Preview
=
&@,
&
pho Ss X
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIA! It
OG
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CL. 2
CIVIL ACTION
%,
AYP
RONALD GILLIS
Plaintiff
CASE NO 23-2053-CA
vs
ALBERTELLI LAw (A FLORIDA Fictitious NAME REGISTRATION
OWNED BY JAMES E ALBERTELLI, PA — A FLORIDA
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION); ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
y
AFFIDAVIT AND MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE GENTILE
ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATUTE §38.10 AND
FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.330
Comes Now, Ronald Gillis, hereinafter PLAINTIFF, timely moves this Court to
recuse/disqualify Judge Gentile pursuant to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
(hereinafter FRJA) rule 2.330. PLAINTIFF states it is timely as he has been waiting for the court
reporter transcript of the November 13, 2023, hearing. FRJA 2.330 states the following
requirements in relevant subsections:
(1) Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the case on
grounds provided by rule, statute, Code of Judicial Conduct, or general law and by the procedural
provisions of this rule. In MacKenzie v r Ki argain Store In 565 So2d 1332, (FL 1990)
addresses that the judge shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. When the motion is legally
sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of disqualification and proceed no further in the action.
(2) A motion to disqualify shall:
(a) be in writing;
(b) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the
grounds for disqualification and identify the precise date when the facts constituting the
grounds for the motion were discovered by the party or party's counsel, whichever is
earlier;
(c) be swom to or affirmed by the party by signing the motion or by attaching a
separate affidavit;
1of6 232053CA
(d) include the dates of all previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this
tule in the case and the dates of the orders granting these motions; and
(e) include a separate certification by the attorney for the party, if any, that the
motion and the client's statements are made in good faith.
(3) This motion is in writing which satisfies FRJA 2.330(c)(1). The below statements
supports FRJA 2.330(c)(2):
a) FRJA 2.330 Grounds item #1 - - In a separate case, case 08-252-CA, Judge
Gentile showed bias and prejudice against PLAINTIFF by stating to the PLAINTIFF's
opposing counsel, “Well done.” This statement was captured in the court reporter
transcript of the April 17, 2023 hearing. The full transcript is available in the Court files,
docket item # 870. The relevant words in the transcript are below:
TRANSCRIPT
OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS
(Defendants’ and Renter’s Motions in Opposition to
writ of Possession)
DATE TAKEN: Monday, April 17, 2023
TIME TAKEN: 9:30 a.m. to 9:59 a.m.
TAKEN VIA: Zoom video teleconference
HELO BEFORE: Honorable Geoffrey H. Gentile
Circuit Court Judge
Page 29
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Everybody
take care.
MR. WALLACH: Thank you.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
THE COURT: Take care. well done.
(whereupon, the hearing proceedings
concluded at 10:00 a.m.)
eee ee
See Barnett v Barnett, 727 So2d 311 (FL 2DCA 1999) about comments made by a judge to
one party's attorney that necessitated the judge's recusal.
b) FRJA 2.330 Grounds item #2 - - At a hearing in this case, on November 13, 2023, Judge
Gentile showed extreme bias and prejudice against the PLAINTIFF by ignoring the Local Rules of
the Court and allowing the PLAINTIFF's opposition to disregard the mandates of these rules
20f6 232053CA
requiring a hearing be coordinated before setting a hearing. The local rules further state that if the
hearing is not coordinated, the Notice of Hearing must state the reasons for the lack of
coordination. On the face of the notice, no such statement was made. Yet Judge Gentile ignored
these violations. Furthermore, Judge Gentile conducted the hearing ex-parte, which cannot be
undone now. Canon 3(B)(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge shall not initiate,
permit, or consider ex-parte communications. Yet, Judge Gentile did precisely that which this
Canon forbids. As such, Judge Gentile must disqualify himself. These events were discovered
later in the day on November 13, 2023, after PLAINTIFF spoke to several of his witnesses, three
of whom have provided PLAINTIFF with affidavits, and the fourth is still working on his affidavit
of that day's events.
