Hello Florida voters, yesterday we had a primary election.
I am "No Party Neil", Neil J. Gillespie, a No Party Affiliation Candidate for the United States Senate for Florida in the general election November 3rd.
Florida is a closed primary state. Therefore, my name as a No Party Affiliation candidate did not appear on the primary ballot.
Today from my campaign office in Ocala Florida I am officially announcing my campaign. I also want to congratulate my opponent Angie Nixon for winning the Democrat Senate nomination.
I also want to congratulate Ashley Moody for winning the Republican Senate nomination.
This is now a three way race for the U.S. Senate. Florida voters now have a choice beyond partisan politics. President George Washington warned against political parties in his Farewell Address. Washington urged Americans to always place the interests of the nation over their political and regional affiliations.
Florida voters now have a choice beyond partisan politics. With your vote, I will be your independent voice in the Senate of the United States.
I am running for public office in part because of lawfare and lack of due process in our state and federal courts.
To my fellow Florida voters, you now have a choice. I am a working class capitalist. I am not a socialist like my opponent Ms. Nixon. And I am not a lawyer like Ashley Moody beholden to The Florida Bar, and the legal establishment. We are done with that nonsense.
Vote for me, No Party Neil Gillespie on November 3rd for U.S. Senate. Thank you. (Below is an AI generated image made by YouTube as a thumbnail for my channel)
Florida is a closed primary state. Therefore, my name as a NPA candidate will not appear on the primary election ballot for the partisan primary election set for August 18, 2026. There are six candidates in the partisan primary election for U.S. Senate, 4 Republicans and 2 Democrats:
R: Chris Gleason; Ashley Moody; Neelam Perry; Ernie Rivera D: Angie Nixon; Alex Vindman
On August 19, 2026, the day after the partisan primary election, I plan to officially launch my campaign. I believe this is a more effective strategy, against the general election candidates on November 3, 2026, rather than campaigning against 6 partisan primary candidates, where I am not even on the ballot!
Thank you for your message. This election will be a General election (not special) per s. 100.161 and 100.111(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
There were more than 28 months remaining on Sen. Rubio’s vacated term and therefore Sen. Moody’s appointed term is only through the 2026 general election, at which a person will be elected to fill the remainder of Rubio’s term to 1/3/2029. See Art. IV, s. 1 (f), Florida Constitution and 100.111(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which reads:
(1)(a) If any vacancy occurs in any office which is required to be filled pursuant to s. 1(f), Art. IV of the State Constitution and the remainder of the term of such office is 28 months or longer, then at the next general election a person shall be elected to fill the unexpired portion of such term, commencing on the first Tuesday after the first Monday following such general election.
The person elected at the 2028 election will put the terms back on track and that person will serve a full 6 years.
Therefore, if elected on November 3, 2026, I would be the incumbent candidate in 2028.
"Florida is a Closed Primary state, which means that for a voter to choose the party nominee for a political party in a Partisan Elected race, the voter must be a registered voter of that political party to participate.
There are however opportunities for voters not registered as a Democrat or a Republican to vote.
They may vote in all Non-Partisan (at least in name) or no party affiliated races which under the Florida Constitution includes All Municipal City Council & Commission Races, County School Board Members (Presently) and almost all Judicial races from retention of Supreme Court members, Circuit and District Courts, County Judges and races like Soil and Water Conservation Board, Mosquito Control, Fire Districts, and Community Development Districts.
In rare instances, a scenario will come to fruition where all candidates that qualify in a partisan election are of ONE political party and no other candidates qualify that would appear on a ballot in the general election from another major political party or a write in candidate.
In this scenario, a Universal Primary Contest occurs. When all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election, all voters, regardless of party affiliation, will have the opportunity to vote in this race…"
Marion County, Florida has a Universal Primary Contest on August 18, 2026 for State Representative District 24 because the Democrat Party failed field a candidate. Ballotpedia reports, "The Democratic primary scheduled for August 18, 2026, was canceled."
