÿ#!&.#'ÿ,ÿ!&ÿ4#!*ÿ/!#-ÿ495ÿ49432ÿ
ÿ
#)5ÿ#*#)!*ÿ-#ÿ,!ÿ5&!ÿÿÿ.#ÿ#'##&5ÿÿ)ÿ!ÿ"!($ÿÿÿ+ -
(&ÿÿ.! .ÿ.ÿ.#ÿ#'##ÿ)#.-ÿ,ÿ-ÿ6ÿ!-ÿ5&!&ÿÿ#
* !&$
ÿ
!"ÿ-5
ÿ

ÿ
789ÿ;<=>?
%!#ÿ!&5ÿ)+!&#!
24@A3A97ÿBÿ##)C+ #!.!-.#"$#*
DEE>FGÿ8EÿHIGJ8IKÿLMÿN<IIGOO
#!ÿ!-ÿ#"ÿ,ÿ#ÿ!)ÿ+'##
PÿQRÿ39295ÿ.ÿ3Sÿ277A03929
24@A3@97ÿBÿ((($+ #!.!-.#"$#*
T4#ÿÿ&#6ÿ!)ÿ'#.ÿÿ'.ÿ#&T
ÿ
ÿ
UI8VWÿÿ/$ÿ%&'ÿX..!C-$.+Y
ZG[\Wÿ])!&)-5ÿ*&ÿ425ÿ4942ÿ3383^ÿ
_8Wÿ%#*ÿ4##ÿX%4##C+ #!.!-.#"$#*Yÿ̀ÿ6&ÿX#C+ #!.!-.#"$#*Y
LFWÿÿ/$ÿ%&'ÿX..!C-$.+Y
Za9bGF\Wÿ ÿÿÿ42499
ÿ
cdefgdhÿjkÿlmddennoÿpmdqgrÿjgsrthÿjneduÿgvÿjgsdtÿmrwÿjgxytdgnned
8!" 0133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
$%&''())*+&',-./-0.12/)('34-'$
ÿ
6-7ÿ8&9,:;ÿ<(.('&)ÿ=-0.:()
6-7('18*+&',-./-0.12/)('34-'$
ÿ
6>?ÿ@6ABCDE@ÿ6>=F68ÿEBÿG8HIJHKKG
ÿ
<(.1)(+(.;ÿ
ÿ
E.ÿ/-+L),&./(ÿM,1%ÿ1%(ÿ&11&/%(NÿF'N('ÿ,.ÿG8HIJHKKG;ÿM%&1ÿN-ÿ2-0
.((NÿO'-+ÿ+(ÿ1-ÿ1'&.:+,1ÿ1%(ÿ'(/-'Nÿ72ÿA0$0:1ÿHG;ÿHKHIP
ÿ
Q%(.ÿ/&.ÿEÿ(RL(/1ÿ+2ÿO,),.$ÿO'-+ÿS&.0&'2ÿHH;ÿHKHIÿ1-ÿ7(ÿN-/3(1(NPÿE
M&.1ÿ1%(ÿO-))-M,.$ÿ1'&.:+,11(NÿM,1%ÿ1%(ÿ'(/-'N?
ÿ
8>T>B8AB@UCÿBF@E=>ÿFTÿTEVEB<ÿC@A@>D>B@ÿFT
<6E>WAB=>
A+(',/&.:ÿQ,1%ÿ8,:&7,),12ÿA/1ÿXA8AY;ÿAN+,.,:1'&1,9(ÿF'N('ÿAHKZKJ
ZHJ[
ÿ
Aaa>B8EbÿC1&1(+(.1ÿ-Oÿ<',(9&./(
ÿ
Aaa>B8Ebÿ>+&,)ÿ=-++0.,/&1,-.
8!" #133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*+,*+--.,ÿ/0#$%12ÿ,+3..3.,.-ÿ,456.57*ÿ89
ÿ
8::/;<=>ÿ912$?@%ÿ=&ABCD@E$B&ÿABCÿ;1$%ÿFGÿH$%%1IJ$1
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*+,*+--.,ÿ/0#$%12ÿ,+3..3.,.-ÿ,456.57*ÿ89
ÿ
=&ÿ?@I1ÿ.,..0K#0**-7Lÿ
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*T+,,+*-.ÿ/0#$%12ÿ,T3.*3.,.-ÿ,U5-75.Tÿ:9LÿV$EW
@JJ1&2$XYIZLÿ
ÿ
@%IBÿEBBÿ$&ÿSMÿ?@I1Iÿ.,*U0K#07*U-ÿ@&2ÿ.,.*0K#0.+4Lÿ
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ*T+,.U,+Tÿ/0#$%12ÿ,T3.73.,.-ÿ,+5,.5,-ÿ89LÿV$EW
@JJ1&2$XYIZ
ÿ
8IÿIBB&ÿ@IÿJBII$[%1ÿ=ÿJ%@&ÿ;BE$?1ÿBAÿ#$%$&'ÿMC@&I?C$JEÿBAÿ9BE$B&I
\1@C$&'ÿF@&]@C^ÿ.,Lÿ.,.*Lÿ[1ABC1ÿK$C?]$EÿF]2'1ÿH@C^ÿO@&21CIGÿ8ÿA1V
2@Îÿ@'Bÿ=ÿW@2ÿEW$IÿW1@C$&'ÿEC@&I?C$[12GÿMW1ÿ;BE$?1ÿC1D@$&IÿEBÿ[1
