Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Motion to Disqualify Judge Hale Stancil

8/20/2019 Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Motion to Disqualify Judge Hale Stancil

1/14

THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL FORCLOSURE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FLORIDA

IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

CASE NO.: 2013-CA-000115

Plaintiff, 42-2013-CA-000115-AXXX-XX

vs. Residential Home Foreclosure Case

Florida Homestead of Neil J. Gillespie

NEIL J. GILLESPIE AND MARK GILLESPIE

AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE GILLESPIE

FAMILY LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT

DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1997, ET AL.

Defendants.

________________________________________/

STATE OF FLORIDA )

) SS.:

COUNTY OF MARION )

AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE HALE STANCIL

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

and states:

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

2. I make this affidavit upon personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein unless

otherwise stated;

3. Yesterday I learned that attorney Curtis Wilson, McCalla Raymer LLC, has commenced

a number of sham pleadings on November 3, 2015 and November 4, 2015 showing a criminal

conspiracy with Judge Hale Stancil and Clerk David Ellspermann, see

DEFENDANT GILLESPIE’S RULE 1.150 MOTION TO STRIKE SHAM PLEADINGS

Notice of Criminal Conspiracy: Judge Stancil, Clerk Ellspermann and attorney Curtis Wilson

4. Therefore I move to disqualify Judge Stancil as judge in this action under Fla. Stat. §

38.10, Rule 2.330 Fla. R. Jud. Admin., the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida, and

Supreme Court of Florida Administrative Order No. AOSC14-66, because I fear that I will not

receive a fair trial in this cause because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.

5. The specific grounds in support of this affidavit and motion are as follows:

Filing # 34195200 E-Filed 11/06/2015 10:36:37 PM


2/14

AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE November 6, 2015

TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE HALE STANCIL

2

6. Yesterday I learned of a criminal conspiracy by Judge Stancil, Clerk Ellspermann and

attorney Curtis Wilson by viewing the Marion County Clerk’s public online docket.

7. Plaintiff’s counsel Curtis Wilson, a.k.a. Curtis Alan Wilson, (Bar ID 77669), of McCalla

Raymer LLC., filed a “Motion To Default” for failure of defendant Elizabeth Bauerle, N/K/AElizabeth Bidgood, to file or serve a pleading or other paper within the time required by law.

8. The motion is dated November 3, 2015 and signed by Curtis Wilson, Esq., Filing #

33997561, E-filed 11/03/2015 at 12:50:25 PM. The service list attached to the “Motion To

Default” shows email service to me, Neil J. Gillespie, but I did not get service.

9. I know the “Motion To Default” is a sham pleading because defendant Elizabeth Bauerle,

N/K/A Elizabeth Bidgood, timely filed and served Notice of Defendant’s Consent to Judgment

through counsel Anthony J. Solomon, Esq. Bar No. 93057, of KEL, on July 8, 2013.

10. Mr. Wilson’s “Motion To Default” contains a Notice to Clerk:

Notice to Clerk: In the event that any of the forenamed defendants have timely filed any

paper in the above styled cause, or should their return of service not be filed, then please

strike the name of such defendant from the above motion.

The foregoing shows Mr. Wilson knows defendant Elizabeth Bauerle, N/K/A Elizabeth Bidgood,

timely filed and served Notice of Defendant’s Consent to Judgment, and that he has a plan in

cooperation with Clerk and Comptroller David R. Ellspermann to exploit the sham pleading to

the Plaintiff’s benefit, contrary to the rule of law.

11. I have a reasonable fear of not receiving a fair trial before Judge Hale Stancil and becoming the target of further deprivation of rights under color of law, intimidation, interference,

and/or retaliation in part for having exercised and asserted my civil rights and disability rights

under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of Florida, and International Law.

12. Unfortunately Marion County Florida has a large and active “Lost Cause of the

Confederacy” following of white supremacist racist unhappy with the outcome of the American

Civil War, and resulting consequences, including the Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth

Amendment, and Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

13. My reasonable fear is further based upon the grounds stated in this affidavit and motion to

disqualify Judge Hale Stancil, and,

DEFENDANT GILLESPIE’S RULE 1.150 MOTION TO STRIKE SHAM PLEADINGS

Notice of Criminal Conspiracy: Judge Stancil, Clerk Ellspermann and attorney Curtis Wilson

which grounds need not be repeated herein.