The Republican Party has two candidates: Incumbent Rep. Ryan Chamberlin (R-Belleview) and a Republican candidate challenger, Scott Wilkins. The article by Jeffrey Carman is attached, along with my personal sample ballot showing the Universal Primary Contest scheduled for August 18, 2026 between Ryan Chamberlin and Scott Wilkins. The Marion County Supervisor of Elections provided my sample ballot.
In defense of Mr. Brito, and to offer myself as a substitute plaintiff-intervenor, I submit my response to the Federal Election Commission of June 25, 2025, which PDF is attached, and found on the FEC website, and my blog Neil 2028. Please note I have a claim against the IRS, and a claim against the State of Florida, the DeSantis administration, and the Biden administration, for lawfare involving Fla. Stat. sec. 934.03.
In Andrew Floyd v DOJ, USDC, Eastern Division Virginia, Case No. 1.26-cv-1399, Plaintiffs Andrew Floyd, Jonathan Caravello, City of New Haven, National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause, contend "The Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury have created a $1.776 billion slush fund—from taxpayer dollars—to dispense payment to those the Trump-Vance administration favors. Since its inception, this fund has been on a collision course with the United States Constitution." No. My complaint shows a lawyer admitted to practice law is an officer of the court, and a member of the judicial branch of government, and constitutionally prohibited from serving as vice president. That means J.D. Vance, as a lawyer admitted to practice, should be removed from office. U.S. Judge Leonie Brinkema and Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis are presiding.
"John Keker: We don't have to agree on politics but we do have to agree that the legal profession has to protect the rule of law in the United States. Which means lawyers and judges need to be independent from the executive branch. [Yes; see Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)]"
This means the executive branch and the legislate branch also need to be independent of lawyers and judges. Ex parte Garland held that lawyers are governed by the judicial branch. But law firms are something different. The enclosed Affidavit of Kenneth L. Marvin of The Florida Bar shows the Bar only regulates lawyers, but not law firms. The affidavit is dated October 7, 2010, during the foreclosure crisis when "foreclosure mill" law firms were taking the homes of Americans without due process. The Florida Bar ignored wrongdoing by foreclosure mills on that basis. President Trump (as the executive) therefore has an oversight duty of law firms. Of course, law firms only want other lawyers to regulate them, lawyers admitted to practice like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The latter scheme offends the Constitution of the United States.
I affirm that Neil J. Gillespie is my legal name. I have both court documents and drivers license that can attest to this. If there is any question, these documents will be provided for verification.
Perhaps President Trump can protect the citizens of Florida from lawfirms like Johnson Dalal and Morgan & Morgan, since The Florida Bar does not have jurisdiction. Also see,
Sincerely, /s/ Neil J. Gillespie (signature block edited) Neil J. Gillespie for US Senate https://neilgillespie4senate.blogspot.com/ No Party Affiliation (NPA) Florida Candidate ID: 89955 FEC Committee ID: C00943399 FEC Candidate ID: S6FL00863
The Florida Bar has opened a disciplinary file on President Donald Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito after the federal judge overseeing the president's suit against the Internal Revenue Service referred him for discipline, the bar's communications director confirmed to Law.com Thursday.
Brito was referred to the bar by U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Kathleen M. Williams as part of her scathing order in Trump v. IRS last week, which held the president brought the suit in an attempt to "manipulate the judicial process" and blocked the use of the $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" created to settle it.
"This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the parties were not adverse," Williams's July 13 order reads.
Brito did not immediately return Law.com’s request for comment Thursday afternoon.
Trump sued the IRS in January, alleging systemic failures allowed his confidential tax returns to be leaked and published. Williams closed the case in May after the parties voluntarily moved for its dismissal, announcing they’d entered a settlement agreement that shielded Trump from tax audits and set up a $1.776 billion fund for individuals who have "suffered weaponization and lawfare."
Williams's July 13 order blocks parties from using or referring to the fund. On top of the sanctions against Brito, acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and associate U.S. Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Williams ordered that monetary sanctions be imposed.