See Murphy v Ridgard, 757 So2d 607 (FL 5DCA 2000). Canon 3(B)(7) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct states that "a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex-parte
communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the
parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding." The Supreme Court has said that "this
canon implements a fundamental requirement for all judicial proceedings under our form of
government. rnin: : ton, 504 So2dd 394, 395 (FL 1987). We
conclude that it was an error for the trial judge to base her order suspending Pierce's contact with
the child on an ex-parte communication and that this resulted in a violation of due process. See
Teeft v Luna Cheese Corp of Fla, 577 So2d 1004, 1005 (FL 5DCA 1991); and Safie v Safie, 414
So2d 623 (FL 3DCA 1982).
c) On November 20, 2023, knowing attorney Matthew A Ciccio had communicated with
Judge Gentile ex-parte by email, the PLAINTIFF submitted a Motion to Produce Ex-Parte
Communications. In this motion, the PLAINTIFF was asking both Mr Ciccio and Judge Gentile
(including his assistant) to produce, for the record, all ex-parte correspondence into the court
docket. Rather than immediately producing said communications, Judge Gentile has called a
hearing about the motion, attaching it to another hearing currently scheduled for December 20,
2023. The failure to immediately produce the ex-parte emails further raises concerns about what
exactly was said in these communications. The PLAINTIFF believes Judge Gentile is hiding
information relevant to his concerns about ex-parte communications and Judge Gentile's bias and
prejudice against PLAINTIFF.
This motion is affirmed before a notary at the bottom of this motion, which satisfies FRJA
3 of 6 232053CA
2.330(c)(3). There has been no previous disqualification in this case, which satisfies FRJA
2.330(c)(4). As PLAINTIFF is not an attorney, FRJA 2.330(c)(5) does not apply. However
PLAINTIFF certifies that this motion and statements are made in good faith. While FRJA
2.330(c)(5) does not apply, PLAINTIFF has nonetheless satisfied this requirement.
Therefore, with the above-stated facts of events, this motion is legally sufficient to qualify for
the disqualification of Judge Gentile.
FIDAV. FL A T. 8.1)
The PLAINTIFF moves this Court to recuse/disqualify Judge Gentile pursuant to the Florida
Statute §38.10 and affirms under penalty of perjury that the PLAINTIFF does not reasonably
believe Judge Gentile is fair and unbiased toward the PLAINTIFF. The PLAINTIFF hereby
incorporates all the above-stated events as supporting actions to address the requirements of
Florida Statute §38.10. The PLAINTIFF believes in good faith that Judge Gentile has exhibited
bias and prejudice against the PLAINTIFF by communicating with the PLAINTIFF's opposing
attorney's ex-parte in person as well as by email. The PLAINTIFF further believes that in the
future, Judge Gentile could not suddenly remove his personal bias and rule objectively in this case.
As was stated above, he disregarded the Local Rules of Court which require a hearing to be
coordinated, and if not coordinated, the notice must contain the reasons for the lack of
coordination. Instead, Judge Gentile showed his bias and prejudice against the PLAINTIFF by
ignoring the required lack of coordination and focusing on the PLAINTIFF not giving reasons for
not attending the uncoordinated hearing of November 13, 2023.
The PLAINTIFF did not need to give any reasons for his lack of attendance when he had a
prior commitment, and the attorney failed to follow the Local Rules of Court. Knowing that the
Court was aware of the lack of coordination, Judge Gentile communicated in this November 13,
2023, hearing ex-parte, which has created an atmosphere in which no reasonable person would
believe Judge Gentile's impartiality. The Rules of Court are not a suggestion to follow; they are
a mandate, which Judge Gentile chose to disregard, showing Judge Gentile has a personal bias
against the PLAINTIFF. As observed in Bundy v Rudd, 366 So2d 440 (FL 1978), regardless of
any perceived insufficiency of a motion, the prohibition aims to prevent the creation of an
intolerable adversary atmosphere between a trial judge and a litigant. Also see Rowe-Linn v
40f6 232053CA
Berman, 601 So2d 618 (Fla 4DCA 1992). (See at 619 regarding the ruling even though the
motion was believed to be legally insufficient).
It should also be noted for the record Judge Gentile ignored the Local Rules of Court and
improperly based his decision to go forward ex-parte of false statements of attomey Matthew A
Ciccio, who stated three (3) calls were made to the PLAINTIFF to coordinate the hearing. After
being argumentative with the PLAINTIFF about how he knew these statements were made, then
falsely indicating the PLAINTIFF's witness had misled him into believing wrong information,
upon finding out PLAINTIFF had a court reporter at the hearing, suddenly Mr Ciccio recanted. It
should be noted: FS §837.06 False official statements——Whoever knowingly makes a false
statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public performing of his or her official duty shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. Judge Gentile has now ignored this violation of
law, the rules and the canons of judicial conduct.