2C@AE12ÿ@&2ÿA$%12Gÿ=ÿ2$2ÿ&BEÿ@JJ1@CÿABCÿEW$IÿW1@C$&'ÿ[1?@]I1ÿ=ÿW@2ÿ'B&1
EBÿ:W$%@21%JW$@ÿABCÿC1E$&@ÿI]C'1C^ÿ@Eÿ_$%%Iÿ/^1ÿ\BIJ$E@%GÿF]2'1
O@&21CIÿ21&$12ÿEW1ÿD^ÿDBE$B&ÿABCÿ@ÿ4,ÿ2@^ÿIE@^ÿABCÿ1^1ÿI]C'1C^Gÿ8%IBL
B&ÿF@&]@C^ÿ.-Lÿ.,.-ÿ9CGÿ<@`$IÿJCB`$212ÿ@&ÿ1D@$%ÿ?B&A$CD$&'ÿD^
DBE$B&ÿW@2ÿ[11&ÿa%B?b12aÿB&ÿEW1ÿ2B?b1E5ÿY&BVÿ]&%B?b12Zÿ
ÿ
</#/;<8;MNOÿ9PM=P;ÿMPÿK8;K/SÿPQÿKP;M=;R/ÿ8SS
\/8Q=;HOÿR;M=Sÿ#RQM\/Qÿ;PM=K/Lÿ<=O8c=S=Md
8KKP99P<8M=P;ÿQ/eR/OM/<ÿ8;<ÿ_QP;HSdÿ</;=/<Lÿ
8!" 39133
01231425ÿ7892ÿ ÿ ÿÿ8ÿ ÿÿÿ42499
#$%$&'ÿ)ÿ**+,-./-,ÿ01#$%23ÿ**4/*45/5/ÿ/,6//675ÿ89
ÿ
:;3'2ÿ<=&32>?ÿ@%=&&23ÿABÿ=>>2?AÿC2ÿ=AÿAD=AÿD2=>$&'ÿB&ÿ=&BAD2>ÿB&21
@=>AEÿFB&?2&AÿA2%2@DB&2ÿF=%%ÿ>2FB>3$&'ÿF=?2GÿH&ÿD$&3?$'DAÿHÿI=?ÿ=J%2ÿAB
'2Aÿ>2A$&=ÿ?;>'2>Eÿ$&ÿ8D$%=32%@D$=ÿAD=AÿHÿBAD2>I$?2ÿIB;%3ÿD=K2ÿJ22&
32&$23ÿJEÿAD2ÿ9=>$B&ÿLB;&AEÿ:=$%ÿD=3ÿHÿ=@@2=>23Gÿ:;3'2ÿ<=&32>?ÿ=%?B
32&$23ÿC2ÿ=??$?A=&F2ÿBMÿFB;&?2%NÿO>2&3=ÿPGÿ<C$ADQÿ#RÿO=>ÿSBG6
T*T.+TQÿI=?ÿ=@@B$&A23ÿJ;Aÿ>2M;?23ÿABÿ2&A2>ÿD2>ÿ=@@2=>=&F2ÿB>ÿ=FF2@A
AD2ÿ=@@B$&AC2&AGÿ:;3'2ÿ<=&32>?ÿ?A>;FUÿ=ÿ&;CJ2>ÿBMÿCEÿ@>Bÿ?2ÿM$%$&'?
J2F=;?2ÿ9?Gÿ<C$ADÿI=?ÿCEÿ=%%2'23ÿFB;&?2%ÿBMÿ>2FB>3Gÿ
ÿ
VD2>2ÿ=>2ÿ=%?Bÿ?2K2>=%ÿD=&3ÿI>$AA2&ÿCBA$B&?ÿABÿ3$?C$??ÿ$&ÿ5/5*1L#1
5W.Qÿ=&3ÿ=ÿD=&3I>$AA2&ÿCBA$B&ÿ$&ÿ5/5/1L#15-*TÿHÿI=&AÿABÿ$&F%;32Gÿ
ÿ
Hÿ=%?Bÿ;&32>?A=&3ÿAD=AÿA>=&?F>$@A?ÿBMÿD2=>$&'?ÿ=%>2=3EÿM$%23ÿB&ÿAD2
3BFU2Aÿ$&ÿ9=>$B&ÿLB;&AEÿ&223ÿABÿJ2ÿA>=&?C$AA23ÿJEÿAD2ÿFB;>Aÿ>2@B>A2>
ABÿAD2ÿX@@2%%=A2ÿLB;>AQÿAD=Aÿ$?ÿ>$'DAYÿVD=&UÿEB;G
ÿ
<$&F2>2%EQ
4?4
S2$%ÿ:GÿZ$%%2?@$2
5W/*ÿ<[ÿLB%%2'2ÿ\3GQÿ<V0ÿ7
]F=%=Qÿ#Rÿ7--T-
8DB&26ÿ7+5157,1,/7T
0C=$%6ÿF2%A$F2$&Ê=DBBGFBC
8!" 33133
FIFTH DISTRICT
Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005
2021-CF-286
2022-CF-1143
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________/
DATE: August 31, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that Appellant’s “Second Notice of Incomplete Record
on Appeal,” filed August 31, 2023, is acknowledged. Appellant is advised
that no action will be taken pending a proper motion to correct or
supplement the record on appeal.