Brito is representing Trump in many of the president's personal matters pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including Trump's defamation suit against the British Broadcasting Corporation and his "debanking" claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank and CEO Jamie Dimon read more
WPBF 25 News Terri Parker Investigative Reporter June 26, 2026
Fla. — A lawsuit against a Riviera Beach business over two questions asked through an artificial intelligence chatbot led to a much larger discovery.
WPBF 25 News Investigative reporter Terri Parker reviewed court records showing that since July 2025, attorneys representing Broward County plaintiff Yesenia Muniz have filed 160 lawsuits against businesses, alleging their website chatbots violated Florida's Security of Communications Act by recording customer conversations without first obtaining consent.
One of those businesses was Riviera Beach-based Boarderie, a company that ships charcuterie boards nationwide.
Owner Aaron Menitoff said he was stunned when his company was sued after Muniz allegedly used the company's AI chatbot to ask two questions about shipping.
"I was kind of blindsided," Menitoff told Parker. "I had heard these types of things happen, but when it happens to you, it makes your blood boil."
According to the lawsuit, Boarderie's AI chatbot illegally "intercepted" Muniz's online chat and stored it on a computer server without her consent, allegedly violating Florida's wiretapping law.
The lawsuit sought statutory damages of at least $2,500, plus attorney fees and court costs.
"Pot of gold for Professional Plaintiffs"
Menitoff's attorney, former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, argues the lawsuits attempt to apply a decades-old law to modern technology.
"It's not spying. It's not interception," Aronberg said. "When you have two parties to the conversation and one of them is the business itself, you can't spy on yourself."
Aronberg also questioned the volume of litigation.
"I don't think it's a good legal argument," he said. "Because there are statutory damages here and lawyer fees involved, it's a pot of gold for professional plaintiffs." Read more
I was unable to locate the complaint in Muniz v. Cheeseboarder LLC, but I found a similar lawsuit filed by attorney Abdul-Sumi Dalal and the Johnson Dalal law firm, Yesenia Muniz v. Big Sandy Furniture, Inc. The complaint is attached. Please see paragraphs 16 and 17:
16. Chapter 934 was modeled after the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq., as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
17. The FSCA prohibits any person or entity from intercepting, endeavoring to intercept, or procuring any third party to intercept or endeavor to intercept any electronic communication. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(1)(a). It is unlawful to intercept any electronic communication under Florida law "unless all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception" and to intentionally use or endeavor to use the contents of any electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of an electronic communication. Id. § 934.03(1)(d), (2)( d) (emphasis added).
Section 934 is the two-party consent rule in Florida. However federal law permits one-party consent, see 18 U.S.C. §2511(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." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
You quoted attorney Dave Aronberg in your story: "What will happen is this will continue until enough people get hurt by this," Aronberg said. "Then the Legislature is going to act, and it's going to kill the golden goose."
Actually the U.S. Congress (U.S. Senate and U.S. House) already acted, many years ago, see 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d). Under the Supremacy Clause, Section 934 is unconstitutional. "The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the U.S. constitution, federal laws, and treaties override any state laws that conflict with them.[1] It promulgates that all state laws, state courts, and state constitutions are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and federal laws and treaties made by the U.S. government.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
It appears Mr. Aronberg may not have advised his client, Aaron Menitoff, about this issue.
Also, if the parties sued by attorney Veronika Balbuzanova, attorney Abdul-Sumi Dalal, and the Johnson Dalal law firm, actually violated section 934.03, why were they not arrested? I was arrested twice under section 934.03. Mr. Aronberg, as a former State Attorney, knows people have been arrested under section 934.03.
This is one reason I am running for U.S. Senate. Section 934 is unconstitutional, but is being used by the Florida legal profession to extort money from people like Aaron Mentitoff, and his company Cheeseboarder LLC. Section 934 is also being used as lawfare to arrest people like me.
I plan a filing in federal court by the end of the week. Thanks again for your reporting.