14. An inscription on Johnny Reb, the Marion County Confederate Soldier Statue states:


3/14



3

“The South Reveres Her Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson, And Others,

Who Laid The Foundations Of Our Grand Republic. She Honors Her Lee, Stonewall Jackson,

Stuart, Johnson, Forest, And Every Brave Son Who Fought To Preserve Our Liberties,

Guaranteed By The Fathers, Under The Constitution.”

15. There is no mention of Abraham Lincoln, et al., just the slave-owning U.S. presidents:

One in four U.S. presidents were slaveholders: 12 owned slaves at some point in their lives, and 8

presidents owned slaves while living in the White House.

16. Also noteworthy is Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate lieutenant general during the

American Civil War, who served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Forrest was

accused of war crimes at the Battle of Fort Pillow.

17. The Constitution referred to means the original Constitution of 1789 that permitted

slavery, not the Constitution and Thirteenth Amendment (1865), Fourteenth Amendment (1868),

and Fifteenth Amendment (1870) in place when the statue was erected in 1908.

18. The Gettysburg Address and ideals of equality are missing from the inscription and

presumed rejected by Marion County and its government.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth...a new nation, conceived in

Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal... Now we are

engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation... can... endure...we here highly

resolve...that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the

people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln


4/14



4

19. Clerk David Ellspermann is a Neo-Confederate who displays images of Confederate

currency on the official Marion County Clerk of Court website. This is one image I found:

20. Clerk David Ellspermann displays on the official Marion County Clerk of Court website

Marion County's 150 Year Commemoration of the War Between the States 1861-1865, which is

attached. A section titled The Home Front states in part:

“The 1860 Marion County census listed 8,609 residents, and of these, 5,314 were slaves.

A long-feared slave rebellion or mass exodus to join federal forces never took place. For

the most part, slaves in Marion County remained with their families and worked feverishly

for the Confederate war effort”

21. The foregoing statement reiterates the views of Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of

the Confederacy, in the “Cornerstone Speech” March 21, 1861, that “the negro is not equal to the

white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid,its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man;

that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This,

our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great

physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

22. Judge Stancil was on a steering committee for the Marion County Time Capsule Project

Viva Florida 500, a committee that included in the time capsule Marion County's 150 Year

Commemoration of the War Between the States 1861-1865.

23. I conclude that Judge Stance approved of the message, that slaves in Marion County

remained with their families and worked feverishly for the Confederate war effort, which isunsupported by facts, and reiterates the racist views of Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of

the Confederacy, in the “Cornerstone Speech” March 21, 1861, that “the negro is not equal to the

white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

24. Marion County has been the center of a national controversy over flying the Confederate

flag following the shooting deaths of nine black men and women at a historic church in


5/14



5

Charleston, South Carolina on June 17. The suspect, 21-year-old Dylann Roof, had posed with a

Confederate flag in photos posted on a website that displayed a racist manifesto attributed to him.

25. Initially Marion County administration removed the Confederate flag that had been flying

in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex. But the County replaced the flag after an

estimated 2,000 vehicles adorned with Confederate battle flags took part in a rally and ride insupport of flying the flag in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex in Ocala.

26. Judge Stancil’s lawless behavior in my foreclosure case was foreshadowed in State of

Florida v. Debra Beasley Lafave Marion County Case No. 04-2454-CF-A-Z. While presiding

over the Lafave case, Judge Stancil rejected medical testimony and substituted his own personal

views, which ultimately resulted in a Nolle Prosequi of Lafave by the SA on March 21, 2006.

27. Judge Stancil’s misconduct in Lafave in 2006 would later foreclose a decision in Debra

Lafave v. State of Florida, Case No. SC12-2231, Supreme Court of Florida, Decision Oct-16-

2014, review of a decision of Second DCA, State v. LaFave, 113 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

28. A speech by Judge Stancil Sept. 1, 2008 at the annual National Association of Forensic

Counselors in Las Vegas shows Stancil believes the ends justify the means in “Changing people

for the better”, Twenty-five Years of Judicial Reflections based on A Message to Garcia, an

inspirational essay by Elbert Hubbard, published in 1899, instead of following the Constitution

and laws of the United States, and of Florida, and Judicial Canons. Link to the speech:

http://www.stancilreunion.com/hale.html

29. Judge Stancil made disparaging comments about the poor and unemployed in his

“Changing people for the better” speech, which may indicate how he views a lot of people who

come through his court. Stancil views the majority of employees today as incompetent or whomake half-hearted efforts at their jobs, and are only motivated by the fear of getting fired. His

views on how people’s character flaws are the source of their problems may indicate a lack of

compassion and a bias towards certain groups.