cc:
Office of the Attorney Neil Joseph Gillespie

General
FIFTH DISTRICT
Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005

LT CASE NO. 2022-CF-1143,
2019-CF-4193,
2021-CF-286
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________/
DATE: September 05, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that “Appellant’s Motion to Correct or Supplement
the Record on Appeal,” filed August 31, 2023, is denied.

Panel: Judges Makar, Soud and Kilbane
cc:
Office of the Attorney Neil Joseph Gillespie

General

Appeal Order Denying Motion To Withdraw Plea 5D23-2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Appeal Order Denying Motion To Withdraw Plea 5D23-2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M A N D A T E

THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY

I hereby certify that the foregoing is

Mandate and Opinion to: Clerk Marion

Douglas T. Squire Office of the Attorney Neil Joseph Gillespie

FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, CASE No. 5D23-2005

2024, 03-18-24, MANDATE 5D23-2005

2023, 08-25-23, CERTIFICATE OF CLERK FOR RECORD

NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

Date Type Pleading Note

IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

v. CASE NO. 5D23-2005

APPELLANT’S INITIAL BRIEF

Date: September 27, 2023

NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE

III 4-17 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

IV 18-23 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

VII 44-45 AMENDED NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL

VIII 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The Record on Appeal is cited (Record; R x-x). page

Amend. V, US Const, Due Process 30

10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law § 480 31

Fla. Stat. sec. 38.10 Disqualification of judge 10, 18, 26

Fla. R. Crim. P., 3.830. Direct Criminal Contempt 19-26

Bonet v. State, 937 So.2d 209, (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 21

Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be 41

This case is an appeal of Circuit Judge Peter M. Brigham's Order

Denying Defendant’s Motion To Withdraw Plea After Sentencing (“Order”)

Efiled May 10, 2023. (R 3418-3420). The Misc Supporting Documents

appear at R 3421-3436 (Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C)

The Order states:

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

As background, Defendant was charged as follows: 2019-CF-4193,

On March 20, 2023, Defendant entered a plea of no contest in the

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED: Defendant's pro se Motion to Withdraw Plea After

ORDERED this 9 day of May 2023, at Ocala, Florida .

necessary to correct a manifest injustice”, see paragraph 6.

The Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing (“Motion”)

Defendant, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, and appears at R 3294-3303.

The Appellant’s Motion states:

Defendant NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE ("Gillespie"), a nonlawyer

1. Gillespie moves pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3 .170(1) to withdraw

3. Four ( 4) counts of one-part consent telephone recording in two

4. In the remaining case no. 2022-CF-1143, battery by a detained

5. The foregoing raises constitutional issues of due process denied to

6. The Court ruled Gillespie was indigent during a hearing on October

7. On January 25, 2023, Judge Brigham held an unannounced bench

8. Later on January 3, 2023 Judge Brigham accused Gillespie of

20 THE DEFENDANT: May I, may I speak?

9. Gillespie was evaluated by Dr. Jane Scheuerle, Ed.D., CCC-SLP,

" ... Mr.Gillespie has sustained the surgical results of multiple

" ... Because of his present oro-facial-pharyngeal status, Mr.

" ... Mr Gillespie is experiencing severe speech expression

10. In 1994 Gillespie moved to Portland Oregon to become a patient

12. Gillespie's Amended Motions To Dismiss the one-party consent

13. On February 17, 2023, Gillespie argued at a hearing while

14. As a practical matter, because of his pleas, Gillespie is unable to

WHEREFORE, Gillespie moves this Honorable Court under Rule 3

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED April 19, 2023.

Judge Brigham held the Appellant in Direct Criminal Contempt on

hearing. Prior to the hearing on January 3, 2023, the Appellant served