Sincerely, /s/ Neil J. Gillespie (signature block edited) Neil J. Gillespie for US Senate https://neilgillespie4senate.blogspot.com/ No Party Affiliation (NPA) Florida Candidate ID: 89955 FEC Committee ID: C00943399 FEC Candidate ID: S6FL00863
U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen: This concept of separation of powers is what makes America great. It is absolutely the genius of our democracy.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg: Here we are over two centuries later, and still the Constitution with its three pillars of government exists in the same form as it did at the founding.
U.S. District Senior Judge Ann Montgomery: All of these parts working together creates a team effort, which really aids our form of government and creates its stability.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg: Many people don't realize that the Constitution sets out three branches of government. The first is the legislative branch. The second branch is the executive branch that we typically think of the President, but it also includes all of his executive officers. And the third is the judicial branch, and that means the Supreme Court, but it also means the United States Courts of Appeals and the United States District Courts.
U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell: Why would the framers want to set up such a complicated system that consisted of three branches of government with separate powers, but with some codependent powers?
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss: They were students of human psychology.
U.S. District Senior Judge Reggie Walton: Because they appreciated that a free society does require diffusion of authority.
Judge Moss: They said the right way to do this is to have checks and balances.
Judge Howell: Each branch has designated powers, but some of those powers are codependent on cooperation with the other branches of government.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper: The process of passing a bill in the Congress requires a lot of debate and discussion and compromise.
Judge Montgomery: Congress, they can't act alone to create a law. It requires the President to approve the law. Of course, there's the veto power.
Judge Cooper: If he vetoes it, it goes back to the Congress. And if they truly believe that the law should be passed, they can override that veto by a two-thirds vote.
Judge Montgomery: Those laws are further held in check by the judicial review process to make sure that the law complies with our constitution.
Judge Cooper: If someone doesn't like that law, they can challenge it, um, and argue that it violates the Constitution and they can file a lawsuit in federal court. And if that happens, it's up to the judicial branch to decide whether the law complies with the Constitution or not.
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor: The judiciary is likewise checked by the other branches. Number one, it, it has no policy role in the government. It simply interprets the law. And so if a particular judge or circuit judges or the Supreme Court justices disagree with public policy, they have no say in that. They simply interpret the laws that come before them.
Judge Cooper: And if Congress passes a law that's challenged under the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to say, um, that law violates the Constitution and to strike it down. But that's not the end of the story.
Judge Moss: Congress can come back and look for another way to try and achieve the same result in a fashion that is constitutional. And they've done that on many occasions in our history. We've got Congress and the President, and they're elected.
Judge Chen: The President nominates us, and then the Senate confirms us. But the reason for that is so that we can retain our independence.
Judge Walton: The founders felt that the independence of the judiciary was critical, and one of the crucial ways we have that independence is through life tenure.
Judge Chen: And we don't have to answer to Congress or to the White House or to the Executive Branch if we make a decision they disagree with.
Judge Moss: When there is a decision from the Supreme Court that's not popular, sometimes that lack of popularity is exactly the way the system is supposed to be working. The example I'll give you there is flag desecration.
Judge Walton: There was legislation that precluded the burning of a flag. Obviously, the Executive Branch sought to enforce that legislation, and then it ultimately became the responsibility of the courts to make an assessment as to whether that legislation was constitutional.
Judge Boasberg: No one's in favor of burning a flag, but the idea is that the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution protects everyone's liberties even for speech you don't like.
Judge Moss: And that's what the First Amendment is about. And it's through the separation of powers that we're able to protect that.
Judge Cooper: The courts are the ultimate guardians of the law. We don't have the power of the purse. We don't have an army. Our only power is our ability to defend the Constitution.
Judge Howell: What the federal judiciary has is, as the guardian of the Constitution is, we have the last word on what the Constitution means.
Judge Chen: The reason we endure is because we have a system that ensures through these three separate branches of government that check and balance each other all the time, that all of us are protected by a single system that seeks to ensure fairness, liberty, and justice for everyone.