30. During a hearing I attended telephonically December 18, 2014, Judge Stancil disregarded

disability law and substituted his “driver’s license” test instead, and denied me accommodation

under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). As a result my health declined significantly,

and I lost rights in my foreclosure case. Judge Stancil failed to require a notary establish my

identity during the telephonic hearing for the record, which may mean the hearing was void.

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct

31. Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3E(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself where

his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

32. Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 2B A judge shall not allow family, social, political or

other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.


6/14



6

Memorandum of Law

Note: The old Rule 2.160 Fla. R. Judicial Admin. has been replaced by Rule 2.330.

33. Litigant's right to impartial judge. The importance of the duty of rendering a righteous

judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as would raise no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of the judge. State ex rel. Arnold v. Revels, 113 So.2d 218, Fla.App. 1 Dist.,1959.

Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, (Mathew

v. State, 837 So.2d 1167, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003.) and the law intends that no judge will preside

in a case in which he or she is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent. State v.

Steele, 348 So.2d 398, Fla.App. 1977. When a judge enters into the proceedings and becomes a

participant, a shadow is cast upon judicial neutrality so that his or her disqualification is

required. Evans v. State, 831 So.2d 808, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2002.

34. The conditions requiring the disqualification of the judge to act in that particular case are

prescribed by statute. § 38.02 Fla. Stat. The basic tenet for the disqualification of a judge is that a

judge must satisfy the appearance of justice. Hewitt v. State, 839 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003. The question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may

reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his or her ability

to act fairly and impartially. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So.2d 1123, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1996.

35. The term "recusal" is most often used to signify a voluntary action to remove oneself as a

judge; however, the term "disqualification" refers to the process by which a litigant may seek to

remove a judge from a particular case. Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600, Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2000.

Question whether disqualification of a judge is required focuses on those matters from which a

litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his

ability to act fairly and impartially. West’s F.S.A. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1), Stevens

v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006).Question of disqualification of a trial judge focuses on those matters from which a litigant may

reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the court's own perception of its ability to

act fairly and impartially. West’s F.S.A. § 38.10, Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So.2d 214,

Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2005 reh'g denied, (Feb. 17, 2005).

36. Sufficiency of motion or affidavit of prejudice. A motion to disqualify must show that the

party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because: (1) of a specifically

described prejudice or bias of the judge; Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160 (d)(1). Generally, the

critical determination in deciding the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify has been

whether the facts alleged would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear he or she would not

receive a fair trial, Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836 Fla., 2002. If a motion to recuse istechnically sufficient and the facts alleged therein also would prompt a reasonably prudent

person to fear that he or she could not get a fair and impartial trial from the judge, the motion is

legally sufficient and should be granted. Coleman v. State, 866 So.2d 209, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2004.

The motion to disqualify a judge should contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias,

prejudice, or sympathy. Chamberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087, Fla., 2004.


7/14



7

37. Whether a motion to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient requires a determination as to

whether the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not

receiving a fair and impartial trial. Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.160 (f), Rodriguez v. State, 919

So.2d 1252, Fla.,2005, as revised on denial of reh'g, (Jan. 19, 2006). The primary consideration

in determining whether motion to disqualify trial judge should be granted is whether the facts

alleged, if true, would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Arbelaez v. State, 898 So.2d 25, Fla.,2005, reh'g denied, (Mar. 18, 2005). A

motion for disqualification must be granted if the alleged facts would cause a reasonably prudent

person to have a well-founded fear that he/she would not receive a fair and impartial trial. Jarp v.

Jarp, 919 So.2d 614, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2006. The test a trial court must use in determining

whether a motion to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient is whether the facts alleged would

place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Scott v. State,

909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2005, reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005). The motion to disqualify a

judge must be well-founded and contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias, prejudice, or

sympathy. Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2005, reh'g denied, (Sept. 2, 2005).