WHEREFORE, all judges must follow the law and court-mandated rules, yet Judge
Gentile has disregarded them all. The PLAINTIFF's believes that the conduct of Judge Gentile
has violated Florida Statute §38.10, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330, and Florida
Judicial Canon 3(B)(7). As such, PLAINTIFF does not believe he can have a fair and impartial
hearing before Judge Gentile in this case and all future cases. Accordingly, Judge Gentile must
disqualify himself.
Under penalty of perjury, I made the above statements and in good faith, move the Court to
disqualify Judge Gentile,
VERIFICATIO!
My name is Ronald Gillis, and I am of sound mind. My current mailing address is P O Box
380842, Murdock, FL 33938, and I state and affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the above
information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. | also confirm that the information
here is accurate, complete, and relevant information has not been omitted to the best of my
knowledge.
5 of6 232053CA
gal bie
Ronald Gillis PO Box 380842
12/ 05° 72023
Al ight ered wih peti
(833) 548-9998 Murdock, FL 33938
Fax (413) 622-2282
OVAL ATE
State of: FLORIDA
County of:
On this __() ah day of December 2023 A.D. Ronald Gillis declared and affirmed under
penalty of perjury and appeared by personal appearance and that the preceding was true and
correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said State and County, and personally appeared Ronald Gillis by personal appearance, and who
produc Florida Drivers License as identification and executed the preceding instrument, and
affi to me and executed same.
Notary Public, Sate
of Florida
‘My comm. expires duly 7, 2024
Print Name: (OR AA & 0 Ais a
My commission expires:
Certificate of Service
A copy of this was forwarded on December 05, 2023, by USPS First Class Mail to the
Charlotte County Clerk and:
Philip Frederick Reznik Shannon Leigh Troutman
Albertelli Law The Florida Appellate Firm PA
5404 Cypress Center Drive #300 4020 Park St N, #201-B
Tampa, FL 33609 St Petersburg, FL 33709
Aldridge Pite LLP Lieber, Gonzalez, Portuondo
5300 West Atlantic Ave #303 Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor
Delray Beach, FL 33484 44 West Flagler St
Miami, FL 33130
Judge Gentile
350 E Marion Avenue
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
By Ist Ronald Hills
Ronald Gillis (833) 548-9998
6 of 6 232053CA
Preview
= &@, & pho Ss X IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIA! It OG IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CL. 2 CIVIL ACTION %, AYP RONALD GILLIS Plaintiff CASE NO 23-2053-CA vs ALBERTELLI LAw (A FLORIDA Fictitious NAME REGISTRATION OWNED BY JAMES E ALBERTELLI, PA — A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION); ET AL. DEFENDANTS y AFFIDAVIT AND MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE GENTILE ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATUTE §38.10 AND FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.330 Comes Now, Ronald Gillis, hereinafter PLAINTIFF, timely moves this Court to recuse/disqualify Judge Gentile pursuant to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration (hereinafter FRJA) rule 2.330. PLAINTIFF states it is timely as he has been waiting for the court reporter transcript of the November 13, 2023, hearing. FRJA 2.330 states the following requirements in relevant subsections: (1) Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, statute, Code of Judicial Conduct, or general law and by the procedural provisions of this rule. In MacKenzie v r Ki argain Store In 565 So2d 1332, (FL 1990) addresses that the judge shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. When the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of disqualification and proceed no further in the action. (2) A motion to disqualify shall: (a) be in writing; (b) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the grounds for disqualification and identify the precise date when the facts constituting the grounds for the motion were discovered by the party or party's counsel, whichever is earlier; (c) be swom to or affirmed by the party by signing the motion or by attaching a separate affidavit; 1of6 232053CA (d) include the dates of all previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this tule in the case and the dates of the orders granting these motions; and (e) include a separate certification by the attorney for the party, if any, that the motion and the client's statements are made in good faith. (3) This motion is in writing which satisfies FRJA 2.330(c)(1). The below statements supports FRJA 2.330(c)(2): a) FRJA 2.330 Grounds item #1 - - In a separate case, case 08-252-CA, Judge Gentile showed bias and prejudice against PLAINTIFF by stating to the PLAINTIFF's