38. Disqualification is required when litigants demonstrate reasonable, well-grounded fear that they will not receive fair and impartial trial, or that judge has pre-judged case. Williams v.

Balch, 897 So.2d 498, Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2005.

39. Time for filing motion; waiver of objection. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a

reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the

motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling. Fla. R. Jud.

Admin., Rule 2.160(e). Although a petition to disqualify a judge is not timely filed,

extraordinary circumstances may warrant the grant of an untimely motion to recuse. Klapper-

Barrett v. Nurell, 742 So.2d 851, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,1999.

40. Judicial determination of initial motion. The judge against whom an initial motion todisqualify us directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency if the motion an shall not pass on

the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Judicial Admin. 2.160(f). No other reason for denial shall

be stated, and an order of denial shall not tale issue with the motion. Fla. R. Judicial Admin.

2.160(f). Accordingly, a judge may not rule on the truth of the facts alleged or address the

substantive issues raised by the motion but may only determine the legal sufficiency of the

motion. Knarich v. State, 866 So.2d 165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). In determining

whether the allegations that movant will not receive a fair trial so as to disqualify a judge are

sufficient, the facts alleged must be taken as true (Frengel v. Frengel, 880 So.2d 763, Fla.App. 2

Dist.,2004), and must be viewed from the movant's perspective. Siegel v. State, 861 So.2d 90,

Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2003.

41. Case law forbids trial judges to refute facts set forth in a motion to disqualify, and their

doing so will result in judicial disqualification irrespective of the facial sufficiency of the

underlying claim. Brinson v. State, 789 So.2d 1125, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2001. A trial judge's

attempt to refute charges of partiality thus exceeds the scope of inquiry on a motion to disqualify

and alone establishes grounds for disqualification. J & J Industries, Inc. v. Carpet Showcase of

Tampa Bay, Inc., 723 So.2d 281, Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1998.


8/14



42. Whether the motion is legally sufficient is a pure question of law; it follows that the

proper standard of review is the de novo standard (Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600 Fla.App. 1

Dist.,2000) and an order denying a motion to disqualify a trial judge is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. King v. State, 840 So.2d 1047, Fla.,2003.

43. Once a motion for disqualification has been filed, no further action can be taken by the

trial court, even if the trial court is not aware of the pending motion. Brown v. State

863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2004. A judge presented with a motion to disqualify him- or

herself must rule upon the sufficiency of the motion immediately and may not consider other

matters before considering the disqualification motion. Brown v. State 863 So.2d 1274, Fla.App.

1 Dist.,2004. The court is required to rule immediately on the motion to disqualify the judge,

even though the movant does not request a hearing. Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d

1063, Fla.,2000. The rule places the burden on the judge to rule immediately, the movant is not

required to nudge the judge nor petition for a writ of mandamus. G.C. v. Department of Children

and Families, 804 So.2d 525 Fla.App. 5 Dist., 2002.

The undersigned movant certifies that the motion and the movant's statements are made

in good faith.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing nlotion and the facts

stated in it are true.

FURTHER FFI NT S YETH NOT,

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, this bfh.. day of November 6,

2015, by Neil J. Gillespie, who is personally known to me, or who has produced f t b as

identification and states that he is the person who made this affidavit and that its contents are

truthful to the best of his knowledge.

JASON ca.LlNS

NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF FLORIDA

Commt EE8fJ8353

ExpIres 12/512016

of

Notary Public

My Commission Expires: _ d . ; . . . . . . I _ . . s _ I _ _ ~

8


9/14



Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that today November 6, 2015 I served the forgoing to the following names on theFlorida E-filing Portal.

Judge Hale Stancil, Email: [email protected]

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP294848395

Judge Hale Stancil

Marion County Judicial Center

110 N.W. 1st Avenue

Ocala, FL 34475

Curtis Wilson a/k/a Curtis Alan Wilson

Email: [email protected]

Neil J. Gillespie

8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, FL 34481

Tel: 352-854-7807

Email: [email protected]


10/14


11/14


12/14


13/14


14/14

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	neil-gillespie
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Motion to Disqualify Judge Hale Stancil

Documents