opposing counsel, “Well done.” This statement was captured in the court reporter transcript of the April 17, 2023 hearing. The full transcript is available in the Court files, docket item # 870. The relevant words in the transcript are below: TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS (Defendants’ and Renter’s Motions in Opposition to writ of Possession) DATE TAKEN: Monday, April 17, 2023 TIME TAKEN: 9:30 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. TAKEN VIA: Zoom video teleconference HELO BEFORE: Honorable Geoffrey H. Gentile Circuit Court Judge Page 29 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Everybody take care. MR. WALLACH: Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. THE COURT: Take care. well done. (whereupon, the hearing proceedings concluded at 10:00 a.m.) eee ee See Barnett v Barnett, 727 So2d 311 (FL 2DCA 1999) about comments made by a judge to one party's attorney that necessitated the judge's recusal. b) FRJA 2.330 Grounds item #2 - - At a hearing in this case, on November 13, 2023, Judge Gentile showed extreme bias and prejudice against the PLAINTIFF by ignoring the Local Rules of the Court and allowing the PLAINTIFF's opposition to disregard the mandates of these rules 20f6 232053CA requiring a hearing be coordinated before setting a hearing. The local rules further state that if the hearing is not coordinated, the Notice of Hearing must state the reasons for the lack of coordination. On the face of the notice, no such statement was made. Yet Judge Gentile ignored these violations. Furthermore, Judge Gentile conducted the hearing ex-parte, which cannot be undone now. Canon 3(B)(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex-parte communications. Yet, Judge Gentile did precisely that which this Canon forbids. As such, Judge Gentile must disqualify himself. These events were discovered later in the day on November 13, 2023, after PLAINTIFF spoke to several of his witnesses, three of whom have provided PLAINTIFF with affidavits, and the fourth is still working on his affidavit of that day's events. See Murphy v Ridgard, 757 So2d 607 (FL 5DCA 2000). Canon 3(B)(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that "a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex-parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding." The Supreme Court has said that "this canon implements a fundamental requirement for all judicial proceedings under our form of government. rnin: : ton, 504 So2dd 394, 395 (FL 1987). We conclude that it was an error for the trial judge to base her order suspending Pierce's contact with the child on an ex-parte communication and that this resulted in a violation of due process. See Teeft v Luna Cheese Corp of Fla, 577 So2d 1004, 1005 (FL 5DCA 1991); and Safie v Safie, 414 So2d 623 (FL 3DCA 1982). c) On November 20, 2023, knowing attorney Matthew A Ciccio had communicated with Judge Gentile ex-parte by email, the PLAINTIFF submitted a Motion to Produce Ex-Parte Communications. In this motion, the PLAINTIFF was asking both Mr Ciccio and Judge Gentile (including his assistant) to produce, for the record, all ex-parte correspondence into the court docket. Rather than immediately producing said communications, Judge Gentile has called a hearing about the motion, attaching it to another hearing currently scheduled for December 20, 2023. The failure to immediately produce the ex-parte emails further raises concerns about what exactly was said in these communications. The PLAINTIFF believes Judge Gentile is hiding information relevant to his concerns about ex-parte communications and Judge Gentile's bias and prejudice against PLAINTIFF. This motion is affirmed before a notary at the bottom of this motion, which satisfies FRJA 3 of 6 232053CA 2.330(c)(3). There has been no previous disqualification in this case, which satisfies FRJA 2.330(c)(4). As PLAINTIFF is not an attorney, FRJA 2.330(c)(5) does not apply. However PLAINTIFF certifies that this motion and statements are made in good faith. While FRJA 2.330(c)(5) does not apply, PLAINTIFF has nonetheless satisfied this requirement. Therefore, with the above-stated facts of events, this motion is legally sufficient to qualify for the disqualification of Judge Gentile. FIDAV. FL A T. 8.1) The PLAINTIFF moves this Court to recuse/disqualify Judge Gentile pursuant to the Florida Statute §38.10 and affirms under penalty of perjury that the PLAINTIFF does not reasonably believe Judge Gentile is fair and unbiased toward the PLAINTIFF. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all the above-stated events as supporting actions to address the requirements of Florida Statute §38.10. The PLAINTIFF believes in good faith that Judge Gentile has exhibited bias and prejudice against the PLAINTIFF by communicating with the PLAINTIFF's opposing attorney's ex-parte in person as well as by email. The PLAINTIFF further believes that in the future, Judge Gentile could not suddenly remove his personal bias and rule objectively in this case. As was stated above, he disregarded the Local Rules of Court which require a hearing to be coordinated, and if not coordinated, the notice must contain the reasons for the lack of coordination. Instead, Judge Gentile showed his bias and prejudice against the PLAINTIFF by ignoring the required lack of coordination and focusing on the PLAINTIFF not giving reasons for not attending the uncoordinated hearing of November 13, 2023. The PLAINTIFF did not need to give any reasons for his lack of attendance when he had a prior commitment, and the attorney failed to follow the Local Rules of Court. Knowing that the Court was aware of the lack of coordination, Judge Gentile communicated in this November 13, 2023, hearing ex-parte, which has created an atmosphere in which no reasonable person would believe Judge Gentile's impartiality. The Rules of Court are not a suggestion to follow; they are a mandate, which Judge Gentile chose to disregard, showing Judge Gentile has a personal bias against the PLAINTIFF. As observed in Bundy v Rudd, 366 So2d 440 (FL 1978), regardless of any perceived insufficiency of a motion, the prohibition aims to prevent the creation of an intolerable adversary atmosphere between a trial judge and a litigant. Also see Rowe-Linn v 40f6 232053CA Berman, 601 So2d 618 (Fla 4DCA 1992). (See at 619 regarding the ruling even though the motion was believed to be legally insufficient). It should also be noted for the record Judge Gentile ignored the Local Rules of Court and improperly based his decision to go forward ex-parte of false statements of attomey Matthew A Ciccio, who stated three (3) calls were made to the PLAINTIFF to coordinate the hearing. After being argumentative with the PLAINTIFF about how he knew these statements were made, then falsely indicating the PLAINTIFF's witness had misled him into believing wrong information, upon finding out PLAINTIFF had a court reporter at the hearing, suddenly Mr Ciccio recanted. It should be noted: FS §837.06 False official statements——Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public performing of his or her official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. Judge Gentile has now ignored this violation of law, the rules and the canons of judicial conduct. WHEREFORE, all judges must follow the law and court-mandated rules, yet Judge Gentile has disregarded them all. The PLAINTIFF's believes that the conduct of Judge Gentile has violated Florida Statute §38.10, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330, and Florida Judicial Canon 3(B)(7). As such, PLAINTIFF does not believe he can have a fair and impartial hearing before Judge Gentile in this case and all future cases. Accordingly, Judge Gentile must disqualify himself. Under penalty of perjury, I made the above statements and in good faith, move the Court to disqualify Judge Gentile, VERIFICATIO! My name is Ronald Gillis, and I am of sound mind. My current mailing address is P O Box 380842, Murdock, FL 33938, and I state and affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. | also confirm that the information here is accurate, complete, and relevant information has not been omitted to the best of my knowledge. 5 of6 232053CA gal bie Ronald Gillis PO Box 380842 12/ 05° 72023 Al ight ered wih peti (833) 548-9998 Murdock, FL 33938 Fax (413) 622-2282 OVAL ATE State of: FLORIDA County of: On this __() ah day of December 2023 A.D. Ronald Gillis declared and affirmed under penalty of perjury and appeared by personal appearance and that the preceding was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State and County, and personally appeared Ronald Gillis by personal appearance, and who produc Florida Drivers License as identification and executed the preceding instrument, and affi to me and executed same. Notary Public, Sate of Florida ‘My comm. expires duly 7, 2024 Print Name: (OR AA & 0 Ais a My commission expires: Certificate of Service A copy of this was forwarded on December 05, 2023, by USPS First Class Mail to the Charlotte County Clerk and: Philip Frederick Reznik Shannon Leigh Troutman Albertelli Law The Florida Appellate Firm PA 5404 Cypress Center Drive #300 4020 Park St N, #201-B Tampa, FL 33609 St Petersburg, FL 33709 Aldridge Pite LLP Lieber, Gonzalez, Portuondo 5300 West Atlantic Ave #303 Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor Delray Beach, FL 33484 44 West Flagler St Miami, FL 33130 Judge Gentile 350 E Marion Avenue Punta Gorda, FL 33950 By Ist Ronald Hills Ronald Gillis (833) 548-9998 6 of 6 232053CA